|
Minutes January 5, 2000 The Vanderburgh County Council met in session the 5th day of January, 2000 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by County Auditor Suzanne Crouch. Suzanne Crouch: We will go ahead and start the Vanderburgh County Council meeting for the 5th day of January, 2000. Is there a Sheriff who could open the meeting, please? (Meeting opened by Sheriff Brad Ellsworth) Suzanne Crouch: Thank you. Let's have the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was given)
Suzanne Crouch: The Chair will now entertain nominations for presidency of the Vanderburgh County Council. Councilmember Raben: I would like to make a motion that we nominate Curt Wortman as president of the Vanderburgh County Council. Councilmember Smith: Second. Suzanne Crouch: There's been a nomination and second. Are there any further nominations? Could we move that the nominations be closed, please? Councilmember Smith: So moved. Councilmember Sutton: Second. Suzanne Crouch: Thank you. Secretary, could you take 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Suzanne Crouch: Congratulations. It's your show. Councilmember Wortman: Now then according to the agenda we'll elect a vice-president. And I will receive the nominations from the councilmembers for vice-president. Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman, I nominate Ed Bassemier as vice-president of the Vanderburgh County Council. Councilmember Raben: I'll second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second from Mr. Raben. Any other nominations from the floor? I'll entertain a motion then that the nominations be closed. Councilmember Smith: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Councilmember Raben: I'll second. Councilmember Wortman: 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Councilmember Wortman: Okay, next on the agenda will be the appointment of the County Attorney. I'll need a motion to vote on the Council Attorney. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move that we nominate Jeffrey Ahlers to continue as our representative. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Bassemier: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second, Mr. Bassemier. Any other nominations? If not, nominations are closed. Roll call vote 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Councilmember Wortman: Okay, number eight, appointment of the Committee Chairpersons and on the Personnel & Finance Committee, Mr. Ed Bassemier. On the Finance Committee, Mr. Jim Raben. I'd like to have a roll call vote on that 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
Councilmember Wortman: Okay, number nine is Appropriation Ordinance. We'll get right into that because we've got a long agenda today and the first on the list would be the Prosecutor. Teri Lukeman: Excuse me, do you want to approve the minutes? Councilmember Wortman: I'm sorry. I did miss one thing, the minutes, the approval of the minutes from the December 1st, 1999 meeting. I'd like to have a motion. Councilmember Raben: So moved. Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Motion and a second. Any other discussion on the minutes? All those in favor, raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five....and the one didn't vote. Okay, so it's approved. (Motion unanimously approved 6-0)
PROSECUTOR Councilmember Wortman: Now we'll go into the Appropriation Ordinance and the first on the agenda will be the Prosecutor. Will you step forward please, and your name. Stan Levco: My name is Stan Levco. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll make a motion that lines 1080-1250-1080 through 1080-1920 be set in at zero. Councilmember Wortman: Got a motion for the Prosecutor to be set in at zero. Do I have a second? Councilmember Winnecke: So moved. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion? No discussion? Call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: No. Okay, it's...what was that, four to three. Okay, so it's defeated then. Thank you, Mr. Levco. PROSECUTOR REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion carried 4-3/Councilmembers Smith, Bassemier and Wortman opposed) AREA PLAN COMMISSION Councilmember Wortman: Next will be the Area Plan Commission. I'll move approval of 1240-1160-1240 and 1240-1900 and 1240-1910 for a total of $2,979. Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay, 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Cunningham. Barbara Cunningham: And may I also, I won't make any noise, but may I pass out the annual report for Area Plan just off the presses? Councilmember Wortman: That will be fine. Appreciate it. AREA PLAN COMMISSION REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) CIRCUIT COURT Councilmember Wortman: Okay, while she is doing that we'll go into the Circuit Court, Mr. Raben. Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I am going to move that 1360-1260-1360 through 1360-3620 be deferred at this time. Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a motion and a second for the Circuit Court to be delayed. Now is there any discussion on that? No discussion? Call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: This is for the delay? Teri Lukeman: Deferred. Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: I was just going to ask, in deferring this, if there were some questions that maybe we would like to pose or something to Judge Heldt so that when he comes back next month we have an idea of what questions maybe he needs to maybe give us some additional information on, but yes in favor of the deferral. Councilmember Wortman: I think that's good and I think it's probably, to really get into the deep part of it, I think that every individual Councilman should go down there and have it explained and then meet to talk it over so we understand the system and Mr. Heldt, be fair to him, or Judge Heldt. That away, we'll kind of go from there, see. Mrs. Smith? Councilmember Smith: I don't think that, Judge, that any of us realized that some of these people were going to be laid off and you were going to hire all new ones and I think that's the problem right now and that's the question I have. I think it's a good program but I don't see laying off people and hiring new people and that's the problem I have with it and I think most of us have had the same problem is the reason we're going to delay it. Carl Heldt: Alright, let me see if I can't deal with that in the next month. Councilmember Smith: Okay. Councilmember Wortman: Yeah, I think that way we discuss it and that's why we delayed it. That way it's fair to everybody, we understand everything and everybody is on the same wavelength. Carl Heldt: I want you to be. Councilmember Wortman: Yeah, thank you, Judge. Anybody else got any questions? Councilmember Winnecke: Mr. President? Judge, is there money available from this Job's Inc. program that in any way can be...when that program goes away, are there excess funds that can go in any way to help fund this program? Carl Heldt: Possibly. Those funds are controlled by the Board of Directors of the Jobs program, but I am sure that would be an appropriate place for some of those funds to go to, yes. Councilmember Winnecke: Could you tell us how much money is available when that Board... Carl Heldt: It's over $100,000 in cash assets right now and there are also other equipment assets, but I think they are most likely going to be donated to the SAFE House or to the county or to the cemetery or to someone else that can use them. But there are cash assets, yes. And I would think that the Board of Directors would be sympathetic to a request for some of that for this program. Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President? Councilmember Sutton: I think we're in the middle of a -- Councilmember Hoy: We are in the process of a vote. Do you want to let us have more question time or not? Do you want us to ask questions now or wait? Councilmember Wortman: (Inaudible -- microphone not turned on) Jeff Ahlers: You might want to go ahead and complete the vote. Councilmember Wortman: Yeah, let's complete the vote and then we'll come around and ask questions then. Councilmember Hoy: Alright, that sounds
good.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: I also vote yes to defer it. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. CIRCUIT COURT REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Councilmember Wortman: Okay. Now has anybody got any questions? Mr. Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: It's my understanding that you want to move this to 501 John Street. Is that still -- Carl Heldt: That's been our hope. Councilmember Hoy: Okay, it would help me to make my decision, you've mentioned that Chrysalis is there and Echo Health Center and I would like to see some documentation from them that they are willing to offer their services. Chrysalis is an addiction services center but it's for women only which puts some -- Carl Heldt: I think that's been changed now. Councilmember Hoy: Has it been changed? Carl Heldt: Yeah. We would be happy to provide the documentation to you. Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, I would like to see their sign-off on it and I would like to see you flesh out exactly what the program has. I've seen the financials on it, but I would like to see some narrative detail. Carl Heldt: I would be happy to do that. Councilmember Hoy: Thank you. Councilmember Raben: Lloyd had already asked some questions that I had in mind when it was brought up of terminating the Jobs program. And I think he hit on most of them but as far as any vehicles, equipment, all that will ultimately come back to the county? Carl Heldt: The plans are to offer those to the county at the SAFE House or to some other organization that might be able to use them like Oak Hill Cemetery, I think there's some equipment out there because that's what the Jobs program partially does is they maintain the Oak Hill Cemetery. The indication I got from the board was that they wanted to offer all that to the county or whoever was using it or whoever could use it, not to sell it. Councilmember Raben: I would think the appropriate means in which to handle it would be just to turn it over to the Commissioners and let them decide where vehicles may be needed and the funds I would like to see come back to the General Fund. Carl Heldt: Well, the Board of Directors are limited by their bylaws, in fact, and the bylaws provide that upon dissolution that the board distributes the assets to entities that are consistent with the purposes of the corporation or to any other 501(C)3 charitable organization. So when you say come back to the county, I mean, these were never county funds. This is a separate corporation, separate not-for-profit corporation that's been operating and so they are bound by their bylaws what they can do with it. Now I am sure that anybody that wants to can make a request to be funded from there or to have the equipment given to them but the way I understand the bylaws, they require that, at first anyway, this be distributed