The Vanderburgh County Council and Commissioners held a special joint meeting for discussion of and action on contracts and services for jail and construction projects on November 20, 2001 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 1:06 p.m. by County Council President Ed Bassemier.

Council President Ed Bassemier: Sheriff, if you want to open the meeting, please?

(Meeting opened by Sheriff Brad Ellsworth)

Council President Bassemier: Thank you, sir. Attendance roll call please. 

Teri Lukeman: Commissioner Mourdock?

Commissioner Mourdock: Here.

Teri Lukeman: Commissioner Fanello?

Commissioner Fanello: Here. Should I ask the question..we need to open our meeting, too. Don't we need to convene our meeting?

Phil Hayes: Yes, that would be appropriate.

Council President Bassemier: Okay, do you mind if we open ours?

Commissioner Fanello: You can go ahead and open yours.

Council President Bassemier: If that is the way that you guys want to do it, it is fine with me.

Teri Lukeman: Shall I call --

Council President Bassemier: Yeah, I tell you what, call the County Council people and then we will turn it over to them and let them call their people and we will have the Pledge of Allegiance.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Here.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Here.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Here.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Here.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Here.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Here.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

Council President Bassemier: Here. Okay, Mr. Mosby.

Commission President Mosby: I would like to call to order the special board meeting of the Vanderburgh County Commissioners on November 20^th. Present today will be Commissioner Mourdock, Commissioner Fanello, Counselor Hayes and Commissioner Mosby along with Auditor Suzanne Crouch.

Council President Bassemier: Thank you, sir. Would everybody please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

(Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

Council President Bassemier: I would like to announce that the purpose of this meeting today is to address the design and construction management contracts for a new detention facility and find some common ground and move forward to the construction of a new jail. I guess we start a question and answer session. I will ask the Commissioners, you have a format that you like. Do you mind if we ask you some questions? How do you all like the, I am open to suggestions, to be fair to both parties.

Commission President Mosby: It doesn't matter to me.

Council President Bassemier: Okay. I will start out then. Are there any County Council members that would like to ask the Commissioners any questions to start it out? Please raise your hand and we will do it in an orderly fashion. Who would like to go first? Why, Mr. Winnecke, thank you sir.

Councilmember Winnecke: At the last Council meeting we had a number of issues relating to the financial aspects of the contract. Initially in the interest of paying the $600,000 towards United and those bills, has the Commission negotiated at all with United to clean up the aspects of the contract that we raised questions about at our last meeting?

Commission President Mosby: Yes and I will answer that. Since the last meeting, I believe that I have had one meeting with Councilmember Raben and a couple of phone calls and some dialogue and Councilmember Raben referred me to Counselor Ahlers. So, in talking with Counselor Ahlers on the phone for about an hour and a half, he gave me specifically four or five things that he thought the Council was interested in and we did go back and we asked United to give us their fee structure and exactly what we came up with was United's fees for a $30,000,000 for 2.55 along with 530 in the additional services for a total of 3.08. I also at the time asked United to give me fees on what they thought a $40,000,000 project would come to and that figure came to 3.840. So, I told them to go on to a $50,000,000 project which came out at 4.58. I believe that if you do the math on the numbers that you will notice that the percentage comes down as the project goes up. I know it was stated here that they thought the fees would double but if you do the math on the percentages, as we go higher, instead of the 10.5% we actually come down to around 9%.

Councilmember Winnecke: So-

Commission President Mosby: So, the fees go down. Go ahead.

Councilmember Winnecke: A $30,000,000 size, the price would be 3.08 million?

Commission President Mosby: Right.

Councilmember Winnecke: Uh, $40,000,0000 3.84?

Commission President Mosby: Right.

Councilmember Winnecke: And $50,000,000 is 4.58?

Commission President Mosby: Right.

Councilmember Winnecke: What about the reimbursable expenses for them and the construction manager. How would their fees coincide? 

Commission President Mosby: We didn't discuss the CM. But, the reimbursables are still capped at 190. So, and that was in the letter that Counselor Ahlers got that I faxed to him on Friday. It does tell you in there, civil engineering, environmental and site survey and geotechnical is still an added expense at this time and we don't know what that will be. They did put an approximate figure in there at $200,000, $205,000 so if that will help you.

Councilmember Winnecke: Are these fees determined by, is it a flat fee structure or is it an hourly based on the amount of work they do. If it turns out to be a $45,000,000 project is somewhere in between and how do they calculate that?

Commission President Mosby: The only thing that they gave me is that simply because of the early stages of the project, their best estimate is what these fees could total and they didn't tell me how to figure them because this is something that they do not deal with but it tells you that in the bottom of the letter that none of the reimbursable as well as the mark up in any, will be marked up in anyway by United and passed straight on to us. So, they didn't have an exact price because it is something that was out of realm and they don't deal with it, same as kitchen design. Security is in there, there is a question on security. It is covered and that is stated in the letter also that we gave to Counselor and it tells you the paragraph to look at. 

