The Vanderburgh County Council held a special meeting on the 18th day of March, 2009 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex to consider and take action upon a request for additional appropriation from the Reassessment Fund.

President Shetler: If we could, if everyone could take their seats real quick, we’ll open the meeting. Thank you. We actually have two meetings going on today. The first will be the special meeting which has the one agenda item and that is the item on the – I’m going to call it 3-D imaging rather than using the proper name of the company here. So it was opaque imaging or something, I think that’s what technically it is. We will deal with that in just a second. At this time I’d like to call for a roll call please.

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 six members present and one absent, we have a quorum. I’d like to ask Councilman Raben to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

Councilmember Lloyd: Mr. President, I just wanted to mention, Councilman Kiefer was called away on business to Indianapolis, so kind of a sudden thing. He regrets not being able to attend.

President Shetler: The first item on the agenda, and the only item on the agenda, is the appropriation for the County Assessor underneath the Reassessment budget line item. Do I have any questions or comments?

President Shetler: Alright, we have a motion and a second. Discussion? Yes, Councilman Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: I know last night at the Commissioner’s meeting, there was a lot of discussion about this and at the ITAC board meeting, the city of Evansville had made a pledge to provide $20,000 over two years towards this Pictometry agreement. But I guess yesterday the city corporate counsel, Mr. Jones, indicated that he was not comfortable with that agreement due to the fact that I guess there was a lawsuit involved with the company, Pictometry, so he was going to withdraw his support. Now I know that generated a lot of questions at the Commissioner’s meeting and I guess they were still working on that last night. Maybe Mr. Ahlers would have something to add on that. But anyway, it sounded like the city was withdrawing their support and I think that was a concern to this Council because we had indicated that we wanted to see if other departments that would benefit from this expenditure, if they would make a contribution towards it. So, I mean, I’m concerned that there may be some problems here with the city side of it and there’s some legal issues here.

President Shetler: Thank you. I know that Ms. Schymik is here representing the county as well as our counsel, Mr. Ahlers. Do you have anything to add to that?

Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, if you’d like, I can just tell you, I’ve had some conversations with Kathryn Schymik, who is representing the Commissioners and David Jones, the city legal counsel. There are some legal concerns with regard to the contract in terms of trying to have an indemnity provision put in there by where this company would, Pictometry would indemnify the county if there’s ever any litigation or liabilities that could arise, there’s also some issues with regard to the license agreements and such. And there has been some discussions concerning making changes to the contract. And I think Pictometry is in agreement with some of those changes. I’m not sure where that process is in terms of whether all of the concerns have been addressed. And I think that is continuing to be ongoing as the executive branch, you know, the city legal counsel and then the County Commissioners as the executive branch, their legal counsel, have been continuing to speak with, and maybe Mr. Arvay or Mr. Weaver have as well, with Pictometry to work out these concerns. And Ms. Schymik is here and she may be able to give you an overview of the concerns that the Commissioners may have had and the actions that they’ve taken. So the long and the short of it is, there are still legal issues to be worked out. I think some of it is being worked out, but we are not done with that. So at this moment, I guess you would have to say that there isn’t a contract that everybody is in agreement with. In terms of the city itself, I did not get a clear indication yesterday as to what the city’s position is as to whether they are in or out. I mean, I know if concerns were addressed, my understanding was, I think the city was willing to go forward. But I guess we’re at the stage where I’m not sure everybody’s concerns have been addressed. So I don’t know that the city is in or out, and if someone knows that, I guess they can tell us what the city’s position is.

Matt Arvay: Matt Arvay, CIO. The city’s position is the same as the county’s. They want to work through the legal issues and get a contract that everybody is happy with, but the money has been identified and it will go towards this project as long as the legal issues are worked out and everybody is happy with the contract. So they’re not pulling out, but, you know, the financial aspects, it’s just, they want to work with the county and the Commissioner’s legal counsel to get a contract that everybody agrees on.

Jeff Ahlers: One of the concerns is that I am not sure that some of the issues can be addressed. It’s just going to be – I mean, they can be addressed as much as they can be. Some of it is ultimately just going to be for the parties, they’re going to have to decide what they’re comfortable with. Either they can live with it or they can’t. And that is, that, for example, Pictometry, it’s my understanding, is willing to insert an indemnity provision in the contract that they will indemnify us for any losses. However, as you may well know, an indemnity is only as good as the company that stands behind it. So if Pictometry would have some adverse financial situation or lose the patent lawsuit that’s pending over this product, and if that would, for example, put them out of business or make them insolvent, then your indemnity may not be any good. They’re also willing, I understand, to put in a performance bond which would, then you would have an insurance company standing behind putting in, installing the product. But not having seen what the performance bond says, and knowing what performance bonds normally say, likely, that insurance company’s obligation may end at the time that’s it’s installed. So if you had problems six months or a year from now, or you wanted to update the system and the company wasn’t in business, I don’t know that that would help you. Now, the long and the short of it is, I don’t know that anybody knows whether there’s problems or not with Pictometry. It’s just, there are these issues and there are these concerns. And so the question becomes, how certain or how guaranteed do you want to be that everything is going to come out the way that you want it to and that everything is going to be indemnified and guaranteed. And like a lot of things in life, I don’t know that there is ever going to be a one hundred percent. I think that there’s been movement made to get you a lot more provisions than that company normally gives or that anyone else gets. And I think that everybody from the city and the county has done an excellent job of ferreting those things out. But, ultimately, you’re going to have to decide whether there’s the urgency for this project to proceed now versus waiting to get these issues worked out. Or whether balancing, you know, the benefit to the county and the city, whether the money that’s going to be saved by getting this product now rather than waiting is going to offset and it’s something you want to move forward with. And Ms. Schymik can add in, I guess, what the Commissioner’s position is, I guess, and voice whatever concerns they have or Mr. Tornatta.

