VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL

MINUTES

MAY 7, 2003

The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 7^th day of May, 2003 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 3:31 p.m. by County Council President Jim Raben.

President Raben: I’d like to call to order the Vanderburgh County Council meeting for May 7^th, 2003. Sheriff, would you like to open the meeting?

(Meeting opened by Chief Deputy Sheriff Eric Williams)

President Raben: Okay, thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call vote please.

President Raben: Now if we could all stand for the Pledge.

(Pledge of Allegiance was given)

President Raben: Okay, in the audience with us today, we have several students from North High School. I might ask that you stand and be recognized. Thank you.

President Raben: Next, approval of the minutes from our April 2^nd, 2003 meeting.

Councilmember Winnecke: So moved.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Raben: We have a motion and a second. Any questions? Hearing none, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

SUPERINTENDENT OF COUNTY BUILDINGS

President Raben: Next, the Appropriation Ordinance. And at this time, I would like to turn the mike over to our Finance Chairman, Lloyd Winnecke.

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay, thank you, Mr. President. At this time I’d like to move that line 1310-1850 Union Overtime in the amount of $500 be approved.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Raben: We have a motion and a second. Any questions? Hearing none, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

SUPERINTENDENT OF COUNTY BUILDINGS    REQUESTED     APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

Councilmember Winnecke: Under Community Corrections, line 1361-1950 Educational Fund in the amount of $832, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Raben: We have a motion and a second. Amy questions? Hearing none, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS                               REQUESTED     APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

SUPERIOR COURT

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay, in Superior Court, line 1370-1803-1370 Legal Transcripts/Pauper in the amount of $720, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Raben: We have a motion and several seconds. Any questions? Roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

SUPERIOR COURT                                                REQUESTED     APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay, from the Cum Bridge Fund, I’ll move line 2030-3930 Other Contractual in the amount of $90,000 be approved.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Raben: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE                                          REQUESTED     APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REASSESSMENT/COMMISSIONERS

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay, in Reassessment Fund appropriations under Reassessment/Commissioners, I’ll move line 2492-1300-3120 Postage in the amount of $26,000, and line 2492-1300-3410 Printing in the amount of $9,000, for a total appropriation of $35,000 be approved.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Raben: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? No discussion? Roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

REASSESSMENT/COMMISSIONERS                   REQUESTED     APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

911 EMERGENCY SERVICE

Councilmember Winnecke: From the 911 Emergency Service fund, I’ll move line 3290-3140 Telephone in the amount of $14,000 be approved.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Raben: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? No discussion, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

911 EMERGENCY SERVICE                                 REQUESTED     APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

TOURISM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay, from the Tourism Capital Improvement fund, I’ll move line 3600-4067 Soccer Fields Complex in the amount of $200,000 be approved.

President Raben: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes. On that, what would be the balance left in the account if this particular request is approved? If someone from the Convention & Visitors Bureau is available to speak to this?

David Dunn: Good afternoon. I’m David Dunn. I’m one of the board members of the Convention & Visitors Bureau, and is the question how much will be remaining in the Tourism Capital Development Fund?

Councilmember Sutton: Correct.

David Dunn: Presently, we show a balance of $509,000, so that would leave roughly $300,000 in the account.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay, thank you.

President Raben: Any other questions? Hearing none, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

TOURISM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT                   REQUESTED     APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

JAIL PROJECT

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay, Jail Project fund appropriations. I’ll move line 3660-4321 Road Construction be set in at zero.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Raben: We have a motion and a second. Questions?

Councilmember Winnecke: I’ll get the ball rolling. The financial statement that we were provided last week shows that we have 1.9 million that’s unappropriated in the Local Road & Street budget. I believe it’s appropriate that the Commissioners fund this request from that project. A while ago, this body set a budget of 35 million dollars for the jail project. To aid the Commissioners in finding and securing a location for the project we appropriated an additional one million dollars. In my mind, that’s it. I think we need to live within our means and I think the Local Road & Street budget is an appropriate funding source for this project.

