| | Back | Home | Links | Email | Search | Weather | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Special Council Meeting July 12, 2001
The Vanderburgh County Council met in special session the 12th day of July, 2001 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by County Council President Ed Bassemier. President Bassemier: I would like to call to order for July 12, 2001 Special County Council meeting- Councilmember Winnecke: No, I'm sorry. President Bassemier: Roll call.
President Bassemier: Everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? (Pledge of Allegiance was given)
President Bassemier: Do I have a motion to approve certification of the Executive Session for July 12, 2001. Councilmember Sutton: So moved. Councilmember Raben: I will second. President Bassemier: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier? President Bassemier: Here. (Inaudible. Mike not on.) general obligations (Inaudible. Mike not on.). Jeff Ahlers: Just to speak briefly to get everybody on the same page, uh, we have been, uh, the attorneys have been working to, fast and furiously, versions have been coming across our desks. So, I think progress is being made in terms of working out details of a settlement. Obviously, anything that is ultimately done is going to have to be approved by all of the bodies. If we reach an agreement on everything, and as I had pointed out to you, the differences in some of the versions. Currently today, just a couple things to be covered in light of the action that the Commissioners took on Monday night. They made a motion to ask the court to extend the deadline in terms of instead of by July 13th having to submit a settlement agreement, if there were to be a settlement, to get an extension of that deadline. I would suggest today that would be a good idea for this body to also take official action in terms of extending the deadline. We did, I believe, get that accomplished yesterday. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Falk and I called Magistrate Hussman and advised him of the status of the case, and since the next meeting with the court is on August 13th, expressed to the court of giving us to August 13th with the view that, hopefully, we're not going to need that much time, but since that would be a deadline going before the court to get this accomplished. Mr. Falk has drafted a stipulation which we have all looked at and whatever modifications were to be made have been made. It is now being circulated for signature, and I think some of the attorneys have signed it. I'm going to sign it as soon as we get out of this meeting, upon your approval. We will get that filed with the court, and it's anticipated that, uh, that would get our deadline extended to August 13th. I guess we should take official action on that if there is a motion to- Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, I make such a motion that we join in that extension- Councilmember Winnecke: Second. Councilmember Sutton: -of August 13th. President Bassemier: Is there any discussion on that? Roll call roll, please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier? President Bassemier: Yes. Jeff Ahlers: With that having been done, I will execute the stipulation and see that that is filed with the court today. The only other thing for today is, that I know, and, I guess, that was expressed by Mr. Winnecke and I know Mr. Tornatta was also at the Commissioners meeting on Monday night, but, I know, that some of you have some questions of the Sheriff and the Commissioners in terms of some of the items in the settlement agreement. Although, while they refer to as, obviously, generally all of the defendants, uh, would be bound by the terms, some of them may or may not require budgetary financing or have a price tag to them. Which, obviously, isn't named in the settlement agreement, and to the extent that, uh, I guess, to establish if, you know, if there are any issues that need to be quantified in terms of expenses. If you have questions in those regards, or anything else with regard to the documents, so I don't know if you want to- President Bassemier: Anybody got any questions? We have the Sheriff here, we have Commissioner Fanello if anybody's got any questions for these people. Councilmember Winnecke: Mr. President. Catherine, I've got a couple of questions of you, and I would preface this by saying that some of this is legalese, so- Commissioner Fanello: Well- Councilmember Winnecke: -some of us have had trouble understanding it, so- Commissioner Fanello: I may have had trouble understanding it myself. Councilmember Winnecke: The latest, I guess it's the latest version, in paragraph 13, uh, which starts out talking about the number of beds. The last part of that paragraph is different than what we passed at our last meeting. This is where it gets a little convoluted in my mind. I guess, I would like to know if you have a feel or if this is attorney-ese? Commissioner Fanello: Okay. Councilmember Winnecke: What the intent of the last part of this paragraph is from your perspective? Commissioner Fanello: Well, let's go back to...and I don't have a copy of your version. President Bassemier: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Right here. Say your name and all for the record. Commissioner Fanello: Catherine Fanello, County Commissioner. Do you have a copy? First of all, let me say that I was a little disappointed in the original paragraph 13 that the Council proposed, because I think it really violates the spirit of us working together. I think that, Councilman Winnecke, you and I had lunch a few weeks, or about two weeks ago, I believe, and there has been a rumor floating around, and I wish that you would have maybe called me or been a little bit more direct with your question. The rumor that is floating around was that the Commissioners, and more specifically the Democrat Commissioners, were wanting to get around the Council in some way. That is just completely untrue. You have your statutory authority and we have our statutory authority, and in no way, at any point in time, was it ever my intent or Commissioner Mosby's intent to try and circumvent the Council. What we would like to try and set up this whole deal that is in the best interest of the whole County. I think that comes...and I'm speaking simply from a number standpoint, because I don't know what the County's bonding capacity is at this point, but I know that our bonding capacity is limited, so we wouldn't want to use it all up in one project. Because we have the Old Courthouse facing us and we still aren't sure what we are going to do with that, and you never know what projects are coming along. So, I was disappointed to hear that, um, so I wanted to bring that out. So, I guess, paragraph 13 upset me because I think it violates the spirit of the Commissioners and the Council working together. So, in my opinion, that, the language in there about what the Commissioners should do and what the Council should do really doesn't have a place in this settlement. Um- Councilmember Winnecke: So, does that mean, excuse me for interrupting, does that mean that you would be in favor of dropping paragraph 13 altogether? Commissioner Fanello: -I would be in favor...I think that we have to have something in there about- Councilmember Winnecke: About the bed...number of beds. Commissioner Fanello: -the beds, but although all three of the Commissioners, I believe that is right. Mr. Bodkin was in there and the Sheriff were in there, I think that we wanted to leave out a number altogether. But, yes, in my opinion, I would like to leave out- Councilmember Winnecke: The last part of- Commissioner Fanello: -the last part of paragraph 13. Councilmember Winnecke: The last question that I think I have relates to the, uh, you have my...that's alright, whatever paragraph it is relating to the attorney fees. Commissioner Fanello: Okay. That is- President Bassemier: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Commissioner Fanello: Um...discussion has gone back and forth about that. I know that Mr. Falk, obviously, would like to have attorneys fees. I'm in complete favor of us not paying anybody anything that we don't have to, to them. So, I mean, my first intent, you know, is to protect our funds. I am in perfect agreement with whatever you want to do about that paragraph- Councilmember Winnecke: If Mr. Falk's position is that attorneys fees are not a deal breaker, would you be in favor of abolishing that from the stipulation? Commissioner Fanello: Oh, exact...yes. I mean, without a doubt. As long as that does not cause a...cause him to want to give up something else in the agreement. I think some of these things came in the beginning while I will bargain for this if you, you know, do this- Councilmember Winnecke: Sure. Commissioner Fanello: -so if that doesn't violate anything else in the agreement I'm more than happy to leave it out. Councilmember Winnecke: I think that is all the questions I had at this time. Commissioner Fanello: Anything else? Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, obviously before the 13th of August, then we have to present a document that the Commissioners and we and, I guess, you too, Mr. Sheriff, have to sign off on. My question has to do from this point on, how do we get to that point? What process are we going to set out? President Bassemier: Are we going to have to meet all again, or what? Jeff Ahlers: I think what's...I think what's currently planned is for Mr. Hayes and Mr. Bodkin and I to get together, uh, in the next few business days, try to sort through the three or four different versions that there have been, see where we think we can find some common ground or at least then be able to, if possible, narrow down the disputed areas. Then, of course, once we have another draft or drafts, if there is no, you know, consensus, regardless of what there is we, obviously, come back here. So, obviously, sometime before, you know, probably in the next week or two we, probably, need to come back here and have another meeting for me to update you on what the progress is and to discuss with you the latest versions of the agreement. President Bassemier: Okay. Jeff Ahlers: I think that also on the issues that I pointed out to you where there are differences, uh, you need to be making some decisions as to which issues, um, how you feel about them. Whether you, you know, are going to stay with the language that you have, whether you are willing to, to change any of the language and that kind of thing. So, ultimately it is, obviously, your decision. President Bassemier: Jeff, do you...are you suggesting that when you all meet to have one or two from this body? Or are you just going to get involved and just- Jeff Ahlers: I don't think- President Bassemier: I know you suggested yesterday- Jeff Ahlers: I think, you know, we are open to any suggestions. I guess the original intent was to see what we could work through ourselves, but, obviously, from my perspective anybody that would like to as long as we don't have a quorum present and have open door problems that, uh, is more than welcome to come and attend. We have a very big conference room, so- President Bassemier: Mr. Sutton, a question? Councilmember Sutton: I think my contention even at our last meeting, and, you know, I still feel the same, and the reason why I voted against the previous agreement was because, obviously, there was a great deal of time spent, but no unified document was gathered to put together, and it served no purpose for us just to have a document just representing the County's...the County Council's interests only. So, what I would suggest that we do, uh, I think that we need to as a Council set a specific date that we would like to see, uh, that unified document come together from all of the three parties. A specific date that gives enough time frame for the three attorneys to get together from all representing entities, draft a document that conclusively puts together all of the ideas and suggestions from the three bodies, work that out bring that to us for us to mull over and then we can, with ample time, make our decision on whether the document represents, at least from the Council's perspective, and the County overall. I'm not just thinking about Council, I want to think about the County overall and move in that direction. I think that we ought to space out at least a two week time frame back from the date when that is actually due in. So, I don't know where that would put us date wise. You say the 13th of next month, so if we pull that back a couple of weeks, I think that ought to give us ample time to be able to have a document that would give us an opportunity to mull over. Tom Bodkin: Mr. President, may I address? President Bassemier: Sure. Tom Bodkin: Tom Bodkin, Counsel for the Sheriff. I don't see any reason, at least based upon my own calendar, I can't speak for Phil Hayes, I don't have his, or Jeff's for that matter, although I could get closer with his cause we have talked. I don't see any reason why we could not know by the end of next week whether we can have a document that the lawyers can come to you with and think is a good deal or not. We are, I think, fairly close based upon what I know happened at the Commissioners. What the Commissioners have indicated they want. What the Sheriff has indicated he is willing to try to get done, and , I think, that we, uh, if Jeff is willing to do it, I am certainly willing to commit whatever time we have to next week to get one done, or not, but we need to get to a point where we know we are going to get it done or not. We really do. Councilmember Sutton: It sounds like you guys are very close. Tom Bodkin: Very close. Councilmember Sutton: I think you are. I mean, you are on the right track. Tom Bodkin: There are some other language, proposed changes that, I think, you are going to like better. That I know the Commissioners and the Sheriff like. That I mentioned briefly to Jeff but he hasn't had a chance to see the words, so he doesn't know if he likes them or not. So, I think that by the end of next week we will be in a position to know if we are going to get there or not. Councilmember Sutton: I mean, I think this is just an excellent opportunity for us to show a spirit of cooperativeness from all of the bodies and no one body can do this alone, so you guys need to get in a room- Tom Bodkin: I have the great advantage of one client. Councilmember Sutton: -and if you have to do some beating up, whatever you guys need to do. Tom Bodkin: One person, so it's easy for me to e-mail him, you see. President Bassemier: I guess the question that I am going to ask is do we mind... and Jeff and they all put their minds together and they bring it back to us after they've got it all...do we... do you- Councilmember Winnecke: I think they should do it, yeah. That's the appropriate manner. President Bassemier: Pardon? Councilmember Winnecke: That's appropriate, I think, President Bassemier: Yes. Okay. That's what we are paying them for. I'm just saying if you want a couple of us...do you want a couple of us there? Or just let them work it out and then bring it back to all of us? Councilmember Winnecke: Let them work it out. President Bassemier: Work it out, okay. Troy, you got a question? Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, um, Falk's 13 is different than the 13 that we looked at. Is different than what we had, uh, kind of talked about. What part do we think that we are going to drop out? Or is this all...is this all something come to the part where you are going to get your heads together- Councilmember Winnecke: I think this is where they get there heads together- Councilmember Tornatta: Okay. Councilmember Winnecke: -based on- Councilmember Tornatta: 'Cause his...his is pretty much doing what...putting everything together as opposed to segregating everything out. Jeff Ahlers: Actually, Falk's paragraph 13 adopts, for the most part, the Council's position on paragraph 13. I think he took one of our sentences out and left the other two is what I'm looking at. I mean, those are things that we will have to sort through. I guess there is two issues here, there is obviously the issues between the defendants and the plaintiff and then the issues among the defendants. So- Councilmember Tornatta: Well, I guess we talked about dropping...dropping that out. I would like to, I mean, if that's the case you need to be informed at what point to drop that...that we are comfortable since we are all here. President Bassemier: Dropping what? Councilmember Winnecke: The last part of 13. Councilmember Tornatta: The last part, but where does that start? After new facility? Jeff Ahlers: I guess, if that's what you are referring to, yeah. Where it starts with nothing. Councilmember Tornatta: Uh-huh. President Bassemier: Okay, run that by me again. You are talking about leaving in everything up to new facility and dropping everything that follows, correct? Councilmember Tornatta: Right. Jeff Ahlers: No, I'm not talking about anything- President Bassemier: Okay. Jeff Ahlers: -what Mr. Tornatta is talking about- Councilmember Tornatta: No, no it was talked about that Lloyd asked would Catherine be okay with everything