MAY 8, 2013

The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 8th day of May in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by County Council President Tom Shetler.

President Shetler: Good morning, it’s May 8th, 8:30 and time for our County Council meeting. I’d appreciate if we would take attendance roll call please.




Councilmember Terry



Councilmember Bassemier



Councilmember Koehler Lindsey



Councilmember Goebel



Councilmember Raben



Councilmember Swaim



President Shetler



*Arrived shortly after roll call

President Shetler: There being six members present, one absent, we have a quorum and I’d like for Stephanie to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

(Pledge of Allegiance was given)


President Shetler: The next would be approval of the minutes from April 1st. Do I have a motion?

Councilmember Swaim: So moved.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Second.

President Shetler: I have a motion and a second. Anyone have a question about the minutes? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)



President Shetler: The next is the appropriation ordinance and the first section there on the Recorder’s office has been withdrawn, so I’ll turn it over to Councilman Raben for any questions and to go through the rest of the appropriation ordinance. I will let the record reflect that Councilman Goebel is joining us.


RECORDER                                                            REQUESTED   APPROVED














Clerk II








Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you. Good morning. So next would be Pre-Trial Diversion. We have a request for Insurance, Extra Help and FICA in the amount of $31,530, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Second.

President Shetler: We have a motion and a second. Do I have any questions? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.


PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION                                    REQUESTED      APPROVED








Extra Help












(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)



Councilmember Raben: Next, I’m going to take these two together, there’s a request for appropriation for The Convention Center, Contractual, and then a repeal from The Centre, Operating, it’s just moving funds around in the amount of $653,530, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Second.

President Shetler: Let me give a little bit of an explanation on this just real quickly. This is where we are, basically, the deficit of The Centre has been covered through the General Fund monies. This is one area that we are trying, it’s kind of an accounting move a little bit here, but instead of taking it out of General Fund monies, we will be taking that out of basically the bed tax that goes through the county right now. In other words, out-of- towners will be helping to support The Centre instead of it being done as it has been in the past through the General Fund. So I think it is a way to help relieve our local taxpayers of a considerable burden, it’s a way for us to make some adjustment there on that million eight hit that we got a few weeks ago. Yes, Councilman?

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: So this is a new accounting move we’ve not been able to do this in past years?

President Shetler: We probably could have, we just didn’t. We didn’t look underneath every rock like we are forced to do today.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: So this is something we may be able to continue in the future? We’ve been able to be prudent and look under other rocks and finding some money here?

President Shetler: Yes, I think that there are other rocks available that we can flip over and with regards to this particular deal, I think it may be wise for us to see what we can do in the future with the state legislature to actually put some more dollars in this particular fund.  

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Absolutely. Sounds good. Thank you.

President Shetler: Alright, anybody have any other questions? Alright, all in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.




Centre Contractual








THE CENTRE                                                                REQUESTED      APPROVED


Centre Operating







(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)



Councilmember Raben: Last we have two transfers. Burdette Park, transfer is from Other Employees in the amount of $25,000 to Contractual Services in the amount of $25,000. I’ll move approval.

President Shetler: We have a motion.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Second.

President Shetler: And a second. Let me, I was remiss in not giving credit earlier to our County Auditor. Joe Gries is the one that did have a good look at that $653,000 that helped relieve us. So I do want to give credit where credit is due on that. So we have a motion and a second. Do I have any questions on the present motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)


BURDETTE PARK                                             REQUESTED      APPROVED

From: 1450-1180


Other Employees



To: 1450-3530


Contractual Services



(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)


Councilmember Raben: Under Highway, Insurance, transferring Insurance in the amount of $1,500 into Occu-Med for 1,500, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Second.

President Shetler: We have a motion and a second. Do I have any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.


HIGHWAY                                                                      REQUESTED      APPROVED

From: 1176-0000-300000




To: 1176-0000-376000




(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Shetler: Anything else, James?

Councilmember Raben: No, that concludes the appropriations, transfers and repeals. So it’s time for new business.

President Shetler: New business, Circuit Court. I believe the Judge is here.


David Kiely: Good morning.

President Shetler: Good morning.

David Kiely: I’m requesting to fill a part-time position and I’ll change the letter that we submitted to 29 hours per your memo and I fully understand that. It’s a position that’s paid through our user fees as opposed to the county budget. We had an employee leave and we’re asking to fill that position.

Councilmember Bassemier: Make a motion to approve.

Councilmember Terry: Second.

President Shetler: It’s been moved and seconded. Do I have any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Is there anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.

David Kiely: Thank you.

President Shetler: Thank you, Judge Kiely.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)


President Shetler: Next, County Clerk, Debbie.


Debbie Stucki: Good morning. I am requesting to fill two vacancies and I wanted

to explain that with line item 1500, I’m planning on moving a current employee from the Clerk’s office into that line item and with that empty space and also line item 1310 is still vacant, if you approve these two openings here, I will still have two vacancies left in the Clerk’s office.

President Shetler: So at the present time you essentially have four vacancies?

Debbie Stucki: Yes, well three. I’m going to move an employee from the Clerk’s office into line item 1500, so that’s going to leave a vacancy. And 1310 is – I have three currently. But by moving that employee, I’ll have another.

President Shetler: So you’re asking actually to just fill one vacancy and then you’re transferring one from one spot to another?

Debbie Stucki: Yes.

President Shetler: Okay, so that will –

Debbie Stucki: Leave me with two vacancies.

President Shetler: You’ll have two vacancies, and then the intent on those two vacancies is to remain vacant?

Debbie Stucki: Yes.

President Shetler: Thank you.

Debbie Stucki: As I still take the time to evaluate and watch the workflow and see if those are – see if I need to fill those positions.

President Shetler: I’m just hoping that the Sheriff and the Prosecutor and everybody is paying good, close attention to this.

Debbie Stucki: I would also like to say that I have managed to open the Clerk’s library back up, so I do have a full-time employee there. I was able to open that back up to help the public, and still have two vacancies. So we’ve been working hard to work with what we have.

President Shetler: Good. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? Yes, Councilman Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: The transfer, are you transferring anyone from part-time to full-time or are these –

Debbie Stucki: No, a full-time, but it’s a step up for them from a COMOT IV to a COMOT V.

Councilmember Goebel: Okay, thank you.

President Shetler: And in the end, we’re going to have two vacancies? When it’s all said and done?

Debbie Stucki: Yes, sir.

President Shetler: Alright, this is a good thing. Alright, anybody have a motion for approval?

Councilmember Terry: So moved.

Councilmember Raben: I’ll second.