President Raben: Okay, any other questions? Councilman Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Right, I think that, although it’s in some ways good logic to bring it out of Local Roads & Streets, this is a jail project. At this point we would like to, in my opinion, we would like to pull these funds out of the jail or do what we said we were doing in a prior meeting which is, if we had to go a little bit over our 35 million dollar cap to take care of the property and how to get to that property, then that would be all encompassed under here. In numbers, in looking at it, we are going to have reimbursements come back to us over a million dollars or right about a million dollars, which would cover this project, and so we should be in line even if we had to – I mean, I don’t even know if we’d have to go over the 35 million. I mean, is Commissioner Mosby....? Commissioner, could you go over the cash balance and any reimbursables that we are going to receive and then maybe go over what we see in the Local Roads & Streets coming up and how that will be affected if we take the money out of Local Roads & Streets?

President Raben: Excuse me, David, before you start please state your name for the record.

David Mosby: David Mosby, President of the County Commissioners. Thank you, Councilman Tornatta. What you have in your cash balance of your jail project, first, we’ll go back to the fact that there was 2.7 million put in there in 2001, 2002, and there was interest received on that of $54,000, and interest as of 3/31 was 8,000, so you had a balance of $5,462,000. Out of that, land was paid for a million dollars, road design $170,000, then you had architectural fees of $698,000, which is going to be a reimbursable back to that fund out of the bond issue, and then you had $373,000 for programming, which is another reimbursable coming back to that fund. Presently, you have a 3.2 million dollar balance. You take the two reimbursables, put them back in and you have a 4.2 million dollar balance. You could take the 1.4 out, you’re going to get another reimbursable from the water department which, in turn, is still going to leave you a balance of 3.6 million dollars, 3.677. If you look at the road fund, Street & Roads, and I sent a letter over. We know we have Mt. Pleasant on the books at $320,000, we know we’re going to have to take part of St. George/Oak Hill, we can’t take it all out of CCD, there’s $387,000 coming out for that. We have the Green River Road project which we’ve yet to been able to get started. It has to be started at some point in time, that’s almost two and a half million, we have Green River and Millersburg at $322,000. If you’ll remember correctly, Eickhoff/Koressel came in at a whole lot higher than what we thought and that project is still not started. But we have a problem out there because USI had signed off on some wetlands that was never done and we’re still in the process with Bernardin Lochmueller of trying to straighten this out. This project could even go higher before it’s all said and done. All that’s in Roads & Streets is 1.9 million dollars and if you look at everything that’s going to have to come out of there, we’re nowhere close in Roads & Streets to get that done. But the jail fund does have a 4.2 million dollar or will have a 4.2 million dollar balance. I talked to CSX last week after we had this meeting and I talked to Mark Freeland early Thursday morning. The land, if you look at the description that we wrote for the road project out there, there’s ten acres that CSX is donating and it’s like Mark said, we’re not charging anybody for that land. If you want to say it’s worth $50,000 an acre, that’s a $500,000 donation. But they are donating the ten acres this Council and Commission, and this county and city, is not required to buy that. So they are already putting ten acres of land on the table that we did not have to purchase and we did not have to take out of our purchase for the project. It’s like he said, we didn’t require you to take that out of your purchase of the 37 acres, he said, so that’s our contribution to this project.

Councilmember Winnecke: Relative to the letter that you sent on Monday, referring back to the capital improvement plan, the five year plan that you presented us at budget time last year, Green River/Millersburg is on there for 2004 and 2005, but only for $175,000.

David Mosby: This is an update that John Stoll has given us, there’s going to have to be some stuff changed in that project. I don’t know if John is here or not. He was kind of – there’s going to have to be some design changes in there.

John Stoll: John Stoll, County Engineer. That project had to be modified because of meeting Federal Aid requirements. Right now it looks like the intersection of Green River and Millersburg would have to be raised up to three feet and that wasn’t anticipated in the original numbers so that changes that project substantially. We originally thought it could be done with a lot lower price tag but meeting the standards and getting the project done is probably going to cost a million, a million and a half ballpark terms right now. And we still won’t know for certain until all the final design plans have been approved, and we’re just not there yet.

President Raben: Okay, just real quick because you asked a question and I don’t think we really answered the question. The question was, the project is scheduled for 2004, 2005. Why are we mentioning today that we need those monies now?

David Mosby: We’re just trying to give you an overlook of what is going to be coming out of this fund for the next two or three years and the amount of money we have. And there’s –

President Raben: And money goes into the fund every year.