Kathryn Schymik: Well, I can defer to our president since he is here, and let him explain the action the Commissioners took and I can supplement if I need to.

Troy Tornatta: Okay, Troy Tornatta, Commissioner President. What we wanted to do last night is to expedite the process. If we thought there was going to be a flyover and that was going to happen between meetings, we wanted to make sure that we were in place. We normally do not like to do that, but we have a comfort level with the County Council and with the city, that we think that there is a possibility, if something could happen, it could happen a little bit quicker if we put some caveats out on the table. We wanted to make sure that, obviously, the legal is handled and we’re comfortable with the legal measures. We wanted to make sure that the – help me out here – there were four.

Kathryn Schymik: I think Jeff adequately summarized what the legal concerns are, and the conditions that were built into the motion that was passed last night was that number one, that the indemnification language be inserted into the contract. That’s pretty well been agreed upon with Pictometry. I think that issue was resolved. But, as Jeff was explaining, we also wanted to attach some sort of collateral to that indemnification whether it be a performance bond or something else that the company would offer to back that up. That’s the issue that we’re still left to kind of figure out and be a little bit creative on and try to decide how we can back that indemnification up. Obviously, Council’s approval of appropriating the funds and then also the city’s approval of the terms of the contract, since they are going to be financially obligated for a portion of it. So those are the four components that have to fall into place before this contract will be signed. If all four of those come together, then the Commissioners did authorize President Tornatta to sign the agreement whenever it is ready so that it can proceed. If all four of those components do not come into place, we’ll kind of be back to square one. We’ll either have to come back in front of the Commissioners with some different terms and they’ll have to decide if they’re comfortable with those or just postpone this until a later date.

Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. Ahlers, your recommendations? Do you think we ought to defer this or what is your recommendation until all the legal issues are cleared up or once we appropriate this?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, I guess there’s a couple ways to look at it. I mean, obviously, if you tell me to look at it from a purely legal standpoint, you prefer to have all these things worked out before you move forward. But in the real world, sometimes there’s, you know, business concerns or whether there’s deadlines with assessments and such that, if you think that there’s money to be saved by moving forward with it and understanding that the risks have been minimized as much as they can be, but that there may still be some, you have to balance that. So I don’t know if there’s a black and white answer for me to give you, Mr. Bassemier, other than one of the things that occur is, I guess, keeping in mind, in terms of the separation of powers is that, you know, one thing that occurs is, that, of course, if you appropriate the money today, then basically you leave into the hands of the County Commissioners, I suppose, as being the safety valve as to whether the matter goes forward. Because, ultimately, they’re the ones that have to negotiate the terms of the contract and approve the contract, so just because money is appropriated today does not necessarily mean that it occurs. If the County Commissioners would determine that they do not want to sign the contract or if it does not meet their approval, then the project could stop at that point. But you would be putting that in their hands. Once you appropriate the money, essentially, unless you have conditions upon that appropriation, at that point, it’s out of your hands and it would be in the Commissioner’s hands. So does that help you or...?

Councilman Sutton: There’s really no way that we can get a true sense of how long this legal process may go on, when it may be resolved, but I guess maybe the area that I am probably most interested maybe here initially, the discussions that were shared with us in our last meeting was the need to get these aerials completed before too much foliage begins to develop on the trees and all, so that you can get good shots of all the buildings throughout. So moving this forward was of urgent need to proceed forward. I guess my question is, the aerial photos that will be taken, does Pictometry have the exclusive rights on the use of those photos and their software or is the county the owner of those images that are going to be taken? Because if that is the case, if the county is the owner of those images, exclusively, I mean, if something did happen with Pictometry, they went down the tubes, conceivably those aerials could be used with any other company that might be out there, another vendor, that can provide the same or similar services that Pictometry is going to handle. So if somebody could answer that question for me.

Troy Tornatta: Well, not to speak out of turn, but, I mean, we’re going to own the photos, but we won’t necessarily have the equipment –

Kathryn Schymik: What it is, per the terms of the agreement, Pictometry retains ownership of all the images and the information that they gather and obtain. We have a license to use that information. And it’s a two year license that we are paying an annual fee for. After that two years, then we have a perpetual license at which point, we only pay, I believe it’s a five percent, it’s a $2,600 annual fee to have the software and those upgrades and support provided for the – and this is kind of out of my world – Matt Arvay can speak more to the technical side of that – but basically to have the support and any upgrades that would be required. That’s where the concern comes in from our standpoint is, obviously, the patent infringement lawsuit speaks to the way these images are captured and the database that they are then put into. And if there would be an adverse judgement entered against Pictometry, you know, it’s hard for us to say and we really don’t know what adverse – what effect that might have on our contractual relationship with Pictometry and our, I guess, ongoing ability to continue to use that program or those images. That’s, you know, something that we can only, I guess, anticipate or try to prepare for the worst case scenario.

Councilman Sutton: And that’s, I appreciate that answer because that’s where my concern is, and I guess the other consideration that I’d like for us to maybe give some thought to, is this company the only one that can fly the aerials for the services that we need, either for Pictometry or whomever we may use as a vendor out there, so if we find that there are other options for us that then Vanderburgh County, I guess, then is involved with it, the city of Evansville, are the owners of the images that are taken. Has there been any thought on that?