President Shetler: Its been moved and seconded. Anybody have any more questions? All in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries. Thank you.

Debbie Stucki: Thank you.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)


President Shetler: Let’s see, the next is County Recorder. I’m sorry, that’s been taken off. I don’t see the Commissioners here. The Prosecutor’s office. I do see Mr. Hermann.

Nick Hermann: Good morning.

Councilmember Goebel: Excuse me, Mr. Prosecutor, but on that last item, there would be no action today, correct?

President Shetler: That was actually on the other agenda that was originally sent out and then we have a new agenda and that is not on the agenda any longer, so there is no action on that today, correct?

Councilmember Goebel: Area Plan is not on it?

President Shetler: Oh, no, I’m going to come back to that and hoping that somebody from the Commissioners office will be here, I hope, to explain that.

Councilmember Goebel: Okay, I didn’t understand. I just thought it got approved.

President Shetler: No, no, no, no. No motion. Alright, so, Nick.

Nick Hermann: Good morning. We have a request to fill two vacancies. One is a Deputy Prosecutor position. It was filled up until last month and we had an employee leave to pursue another opportunity and we’re requesting to hire that. That’s for one of our drug prosecution positions. And the other is a Pre-Trial Diversion Secretary. That position is paid for out of Pre-Trial Diversion funds, those are non-General fund monies. So those are the two vacancies we have. We also have a request and this is a little bit convoluted. We have at the Council’s suggestion last year, we hired two part-time child support agents. They’ve been with us for about a year, they’ve been fully trained, we’ve put thousands of dollars into their training and then last Thursday we got the memo about the change in the part-time and I know that that didn’t come from this Council, it came from Washington, but we looked at that and those are two positions we can’t really do without. And so we looked at our finances specifically with the incentive – Child Support Incentive Funds, we contacted the state, the state said go ahead and pay them full time, give them insurance, benefits, but in order to do that, we have to get your approval I guess to – Joe, what am I going to ask for?

Joe Gries: Essentially, you’re asking for two full-time line items, also FICA PERF and Insurance line items within the IV-D Incentive fund. Those are not currently within our system, so if the Council would approve that, then those lines would need to be created and then those people would be paid at full-time with benefits.

Nick Hermann: So, it’s basically to take these part-time to full-time and there wouldn’t be any General fund money for Insurance, FICA or any difference in pay, it would just be to take them from hourly to a COMOT V.

Councilmember Raben: You know, I think we need to be careful here and I understand what you’re wanting to do and I understand it comes from a different pot, but my recommendation would be to hire more part-time people or if these people can’t stay for the 29 hours, you know, we might just have to replace them, but I don’t want to start precedence here where we’re – because we’re going to run into this throughout the county. You know, there’s going to be people that their part-time job at 29 hours isn’t enough and we’re going to have this request over and over again, so I just want everybody to be mindful of that and, you know, I did have one question. In situations where we do have incentive funds and what have you that pick up salary lines, what about Workman’s Comp, unemployment, that type of stuff. Does that fall in the regular General fund?

Joe Gries: We are a pay as we go Worker’s Comp entity, so those, we have a budget within the General fund for anything any county employee or if the other departments or I should say funds like the Health department or Highway fund, they have some funds there, but in this situation, we wouldn’t have a specific line item for that. That could be created for insurance and other things, but it’s currently not how it’s laid out.

Councilmember Raben: So the General fund, unless something changes, would be responsible for picking up for that.

Joe Gries: Yes.

Councilmember Raben: Okay.

President Shetler: That’s just a matter, is that just a matter of accounting for it, though?

Joe Gries: I think in the past it was probably just put into one pot for all General fund or all county employees for certain funds and it has just never been divided out. It’s probably similar to technology line items for insurance line items. We don’t have every department have an insurance line item or different funds. In this situation, if the Council creates these line items, you could create an insurance line item for that. But I think it’s just always been, as you said, an accounting type of thing where its pooled into one line item.

President Shetler: I mean, the county payroll outside of the General fund, what would that be, roughly? Do you have a –

Joe Gries: Are you talking about the Highway fund, the Health department fund, Cum Bridge, people in Reassessment?

President Shetler: Would that be like eight million dollars?

Joe Gries: It could be, yeah.

President Shetler: And Workman’s Comp, I mean, I’m totally guessing, I don’t know what the rate would be, but 3% type thing?

Joe Gries: I’d have to look at that.

President Shetler: So that’s, I don’t know, is that a quarter of a million dollars, $240,000, roughly?

Joe Gries: If I recall, last year we budgeted around $190,000, and I think we had to put in an additional, I’m going to say close to $200,000, so you’re looking at close to 4, for last year.

President Shetler: It seems to me like it might be worth our while, though, to look at accounting for that in each of the different funding sources rather than, you know, lumping that in and then the General fund absorbing that.

Joe Gries: And the Highway and Health department fund, those would be separate.

President Shetler: Okay, so then that would shrink that down –

Joe Gries: Things like the IV-D Incentive fund and other things where we do have some other people, probably there isn’t a line currently for that type of thing, but yes, I believe you could account for that.

President Shetler: I think that would make sense for us to do that, but yes, Mike?

Councilmember Goebel: We don’t get fully reimbursed for anyone from IV-D, is that correct? It’s a partial reimbursement?

Nick Hermann: This request deals purely with incentive money, it’s none of the county’s money. This is 100% money from the state based on our collection rate, which has gone up since we’ve hired these people. It takes us about six to eight months to get someone trained. It costs us thousands of dollars. We have to have somebody come down on the paperless system, it costs a couple thousand dollars a day, we have to send them to training, we have to get them signed off. They have access to federal employment records, those types – it isn’t just somebody that shows up and makes copies. I mean, this is a detailed job and for the last year we’ve been operating with these people in place. They have a full case load, they’re helping, we have roughly 15,000 child support cases among our people and we have those split up roughly evenly, and if we have to cut these two positions, that’s going to increase everyone’s caseload and decrease the ability that we have to collect child support essentially. So my request, I contacted the state and the state said, you don’t need Council approval to spend our incentive money, which isn’t really true because we need the line item, we need a place to pay it out of, and it’s something I feel like we should bring in front of the Council, and I don’t know that we could get it done any other way. But this is 100% money that comes from the state to us based on the amount that we collect and improvements that we have in collection. So it’s not any of the county money. I understand there’s some concern a little bit.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: And I guess kind of reflecting back on what Councilman Raben was saying, maybe to put it in a different perspective, this is kind of a different scenario because of the cost of training, would that be fair to say? I mean, not only are we not using the General fund money, but I’m hearing you say that these people had to have special training and it may in the long run cost more to train a third or fourth part-time employee than to pay these two full-time, or do you have any feel for that?