David Mosby: If you look at the two and a half million alone, I mean, what we’re going to be getting in and all this coming out, plus Eickhoff/Koressel, there’s not a million four to take out of there. That’s the point. I mean, it’s not – we’re just trying to give you an overview of what’s coming up in the future. I mean, rather than looking at just today, I mean, we’re trying to look at the future and tell you where we’re at.

Councilmember Sutton: Dave, what is remaining on Eickhoff/Koressel as far as what the county should expect to see as far as paying and finishing out that project? I mean, how much do we have left out there?

John Stoll: Do you mean how much work till we get it to construction or dollar figures?

Councilmember Sutton: Well, as far as dollar figures coming out of Local Roads & Streets this year for that project.

John Stoll: I can’t tell you exactly because there are about, I believe eight condemnation suits out there on right-of-way that have yet to be settled. It depends on what the final dollar figure is on all those. Assuming we didn’t have to pay anything above and beyond what we deposited with the courts already, I was figuring that we’re about even with what’s in the budgets right now. If we have to deal with the – well, it’s not if we have to deal with it, it’s when we have to deal with the mitigation problem, we’ll have to sign another supplemental agreement for design with Bernardin Lochmueller that could cost several thousand dollars more. And the big unknown is the construction cost. Between, I’d say 2000 and then 2002, the cost estimate jumped several million dollars. That cost estimate has been since refined. We think it’s a fairly accurate estimate but if we see another jump like that then our local match goes up accordingly and that’s where we’d see another big chunk of Road and Street money or some funding needed to make that project a go. Ideally, we’d still like to see that project bid this fall, but the biggest unknown is when we’ll get the mitigation issue resolved.

Councilmember Winnecke: I just had one other sort of question or comment. David, you referenced the Mt. Pleasant Road project both at the podium and in your letter. I found through the Auditor’s Office that we encumbered $1.1 million at the end of the year and there’s an additional several hundred thousand dollars that’s unappropriated for that, so how do you foresee that project and where does that stand?

John Stoll: We’re in the process of acquiring right-of-way on that right now, too. I believe condemnation has been filed on six parcels and the cost estimate on that project was around two million dollars. Given what we’ve paid in right-of-way to date has helped make our cost go higher than what we had anticipated back when that project was originally budgeted. Like you said, there is a million in one account. I believe there is $500,000 in another. I think we’ve got $175,000 in the bridge account for that project, but totaling up all those, plus the remaining expected right-of-way costs, we end up about $300,000 short. If the bids come in lower, great, then we wouldn’t need that money. But unfortunately, we’re not to that point yet.

Councilmember Winnecke: And then when do you project that going to bid and under construction?

John Stoll: We’re still hoping for that to go this fall as well because we’ve got, I believe, five parcels of right-of-way that aren’t in condemnation as of yet, that potentially could, that aren’t settled as of yet. All the rest of them, the condemnation is in the process of being filed. So once we get right of entry on to those properties, then we would be ready to bid the project. There may be a lag time between when we bid it and when construction actually starts because there’s a substantial amount of utility relocation that has to be done out there, but we could at least get the project awarded by the end of the year. At least that’s our plan.

Councilmember Wortman: Mr. Stoll, on the bridge over Pigeon Creek, were you going to build an additional bridge there or widen that or what’s your plan? Wouldn’t you have to do that first or am I wrong?

John Stoll: On Green River?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

John Stoll: The plan that was developed back in the mid 90's, back when that project was originally undertaken, it called for building a new, two-lane bridge immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and then the existing bridge would have a total rehab. So it would be a little bit of both. One new bridge and then one rehab of the existing bridge.

Councilmember Wortman: Thank you.

President Raben: John, real quick, since we got on the subject of Mt. Pleasant, did we not discuss some time over the course of last year that there was a possibility that that project was going to be scaled back because of crossing the railroad tracks and intersection?

John Stoll: Morley & Associates is in the process of changing those plans right now. When we met with CSX and INDOT, I believe it was in January or February, they said their preference would be that we not even do any work on their right-of-way. And the way the plans were drawn, we were showing a three-lane road cross section going up to the track. That has to be scaled back to get rid of the third lane, so that’s what Morley is in the process of doing right now. And then last summer, the property owners west of Old State did not want any part of the project as far as any widening in front of their houses so the project was scaled back to eliminate the portion of the project west of Old State. But that was only a few hundred feet.