Matt Arvay: Yeah, on the software question, they have this free viewer that they provide and that’s the unlimited licensing. But the key is that it also plugs into some legacy applications, like the OSSI for the public safety group, the Manatron product for the CAMA, assessment, and the billing system, and our GIS software called ESRI, you know, ArcView, (inaudible) type software, we standardized for the past seven, eight years. So if their EFS software went away and then I think that legal is trying to put some safeguards for that in the contract, then maybe we get a copy of that and maybe they put something, I don’t know, in an escrow account or something. But we could still use the imagery, hopefully, whatever legal counsel is going to come up with, performance bond or some other creative way of protecting that imagery. But the software, we have other software packages that are critical throughout the enterprise that we use that would still be able to use the imagery today. As far as the various companies, Council asked me last week to do some research and I spent a lot of time trying to find who else does this type of work. And at one time there were four companies: Pictometry, GEOSPAN, Woolpert and a group called MultiVision USA. MultiVision USA in no longer around, they don’t exist anymore. Woolpert has a different type of process to create the oblique imagery. It’s not exactly as similar as Pictometry and GEOSPAN, but even with that said, they were filled up for the spring and they declined to participate in the process. So it came down for me to Pictometry and GEOSPAN. And some of the differences are, and I went through this, market share: Pictometry has approximately 600 clients, 16 in the state of Indiana. GEOSPAN has 14 aerial clients and some folks will see that they’ve done some street level flying and that’s different than the flying from the airplanes. Some of the – and some of the big ones in Indiana were Marion County, of course, and Elkhart, some of those groups. The other big thing, again, was the viewing software or the software that they allow. They’ve already worked with OSSI, they’ve already worked with Manatron, so they’ve worked with those groups for the application programming interface that plugs in but allows those software products to show the images. They also have, again, the ArcGIS suite integration, which is our GIS software. GEOSPAN, on the other hand, has an API, and they’ve included a hundred hours of programming time that they would work with us to interact with those products. So we don’t know the unknown cost of what OSSI would cost on their end to help integrate the GEOSPAN product and what Manatron may or may not charge to integrate. The other key differences I found were in the deliverables. Of course, Pictometry has offered the 2004 flight for free, which at that time, and I mentioned this last week, was worth $112,000. They do the 2009 flight, they also provide building outlines, the vector line work around the buildings. GEOSPAN, they do not have access to the 2004 flight, they would give 2009 and they would provide an additional cost for the building outlines. So there is an additional cost. The cost of the imagery itself: Pictometry was $80,020, GEOSPAN was $75,000. But again, no building outlines, and their annual software fee after year one was $3,600 a year versus $2,600 a year after year two. So there are some fundamental differences there. Both of them do disaster flyovers, if we have a disaster, federally declared emergency, they will come fly free of charge. And those were the basic differences between the two groups.

Councilman Sutton: Well, just to make sure I’m clear on that, so regarding my question on the technology, the software that’s used by the various companies, the aerials that would potentially be flown could not be – you couldn’t transfer them between one company to the other?

Matt Arvay: Pictometry says that the way they process their imagery, that their software only works with their imagery.

Councilman Sutton: These are tech guys, don’t they know how to do everything? Make it work.

Councilmember Raben: Well, you’re probably getting into copyright infringements there. I mean, if it’s in the contract that you don’t own them, can’t use them beyond their services, I mean, we don’t want to get into that either.

Councilmember Goebel: My major question is, if funds are delivered today and the Commissioners do ratify a contract, will this flyover be in time to help with reassessment this particular year? Do we have a flight schedule?

Matt Arvay: They both have given a verbal that if we get this contract signed, you know, this week we work through the issues, that they will both be able to make our deadlines. They have, Pictometry has planes, 16 planes in the area, they’re in Louisville and they’re working their way north. GEOSPAN has verbally said that if we get everything worked out, they will be able to do it also. They understand that with the foliage that’s starting to come out, that they have planes in the area and they know they can get up here and get it done.

Councilmember Goebel: So we would be able to utilize this information this particular spring, is that correct?

Jonathan Weaver: Good morning. Jonathan Weaver, Vanderburgh County Assessor. First of all, thank you so much for making a special meeting for this. I don’t know, I can’t guarantee that that flight is going to happen. I’m just going off everybody else’s word, so...

Councilmember Goebel: Well, while you’re here, the other question I have, if we do approve and the aerial photos are taken, will that then allow you not to contract out for commercial reassessment and thus save, this would be a giant savings, I think, to the county if we go this route.

Jonathan Weaver: At this point in time, I think this is the best plan for the reassessment and this is all, at this point in time, I plan on spending. And we have statutory deadlines that we need to meet to get into a contract with for a vendor, and we’re going to miss those.

Councilmember Raben: Just a few general comments. As far as this whole project, I think it’s probably a magnificent project. I mean, I think from the standpoint of public safety it’s, you know, there’s a lot to this. The problem I see right now as it is today, you know, I don’t think we need to be taxiing out the runway because I think the, right now, the fog needs to lift. You know, it’s so foggy, there isn’t enough information as to whether or not this company is going to be here and I don’t want to be faced six months from now hiring a crop duster to finish this. So, Mr. President, I would like to see us wait. If we can get the principals from Pictometry in here next month maybe that would be helpful to get them to answer some of these questions we have, get the county more comfortable, would give the city an opportunity to get a little more comfortable with this. We know we’ve got their commitment, and what’s thirty more days if it means doing the project right and having the right vendor?