Nick Hermann: I’d say that a good estimate would be, we have about eight to ten thousand dollars training in each of these people. You know, I don’t know that it’s worthwhile for us if we have someone that’s only going to work 15 or 20 hours a week, we can’t give them a full caseload. We can’t tell single parents that you can’t call on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday because there’s nobody here to answer the phone and talk to you. You know, these are jobs that we have to have dedicated people there to respond and to work these cases. If we go to some – I mean, I was more than happy, it was actually Councilman Goebel’s suggestion last year to hire these in at part-time and they could work 39 hours and you know, we could get what we needed from them. And that’s worked well for a year and now with the change in the law, it’s not going to work that way anymore. So instead of coming here and asking that the Council put up the money, we found the money to do it, and we’re willing to put the money up so it doesn’t have any effect on the Council’s budget.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: So, in essence, all you’re asking us to do is to create the line items so that you can pay these employees from those funds, and if you don’t have those funds, the collection goes down and the funds don’t come in, then what happens?

Nick Hermann: Our collections have consistently gone up every year. But, if for some reason, we don’t have money in those funds, we obviously wouldn’t be able to pay these people. Just plain and simple, and they know that. The money actually originates with the federal government, it comes to the states based on collection rates and then the state disperses it. I think they do it quarterly now, they used to do it yearly, and it’s based on paternity establishment, collection, collection on arrearage cases, and whether or not we have orders in each of the cases, and our numbers have consistently been going up. We’re a little concerned as is the whole state this year now that people’s unemployment is starting to run out. Unemploy-ment was actually a really good thing for us because we were able to seize that before it got to the individuals. But that’s a state-wide thing and we’re graded in comparison to the other counties so it’s not a huge concern. We expect that our money will stay the same if not go up as it has over the last several years.

President Shetler: I think Councilman Raben and then Councilman Bassemier.

Councilmember Raben: Nick, I guess what I would like to see done here, again, is if it doesn’t work out for these two part-timers, there is more out there, but what you’ve really lost is 18 hours a week, from 38 to 29 for two people. So in hiring another part-time person for another 29 hours, you’re actually picking up another ten hours. So – eleven hours. So that’s what I would like to see done here and the other thing is, too, we need to remember, as we got a note just yesterday from our legal counsel, that there is going to be a death penalty trial coming up and I don’t know how the monies that we’ve set aside for you are holding out, but if there is any extra funds, if it needs to come from this fund or where it needs to come from, I think we need to get through that before we – if you’ve got additional monies, we need that for security at some point or it would be nice to know we have it in place for security if we need it.

Nick Hermann: In 2011, we requested from the Council money to try the case, money to house the witnesses, money to house the attorneys, to house the detectives from the Sheriff’s department, and in anticipation that there would be additional cost to guard the jury, to house the defendant over in Clarke County, those types of things. We asked for a quarter of a million at that time, we got $25,000. We tried to be frugal, we spent about $12,000 on some early suppression hearings on some experts and then at the end of 2011, the Council took the remainder of the money back into the General fund. We didn’t actually get to continue any of that forward. So we don’t have any of appropriated money at all. So we’re having to pay all the expenses for that out of existing funds.

Councilmember Raben: That’s even more to my point, that –

Nick Hermann: But we would not be able to use Child Support Incentive money for anything other than child support collection.

Councilmember Raben: But you could possibly move other General fund salary lines into this and free up those funds.

Nick Hermann: Which we have done and has resulted in almost a quarter of a million dollars coming into the –

Councilmember Raben: Right. But there is a means in which we can free up funding should you need it.

President Shetler: Councilman Bassemier, I think, is next.

Councilmember Bassemier: Yeah, if the money is coming from the state and if it will help your caseload, I’m going to make a motion to approve as requested.

President Shetler: And that’s for all the requests on here?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes, sir, it is.

President Shetler: Do I have a second?

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Second.

President Shetler: Okay, then we have a second. Councilman Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: I was wondering if you would entertain the idea of hiring another part-time because the question I have in this, we have 800 plus employees, and if we create two full-time jobs, does this get lost in the shuffle next year or the year after as far as, does it just come into our general budget? And how much out of IV-D actually goes to pay their salaries? And how do you keep track of that? Or is it forgotten after a year or two? Do you know what I’m saying?

Nick Hermann: I missed the last part of the question. How much of the IV-D gets...?

Councilmember Goebel: How much does IV-D pay on the salary of these individuals? Is it fully paid by the state?

Nick Hermann: Right now, with them being part-time, it’s fully paid out of the – we get the incentive money and then we spend it on them. What I’m requesting, simply, is that we have two line items so that we can have them paid at a full-time rate so that we can provide them with insurance, so that we can do whatever we need to do to comply with federal law, and that money will be paid out of the incentive fund. So it would be paid 100% out of –

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: One hundred percent out of the state, is that what you’re saying?

Nick Hermann: Yes. I’d prefer not to have to pay them that much, I’d prefer not to have to pay insurance, but we need these people and so we’re willing to make sure that the money is available, and make sure that it’s there.

Councilmember Goebel: My question still is, how do we know down the road that this money will always be paid because if they’re full-time working for you and you don’t have the funds, then it falls back on the General fund, correct?

Nick Hermann: If they’re full-time and we don’t have the funds, then we can no longer employ them because I imagine if I come back in front of this Council and say you did this last month and now we need money to pay for it, the answer is going to be no. Just reading the tea leaves.

Joe Gries: Just to maybe answer Councilman Goebel’s question, within the payroll accounting system, you have certain funds, which this is a certain special fund, separate from the General fund, has its own line items. For those people to be moved, it would take Council action to tell the Auditor to move those, so it wouldn’t just move over into the General fund. It couldn’t until Council approved anything further.

President Shetler: I guess if it could –

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: I guess then to clarify, so the line items are completely in the incentive fund. They’re not in the General fund at all? The line item, everything is handled out of that incentive fund?

Nick Hermann: That’s my request, yes.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: And when that incentive fund, if it were to dry up where the funds are not there, you would have to come back to this body to ask to move it back?

Nick Hermann: That’s correct.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Okay.

President Shetler: I guess to kind of sum it up, my concern would be this, is that they’re paid at 39 hours a week right now and at an hourly rate, no additional benefits, etcetera. So they’re going to be moved to 40 hours a week, so you gain an hour per employee, so that’s two hours that we’re going to gain. And for that gain, we’re going to spend over $50,000. That’s probably going to be the most expensive hourly rate we’ve paid. Even though it’s legal, I understand that, that’s a lot of money.