Councilmember Winnecke: One of the other issues that we were talking about in our last meeting and then I will shut up after this and let someone else ask. Relating, you mentioned the kitchen expenses, the design and all of that, does the Commission have estimates yet on kitchen design, security, communication, etc, that is also part of the supporting services?

Commission President Mosby: No, we don't have a building yet. We don't have it designed.

Councilmember Winnecke: But, do you have an idea as to what the kitchen design is going to be?

Commission President Mosby: No. The kitchen design could change if you build just a jail or if you build a jail and community corrections or if you build all three. The kitchen could change depending on how big you build the building.

Councilmember Winnecke: I understand that. I guess I am just looking for a range.

Commission President Mosby: I really don't have a range and they just put in their letter that they thought approximately $205,000 would get the rest of the designs that we would need and they included civil and environmental design, site survey and geotechnical.

Council President Bassemier: Do you want to go over it, Troy? Do you have any questions that you want to ask the Commissioners? Uh, Royce? Mr. Raben? 

Councilmember Raben: I will wait just a little bit, I will wait to hear other questions and then I may follow up with some.

Council President Bassemier: Okay, Mr. Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: I want to wait a while.

Council President Bassemier: Okay.

Commission President Mosby: Everybody can't wait.

Council President Bassemier: Mr. Wortman, do you have any questions?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes and I don't know if it can be answered or not. I would like to have a kind of, you know we talked about the jail on a scale of 100 and the jail costing 20% and the operating costing 80%, I would like to have a projection of how much operating this jail is going to cost based upon so many beds and what have you because this really could affect us, this 80%. I am kind of concerned about that and the location. If we have a location, as they call it on the back forty here the fourteen acres. Would there be a walkway over? Or if you get another location, two or three miles away or blocks or what have you, you've got transportation problems involved. I would like to have a kind of projection on that if I could. Thank you.

Commissioner Fanello: You are quite correct, Mr. Wortman. And what we need to do once we all decide how far we are going to go with this project, then they can begin to work on what operating costs might be. But, until we have a consensus here of how much we are willing to spend on this project, I know that a $35,000,000 budget is set but I don't know that is going to get us everything we need, but once we do that, then we can work on an operating budget.

Councilmember Wortman: I am referring more. I went to Owensboro with Mr. Bassemier and the Sheriff, Mr. Ellsworth, and they built a jail over there for $9,200,000. If they can build that, was that 400 beds, Mr. Bassemier?

Council President Bassemier: That's 427 beds.

Councilmember Wortman: Now, if that's the case, we could build 3 jails over here at that price and having money left over.

Commission President Mosby: I think that if you look at the laws that you are dealing with in Kentucky and the laws that you dealing with in the state of Indiana, they are not the same.

Councilmember Wortman: Not the same?

Commissioner Fanello: The standards are different by which we have to build versus what Kentucky has to build and I think that Sheriff Ellsworth is probably familiar with a few of those but that is the big difference in cost that you see.

Council President Bassemier: Well, the engineer, to Mr. Wortman's defense, that $9,200,000 was set on the price of what it would cost in Vanderburgh County, the $9,200,000, actually they bought their facility for $7,500,000, is that not right, Mr. Hoy? 

Councilmember Hoy: That is correct and when I went over, I asked the jail about what the variables would be and he gave those to me and even factoring in the variables, I came to the conclusion that we should be able to do what we need to do for $35,000,000. They did have some cost savings, they do, they don't have to comply with the American Correctional Associations standards as we do in Indiana. They do comply with the American Jailers Association which applies in Kentucky but doesn't apply here. One of the examples that he gave us was on how you can figure the space. There they can figure that the beds are part of the you know space in this room and you have to exclude those and where the toilet facilities are here, so there are some differences. They also had some other cost savings in painting, excavation and they chose to use a construction manager but not a general contractor. The construction manager did the subcontracting. I asked them also about union versus non-union labor and virtually all the labor was union labor. They have a prevailing wage law also just as we do. They followed that. So, I felt like I filtered out as many of the cost variables as possible and when I went to look at the facility and I went to look at the financing and say, are we being unreasonable with $35,000,000? I came away feeling that we were not being unreasonable with $35,000,000. So, that was my impression and I was very much impressed with their control room and how they set things up and some very practical things that they did along the way. Which are things that I think we can look at. You know beyond just what we are talking about today.

Council President Bassemier: Okay-

Commissioner Fanello: With, I'm sorry.

Council President Bassemier: You want to answer.