Troy Tornatta: Well, thirty more days would mean that we wouldn’t get the pictures that we need. I mean, that’s the difficulty with the process. Now I did ask because I heard that at some point we might have reassessment delayed one year because of the problems that other people are having throughout the state. But they haven’t committed to that yet. And without that commitment, because I am with you, I would rather see this process moved from the 11^th hour to another calendar. However, at this time, we have no commitment the reassessment is going to be moved. If reassessment is not moved, then we have to do it this year, we’re taking a big tool out of our arsenal and the only thing I’ll say is, you know, we know it’s timing, we think it’s poor timing on the Commissioners’ side. I know it’s bad timing on the Council’s side, no time is a good time. But we did do a process like this with the road salt. There was a $100,000 expenditure on road salt, the Commissioners did not take advantage of that money and it’s still sitting in that area because at the time it was $145 a ton, and we thought that that was not in the best interest, we went back and saw that we were going to have an adequate amount of salt if there was an event to come out and we held back from buying. Now there’s a contract out that we can get that salt at a lesser rate. So there is $100,000 identified in just that one line item that we’ve done this process already. We feel that we’ve got provisions and we would encourage this body to put provisions into any type of motion that was made to approve money for this project. If we have all our ducks in a row except your provisions, except the Commissioner’s provisions, the city would have to be onboard to do this because that’s a Commissioner’s provision, then we could, at a moment’s notice, be able to cut this deal and get a plane up in the air before the foliage gets on the trees.

Councilmember Raben: You know, in this account today is $110,000 that was budgeted last year. I mean, if the Commissioners want to move forward with this and take the onus for whether things go right or not, we don’t have to do anything today. We can zero the request and they can spend it from the existing funds within the line item.

Jonathan Weaver: Can I interject and say we have a contract with a commercial/industrial trender, if you want to so speak, that we’re paying periodic payments, that’s what that $110,000 is for, to disburse throughout the year.

President Shetler: Did I misunderstand the Commissioner’s meeting last night or the newspaper yesterday?

Jonathan Weaver: We hire out annual trending for commercial and industrial properties and that’s what the current contract did. That’s what that line item is for this year.

President Shetler: So the idea was that you would spend another $250,000 on top of that $100,000 if you don’t get this?

Jonathan Weaver: In our research that we’ve done throughout the state, looking back at the 2002 reassessment, we have seen counties spend anywhere from 450,000 to $10,000,000 on reassessment. There’s an article in the Tippecanoe County paper –

President Shetler: I’m really kind of concerned about Vanderburgh County and what your intent of the $250,000 was.

Jonathan Weaver: I’m telling you what other counties are spending. They’re spending a lot of money. I’m trying to get 1/8 of what’s in that reassessment fund right now to get this aerial photography, and I feel that’s sufficient enough to complete this reassessment successfully and accurately. That comment that if I can’t get this photography, yeah, I may need additional service and contracting out the commercial/industrial end of the reassessment. But we have a statutory deadline, again, in the contract there of April 15^th and we haven’t bidded it out and we haven’t gone through those channels, so the possibility of getting into a contract for the reassessment for commercial/industrial purposes is pretty slim. So this is why I’m pushing for this photography.

Jonathan Weaver: Trending and the reassessment, so we’re in the contract for the annual trending, the reassessment is a different thing.

President Shetler: I would like to have a real clear picture that if we’re going to enter into this $85,000, that we are not going to be seeing a request coming forward to this Council for another $250,000 for commercial and industrial reassessment being done by a third party out there.

Jonathan Weaver: Well, if you can guarantee me that this is approved today, I can make that happen.

President Shetler: So, you’re saying that if this money is approved, and this program is online, we will not need to go with any outside contractors for the commercial and industrial reassessment?

President Shetler: I mean, that’s what you’re saying. I just want to make that clear.

Jonathan Weaver: I’m laying out all the options for you that are – it was the picture or, you know, it was residential in-house, and then possibly contracting out the commercial and industrial reassessment part. So I don’t want to give you any surprises later.

President Shetler: That’s what I’m trying to avoid. So you are saying you will not be back asking or requesting an additional...

Jonathan Weaver: We have a deadline of April 15^th again to contract with a vendor and that’s not going to happen by April 15^th.

President Shetler: I feel like I’m getting an opaque answer and I’m looking for something that’s oblique, that’s crystal clear here.

Kathryn Schymik: We need to kind of qualify all this by the fact that this is only one of the components that needs to come into place with this contract because, obviously, all the terms and provisions have not been worked out yet, as we discussed earlier. We’ve got some of these legal issues that we’re still trying to work through. It’s hopeful that we’ll be able to resolve those, I think we’ve resolved one but there’s the one outstanding being how we’re going to back up that indemnification. You know, are they going to be able to get bonded if that’s the route we go? Is there some other collateral they’re going to be able to offer? So I think that if all the ducks fall in a row, maybe Mr. Weaver feels confident that this will provide him with what he needs for reassessment, but, you know, the appropriation is only one of those components and I just want to kind of qualify that for the Commissioners to protect them by saying that if we can’t work out the terms of the contract, then in that event Mr. Weaver may be back in front of you because we weren’t able to enter the contract, they weren’t able to take the aerial photos, and he’s got to go a different route with the reassessment.

President Shetler: Okay, I’ll rephrase my question. If we approve this today, and if all the conditions are met, and we’re able to get the flyover accomplished this spring before there’s any obstructions of foliage, then can we expect that you will not come back before this Council to request $250,000 or any amount of money for commercial/industrial reassessment?

Councilmember Lloyd: I think Mrs. Schymik had indicated that the lawsuit, GEOSPAN was suing Pictometry and that was, didn’t you say that trial was coming up in 2010?

Kathryn Schymik: That trial is tentatively set. It’s pending in the district court of Minnesota with a tentative trial date of May 2010. So, obviously, a settlement could occur in the interim but it’s still a ways out and, again, it’s not going to affect immediate delivery of the, under the contract, the flyover will take place, the pictures will be delivered. I think the concerns from a legal standpoint is just the ongoing ability to use what we’ve been provided and receive the support that we need to – you know, after we’ve made that investment.

Councilmember Lloyd: So really, if we would approve that, this thing would be pretty far down the road before anything would ever happen legally in that regard?

