The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 4th day of March, 2009 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 8:31 a.m. by County Council President Tom Shetler, Jr.

President Shetler: Okay, good morning. Today is March the 4^th, it’s a hair past 8:30 and I’d like to welcome everybody to the Vanderburgh County Council meeting. First we’ll have the attendance and then we’ll have the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilman Joe Kiefer.

COUNCILMEMBER	PRESENT	ABSENT
Councilmember Sutton	X
Councilmember Bassemier	X
Councilmember Lloyd	X
Councilmember Goebel	X
Councilmember Raben		X
Councilmember Kiefer	X
President Shetler	X

President Shetler: There being a quorum, six present and one absent, Councilman Kiefer, if you could lead us in Pledge of Allegiance please.

President Shetler: Alright, we need a motion for approval of the minutes of February the 4^th and February the 6^th meetings. February 6^th was a special meeting that we had.

President Shetler: Do we have any questions, any comments? If not, roll call please.

President Shetler: We have the appropriation ordinance. With Councilman Raben’s absence, I’ll handle those. First we have the Recorder’s office and I would entertain a motion for approval on that. Do I have a motion?

President Shetler: Yes, that’s correct. That’s what I have. Okay, any other questions? Roll call please.

President Shetler: Next is the Jail and that’s for the Civilian Shift Differential, $5,800. Do I have a motion on that?

President Shetler: Its been moved and seconded. Any questions, comments? Roll call please.

President Shetler: Next is the Election Office and that’s the PERF for $102. Do I have a motion for approval please?

President Shetler: Its been moved and seconded. Any questions? Any comments? Roll call please.

President Shetler: The next is on the Cooperative Extension, Contractual Services. I think we had some questions about this the last time and I’m not sure – I think Councilman Raben had indicated that he hadn’t gotten all the information that he had asked for, but do I have a motion for approval on this?

President Shetler: We have a second. Do we have any questions about – yes, Councilman Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: This Co-op Extension, this was – I guess to recap, this differential would be between what wage increase that Purdue University would grant their employees versus what Vanderburgh County had set, which the Council had set the two and a half percent. So based on the information that we received on it, I would urge the Councilmembers to vote no on this.

President Shetler: Alright, thank you. I think last week underneath the discovery portion of it, basically, that’s what we had found or indicated, is that Purdue gave a three percent increase, we had a two and a half percent, and basically, we have been fairly consistent in that on joint departments with the city and the county, whatever agency had the control over the governing body, like city, if they were, for example, on Purchasing, that rate increase went into effect for them. So Purchasing people got a five hundred dollar across the board increase because that’s what the city did across their board. Even though they were joint, and they may have benefitted from a two and a half, they got the five hundred dollars. So we’ve been consistent in holding the line on that. So do I have other questions? Yes, Councilman Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Just one thought on this, too, if the Cooperative Extension employees, if they would be able to work out something with Purdue University where they could become full-time employees of Purdue, I think the Council would certainly commend that and then they would be maybe covered by the benefits of Purdue or the wage increase of Purdue. But currently, they’re still classified as Vanderburgh County employees. So I think that’s why we need to consider the salary ordinance that Vanderburgh County uses.

President Shetler: The next is the Community Corrections in the amount of $4,921. Do I have a motion for approval?

President Shetler: Moved and seconded. Any questions, comments? Roll call please.

President Shetler: Next is Drug & Alcohol Deferral Service for $4,100 for rent. I think we had some questions on that the last time. Motion for approval?

President Shetler: Its been seconded. I think there’s some questions concerning that rent, exact location and if there was other opportunities, does anybody have the same questions this time or – yes, Councilman Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: I was just going to say Mrs. Koch is from the DADS program, so –

Deloris Koch: 111 Northwest Fourth Street, it’s called the Landmark Building. It’s on Fourth Street between Sycamore and Vine.

Councilmember Kiefer: Just out of curiosity, I think one of the questions that was asked last week was about the size of the facility, what type of rent you have, is this a gross rent, is it a net rent, triple net rent, is it a space that possibly could have been, you know, since we have so much vacancy at the Old Courthouse, is it a space that could be at some of our other locations, where we actually own --

Deloris Koch: It’s possible that it could be at another location. I would have some concerns about who would pay for the renovation to remodel a space for our purposes. We have need for individual offices for our staff because of the privacy concerns for our clients. They would have to – you know, it wouldn’t be enough just to do partitions. In a large space, we would actually need separate offices, I believe, to keep the sound controlled. And also, as far as clients that are entering and leaving the building, we need to keep that relatively discreet. So it has served our purposes quite well for this long. I wouldn’t object to a move if a space could be designed for our needs without a great deal of expense.

Councilmember Kiefer: How big of a facility is that right now that you’ve rented?

Deloris Koch: The space we have – the lease agreement says approximately 1,800 square feet.

President Shetler: Joe, could I recommend that perhaps you might get with Ms. Koch later on and be able to sit down with her since that’s your field of expertise, and look at it and just analyze that between the Old Courthouse and see what kind of needs and see if it’s even possible to accommodate them at one of our other buildings that we’re paying rent on?

President Shetler: I think Councilman Goebel and then Councilman Bassemier. Thank you.

Councilmember Goebel: Deloris, as far as your clientele, is there a screening process when they enter your facility?

Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. President, I’m the liaison officer for that department and I’ve talked with Mrs. Koch and I’d like to sit in, if I could, with Mr. Kiefer. And also, we talked about maybe using the old jail. And, of course, I’ve got a meeting in a couple of days with Dave Rector. And she said she would not be against that if there is privacy and the partitions are right or the walls. And we also talked about the courthouse and a few other locations, so if it’s okay, I’d like to sit in on that meeting. I’ll get with Joe when he’s going to meet with Mrs. Koch, if that’s okay with you.

President Shetler: Sure. I guess the other thing might be some kind of profile of your clientele as far as geographic profile is what I’m thinking, I guess, more or less. And that might be helpful to them to try to determine what properties we have available that might work best for them for your, typically, your people that are using the service.

Deloris Koch: We definitely prefer a downtown location close to the courthouse because I have to be in the court every morning. And I currently walk, I can do the few blocks, that’s not a problem, but definitely, we want to keep it close to the court building.

Councilman Sutton: I don’t know if you, depending on what the structure and the topic is on the meeting and how far you might want to – but you might want to have one of the Commissioners involved with this as well, since we are talking about building space and contracts and so forth.

President Shetler: We might get a hold of Commissioner Tornatta on that to see if one of them could join you in the meeting to try to figure out –

Councilmember Kiefer: Yeah, I’ll do that because I think its important to try to utilize current space that we have, but I will also add that, at that rent rate, if it’s a gross rent, includes utilities, that is very, very cheap rent, so it’s not like it’s a bad rent rate or anything like that. But utilization of other county owned space would be best or ideal if it made sense. Thank you.

Councilmember Lloyd: This summary, you know, Commissioner Tornatta was here last week and he had talked about, I think the Council indicated to him we’d like to see an analysis of all the county rent, especially outside this building, the different outside facilities, what the county is paying in rent. Obviously, that’s the Commissioner’s call, but there may be ways where we can have efficiencies especially when you look at the Old Courthouse, you know, the possibility of renovating the old jail space, these are areas that have quite a bit of square foot available. You know, in this case, this looks like the county is getting a pretty good deal on the building and it serves their needs well, but if there are other locations where we may be paying outside rent that we don’t need to be.

President Shetler: Right, thank you. Okay, Councilman Sutton, did you have a further comment or was that –

President Shetler: The next is Cumulative Bridge fund, $5,908. Do I have a motion for approval?

President Shetler: And seconded. Are there any questions? Mr. Duckworth is here. Yes, Councilman Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: I was going to ask our attorney if he had looked at the ordinance. Wasn’t this the state of emergency in the county?

Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, I mean, I think, well, based on looking at the ordinance, the money is due to be paid. So I think the issue we discussed the other day was whether or not going forward, did the Commissioners want to relook at it. But their ordinance as they’ve currently got it written says that the money, you know, that that’s the amount of money that should be paid.

Councilman Sutton: I think our question was when, the timeliness, I guess, and how that may coincide. Maybe it’s more appropriate, maybe germane to the next item as opposed to this one. But with the – I think there’s probably two different issues maybe with the two requests we’ve got there.

President Shetler: Okay, any other comments or questions? Let’s stay with the Bridge then for the moment here. There being no other questions or comments, roll call please.

President Shetler: Next is the Local Roads & Streets fund appropriation. Do I have a motion for approval?