Commissioner Fanello: I believe that David has something to say. With all due respect, Councilmember Hoy, I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am sure that you have done your homework on that. But, throughout the state of Indiana I have gathered some research on what our detention facilities have cost within the state of Indiana and based on my research and the information gathered from the State Board of Tax Commissioners on other similar projects across the state. We are not going to get what we need for $35,000,000 and as far as the figure that you are quoting, I would have to see what they are basing that on and how they are coming to their figures. So, at this point, I don't think it is fair to talk about those kinds of cost issues when I don't have anything in front of me to substantiate those kinds of costs.

Commission President Mosby: Councilman, I would just go further to answer that. Initially when this project started and we were interviewing architects and engineers, I can tell you that I sat down with Ed Hafer, Tom or Mike Farley, Tom Hickey, these guys are some of the biggest firms in the state of Indiana. We had, I think three firms out of the top ten, that bid this project and in sitting down and talking with them, everyone of them will give you the federal standards on the square footage of each inmate in a jail cell per bed and they will give you two different ways. They will give you a price per bed and they will show you the construction cost per square foot of what it cost to build a jail. In sitting down and talking with them and going over jails, community corrections and juvenile detentions, that is how we came up with an approximately $50,000,000 figure. That was with three different firms. Mike Shoulders being involved too with one of the firms. So, really we had Shoulders, Hafer, Farley and Hickey all.

Council President Bassemier: Mr. Hoy.

Councilmember Hoy: My questions connect with what you just said and that is, it is the same question that I asked you in our last meeting. That is that I do not believe that this contract gives us much security on a number of things. One is, we don't have the scope, I would feel better if the scope were outlined. If they came back with the scope with a location, what the site would cost, and some other things like that, then we might look at a, we are not looking at any hard figures here, there is no figure mentioned in the contract and I want to know what we are getting for the money we are spending. I think that there are too many loopholes in this contract.

Council President Bassemier: I will let him address it.

Commission President Mosby: Councilman, the only thing that I can tell you is that the scope of service right now that United Consulting is dealing with is what we have passed in the Commissioner's meeting back on August 20 and what is says, and the motion was 650 on the jail 300 on community corrections, yeah and 650 expandable to a 1000 with 20 - 24 juvenile detention. That was the scope of the project and that is what we had asked United Consulting to look at and bring us back a price on.

Councilmember Hoy: And what is the price that they brought back?

Commission President Mosby: We haven't got it yet. We will probably have the figures within the next week or so. We might have had them today but they were asked not to come down here so, they are not here.

Councilmember Hoy: I feel that our meeting today is to iron out the things that are not in this contract that need to be there and-

Commission President Mosby: Well, that is in the contract.

Councilmember Hoy: There is not a figure there.

Commission President Mosby: There is a figure there on their fees.

Councilmember Hoy: That's all.

Commission President Mosby: Right.

Councilmember Hoy: If we stick with the $35,000,000 as a Council, then their fees along with Shireman's are going to be in excess of 15% and that just seems high to me. I realize that you can get figures national averages, state averages, and I am interested in those only to a point. I was reading in the paper where the county northwest, Davis County, Indiana, is looking at between ten and twelve and a half million, I am very familiar with that county and the economics of that county and that is absolutely going to be a tax killer up there and I think that they are making a mistake on what they are spending and I just don't want us to do it. I don't see any caps on this and there are just too many, there are loopholes that you can drive a semi through.

Commissioner Fanello: Councilman Hoy, with all due respect again, throwing the phrases out that there are loopholes, that things are excessive. You have to have something to base that upon, there aren't loopholes in the contract. The contract is based on a $30,000,000 construction cost, as far as saying that Shireman's fees are in excess, and that is the construction manager, that construction manager fee is not an added cost to the project. That is a fee that you are going to be paying to a general contractor, if you do not have a construction manager on the project. So, that fee is a cost whether or not it is Shireman or someone else. To further add, I invited any Councilmember to see the research that I had done on other contracts. I have sample contracts from other jail projects across the state, three folders worth of research here, and I have not had one Councilperson come to me except Troy Tornatta and sit down and ask that question. So, to throw those comments out, I think are unfair, unless you have something to substantiate them.
 

Councilmember Raben: Could I interrupt just one second?

Councilmember Hoy: Go ahead.

Councilmember Raben: Catherine, you stated that this contract is based on $30,000,000. On page 11, which is 1.3.1.4, it states, "no fixed limit of construction costs shall be established as a condition of this agreement". 

Commissioner Fanello: Go to page 1.1.1., 1.1.1.3, in order to begin work on the project the architect has been instructed-

Councilmember Winnecke: What page are you on?