Nick Hermann: If the Council is okay with me continuing against federal law to –

President Shetler: Well, it –

Nick Hermann: – 39 hours a week, I’d be happy to try that for a while, but –

President Shetler: It’s the Affordable Care Act. I understand.

Nick Hermann: It doesn’t seem too affordable.

President Shetler: The bottom line in, here, though, I think what Councilman Raben is getting to is that – what are we paying per hour on those?

Nick Hermann: Twelve.

President Shetler: Is it – I mean, I’m open to the –

Nick Hermann: They actually make a little bit more than a full-time person starting. I think they make like 40 or 50 cents more, something like that, than the full-time person.

President Shetler: And I’m not opposed to us looking at perhaps going to 14 - 15 dollars an hour, paying something more an hour because I know it’s difficult and you don’t want a revolving door of employees because it’s too expensive to keep training.

Nick Hermann: And let me try and put this in a little bit of perspective –

President Shetler: But that could be a whole lot cheaper than having to pay for the full-time benefits and everything as I mentioned. That’s $50,000 for those two hours.

Nick Hermann: Well, I’m not too excited, like I said, about paying for it, but let me see if I can put it in perspective. These cases are different in that they last anywhere from 18 to 20 years. I mean, when you have a case with us, now sometimes they’re active and they’re actually fighting for support and trying to collect, and then sometimes there are periods of down time when somebody pays and they’re not, but this is the person that that parent connects to. This is the person that for 18 years, they can call and get hold of, that they can get these things done and we have to make sure that we don’t have people that are unqualified, don’t know how to do these jobs. I mean, it takes an inordinate amount of time. You know, I think, probably get them through all the training six to eight months, it probably takes them a year before they’re doing their job well and I know that that’s probably true with a lot of spots, but this is basically the advocate, this is, in fact, pretty much the pseudo attorney. We have three attorneys that service 15,000 cases down there. I mean, it’s the caseworker that has the personal contact, the caseworker that communicates with the parent, that actually does the work and gets the money collected.

Councilmember Raben: Have these two part-timers, are you telling us that they’ve really not served the need? These two part-time?

Nick Hermann: Because we’ve had them 39 hours a week, because they’re here Monday through Friday when the parent calls, and because we’ve had a year to get them trained, I think they do, and they do very well. But my concern is, if we cut them down and they’re only here half the time, --

Councilmember Raben: Well, what Tom is suggesting is, if you pay them more per hour to make up some of that, and you know, we keep saying 39. The Department of Labor, I think, you’re not allowed to work over 38, at the old law. Is that not the way it was?

President Shetler: I don’t know. I think we’ve gone with the 39 rule for whatever reason and –

Nick Hermann: I think it was 37 also, but we’ve been going with the 39 rule, so –

Councilmember Raben: I don’t know that we’ve ever worked under the 39 rule. I thought it was 38. Maybe it was 37.

Councilmember Bassemier: We have a motion and a second.

President Shetler: I guess kind of what – if we go with the 29 hour, round it off to 30 to keep my brain functioning here, but that’s roughly $420, at $14 an hour at 30 hours it would be roughly $420 a week. If they’re getting 12 something an hour now and they’re working 30, I mean, I think that there’s a way that we can work this out mathematically where they may end up getting about the same thing and you could actually hire another person into the slot. The only thing it ends up costing us is perhaps $20,000 a year and not 50 or $60,000. And you end up with perhaps really more productivity, and I’d feel more comfortable with that myself. And the way, you know, you would manage it or structure it within the office would be instead of them starting at eight or whatever, start it from 9 and work till 3, you know six hours a day so they’re still pretty well handling those same clients that they’ve been handling in the past. And I don’t know that you’d have a great deal of disruption in it. So I guess just looking at skinning this cat a little differently.

Councilmember Terry: Is that something, Nick, you would want to take an opportunity to sit down and process it?

Nick Hermann: You know, I’d like to have time to process it but we got a note on last Thursday that they have to immediately go to 29 hours, so I guess if I was going to try and process it, I’d try and do it here on the fly and try and get a vote from Council today.

President Shetler: Well, I think that really meant that by the end of the year, the average has to be 29, so you’ve got, you could, you know, if you need, if you could come back next month then and talk about that, and figure out a way, then I think that’s certainly –

Nick Hermann: I guess if what you’re suggesting is, that we continue to pay them as we have for the next month, then we can sit down and try and come up with something and come back next month, if that’s permissible with the Council. I just want to make sure that I can continue to pay these people and they’re not going to get a 25% reduction in their pay.

President Shetler: We have four months that we’ve got to figure out anyway, honestly. So I think another month isn’t going to hurt, myself. Joe?

Joe Gries: I don’t know the answer to that, maybe Mr. Ahlers could talk to it. But as far as what the Auditor can pay these individuals, I think we would need some formal of indication from Council that the 39 hours could continue for these individuals because we have received that memo.

President Shetler: Did the memo say to terminate it immediately or –

Joe Gries: I believe it was.

President Shetler: Because I think they really kind of went into effect at the beginning of the year, didn’t it, the 29 hour deal?

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Is this the memo right here that says “Due to budget constraints, effective May 10 all part-time employees will be allowed to only work a maximum of 29 hours a week.” Is that the one that we’re talking about?

Joe Gries: Yes.

Councilmember Goebel: I think they’re looking at the actual law.

President Shetler: See, I think the federal law really required that to be done at the first of the year, and they’re already running four months, I mean, somehow we have to find a way to catch it up anyway, I think.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: But then, I guess, do we need a legal opinion that it’s okay for him to continue as is so we can work this out?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, you’ll have to, I guess, Council will have to give him some nod that, due to the memo, that they’re giving him an exception to the memo, first. Secondly, I think that’s correct in terms of, for a month, it’s not going to matter one way or the other in terms of the law.

Nick Hermann: So, I guess at this time, I’d request to withdraw that particular request and put it on for next month.

President Shetler: Okay, so we have a motion and a second.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: I’ll withdraw the second.

Councilmember Bassemier: If he’s going to withdraw it, it leaves me no choice.

President Shetler: Okay, that’s only the last two –

Nick Hermann: Yes, the request for the line item, I’m still asking to fill the deputy prosecutor in Pre-Trial Diversion.

President Shetler: So, Ed, do you want to renew your motion for the first part of it? He still needs those –

Councilmember Bassemier: I’ll withdraw the whole thing.