Kathryn Schymik: Right. And again, you know, as we tend to do as lawyers, we look at worst case scenarios and try to, you know, plan for that. It could be that we are never impacted by the outcome of that lawsuit or it could be a favorable ruling for Pictometry. But the fact that that is looming out there, it does kind of speak to the basis of what the contract is that we’re considering. We want to just make sure that we build in some protection so that even if the worst case scenario does happen, the county is not impacted.

Councilmember Lloyd: Okay, one other question. I know Commissioner Tornatta had indicated about the possibility of the delay in reassessment, Senate Bill 561 passed the Senate 48-0, there would be a one year delay on the reassessment state-wide. I was wondering if either one of you, how would that impact what we’re doing here? I mean, would it be a mistake to go into this if the reassessment was delayed for a year?

Jonathan Weaver: This is the first I’m hearing about that vote, so thanks for the update. You know, that’s good news for all of us, I guess. That does create less stress and less urgency, so thanks for the –

Councilmember Lloyd: It has to pass the House. We don’t know that it will do that, but one side passed it overwhelmingly. But, I mean, we don’t know and won’t know until the end of April what the result is.

Troy Tornatta: The question is probably better, and I’ll ask you the question, do you think that if we were to do this today knowing that our reassessment is back a year, is that going to, I mean, is this still going to be a positive tool to use for the future or do you feel like if it’s pushed back a year, there are better negotiation terms and we could see what’s going on. I mean, what do you see for doing your job? And keep in mind, the one thing I want to keep clear is, the Commissioners feel like, as an officeholder, Mr. Weaver should bring these things to us – we’re not fighting for Mr. Weaver, we’re fighting to make sure that the contract is right. So that’s our place here at this table. And just as a clarification, Mr. Raben, we feel like we want to make the whole contract appropriation. In talking to Mr. Fluty, and I don’t know if he talked to you, but we feel that we need to make that entire appropriation and then any monies that we receive back, just goes back into the fund. But we feel we need to, because of the contract, we need to have all those dollars in place.

Jonathan Weaver: In terms of, yeah, there’s so many other departments that we talked about that this is going to help out, and you have the support of many professional organizations in the community, the realtors, the Southwestern Indiana Builders Association –

Jonathan Weaver: So I don’t know if I’m answering your questions correctly –

Councilmember Raben: Just a comment based on the last few minutes here. Jonathan, as far as Commissioner Tornatta’s question that he asked a few minutes ago, if the reassessment is delayed another year, I mean, you don’t want to say it would be totally obsolete, but you are going to have photos out there that aren’t correct when you do your next reassessment because, you know, properties come and go. Industrial/commercial properties are torn down, new ones are developed that aren’t going to be part of what you’re looking at if it is delayed a year from now.

President Shetler: He’s saying that, basically, that we’re dealing with a certain amount of aged data and it’s going to be sitting there on the shelf for nine to twelve months and you’re going to be working off of some changes within our community. And to have an accurate assessment, shouldn’t we have the most up to date data that’s available to us, rather than using stale, outdated stuff?

Councilmember Raben: If reassessment is delayed for a year, you’re not going to have the photos of anything built between now and then. I mean, commercial properties, much less, anything that’s demo’ed.

Jonathan Weaver: At the same time, we want to get a head start on the reassessment, too. We don’t want to be starting July 1^st. You know, we want to get – we want to hit the ground running. We want to –

Councilmember Raben: But if it’s delayed a year are you going to start immediately, even though it’s delayed?

Jonathan Weaver: With 80,000 parcels, if we were to physically visit every single one of those parcels, with the current staff I have, it would take five years. So and what we’re trying to incorporate along with some other counties across the state is called a rolling reassessment. Pick 20,000 parcels a year and do those and so we’re up to date on all of them, so we don’t have to do them all at once. So there’s benefits to starting early. That’s what we’ve been doing with the 12,000 appeals that we received the last two years.

Councilmember Goebel: It’s very likely this is going to be delayed for a year by the action of the Senate because that would be a bi-partisan vote, I would think, if it’s unanimous. So the House will probably follow suit. However, are there more flyovers according to the contract, one in the fall and one next spring as well? Or is it just a one-shot deal right away?

Jonathan Weaver: They dictate their flight plan based on the foliage. So if we miss it because of the foliage on the leaves, their next flight schedule, I assume, is November, December, January, in that time frame, so the essence of this was, you know, if we did the flight today, we get the data the end of July, which gets it to us relatively on time or reasonably, and taking the flight in December, a year from now, we’d probably get it back in March of next year is when we would get that data. Which, if the dates for the reassessment stick, you know, it’s a little later than I had hoped. If it’s changed, like it may be, you know, we’ll be right on schedule.

Councilmember Goebel: We will know for sure by April 29 if reassessment is delayed a year. Will that be too late?

Councilmember Goebel: But, I mean, if you had the money in place to begin the Pictometry by April 29, I guess the foliage –

Troy Tornatta: Probably still be too late. And the only thing, and I don’t know this necessarily, what’s done in the House, but if the House did not see that legislation, then they have to go in conference committee and kind of hash that out, and just because the Senate does something, doesn’t mean the House is going to do it. And may be contrary to what they’re doing. So I’m just saying, those are a lot of, to me, bigger what if’s than maybe finding out if we can work out some of these other issues and just put it out on the table. And obviously, as I’ve tried to do at all times, call all the interested parties to tell them of a decision that’s going to be made, so as to not leave anybody out, if that would be the measure.

Councilmember Goebel: The example you gave on the salt and holding up on purchasing at a higher price, I think, I commend you for that and you operated in the best interests of the county. And I think if that money is in place, your promise is, right now, you’re not going to use that money unless all of these provisions are satisfiable to you and to the city as well.