Councilmember Raben: 1.1-

Commissioner Fanello: Page 3, 1.1.1.3, a total construction cost budget of $30,000,000 . Now, if we go beyond what we, you know the scope that we are looking at here then yes, there is going to be a change in the contract, but the contract is set up that the owner approves every cost in excess of that. The contract is also set up that it can be terminated at any time at the pleasure of the owner.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay, my question then is, we would probably have to buy out his contract?

Commissioner Fanello: No, there is no buy out in the contract and I made sure of that.

Commission President Mosby: The other thing that I will add because it was brought up too, if we terminate the contract, as the owner, and the question was asked I think by Counselor Ahlers and Councilman Raben had asked me the question, we do not have to start the project over. It says, "there is however a provision in this agreement for such a scenario". Paragraph 1.3.2.2. states that "should the agreement be terminated by the owner for cause, the license granted to the owner to use the drawings to construct the building is immediately replaced by a second license that allows the owner to use and reproduce the drawings". So, we do not have to start over and that is in the language of the contract. There is no liquidated damages, either.

Council President Bassemier: Mr. Winnecke.

Councilmember Winnecke: Mr. Wortman raised the point earlier and I think that we need to try and nail down. One of the purposes of today's meeting in my mind is to not decide that we are going to spend more than $35,000,000 because frankly I don't think that anyone today can present all of the evidence to change where we are in that regard. You know there are so many variables out there, land cost, I would like for someone to address where the county is in terms of the site selection and what consideration, if any, has been given to use of the existing jail.

Commissioner Fanello: I believe the Sheriff.

Councilmember Winnecke: Whoever would like to answer that.

Commissioner Fanello: I was just going to say that the Sheriff is the one who has been working on the site selection process and I believe that he would be the best one to answer those questions, in my opinion.

Council President Bassemier: Sheriff, would you mind coming forward, please. I knew that we would get you in there somewhere. Please state your name sir for the record. Did you want to ask that question again, Mr. Winnecke?

Brad Ellsworth: Brad Ellsworth, Sheriff.

Councilmember Winnecke: Where are we on the site selection?

Brad Ellsworth: There hasn't been a real scientific method for site selection. My staff and I just over the course of the career have went out when, since five years ago when this all started again. We started looking for areas that might be suitable. Certainly the back forty was the first and most desirable place to do this because it was in close proximity to the Courthouse. We have enjoyed the luxury of having a tunnel from the current jail to the Courthouse and like I said, it has been a luxury that many other counties don't enjoy. However, with what we believe is the scope of this project, when we are talking about a 650 bed jail or 500 whichever. The large community correction center and the juvenile, it began to look like they were going to need more acreage than what was available. If not, also parking became a problem with the back forty. Not saying that it has been thrown out, that is certainly one of the areas that is still on the site selection. So, what we began to do was take the knowledge gained in this and use what other counties have done with remonstrations and site selection and stuff like that and we put some things on paper that were important to us; a) connectivity to the courts was going to be the number one thing, within the city limits, distance away from any residential area that might be because we know when you try to put this in somebody's back yard or even close that we are going to run into problems, so we were very cognizant of that. We were looking for areas that already had utilities and sewer and those things, travel access to roads and major thoroughfares. We came up with approximately and this wasn't done alone, this was also done with, and I know probably that probably you all and the Commissioners received letters on the back of napkins and paper saying this would be a good site. I had everything, every vacant building in town as been suggested to me as a possible jail site. What we did was basically narrow this down to eighteen locations. Some out in the county and some in the city and that includes the industrial zone out on 57, that includes the sheriff's training center on Kansas Road, every abandoned K-Mart, the Sam's Club on Green River Road, the State Hospital grounds and we had about 18 that looked acceptable. When we went out and then drove around with the architect from United, showing them and Mr. Shireman to the 18 different locations that we thought at least had a chance of this. We were then able to narrow that again to, down to approximately six locations that are really what I would say is ideal, that would really work and that includes the back forty. The back forty would require a parking garage being built and when we are talking about $35,000,000 and if you say the jail and everything, plus the cost of the parking garage, I don't see it happening. If you guys can work that magic, more power to you. So, we are down to probably a handful, I would say five locations. I am reluctant to name those off for the same reason that we talked about before because we talked about as soon as you name a site, does the price go up? I am going to leave that to the Commission and Council to talk about those locations. If they want to name the final three or the final four or five that is fine with me but that's in your alls wisdom about how to secure those lots, secure those buildings and that. So, that is kind of what we went through for the criteria on a site selection. That is not done yet and I don't know if it's gone so far, I think that there is some people contacting some of the owners of the top five to see if they are even willing to sell that. I don't know of anybody that's, that information has come in. So, I don't have a range of we've got a million dollar lot or we've got one donated. As far as the existing jail, it was constructed in 1969 and it has served its purpose well and I think that they have done a wonderful job over thirty years in that facility. It is what they called a linear design, it's a 1930's and 40's design. It is extremely hard to supervise and we have talked about that a whole lot and that is why we see so many broken jaws and fights and things that go on because it is the old out of sight, out of mind. If they are behind a metal door, what goes on one side of the door is their business and what's out in the hallway is our business. You don't have, you can't hire enough staff to be in our cells, because they are so in the, they are ten man cells and we couldn't do that. During the PMSI study and we started bringing the standards back in, the DOC standards that are set, we have to follow, they said that if you knock a brick out of the wall and try to remodel the old jail, you will have to bring it up to current standards and that will reduce our beds from the current 268 down to approximately 125, if I remember correctly what they said. We have kicked around some of the things. My ideal situation is this is all on one campus and all, at least on one campus, if not under one roof, where it is much easier to manage and you can use the kitchens, the laundry and the like services to supply on. That is where you are going to save some of that money. Certainly the jail could be used for something but that's what we as a group have to decide what we are willing to do. Could you turn it into the Community Corrections Center? Probably could. You know, cut off the doors, open it up, release it and I know the jail, replace the jail elevator that breaks down unfortunately, usually on Christmas and I am the one that gets the call because all of the elevators are broken down and they can't visit and things like that. You can turn it into that, but that's when we have to ask ourselves, is that what we want at the front gate of our government center, is the release and constant traffic of work release inmates out on Martin Luther King Blvd. Some of us have talked about that and it didn't seem like the ideal location. Could you turn it into a juvenile center? Absolutely could with some of the same things with the supervision, but, you are going to talk about having separate kitchens, separate supervisory staff and some of those things. The one thing that we are probably going to, if we do build this on an away site, is that we are going to need somewhere to stage for a secure area to stage inmates and the current court stays where it is at, is a place to stage inmates while they are waiting to appear in court. Certainly, that seems like the current jail could be incorporated into that. I don't know what the Building Authority, I think Chief Deputy Williams has had some conversation with Mr. Utley about at least the possibility of stripping out that building and turning it into office space and if my recollection, and I won't speak for him, but that's a pretty easily done thing, to turn that into office space. But that is, I don't know if that answers it but-