President Raben: Okay, I guess my question is, is I thought that was the case, but if we’re talking about scaling the project back in two different fashions, how do we get into cost run overs?

John Stoll: The right-of-way is where we’re seeing the problems right now. I mean, back when the original estimates were prepared, we didn’t have all the appraised values of all the properties. Now we do and we’ve purchased quite a few of them already. So that was the unanticipated portion of the cost. We just didn’t have it at the time and now we do. As far as costs for construction, realistically, the supplemental agreements with Morley’s will offset a lot of the cost of the, they will offset the reduction in construction cost. Basically, we had to pay Morley’s office, I believe it was $18,000 on this last redesign to change the cross section up by the railroad tracks, plus they were going to address a couple other issues. And I can’t remember what we paid last summer, but those increased engineering costs were going to offset any savings when we got to construction.

President Raben: Alright, any other questions?

Councilmember Sutton: I want to just – I think you guys have got quite a bit of information. I just want to make sure I’m clear. Maybe you guys are a little bit more clear than I am. As we look at the priorities on our different projects here and trying to get a good handle on how much we’re going to have coming out this year, I know we’ve got to think about 2004, 2005. We’ve got to think about that, but yeah, we’ll have additional money that will be coming in, you know, to fund things in future years, but kind of help me to see it maybe with a little bit more clarity on just the numbers on these projects, what it’s going to cost and what we should anticipate this year. I’ve got the – you know, got the letter that was prepared here, but given maybe what you guys are sharing here, it appears there might be some updates or some amendments to that. And so if you could give me some dollars and priority wise, where do they fall in, you know, which one is the top one, which one is bottom? Kind of work me through that. That would be very helpful.

David Mosby: In talking to the County Engineer, the first two for sure and going to go and then Green River Road, we’re going to at least budget money for design. I mean, we have to do – the design has to be updated. This project has been left sitting now for about eight or ten years.

President Raben: While you’re there, do you have an estimate – yeah, we put a half million in there in August for that.

David Mosby: And then Green River/Millersburg, we don’t know for sure. And we don’t know what’s going to happen with Eickhoff/Koressel. And that’s a big unknown factor right now.

President Raben: So the only for sure is approximately just under $700,000?

David Mosby: Yeah, it’s going to be $700,000 for sure, and then depending on what happens with Millersburg and what happens with Eickhoff/Koressel.

President Raben: And not to keep kicking a dead horse, but I still have a lot of questions which, John, I may need to get back with you on Mt. Pleasant, but the total cost of that project as it stands today is estimated at what?

Councilmember Winnecke: Million five.

John Stoll: Around two million.

President Raben: Around two million? Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Sutton: So if I took out the Millersburg, Green River and Millersburg project, and I’m including Mt. Pleasant, St. George and Eickhoff, that puts me about 1.3, and then that Green River Road project is – with the design, don’t know what the figure is there, so I’ve got a total of about 1.3 right now without the design cost.

President Raben: We appropriated $500,000 last August for designs, so that money is in place.

David Mosby: It will be about $700,000 on the first two and it’s $1,020,000 if you add the third one in, not counting Eickhoff/Koressel, which would leave us about an $800,000 balance. The other thing that I wanted to mention, I mean, we have a closing date on this land and we’re supposed to close this land within a certain amount of days of our use and development commitment, so this is something that we don’t have very few days left and that’s why we’re here today.

Councilmember Tornatta: Why could this money not come out of the balance that we have in the jail fund?

Councilmember Winnecke: Because my personal opinion is that it should be spent here. I mean, I think –

Councilmember Tornatta: Are we building a – it’s for the jail, right?

Councilmember Winnecke: We’re building a road. We’re extending Harlan Avenue, and we’ve asked every officeholder that’s come before us this year to make priorities. We’ve said no probably more this year than any time I’ve been on the Council. And with all respect to the Commissioners and the County Engineer, I think they need to make the same kind of priorities. We set a budget of 35 million dollars, we added one million dollars for land acquisition and I think that’s it. We have a million nine that’s unappropriated there. They expect to spend $700,000 this year out of Local Roads & Streets on that project. We know that we’ll be reimbursed $700,000 from the utility department once the city closes on its land. It’s a $700,000 project. I think it needs to come from Local Roads & Streets.