up to the final part and dropping that off. If that is the case, and we wouldn't want that, at what point would we cut the bottom off? President Bassemier: I...I, uh- Councilmember Tornatta: If you- President Bassemier: -I think, I think- Councilmember Tornatta: -if you are going to fight that, let's talk about it now. I mean, that's why we are here. Councilmember Raben: Why...I'm yet...I'm still concerned about any chance that something could limit our authority through the whole process. I think something in paragraph 13 needs to protect this Council. I, you know, the original agreement of paragraph 13, I don't think restricted the Commissioners of any powers, but simply prevents them from stripping us of ours. Councilmember Tornatta: Would, would it not be like I said earlier, would it not be an issue that you put in the responsibilities of the County Commissioners and the County Council, if that makes you feel better. To say what our jobs are, and if that is the case then they can't overstep that boundary. Councilmember Sutton: The law tells us that. Councilmember Tornatta: I mean- President Bassemier: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Councilmember Tornatta: -so, I mean, you wouldn't necessarily have to put it in there, but if it would make feel better, you could put the state statute inside of paragraph 13. It would make it longer. President Bassemier: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Councilmember Tornatta: Well, I think it's important that we talk. I keep, I keep coming back to the fact that we get done with a nice meeting and everything is all rosy and the next thing I'm getting calls from one side or the other saying well that is not what we went over and that is not what we said. Let's talk about it now. We are all here. President Bassemier: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Councilmember Hoy: Yes. The reason I supported that language is, and I'm addressing what you said, Mr. Tornatta, and also your feelings about it, Commissioner Fanello. The reason I supported that language is because I'm sitting here in my ninth year of doing this and you've been sitting here since Noah built the Ark, and Councilman Raben has been here a long time, Councilman Sutton...hmm? Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Can we use the Ark as a jail? I mean- Councilmember Hoy: Just float it out on the Ohio. I don't...I'm not speaking for those persons I just mentioned, I am speaking for myself. One of the continuing problems we have had as a Council is, and this is not a reflection on the current Commissioners, so be patient with me and listen to what I have to say. That is on too many occasions we have been left out of the process for one reason or another and sometimes because of legal language. Since you have laid this on the floor, I'm just going to lay Mr. Hayes' document on the floor, and I consider Mr. Hayes' document, at that point, so vague I don't know whether anybody really understands what Mr. Hayes is trying to say. I say that carefully. Phil Hayes is a long time friend of mine, but I don't think the language is as clear as it should be. I'm coming from that history of being on this body and then all of a sudden finding that we didn't exercise what we are supposed to do as a fiscal body. I don't see this, you know, in the same light as it has been portrayed as any kind of, you know, language that is too strong or inflammatory, it's simply a clear statement of what I feel our obligation and our duties are as County Councilmen. I also have to say that, language I liked that Mr. Ahlers wrote, I liked that language because it is real clear. I think, at this point, um, niceness is one thing, and I want to be as nice as I can be, but clarity will ensure that we stay on a good even keel between the two bodies. That is what I'm interested in. Councilmember Tornatta: In the Baptist church, they say, Amen. One thing, Catherine, what Lloyd said is that in his question, and from being in the meetings past, that...he wasn't trying...one thing that he was not trying to do is load a question or anything else. I do know that he was asking that question because we all thought that Phil had some vague information, and that is all the way around. I think that it is hard to read. I think that when it is hard to read, there is too many interpretations. I mean, I know that's his question coming in, and not to be construed with trying to load a question for you. Now that's just being fair to both sides. Commissioner Fanello: Well, and, and, I- President Bassemier: Catherine, just one second, please. Commissioner Fanello: Sorry. Jeff Ahlers: One of the things that I would suggest is, with respect to that is, Mr. Tornatta, is let us see what we can work through, and to answer maybe yours and Mr. Sutton's questions was, you know, one of the reasons that we had this body pass a version was, I guess, of course everybody always thinks that their job is tougher, but I think it is more difficult for me in representing seven people, and, I think, it was important for us to have a version that I knew that I had a majority of this Council's support for as opposed to that of Mr. Bodkin who has one man to get the approval of and Mr. Hayes has to get the approval of two Commissioners. It's a little bit different. Here when we have seven people, and I thought it was appropriate to say that this is a version that we approve of. As it exists now, while the Commissioners have, apparently, discussed a version and we have the version that Mr. Hayes drafted, technically, I guess, that has not been approved by the Commissioners. So there is no approved version to really compare it to. I mean, we can talk about it and compare it, but in terms of an official approved version, they didn't take any official action the other day. So anyway, in that regard, I would just only recommend that we see what the next few days bring, but, you know, of course that is a decision up to you. I know one other thing to mention was, I think, you still, we need to ask the Sheriff some questions. President Bassemier: Ms. Fanello. Your name again, please. Commissioner Fanello: Catherine Fanello, County Commissioner. President Bassemier: Thanks for your patience. Commissioner Fanello: As far as an official draft, that is probably correct, but we did kind of go through it and say this is what we want scratched, this is how we want you to change this, so. I don't...I can't agree with you Councilmen Hoy on your prior statement, because I think that it's very clear... there is no way we can restrict the Council's powers. I mean, your powers are very clear in the statute and our powers are very clear in the statute. This is going to have to be a project where the two bodies work together. I'm not interested in violating that in any way. I do think that the way the paragraph...the way the...and let me finish...the paragraph- Councilmember Hoy: I'm going to. Commissioner Fanello: -that you guys did come up with doesn't really have a place in this lawsuit. That it seemed more like it was the Council versus the Commissioners or the Commissioners versus the Council and I just don't think that is appropriate and I don't think it sends the correct message to the taxpayers, because they are the ones that we are protecting in this lawsuit. Not the seven Council members up here, but the taxpayers. President Bassemier: Mr. Hoy. Councilmember Hoy: Were you finished? I was going to let you finish up. Commissioner Fanello: Go ahead. Councilmember Hoy: My response to that is we are not sure at this point when this project is going to move forward, develop, get finished, etc. During that period of time the players can change. You may not be looking at the same... seven same people that you are looking at here today. We may not be looking at the same three people, you know, um, I'm not going to say that about the Sheriff, I think he is safe for another term or two, if it were possible. We have seen that happen and that is why I want the language as clear as possible when the attorneys get together. Commissioner Fanello: I guess I'm a little- Councilmember Hoy: They could do similar to what Mr. Tornatta suggested, maybe not copy, you know, directly from the, um- Commissioner Fanello: I guess I'm a little confused then. I mean, you, I guess, passed a resolution at the beginning of this year that says you want to set aside $35 million to do the project. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, the project is moving right now. I guess I don't understand, you don't know when it's going to be started. In my mind, we are moving and we are getting a contract signed with the design team and we are getting a schedule in place, so are we not moving forward on this right now? Councilmember Hoy: You are moving forward, but, um, at this point you still don't have a signed contract. Commissioner Fanello: Well, and we are very close to that. Councilmember Hoy: I know, but I'm...I- Commissioner Fanello: I mean, that is something that- Councilmember Hoy: -I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying that there is a process here, and in the process we are still very much at the front end of the process. That is all I'm saying. That we- Commissioner Fanello: I guess, I want you...I want you or the rest of the Council members to tell me what do you think you've been left out of? Where do you want to come in at? Because, I think, we've made a very decent effort over the past few weeks as far as the design team coming in to make sure that everybody was involved and kept informed of all the meetings that were taking place, so you need to inform me of what you are talking about, because you- Councilmember Hoy: You really...I would really rather not- Commissioner Fanello: So, this- Councilmember Hoy: -but you have asked me to be very candid, I will. I would really rather not resurrect all the instances where there has been tension between this body and your body since January 1, 2001. Commissioner Fanello: Well, I don't doubt that there has been tension, because- Councilmember Hoy: You came to us in February with two proposals that you hadn't even approved in your own body. Commissioner Fanello: Two proposals for what? Councilmember Hoy: Financial proposals. They were laid on our desk- Commissioner Fanello: Those were for you guys to consider. I can't make the decision. Councilmember Hoy: But your body has to approve them first. Commissioner Fanello: Okay, so- Councilmember Hoy: So, we are getting- Commissioner Fanello: -then I won't bring information to you first to look over. I mean, I am trying to make the- Councilmember Hoy: No, you are missing my point. Commissioner Fanello: No, I am not. Councilmember Sutton: Can I add something to this that might be of benefit- President Bassemier: You have the floor. Councilmember Sutton: -to maybe both parties engaged- Councilmember Hoy: What I'm reflecting on and then I will defer to you is, as I said before, and that is previous history, if you remember in my prior statement, I excluded the current Commissioners and said- Commissioner Fanello: I...I understand that. Councilmember Hoy: -and there is a number of points along the way where all of a sudden this Council found out that we had given too much ground, too much latitude- Commissioner Fanello: Well- Councilmember Hoy: -Mr. Wortman, you have been sitting here a long time, and whenever I made that statement I saw heads nodding from both parties, and that is why I think it is important...this is not a personality thing, it has nothing to do with you personally, with Mr. Mosby or Mr. Mourdock. It has to do with the kind of clarity that I like to see, particularly, you know, in processing through this. As this goes down the road, um, there are going to be change orders, I mean, all kinds of things that are likely to occur in a project this large. Commissioner Fanello: As do every project. Suzanne Crouch: May we change the tape, please? President Bassemier: Yes. (Tape Changed.) President Bassemier: Mr. Sutton. Councilmember Sutton: I think what both of you are saying has some merit and a degree of legitimacy to it, but, I think, as we look at this we don't need a legal settlement that we are proposing to put together here to outline the duties and the responsibilities of the Council. Nor the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioners, or the Sheriff. That is clearly all we're going to lay out of the state statue. I think what we are debating and looking at here is who is going to assume leadership. Or who is going to assume a certain amount of responsibility of moving this forward. So much of what I heard in our last meeting disappointed me because of this bodies interest in wanting to take the lead in moving forward. No, this body doesn't take the lead. The county takes the lead, in building this. This building, and the county includes all of its departments, and all of its bodies elected, and not elected to move forward in making this very big decision. Now, if the County Council wants to truly take a leadership role, not the lead, but a leadership role in this big project that we do have, let me name some things that we can be doing in the interim. One is we need to be preparing and looking at the financial package. We have already said $35 million. How do we want to structure that? How do we want to go about doing that if we are looking at $35 million on this project? We need to look at the scope and the impact on our bonding authority as a county. Have we done that? Are we doing that? No. Let's take a lead and start doing that. Let's take a look at the anticipated staffing costs that we are going to be asked to undertake as a county, as a body. That is going to be a large cost. It is obviously not going to be staffed at the level that the jail is staffed at now. Are we looking at that? Are we thinking about that? The Sheriff surely is. Also, looking at the cost and benefits of the type of facility. We have already talked about a Juvenile Facility, Safe House, we haven't talked about specifically, and granted, we don't know what type of facility we are going to have. We haven't really looked at the ramifications of doing one as opposed to another or doing the entire thing. So as a body I really would highly encourage us to engage in active dialogue that addresses these issues, and I think we will be moving forward in respect of what we need to do. Now Commissioners, if they have things that they need to be doing regarding this, obviously, they play a role in this as well, but I'm not on the Commission. I'm on the County Council, but I think these are the type of things that we need to be doing. This is not an entire list, but this is a start. Commissioner Fanello: Very well said, Councilman Sutton. President Bassemier: Mr. Raben. Councilmember Raben: Catherine, while you are up there, let me ask you something, 'cause I know you have spoken a lot on paragraph 13, and this question pertains to our version. What in paragraph 13, or where in paragraph 13 is the County Council overstepping the Commissioners? Commissioner Fanello: Okay, and I'm going to go from this here and I.......... Councilmember Raben: Where do we restrict the Commissioners of any authority? Commissioner Fanello: Can I borrow one of your versions? 'Cause I'm not sure that this..... I'm going to start with the sentence that says, the Vanderburgh County Commissioners shall not obligate Vanderburgh County, including the citizens of Vanderburgh County, or the Vanderburgh County Council, to levy taxes, increase taxes. Now, I'm going to stop right there. I don't think we have any authority to increase taxes, as far as I know. That's your job, is that not correct? Councilmember Raben: Okay. Levy or increase taxes? I mean technically, I guess, you could, if you establish your own authority. Suzanne Crouch: And I think budgets drive taxes. Councilmember Raben: Right. Commissioner Fanello: Yes, but you have to approve those budgets. I can't approve a budget, you have to do that. Councilmember Raben: There again, that is just part of what Councilman Hoy was saying when we discuss clarity. If you sign a contract or establish a separate authority, who in turn commits...... Commissioner Fanello: As far as I...... Councilmember Raben: Again, the county is obligated by the agreement that you signed. In return we are obligated to fulfill that agreement. The fiscal body is obligated at budget time to fulfill your agreement. Commissioner Fanello: So if....let me just ask you this question. If the Building Authority comes in next year and says, I'm raising maintenance costs up to $5 million , you're going to pay that, whether we can afford it or not? Councilmember Raben: That's not the same thing. Commissioner Fanello: That really is the same thing. We have an agreement where we are renting property from them now, but I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. I'll disagree with you. It goes back to what Councilman Sutton said, he had a very good point, you don't know how you are you going to fund it yet. As far as I know, which I haven't really sat down with the Auditor and gone over this, but I don't know that we have enough bonding capacity. Or if we did, you would be using it all up on one