Troy Tornatta: Right, and my promise is only to do what is right contractually for the county, to hire these individual, Pictometry, GEOSPAN, is of no meaning to me. As long as he feels that it’s the right company, I just need to protect the contract through our legal counsel, and both legal counsels have been doing an outstanding job to come down to terms.

President Shetler: Alright, thank you. I have one question yet for Matt that I’d like to – it’s a lingering question that just keeps coming back in my mind, back and forth here. And that is this whole idea on Google and I’ve had a couple of realtors that discussed this with me recently and they use it a lot and I guess it’s part of their MLS contract or something that they’re able to use and stuff. Can you tell me what the difference, because other than $85,000, tell me what the difference between Google and what this Pictometry or the, I guess, what is it, the oblique imagery will give us?

Matt Arvay: My understanding is, that you have a top-down ortho photography picture. That’s the top-down view. On Google Earth, they use that top-down view and then you, when you zoom in, you kind of tilt that. And depending on the angle you’re zooming in, you get a better quality versus maybe the angle, that one that you saw was a pretty poor --

– it’s a consistent angle throughout the county and then you see the results and the differences. That’s basically what you’ve got. You’ve got a modern picture and a clear picture from an angle that you can then rotate around a property 360 degrees. That’s in essence, in a nutshell, what’s the difference.

President Shetler: Alright. I have a little bit of a problem with these pictures because this is what was shown last time, number one, it’s commercial from Pictometry, the company who took pictures and took something off of Google that was four years old, and took something of theirs that was somewhat new. So I have a problem using this as any kind of –

President Shetler: – evidence. That’s why I really need to know, like the technical difference of it, and what they used here was like four years old technology. As you know better than I, technology improves daily –

President Shetler: – that hasn’t improved any, and Google has not improved it though?

Matt Arvay: What’s on Google is a 2004 flight. They didn’t go to Google and pick a 2004 out there. And I went back and I had staff zoom in. And again, its about how the angle that you go in at Google Earth and how far you tilt that image as far as quality. I don’t, in my honest opinion, I don’t think there was any ill intent there, it just, you zoom in, you do a screen capture, you print the thing out. I did put some sticky notes on there to kind of help because there was some question on was it really Evansville and, you know, to try to help identify a few buildings.

Councilmember Raben: We probably need to move on with this but I had one last question. If we appropriate these funds today, you said the contract that you actually are paying out of that line today is like 96 or 98,000? Is that right, Jonathan? So there is probably 10 or $12,000 in there that, I mean, we can probably reduce this amount by that and use what surplus is going to be in that line if we’d like.

Jonathan Weaver: I hate to come before you though in a month or two and say, you know, we need $20,000 for the installment payment to the contractor if we’re using that money in the current line item for this, if I understand you correctly. Is that what you’re saying?

Councilmember Raben: No, your trending contract you said was 96 or 98,000. There is 110 in that account, I mean, that’s what you’re going to need for trending, right, what the contract is for?

Councilmember Raben: So the remark I made was, we could reduce this amount, this 85 by probably $10,000 and you’d still have ample monies in the fund to cover both contracts.

Matt Arvay: Jim, the contract is actually $125,307.85. It’s split up over two years. The first year’s costs are $85,297.85, but the total contractual cost is the $125,307.85, so I think in order to, I guess, move forward with one of the four requirements, you’d really need the $125,307.85 appropriated, even though it would be paid over two years because that’s what the contract states.

Councilmember Raben: The request is for $85,893. We can’t go beyond that today.

President Shetler: Right, because the request is for 86, which is for this year. I think the point that they’re trying to make is that there is a balance projected of $12,000 approximately in that account for the end of the year and we could take that 12,000, subtract it off the 86 and change or 85 and change, and come up about a 74 or 75,000 new money appropriation as opposed to the 86.

Councilmember Lloyd: Okay, you know, none of us know what the legislature is going to do. I know, and Mr. Weaver may know more than me, a lot of the counties are behind on their assessments, and that’s why the legislature is looking at that one year delay. The flyover would be done before April 30^th, is that correct?

Jonathan Weaver: I don’t have a – I’ve never heard of a full commitment date, that’s what I’m hearing from just the conversations that we’re having, so you know, the question is, is that too late? If you look at the trees right now, they’re already starting to bud.

Councilmember Lloyd: I think Councilman Goebel was maybe on this track, if we knew by April 30^th that they were going to have a one year delay, could some of the flyovers be done later? That’s my question?

Matt Arvay: My understanding is that the foliage would be out, it may even be out, you know, the next few weeks. You’re already starting to see it, you know, it all depends on the weather, the sunlight, all those types of factors in there, so I believe April 29^th would probably be too late for a quality picture.

President Shetler: Okay, one other request that I’d like to make and that is, is it possible that we could write in the contract here that we actually own those images or do you feel like that might be out of the question? And again, I don’t know if that’s going to help us if they would lose the lawsuit anyway.

Kathryn Schymik: Mr. Arvay and I were actually just talking about that, some other possibilities for kind of backing up what this indemnification provision is going to be. And obviously what we want to do is protect the investment that the county and city have made into this program. So those are some things that we will definitely look into. I mean, per the terms of contract right now, they do own the images, we just have a license for them. It is a perpetual license, once the initial two year period ends, that’s the way the contract they presented to us was set up. But we can go back and readdress that and make sure that we are not going to have any ownership issues with the images going forward. But the contract that the county has been asked to sign is for the full amount of $120,000. It’s my understanding – or whatever the full amount – $125,000. It was my understanding from discussing it with Bill Fluty yesterday that we really needed to appropriate that entire amount because that was the amount that the county is going to contract for and be obligated to immediately upon signing. And if only half of the funds are appropriated, you know, we’re obligated to the full amount. So –

Kathryn Schymik: Right, I wasn’t aware of what the request made was, I just knew what the contract amount was.