President Shetler: Okay, but we need a motion –

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: I will make a motion it the –

Nick Hermann: Deputy Prosecutor.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Okay, let me get the right paper here. I’ll make a motion then that we approve filling the Deputy Prosecutor and Pre-trial Diversion Secretary.

Councilmember Swaim: Second.

President Shetler: Okay, we’ve got a motion and a second. Any questions on that? All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Nick Hermann: Thank you. And if any of the Councilmembers want to talk about this issue, I would be more than happy to meet with you in the next month.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: And could you bring us maybe some idea, you said your collections have increased, if we could get some comparison on, you know, you have the people working more hours, so it’s actually bringing in more money, and maybe what that does. I think that would be helpful in the consideration.

Nick Hermann: Absolutely.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Thank you.

President Shetler: I’m going to kind of skip over parts of this agenda real quickly and get down towards the bottom here and ask for GAGE and Debbie Dewey to please come forward and I know you’ve got quite a few guests here.



Debbie Dewey: Debbie Dewey, for the record, of the Growth Alliance for Greater Evansville. And I’m really here just to introduce Chris Kinnett. Chris is the new business development director at the Growth Alliance. He joined us in January. Chris has nearly 30 years of economic development experience in Perry County, Johnson County, Knox County, as well as with the Indiana Port. He worked this project, so I’m here to kind of hand off to Chris so he can present this project to you.

President Shetler: Alright, thank you.

Chris Kinnett: Good morning, Chris Kinnett, Growth Alliance. It’s a pleasure to be here this morning to introduce a new company that’s looking to locate in Vanderburgh County out at the Vanderburgh Industrial Park, looking to locate in an existing building, the old Tenneco building, if you’re familiar with the Industrial Park. The building has been empty for about two years, they’re looking to bring in 44 new employees over the next five years at an average salary of approximately $22.50 an hour, and they’re looking for tax abatement for 1.3 million dollars for additional new equipment that they’ll be bringing into the building. That’s really my spiel for the company. The company representatives are here and, Scott, if you would bring your folks up and maybe just introduce them so the people will know who you are, but the company is DSI Integrated Systems. They are not new to the country, but they’re certainly new to the Evansville-Vanderburgh County area, very solid company that brings a lot to the community. Scott, would you like to talk about the industry a little bit?

Scott Shapkoff: Thank you, Chris, and I’d like to take just a moment to thank the Council for having us here this morning. First, I’ll introduce the associates that I’ve got and we can pass out those. Jim Pinkley, who is the president and general manager of DSI USA, my name is Scott Shapkoff and I’m going to be the Midwest sales manager, kind of responsible for this area, I’m based, currently, in southern Illinois, that’s where I was born and raised. Robert Russell, he’ll be the plant manager, and Richard Fricke, he’s going to be the maintenance manager at the plant, and Jim has passed out just a few of the company profiles. DSI is a global entity with – Jim, I may let you talk a little now.

Jim Pinkley: Good morning. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here in regards to this. DSI is a global entity headquartered in Munich. We have about 2,200 employees worldwide, and we do about one billion dollars in sales. It’s split between heavy civil, which is bridges, foundations, tunnels, and then mining, which mining is about 55 - 60 percent of what we do globally. Within North America, we have six plants in the U.S.: Abingdon, Virginia; Louisville, Kentucky; Cambridge, Ohio; Martinsburg, West Virginia; Salt Lake City, and now the Evansville facility that will be here. In regards to that, we’re continuing to look to grow our footprint, you know, in the Midwest area here because of the access to water, the widening of the Panama Canal. There is a re-emergence of the coal industry in this area and in regards to that, certainly we want to be part of the growth that would go along with that. We currently have some contractual customers in this area and a pretty good customer base that we supported through a warehousing entity that used to be formerly located in west Kentucky. We’ll be transitioning that into the steel manufacturing plant so it will be a steel manufacturing plant/distribution center, as well. And in regards to that from the contractual basis, I think you’re probably seeing some news about Rhino Energy putting in their Pennyrile mine over east of Owensboro, Kentucky. That’s one of our contractual customers that we have a national contract with them for their ground support supplies. Is there any questions from the Council on, kind of a little bit of the overview of the company?

President Shetler: I just want to thank you all, really, for this opportunity for people in Vanderburgh County. We appreciate you guys looking at our community and choosing us and we’re grateful, so thank you.

Jim Pinkley: Well, you know, you put together a great package here with the low electrical rates in regards to that, as well. You know, we’re really looking forward to engaging the workforce and from our other work with companies such as Peabody Energy that’s located here, as well, you know, we hear great things and we’re looking forward to being a proud member of the community.

President Shetler: Thank you. Yes, Councilman Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: I was just wondering, do you foresee an increase or the 44 employees, will they be immediate or will that be a gradual...?

Jim Pinkley: It will be a gradual uptick over the next five years.

Councilmember Goebel: Okay, and that’s probably going to be – will you top out at that number?

:Chris Kinnett: Well, that’s what they’re anticipating at this point. Obviously, if there is continued growth, they would want to see an uptick in that, that’s obviously their goal, but to try to put a number to it today, that’s the number they came up with.

Councilmember Goebel: Okay, thank you and welcome.

Chris Kinnett: Again, this is a situation where we’re putting to use a building that’s been empty for two years, putting it to good use with good wage jobs, $22.50 as I said earlier is the average wage, of which, at the time we were looking at this, the average wage for Vanderburgh County was $18.25, I believe it was. The taxes are current and up to date on the building as of this morning, and obviously still due on May 10th, but it hasn’t been posted whether or not they’ve made those payments yet, but they are current at this point. This will help diversify our labor force and, again, puts a building to use, so we ask the Council to approve the preliminary resolution for tax abatement for DSI Integrated Systems. I would also include that the state has presented them with an offer of $350,000 in EDGE Credits and $50,000 in training grants.

President Shetler: Alright, at this point in time, I think what we need is a motion for approval and then there’s, as you know, another hearing where we set in the –

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Motion to approve.

Councilmember Terry: Second.

President Shetler: Okay, motion and a second. Any other questions, comments? Again, very grateful that you all have selected Evansville, southern Indiana, a little nicer than southern Illinois, we think, but that’s alright. But we’re glad to have you.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: It’s always sunnier here.

President Shetler: That’s right, exactly. All in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Is there anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Chris Kinnett: Thank you very much. We’ll see you next month.


President Shetler: Next we do have the Assessor and that’s Mr. Bill Fluty and it’s his turn up. And, Commissioner, you slipped in but I didn’t see you, so I will catch you next.