Councilman Sutton: I’m okay with the Bituminous, that’s a heck of a word, materials part of this request, but I think I’ve already spoken enough on the other. But the request for the Supervisor overtime, I still think that the ordinance, it does not speak clearly, and the timeliness in regards to receiving the FEMA funds first, as opposed to paying this out. I think there’s a real issue. I’m going to vote against it, but I don’t have a problem with the material.

Councilmember Bassemier: Does the handbook cover that? That in a state of emergency, that we do pay overtime to the supervisors? Is that in our handbook?

Councilmember Bassemier: I didn’t know if there was a change. Okay, thank you.

President Shetler: I know that when we had this circumstance come up before, we did place on there and if timeliness sounds to me to be the question, Councilman Sutton, and perhaps I’m incorrect there, but, and what we did is actually stipulated that that wasn’t paid out until we received the federal funding, which came about two or three months later for it. So I don’t know if anyone would want to entertain that as an amendment to your motion, I mean, to the motion that was made here to delay it until such time that we actually received the money then.

Jeff Ahlers: One of the things I would add there is that, I mean, I think that determination needs to be made by the County Commissioners and their attorney when it’s paid because now you’re getting into potentially labor and employment laws. I mean, I’m just telling you that it’s clear from the handbook and ordinance, you know, it’s saying, doesn’t condition it upon anything. If they want to do that or you want to overture them to look at that and do that, you may do that, but I don’t – I would encourage you not to put that stipulation on that money from here because

I think that’s a decision that the Commissioners and their attorney need to make because you get into, you know, wage payment statutes and such as to when things may be due and owing, and I think they need to make that call because it’s their department and the executive branch.

Councilman Sutton: Well, but here’s your issue, in that ordinance it specifically indicates that it’s related to a state of emergency. When I asked Commissioner Tornatta when he was here last week, how many days were we under the state of emergency, he indicated that there was one. The pay that we’re talking about here is for more than one day. And who declares that state of emergency? Is it a local state of emergency? State? So just, there’s some issues there that really aren’t clear and so the amount that we’re paying out, even if you look beyond the supervisor and who was actually getting the pay, you still aren’t really, have a clear path of how this should be paid out and why.

Jeff Ahlers: And I think it’s appropriate, if you want, there isn’t a timeliness problem with them getting their money, I mean, I think it’s clearly appropriate, if you guys want to call a representative from the County Commissioners and the County Attorney in here to ask them that question. I’m just saying that that is, you know, their department and that’s a call that they ultimately have to make as to how they comply with their salary ordinances and labor and employment laws. So, I mean, if you have factual questions, I think that that’s certainly something that this Council has the ability to look into, but I think you need to get those folks before you then and ask the questions. Do you know what I’m saying?

Councilmember Lloyd: We talked about this a little bit last week, the state of emergency, that is a legal situation that’s declared by either the mayor or the County Commissioners or both. I thought it was more than one day, though, he said one day? Is that right? Commissioner Tornatta? Seemed like the public was asked to be off the streets more than one day.

Councilman Sutton: Well, it was recommended that people not, but we weren’t under a state of emergency on some of those other days, just that one day.

President Shetler: Well, and I was confused myself because I know that there are different levels of a state of emergency and I think that there was one day that it was at the high peak, and then there was another couple of days where it was at a different level, and what constituted a state of emergency by law, according to what we were looking at, so the point is well taken.

Councilmember Kiefer: I have a question. If the state of emergency was only one day, but yet, there is enough monies here in place for three days, can we amend – can we vote to amend this to say, overtime pay not to exceed the amount of the state of emergency even though we’re voting for more money than may actually be there? Because now I’m confused. Was the state of emergency one day or three days? And so, I believe this money is for three days.

Councilman Sutton: Well, not to refute my own argument, but what they’re saying is that the conditions that were created during that period of time took more than one day – took an extended period of time beyond the one day. That’s really what’s being said here, if I’m correct.

Councilmember Kiefer: Yeah, but I thought the law said that we only had to pay during the state of emergency time. Overtime during that state of emergency. So I guess I’m looking back at you, Jeff, to say okay, if that’s the case, then can we pass this with this amount, but just request that they only spend whatever amounts of money was available for that one day instead of three days?

Jeff Ahlers: One of the things I would say you can look at here is keeping in mind that, you know, we appropriate money, they make some of these decisions as to actually, you know, I guess authorizing the overtime for their employees. I guess one of the questions would be, is if there is sufficient funds in those accounts, I don’t know that you have to do anything today. Now if those accounts, you know, don’t have enough funds to pay what they’re asking, you know, then perhaps you need to make an appropriation today. But otherwise, you know, I suppose that you could put this off to do your factual investigation.

Bill Fluty: This is a special account, this 2160-1300 and there is no money in that. So if you don’t act today, it is zero and we could not pay from that account.

President Shetler: Mr. Duckworth, could you shed any light as far as the actual time of the state of emergency and if it’s less than, justify the rest?

Mike Duckworth: I’ll try to clarify this as best I can. I will tell you that, first of all, Mike Duckworth, Superintendent of County Highway department. I will tell you that I received my information from Sherman Greer as to the length of the state of emergency. It commenced – let me get my notes here – it commenced on the 26^th, which was a Monday and it actually was not lifted until the following Monday, on the second of February. And Mr. Sutton is right, although the announcement to the public was that they were not remanded to stay at home and stay off the roads, there is a gray area there about the type of state of emergency there was, but the declaration was signed and it was not lifted until the 2^nd. During that time period, the hours that I provided to you is what the supervisors worked. And that’s what we feel should be paid under the ordinance. I will say this, there are three different areas here. First of all, the Cum Bridge, we have Cum Bridge employees that are called in after the Highway employees are called in, that had to be called in. They’re only allocated about $5,000 a year in their overtime account. And this appropriation is to replenish that because we don’t know what’s going to be coming up later on in the year and we want to have necessary funds in that account. The highway account money has almost been depleted because of the number of call-outs, not only during this state of emergency, but other call-outs that we’ve had for wind storms and snow storms and different things. And that’s been depleted. So the union employees have been paid. This is to replenish those accounts for future needs in the area of overtime in the bridge and the highway. And Mr. Fluty indicated the highway supervisor account carries a zero amount until this comes into effect, and then we ask for an appropriation to cover the time period that was worked during these hours. And that’s what we’ve done. I believe that’s $8,428, something to that effect.

President Shetler: Let me ask you this: do you do the hiring out there when there is a vacancy for –

President Shetler: I’m talking about a union job, or the Commissioners do the hiring and do you interview them at all? Do you, when they start their job, do you talk to them?

Mike Duckworth: Are you talking about the union employees or are you talking about the supervisors?

President Shetler: Any employee that goes to the county garage. Union or non-union.

Mike Duckworth: The Superintendent does interview them and makes a recommendation to the Commissioners. The Commissioners, many times will tell us who to interview or how many to interview and those kinds of things.

President Shetler: When you’re in that discussion with them, when you’re interviewing, do you point out that it’s a 40 hour job or do you indicate the fact that there could be situations that arise that they may be called upon, particularly during snow seasons, where they may have to go out and clear the streets at 2:00 in the morning and –

Mike Duckworth: Well, it’s completely different because the union employees, by contract, if they’re called out over 40 hours, the county is required to pay them for that time, time and a half, and they have a specific –

President Shetler: I understand that. But my question more specifically is, do you, when you’re interviewing and you’re talking to them or describing to them their job responsibilities, do you indicate to them that they basically have a 40 hour job and that’s it, period, or do you indicate that there might be a possibility, given weather conditions that are inclement, that they may have to come in early to help get things going as far as salt trucks and get graders out on the roads and this and that? And there will be times that they’ll be putting in more than a 40 hour week?

President Shetler: Alright, thank you. I don’t have any other questions, unless somebody else does.

Councilmember Lloyd: For clarification, the state of emergency, that’s just a legal situation. I don’t think there’s degrees of it, so it’s like taking a shower. I mean, you just take a shower, a whole shower, you don’t take half a shower.

Mike Duckworth: Well, I agree with that, and so it extends for seven days unless it’s lifted by the Commissioners and this was not lifted, it just expired, I believe. If it goes over seven days, there has to be a new state of emergency drawn up.

Councilmember Goebel: Mike, to reiterate what we said last time, we think you and your supervisors and the people under your supervision did an outstanding job through the recent crisis, but have you applied for FEMA monies?