to someone or some entity that has reformation of convicted felons in mind such as the SAFE House. That's what this corporation was set up to do. So all I am saying is that the corporation board, and I am not the board, I am on the board, is somewhat bound by what's in the bylaws. But there's been no final decision. Councilmember Raben: Alright, because I do know there's one particular vehicle, the car that the prior director of the SAFE House had that was actually purchased through the state motor pool which is in essence a pursuit vehicle that could be used in the Sheriff's Department I am sure. And I think that car is relatively new. Carl Heldt: What we're doing at the present time is compiling an inventory of all the equipment that's owned by the Jobs Program, Inc. And I feel certain that unit is going to be offered to whatever entities think that they can use it. Councilmember Sutton: Judge, -- Councilmember Wortman: Judge, one question. Is Superior Court totally behind the program? All the judges, would you say? Carl Heldt: Mr. Pigman? Councilmember Wortman: Would you come forward please and state your name? Bob Pigman: My name is Bob Pigman. I am here as a representative of the Superior Court judges. We've met with Judge Heldt on this issue since its initiation and he's kept us advised. I think, as I explained last time, Judge Heldt has always administered probation services. In fact, earlier this year we were required to file a plan known as a case management plan with the Supreme Court and we designated Judge Heldt as having that responsibility. He's assumed that responsibility and so he's been the point man on it and done the legwork on it, carried the load for it, but yes, we're behind him. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, alright. Thank you. Now Betty Knight-Smith, are you next in line? Councilmember Smith: Yes, Judge, why did you decide on the title Probation Officer? What's wrong with a Caseworker, because a Probation Officer, there's quite a bit of difference in salaries there, too. Carl Heldt: Because if the program is going to be under the jurisdiction of the Probation Department, it has to be run by Probation Officers, people that are qualified to be Probation Officers which we frankly think will be by definition more qualified people because they are required, I think, to have a college degree, and tend to pass the exam for the Probation Officer. And so that's what the reason was. Councilmember Sutton: Judge, I was going to ask when we had a chance to talk about this quite a bit and the question I did have was with the two programs, the AI...I get that -- Carl Heldt: Alcohol and Drug. Councilmember Sutton: Yeah, I get the acronyms confused. The two programs that you have under your authority, the individuals that are also, that have been sentenced to the SAFE House and that are also part of your two programs or one of the two programs, either one, they would incur fees that the SAFE House would incur on them and then also fees on this, I guess my concern would be with the majority of the people that are in that situation, the cost always has been issue and now we're going to talk about adding an additional cost that they would have to pick up? Carl Heldt: What we anticipate doing, at the present time the people that are living at the SAFE House don't also have to pay AISP/DISP fees and we anticipate doing the same thing to keep that from becoming burdensome to them. That's factored into the budget. Councilmember Sutton: Okay. I guess as well, with the two programs being separate the question is always is there going to be some duplication there between the two services, the services that maybe the SAFE House would be providing under their jurisdiction and then what you would also be providing. I guess maybe what I want to maybe hear maybe for next month is how you guys maybe might would separate that out to ensure that maybe we don't have that duplication of the service there. Carl Heldt: The Sheriff will have to tell you what plans he has for any drug or alcohol testing at the SAFE House and maybe he can do that. I can only speak that the programs we have under probation are more intensive and that they don't just check for drugs, but they also take into account education, rehabilitation and giving Antabuse and I doubt that the Sheriff is going to want to give everyone out there Antabuse every day, but these programs give daily Antabuse or breathalysers. They have drug testing which our probation office hopefully will be able to do right on the spot in many cases rather than ship it off to Indianapolis and pay for that. But the Sheriff can tell you what he has planned as far as his drug and alcohol, if any, at the SAFE House. Councilmember Sutton: If you could? Councilmember Wortman: Mr. Ellsworth, would you step forward please and -- Brad Ellsworth: Thank you. Brad Ellsworth, Sheriff's Department. We're kind of taking this from a three-phase approach. We're looking at accounts, table of organization and this is obviously affecting the table of organization at the SAFE House, and then once we get the things fixed, for lack of a better word, then we're going to look at program. Judge Heldt and I have pledged to work together in this and I don't plan to duplicate his services. We'll look at what he is doing. The people that are in residence out there that are also on his program, we won't duplicate his services. We do have a lot of ideas for programs and they are probably going to be more of a life skills type program. One that we just signed on was an out of poverty program with the Catholic Charities and they are going to come out and do that at no charge, things such as that, GED services. Possibly NA and AA meetings, I don't know if that will duplicate, but certainly, if they are going to meetings at AA and NA at the probation department, they might not have to there or maybe a little double dose of that wouldn't hurt them. It probably wouldn't. But I think we can work and not duplicate and certainly not charge twice for any services. Councilmember Wortman: Does that answer you, Mr. Sutton? Carl Heldt: I would also say that by law the Antabuse program, the alcohol program has to be operated by Circuit Court. It can't be run by the Sheriff. That's a state statute. Councilmember Hoy: I have a question about that. I am not opposing that, Judge, but and I am not a lawyer or a judge, but it seems to me from reading that law, that also you could delegate that if you chose and still -- in other words, you could delegate it to the Sheriff or someone else as long as you have oversight. Is that correct? Carl Heldt: I don't know that I can or not, but I think the Judges feel pretty strongly that there ought to be a separation of powers and the probation programs should be under the control of the courts and not under the control of the corrections officers or the County Commissioners. Councilmember Hoy: I have no disagreement with probation being under your control, I share the question with Mrs. Smith about whether or not Caseworkers can handle it. The other question, fleshing this thing out, I need to know what is going to be better about this new program? It is going to cost us more money. Carl Heldt: By the way, I'll be glad to do it, if you'll just transfer the $127,000 over we'll find a way to do it. So I will offer the Council, they can keep that $56,000 and if you'll just transfer the money the Sheriff is willing to give us, we'll find a way to operate the program. Councilmember Hoy: Well, I still, since we're going to vote on it and we are the fiscal body, I would like to know, I mean, you have been working with it two years, apparently it hasn't improved where it's been or you wouldn't want to make a change in it. Is that correct? Carl Heldt: No, the reason we're making the change is that I was requested to make the change by the County Attorney and by the Vanderburgh County Sheriff and by Commissioner Tuley when we met. I offered to operate it out there, in a letter to Mr. Harrison, I offered to operate it out there or to move it someplace else. We met, including the Sheriff and the County Attorney, who has recommended to the Commissioners that the AISP program be moved out of the SAFE House and we agreed that it would be best for all concerned and for the control involved to move it out of the SAFE House. Once that decision was made then it was incumbent upon us to decide what is the best program we can establish, the best new program we can establish for the people we're serving and we, together with Alan Henson who is the Chief Probation Officer, we have crafted this program which we think best serves the people we're serving at little or no extra cost to the county. Councilmember Hoy: So the reason for moving it is not because it wasn't being run well? Carl Heldt: No, I offered to keep operating it out there with those people. Councilmember Hoy: That was not my understanding. Carl Heldt: Well, that's a fact. If you'd like the letter I sent, a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Harrison I would be glad to provide it to you. Councilmember Hoy: No, that's not necessary. I just wanted to hear your reasons and I would like to -- because I assume by this move that you intend to make it better and that's why I'd like to see it fleshed out. Carl Heldt: We'll be happy to give that to you. Councilmember Hoy: And in more detail, because whenever I've had to, you know, I've worked with social agencies most of my career and whenever I've made such a proposal I've always had to outline what the program is going to be like, what resources are going to be used. I certainly am happy you're going to use AA because they have demonstrated over the years that they have more success than just about anybody else in the world and they use a lot of volunteers. So I think that's a positive aspect of it, but that's what I would be required to fill out in addition to financials and I am hearing you say today that it's not going to cost us more money if that money is transferred. Is that correct? Carl Heldt: That's correct. Councilmember Hoy: Okay, thank you. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, Mr. Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: First of all I think there are a lot of management benefits to moving the program. Clearly, it's easier, I believe, if you're in charge of a program to be not under someone else's roof or tarp, as it is at the SAFE House. I do have a concern financially though, I keep coming back to this Jobs money. If there is enough money there, if there is $127 or $130,000 there, I'd much rather see us use that as the seed money to make the program move versus transferring that money from the other account. That's why I am very interested to know what kind of money is there and what the mood of that board would be to -- Carl Heldt: I'd be happy to take that back to the board, I honestly will. The only thing I would say is that is a one time funding. What I am asking this Council for is annual funding which is what the Sheriff is giving up, annual funding of $127,000 a year. But as far as the one-time costs and any other costs that we can save the county by using that money, if that board will agree to it, I'll be delighted. That's not my choice to make, I don't control that board. Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President? Councilmember Wortman: Mr. Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: I have one more question. I made myself a note here, currently this program here is a 501(C)3 non-profit corporation. Is that correct? Carl Heldt: I believe it is. It is non-profit, yes. Councilmember Hoy: Yeah. Well, in fact, I believe it was because at one time we served this program and those are the only kind of programs the Food Bank can serve. I am concerned about the disposition of what your bylaws say about the disposition of equipment because that's important to me as a County Councilman. I am concerned about the vehicles because I am not sure and I am not saying I am right or wrong, I am not sure whether or not a 501(C)3 can turn equipment over to a governmental agency. I know at the Food Bank I can't do that but that's because of the way our incorporation papers are written. And I know I've got your papers but I don't have them in front of me. Carl Heldt: I'll be happy to send you a copy of the bylaws. Councilmember Hoy: I have a copy but if that could be clarified by our legal counsel. Carl Heldt: I'll send him a copy of the bylaws. Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, do that and, Mr. Ahlers, if you could give us clarification on it, we need to know where we're going with it, especially with the vehicles and some of the more expensive pieces and certainly whatever you can use should be used with the program. Councilmember Raben: You hit on it just a moment ago and I know last week and through prior discussions, I had a hard time figuring your $56,000 a year annual monies that we would need to contribute. And you may have hit on it just a moment ago, are you under the assumption that the SAFE House is going to do with $127,000 less annually in food from now on, too? Carl Heldt: Yes, because the money they are saving from the user fees by not having to pay AISP/DISP employees is an equal amount. They can spend that on the food. Those user fees, what we're doing will have no affect on their user fees. They will have the same amount or more user fees. They can take that money to buy food with to replace what they are giving me to operate this program because they won't have that program anymore. Councilmember Raben: Let me ask this of the Sheriff's Department. Are you folks comfortable with $127,000 less in General Fund monies from now on? Brad Ellsworth: We talked about that with the Judge and then after doing the math and then looking at the figures that he's presented doing our own, that if we can continue to rely on the user fees and keep the collections up which we're confident we can, then yes, we can make that work with those numbers. Councilmember Hoy: And we've asked you this question before but I'd like to get it on record because it does worry me about transportation of people back and forth. I think we're on record as saying that's not going to be a big problem. I'd hate to see us be back in a few months and find out that it is a big problem. Can you comment on that? Brad Ellsworth: I think that's things that the court and ourselves can work out. We've had a great working relationship through this whole transition so far. I was over there last week and looking at the board and it looked like there was only about a dozen inmates that could not provide their own transportation that actually had to be transported and that varies, I'm sure, a little bit. But that's a pretty low number when we're talking about 205 inmates. Also, I would look at, with our communication with the courts, that probably not as many people in SAFE House would actually be sentenced to his programs or to their programs, that there would actually be probably less and less people that are residents there since the program. If you sentence them to the SAFE House they are going to go through SAFE House programs, if you're put on probation or sentenced to AAPS and DAPS, then you go through those. Is that pretty accurate, Judge? Carl Heldt: I don't know. I'll take your word for it. Brad Ellsworth: I mean, that's what I am -- I was under the impression that probably the Judges would say the SAFE House is appropriate or either electronic monitoring, community service or in-house work release, you're sentenced to that. When they come over there, then they are under our jurisdiction. If they see fit that AAPS and DAPS is more appropriate and they sentence them there, then we wouldn't be responsible. Should somebody that is living with us also be going to AAPS and DAPS, then we'll make every effort to transport them over there. But most have their own transportation from what I can tell. Councilmember Raben: Okay. Mr. President, we've got the next thirty days I guess to finish hashing this out so we may want to move on. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, we'll keep the Judge, if you don't mind, I think we could turn, while the Judge is here, page 6, top of 6, and Mr. Raben, if you'd process that request there. CIRCUIT COURT SUPPLEMENTAL ADULT PROBATION Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I am going to move 2600-1320-2600 down through 2600-3600 be deferred. Councilmember Winnecke: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a motion and a second. Councilmember Smith: Did he say deferred? Councilmember Wortman: Yeah. 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. CIRCUIT CT. SUPP. ADULT PROBATION
REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
Councilmember Wortman: Mr. Raben, would you proceed to the bottom of page six, the Circuit Court Supplemental Adult Probation? Councilmember Raben: I would also move that 1360-1260-1360 through 1360-3371 be deferred. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Raben: Wait. Excuse me, Mr. President. Also included in that 1360-3372 through 1360-3620. Councilmember Wortman: Now then, I got a second? Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second. 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Councilmember Wortman: Okay, Judge, thank you, I appreciate your time and Judge Pigman and the Sheriff here now. Brad Ellsworth: Excuse me, in light of that, could we also have deferred our request for repeal, then? Councilmember Wortman: Yeah, okay. Mr. Raben, you want to proceed with that while we are hot on the subject? Councilmember Raben: We can since we're already off on our agenda. This would be on page six, Community Corrections: 1361-2260 Food be deferred also. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second, Mr. Hoy. Any discussion? Call the roll please. Yeah, repeal of funds there, $127,086. 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REQUESTED
APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
THE CENTRE Councilmember Wortman: Okay, now we'll go, Mr. Raben, to The Centre, please. Councilmember Raben: Line 1440-1910 PERF in the amount of $3,000, and I move approval. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second from Mr. Hoy. 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. THE CENTRE REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) BURDETTE PARK/CCD FUND Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of Burdette Park 2031-1450-4120 and I make that in the form of a motion. Councilmember Sutton: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Have they started on this building or... Councilmember Wortman: The representative for Burdette Park will step forward please. Thank you. Steve Craig: Steve Craig, Manager of Burdette Park. Councilmember Smith: Have they started on it at all? Steve Craig: Yes ma'am. At the present time we are having Morley and Associates do the civil site design and we're doing the conceptual phase and the detail design for the land and for the retention pond and for the parking lots and everything and we do have a conceptual drawing of the building already done. Councilmember Smith: Thank you. Councilmember Sutton: Could we see that because I haven't seen the drawing of this structure. I'd be very interested in seeing that and I guess at one point in time we were talking about some money from the state that we will receive for this. How much did we end up receiving? Steve Craig: We've received from the state and from private grants $200,000 as of to date since this summer. Councilmember Sutton: Okay. What is the total cost on this project going to be? Steve Craig: It's estimated at about 2.5 million. Councilmember Sutton: We're a little short aren't we? Steve Craig: Yeah, we've sent out probably 200 applications for grants and that from private foundations and funding and at the present time writing up several grants and that grant requests to places all over the Midwest and some large corporations and we're looking for the money. Councilmember Sutton: Okay. I guess without the money then plans are kind of proceeding forward. It seems like we got a little ahead of ourselves, I guess. I guess I'd like to know that the funds are there and ready to go and I guess at this point we really haven't, this body really hasn't had an opportunity to really voice any opinion one way or the other on what the building looks like, yea/nay, whatever. I know the Commissioners are very much, that's a part of their role, but obviously, we're the financing end of it and we'd like to have an opportunity to have a say or take a look at it at least before things get too far along. Councilmember Smith: Well, then we, the $500,000 that we put there and we were supposed to add to it and so far we haven't added anything to it either and that's been what, two or three years that there's nothing been added to it but that $500,000. Steve Craig: Yes. Councilmember Smith: So I think we're going to have to think this year that we'd better add some money to that. If you do it every year you kind of add to it and we haven't done it. Councilmember Wortman: It won't be so hard on us then. Councilmember Sutton: Yeah. I guess we did have, why is it below $500,000 now? Steve Craig: That's part of the money that we've spent for the civil site design and that, Royce, is not actually on the building. We have a drawing of the building. It's not a blue print or nothing like that. It's just a conceptual drawing but the money that's being spent now is to do like the location of the utilities to bring in where the sewer, the water, the electric, the telephones where they're all at and how we will locate them toward the building and getting ready to do some work where we can level it out and put a building, whatever building we put up there and the parking lots and that because the hill, it's kind of a hill with a bow in it and it needs to be flattened out and that's what the money that is being spent now is being spent for. Councilmember Sutton: Well, I guess I don't necessarily, I guess my question earlier I guess and my comment earlier was we're beginning