Bill Fluty: Bill Fluty, County Assessor. I think you received two letters from our office requesting, one was requesting two employees, that now has changed that I’m just requesting one. This is a request that you granted earlier in the year in personal property. We did hire into that position and we did evaluate that person short of 90 days, it just didn’t seem to be the right fit so, actually, we’re just coming back to redo this again. That’s also a department that we have downsized and also merged with sales disclosure, so one person has retired from that, so it is a smaller department than it was a year ago. So we’re asking to fill that position. The other request is bringing back a former employee and asking for $10 an hour as opposed to the usual 8.50. That person worked in personal property for 26 years and can come in without any learning curve. We feel this is appropriate and I think its been something that the Council has kind of put out there to take advantage of, using part-time, experienced part-time. And personal property, the busiest part is today with the current filings and all through the summer, so she’ll just work this busy part. And we do have money available for that. So those are the two requests.

President Shetler: Bill, since January of 2011, how many employees have you reduced your –

Bill Fluty: Four.

President Shetler: So your total staff has been reduced by four people since 2011?

Bill Fluty: That’s correct. Some of it’s through technology. Duties that the Auditor and I shared in excise tax, there was software that was available that helped start reducing that, some of it’s in just consolidation. All these things have been just through attrition, people have either gone to a new job or they’ve retired, and we just haven’t filled, and we’ve combined. And that’s kind of how we’re doing it. We’re close, I would say we’re at our number. You know, you finally get to your number, to say this is what you need to serve and do the work. So I’d say we’re pretty close. I’m not saying that some technology or some reorganization of the office wouldn’t help in employee staffing, but at this time I think we’re pretty close. We still have – you know, over the summer we’re still making some changes and some reorganization and looking at that. I still expect to bring in a budget lower than last year for the general fund and I’m hoping somewhere around two percent or higher, so I think I’ll get to that even with what I have today, with this approval.

President Shetler: Alright, thank you. Yes, Councilman Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Mr. Fluty, are we outsourcing more of the work for the Assessor’s office than prior years? Are we contracting with other groups?

Bill Fluty: I would say no. I would say we may have selected something different and spent our money differently, but I would say we are outsourcing, whether it be a flyover for Pictometry or what we’re doing now, some street level imaging, or things like that, or using maybe consultants differently, so it’s just a mixture. But I would say that the actual dollars going out is similar for outsourcing. But typically, the Assessor’s office has outsourced different things.

Councilmember Goebel: What kind of status is the Reassessment fund in right now?

Bill Fluty: We’re on, right now, I don’t know the – he’ll have to give you the balance of that.

Joe Gries: The current Reassessment fund has an unappropriated balance of $47,795, and there’s a 2013 budget with money left from the previous year of $272,000 to be spent possibly this year.

Bill Fluty: We have some ongoing contracts, some ongoing software things that transcend years, some of that money, but it will roll back into the Reassessment and it will be reappropriated or asked for in the budget session.

Councilmember Goebel: Well, the reason I asked is, I watched one of the Commissioner meetings and I think you had a commercial group coming in to take photos for the Reassessment commercial properties. Has that always been the tradition or has that been done out of your, in-house?

Bill Fluty: That’s a change and I can explain that to you. In the past you had eight elected Assessors and they had limited staff and limited resources. So they are taking pictures of each home, of every home in Vanderburgh County, and were on different schedules. As we came in, we saw that some pictures were 15 years old, some were non-existent, some didn’t have a date on them so as you pull up and you’re trying to make some determination, and it’s used by the police, fire, 911, Realtors, appraisers, banks, and these pictures aren’t current. There seemed to be a need for those to be current, so we kind of switched with money we were going to use to pay for Pictometry for a flyover, and actually taking a lower level, I think it’s picture, and spent very little money with the state and kind of switched that money for the pictures. Now this also does put a GIS mark on each door, so if a fire truck or police or a sheriff is en route, they may be able to pull this up and make sure they get to the right pinpoint place, so there is some interest there, we’re sharing all this information out with all the offices. It also has the data verification, which has an overlay so it’s more than just picture taking. We’ve always had pictures, but probably not in the same time. What we’ll have now is 37,000 pictures have already been taken, they will be current, they will be 2013.

Councilmember Goebel: The entire county will be current?

Bill Fluty: That’s correct, this year, industrial, commercial and exempt.

Councilmember Goebel: And we’re staying with the old Pictometry?

Bill Fluty: The old Pictometry is different than this. This is a street level imaging –

Councilmember Goebel: I understand that. But we’re not using that service now.

Bill Fluty: No, no, it’s not scraped, it’s just holding back on some of the money that’s spent that year. As the Reassessment has dwindled and we’ve used it for different other projects, we’ve had to prioritize what we could do each year. So we’re just kind of looking, but we need this and this will last for quite a few years.

Councilmember Goebel: Thank you.

President Shetler: Okay, any other questions? Do we have a motion?

Councilmember Swaim: So moved.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Second.

President Shetler: Moved and seconded. Do I have any questions about it? All in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Bill Fluty: Thank you.




President Shetler: Commissioner Abell is here to explain to us on the Area Plan Commission appointment.