Mike Duckworth: Oh yes. In fact, I met with FEMA, we had a general meeting of all departments involved, and actually when I got there, our part of that equation was that about 200 and some odd thousand, when I left it was 480,000, due to the fact that they did agree to pay for the salt use in clearing the roads, which was about $225,000. So our portion of that is $483,000, I think.

Councilmember Goebel: Okay, and that will be coming at a later date, is that correct?

Mike Duckworth: If the President signs a declaration, then that will be coming and I think it’s at a rate of 75%, but as I said at the last meeting, Sherman has indicated to me that there are in-kind services and other kinds of things that he thinks will fill in that 25% gap, so we should get most of that money.

Councilmember Goebel: I was going to ask the Auditor, do we need to put in then, the FICA and PERF at this point, along with that?

Councilmember Goebel: Well, I’m under the same sense that Councilmember Sutton has. When FEMA comes forward, then I think 2160-1300 should be appropriated at that time.

President Shetler: We can. We would have to amend the motion because as it is right now, I think we’re doing it in one lump sum of $139,000, so it could be amended to break it down.

Councilmember Kiefer: How do we do that because Councilman Sutton already voted?

Councilman Sutton: I mean, we could conceivably just take everything but the personnel part out of the motion and vote on that, then come back separately, and vote on that.

Councilmember Bassemier: It would need a motion to do that, wouldn’t it, Mr. President?

President Shetler: Well, I think it would probably be more appropriate to amend the motion that’s on the table to include that. That would be up to you two guys since you moved and you seconded.

President Shetler: Well, or you could – yeah, there’s a variety of different ways to dissect this, yes.

Councilmember Lloyd: I made the motion so I’m willing to rescind the motion, and first, I’ll remake a motion for just approval of 2160-2530 Bituminous Materials for $100,000.

President Shetler: And then second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second and does everybody understand what’s going on? Alright, do we have any questions about the materials? Roll call vote.

President Shetler: Yes. There being six ayes and no nays, the motion for Materials passes.

President Shetler: Now, we have a few other line items here, how do you wish to break that down?

Councilmember Lloyd: Mr. President, I’d to move approval for 2160-1300, 2160-1850, 2160-1900, 8,428, 25,000, 2,558, and then 2160-1910 3,258.

President Shetler: So basically, all the items except for the Materials, then, is that correct?

President Shetler: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any further questions?

Councilmember Kiefer: I do. I guess I’m confused because the Union Overtime, we’re lumping this in with the Supervisor Overtime?

Councilmember Goebel: I mean, we have to replenish that union amount, don’t we?

Bill Fluty: I would hate to say you have to do anything, but it’s in the contract and as I understand right now, they do not have very much money left in that account and there’s quite a few months left in the year.

President Shetler: – so as far as have to, they’re paid. If something comes up, it could be a problem.

Councilmember Goebel: I was hoping we could fulfill all of it except for the first line item. But that’s not what’s on the floor right now.

Bill Fluty: If he’d amend his motion just for the 25,000, the FICA 2,558 and the PERF 3,258, and then vote on the top one separately, then I think you can do what you want to do or vote that however you want to vote.

President Shetler: Okay, so we have a motion on the floor. Do I have any questions about this specific motion? Roll call please.

Councilmember Kiefer: I’m going to vote yes because this is all lumped together and I want to make sure this Union Overtime is made, so I’m going to vote yes.

President Shetler: The next item is on Reassessment, Maintenance Contract for $85,893. Let me quickly just set the ground rules here. I know that there’s a vendor here present to answer questions and I appreciate that, but I don’t think the Council wants to get involved in trying to allow different sales people to come forward and present programs. I think that could set a dangerous precedent for us, whether it be in this area or different materials, or we’ve had, you know, Mr. Duckworth has come forward and presented different kinds of large pieces of equipment. And I think if we allowed sales folks to come forward and present that, we could get ourselves in a real mess here. And it’s really not our job to pick the vendor, and I know there are other vendors out there that do have the same product or at least similar products. So I know that there’s a presentation and I’m grateful for that, and I’d like to see that, I think that this is a good software package that could help our county out in a lot of respects. I have reservations and questions about a few areas, but I do think that we need to set some ground rules here so that we don’t open ourselves up in the future for having different sales presentations before this body when we don’t want to get involved in that. That’s not our job and our responsibility. So, alright, first I guess I need a motion for approval of the Maintenance Contract that the Assessor is requesting.

Councilman Sutton: (Inaudible) discuss anything further, I didn’t know if we had any additional questions. I know some of the questions that we –

President Shetler: Mr. Weaver, do you want to give a general presentation or is there somebody that, you know, Matt Arvay or someone that you want...

Councilman Sutton: I mean, there are several questions that we did pose last –

Jonathan Weaver: Jonathan Weaver, Vanderburgh County Assessor. We just want to clarify that we had the vendor come in to show you what the product can do, it wasn’t a sales pitch. From our understanding, it was a sole source provider and the only product out there. I don’t know if Mr. Arvay has anything to say. That’s all I have to say unless you have any questions.

Matt Arvay: Matt Arvay, CIO computer services. You know, I could answer some of the questions that I heard from the last meeting as far as, like the difference of Google Earth versus this new flight. Basically, Google Earth is ortho photography, top down view, that’s kind of tilted. Okay, and I do have an example of that if I could pass it around, versus the Pictometry that we would be receiving, which you could see a lot more detail about the structures (Inaudible – comments made away from the microphone). Hopefully, that helps clear up a little bit of that question. I think there may have been some confusion on the deliverables we would get. You, of course, get the oblique imagery, which is the angled imagery that you’ll see in the picture here. As a byproduct of the process, you do get additional ortho photography. It’s not as accurate as the ortho photography of years gone by, but it is the top down view and it’s a byproduct for free from their process in creating these oblique images. You also look at building outlines. Outlines of buildings that are the line work that you’d see, are the outlines of the parcel property boundaries, you would get outlines of buildings with an attribute with the change classification, where they have an automated process, and this is one of their selling points of what they say is a sole source. The tag and outline of a line, it was the difference between 2004 and 2009, that helps the Assessor’s office automatically detect changes in buildings, additions, swimming pools, things of that nature. You get unlimited software, this EFS software which is their viewer to view the software. You get unlimited ArcGIS plug-ins. The ArcGIS is the standardized GIS software package that we use within the city-county today. So those software packages have a plug-in to see this oblique imagery. You also, departmental wide, in the Assessor’s office themselves, they get this product with this ChangeFindr, again, helps them detect changes digitally of what’s going on so they can kind of focus on those areas a little bit faster. And then there is a plug-in for our 911 OSSI software system. They do not charge for that plug-in, so out at Central Dispatch they will be able to see this oblique imagery and make decisions and provide information to our first responders, provide them information they’ve never been able to provide before: exits in the back of the building, windows, doors, whatever the situation is. I think that’s really powerful as a byproduct of what the Assessor wants to do. Some of the other information just to provide you, sixteen other counties in Indiana are using this product. All of them went with sole source, no counties went out to bid. Marion County, Hendricks, Johnson and Wayne are some of the counties that do use this. Seventy-five to eighty percent of them specifically use it for reassessment, that’s how it started. A lot of these groups are into their second flights and getting updated flights and other departments have come forward, and I do have a study here from Marion County where they basically surveyed the departments and you can look at the utilization. Its just grown tremendously with the product. The first year cost basically covers, you’ve get one flight, that is spread out as a payment over two years. In addition to the first year cost you have the ChangeFindr fee. That’s, again, that change detection process that allows the Assessors to focus on areas of change quickly, not just with the visual aspects of it, but the digital automated process of (inaudible), and I think that’s important. And that’s pretty much what I have to provide you, more information, and if you have any additional questions?

President Shetler: Matt, these pictures that we’re passing around? Is this something you took off the Internet or –

Matt Arvay: You could get the Google Earth, what the imagery of 2004, Pictometry flew Vanderburgh County in 2004 in hopes that we would get our –

President Shetler: But, I mean, are these things you had provided or were they provided –

Councilmember Lloyd: It looks like they shook the camera on one of these pictures.

Councilmember Kiefer: Matt, just a couple of things have come up in my mind as you were talking. One, you said these pictures, the latest pictures were taken in 2004?