project. Councilmember Raben: Okay, well let me just state this, if you can't... technically, you say you can't do that anyway, what's wrong with leaving it in there? Commissioner Fanello: Well then why would you want it in there if we can't do it anyway? Then what is the purpose of putting it in there? Councilmember Raben: Again, it comes back to clarity. Commissioner Fanello: Well then, okay then, I think it should be rewritten to...we need to put in this is the Council's responsibilities, and this is the Commissioners responsibilities, but the way it is written shall not obligate, and then the Vanderburgh County Commissioners shall not take any action or create any building authority, jail authority. I mean, I could turn around and say well I don't want the Vanderburgh County Council to do this, or this, or this. I mean, I just think it violates the whole spirit of this agreement. Councilmember Raben: Again, I....... Councilmember Sutton: I think that sounds like, violates is kind of a strong word. Councilmember Raben: I don't see that. Councilmember Sutton: I think it is just an unnecessary part, I guess, of what we are...the settlement agreement. Commissioner Fanello: You know Kenneth Falk doesn't care whether that is in there or not. He doesn't have anything to do with the settlement Councilmember Raben: I agree, but it does. We as a Council, or I as a Councilmember am concerned about where this whole thing can go and how we can be...how the Council can be completely bypassed. I think this language...... Commissioner Fanello: We can't be bypassed. I mean, we can sit down, Councilman Raben, and I'll sit down with Counselor Ahlers and we will restate the statute. I'd be more than happy to sit down and do that. So that everybody knows. Councilmember Tornatta: And the important part, this is in the record, so I mean, if you went back on your word. Commissioner Fanello: This is a meeting and the public should know what we are talking about. Councilmember Tornatta: I mean, if they go back on their word then..... President Bassemier: Mr. Winnecke is...... Commissioner Fanello: Let me finish the sentence here. President Bassemier: Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Fanello: Issue bonds, borrow funds, appropriate funds, approve leases or contracts without the approval of the County Councilmen. Now the part about leases and contracts as far as I understand from the state statute is that that is an Executive. Councilmember Raben: The funds should be in place prior to signing. Commissioner Fanello: Exactly. You hit it right there. Can't do anything without you. I mean, you just answered your own question. Councilmember Hoy: It's been done, I'll give you an example.... Commissioner Fanello: Well then, this is nothing against you personally, then you all need to stay on the ball. You have a counselor there who needs to be aware of those situations, if something like that happens.... Councilmember Hoy: Catherine, this is a due extension. Just to give one example that comes immediately to mind. When they signed a contract for rent in Darmstadt that we had not approved, and it came before us, and they had moved. We felt in a bind. We don't want to be in that kind of bind. I want to respond to my esteemed colleague over there, Mr. Sutton.......... Commissioner Fanello: Since I was going to read this, can I finish this sentence here? Councilmember Hoy: ...and say to Mr. Sutton that I did not feel that in our last meeting we were jumping ahead, and trying to take the lead. Since we had a deadline on us, and we were responding to the deadline, and no one else was, in my estimation. So I didn't feel this body was jumping ahead. We had, the hammer was supposed to fall on a certain date. We had nothing on our desks, except what Mr. Ahlers had prepared. Frankly, through this whole thing, if Mr. Ahlers had not researched whatever that reform act is, which I can never inform my lawyer, who Mr. Ahlers is, that reform act, he is the one that brought that whole marvelous package, highly detailed, to our attention. Mr. Ahlers' expertise for one thing. So, we were in the spot where, I felt as a Councilman, we had a deadline and we had to respond with something. I'm not saying it is a perfect document, but we did our best with it. And I don't feel, Mr. Sutton, that we jumped ahead, or that we were trying to take the lead. I think that we were just responding to a situation before us. We were facing a deadline and we said okay, we'll fulfill our obligation to meet that deadline at this point. Now we are at the point where it has been extended, which I am delighted to see, because I think this gives us some time to reasonably work this out. Now I am very comfortable with the three lawyers getting together and doing that. President Bassemier: Mr. Winnecke. Councilmember Winnecke: Since Commissioner Fanello and I each have a EUTS policy board meeting in this room in 30 minutes, I have three direct questions. One for Catherine, and two for the Sheriff. First, Catherine, while you are up, relating to paragraph 13, the whole intent, in your opinion, what is the intent of creating a jail authority? Commissioner Fanello: I don't know. That has to come down with... we are going over the financial, that has to do with where we are financially. All I want to see is the best decision. What is going to not hurt the taxpayers in anyway. So I don't know. I mean, like Councilman Sutton said, you guys have got to start looking at that stuff, and that's, that's information that really ought to...should have been coming to the Commissioners. I don't really think that I should be gathering all the financial data. That is something that you guys need to take a lead on, and help us make the decision. Councilmember Winnecke: I would concede many of those points. I guess my questions still is what is the... if the intent of the Commission is to create a jail authority, why? I don't know the answer to it. Commissioner Fanello: And I don't know the answer myself, 'cause I don't know what we are doing. Councilmember Winnecke: Well, what purpose would it serve? Commissioner Fanello: My question to you would be, then how do you as a Council see this project as being funded? Councilmember Winnecke: Well, I think the Council, in my personal opinion is, that in the beginning of the year we set aside $2.7 million, and based on the financial information provided by the County's Chief Financial Officer, the Auditor, there is enough money to set aside that much money for up to ten years to help fund, or to help service any jail debt. So, I'm comfortable with that until another scenario is presented. My only question is, if a jail authority is created, I don't know the purpose it would serve? Commissioner Fanello: Well, in a financial sense, the purpose it would serve is that your bonding capacity wouldn't be limited. I mean, you aren't going to be able to just go out and build a jail and just set aside $2.7 million. That's a little more complicated and you know that, you work in a bank. It's a little more complicated than that. So a jail authority, it all depends, like I said, on what financial, what our financial status is, and how we want to bond. I mean, that would take, that would free up our bonding capacity, for the county to do other things. Councilmember Winnecke: Okay. Commissioner Fanello: Because that is my concern that we are going to use up all of our bonding capacity on one project. Councilmember Winnecke: That's a fair answer. Now in interest of time, I have two more questions for the Sheriff, if it is okay. In paragraph 12, we are regressing a little bit here, of one of the agreements, it talks about temporary beds for prisoners. We talked about this briefly in the Executive Session, and maybe Mr. Bodkin can help. I think this is something that we would... everyone would feel more comfortable if it were more clearly defined. Is that right? Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Brad Ellsworth Sheriff of Vanderburgh County, assisted by my attorney Tom Bodkin, and a heck of a guy. Things like that are the things that need to be clarified. That could be simply a mattress, which we provide now, and sheets, and blankets. Or it could mean, I don't know what Mr. Falk is thinking of, bunk beds I put up and down the hallways of the current facility. Or the thing we refer to as canoes or boats that a plastic, polymer composite bed that raises the inmate 8" off the floor. I have issues with either of those things that would interrupt the flow of operation of that, by clarification on that, from Falk. Councilmember Winnecke: Given current standard operating procedures, do you have mattresses and sheets to accommodate necessary people that would not be an additional cost to the county? Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: It's additional cost with the money you give me. Then I supplement that with Commissary. We can make sure we have a mattress for everybody, and sheets and towels. There is nobody sleeping on a hard floor or a hard bunk in that jail, nor has there ever been. Councilmember Winnecke: I understand that. And my last question then I'll be quiet. I promise. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Oh, that's okay. Councilmember Winnecke: Relating toward the end of what I'm looking at is paragraph 19 regarding the recreational. Do you anticipate additional personnel to meet the issues outlined there or do you feel comfortable with what we are able to provide today? Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: However the final agreement reads, we are going to have a lot of staffing needs down the way. We are going to have a lot of staffing issues. This turn around for the new facility, if and when that happens that I don't for see changing a lot of procedures now but, the physical plan isn't going to let us change a lot of the procedure in the current facility. I can't see doing a lot of staffing for this when we know on the horizon we are going to have to. It will not take the same staffing levels as you said to operate a new building. We will comply with whatever, but it would depend on the wording. If it says what's reasonable, I think we are being very reasonable now on our exercise policy. Councilmember Wortman: I was just listening to everybody here, and I think, and along with Mr. Hoy's statement over there, we had a deadline to meet, and we weren't making any progress, and I think that's what the Council was concerned about if more or less anything. To get something a'movin here. And then, as far as, setting aside this $35 million, that's not to raise taxes ,hopefully. Will the Commission be comfortable with that $35 million? Commissioner Fanello: Whatever you want to spend. Councilmember Wortman: Well that's what they set aside. Are you comfortable with it? Commissioner Fanello: I'll do whatever you ask me to do. Councilmember Wortman: Okay, thank you. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: And also in there that if the Council and Commission as person or at least somebody that's dressed like this is going to run the building. I'd rather stay in what we got than with the price and get three sub-standard products, for $35 million. Or some kind of product that is run by the price. I'm all for keeping taxes low and not raising them, but you are running into some dangerous problems when you let that price run what we have built. I mean, especially if you decided on all three. I'm not saying they can't do that, but you got some major questions to ask yourself. There are things that if we reduce quality and people are busting out of paper thin walls, or whatever, we are going to be sorry down the road. This project only comes along once in our political lifetimes. Curt, you weren't here when they built the one in '69 were you? I didn't think so. You weren't that old. So, they were better before that. We are going to do this once. So, hopefully, in our, maybe in our physical lifetimes, not only just political, that it's time to do it right, and...... Councilmember Winnecke: But in all fairness, Sheriff, $35 million is a lot of money. We are not going to build something with paper walls. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: It's a ton of money. I don't think any of this is going to, you know, it will probably have our names in the cornerstone of this facility. It's an unpopular thing to build. It is all across the country, but it needs to be built effective and efficient. And cost is in mind that has a flow, and the design needs to drive this more than the dollars. I know we can't spend...we are not going to build the Lexington Jail, but we need to build what is right for Vanderburgh County. Councilmember Wortman: The only thing is, and I think it should be built right, be practical, but I do not want a hotel type jail. So, no fancy stuff and all that. I think that's why the $35 million was set in. So we don't succeed, and work from there. We had to have a figure to work by. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: I have toured about 30 jails since we started this project, and I haven't seen one with any hotel finishings yet. I don't know if you have ever sat on a stainless steel toilet, but it's not like home. But the reason they put stainless steel toilets in showers, 'cause these people over here don't treat it like the Holiday Inn in your $75 suit. They try to break out of the place, and they try to tear it up on purpose, and that's why the design, that's why I press so hard for direct supervisors 'cause you save money because less and less problems like that occur. In some direct supervision jails you can go with a china toilet over stainless steel instead of a $3,000 toilet. There is nobody I have heard yet that wants to do anything fancy for this particular population. Just it needs to be healthy, safety for the staff, safety for the inmates. I need to be able to do the job that the constitution tells me I have to do. But I don't think we need to cut corners. When I say cut corners, I'm talking about sub-standard stuff, based on a price. Unfortunately Vanderburgh County is facing because somebody years ago didn't plan ahead, and I'm not talking about anybody present, or this body, or Commission, or whatever, that we are facing three issues at one time. We have a Community Corrections Center that is, as you know, this week the roof blew off again. Do you want to stay in Community Corrections? You all decide. If we are going to stay in that and you think that is a good idea, then we need a new Community Corrections Center, of some form. Juveniles, we have no place to house juveniles in Vanderburgh County either. That commits a murder, if it's a murder it is in adult court. We don't have any place to put a juvenile. The fact that our jail has been overcrowded since Sheriff De Groote, the guy that hired me 20 years ago. We wouldn't be facing a three pronged issue had somebody got off their butts and planned this years ago when the problem first got bad. Unfortunately, this body and the last Commission and this Commission and this Sheriff's office, we are finally moving. I commend you all for finally moving. I commend you all for finally, somebody doing something. But it's getting a little ugly here between the Council and Commission. I feel like I need to stand up here and be the mediator between some of the stuff. And I don't mind saying, here is your turn to tell me to shut up, paragraph 13 has nothing to do with the agreement between he ICLU and it has nothing to do, it's not going to mean a hill of beans. Let's take that out of there. Then let's get the three attorneys together, or two attorneys together, we'll take mine out of it. Then they can come up with another separate document. We'll get Jeff and Phil together that spells out the duties of the Council and Commission. That is a totally separate clean document. You all can frame it or do whatever you do, and clean this one up to go with the ICLU. Then you all know. That is just a personal opinion from somebody who has been to every meeting and is getting frustrated. Councilmember Tornatta: And that brings a good point, one that I want to make to not only to the Council, but to the Commission. I think we far to overstep some of our thoughts, and not consulted the Sheriff's office, who I believe have went over and above what you could expect that office to do to try and maintain the professionalism that it's gonna take to build this facility. They know the sticks the bricks. They know what should go in and what should not. They are, in conversation with them, they are cutting some amenities that would help them to cut costs for the county. Now if they are taking that leadership role, how could we ever ask them if they are going to build a hotel? How could we ever ask them and question their judgement on building a facility, when they have been to places they have worked to find out the information so we don't have to. Why are we not relying on them more? Why is the Commission not asking them more questions, or relying on them more in their decision making? Because, I believe, that when it all comes down to it, they are the ones that are going to end up saving us or costing us, but as you see they have done the leg work to