Councilmember Tornatta: We did set aside that money for issues like this to take care of any overage or any runs that we needed, and we did state in a Council meeting that if it did run over a few, I think we got an outstanding deal on the property, and that allowed us to also put a road to the property. And then we’re going to get reimbursed half of that back. I mean, it stands to reason it could come out of that fund. We don’t take it out of the roads that we need to repair and upgrade that have to be for the citizens of this community. I mean, I think that’s what its all about. And then we set it aside knowing that was going to happen.

President Raben: Could I – just a moment. As far as the set aside, I could not differ with you more. The set aside was preparing ourselves to pay the debt service on those bonds, nothing more, nothing less. And we have gone beyond the 35 million with allowing the million dollar purchase for the property out of the set aside. And just like you and I discussed today on the phone, it’s a little early to lift the lid off the cookie jar. I mean, you’re right, we may need to get into that. You know, we haven’t hammered the first nail in this project, we don’t know what other costs overruns there may be that we find out as you get closer to completion of this project. So that set aside has always been, in my belief, has been to take care of debt service.

Councilmember Sutton: Let’s look at this fully now. The whole 35 million dollar project cost was based on a ten year projection that we would set aside X number of dollars every year. We didn’t do that this year. We did it the first couple of years, so we’ve already – I mean, we’ve got some issues here that this Council is going to need to – and I brought this up a couple months ago and there hasn’t been any follow up on it – where the dollars are going to come from to pay the debt service on this, so we’ve already had a misstep this year. There hasn’t been any money put in to the jail project fund for this year. Granted, we are talking about a separate issue, but it’s very much related in that if we’re having these issues this year, we don’t know what next year is going to bring, so given what we were presented here at this Council, that this Council was going to set aside X number of dollars each and every year, that has not been addressed.

Councilmember Winnecke: Mr. Sutton, I think you make a great point and I think that reiterates the importance of not funding this project from that. When the bonds are sold and the reimbursables are put back into that account, we’re going to need all that money and more to start the debt service in 2006 if everything goes according to plan. The element that we need to look at beyond that is the operational expense of that jail which, you know, frankly, we haven’t looked at in some time. So I think you make a great point, I agree with you 100%, but I think it speaks to the point that we need to really fund this from another source versus taking it out of the set aside money.

President Raben: Okay, --

David Mosby: Can I just say two things?

President Raben: One last comment.

David Mosby: Well okay, I’ll combine them together then. We’re looking at a fund that’s going to have a 3.6 million dollar cash balance in it. At the end of the year, even if we take the 1.4 million out and you’ve got 700,000 coming back in, that’s included in the 3.6, that’s going to be your cash balance. You’re talking about a fund that only has a 1.9 million dollar cash balance which we know 700,000 is already coming out. We have a commitment to this community and the public to take care of the streets and roads out here. We cannot break this fund. This fund will not be broke – I won’t do it. I can assure you that. The only other option you’re going to leave us is we’ll take the 1.4 million out of the jail fund, we’ll take it out of the bond issue, but when we do, you’re getting one pod less. You’re cutting 64 beds off that jail, so you’re in turn going to pay for a jail that’s not even going to be two times the size of what you’ve got. And that’s what we need to be thinking about. That’s our only alternative is to go to the bond.

President Raben: I’m going to recognize Councilman Bassemier for one last comment.

Councilmember Bassemier: I just want everyone to remember that when we put in that 35 million dollars back a couple three years ago, that was for three projects. That’s for the jail, juvenile detention center, community corrections. Now we’re at 35 million and we can’t build it for 35 million, and I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I really feel like we’re having the wrong people to build this jail. I know they can do it across the river for a third of the cost or two thirds. I tell you what, you know, I think the taxpayers just spoke just on that referendum. You know, they don’t want to raise taxes to help our kids, but yet, it’s going to end up we’re going to raise our taxes to make it comfortable for our criminals. It just don’t make sense. So we just better watch what we’re doing here when we vote.

President Raben: Thank you. Roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: We’re setting this in at zero, right? That’s the motion? I vote yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: I don’t like to have this body threatened by diminishing the size of the jail. I was ready to vote no on this but I’m going to vote yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

JAIL PROJECT                                                       REQUESTED     APPROVED

(Motion carried 5-2/Councilmembers Tornatta & Sutton opposed)

President Raben: Okay, next we’ll move to transfers.