Matt Arvay: They actually would fly in April of this year if this was approved and we would have a delivery of oblique imagery and ortho and all the deliverables I mentioned by the end of July. We would also, they’re giving us the 2004 flight that they already did free of charge, and that proposal back in 2004 was $112,000. They are giving that to us free (inaudible) 2004. In addition to that, in this contract, and we just talked about disaster, crisis, this ice storm, they will fly a disaster over Vanderburgh County at no charge on our request. They only thing they wouldn’t do would be flooding. They would do it at 50% off. But if we have this ice and we wanted them to fly, we had a tornado of F4 or above, they would come and fly and provide us that imagery free of charge. That is in the contract.

Councilmember Kiefer: Matt, another question. You mentioned some other departments being able to use this, and I think the Sheriff last week spoke to the benefits, what other departments, I mean, who all would you envision, because you interface with both city and county, I mean, who all –

Matt Arvay: Central Dispatch, Sheriff, I talked to Brad Mills, Area Planning Commission, and in their meetings, they would use this to kind of look at structures. It wouldn’t totally eliminate their field work –

Matt Arvay: I can see the fire department using that in planning, absolutely, Building Commission, Drainage Board, Zoning Board meetings, absolutely, utility...

Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. President, I’d like to echo what Mr. Kiefer said. He pretty well covered what I was going to say, but I do like the fact that other departments can benefit from this software and especially the Sheriff’s department for their mens’ personal safety and I think this is a good thing. Thank you.

Councilmember Lloyd: Mr. President, is there any issue with capacity as far as like Central Dispatch, their computers, to be able to pull up the images?

Councilmember Lloyd: Okay, so they have the memory that they could do it like immediately or is that an issue with some of these other departments?

Matt Arvay: No, because it would be loaded on our servers down in the computer services area, on our servers and then the clients would just be viewing it, if you will. So no, you would have no problems with that.

Councilmember Lloyd: If the Council looks at – we would like to get more information on this and it’s not approved today, what’s the cost there? Is there a setback as far as aerial photography or anything like that?

Matt Arvay: I think it’s time sensitive, is what we really have here. In order for Jonathan to do his reassessment, we have to get on the flight schedule for early spring. And that’s really the main factor here is time sensitivity. You know, they would fly in April. If we take another month, you know, we may not be able to fit in on their time schedule to fly in April to get the imagery by July, so he can do his reassessment. I think that’s really the critical decision point here is the time sensitivity getting on the flight schedule for an early spring flight.

President Shetler: Is it, they’re scheduling the flight times or do you have to do it when the leaves are basically down?

Matt Arvay: Yeah, that and then you have a fall flight, too, but they do have other clients that they’re flying, so slots fill up.

Matt Arvay: The aerial photo itself is, I guess, $80,020 plus the $360 one time delivery charge for the media, so I guess that would be $80,380. The ChangeFindr detection software and processing is $44,927.85, so you have two aspects to this proposed project: the flight and then this change detection software. Year one would be half the flight cost of $40,100, $360 for the media deliverable, and the total cost of the ChangeFindr of $44,927.85. So your first year total cost would be $85,297.85. Year two would be $40,010.

President Shetler: And as I understand what really is unique, I think last week we had indicated that this was a sole vendor, but that’s not correct. I mean, there are other vendors who do pictorial type or whatever this is called, 3-D, I’m going to call it. Keep it easy in my mind here. But there are other vendors who actually do a 3-D type of photograph, but what’s unique is the fact that they’re going to be able to take a time line that they’ve done since four years ago and be able to distinguish the differences in those photos, so that the most minute changes in a person’s property could be detected.

Matt Arvay: Exactly, that’s one of the aspects as well as just providing us the old imagery that nobody else can provide us from 2004.

President Shetler: And that is included in part of this deal. I guess a question that I have maybe for Mr. Weaver is that, you know, with trending that we have today, the whole methodology of assessing property isn’t quite like it used to be when the guy had to go in the backyard and check every little detail out and every minute measurement had to be done there. Today they kind of what, I guess go through a neighborhood and if a certain number of houses have been sold, they kind of trend that into the whole neighborhood goes up 20% or whatever. And I’m not familiar with the exact details, but it’s not quite like it used to be, is it?

Jonathan Weaver: No, we’re basing it more on sales, but it’s also important that we can back up by the cost approach, by showing that, you know, we have all the property record cards accurate and that we have the correct square footage, and if they have a yard barn, and how many plumbing fixtures do they have, whether or not they have a basement, it’s important to have –

President Shetler: Now the plumbing fixtures probably won’t be detected by this, I wouldn’t think.

President Shetler: So, but the minute details, the smaller details really don’t matter quite as much as the big picture. And the big picture, we get off of building permits, like swimming pools and additions to homes and those kind of things that might make a difference between this specific piece of property and a neighbor who just sold their house, which tends to change the property values in the neighborhood.

Jonathan Weaver: Oh, that’s very important, but it’s very important to have our information up to date and make sure that we’re accurate on all those things.

President Shetler: Alright. My biggest concern right now, and I do see the benefit for the Sheriff, the city police, the fire department, for the Building Commissioner’s office, for a variety of different things, is that I’d like to see more investors into this program. And I’d like to see us reach out to the city and to a few of the other folks and see if they couldn’t, I guess, put some skin into the game here and invest a little bit along with us instead of the county shouldering the entire expense.

Matt Arvay: Tom, just to help a little bit with that question and going off permits, in Marion County, with the use of this product, they found an additional $888,000 in assessed value because of things not reported through permitting of pools and those things. They also found cell towers in Philadelphia that were thrown up that were not under permit and those type of things. So it’s a good checks and balance in that respect, too.

Councilmember Kiefer: Matt, I think the Council President made a good point with the other people investing in it. If I recall correctly, the Building Commissioner, didn’t he implement a new software package a few years ago for – and what I recall is that there were some home builders and real estate people and private sector people put some money up toward the cost of that.

Matt Arvay: No, that was a city funded software product. Back in 2000, the year prior to me arriving in Vanderburgh County –

– Builders Association did contribute to get this base mapping and this GIS –

Matt Arvay: Yeah, the Realtor’s Association did contribute some money back then. I don’t recall –

Councilmember Kiefer: Is there a way to have a user fee on this or I think there’s a good idea there that other departments and private sector could use this to a big advantage. Is there a way to have a user fee attached to it or – I’m just throwing out –

Matt Arvay: You could do that if the appropriate body, I guess, would want to establish that. I know in past years its been debated and open government, public records and being open about that is really kind of outside my –

Councilmember Goebel: I was just looking through Marion County’s pamphlet here. DMD, in this particular month, used it more than did the assessors, public safety, DPW and prosecutor. Obviously, it has merit for multi-purpose use for different departments, was this funded entirely by the Marion County Assessor’s office?

Matt Arvay: What my understanding is, is what you’re seeing is a document that they were proving the usability of it, getting ready for the second go around.

Matt Arvay: The assessors got it started, they used it for their reassessment and then they wanted to fly again and the Council says, you know, is it being used? Well, they went out and they surveyed all the different departments and they put together this study to basically get approval for a second flight. So they proved that – you know, the Assessors purchased it, all these other departments, over time, started really heavily relying on it, and that’s what they proved in the study to fly it again.

Councilmember Goebel: I think that’s the general point of this group, that if different departments will be using, maybe different departments can ante up, also. Because there’s no doubt that the pictures are great. You can see good things. I’m not so sure the Google picture is of Vanderburgh County, it’s a little bit smeared. But the Picto – you know what I mean – the 3-D picture is very, very clear. I was wondering if also, is this a possibility for stimulus funding because public safety is involved.

President Shetler: I might want to point out one thing and then I’d get back to Councilman Sutton here, real quickly, is that we did discuss the possibility of going through the Purchasing department on this and the problem may be developing the specs, and you felt that it may be outside of your typical boundaries of what you’re capable of doing so that we have to go outside, and hiring someone to actually do that kind of technical write-up for bidding could cost us much more than what we would possibly save. So we, I guess, underneath the laws, we are allowed to go with a professional firm and contract directly with them because of their expertise and that’s not a problem anyway. So we could go outside of that. So if that’s a question on anybody’s mind, we have explored that possibility. Councilman Sutton?