Councilmember Winnecke: I would just have follow up and I don't know if it's directed to-

Council President Bassemier: I'm sorry, Lloyd, let's change the tape.

(TAPE CHANGE)

Councilmember Winnecke: I don't know if it's directed to the Sheriff or the Commissioners, what is, in someone's mind, the time line for selecting the site?

Brad Ellsworth: I'll let you answer that.

Commission President Mosby: I'd say probably within the next three months. The first thing we've got to do is get a contract with the architect.

Council President Bassemier: I know according to contract, of course I imagine it's changed in you all's contract here, this February 2, 2002?

Commission President Mosby: Yeah, but that's changing every time we keep messing with this.

Council President Bassemier: That's right.

Commission President Mosby: The last time I had talked to the architects the February deal was pending, we thought we had a contract and we were moving forward and then all this came about, so... I mean, every time we walk in here we just lose a week or two or three.

Council President Bassemier: What we're doing here shouldn't slow us up on finding a land site, right? I mean, you guys are still working trying to find us a piece of ground.

Commission President Mosby: We're looking, yeah.

Council President Bassemier: I've got a couple of questions and then I'll work back over here. I agree with Mr. Wortman we do need to find a piece a ground. I mean I really don't think we can sign a contract, personally now, until we find a piece of ground. The Sheriff says you all have narrowed it down, I think Catherine you said you've narrowed it down to five or six sites. Can you kind of give me an average cost of these five sites that it is going to cost the county? We've gave you a cap of $35,000,000, this $5,000,000 is going to go for the designs. Now what do you think the average of those five or six sites that you've talked to these people what is it going to average out? I know you can't give me an exact figure.

Commissioner Fanello: I haven't talked to anybody about cost and would have no idea. I mean that is for an appraiser to determine. Until people are even contacted if they're even willing to sell these properties or whatever we come down to the final two or three or whatever, I have no idea. It's not within my realm of expertise.

Commission President Mosby: I don't want there to be a misinterpretation here the way you said that. I don't think anybody's been contacted by the site-

Commissioner Fanello: No.

Commission President Mosby: When the Sheriff is referring to this, and I think what we are referring to, this is only something that we have only drove around and just looked at sites. Nobody has been contacted.

Council President Bassemier: I didn't know. I guess we ought to be getting onto it because if we're trying find a piece of ground we better be asking if it is for sale, right?

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I might jump in just a moment. Brad, I know you and I spoke a few weeks back about the possibility of your site selections and at that time you had asked me to keep them to myself with the understanding that as soon as I found out you were interested in a piece of my property I would immediately, what would happen to the price of that piece of property, but from talking with you, and you stated just a few moments ago, that your first choice would be the back 40. I know Commissioner Mosby, am I accurate when I say that would be your first pick?