Councilmember Goebel: If the city kicks in $40,000, that would make it 125, is that not correct?

Matt Arvay: If they were going to pay their whole share in one year, but that was an anticipated thing, the 20 and 20 because it’s really a two year contract.

Councilmember Goebel: I understand, but I think Mr. Tornatta alluded that unless the city kicks in, then we’re not going to go with it anyway.

Matt Arvay: Well, they’re going to kick in, so yes, I guess they would appropriate 40,000 to be spent over two years.

Councilmember Raben: We can’t exceed what’s advertised. But I guess the question is on the trending side, have we signed the new contract on that because we may be okay anyway. We can come back in at a later date and make an additional appropriation to cover that side of it?

President Shetler: Okay, because we made this pretty clear last time that whatever amount of money you needed for the contract, if we advertised that, that’s all we could do and you came back and made this request for this specific amount.

Jonathan Weaver: Well, it was the first year amount. So I was unaware that the 125 was due immediately, so...

Councilmember Raben: You see where we’re going with this, you would be okay for right now, if you don’t have another contract signed obligating that 98. If you haven’t actually, officially signed that contract yet, we can make this all work out.

Kathryn Schymik: And the 125 is not due immediately, it’s due over a two year period, but when we sign the contract, we’re obligating the county to, you know, to make those payments over that two year period. And I think that’s maybe where the confusion came in. Yes, you’re only going to pay half of it in year one, but you have already signed and obligated the county to pay year two, once the contract is executed.

President Shetler: And for the city to kind of bail us out of that predicament that we found ourselves in at the moment, they would have to appropriate and go through the City Council and advertise, which would be two or three weeks down the road as well. So that isn’t a bailout, either.

Councilmember Raben: That still doesn’t fix it because the money then has to be reappropriated. I mean, it can be transferred into this fund, but we still have to make an additional appropriation.

Councilman Sutton: Well, you could just put it on the April 1^st agenda at the full amount that you need.

Councilmember Raben: You can probably work that out in the contract. It’s year one, year two.

Troy Tornatta: Yeah. And I know we’ve done that in the past where we’ve had yearly contracts where we have not had the full amount.

Troy Tornatta: That’s exactly right. So, I think that that can all be worked out in the contract and make it work if we can come to terms on just getting dollars in the pot.

President Shetler: Okay, I’m going to go back real quickly to us owning the images. If, in fact, they lose the lawsuit, though, and it’s based upon infringing on their patent rights of how they captured those pictures, then that property would no longer have been the right for them to have sold it to us to begin with, so would we then lose it?

Kathryn Schymik: Well, I mean, I guess there’s always that possibility. The complaint that they filed, they asked for monetary damages and they asked for injunctive relief that would prevent Pictometry from continuing to sell the images that they capture pursuant to the method that’s under the patent. We’re not under jurisdiction of the court where that suit is pending. It’s the district court of Minnesota and I would be surprised if a court would step in and interfere with a contract that we, as a third party, in good faith entered into with Pictometry. That being said, we do have knowledge of this pending lawsuit and, you know, I guess if they wanted to file a claim against the county for continuing infringing activity because we obtained and used images that weren’t lawful because they violated the patent. I mean, you know, they could always go that route. Again, this is all very speculative and to predict what any outcome might be, you know, we really can’t do that. But is that a possibility that GEOSPAN might come back and tell the county that we can no longer use those images and seek an injunction against us for the use? Absolutely, that’s a possibility.

President Shetler: We have a question on the floor, motion and do we want to summarize this? Does anybody have any questions about what we’re –

Councilmember Bassemier: One last thing and then let’s call for a vote, if I could. Of course, I’m in favor of it, but I’m hearing a lot of ifs. I’m hearing promises and these documents are going to be signed, there’s legal issues and I don’t know if we ought to defer this until April 1^st until we see more things in writing. Like I said, I’m hearing a lot of ifs, a lot of promises. Are we going to have a reassessment coming up? So maybe we ought to defer this until the 1^st. If not, I’m ready for a vote.

Jeff Ahlers: If I could, perhaps, Mr. Shetler, so that maybe to recap, come back to the beginning, where we are. Currently pending is a motion that was made and seconded to approve those funds. Currently there is no conditions on that motion. If I could summarize maybe a lot of the things that I’ve heard here, some of the conditions that I’ve heard some of you talk about and I think that you would need to amend your motions if you’re going to make these conditions, but I do think that any contract, as usual, if it’s, you know, more than a year, needs to specifically state in there that it is subject to annual appropriation by Council and the vendor will just have to accept that because we do that in all leases or contracts where there’s an ongoing obligation, that it’s subject to annual appropriation so that we’re not on the hook beyond this year and that’s just a fact they’ll have to, you know, I think they should have to live with that because that’s the way we do things and it’s the law. I think that the other condition that’s been talked about is that there be a full and complete indemnity for any and all claims and liabilities that would arise from us contracting with them or accepting their services and goods, and that that indemnity and the performance needs to be backed up by some sort of collateral, whether it’s a performance bond from an insurance company that will continue for as long as we’re using this product in the foreseeable future or whether it’s by escrowed funds or however the Commissioner’s legal counsel sees appropriate to secure that. But, as we know, if a company goes out of business or is insolvent, the indemnity wouldn’t be worth anything unless it’s secured by some sort of collateral or insurance bond, and that I hear everybody saying they want that. There’s some further contracting and licensing issues that need to be resolved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner’s legal counsel and to the Commissioners including some of these issues concerning licensing. I hear some of the Councilmembers, perhaps maybe all of you, on this issue that we should own the images, which I think is, from a legal standpoint, I think is a good thing. You’re paying for them, why shouldn’t you own them? And the same thing comes up a lot of times in negotiations with architects, you know, who owns the plans. And I guess my position always is, if you paid for them, you know, you should own them and that that would give you some rights if at some point you’d need to use them for other, you know, that you’d always have to get permission from them. And so, I would suggest that that be included as a condition as well. I guess one of the things I’m a little unclear about, is the city going to approve the contract and sign it as well? I mean, I guess it occurs to me, if there is any ongoing obligation, it seems to me that the city ought to be a signatory so that they’re also comfortable with the contract and in agreement, so that there isn’t a situation where we’ve got this joint venture, so to speak, and that at some point the city decides we don’t want to be a part of it anymore, where does that leave us. So that, perhaps there ought to be some obligation there as well as the city ought to be comfortable with the terms as well, since their legal counsel has gone over that. And, I don’t know if that left anything out or not, but I guess that would be my summary of what I heard collectively from the Council, and I guess the question becomes whether you want to make those as conditions to your appropriation. If you do, you’ll need to amend it, otherwise, as it’s stated, there’s just an appropriation of money and then you would be leaving it up to the County Commissioners to resolve any terms or conditions, or make the decision as to whether to go ahead and sign the contract.