Councilman Sutton: Well, I commend Jonathan Weaver, the Assessor, for bringing this forward to us. I mean, any time that there is opportunities for the county to look forward and envision things that are going to really help the county in what we do and that’s always a good thing. And I guess the key thing we definitely want to remember is the importance of gathering this data for the Reassessment. And that cannot be delayed or pushed aside. So just kind of maybe just as an aside, within the last month or so you came with the part-time help request and you mentioned it at the meeting last week, I think you maybe ought to give some consideration to bringing that forward since this here, on this project, this is a larger project and this is to help you with the assessment and I don’t think you can have all the parts and pieces in place, and the timeliness that you need to help with the reassessment. Now back to this particular software here, I think it would be very valuable for us to – just like we did when we were looking at the GIS package, get all of the stakeholders together to see how they could benefit from this, how it could be fully utilized, because it’s very clear this is not just an assessor’s piece of software here. So really gathering the strength of this and the discussions about others to buy in and not just buy in with their voices, but buy in with their wallets as well, who may benefit from this, could really help us in gathering together the total picture of what this software can and will do for Vanderburgh County. And the discussions that we’ve had about additional costs that may come along with this, whether there’s some other hardware that might need to be purchased as a result of these other departments utilizing this. We need to maybe get a better picture of who those people are and what that cost will actually be.

Matt Arvay: The only cost, in my budget, you know, we maintain the (inaudible) where this information will be housed, so we’re always upgrading our servers, our storage space, so that’s really not going to be an issue. And then again, this free viewer is – it’s a lightweight viewer that we’ll be able to view it even on older machines. Sure, it will be slower, but it will be viewed – I don’t see it being a resource problem.

Councilman Sutton: Well, I know, Jonathan, you’ve had some discussions with some of the other departments, Matt, maybe you have as well, but in terms of leading, putting together this proposal with all of the stakeholders involved, are either or one of you guys going to kind of take hold of, that’s kind of what I see as the natural next step of trying to build this proposal before us so that we can see what we have here and we see what the potential is. But I think there’s probably even a greater potential. And we talk about economic development and how it can be used here in a great way.

Matt Arvay: The other groups that could use this product, the school corp if they wanted to use it for teaching, it’s unlimited licensing, it would be available to them, any not-for-profit quasi government entity if they would have it, so there are a lot of folks that could use it. Again, I go back to the time sensitivity of getting this flight in the spring in order to do the reassessment is really the problem right now.

Councilman Sutton: Who is going to – Jonathan, are you going to lead this? Matt, who is going to lead this process?

Jonathan Weaver: I guess from a technical end, you guys, computer services. From an administrative end, well, we have Greg Grabner, who is the GIS guy.

Matt Arvay: Right. I mean, I could set up a meeting, a big meeting of stakeholders and show them the software, show them what it can and can’t do and let them give us feedback. I mean, it’s probably the easiest way versus me hitting all these potential stakeholders. Set up a meeting and see if we can coordinate two to three meetings or something and go from there.

Councilman Sutton: That would be, if someone can take the reins of this and move it forward. Jonathan has his specific need and he knows what he wants. But do the others really know and understand the potential of this?

President Shetler: Yeah, and Matt, I guess from what I understand from speaking with some people, there are some other vendors out there. I would like to have a little bit of discussion with them and we’re talking about a fairly decent sized ticket item here. You know, $20,000 might be saved, I don’t know. But I would like to have a little bit of evidence that we’ve discussed it and talked with people and to know the advantages and disadvantages between the different vendors.

Matt Arvay: Again, I’m not a photogrammetrist, that’s what these folks are that create these images and they have a special skill set. But what I can do is provide the differences maybe that I can find out between potential vendors and what makes them unique. Again, I’ve got to take the vendor’s word that they are unique, they have a unique process.

Councilmember Lloyd: I’ll try to finish this up here. So I understand that the last aerial photos were done in 2004, is that right?

Matt Arvay: 2005. The state of Indiana flew the whole state through Homeland Security grant monies and we, as a city-county, did what they call a buy-up, we did a buy-up contract for $49,121, and that was divided 50/50 between city and county. And that allowed us to buy up the accuracy level of what the state was doing. And we hope, you know, in future years the state will do it again.

Councilmember Lloyd: Okay, and then just to try to summarize some of this, it looks like areas that would use it are city-county departments, you’ve got Central Dispatch, Evansville Police Department, the Sheriff, Building Commissioner, Area Plan, Metropolitan Development – DMD, the Evansville Fire Department, and then GAGE I would think would use it as well. And then I hadn’t really thought about it, you tossed out EVSC as a possible user. I think if the county, if we approve this today, Mr. President, I don’t think there would be any incentive at all for the city to come in here and assist the county in this purchase. So I think to get that meeting together and look at the funding, I think the Council seems to be pretty supportive of this, especially, I mean, I’m very supportive of the need to do the aerial photos, but I think to get the other players and look at city funding for this, that I don’t think that we need to approve this today. That’s just my opinion.

Matt Arvay: We could present it to them and then maybe they could see uses within their departments there. Absolutely. Again, the only thing I’ll say is that there is a possibility that we do not get a spring flight. I want to make that very clear.

Councilmember Kiefer: I understand that. I think this is a great program, I really think I see the benefits of this, but I also see long term, next year and the year after and year after, if we can get these other groups like the school corp, the city, and others to buy in on this, this could – because I’ve never seen these computer programs where the next year it’s zero. You know, it’s always some cost attached to it. So if we can get them to buy in, this would be a great program.

President Shetler: Okay, let’s see, we have a motion on the floor here, we can vote on that or we can I guess pull it –

President Shetler: Yes, there is. And we can, I guess, vote on that, we can pull it and vote it on at a later time if that seems to be –

Councilmember Kiefer: I’d like to pull it and vote on it at a later time because I don’t want to vote no necessarily because I think it’s a good program, but I’d like to pull it so we can vote on it after we’ve gotten this additional feedback that hey, the city is going to participate and others might participate, if that’s okay.

Councilmember Bassemier: I’d like to withdraw. Yeah, I’ll make a motion. I think I made the motion.

Jonathan Weaver: Can we – you know, this is very time sensitive and if we’re not going get these flights in April, we’re not going to get it until July, you know, where we have to wait four months. Can we front the first payment out of Reassessment and then talk about the $40,000 next year to be shared with other entities within the jurisdiction?

President Shetler: Well, I guess we’d have to change, amend the amounts of money here we’re talking about.

Jonathan Weaver: I’m just addressing your concerns about this coming from one funding source. But if we can get this –

President Shetler: That’s one question, but I have a couple other questions. I know you passed out one other piece of information here, one other vendor. But last week, you told me there weren’t any other vendors.

Jonathan Weaver: This is the same vendor, this is Pictometry, what I handed out. But what I want to say about this, if you have any questions, is that we’ve been talking about this, I think since the fall of 2007. And what I presented before is, last year at this time the quote was 136,000. As far as I understand, these are the same specs and I feel like we’ve done our due diligence to try to get that cost down. Now it’s 125,000 and change.

Councilmember Goebel: Jonathan, if this were approved, how long would it take for the Pictometry group to actually get up and take the pictures that would guarantee you –

Matt Arvay: They would fly in April, deliver by July 31^st of this year – next month.

Councilmember Goebel: So this is more of an issue, leaves on trees than it is as far as being able to use it this spring.

Jonathan Weaver: Yeah, we’re not going to be able to use it this spring, I just found out it’s going to be delivered in July. But then if we wait until October and November to take the pictures, then that puts me back another three to four months and then we’re talking about the beginning of next year before we can start using it, it sounds like.

Councilmember Goebel: I understand what you’re saying, but you have to understand that maybe if other groups are going to use this, maybe we could work out a joint agreement. Everyone, I think, here is in support of the project.

Jonathan Weaver: You know, and I think that’s something behind the scenes we’ve been talking about since late ‘07, how to pay for this and I did put this in my budget in August out of Reassessment, so we’ve talked to other departments about splitting the cost and then, you know, at this point in time, you know, you talk about being a leader, taking charge on this, you know, I feel like we’re stepping forward to pay for this for the other departments, and I think that’s a good thing and I think the other departments will appreciate that. You know, and if that’s a big issue to you guys, you know, I’m asking, okay please, this year, and we can talk about next year’s installment of 40,000, maybe we can split that between everybody.

Councilmember Bassemier: I will rescind my motion till next month, maybe we can get some more players in this.

President Shetler: Alright, so we don’t have a motion any longer for the approval of that. Let me ask you this, I don’t know if it’s you, Jonathan, I need to ask or Matt, but what kind of lead time do they need to get that plane up in the air? I mean, our next scheduled meeting is like April 1^st, to appropriate.