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay, Mr. President, we have one transfer. If you recall a few months ago, we made an appropriation for the referendum. This is just putting the amount of money that we appropriated into the correct line items. So I would move that the late transfer that’s presented before us be accepted as is.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Raben: We have a motion and a second. Any questions?

Councilmember Bassemier: What was the motion?

President Raben: To approve the repeal as submitted.

Councilmember Winnecke: It’s a transfer.

President Raben: Or transfer, excuse me. Okay, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

ELECTION OFFICE-SPECIAL ELECTION            REQUESTED     APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Raben: Now the amendments to the Salary Ordinance.

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay, let me dig those out from my mountain of paper here. Okay, Salary Ordinance amendments from the Superintendent of County Buildings, amend Salary Ordinance line 1310-1850 Union Overtime as previously approved; Superior Court, amend Salary Ordinance line 1370-1803 Legal/Transfer/

Pauper as previously approved; and Burdette Park, amend Salary Ordinance to allow an additional $.25 per hour for an individual having a certified pool operator training certificate. I move approval.

Councilmember Winnecke: Second.

President Raben: Did you mention Election Office?

Councilmember Winnecke: I didn’t have anything –

President Raben: Oh, that’s right. Okay, any further questions? Hearing none, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Raben: There’s no old business before us. Under New Business, under item A, the chair would entertain a motion for a resolution to deny COIT distribution to the Solid Waste District for 2004. The chair would ask for a motion.

Councilmember Hoy: So moved.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Raben: Troy, did you have a question?

Councilmember Tornatta: No, just making a motion.

President Raben: Any further questions?

Councilmember Sutton: I have a question. I’ll be honest, help me understand that just a little bit, why we need to make this particular motion.

President Raben: Okay, we’ve done this, I guess, since we established the Solid Waste District. And basically, what this is about, some counties allow COIT to fund the Solid Waste District. We’ve not needed COIT and we’ve done this, Royce, every year for the last several years.

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. Raben, the Solid Waste District has a goodly amount of money in reserve and they have a revenue source that pretty much keeps them going.

President Raben: Again, this is nothing new. We’ve done it for the last – well, as long as, I guess, we’ve established the district. So any other questions? Hearing none, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Raben: Next, under B, I would entertain a resolution by the County Council proposing an ordinance of the Vanderburgh County Income Tax Council establishing the percentage credit allowed at 8% for homesteads in 2004 and casting the votes of the County Council on said ordinance. The Chair would entertain a motion.

Councilmember Hoy: So moved.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Raben: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?

Councilmember Sutton: How many votes does this require?

President Raben: Majority, four. Roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Raben: Now, under C, I would entertain a motion for an ordinance of the Vanderburgh County Income Tax Council establishing the percentage credit allowed for homesteads at 8%.

Councilmember Wortman: I move we adopt that, what you said.

Councilmember Tornatta: Second.

President Raben: Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Raben: Under D is a resolution of the Vanderburgh County Council providing preliminary approval for the issuance of bonds for the proposed financing of certain economic development facilities/The Sterling Group. Mr. Schaefer is here. Is there anyone here from Sterling, the Sterling Group? Does anybody have any questions on this? No questions? Well, I didn’t mean to call you to the podium. I figured there would be some questions.

Councilmember Wortman: I make a motion for approval.

President Raben: Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?

Councilmember Winnecke: Second.

President Raben: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Councilmember Sutton: I’m going to, on this vote when it does come around, I’m going to abstain on this for business reasons related to my employer, Fifth Third Bank, so I just wanted to make sure I got that on the record. That’s all I wanted to say.

President Raben: Once again, we have to remember how many bankers we can allow here so we’ll have enough to make a vote –

Councilmember Winnecke: Or tire dealers.

President Raben: Okay, roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Abstain.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: I’m going to vote no.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: I will abstain for the same reason as Mr. Sutton.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Raben?

President Raben: Yes.

(Motion carried 4-1/Councilmember Hoy opposed, Councilmembers Sutton & Winnecke abstained)

President Raben: Under E, we’re going to take a few minutes to discuss Community Corrections.

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, do you want me to report on our meeting?

President Raben: Sure, and before we begin, allow us to change the tape.