Commission President Mosby: I said it publicly already.

Councilmember Raben: Okay.

Commissioner Fanello: And I would too, that is my first choice.

Councilmember Raben: I guess what concerns me with that is, and I tried to establish a meeting over a period of a couple of weeks with the Building Authority to begin that discussion, where this fits in with the downtown master plan, what kind of give and take the Building Authority has because they ultimately do have control of that property. That meeting was cancelled and I'm offering to do that again.

Commission President Mosby: I think that was the day we voided the contract.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, but again, I don't see how we can even consider other sites knowing going in that this is our number one choice if we haven't begun that dialogue with them. Brad, you mentioned parking garage. I don't think the county would have to include parking garage as part of this construction cost. There may be some other...I have some other ideas on that I addressed with Commissioner Mosby. Again, I think that's an important part of this conversation, site selection is very key. I think we need to have that meeting that I once tried to establish that was cancelled. I'm asking again if I set it up, is it going to take place?

Commission President Mosby: If we have an architect on board and we move forward I would be more than happy to meet tomorrow. But I can't see jumping out of line here, I mean the first thing we have-

Councilmember Raben: Well again, site selection is key. I mean, that's everything right now. So we need to begin that dialogue with the appropriate figures.

Commissioner Fanello: But we have to have their involvement to help with that.

Councilmember Raben: Who the architect?

Commissioner Fanello: The architects.

Councilmember Raben: Well you have to know that the site that we're going to get the appropriate commitments from the mayor's office, from City Council, from the Building Authority, both of these bodies. I mean there is more involved in that back 40 than just-

Commissioner Fanello: I agree with that and I agree with what you said. You know, no it should be the number one site and we shouldn't pay attention to any others, but you have to have some contingency plans. If the back 40 is not going to work, it's not going to work. You've got to have the next two to go to.

Councilmember Raben: But again we have to get to the point where we understand that it is or isn't going to work before we even entertain other ones. I'm just saying once again that I will establish that communication that I once made the effort to communicate before it was cancelled. 

Commission President Mosby: And I told you that I was willing to meet. The only thing I'm saying, and I guess I'm just saying the reverse of what you're saying, you're saying let's find out and have a dialogue with everybody. I'm saying let's let the professionals tell you that's even the site. I would hate to think we went through all that dialogue and had meetings with the Building Authority and everybody and we wasted everybody's time because the site is not even...

Commissioner Mourdock: Didn't we just hear, Brad, didn't you just say it's one of the five sites currently, it's one of the finalists?

Brad Ellsworth: The back 40?

Commissioner Mourdock: Yes.

Brad Ellsworth: As one of the desirable sites for it, yes.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, and that determination was made based on the drive through, through the windshield that you did with the architects?

Brad Ellsworth: Yes.

Commissioner Mourdock: Thank you.

Commission President Mosby: Has anybody measured that site? Do we know how many acres we'll need?

Council President Bassemier: Go ahead Sheriff, you've got the floor.

Brad Ellsworth: I'll take responsibility for pleading with the Commission and the architect that, and we've had some talks about ten story... I guess what I was adamantly opposed to was saying, well let's just say the judges' parking lot, everybody is familiar with that, saying we're going to put this on the judges parking lot. What that would have required would be to make it basically a ten story jail. What that does if you select your site first and we say we want it right here and you're blocked by this much area and we go up ten stories, we've already talked about that of adding 100 people just to staff it which we are not going to be able to afford to do. So, what I begged for them to consider is let's draw or at least come up with a program on what we need and how this lays out to draw an efficient, and we talked about that in Owensboro, to lay it out so it's an efficient drawn building. Now, you can't do that if you're strapped to a block area or something like that. So, what they've said now is he thinks, Paul with DLZ thinks and United thinks he needs about nine acres, I think, was the minimum to do this entire project, if we're still doing three projects. We have to talk about future growth and we have to talk about if we're going to make this expandable. That's one of the things we talked about down there is leaving room for expansion. The other thing we just have to keep in our heads, and like I said connectivity to the courts is really important, but if we decide to build...I'm at 350 so I was 368 this morning, inmates in jail. If we have to displace 800 or 900, whatever the back 40 capacity is, we're talking about displacing that parking even during the construction period. So, I don't know how fast you can throw together a parking garage.

Councilmember Raben: Well then again I discussed that with Commissioner Mosby. That's part of getting this dialogue moving because you would, you would have to begin your parking garage to allow for construction to take place.

Brad Ellsworth: So if it takes two years to build a parking garage, that's two years before we can even start on the construction of the jail. Like I said I've got a lot of bailing wire and duct tape, but I don't know if I've got it to hold it together that long because we're hurting.