Matt Arvay: I don’t know what’s the possibility, but is there any way we can give them some sort of comfort level that, you know, yeah, we want to go out and do some more research, try to get some more players, but if we don’t get other players to contribute, that give them some comfort level, keep us on the schedule, I guess, in some way? The 44,927.85 is definitely totally unique to the assessors, that’s the ChangeFindr software. No other departments would really use that software, it’s specifically assessor software. The $80,020 for the flight that’s spread out over two years is what I think we’re really talking about trying to get some contributing groups to contribute with that cost, not the assessors’ ChangeFindr cost, right?

President Shetler: Let me ask you a question about that ChangeFindr software, is that related to the 2004 picture?

Matt Arvay: 2004, and then the new 2009, it will detect changes automatically over time between those two –

President Shetler: So it’s not detecting what was taking place in ‘04 in those pictures?

Matt Arvay: What the 2000 – that’s ortho photography, that’s totally a different, that was for base mapping. That was to develop –

President Shetler: And it’s only because this particular vendor went out and had taken, they had been proactive and had taken some aerial photos in ‘04 in hopes to sell those, but that project fell through, I think because they didn’t get the FEMA funding or whatever the case might have been.

President Shetler: And that’s the reason why they have the advantage of being able to go backwards and stuff.

Matt Arvay: And what they say is their technology they use for this change detection process is what they say makes them unique.

President Shetler: I think we’ve got a couple of choices here. And what I’m hearing, and I might be incorrect and correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m hearing that everybody is pretty well in favor of this program. We see a lot of benefits for not only the assessors, but everyone, including all the groups you’ve just outlined numerous times here. So I think we all agree with that. The second thing, though, I’m hearing is that we would like to have some other buy-ins to it, but I think all of us in our minds have a few questions, too. I mean, I, other than the buy-in by others, I would like to see, I’d like to feel more comfortable knowing that we are getting the best deal. I don’t have a problem with us going to one vendor, and not utilizing the process of the purchasing department and bidding format in this particular manner because I know it could end up costing us as much or more. I would like to have some assurance, though, that we really have done our due diligence and that we have checked with other vendors. I mean, that’s my own personal – and I think there are others that have various different questions. Now, the alternatives that we have are this: we have a scheduled meeting for March the 18^th, which is a Personnel & Finance Committee, we could add to that, though, a special meeting where we could actually discuss that. That gives you a couple of week’s time to get this group together to get some of those questions answered and to come in with that kind of a program. That other alternative is to come back April 1^st when we have the next scheduled meeting and present this again and answering those questions. I don’t know how much time you’re going to need: two weeks or four weeks.

Matt Arvay: I will try to be aggressive on the March 18^th, I’d try to get it together by then.

President Shetler: And then the next question is, will that leave ample time for you to get the scheduled flight?

Matt Arvay: I think if we could maybe do something on the 18^th. I mean, I’ll talk to the group after the meeting to see what our time constraints really are. But for some reason, if we cannot gather the information or don’t have all the answers for you on the 18^th, we could always go to the second, but I could email you that answer, that would a decision on the 18^th or the 2^nd be ample enough time for them to keep us on the flight schedule.

Councilmember Lloyd: Mr. President, I don’t know if it would be appropriate for you, but someone needs to send a request either to the City Council or the Mayor’s office that this is what we’re looking at doing, and we’d like the city to financially participate.

President Shetler: Yes, I will do that. Good idea. Thank you. Alright, anybody else? I think what we might need is a motion to defer is what I’m thinking.

Councilmember Kiefer: Matt, I just want to make sure I understand. If we voted on this today and put all the money in place today, they still would not have it ready until July, which is, in essence, too late –

Jonathan Weaver: Yeah, but that timing is perfect to have it in place to begin the reassessment July 1^st, so we can start. So, I mean, the timing is now, in my opinion. It’s just, it’s there. I’m afraid, April, with the leaves on the trees, I mean, I don’t know how many – it’s getting – we’re cutting it close. I was afraid taking the pictures in March was cutting it close.

Matt Arvay: I can ask the company in trying to get, you know, see exactly what we could fit in the schedule, that’s what I was told this morning. I don’t even know if they were aware that it needed to be a little faster. So maybe they can accommodate, I’m not sure.

Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. President, since I made the motion, I rescinded it, I’d like to make a motion that we defer it until March the 18^th.

President Shetler: Okay, we have a motion to defer and a second. Now, and we would do that in the same amount, the $85,893, and that’s real critical because we have to advertise that for – Teri would need to make sure that she’s advertised that for the amount. We could go less but not any more than that and that has to be done this Sunday.

Matt Arvay: Who should I work with on Council? Russ, you’re my liaison, do I work with you on this?

President Shetler: How about Councilman Kiefer since this originated out of the Assessor’s office, I think we can keep it there for –

President Shetler: I’ve been reading all this stuff on real estate, you’ve got time, Joe. Unfortunately, I have time, too. Let’s see, we have a motion. Any questions about the motion? Roll call vote please.

President Shetler: Yes. There being six ayes and no nays, the motion carries to defer until March the 18^th.

President Shetler: Alright, thank you. And that will be a regular, I guess – a special meeting to discuss this specific thing after the Personnel & Finance. Okay? Yeah, we may do that first because we’ll have to publish the time on that. So we may do that first, Jonathan and Matt. Does any of the Councilmen have any questions about anything that’s coming up on the agenda that might require legal counsel?

Jeff Ahlers: And you can call me. Amy Steinhart from my office will be taking my place, but I just didn’t know if all those documents you’ve been furnished in advance, if there was anything on the cooperative purchasing department that you had questions on or Community Corrections or the Equal Development confirming resolution. Those are the only items I see that are coming up. If you had anything specifically for me that you had questions, I’d be happy to answer those before I leave or Amy can call me if something comes up.

President Shetler: Okay. Well, we have Legal Aid United Way. Let’s get that – any questions about – I need a motion on the next item which is United –

President Shetler: Okay, Its been moved and seconded. Do I have any questions? Any comments? Roll call please.

President Shetler: Councilman Kiefer. All in favor signify by saying aye. Oh no, I’m sorry, we’ve got to take a roll call vote.

President Shetler: Yes. Okay, there being six ayes and no nays, the motion carries.

President Shetler: Let’s see, we need a motion on the resolution on the economic revitalization area.

Councilmember Lloyd: I’ll make a motion to approve. I believe the stated tax abatement was seven years. I make a motion to approve.

Jeff Ahlers: Do you guys, also, as part of your motion, there was a letter from Mr. Hollingsworth with some conditions. Do you want to go ahead for the record and make that letter a part of the record and those as conditions of your passing the confirming resolution? It’s a February 27, 2009 letter that I forwarded to all of you and it’s also on your desks as well.

Councilmember Lloyd: I’d like to add to that motion, the February 27^th, 2009 letter from Mr. Hollingsworth, Equal Development.

Councilman Sutton: Just to make that clear for those who don’t know what we’re talking about, that letter indicates, there was a question about whether on this project, if local subcontractors would be utilized and this letter indicates that they are making a commitment to do such with all effort on this project.

Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. President, last month I voted on the first reading, I didn’t know if there was anybody here from that company, I was going to – the reason why I voted no last time was because there was over a thousand units out there already and I’ve talked to several managers out there and they’re kind of concerned that it might hurt their businesses. And also I understand it’s still going to stay only hiring two employees and I know in the past when I was on the Council, we supported this because they would hire a lot of employees like Azteca Milling Company hiring 160 people. Also, I have no commitment that they’re going to – before I understood that they was only going to use 20 percent of local contractors and I read in this letter that they said they will invite them, but they have not committed, so I’m just giving you my reason, I’m going to still continue to vote no on this project.

Councilmember Goebel: When we review this in a year if it does pass, that could be conditions for withdrawal, correct?

Jeff Ahlers: If they don’t comply, if there’s not substantial compliance with their statement of benefits, then you have the right to move to revoke the tax phase-in.

Councilmember Bassemier: I’d also like to add, there’s several complexes in that neighborhood that’s got an eight percent vacancy rate and they feel like this could only hurt them by adding this new complex. And I kind of feel like, myself, I personally like to help the existing businesses and complexes out there instead of some new one that might come in and hurt the other complexes. Thank you.

President Shetler: Alright, thank you. I guess in some small way, I look at this as our little small stimulus package that we’re getting actually from the private sector into our community and so it is a substantial investment that I have to see as a good thing for our community. Any other questions? There is a motion on the floor, so roll call in just a minute.

President Shetler: Next is the 2009 agreement to operate Community Corrections. Do I have a motion?

President Shetler: And seconded. Do I have any questions or comments? Roll call please.