(Tape Changed)

Catherine Fanello: Catherine Fanello, County Commissioner. I do have an updated handout for you, so I’ll go ahead and hand that out if you want to...

Councilmember Hoy: I don’t know whether it’s the same as what we have here or not.

Catherine Fanello: You have before you a handout that kind of details some of the scenarios that we have talked about with the architects and engineers and we’ve talked with Councilman Hoy, Councilman Bassemier, and Councilman Winnecke joined us last week for a meeting, and I want to thank them for taking the time to do that and also thank the Council for taking the time to listen to us this afternoon about the Community Corrections issue. We do have a couple of people here that would like to speak to the issue today, Russ Woodson and I believe Judge Trockman has been nominated as the spokesperson for the judges. I’ll just kind of preface my comments with the fact that a couple of years ago or way before I took office I know that there was a study done and there was a lot of collaboration on that study. I know the judges spent a lot of time, everyone in public safety and the judicial system spent a lot of time with the company appointed for that study. A hundred thousand dollar study that gave us some guidelines to go by. And I believe the – I have the recommendations here in front of me. And the facility size was recommended at 225, expandable up to 275. Their estimated cost in their recommendations were about six and a half to eight and a half million and that was right out of the study. So what you have in front of you today is considerably less than that. The Sheriff and I started discussions with the Department of Corrections last year about, hopefully, giving us money for this project and they did come through with the two million dollars for the project and now we just need to figure out what this county can afford to do. And I’m hoping that we can afford to do the project right the first time and something that’s going to serve our needs for quite a few years. So, I guess with that, I don’t know if you want to ask me questions or if you’d like to hear from Mr. Woodson and Judge Trockman?

President Raben: Okay, before we get into any other questions, Councilman Hoy, this kind of got away from us. He wanted to give us a brief update. And then we’ll move into questions.

Councilmember Hoy: I was just going to give you a report on the meeting that Councilman Bassemier and I had. We looked at this and I don’t know whether Councilman Bassemier is still in agreement with me, and that’s alright if he’s not, but at that meeting we were looking at the 2.621 cost for 144 beds, which would use $621,000 of county money. Coupled with that you have a drawing that was provided to us in living color by United/DLZ which gives you a rough sketch of what the building would look like. And you will see that it has a connection to the jail which we think is a good idea. So that’s where we were. Since then, the community correction board has met this past Monday and I think that would be the next thing you would be wanting to hear, but that’s the report from the first meeting. We were looking at a maximum 2.6, we did not say that we spoke for the Council but that we would recommend it to the rest of our Councilmembers. Thank you.

President Raben: Okay, thank you. Councilman Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Councilman Hoy and I we, (Inaudible – microphone not turned on) since the state was going to give us two million dollars (inaudible). We can’t afford to go anymore (inaudible), but if you look at the number of beds the two million dollar (inaudible). So that’s how we came up with 2.6 million dollars over the (inaudible).

President Raben: I guess my question is, is how do we gain an additional 104 beds for under $600,000? What’s the cost of this project that affords you to be able to do that?

Catherine Fanello: Well, it depends on which option you’re looking at. If you’re looking at it with expandability or without expandability. And if you go the 40 beds to the 96 beds, if you look in the column where we’re talking about expandable, they’re building all the core square footage so that when you go to add to the facility, you’re only adding dormitories, you’re not adding office space or classroom size or anything like that. And Eric has had a lot more, Eric Williams, Chief Deputy, has had a lot of discussion with them about that and he could probably even explain it with some more technical –

President Raben: And I guess my next question is, I guess originally we talked about, I hate to use the expression a pole barn, but a pre-engineered steel building.

Catherine Fanello: And that’s what this is.

President Raben: Framing some interior walls up and that’s not a $109 per square foot building. I mean, that’s a $50 a square foot building at best.

Catherine Fanello: Well, I believe it was Dubois County, they just constructed a 72 bed facility, 75 bed facility, and it cost them 2.1 million dollars.

President Raben: Seventy-five beds for 2.1? Okay, did they have their own kitchen? I mean, you know, again, we have to remember we’re using kitchen services, probably the laundry service, everything that’s going to be part of our new structure, our jail, and I’m sure theirs included that.

Catherine Fanello: And that I would have to check on for what services that they included in that facility.