to spend money on something we don't have all of the money for, I guess. We've got a project that we, unless there's been others here, I still, a project that I haven't even seen that we're beginning to make a request for funds for. But if we're going to do all this engineering work and I've worked on a couple of projects myself in terms of building some structures but always has been the case is I had an idea what it's going to cost, what the project was going to be and those questions were already answered before I began to start doing excavation and engineering work and etcetera, etcetera, a lot of those questions were already answered and I am not throwing this necessarily on you, but you just happen to be the person at the microphone. But I guess what I am trying to get a sense of is how much is this going to cost, what is the timetable on this project, when do we expect the funds to be received, and if we don't know all of our funding sources, why would we begin any phase on this and begin to spend up all of this money before we really have a real good idea of what this project is going to be? That's simply what I am trying to come across with. Steve Craig: Okay, the reason -- Councilmember Sutton: I don't know if I am making any sense here. Steve Craig: The reason we're doing what we're doing now is because of the time that it takes to do it and if we would wait for like another year to get all of the money collected and then have to start the site work and the design of the layout of the ground and that, then we would be put back like another year. So what we're doing is prepping the area up there for whenever we do get the money to finish the project. Councilmember Sutton: Well I'd always, from day one that I came on this Council I was always told that we didn't make a bill that we couldn't pay for and that is, it appears to me that we are creating some bills for ourselves that we don't really have the money to provide for really at this time. I understand it's a process, but I guess the way this body operates as opposed to maybe in other sectors, we have to have the money in place before we can obligate ourselves to anything. I mean, when we did the Burkhardt Road project, our involvement in the Burkhardt project, we put all the money up that we were going to need to do that project and various other projects that we've done along the way. But that's the point I was trying to make. Councilmember Wortman: Excuse me, we're going to change tapes. Excuse me. (Tape changed) Councilmember Sutton: But I guess, if we could, give us the layout, the timetable on this, if you can give us an idea what the projected costs are and what the plan will actually be. What kind of building we're talking about here. I think we'd feel -- I'd feel a lot more comfortable about this. Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President? First of all, since the tape is rolling again, I want it noted that for the first time this year the tape ended with Councilman Sutton speaking and not Councilman Hoy and since the tape wasn't rolling, that would not have been in the minutes. The question, Sir, is would you, Mr. President, would you allow us some agenda time? I think that would help me a lot if you would bring those plans in so we could take ten minutes of this meeting or the next meeting, of course the next meeting, to look at those? Would that be possible? Steve Craig: That would be fine. Councilmember Hoy: Okay. If you would, Sir, put that on the agenda, I'd like to have that. Councilmember Wortman: Maybe at Personnel & Finance, could you do that, have time to do that? Yeah, that would be fine, see, because sometimes they're pretty short, see. That would be longer than this. Is that agreeable with every Councilperson? Alright, I guess the discussion is through? If not, we'll have a roll call then. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: I think I am going to abstain on this one until I can get some more information. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Okay, it passes five to two. BURDETTE PARK/CCD REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion carried 5-1/Councilmember Sutton abstaining/Councilmember Winnecke opposed) COUNTY COUNCIL/REASSESSMENT Councilmember Wortman: Now then, we're going to take two more before we get in Reassessment and if you'd turn to the bottom of page five, the County Council, we'll handle that one and then we'll go in to the 911 on page six, the middle of the page, so Mr. Raben would you proceed? Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move 2492-1480-2600 be set in at zero...and I'll make that in the form of a motion. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Smith: I'll second it but I have a question. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second. Now discussion. Councilmember Smith: Okay, why are you setting it in at zero? Sandie, do we need this money? Sandie Deig: About Reassessment, I don't know -- Councilmember Smith: No, no, no, it's County Council, Office Supplies $6,090. Sandie Deig: That's what it's for, though, it's for Reassessment. Councilmember Smith: And you're going to set it in -- Councilmember Raben: It's for manuals that aren't available yet. Councilmember Smith: Okay, I forgot what it was for. Councilmember Wortman: Any more discussion? Councilmember Hoy: The manuals are not available? Councilmember Wortman: I wouldn't say that. I'd say that we'll have to see what happens, I think some of them got them. Paul Hatfield: The manuals are available. Councilmember Wortman: The manuals are available, okay. That answers that question. Councilmember Smith: Then why are we zeroing it out because if we need them? Paul Hatfield: Because they may be changed. Councilmember Smith: Okay. Sandie Deig: I'll resubmit when we find out -- Councilmember Wortman: Okay, so resubmit. Any other discussion to that effect? 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. COUNTY COUNCIL REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) 911 EMERGENCY FUND Councilmember Wortman: Okay now, Mr. Raben, page, the middle of page six, the 911 Emergency Fund request. Councilmember Raben: I'll move approval of 3290-3530 in the amount of $1,059,094. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second? Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Second Mr. Hoy. 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. 911 EMERGENCY FUND REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) COUNTY ASSESSOR/REASSESSMENT Councilmember Wortman: Now then we'll go to page two, Reassessment Fund, the County Assessor. Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, line 2492-1090-1150-1090 through 2492-1090-3130 be set in at zero. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second? Do I hear a second? Councilmember Bassemier: Second. Councilmember Wortman: I got a second. Now discussion. Councilmember Smith: Why is this going in at zero? I thought we agreed last month that they would have a six month -- cut them in half. Councilmember Raben: On her particular budget we're okay on this for a while. Councilmember Smith: On this one? Okay. Councilmember Hoy: I have a question about line 2492-1090-3530 Contractual Services. I thought that was for Geographical Information -- Councilmember Raben: I did not go that far. I went down to the last four digits of 3130. Councilmember Hoy: Okay. I missed that. Sorry. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, got any other questions? Got a representative from the County Assessor's Office. Okay, if not call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Let me make sure I understand the motion as it was presented by Councilman Raben. You went through line item -- I am reading the last four digits -- 1090 through 3130? Okay. Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. President, do we have her up here for a reason? Councilmember Wortman: No, she was just -- if there was any questions to be asked she could answer them. Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. COUNTY ASSESSOR/REASSESSMENT REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Councilmember Wortman: Now, Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, lines 2492-1090-3310 through 2492-1090-3530 as submitted, and that total would be $510,000. Suzanne Crouch: No, that line item 3530 needs to be set in at zero. That money was encumbered because they did do a contract at the last meeting of the Commission meeting of the year. So that money was encumbered. Councilmember Raben: Okay, I spoke to Cheryl as early as yesterday and I was not made aware of that, so that's fine. So let me retract that. The motion should read 2492-1090-3310 through 2492-1090-3372 for a total of $10,500, line 2492-1090-3530 be set in at zero. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, do I have a second to that motion? Councilmember Sutton: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion? Councilmember Hoy: Point of clarification to our auditor. The money is encumbered, the $500,000 is available for GIS and it can proceed? Suzanne Crouch: That is correct. Councilmember Hoy: Thank you very much. Councilmember Wortman: Any other 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. COUNTY ASSESSOR/REASSESSMENT REQUESTED
APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT BOARD OF APPEALS/REASSESSMENT Councilmember Wortman: Okay, at the top of page three, Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, Mr. Raben. Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, 2492-1091-2600 through 2492-1091-3370 at listed, 2492-1091-3530 be set in at zero, and I'll make that in the form of a motion. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second? Anybody? Councilmember Smith: What is the bottom line total, Jim? Councilmember Raben: That would be $5,300. Councilmember Wortman: Everybody understand now? Okay. Did I get a second? No. Councilmember Winnecke: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Mr. Winnecke. Okay, any discussion? Everybody understands that? 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. PROP. TAX ASSESS. BD. OF APPEALS/REASSESS. REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) ARMSTRONG TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR/REASSESSMENT Councilmember Wortman: Armstrong Township, Mr. Raben. Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I guess before we get into these I know there is going to be some discussion. The motion that I intend to make on the remaining Assessor budgets is a three month budget pending the session that is now taking place. It's important to know that if we allow monies through March, by then maybe we'll have a clearer definition from the state as to how much longer we need to continue or whether or not there's going to be further delays. And with that time they can file appropriations to operate for another three months or for the remaining nine. So basically I am going to -- and we'll take these individually because there are some corrected numbers with this motion, but again, this is a three month budget. Councilmember Smith: Before you start on those, last month when we were here we had all the Assessors here and we all agreed to put it in at six months. If you wanted to put it in at three months, why didn't you bring that out then? And everyone of them sat back and agreed that we were going to give them a six month budget. Councilmember Raben: I don't know that there was any -- last month there was discussion. I don't think that any of us agreed to anything. As a matter of fact, the six month, I think was brought up by one Assessor or the other that said you could cut this in half and just give us six months if that's what you want to do. Councilmember Smith: I think the majority of us felt that way and I think the majority of the Assessors thought that and now all at once you're changing it to three months. They're not going to spend that money unless they have to have it anyway. Councilmember Raben: Well again, -- Councilmember Smith: And you're telling me that you don't trust them to have the money there that they won't spend if they don't need it? Councilmember Raben: Betty, I feel as if we're responsible for these funds. Councilmember Smith: We are responsible, that's true. But they know if they spend it foolishly, they're going to have to do without. Councilmember Raben: Speaking for myself, I don't over write my own checks, so I don't intend to over write taxpayers' checks. So we'll take this motion. I am going to read out what I have in mind and let's take a vote on it. The top line, 2492-1100-1110-1100 zero, and I am going to call out the last four digits for the other accounts; 1900 $935; 1910 zero; 1990 $4,250; 2600 $375; 2700 $175; 3120 $240; 3130 $175; 3390 $250; 3372 $625, for a total appropriation of $7,025. Paul Hatfield: What township was that? Councilmember Wortman: Okay, Jim, is this based on 25%? Councilmember Raben: Correct. Councilmember Wortman: Twenty-five percent. That's what that is based on. Councilmember Raben: Three months. Councilmember Wortman: Now half of that would be $13,204, if you take -- Councilmember Raben: And again, Betty, the only thing we're out is another appropriation on down the road to fund another 25% or another 75%. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second anybody? Councilmember Winnecke: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second. Now discussion. Councilmember Bassemier: Jim, I know what you're trying to do but I see Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Folz out there. Can we call them up here and see why. I know they're saying six months and you're saying three. Councilmember Raben: This early session will end sometime in March. Councilmember Bassemier: There must be a reason why they want six months. Can I hear this for the record, Jim? I know what you're... Councilmember Wortman: Do you want to say something? Excuse me, before we get started Mrs. Crouch would like to say something, comment please. Suzanne Crouch: The Auditor's Office spoke to Melissa Henson, the Budget Director at the State Board of Tax Commissioners regarding additional appropriations out of Reassess-ment. Their recommendation was to do additional appropriations until there was more direction and they said that they expected within the next couple of weeks the Reassessment Division to put out a memo with better direction. So I don't think three months is unreasonable at all. Councilmember Smith: Last month we were here and we discussed this and I looked back there and every one of you were sitting on this Council and I said, can you live with it for six months and all of them that were sitting there agreed to it and I know that each one of you all remember that. And I think they took it, it was an understanding that they had the okay for it. I trust those men not to spend any money that they don't have to spend. But if they have to lay these people off, they're not going to get the kind of people they've got right now. Councilmember Raben: Betty, if they have to lay these people off, it's not going to be by our direction, it's going to be by the state's. We're not telling them in three months they have to lay anybody off. We'll have a clearer understanding as to how much more money they're going to need, if any. If they file another appropriation by February 15 we can appropriate more money in March for them to use from April on, or by the same token, by March 15, we'll appropriate more money in April for them to use from then on. Again, this just safeguards this money until we find out a little more from the state as to what exactly is going to happen. Paul Hatfield: You're not going to find out from the state -- Councilmember Wortman: Alright, Mr. Hatfield, would you state your name and you, Mr. Folz, and I want both of you to be real nice today. Paul Hatfield: My name is Paul Hatfield, I'm the Pigeon Township Assessor. Al Folz: Al Folz, Knight Township Assessor. Paul Hatfield: You're not going to find out anything from the state by the middle of February. You're not going to do it. Councilmember Raben: Will we in March? Al Folz: (Inaudible) Councilmember Raben: Will we in March? Paul Hatfield: The fact is, let me tell you, this may very well go on to where we will be, they may very well have to call a special session. But in that regard let me say something to you. The person you talked to in that agency doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. Suzanne Crouch: She did speak to the Personal and Real Estate Property in the Reassessment Division so -- Paul Hatfield: In the Reassessment Division? Suzanne Crouch: That is correct. Paul Hatfield: And they don't know what is going on. Believe me. Now let me read you a paragraph from a letter from Senator Borst: The vast majority of real property in Indiana will see substantial increases in their assessed value. The approach will also result in varying shifts between classes of property done within the class of properties itself. In order to gauge these shifts and to afford the legislature the maximum time needed to address these shifts, the effective date of the reassessment should be extended to March 1, 2002. The reassessment -- now listen to this -- the reassessment itself should continue as if the effective date is still March 1, 2001. Now, let me tell you something. I've talked, in fact, I'll be with the governor tomorrow at 11. Now this is a two-pronged battle. Now aside -- because it becomes political -- but aside from that fact, what you're doing here is that right now I am 65% completed residential. I've got another 7,000 or so more than that. I've got about 7,500 commercial/industrial. Now I've got people in the field. Now let me tell you what is going to happen when the word gets out that we've got a three month budget on salaries or on time. They're going to look for another job. I would, wouldn't you? Councilmember Raben: Are they not already clear that it could be delayed? Paul Hatfield: Delayed? Councilmember Raben: Right, are they not already -- Paul Hatfield: What are you talking about? Councilmember Raben: Have they not been made aware up front that at some point in time they could say hey, everything is postponed for another year or two? Paul Hatfield: That is not going to happen. Let me go back and tell you why. No, you really should understand this. Now, you understand that the reason that -- because of the tax court, you're not going to be able to go back and put this on a ten year spread between assessments. You're not going to do it. It's now set at four years. Now the delay, the extension would still put us in the ballpark, alright. O'Bannon won't get his two years. I am telling you that now. He won't get his two year delay. What will happen is it will be introduced in the House, it will pass the House, gets to the Senate, it will end up on Borst's desk and what you'll end up with is a one year delay. Now, that aside also, what we're doing right now, it lays the basis for all the assessing job that we have to do. It is the basis that is good verifiable information. I don't care when they set it, what year they put it in, we are measuring every house for the first time in 20 years and the last time they were measured I did it on contract. I handled the reassessment in `79 for this township. Now it hasn't been done since but it is being done now. Now you are going to nickel and dime me for three months and I'll say it again, I've said it many times here and that is, a budget is just that. It is not an expenditure. I can't spend that money unless I've got a real good reason for it. And if you want to turn into, we have to come here and get a bill okayed, then you can have this job. But I am going to tell you now, you're going to delay it the extent that we're going to have to piecemeal this thing, go out and find people, retrain them on exactly what to do in making these inspections and I am not just talking about measuring a house, hell anybody can do that. I am talking about getting in them, checking the various items which have to be checked in order to make a bonafide reassessment or an assessment of property. Now...go ahead. Councilmember Wortman: Thank you. Mr. Folz, do you agree with Mr. Hatfield? You both have been pretty nice. I'd like to keep everything real calm -- Al Folz: You want to keep us nice? Okay, we can do that can't we, Paul? What Paul said is true of all the Assessors out here. We've got -- you've got taxpayers' money involved. We've been to the homes, my goodness, I've got 26,000 parcels out here. I already did 50% of them. Paul Hatfield: How many? Al Folz: I've got about 26,000, I've already got about 50% of them, you know, around 13,000 and -- Paul Hatfield: You lie like (inaudible) Al Folz: Well, what the (inaudible). Paul Hatfield: You lie. Al Folz: You're not backing me up. What the heck is this? Paul Hatfield: Well, because I know better. Al Folz: I know, but, you know... Paul Hatfield: I can prove my 65%, I wanted you to prove your 50%! Al Folz: Well, two or three. Anyway, when you start talking in terms of three months you're going to lose your people. When you just kind of draw it out and say why, don't they know their job is going to end? Well, sooner or later, everybody's job -- even yours. I mean, with mine -- Councilmember Raben: I'm going to make a statement here. First of all, they will only assume that their job is going to end if you go back and tell them that. If you guys act in the best interest of the county -- Al Folz: I don't know -- Paul Hatfield: How would you like -- Al Folz: Is this going to written up? Councilmember Raben: No, if you go back and tell them in three months, you're done, then that's not my point at all. My point is we're going to fund you for the next three months and then we'll make another appropriation at the end of that -- Paul Hatfield: I've been through that before and I don't believe you now. I mean, this Council has absolutely lied to us. Councilmember Raben: I think we understand that we have to go through a reassessment, so we're not going to lie, I mean -- Paul Hatfield: (Inaudible) you don't let us go ahead and work. None of you understand