President Shetler: Next is the compensation agreement in lieu of statutory fees between Eric Williams, Sheriff of Vanderburgh County and the county of Vanderburgh. Motion for approval?

Councilmember Lloyd: I don’t know if, Mr. Ahlers, if there is any highlights you could offer on the contract?

Jeff Ahlers: The contract is in substantially the same form that it has been in the past. It just merely, what they’re doing is, is it’s just the way that over probably the past decade that the Sheriff has been compensated that, rather than him taking fees for meals and items such as that, that there is a little higher salary in there and then there is also, combined with the other agreement, provides duties and responsibilities with regard to Community Corrections. In reviewing it, it appears to be substantially the same as it has been in the past.

President Shetler: Yes. There being six ayes and no nays, the motion carries. We may have pulled the trigger a little too quickly.

Eric Williams: It passed so there’s probably no point in commenting other than the fact that it’s identical to the last year’s contract, salary included, other than the date.

President Shetler: Okay, Inter-Local Agreement for Cooperative Purchasing Organization, does anybody have a question that might pertain to Mr. Ahlers? If not, then I’m going to excuse him so he can get on with – he needs to leave and then – what I think we’ll do then, if there aren’t any questions about that per se, we’ll go back to – did we do that Highway transfer? We did, didn’t we?

President Shetler: We’ll go back to the Amendments to the Salary Ordinance and I would ask for a motion for approval.

Councilmember Lloyd: If those need to be read into the record, I’d be happy to do that.

Councilmember Lloyd: The amendments to the salary ordinance, Recorder, amend salary ordinance line 1040-1990 Extra Help as appropriation approved. Jail, amend salary ordinance line 1081-1531 Civilian Shift Differential as approved. Community Corrections, amend salary ordinance line 1361-1560 Case Manager as appropriation approved. Set the salary line in as a PAT IV, Step 6 with a salary of $45,337, hire date May 15, 1988. Amend salary ordinance 1361-1630 Medical Educator as appropriation was approved. The 2009 salary $44,544. And that’s a 2.5% increase for 2009. Cumulative Bridge department, amend salary ordinance line 2030-1850 Union Overtime as appropriation approved. Local Roads & Streets, salary ordinance line 2160-1300 Supervisors Overtime as appropriation approved. Amend salary ordinance line 2160-1850 Union Overtime as appropriation approved. County Highway, amend salary ordinance line 2010-1971 Accrued Payments as the transfer approved. Day Reporting Court, amend salary ordinance to include a new salary line for the Day Reporting Drug Court Aide in account 136D. This is a COMOT V position with an initiation salary of $28,704 ($13.74 per hour). These funds are from a grant from the Department of Corrections, and I’d like to make that in the form of a motion.

President Shetler: The next then, we’ll go to the new business, Vanderburgh County Redevelopment Commission appointments, we made that at the last meeting. So that’s already been done. And Personnel Administration Committee, I don’t think we officially made that, but that is Robert Goedde to be appointed to that. Do I have a motion for approval?

President Shetler: Next is the Inter-Local Government Agreement for Cooperative Purchasing Organization between the city, the county and the school corporation. Do I have any questions? I need a motion, I guess, motion and second.

President Shetler: And seconded by Councilman Goebel. Do I have any questions or comments?

Councilman Sutton: Just to maybe get a little bit of background on this, this initiative was announced oh, about a month, month and a half ago and there was a meeting that was gathered, several of us to discuss this. The school corporation has really kind of taken the lead on this in regards to how we can become more efficient in our purchases by buying in bulk or as a group. So they have taken the initiative of pulling all of these organizations, these entities together. There’s still a little bit of work to be done on the county side because we operate a little bit different than the city in terms of getting everyone on board. But clearly, the efficiencies can be seen and costs that we’re expending now for paper, supplies, equipment, can go down drastically as a result of buying in bulk. So I think that’s what we have before us is an opportunity for us to see some of our resources which, in these times, we really need to look at every opportunity possible to see how we can better utilize our resources.

President Shetler: In addition to that, that department was able to be reduced by what, two employees?

Councilman Sutton: There’s two employees that were reassigned to other offices but, yeah, reduced the staffing there as well.

President Shetler: So we had an immediate effect, really, of saving some monies off of personnel as well as the benefits that Councilman Sutton outlined. So it’s a, I think, a program that’s going to be in the making here, a little bit, but is definitely going to be saving us some bucks over the years. Any other questions or comments? We have a motion and we’ll take a roll call vote on that please.

Councilmember Kiefer: I echo the sentiments of Councilman Sutton and Councilman Shetler, so with that, I vote yes.

President Shetler: The next item is County Treasurer Rick Davis has a proposal on a property tax billing system conversion.

Rick Davis: Thank you. Rick Davis, Vanderburgh County Treasurer. I’m here today with Mr. Scott Davis from computer services, and at some point, Mr. Bill Fluty has been a project leader on the conversion I’m about to discuss, so if you have any questions, don’t be surprised if he may jump in. I’m here today to tell you that the Treasurer’s office is in the midst of a major property tax billing system conversion. Its been a project that has been in the works for more than a year with technical data being converted in earnest in December 2008. Vanderburgh County has replaced a 1980 COBOL system with a Windows based system, Manatron, that has been certified by the Department of Local Government Finance. The county Treasurer’s office and the Auditor’s office simultaneously went live with the new system on February 6, 2009. As a result, we expect to have greater customer service in addition to speed and accuracy when it comes to our tax time collections. We still have some wrinkles to iron out and our staffs will have continuous training throughout the year due to the fact that we have various annual duties that need to be performed throughout the year. But we are excited about where we are in this process and as I stated, Mr. Bill Fluty, Auditor, has been the project leader. One item that we have not addressed during this project until now was the Treasurer’s office tax billing database website. The vendor who originally designed the tax billing database, web pages for the Vanderburgh County Treasurer’s office is Vision Internet, and they will charge Vanderburgh County approximately $25,000 to modify the webpages to display the data from MVP tax. That is a one-time expense fix, used only to maintain current displayed information. According to conservative estimates provided by computer services from Vision Internet, any time a change needs to be made in our website due to changes in MVP tax data structure, the county would be looking at an additional and considerable expense estimated at 10,000 to $25,000 per project. Luckily, Manatron, the company that landed the contract for Vanderburgh County’s tax billing system, also has a website product. Manatron has submitted a proposal to provide this service for an additional cost of $24,000 to replace our current web pages with their PropertyMax web system. The best aspect about PropertyMax is their ability to better serve our public. We can configure information that is available to the public via the Internet to match what is currently available in our office. So someone interfacing with our website can view what would be available to them if they came to a public terminal in our office. Information should also be updated much more frequently than has been possible before, a situation that would not only help our office, but would help the Auditor’s office as well. Currently if someone were to buy or sell a home in May or June of last year, currently, that information is still showing the previous owner. If Mr. Shetler sold a home to Mr. Fluty, right now, this time of year, Mr. Shetler would be calling our office or the Auditor or the Assessor, asking why am I still listed as the owner of this piece of property. I sold it back in June. That information would now be updated within a 24 hour period. And previously, that information was only rolled over one time per year, so this is something that could be done every day and 24 hours after the fix. Should Vanderburgh County choose to sign on with PropertyMax, the up-front $24,000 cost would cover an entire year from sustainability, support, service and the data would be integrated with our current tax billing system. The initial cost includes the cost of the first year’s maintenance and support as well as implementation costs. The recurring annual cost to maintain the site would be $12,000 per year beginning one year from now. It would take, I’ve been told, no more than 90 days for full conversion to take place on the county’s internet site once the project is scheduled to begin. And if it does pass today, I would be on the phone with Manatron immediately and try to get that done as soon as possible. I would like to get it done about the time where tax bills go out, so people can be (inaudible) for information, especially after hours when we’re not available. The CIO, Matt Arvay, and computer services staff strongly recommend Vanderburgh County migrating to the Manatron PropertyMax system. Also, the Information Technology Advisory Council, also known as ITAC, an advisory panel of elected county officeholders and appointed city of Evansville department heads, unanimously approved the recommendation for Manatron’s PropertyMax due to the product’s best and most effective long-term solution to provide the best value for Vanderburgh County residents. I have provided you an executive level summary of the two products for you to view and in addition, I’ve also included some statistics from the tax billing database website so you can get a look at how many people visit that site. It was around 132,000 people and you’ll notice that April and May are the two months when we get the most hits. So that’s, especially while I’m going to be on the phone with Manatron if this passes today and try to get that done to better serve our customers. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have, as well, as I stated earlier, Scott Davis from computer services.