Councilman Sutton: There was a motion on the floor, I don’t know if anyone wanted to amend their motion to include some of those caveats to ensure that some of these questions are addressed before proceeding forward with what we’ve got, is really what the question is.

Councilmember Raben: And what we can do there is, memo or – I mean, there is a lot there, but I don’t know if that can be as an addendum to the vote that we’ll insert a list of concerns that would be forwarded to the Commissioners as well as the city. We also need to amend the motion if we’re going to use some of the existing funds within that line, and I would recommend that we set it in at 74,000. But, Jeff, how do we do that? I mean, if we wanted to make sure the language is all intact?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, I guess there’s several ways to do it, one of which, obviously, if you agree to withdraw the motion to set in the new amount, when you do that, I guess the question becomes whether or not the appropriation – I mean, I guess in some respects you either have to make an appropriation or you don’t. I guess the question becomes whether you attach conditions that you’re telling the County Commissioners that you’re not to spend this money unless these are satisfied. Ultimately, that money needs to be appropriated if that’s what you’re going to do and it’s in the account. I suppose your – I mean, I guess what you would have to resort to is that if the Commissioners did not comply with the conditions that you’re putting on, I guess you can take the money from them elsewhere or I guess that would be – but, I mean, once the money is appropriated, technically, then it goes to the executive body to negotiate those terms.

Councilmember Raben: Let me do this, I’m going to amend the motion, well, you –

Councilmember Raben: I only seconded, I didn’t make the motion. So the motion needs to be for $74,000. And it ought –

President Shetler: Okay, let’s do this, why don’t we withdraw or I would ask, okay, we’ve got Councilman Bassemier asked to withdraw –

President Shetler: Okay, so we have no motion on the floor. So now we are clear.

Councilmember Raben: I would like to make a motion that we approve account 2490-1090-3540 in the amount of $74,000. And with that motion, I would like, and we can simply, we’ll have this on record, that since we can’t really do what you’re stating, you can’t attach a bunch of conditions with every appropriation, that the County Commissioners hear and address our concerns before signing the contract with Pictometry. And you might say that on the record, and then that takes care of, I think, what everybody – that might satisfy everybody. Is that correct?

President Shetler: Yes, because the point is that, once we appropriate the money, we cannot put conditions on that appropriation as such. The only thing – it’s appropriated, $74,000. The only thing we can do is advise the Commissioners to look for these certain points that we are concerned about.

Troy Tornatta: I am the one that would sign that document as voted last night, so I will address any concerns that you have with our counsel and have those concerns stated in the contract, and that contract will then be in front of Counselor Ahlers and then we’ll pass, either get in contact with you or we’ll pass it on to all the members to let them know that it’s at a place and that we’re ready to sign.

Councilman Sutton: Just so that we’re really clear. I mean, there was about four different conditions that Mr. Ahlers shared with us. If you could prepare those in some kind of written form without too much jargon or legalese with it so that we can all understand what it’s saying, but if you could prepare those for all of us and then if you could get those to the Commissioners’ counsel and then to the Commissioners as well, that would be extremely helpful for us. Can you do that for us?

Jeff Ahlers: I can do that or what I was going to suggest is, I don’t know what time or when the minutes can be done and they’ll be in writing or if you want it done separately.

Troy Tornatta: Yeah, and we’ll take that checklist and use it with our checklist.

Matt Arvay: Council President, I just want to make mention, Mr. Ahlers said about the city/county signing the contract. And again, city legal is working with county legal and if they get a mutual contract that everyone is happy with, the city would sign the contract. It would be a joint contract and we’ve had many joint contracts over the years where both parties were required to sign for it to be a valid contract.

President Shetler: Right. Thank you. Any other questions? Anything that needs to be cleared up on the motion? You moved, I think, didn’t you?

President Shetler: Okay, any other questions? Roll call please. And the motion is for $74,000 even. Alright, roll call please.

President Shetler: Yes. There being six ayes and no nays, the motion carries for $74,000.

President Shetler: Thank you. Next, we’ll move into our next regularly scheduled meeting of the Personnel & Finance.

President Shetler: Thank you. Meeting adjourned. And then we’ll move on to the Personnel & Finance committee meeting.

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 a.m.)

2490-1090-3540	Maintenance Contract	85,893.00	74,000.00
Total		85,893.00	74,000.00