what -- Councilmember Raben: Again, we're not telling you you don't have to work. We're not telling you that we're doing anything. I am telling you that I'll fund it for the next 90 days until somebody gives me a better sense of direction. We're not telling you that 91 days from now you close up shop. There is nobody saying that and if your people think that it's because you two gentlemen are telling them that when you get back. Paul Hatfield: I'm going to be honest with her. I am going to tell her the possibility. How in the hell do I know that you're going to fund it for another three months after the first three months? Are you going to give me an assurance of that? Councilmember Raben: How do I know once I lose control of an extra three months worth of money that you're not going to spend it? Al Folz: How are you losing control? Paul Hatfield: Come down, you can check my bills. But will you assure me we're going to get another three months after this first three months? Councilmember Raben: If the state finds it appropriate, yes. Al Folz: What state? What part of the state? What are we talking about here? Not the State Tax Board because there may not be another State Tax Board. Councilmember Raben: If the reassessment says continue on, if we get that direction -- I am fine with it. I'll give you the remaining balance of the monies. Paul Hatfield: I just read you the paragraph from the person who absolutely holds the key. Al Folz: He is. Paul Hatfield: Now if you don't understand that then there is nothing else I can say to you. But I am telling you that in his own words, there is -- the only chance this thing has got to go forward is for it to be extended a year. Now if you want to -- this is idiocy! Al Folz: There is no way in this world, just like Councilman Smith says, that we can waste this money. We can't spend it except for reassessment purposes and I think we all kind of resent in a way an attitude that says, well, we're the ones that have to really watch it. What do you think we do? I mean, we can only spend it for what its purpose is for. And if they cut tomorrow and then you've given us six months -- if you cut them all, that's it! We can't spend any more money, that's it. We're dead in the water and so is everybody else in the state of Indiana. So I don't see where this nickel/diming here on three months, six months, well, we've got to be the watchdog, I understand that. That is part of your job. I understand that. I might be the same darn way if I was sitting in your chair. But I am telling you how it is in our chair in that six months is going to give us a heck of a lot more to go with to get things done. You know, this is a short session, isn't it? Paul Hatfield: Yeah. Al Folz: And, you know, this may not be resolved in this short session. Councilmember Raben: Okay, then at that point we'll make another appropriation. Al Folz: At what point? Councilmember Raben: You can file for another appropriation next month. Paul Hatfield: And then it will be a month before you hear it and then you'll nickel and dime -- Councilmember Raben: If you file by February the 15th, you'll get the money the first week of March. Paul Hatfield: (Inaudible) Al Folz: I think it's short-sighted to be able to do that -- Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, call for the question. Al Folz: First you come in with a year, then -- Councilmember Sutton: Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, can I maybe just interject a little bit here something just real quickly? At what is -- what was requested here, what you guys had in the budget here, is that what you would anticipate you would normally spend, so if we were -- say, for instance, if it were one-fourth of what's requested here, at the end of three months is that about what you'd spend on this? I guess I am asking this in terms of if it were a six month budget and then the state came in and made some changes, at the end -- Paul Hatfield: Now you've got to define changes. Councilmember Sutton: If the state -- if we got a final word back on what we're supposed to do on this reassessment -- Paul Hatfield: Let me stop you. Make it short. Councilmember Sutton: Well, no I am not going to make it short because you've been doing all the talking. I am going to talk. Paul Hatfield: You go right ahead. Councilmember Sutton: Okay, thank you. Now my question is to you, if you had a six month budget and if we did get word back from the state on what exactly we're supposed to be doing on this and say word got back in March like they're talking about here, we've been talking about here, if, at the end of March, would we be at a point in terms of expenditure-wise where we are right around what we would normally spend for three months based upon the dollars here or would we be beyond dollar-wise. I guess what I am hearing from you guys is that what you intend to do, is that you would not spend any more than what you would need to do what you need to do. So you wouldn't spend six months in three months time is what I am hearing from you. Paul Hatfield: But why not give it to us? Councilmember Sutton: And that's what I am asking and then also what I am going to ask you is if that is the case, if you've got a six month budget and say, for instance, we did hear something further, repealing that money back. Paul Hatfield: Fine, I don't care, depending on what the state says and from whom. Al Folz: You know, giving the six months budget would take us to -- we get our data collecting completed, we can get our land completed basically and there we are sitting. We're ready. All we need then is the software, the manuals, the software that's going to have to take place and the manuals for us to go ahead. Now we are already completed in our data collecting, in our land assessing, and you know, this puts us to that point. We're that far. We were the only county in the last reassessment that had all our figures done and in. Think about it. So this isn't the first time we are into a reassessment. This is my fourth one. So I think that doing the six months gives us an impetus to be able to go ahead and complete this one phase of the project. Councilmember Sutton: I guess I really don't have a problem necessarily with the six months. I feel like, three months, by the time you guys would come back and have to make another request, your time is pretty short there, I guess that's what my concern is and then I am also hearing what Councilman Raben is saying and I don't have any problems with the six months. I mean, you guys have all been elected to do what you're going to do. We don't have need of fights up here. You guys can get the job done and money issues have not been an issue up to this point in terms of how the monies have been spent. But then again, I guess, in terms of what I am saying is if there were some other information that caused us to have to back up, we get this ruling or whatever, I guess we'd be looking for a repeal. Paul Hatfield: (Inaudible) you can repeal it any time. Councilmember Sutton: You would have to file that. Paul Hatfield: I would be glad to. What good is the money going to do me if they change it and they put it off until 2005? I mean, there's no reason for me to be sitting there with money that we really can't use. Al Folz: To show you how we actually track our money, we couldn't roll this money over, right? I turned back in $49,000. Paul Hatfield: I turned back in $13,000 some-odd dollars. Al Folz: You gave me $135,000 before and -- Councilmember Raben: Curt -- Councilmember Wortman: I think we're missing the point to a certain extent here. The Assessors have never been notified to stop reassessment. That's right. I think this is where we are missing the point and why not give them the six months so they can continue and get this thing going and then if they do send a direct order down, they'll stop. They're not going to go out there and play around. Al Folz: We can't. Paul Hatfield: Well, this letter from Borst makes it very clear not to stop, to go on, keep moving and I don't think -- there's not enough days in this session to reconcile all the differences between the two (inaudible). Just believe me, I've been there. But we've got to keep working. I mean, I've got land yet to complete from the standpoint of commercial/industrial. I've got 7,000 commercial/industrial and they're not small. Good God, this is really a no brainer. I'll say it again. A budget is not an expenditure. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, well thank you, gentlemen. You've been pretty nice, real calm and I appreciate that so we've got a motion on the floor and Mr. Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Suzanne made a good point and, Jim, I know where you're coming from and I wasn't too sure about the workers. They might quit, so whatever... Councilmember Raben: Again, this has
nothing to do with the employees. It has nothing at all to do with them.
When they were hired they only had a six month budget, so these people
knew that there would have to be additional appropriations to fund their
salary lines. That's all smoke. I don't want to hear that --
Paul Hatfield: Let me tell you, if
you -- in this --
Councilmember Raben: No, let me finish.
Let me finish. You're asking us to put faith in your interpretation of
how things are going to happen. I am telling you to put faith in us that
--
Paul Hatfield: You've lied to us.
Councilmember Raben: We've not lied
to you.
Paul Hatfield: Oh good God, you sure
as hell have.
Councilmember Raben: Well, --
Councilmember Wortman: Okay, alright,
let's calm down. Mr. Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: I just wanted
to say, and Mr. Hatfield could agree on this, I've never lied to Mr. Hatfield
and I've never lied to Mr. Folz and I've always tried to work with you
and I know we've had some differences in the past and I just want that
on record that when I give my word, I keep it.
Councilmember Smith: I have never
lied to you either. When you say the Council, that includes all of us,
Paul, and you know darn well I've never lied to you. So just point out
directions, not as a whole.
Councilmember Wortman: Okay, alright
--
Paul Hatfield: Well, whoever is running
the show has lied to us.
Councilmember Wortman: Okay, now we've
got a motion on the floor, Mr. Raben, and we had a second. Is that correct,
Secretary?
Teri Lukeman: Yes.
Councilmember Wortman: We had your
discussion now, so call the roll, and everybody understand the motion was
set in at 25% of the total budget on Armstrong Assessor. Is everybody clear
on that? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: No.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: No.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Jim, I know
what you are trying to do and you're doing your job and I'd like to see
them have six months and not tie their hands, so I am going to vote no
on that also.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: No.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?
Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?
Councilmember Wortman: No.