Marsha Abell: Good morning. Thank you. I apologize for being late. I was in the middle of another project and forgot what time it is. I’m here this morning to ask for an increase in the amount that was appropriated for the Executive Director of the Area Plan Commission. This year, we went back to the old system of having an MPO Director separate from an Area Plan Commission Director. We put, not me but some group before me, put those two together and the MPO represents more than just one county. The Area Plan Commission Director only represents Vanderburgh County. And looking at the way things were done, we saw that Vanderburgh County was possibly suffering somewhat from this arrangement and didn’t feel that it would be in our best interest to continue, so we have separated the two. We have now found an Executive Director. We did an extensive search. Although the county pays the majority, actually in my opinion much more than we should, we pay 85% of the expenses of Area Plan Commission. The city only pays 15. The mayor did allow us to use his Human Resources Director, Mr. Fithian, and we sent out a nationwide search for an Area Plan Commission Director. We got a lot of interest, unfortunately, we couldn’t meet a salary that a lot of those people were demanding across the country. We did look locally and found Mr. Ron London. Ron London is an engineer. He has his engineering license and actually worked for Morley & Associates for many years and has most recently been with Cash Waggner. To be honest with you, we wondered why he was even interested. He’s taking a huge salary cut to take this job except that he told us he’s always been interested in it, always wanted to be in government and he thinks he could do a good job at it. I think the other reason is that a lot of the people that deal with the Area Plan Commission and the development industry, the developers, the builders were extremely supportive of him and put on a reception for him last week at SIBA and have sent us a lot of emails saying how happy they are to have an engineer in there. I can tell you that from our standpoint with the new rezoning that passed the County Commissioners last night, we are going to be needing the expertise of someone in Area Plan Commission more than we probably ever have. That’s 200 acres of land that has never been utilized for anything but agriculture and Mr. London has been out there already, is aware of the situation as has the County Surveyor and I think that this is going to be monumental to us in having someone – our issues at the Commission with the Area Plan Commission has always been that we didn’t like the fact that every answer was no. We were looking for someone who had enough expertise and education that could say well, you can’t put that settlement pond, for instance, there, but let’s see if we can’t put it over here. He has this expertise, so we’re excited about having him on. With all that said, I’m here to get some money to pay him. We had $14,087 budgeted for this position because it was a percent. Most of it was paid by MPO for the MPO director, so we only had $14,087. The salary, the way we arrived at the salary, Sandie Deig and I sat down and figured up the percentage increases that you’ve given over the years that we didn’t have an Area Plan Commission Director, and went back to the last salary that he had, and gave that increase to see that this is what the Area Plan Commission Director would have been paid now, had he stayed in that position. We came up with a figure of $80,325. To that, I can tell you he’s only going to be on salary seven and a half months. He has not, obviously, taken the job yet. He is scheduled to start Monday morning. Isn’t that correct? I think he’s been with your office.

Joe Gries: I believe so, yes.

Marsha Abell: So that’s $50,203.12, so that we’ll pay 85%, which brings it down to $42,672.65, and if you remove the $14,087 we have appropriated, we’re looking at a difference of $28,585.65 to see us out through 2013. The County Attorney has sent a letter to the city indicating to them that we are exercising our right to renegotiate this contract this year. I have talked to the mayor about it and he is in agreement that this is not an appropriate split for the Area Plan Commission. Obviously, due to the fact that they continue to take in more of the property on the east side of town into the city and off the county rolls and he understands that they need to be paying a bigger percentage of the Area Plan Commission expenses, not just the director, but the entire office. We split everything 85/15.

President Shetler: Okay, thank you. Yes, Mike?

Councilmember Goebel: Marsha, do you have any of that in writing for us?

Marsha Abell: What part?

Councilmember Goebel: Any kind of guarantee that the split is going to be changing?

Marsha Abell: Well, we’re going to go into negotiation. See, we’re under contract right now. We have to, by contract, we have to send him a letter that we’re going to renegotiate the contract. We’ve done that. I can get you a copy of that. But we will go into negotiations as we do with all contracts probably about after November and the beginning of December.

Councilmember Goebel: And that will kick in next year? 2014?

Marsha Abell: Yes. What I will do is budget the 85% and then come back after we’ve negotiated the contract and let you know what the percentage is.

Councilmember Goebel: It’s kind of difficult, even though it’s only 28,000 to swallow right now in light of everything that’s going on. It would be nice if there was some type of gesture, if there’s an acknowledgment that the percentages are not right. Has the mayor suggested he might be able to find some funding for even this year?

Marsha Abell: Well, you know, first of all, he’s not in town. He’s in Germany so I can’t ask him, but by contract, he doesn’t have to. Just like by contract, they didn’t have to do any of the other changes that – you know, if we forced it one way, we may have to have it forced down our throats the other way and I’m not sure we want that. Some of the contracts, they pay the biggest percentage of, that maybe we should be paying a little more of. So I think, to my way of thinking, you live by the contract, you die by the contract, you do exactly what the contract says. And we followed it to the letter.

President Shetler: Okay, thank you. I guess my question was going to be, when you go into the negotiations, what’s the basis that we’re going to use for the percentages, that there’s some kind of fairness is done on that. I mean, is it by population, is it going to be by land mass, percentages, activity in the office, you know, city versus county. I don’t know if you guys plan that out or have thought that out yet.

Marsha Abell: What we’ve gotten so far is, I asked the County Surveyor for and he provided me with the amount of land that has been removed from the county rolls and put on the city rolls in the last ten years and it’s quite extensive. I could actually get a copy of it, it’s over in the office, but that’s where we started. Joe Harrison is going to be doing this negotiation, and I’m sure that there will be other things that will come into it that they’ll want to talk about. But I don’t think there’s much question, quite frankly, I think that the mayor even thought that they actually had the largest percentage because he’s the one who actually let go the previous Area Plan Commission Director. So I think they thought that that was – this contract, this 85/15 split goes back to the 60's. Its been in place a long time.

President Shetler: Okay. The other thing is, it would be extremely helpful to us if this could be concluded and we’d have some resolution by budget time, so that we would know how to plan accordingly.

Marsha Abell: By July of this year? I will see if we can –

President Shetler: Say mid-August anyway.

Marsha Abell: I’ll see if we can start negotiations sooner. Certainly.

Councilmember Raben: Well, we’ll need that information actually sooner because right now we’re not making an appropriation. We’re going to pay this individual out of the 14,000 plus that’s already budgeted.

Marsha Abell: Right.

Councilmember Raben: So you will need to come to us though sometime before the end of the year to make up that balance.

President Shetler: Pretty soon.

Councilmember Raben: Yeah. So, I mean, --

Joe Gries: Councilman Raben? I did a little bit of figuring. The salary for a month at the rate that the Commissioners are proposing, the money would run out some time in July. So probably the June meeting would be appropriate to make sure that we have the money available.

Marsha Abell: Well, I guess my question at that point is, is it going to be appropriated, because this man is not going to quit his job and come to work for us if he’s going to work until July and we’re going to tell him there isn’t any money to pay him.

Councilmember Goebel: I think our question would be, do we negotiate with the city because my sense is that I don’t think it’s fair the way it’s broken right now and I’m not going to support the 85/15. So –

Marsha Abell: Well, I don’t think we have a choice, Mr. Goebel, it’s a contract.

Councilmember Goebel: I understand that. As far as extending funding, though, we do. No, I mean, if you get with the mayor –

Marsha Abell: For 2014?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes, and come to us with a more palatable agreement, that might help the situation in June when you need to come back to fill the budget.

Marsha Abell: I still don’t think I can have a man come to work that doesn’t know if he’s going to have a –

President Shetler: Right. So you’re looking today for a motion that we approve of the amount of money that’s going to be spent or at least the $28,000 to continue for the rest of the year and basing that on the promise that you are opening up negotiations with the mayor, and he’s agreed to that, even though the contract has not expired yet, but he’s agreed to open up negotiations to reduce our burden and increase the city’s burden on the payment for the MPO – for the Area Plan.