President Raben: Okay, well this, this seems like an awful lot of money for that type of building and I can tell you because I’ve built several of them myself and in my business we construct them to have a 25 or 30 foot interior ceiling. You know, here you’re probably talking about a ten foot interior ceiling which makes the walls much shorter, you know, it uses basically half the steel that you would see in this type of facility. And, I mean, this is way out of sight.

Catherine Fanello: Well, I’m really not here today to debate the architecture of the facility except to say that it is a bare bones facility and we don’t want to spend any more money than we have to, but we’re trying to get something that services the needs of Vanderburgh County. And we know that community corrections is very important to Vanderburgh County, it helps stabilize our jail population and that’s something that we all need to be concerned about with the amount of money that we’re spending, half a million dollars probably this year to house prisoners in other counties. So, I mean, I’ve had numerous conversations with the architects and engineers, even spoke with them this morning, and we’re getting a bare bones facility here, pre-engineered metal building and you’re more than welcome to have a conversation with them about the architectural aspect of it, but I’m really here today to stress the importance of using the two million dollars that we received from the state and to see what we can afford to put with that to get a facility that’s going to service our needs. And I think it’s very important that we use the money wisely. The 144 beds that Councilman Hoy was speaking about is not an expandable facility. And if you remember and Councilman Raben, you were at that meeting, I believe that the state wants us to house some female and some regional –

President Raben: Not to exceed 125 beds. The state, they were very clear on that, that they thought our facility was way too big, it was not manageable and they were very explicit on that, that we don’t want you to operate a 200 bed facility. We want you to reduce it to, the figure they used was 125. And there was even some question on that, where it may have been less than 125. And the two million dollar figure, that was to build a 125 bed facility, but you know, again, I don’t know how far we want to go with this today.

Catherine Fanello: Well, they really don’t say anything about the 125 beds in the letter that they sent out and I know that they mentioned that figure, but I think we have to look at what was recommended, with the $100,000 study that was paid for. You know, those were recommendations from people who got together from the judicial system and from the public safety system, who got together and made these recommendations. So I think we have to be aware of the fact that everybody worked together to come up with those numbers.

Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, is this information today just kind of more or less just FYI? How soon do we need to come to some conclusive thought about what direction we want to take on this matter? Obviously, we’ve got two million to work with, when do we need to know?

Catherine Fanello: We must have a plan to the state by June 30.

Councilmember Sutton: By June 30^th.

Catherine Fanello: And so that’s why I asked for the consideration today.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, obviously, we’ll be acting on this next month.

Catherine Fanello: I was hoping that you’d act on it today.

Councilmember Sutton: One additional thing that I think would be very helpful for us, it’s good to know the up-front cost in constructing this and getting a good handle on how many beds we ultimately are going to go with, but in relation to the present facility that we have and regarding whatever is recommended from whatever we’re going to go with, we need to know some of the operational cost as well. Are we going to see some efficiencies with the new facility that we aren’t getting out of the old facility, some expenses that we have in the old facility that we won’t have in the new that we don’t have in the old, so if we can get a handle on that, it would really help us to see what might be the best direction to go. I guess when I was in the meeting with the state, I guess they really weren’t telling us, if I can recall, how large the facility ought to be or they really didn’t care how big the facility was, they had some recommendations of what they thought might be best but essentially what Vanderburgh County felt would be in their best interest, they were just going to provide two million dollars and that’s it, and we could make the decision on what we’re going to do to add to that, but that’s the areas that I’m really wanting to really get a good grip on before I could really move forward with feeling comfortable with any size, whether we’re talking about 20 beds or 200 beds, you know, I just want to know.

Catherine Fanello: And Councilman Winnecke was there the day we had this discussion with Chief Williams and I think you’ll find its going to be really hard to narrow down some of those operating costs until we know for sure what we’re going to build. I mean, we could go through and give you several different scenarios but it’s going to be really hard to narrow those down.

Councilmember Sutton: And I have no problem with us going with maybe a couple or three scenarios.

Catherine Fanello: And that would be fine if you give us something to work with and then we can probably come up with something.

Councilmember Hoy: How many beds do we have now, 200?

Councilmember Winnecke: 205.

Councilmember Hoy: 205, so it would seem to me with a more efficient building we ought to be able to do it on the same size staff or even less, certainly