(Motion fails 5-2/Councilmembers Smith, Sutton, Bassemier, Hoy & Wortman opposed) Councilmember Wortman: Okay, it fails. Now, do you want to make another motion, Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: No. Councilmember Smith: I'll make the motion that we set it in at half all the way down for a six month period. Sandie Deig: You have to set them in individual line items. Councilmember Smith: Oh, do you? Councilmember Wortman: We have to set them in individual line items. Councilmember Smith: Haven't you got it figured out at half price on most of them? Sandie Deig: Not anymore. Councilmember Smith: Not anymore? Councilmember Wortman: Can we, Counsel, legal, can she make a motion to the effect that every line item be set in at half of what's listed on the sheet? Jeff Ahlers: I don't see a problem with that as long as it's not problem with the minutes being taken down appropriately. Is that fine? Or we can get the calculator and -- Councilmember Sutton: Is our math that bad? I mean, we are the fiscal body of the county. Councilmember Smith: We've got a lot of figures and all you've got to do is figure half all the way down. Councilmember Wortman: You just take each budget, anybody that makes a motion takes each budget and take it in half as listed on each line item -- Councilmember Smith: As listed. Councilmember Wortman: Just like this Armstrong. That's $26,408, that will be $13,204, see. Councilmember Smith: And each line item would be half. Councilmember Raben: Okay, have you got a second, Mr. President? Councilmember Wortman: You ready? We've got to change the tape. Excuse us a minute. (Tape changed) Councilmember Wortman: Alright, what the procedure here will be now, the person that makes the motion will list each item, account number set in at half, like $650. That will be $325, but you will have to say it just right on down. Mention each line item be set in at half and the total. Jeff Ahlers: Well, actually, if you want to be quicker, you can take the top line item and say that line item all the way through and then name the bottom line item and say set them all in at half of the amount listed and then state what the total amount is. That would be easier. Councilmember Raben: Betty, in your motion, have we had a second yet? Councilmember Wortman: No. Councilmember Raben: We need a second motion. Councilmember Wortman: Before we get too far -- Councilmember Smith: I think we have to change it. Councilmember Wortman: Yeah, just a minute, before we get too much further, if you noticed Armstrong, we can't not count the Assessor on that. We've got to eliminate that and the same way with German Township, too. Let's check the others. Councilmember Raben: Betty, before you make your motion, do you intend to set in the Assessor's stipend that they are requesting? Councilmember Smith: (Inaudible - microphone not turned on) Councilmember Raben: Well, I would suggest you do, but I have one other comment to make before you guys do this, you're going to set this in at half the -- at 50% of what's listed. And three months from now, if we're ordered to stop what we're doing, I want to see 50% of what we appropriate today in those accounts which I am sure is a world, particularly using Knight, for instance, that we're not going to find 50% of that Office Furniture that we appropriate today and Office Machines, Other Contractual, Printing Plat Sheets, Computers, I mean, when you appropriate that money in a lot of these accounts outside of salaries, it's going to get spent, believe me. So you're not going to get back 50% of everything that you're appropriating today April the first if everything is brought to a stop. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, now Mr. Al Folz, Knight Township Assessor, would you comment please? Al Folz: Sure. I can't promise 50% of Office Furniture, you may get 100% of it back. Councilmember Raben: Or we may not get any of it. Al Folz: Well...but most of the time you're not going to be out there spending. I didn't spend any of it so far on it. That's why you got the $49,000 back. I may find out I don't need any and I think on certain accounts that we do have you may find that we do use more of that as far as Office Supplies because we are in the middle of a reassessment and we're running a lot of copies. I think that's kind of a moot question what you had just brought up and since you pointed me out, how would you know what's needed for a reassessment? You have never even bothered to come down to my office, look at anything. Look at what we spent the last reassessment, how much did we spend in each account and such. So you are going to find that we are very, very frugal...very frugal or you wouldn't have got $49,000 back. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, thank you, Mr. Folz. Al Folz: Absolutely. Councilmember Wortman: Alright. Now we've got to move on because it's 5:00 here and we've got to get Area Plan comes in here, so we've got to keep moving. Now, Mrs. Smith? Councilmember Smith: Okay, Armstrong Township Assessor, 2492-1100-1110-1100 set that in at zero; from 2492-1100-1900 set in at half. Councilmember Raben: Down through? Councilmember Smith: Down through 2492-1100-3372. That's all set in at half. Jeff Ahlers: You've got your calculator, Lloyd. What is the total now? If you take out -- Councilmember Winnecke: $12,879 is what I got. Jeff Ahlers: Okay, subtracting the $650 out and halving the rest, is that right? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Jeff Ahlers: Okay. What did you say? Councilmember Bassemier: And we won't need PERF. Councilmember Winnecke: $12,879. Councilmember Smith: There will be money left over in PERF and all that when you take that other part out. When you take the Assessor line item out. Councilmember Bassemier: So we've got to take that $38 out, don't we? Councilmember Wortman: Do I got a second? Anybody got a second? Do I hear a second? Mr. Bassemier, do you want to second this? Councilmember Bassemier: Uh yes. Councilmember Wortman: Now discussion. Any discussion on this? Everybody understand what we're doing? 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: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Okay, that final figure was $12,879, is that correct? Councilmember Smith: Uh-huh. ARMSTRONG TWP. ASSESSOR/REASSESS.
REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion carried 5-2/Councilmembers Raben & Winnecke opposed) CENTER TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR/REASSESSMENT Councilmember Wortman: Okay, proceed now to the Center Township Assessor. Do you want to make that, Mr. Raben or do you want Mrs. Smith to? Councilmember Raben: I'd say roll
on with it.
Councilmember Wortman: Okay, Mrs. Smith. Councilmember Smith: Center Township line item 2492-1110-1130-1110 through 2492-1110-3410, that's half of those amounts. (Inaudible) Councilmember Smith: The amount that's there. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second to that effect? Councilmember Bassemier: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion now? Jeff Ahlers: What is that total just to make sure we all agree on what the total is so the minutes -- Councilmember Winnecke: $21,063.50. (Several speaking at once) Councilmember Winnecke: $23,864 then, sorry. Councilmember Wortman: $23,864? Sandie Deig: Curt, wait just a minute. These salaries are not right. The salary should be listed at $21,639. That's the maximum salary for a Land Coordinator. Councilmember Smith: That's right. We set that in last year. Councilmember Wortman: Alright, can you redo that Mr. Winnecke? The first one is $21,639. Councilmember Raben: That would be $10,820. Councilmember Smith: What did you say the bottom was, Jim? Or did you say? Councilmember Raben: On the Land Coordinator? Fifty percent of that would be $10,820. FICA would be $1,212, PERF would be...hold on just a second...$596. Is that the only question you've got on those three? Jeff Ahlers: We're going to need to -- are we going to need to withdraw this motion and remake it since we've changed some of these numbers or if you want to withdraw your motion and start over because we've now changed these figures. They're not all one half of what's in there. Yeah, the first three I think you can just put those in there like Jim had it and then the rest of them are one half. Councilmember Raben: Let me give you the first four: Land Coordinator would be $10,820, FICA would be $1,212, PERF would be $596, Insurance would be $1,532 and then the rest of them, -- Jeff Ahlers: Just be half. Councilmember Raben: Would be half. Councilmember Smith: Then I'll withdraw that motion and make another one. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, would you withdraw and then do we have a motion to withdraw the second? Councilmember Smith: Ed? Councilmember Wortman: Ed, do you withdraw your second? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes Sir. Councilmember Wortman: Now we'll have a new motion to reopen. Councilmember Smith: Line item 2492-1110-1130-1110 will be $10,820, line item 2492-1110-1900 will be $1,212, line item 2492-1110-1910 will be $596, from that point -- Jeff Ahlers: No, one more, Insurance. Councilmember Smith: Insurance, oh okay. 2492-1110-1920 will be $1,532. All the rest will be half of the amount down through 2492-1110-3410 and I don't know what the bottom line figure is at, but that's... Jeff Ahlers: Do you have a total on that? Councilmember Raben: No, but we don't actually need a total so -- Jeff Ahlers: Okay, I just wanted to make sure through the confusion that at least -- I didn't know if we wanted to make the minutes clear as to what the total is. Councilmember Raben: Betty, if you want to...well, let's vote on this. I've gone ahead and ran ahead and I'll do these other motions for you if you'd like. Councilmember Hoy: I'll second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a motion and a second. Councilmember Bassemier: Do you need a second? Councilmember Wortman: Mr. Hoy did, yeah. 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: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. CENTER TWP. ASSESSOR/REASSESS.
REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion carried 5-2/Councilmembers Raben & Winnecke opposed) GERMAN TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR/REASSESSMENT Councilmember Wortman: Now, Mrs. Smith? Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, (Inaudible - microphone not turned on) Councilmember Smith: Go ahead. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, Mr. Raben, go ahead. Councilmember Raben: We're on German, correct? German Township, the first item 2492-1120-1110-1120 zero, 1130-1120 Land Coordinator $10,820, 1120-1990 Extra Help $2,720, 1120-1900 FICA $1,036...page 4, 1120-1910 PERF $596, all others based on half of what has been submitted and I make that in the form of a motion. Councilmember Sutton: Second. Councilmember 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: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. GERMAN TWP. ASSESSOR/REASSESS. REQUESTED APPROVED
(TABLE CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
(Motion carried 5-2/Councilmembers Raben & Winnecke opposed) KNIGHT TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR/REASSESSMENT Councilmember Wortman: Okay, now Knight Township. Councilmember Raben: Okay, Knight Township 2492-1130-1110-1130 zero, 1120-1130, 1130-1130, 1140-1130 should be set in at $10,820, 1900 FICA $7,840, 1910 PERF $17,086, 1920 Insurance $11,314, all other items at 50% of what was listed and I'll make that in the form of a motion. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second? Councilmember Smith: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Any discussion? Call the roll please. Councilmember Sutton: One more time on FICA? Councilmember Raben: $7,840. Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, one correction, on the PERF line it should read $1,786 rather than $17,000. Councilmember Raben: Yeah, $1,786. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, any other 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: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. KNIGHT TWP. ASSESSOR/REASSESS.
REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion carried 5-2/Councilmembers Raben & Winnecke opposed) PERRY TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR/REASSESSMENT PIGEON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR/REASSESSMENT Councilmember Raben: Okay, Perry Township. Mr. President, 2492-1140-1120-1140 zero; 1130-1140, 1140-1140, both accounts should read $10,820; 1900 FICA $3,026; 1910 PERF $596; 1920 Insurance $11,638; all other items 50% of what is listed. Let's do the Pigeon Assessor: 1120-1150 zero; 1130-1150, 1140-1150 $10,820; 1900 FICA $6,324; 1910 PERF $1,786; 1920 Insurance $10,500; 1930 Unemployment $3,554; all other items 50% of what is listed and I make that in the form of a motion. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Smith: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second. Any more discussion on this? 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. Paul Hatfield: Mr. Raben, -- Councilmember Raben: I retract that. It's no. Paul Hatfield: Almost got you there. Councilmember Raben: Yeah, but you reminded me. Paul Hatfield: Could you give me the figure on 1150-1990? Councilmember Raben: 1150-1990.. Jeff Ahlers: It was set in at one
half.
Councilmember Smith: That's FICA. Councilmember Raben: One half of whatever you've got listed. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. PERRY TWP. ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
(TABLE CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR REQUESTED
APPROVED
(Motion carried 5-2/Councilmembers Raben & Winnecke opposed) Councilmember Wortman: Now then that
completes the Assessors on Reassessment. Is that correct? I think it does,
yeah. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.
Councilmember Wortman: Now we'll get into the Transfers. Line item number ten, County Clerk and Veterans Service. Councilmember Raben: I'll move approval of County Clerk plus the late transfer for Veterans Services. Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. CLERK REQUESTED APPROVED
VETERANS SERVICES REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Councilmember Wortman: We did the
repeals on Circuit Court Adult Probation on eleven.
Councilmember Wortman: Now we'll go to twelve, the amendment to the Salary Ordinance. Councilmember Smith: What about the Veterans, the late one on Veterans? Councilmember Wortman: We took both of them, the Clerk and the Veterans. Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I'll move approval of Area Plan, Armstrong Assessor, Center Assessor, German Assessor, Knight Assessor, Perry Assessor, Pigeon Assessor, County Clerk and Veterans Services as previously adopted and I'll make that in the form of a motion. Councilmember Sutton: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a motion and a second. 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE SETTING COPY FEE CHARGE FOR VANDERBURGH COUNTY OFFICES Councilmember Wortman: Okay, now we go to 13, old business, Approval of An Ordinance Setting Copy Fee Charge for Vanderburgh County Offices, but the trouble is, they've never sent them all in so that will have to be set in...we'll need a motion to what, delay, defer it. So I'll entertain a motion to that effect. Councilmember Smith: So moved. Councilmember Wortman: Mrs. Smith. Do I have a second? Councilmember Bassemier: Second. Councilmember Wortman: We got a second. Okay, 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
BOB QUICK/WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Councilmember Wortman: Now we go down to 14, New Business, Bob Quick, The Workforce Development Proposal. He was here last week. Anybody got any problems with that? Councilmember Hoy: Is this going to be voted on today? Councilmember Wortman: I don't think so. Councilmember Hoy: The question I have is -- I have several questions but one is I would feel better if they asked the city to contribute $5,000 instead of us doing the whole $10,000. That's part of it. I have a couple other questions but I will wait until he comes. Councilmember Wortman: That's a good comment. Thank you, Mr. Hoy. APPROVAL OF 2000 AMENDED SALARY ORDINANCE Councilmember Wortman: B, Approval of the 2000 Amended Salary Ordinance. Jim? Councilmember Raben: I move approval. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Smith: Second. Councilmember 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) APPOINTMENT OF LIAISONS Councilmember Wortman: Appointment of liaisons, you have them in front of you and if there's any questions, get back with me if you don't like them. If not, why you have to like them, I guess. So that takes care of that. Jeff Ahlers: Mr. Wortman, do you want to just state that they will be incorporated into the record, into the minutes as written and furnish a copy? Councilmember Wortman: I'd like to take a motion that they be incorporated into the minutes. I'll take a motion to that effect. Councilmember Winnecke: So moved. Councilmember Wortman: And then I got a second somewhere. Councilmember Smith: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Mrs. Smith seconded. Okay, all those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, raise your right hand, everybody. One, two, three, four, five, six, Jim, raise your right hand, seven. Okay, that takes care of that. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) APPOINTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE Councilmember Wortman: Appointment of Personnel Administrative Committee. Sandie passed that out to you. So we go that route, okay. I'll take a motion to that effect. Jeff Ahlers: To incorporate those into the minutes? Councilmember Wortman: Be incorporated into the minutes. Can that be in the motion? Councilmember Smith: So moved. Councilmember Bassemier: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Any discussion? All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, okay. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) APPOINTMENT TO THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION BOARD Councilmember Wortman: The appointment to the ABC Board is Mr. Frank Daugul on a year basis and I'll entertain a motion for approval of that motion. Councilmember Raben: So moved. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second? Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second. Okay, if 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 Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) OTHER APPOINTMENTS Councilmember Wortman: Now then, we've got these other appointments on F and that would be the County Council appointments which we just got Frank Daugul; Curt Wortman, Area Plan Commission; Mark Foster, Area Plan Commission; Harold Elliott, Board of Review; Peggy Pfister, Board of Review; Marion Deig, Burdette Park Advisory Board; Michael Jordan, Burdette Park Advisory Board; Lloyd Winnecke, Central Dispatch; Gloria Altman, Convention & Visitors Bureau; Jeff Guier, Convention & Visitors Bureau; Sandie Deig, Data Processing Board; Al Umbach, Jr., Economic Development Commission Vanderburgh County; Lloyd Winnecke, EUTS Policy Committee; Sandra Shauntee, Human Relations Board; Jim Raben, Jail Overcrowding Assessment Committee; Royce Sutton, Jail Overcrowding Assessment Committee; and then we've got Bob Musgrave, Museum Board; Curt Wortman, Solid Waste; and Jim Raben, West Side Improvement. I'll entertain a motion where they be accepted. Councilmember Winnecke: So moved. Councilmember Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Raben: Can you say that again? Councilmember Wortman: The only thing... Councilmember Raben: Incorporate it? Councilmember Wortman: Yeah. Councilmember Hoy: (Inaudible) Councilmember Wortman: All l those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. That takes care of that. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) APPROVAL OF THE 2000 COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING DATES Councilmember Wortman: Now then, we've got approval of the 2000 County Council meeting dates on that. So they should be right on the money so I'll take a motion to the effect that we accept those dates. Councilmember Winnecke: So moved. Councilmember Wortman: And got a second somewhere? Councilmember Smith: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion? Raise your right hands in favor. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Okay. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) FEBRUARY 2000 MEETING FILING DATE Councilmember Wortman: Now then, we've got the February 2000 meeting filing date. That should be January 14th will be the filing deadline, so if that's agreeable, why I'll entertain a motion to that effect. Councilmember Raben: So moved. Councilmember Wortman: Got a second? Councilmember Smith: Second. Councilmember Wortman: Any discussion? All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Councilmember Wortman: Now then, is there any other business? Sandie, do you have anything to come before the Council? Sandie Deig: One thing. I think all of the Councilmen have been given the proposals from the union contract and it's just for your information (inaudible - microphone not turned on) when the appropriation is filed. (Inaudible). Councilmember Wortman: Okay. Alright. I think if nobody else has any business to come before this Council, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Councilmember Smith: So moved. Councilmember Wortman: So moved. And we got a second? Councilmember Winnecke: Second. Councilmember Wortman: All those in favor say aye. The ayes have it. Okay. Happy New Year everybody. (Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.)
VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL _____________________________ ____________________________ President Curt Wortman Vice PresidentEd Bassemier _____________________________ ____________________________ Councilmember JamesRaben Councilmember Phil Hoy _____________________________ _____________________________ Councilmember Lloyd Winnecke Councilmember Royce Sutton _____________________________ Councilmember Betty Knight-Smith  |