Councilmember Goebel: Good morning, Rick. Will this contract begin then after the three month, when the implementation is concluded or does it start, if it passes today, right now? The contract itself, because it won’t be fully operational for us.

Rick Davis: If I may, I do believe, since they’re going to be doing the work that it will start immediately because they’ll be getting paid to do the conversion and get the website set up. If I’m incorrect, Scott, you might want to...

Scott Davis: I wouldn’t want to speak outside my purview. When the project was originally put in place, the language for the payment terms and the parameters of this addition were reviewed as part of the master contract. And I believe that the payment terms in there, the timing as to when it paid for which portions, the annual maintenance and all that were reviewed and approved by county legal at the time. I believe that they have reviewed the contract, the supplemental agreement language for this again recently. Does that...?

Councilmember Goebel: So it starts today if it is passed? Or is this part of the contract we have right now with Manatron?

Bill Fluty: Let me just – can I back up just a little bit? Last summer I was in here and I asked for, and I’ve forgotten the amount, but it is, I think, close to $480,000 to implement the tax billing system for the Auditor and the Treasurer. At that time, also, we knew that we’d have to update their database, but we didn’t make that part of the original contract at that time. We set that aside. One of two things were going to happen: we weren’t going to do it, which probably wasn’t an option, but as we got these other things done, we were going to address it. That’s what we’re here for now. We do have funds from money that we asked for last year, and the project has gone well. We asked for a little bit of cushion in there and we have that money which could be available to do this. But we want to come forward and say that you didn’t direct us to do this, so we want you to know that if you want to let us use that money that we asked for back in July, I think it was, to go forward for this part of this project. So we do have the money in place for this. It’s not a new appropriation. It’s money from the original conversion. Now we have X amount of dollars set aside for the contract for Manatron. We had X dollars set aside for hardware, software, contractual services. So that’s just an update of where we are now and we have the ability to do this with some of that same money that we asked for in July.

Councilmember Lloyd: So this is money in the Auditor’s budget that was dedicated to this?

President Shetler: And a second. Okay, any other questions, then? Councilman Goebel, is that...? Alright, thank you. No other questions? Roll call vote.

Rick Davis: One other thing if I might add. Regarding the Assessor’s issue earlier, I went to ITAC to present this hoping that, in the past, the Sheriff or the Fire Chief were the ITAC president. I was hoping to bring them with me to present this with you. And I, unfortunately, became the president of ITAC. I want you to know that I’m going to be talking to Matt Arvay –

Rick Davis: Yeah, thank you very much. I’m going to talk to Matt Arvay and Mr. Weaver after this meeting and tell them that this is something that I think ITAC definitely should be a part of because it includes city of Evansville department heads and elected officeholders from the county, and I think it would have a little more teeth and strength with it if ITAC came before you as well and the city would see some merit from that as well. So I’m going to go down and talk to Mr. Arvay and Mr. Weaver and tell them we’re more than happy to join in their efforts.

President Shetler: I don’t think we need a vote on this, it’s just the information to let you know that the meeting has been changed from March the 25^th to March the 18^th, and the April meeting deadline is March the 6th.

President Shetler: I personally may have a conflict on May the 6^th, but we’ve got some time on, I guess, if that would work for everybody to reschedule on that, but I have a conflict myself on that schedule, so I’ll be looking at some other alternatives. If not, then I’ll be absent.

President Shetler: We did get something in late here from the Commissioners, Walking to Freedom. I think that was – is that just for our information or is that something we need to –

Councilmember Goebel: I’m not real familiar with it. I didn’t get a chance to review the Commissioner’s meeting yesterday, but I think this is a project that will involve us, promote fitness and conclude at the Freedom Festival, but maybe someone else can address it a little better than I. They’re trying to get teams to go walking and provide pedometers and – I’m not sure...

President Shetler: I’m not sure either, it was just put here and I’m not really...

President Shetler: Yeah. We had just received it this morning in our office so I’m, again, not familiar with it and I apologize, but it was kind of a late notice. And it appears that they are wanting teams to sign up by March 9^th, which is coming up Monday, for your teams and stuff. And the contest is actually starting the 16^th through June 19^th. I suppose, since it’s not really any kind of official thing, we could probably communicate this by email, perhaps? And try to decide if we want to do something with this. Would that be an appropriate...

Councilmember Lloyd: Mr. President, I have a Personnel Administration Committee meeting, so I’m headed out. Thank you.

Councilman Sutton: There was one other item, Mr. President. At our last meeting, Commissioner Tornatta had mentioned about the local homeless initiative, the Homeless Connect program, that’s going to be the 12^th of this month. He requested or made mention about a contribution to the organization in the amount of $2,500–

– really sure how that works or how that will be handled, so I don’t know if it will come out of the Commissioner’s budget or how...not really sure there. But I just wanted to make sure that –

President Shetler: I think they need to make a request for an appropriation from one of their line items. I think that would be the mechanics. But you’re right, he did, but I think they need to initiate it somehow. Councilman Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: I don’t have anything to add. I think maybe just bring it up today that we’re considering and will follow the lead of the Commissioners.

President Shetler: On the ITAC appointment for the Council, Russ Lloyd has indicated interest in that and unless I have any objections? Councilman Lloyd will be the appointment then we’ll make to the ITAC board.

Councilman Sutton: Were we going to have some further discussion, too? We mentioned it last week, the question surrounding the Job Study Committee, and what the status of that is regarding all of the reassessing, that whole program. I saw Deisher out here earlier, too bad he got away. I would like to have heard what his progress has been on that because this whole discussion about having a Job Study meeting and we don’t have that review done. It just seems like we’ve got some things a little bit ahead of themselves on how to do that. I just don’t see how we can have a Job Study meeting without the review being completed.

President Shetler: I will be meeting with him shortly and I’ll ask him to report back to Council then on the March 18^th meeting. If that will work?

Councilman Sutton: Well, I mean, I’d like to hear more, but just, I just don’t know how we can take any requests at this time. I know we –

President Shetler: Those requests were actually taken, they had come in a few days prior to that cutoff, and that’s the only reason that we thought we might be able to get those in play before now. And it had gotten to the point that they really needed to move forward and that’s the only reason why those things are being considered at this point in time.

President Shetler: After that point, in fact, that’s correct. Yes, there have. And that’s the reason why those are still being held until that Job Study is finished. I think he first reported that was going to take, what, 18 months or so? The best of my recollection, it was going to take about 18 months to get that total report done. And I guess the hope was, that at least we would have certain offices and maybe he has that finished, where certain offices are completed and maybe we could get some of those put online or enacted –

President Shetler: Okay, and that will be the biggest. So, but we could perhaps implement those other offices that he has completed and get those discussed, and that would help get the flow of activity back at least with everyone but the Sheriff’s department. Alright, any other comments? Any other business? Motion would be in order for adjournment.

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m.)

1040-1900	FICA	765.00	765.00
1040-1990	Extra Help	10,000.00	10,000.00
Total		10,765.00	10,765.00

1051-1531	Civilian Shift Diff.	5,800.00	5,800.00
Total		5,800.00	5,800.00

1210-1910	PERF	102.00	102.00
Total		102.00	102.00

1230-3530	Contractual Services	361.00	0.00
Total		361.00	0.00

1361-1560-1361	Case Manager	3,631.00	3,631.00
1361-1630-1361	Medical Educator	1,290.00	1,290.00
Total		4,921.00	4,921.00

2030-1850	Union Overtime	5,000.00	5,000.00
2030-1900	FICA	383.00	383.00
2030-1910	PERF	525.00	525.00
Total		5,908.00	5,908.00

2160-2530	Bituminous Materials	100,000.00	100,000.00
Total		100,000.00	100,000.00

2160-1300	Supervisor Overtime	8,428.00	8,428.00
2160-1850	Union Overtime	25,000.00	25,000.00
2160-1900	FICA	2,558.00	2,558.00
2160-1910	PERF	3,258.00	3,258.00
Total		39,244.00	39,244.00

2490-1090-3540	Maintenance Contract	85,893.00	Deferred
Total		85,893.00	Deferred

4290-2600	Office Supplies	1,500.00	1,500.00
4290-3730	Continuing Education	2,000.00	2,000.00
4290-3990	Miscellaneous	4,220.00	4,220.00
4290-3450	Yellow Pages	175.00	175.00
Total		7,895.00	7,895.00

1371-3600	Rent	4,100.00	4,100.00
Total		4,100.00	4,100.00