try and save us money and try and help us out. I think we have to put a little bit more faith in what they are doing along way. Councilmember Hoy: I don't know if it is appropriate to make another motion here today is it, Mr. Ahlers? I'll make a motion. I want to go back to what Mr. Sutton said, because, as I said, there is only one point he made that I disagree with. I fully agree with you, Mr. Sutton, on investigating our bonding capacity. I would like to make a motion that we get the necessary people together to look into the bonding capacity for this project. Also, and I think the Auditor can do this for us fairly handily, give us a report on current projects which we have bonded and where those projects are right now. That's my motion. Then I have a comment on it. Sir, my comment is it could well be, as Commissioner Fanello said, we may have to bond ourselves to our fullest capacity to do this project. However, as we have seen sitting on this Council eventually, we pay certain bonds off. We will begin to pay some things off which will expand the bonding capacity, or keep it where it should be. That's why that information, I think, would be helpful Suzanne Crouch: The bonding capacity for Vanderburgh County is 2% of our assessed valuation. Our assessed valuation is $1 billion, $427million, some $360 thousand, I'm not for certain. Percent, that means our bonding capacity is somewhere in the neighborhood of $28 million that we can bond and back by property taxes. Currently the only project that we have on the books that is backed by property taxes is the USI Union Township overpass, and that is in the neighborhood of $8.4 million bond. All the other bonds that we have are either payable by freedom beverage, or by TIF revenues, or by COIT. And I'll be happy to make a list of those bonds and provide that to you. Where those sources of revenues that make those payments come from. I'll be happy to do that. Councilmember Sutton: I think that along lines with that, if we want to evaluate that perhaps maybe some information that assures we get some type of blended structure. Where it is not just coming with one source, might be very helpful. So if you could maybe outline the bonding capacities on each of those different sources and where we stand and what we have remaining. Councilmember Wortman: We're still gonna have to have a price. What this project is going to cost before we can do anything. Councilmember Hoy: You are absolutely right. I just want to see where we are plus, we set aside $2.7 on January 1st. 2002 we are going to be able to set aside another big hunk of money. You don't have to bond that money. You have that up front. If it takes three years ,who knows, we may have a third hunk. I'm doubtful we will, but that is what I mean about looking at the full picture, so that we can follow through on what you said, Mr. Sutton. Councilmember Sutton: I think we need to be careful on that $2.7 million . Let's keep in mind that that was just for this year. What was talked about in future years was based on a projection of if we set aside $2.7 million a year. Not that we...cause we don't have the authority to obligate the future Councils for $2.7 million over the next 10 years. We need to get rid of this note all together. We don't have that much money sitting aside. We just have the $2.7 million, and so as we think about options, we need to look at the difference sources that are out there because there is no.....I can't see that a Council....who knows who will be on this Council five, six, seven years down the road. Setting aside $2.7 million from their General Fund for this project, and being happy with that. Councilmember Hoy: Well by that time we'll be making the payments out of the General Fund on the bonds anyhow. I mean, indeed when this contract is signed and we sign the financing on it then, in truth, those future Councils and future Commissioners will be bound by those decisions. Just as we are currently bound by decisions made by a previous bodies to bond and interchange and a bridge in Union Township Councilmember Hoy: Anyway, that is the only comment I have, um, I think that we are, you know, acting as wisely as we can. President Bassemier: Okay, the Sheriff walked up. Did you want to add something before it gets to Mr. Winnecke or answer to Curt? Councilmen Wortman: I guess, probably you're going to point the finger at me. Twenty years ago, and I should of thought of this and (inaudible) built a new jail. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Long before your time. Councilmen Wortman: But I know, and at that time, I think, it was talked about, you know. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Sure. Councilmen Wortman: Just as you- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: I've got letters from the group to the Councils and Commissions and a Federal Judge even- Councilmen Wortman: Right. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: -that I've still got in the boxes where De Groote was calling and asking. They had Commissions on jail overcrowding and they had a jail expansion team- Councilmen Wortman: Right. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: -that, you know, that Kinkle and his group, you know, were part of in drawing jails- Councilmen Wortman: Uh-huh. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: -so, you know, nothing was done. We're basically paying for now...we're going to plan and we're going to fix what didn't get done. Councilmen Wortman: See at that time- Councilmember Hoy: You're absolutely right. When I got out of graduate school in 1962 we advocated then a Juvenile Facility. When I became Director of the Youth Service Bureau in 1972, every study we had ever done said build a Juvenile Facility. When I came on this Council I said let's build a Juvenile Facility, and as soon as I said that the Juvenile Judge was standing right where you are standing saying oh, no let's not do that. We are...we're paying the debt off for that kind of delay. You are quite right, Sheriff. So, we do have our hands full. We do have a motion on the floor though. President Bassemier: Okay, that was still on discussion. Mr. Winnecke. Councilmember Winnecke: Actually my question is not related to the motion, so I shouldn't ask it now. President Bassemier: Okay. Alright, I've got a motion...it was we had a motion and a second- Councilmember Winnecke: I was trying to stay focused here. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Was Curt's question about- Councilmen Wortman: I just remember at that time we didn't have a lot of taxes or accessed valuation wasn't that high- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Sure. Councilmen Wortman: -and we had a heck of a time hiring extra deputies at that time. I remember we discussed this and that and it was rough- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Sure. Councilmen Wortman: -you know, we was in a financial bind that time, I remember that. So, we just as we go along we try to do the best we can see. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: I've just got a comment about what Curt said earlier, but if you want to vote first and then I'll- President Bassemier: That will be fine. Councilmember Winnecke: Could we...could we repeat the motion please? President Bassemier: (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) Does Mr. Hoy need to repeat the motion? Councilmember Winnecke: In 15 seconds or less. Councilmember Hoy: The essence of the motion was that we ask the Auditor, and whomever else we need to ask, what our bonding capacity is? Which she has given us a hand at, and also when certain bonds will be paid off. She has clarified a number of things already, which I appreciate. So, that we know where we are heading, because that, I think, your questions...your issue, rather as Mr. Sutton said, an issue that we need to directly address, so why not address it today? President Bassemier: Okay. I have a motion- Councilmember Hoy: Explore the bonding now, and then we can have some things done when contracts come down our way. President Bassemier: Okay. Did he repeat that okay? Councilmember Raben: Yeah, he just did. President Bassemier: Okay, I have a motion and a second, let's roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmen Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier? President Bassemier: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, I think as...and this is not a motion. Not a motion. I'm just speaking personally, as I always do, we are looking at three facilities. I think that as a Council we need to look very, very hard at the size and