Councilmember Wortman: Mr. Ellsworth, you know a last resort I guess if there wouldn't be enough space out there, we could go (inaudible) and get that property. We could do that if we had to.

Brad Ellsworth: That's really not my area. I'm not sure. I mean that's your guys deal. I don't know anything about that stuff.

Councilmember Wortman: The other two potentials would be a parking garage out here where the judges and councilmembers and all park and across the street. That could be some more potential to help the overflow and the crowd at conventions and what have you. We going to get congested here one day. So I think all these things could come together then I think that's what we do. But to me, this is the logical place. Whether it's financially logical, I don't know. But this transportation can get to be a problem.

Brad Ellsworth: Like I said, connectivity to the courts is a luxury we've enjoyed and we'd like to keep it there if it is feasible and we can build the right thing back there and still stay connected to the courts. If not, it doesn't matter if we're one minute away or ten, it's the same concerns for us. We're going to have to have a staging area, we're going to have to invest in the buses or the vans. You know, that's where we start talking about video arraignments and those types of things. But like I said, if it's a minute or it's ten minutes it's not going to matter to us that much. It is going to require the same staffing.

Councilmember Wortman: Let me ask you, we get back to the Davies County/Owensboro jail, how much additional building or adjustments could be made to meet the criteria of Vanderburgh County, $9,200,000? Are we talking another $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 you think just to meet the requirements?

Brad Ellsworth: Councilman, I don't know. That sounds like an amazingly low price to me for what they got. I haven't researched how they did that. I've talked to some people and what people said doesn't matter here. I called around about prices of jails here in Indiana by that and they are more like what we're talking about here. I don't know. Like I said at the last meeting, I can't understand why if he can do it for $9,000,000 why everybody in the United States doesn't do it. Lexington, Kentucky was a $69,000,000 project. Why didn't they hire this guy you know? I mean, everybody is into saving money. I don't know.

Council President Bassemier: Mr. Hoy do you want to address that?

Councilmember Hoy: I asked him about Lexington and he referred to it as a horse barn, we know what Lexington is famous for. They have golf carts in that facility to drive around and they have probably more beds than they need. I'm not real interested in looking at a county, I mean I don't know all their politics in Lexington, I'm not sure I know all our politics in this county to be honest with you. I'm not totally impressed by what Lexington did just because they spent $70,000,000. I frankly think they overspent it. In Owensboro I can tell you they used inexpensive blocks, concrete blocks, they used faceted blocks for the exterior instead of brick. It was very clean inside. The control room was absolutely incredibly well done and functioned beautifully. The jail does what a jail should do. It is certainly not fancy, on the other hand it is not filthy and it works very well. That's what I saw. I'm going to go back to another topic, and I know you are at the stand and I respect that.

Brad Ellsworth: I'll sit down.

Councilmember Hoy: You may want to stay there, I don't know, or stay on the front row. He rode with me and the next time I preach I'll invite all of you and you'll be amazed. I do that in twenty minutes, Brad. Going back to earlier questions with the Commissioners, and I've had this on my list for a long time, it would seem to me...what bothers me about the contract and this whole process is that there's not a real plan here. I don't see how we can fund a contract unless we know the site, we know what it is going to cost, and we have some sense of what this cost is going to be. There are open ends here. I'm not a lawyer, we have a lawyer sitting here and a lawyer sitting here and I'm sure other lawyers sitting here, I see the judges and they're all lawyers too and other lawyers, the Prosecutor is here and we can get that many opinions legally on this, but this assuming of $30,000,000 just isn't hard enough language for me. I want to know before I build something, anything, I want to know what the cost is and I want to know what we are buying. With the Centre over here we knew the cost, we knew the size of the exhibition hall, we knew the size of the auditorium, we knew the size of the convention rooms, we knew all of these things and then a bond was let. We connected in this whole process, and this is my point, we connected with this whole process almost from the beginning with the Building Authority. I get aggravated with the Building Authority occasionally I must admit, but they have maintained this building very well, they are maintaining the Centre very well. If that jail over there, where ever it is from here, could be used for Community Corrections and needs elevator repairs, that's their responsibility. That's why we pay rent here. (Inaudible comment from audience). I know, but they should. And I think that those of us who pay that rent should insist on that. We should insist on the elevator being fixed. I don't know how much money they have in the bank, but I know they have money in the bank.