Marsha Abell: Correct. The contract automatically renews year to year if we don’t –

(Tape changed)

– that we’re not going to, and that letter has gone out.

President Shetler: Okay, so a motion would be in order to –

Councilmember Raben: A motion to that effect.

President Shetler: Yeah.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I’ll echo that and make that as a motion.

Councilmember Bassemier: I’ll second it.

President Shetler: That was pretty clear, so – okay, we have a motion and a second. Do I have any other questions? All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Is there anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Marsha Abell: Thank you.


President Shetler: Okay, that bring us to the Coroner and Annie Groves is here. The request is to hire two new part-time employees.

Annie Groves: Correct.

President Shetler: And that’s to cover that balance?

Annie Groves: Well, what it is, is once we went into the 29 hours, my office has to cover 168 hours a week. The full-time staff covers 60, so that’s still 108 hours I need to cover and with the people that I have now, I don’t have enough people because we’ve lost some. I wouldn’t be able to follow the guidelines because they take 12 hour shifts at a time. So if they work a couple times a week, that’s 24 hours, so the way I’ve got it right now, some of them are working three times a week so that we can get the hours covered. And the other question that I have on this is, and I don’t know if anyone can answer this, I know it says the 29 hours a week, are we allowed to average that out to a month so that I could work them 116 hours a month?

President Shetler: I think it was annual.

Councilmember Raben: I don’t think you can.

Jeff Ahlers: I think the way the law reads is that it’s the average within 120 days. Now what I don’t know is whether you can go over on the weeks. I mean, Joe and I are looking at these issues now, but I know the period of time that they looked back is within a 120 day period of time.

Annie Groves: So if they would do that, then I could do the 116 a month as long as I kept them to that?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, that I don’t know, in terms of, I don’t know that, what I would have to look at and I don’t know that that means you can go over on a weekly basis by that much. I just know that they’re looking at it at 120 day window, within that window, we’ll have to look into to be able to answer your question on that.

President Shetler: You may have a 40 hour overtime type –

Councilmember Raben: But you’re still, at the end of the day, you’re still going to need more people.

Annie Groves: Absolutely.

Councilmember Raben: So I think for the sake of meeting the needs, we need to go ahead and approve this request.

Annie Groves: Its no cost to the county, it all comes out of the same line item.

Councilmember Bassemier: I will make a motion to approve that.

Councilmember Goebel: Second.

President Shetler: Its been moved and seconded. Any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Annie Groves: Thank you, and I have one more question that I can ask you. I don’t know if in this clause that they wrote and if you would check into it for me I would appreciate it, a lot of times when the federal people write stuff like this, they exempt first responders from those hard and set rules. And if you could look into that, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

President Shetler: Thank you. Good question.


President Shetler: Alright, Health Department is not here, but the Health Department does has a representative here. That’s you.

Joe Gries: This is a change to the salary ordinance. Mr. Heck received information from the state that they have to change how they pay their WIC Extra Help, and this allows them to then follow with the plan that they submitted to the state that the state approved and then we’ll fit within that plan. The change came because of the sequester from the federal government, that’s money that the state gets and then the state passes that on to the Health Department and they had to make changes to how those employees, how many hours they could work within the year.

Councilmember Raben: I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Second.

President Shetler: Moved and seconded. Do I have any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries. Thank you.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)


President Shetler: Travel requests. A couple from the County Clerk, the Auditor and the Veterans Services. Do I have any questions about any of those? If not, a motion would be in order for approval.

Councilmember Terry: So moved.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Second.

President Shetler: Its been moved by Councilman Terry and seconded by Councilman Lindsey. All in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Any opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries. Thank you.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)


President Shetler: We still need further discussion on the Public Library appointment so we’ll take that up next month and we’ve already done that.


President Shetler: Councilman Raben, on the amendments to the salary ordinance.

Councilmember Raben: Alright, now we’ll move to the amendments to the salary ordinance. Sarah, our administrative assistant is passing those out as I speak. There’s two corrections we need to make. First, on page two, under Prosecutor, the third paragraph is the two part-time positions that we did not act on today so we’ll need to cross that out and then below that the County Assessor, there’s three different requests, the middle one for salary line 1090-1760, we did not act on that today. And I would move that those changes be made, this three page document be entered into the minutes and I would like to make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Koehler Lindsey: Second.

President Shetler: Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the salary ordinance amendments as amended. Do I have any questions about that? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Is there anyone opposed?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: The motion carries. Thank you.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)



President Shetler: I see a couple other faces.

Debbie Stucki: (Inaudible – comments not made at the microphone) – to come before the Council and maybe I didn’t go about it the right way, but I wanted to request to transfer $1,150.68 to the General fund. This is an overage and shortage fund that has been carried over for the last eight years. If cashiers were over some money and they couldn’t figure out and no one claimed this money, its just been sitting there and –

President Shetler: I move approval.

Debbie Stucki: – for eight years.

Councilmember Raben: I think we have to do a repeal. And is there an account number that that would –

Joe Gries: I don’t know that there is. I believe this is part of the Clerk’s bank accounts, money that you just have and so it’s not part of any line item or a budget or anything. It’s just money that was held for a certain situation and then if the Clerk wants to turn to the –

Debbie Stucki: But I’d like to clear it out and –

Joe Gries: It would be like miscellaneous revenue coming into –

Councilmember Raben: Quietus the funds?

Joe Gries: Yes, sir.

Councilmember Raben: So does that require action or is that...

Joe Gries: I don’t know that it does, but if the Council would like to approve it, that would be money going into the General fund.

Councilmember Raben: Well, we had a motion –

President Shetler: We had a motion and a second, so all in favor signify by saying aye.

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Shetler: Anyone opposed to that one?

(No opposing votes were cast)

President Shetler: Motion carries.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Debbie Stucki: We contacted the State Board and they said we could just give that over to the General fund. I guess, Joe, should I get with you on how to do that? Would that be okay?

Joe Gries: If you want to talk to Anne in Bookkeeping, she’ll be able to quietus that money in for you.

Debbie Stucki: Okay, thank you very much.

President Shetler: Alright, thank you, appreciate it. Okay, anything else? Anybody have anything? Alright, motion for adjournment and we’ll see everybody back here, I think it’s May 29th and that’s at 3:00 for the Personnel & Finance.

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 a.m.)


President Tom Shetler

Vice President Peter Swaim

Angela Koehler Lindsey

James Raben

Mike Goebel

Ed Bassemier

Stephanie Terry