scope. I would like to do this in cooperation with the Sheriff since it is, you know, under your jurisdiction, but I think we need to, to look at the size and scope of Community Corrections, and have a really good thorough discussion of that and also...that ties in with what you raised too, Mr. Sutton, about the scope of this, because our Community Corrections program is the largest in the state. It is larger than Marion County, and I think that we have carried this ball long enough without, you know, stopping the game, to use a sports analogy, and said wait a minute, where is this going? I don't want us to do that as a body alone, I think, obviously, we want your input and input of your staff, but as we look at budget this year, I think, it's, that's something we should look at. In this process, I don't know whether we need to address that, Mr. Sutton, with a motion but that ties in, I think, with one of your questions about the scope of this. If I were...and I'll make this my last comment, I promise you, maybe. If I were to make a decision between Safe House size and Juvenile Facility, I would move the Juvenile Facility ahead of Safe House in terms of priority. I think it is much more necessary to build that, to build that adequately than it is to increase Community Corrections. Um, and we handed you, um, a good mess of pottage when we handed you that, and did not expect you to, to, um, straighten all of that out overnight. I appreciate the work that you have done. I'm just saying- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: And the Advisory Board. Include the Advisory Board in that. Councilmember Hoy: -yes, I do, and the Advisory Board too, but I think maybe that is something...the scope of that needs to be looked at as well. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: That ties into what, if I can, when Curt said, you know, what...we need to get a handle on the price here of what we are building, and I think that is what we need to do, and I kind of go back to the PMSI study, and the numbers, although crude and they are kind of those starting numbers of 500 to 700 bed, you know, 500 expandable to 700. This design team will come close to that, I'm sure. They talked about a 225 Community Corrections Center, and I think, Councilman Hoy, you are exactly right, that is something that we have to look at and say who is being placed out there? I know early on in Community Corrections...we came and tried to redo some things on who was being assigned to Community Corrections and the board at that time overrode that and who was being placed out there. So, a lot of the Community Corrections are C's and D's only, and we've got people out there who aren't just C's and D's. So, I think that is something that the Community Corrections Advisory Board can revisit and the number is out there. Councilmember Hoy: A gentleman, excuse me, Sheriff, but just to back up what you said. I am aware of a case where a gentleman was placed there for what will eventually be five years- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Remember the twenty year one? Councilmember Hoy: Yeah. There is even one longer. This is not what Community Corrections was created for, and I don't think we have a disagreement do we, Sheriff, on that. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Yeah, like I said, I think there is a consensus. We've had a jail that has been 100% overcrowded for years and years and years. 100% every day. So, I think, I don't think anybody says we don't need more jail bed space in Vanderburgh County. We've got a Corrections Center that has served it's purpose. 115 year old factory, but it's...you all know what's happening over there. The Community Correction Advisory Board has written a letter to this body saying, please don't include this building in your future plans. We've got juvenile, so I don't think...I think what we need to do is let this design team based on those numbers, is do their design. Five expandable to seven, somewhere between 100 and 200 or 225 on this Community Corrections and a small Juvenile Center and let them come back with that pr...you know, we are going to be able to get pretty close on 150 a square foot or whatever once they get this design, and then we can say...you know, if it's $150 million, you're gonna say, can't do that. Um, we need to cut 50 off, you know, that takes out the Community Corrections, we're out of that business. Or, you know, we cut the juvenile to where it's something you are going to..you know, they can design all three and come in and say it's $69 million and then you say, well, we're confident with what they did, we're all comfortable with that, we can do it. I'm not...I'm just throwing numbers out here, because I don't want to get quoted on a number. That was a fatal mistake early on in this process, but, um, you know, I think we need to let the design team do this based on their programming. They are going to start that next week, and coming down and talking to the staff, and the jailers and office space and how many programming rooms in the jail. Let them do that and they are going to come back with a pretty rough foot estimate on it, and then we can say we are going to have to not do Community Corrections at all, and lay off 63 people- Councilmen Wortman: Well, I think it's true. I think that if you compile the jail and then juvenile as Mr. Hoy said, Corrections Center out there. If you might come in and you might do 'em for $38 million, see it's not set in concrete, but at the same time we want to be practicable and we had to set a figure somewhere- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Right. Councilmen Wortman: -see and thata way we can go from there. You do that anytime- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Absolutely. Councilmen Wortman: -you make a projection. I think that is common sense. President Bassemier: Sheriff, if you could in the next couple of weeks, and I'll be glad to go with you or whatever there. They just completed that...I think you've been going around in your...and that's great, I mean, you've been everywhere and checking out other facilities. If you get a chance sometime in the next couple of weeks, go over to Owensboro- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Sure. President Bassemier: -to that Daviess. Mr. Taylor is over there. He has opened the door for us over there- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Sure. President Bassemier: -and I understand that they have just completed a 427 bed facility with indoor basketball court, meets maximum, I mean, it meets Federal and State regulations and stuff for $9.2 million and that does not count the land. They've got a couple of other facilities over there with the juveniles and similar to what we might want to do here, so if you could take a couple- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Absolutely. President Bassemier: -if you would check that out and see how he did that- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: I've been to North Carolina, Owensboro is not a (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) President Bassemier: You probably, you've probably met Mr. Taylor. If you need to make contact with him, but he, he's welcomed us over there anytime to show us through there- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Sure. President Bassemier: -and I think it just opened...Susan just, she's from Kentucky she's probably, she probably aware of their opening, but $9.2 million...and that's a 427 maximum security, and it's fantastic. I mean, I worked in the jail here back in 1969 and I'm familiar with jails and if you'd go over there, I think that you would be impressed at how it is shaped like the wagon wheel and you can see everything...every quarters and everything. It's well put together. So, if you could do that for me- Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: How about week after next? We'll just set it up. President Bassemier: Appreciate that. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth: Okay. That is all I had on that, you know, the design team. Where we are at on design, they are coming down and starting programming and that next week and meeting with the different staffs and all that, so, we are moving that way. Councilmember Hoy: I move we adjourn. Councilmember Tornatta: Second. Meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL _____________________________
____________________________
_____________________________
____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
Recorded by Teri Lukeman. Transcribed by Madelyn Grayson & Mike Cundiff.  |