Councilmember Sutton: Councilman Hoy I think today is an opportune time to follow up on what you are discussing here. I thought that was kind of the reason why we are meeting today. That is to lay out what that process is going to be. I think much of the confusion, discussion, dissension has centered around maybe a lack of communication or understanding from the bodies that are involved with this process about what ought to take place next, or what ought to take place first. I would like to hear from the President of our Council on what he believe that process ought to be. I'd like to hear from the President of the Commissioners on what they believe on what they think that process ought to be. Then I think we ought to engage in some discussion on the merits of how that ought to take place and why certain things should not take place. I think that would lay a very good format, a good foundation for us to really enter into some dialogue. We've kind of bounced all around a lot of different areas today, but we really haven't hit on the heart of the matter and that is what will the process be for getting this jail built? I think that's what we really need to hear. 

Council President Bassemier: I think what we've done so far is productive. We've got to talk this out first. I don't even want to vote. I can give you my opinion, but I worked on a major project before and it was $5,000,000. I know the first thing I had to do with it was find the ground. I had to get a piece of property and I had to get it zoned right, I had to get special permits, feasibility studies. I spent over $100,000 of my own money to do this. I don't think we're at the point right now to be signing any contracts or anything because there's not enough...we do not have the land, we've got to start with the land. Going over this contract, change the subject a little bit, going over this contract a little bit I'm just curious, we've spent $5,000,000 on the designs and we haven't even bought the land yet and I don't see anything in here that tells us what we're getting for our money. Maybe it's in here and I didn't see it, but I'm just kind of curious? On that $30,000,000 is there any suggestion that we are going to get a 500 bed facility, or a jail? Or are we going to get a 225 bed facility that PMSI recommended? Are we going to get our 25 bed juvenile detention center with expansion to maybe 25 more? I don't know what we are getting for our $30,000,000 and we haven't bought the land yet. So I think the first thing we need to do is, you know I'm only one vote and I'm here to get advice from you all, there are seven of us here on the Council and working with the three Commissioners, we all need to come to some, as I mentioned at first, a common ground of where do we start. I think that we do need to work together. Mr. Raben promised to meet with the Commissioners to find a location and get this started. I'm here for suggestions, I'm only one vote. I really feel like we can't do anything until we find out where we are going to build this facility and then with this language in this contract we need to make it concrete. We really do, this is an open end contract and this should be addressed.

Commission President Mosby: What's open end? I mean I'd love to address your questions because I've addressed Councilman Raben's -

Council President Bassemier: Well, first of all what are we getting for $30,000,000? What size is the facility?

Commission President Mosby: The scope of service is in the contract if you'll read it. Scope of service, 650 bed jail expandable to 1,000, 300 community corrections-

Council President Bassemier: I don't know I didn't see that. Maybe I overlooked that 600 bed facility. I don't know, I could have overlooked it, but-

Commission President Mosby: The scope of service was named in the Commissioners' meeting, it's not in the contract itself. The $30,000,000 is addressed in the contract. If the professionals had come down here today, or I'll say next week, they're going to tell you what you are going to get for $30,000,000.

Council President Bassemier: Well I tell you what-

Commission President Mosby: Because you've based your contract on $30,000,000 they are going to tell you what you'll get for $30,000,000.

Council President Bassemier: Yeah I know they can tell me what I'm going to get, but I'd like to see it in writing what I'm going to get.

Commission President Mosby: Well once they come down here to present that to you it will be in writing. You were the one that asked that they not come down today.

Councilmember Sutton: I think my question was what will the process be? 

Council President Bassemier: Yeah I know but this is an open meeting. We have to address these things.

Councilmember Sutton: I think that's where a lot of our contention has been. I mean we've got some other issues, I'm not saying there aren't others-

Council President Bassemier: Right.

Councilmember Sutton: I'm just wanting to hear from both bodies how they perceive this process will flow. You've indicated initially that you think we need to get the land, we need to get the ground. I guess I'm maybe wanting to hear the next, and I want to hear them respond to the same question. I want them to walk through that process, I want to hear them-

Council President Bassemier: Okay, let's try. You heard mine.

Councilmember Tornatta: I guess the one thing I wrote down is six one way a half a dozen another. Which way do we go first and does it matter? Do we, you know, let's find that common ground, much like Royce is saying, find the common ground. You want the property first, they'd like to have the person on board to go through and find the five properties or what have you, figure out if the jail is going to work on those properties and how it's going to be most efficient and possibly then throw out two. Possibly that's one way to narrow those possibilities down. What we're doing is we are isolating ourselves to go one certain way, who's got the control, who's got the red cape on? That's not what we're looking for here. We're looking to try to do each of these things that's on this wall in this room and it was supplied by the Sheriff's office and that is to bring this group together. We've talked about a jail in Kentucky and we're not using that, we've talked about all different kinds of processes, we've spent $5,000,000 that I really haven't seen us spend yet and in all this we really haven't gotten down to the point. We asked for some people to come in and give us some quality information and that was denied. Now, they are not here, they'll be here in a week, be here in a month, whenever we think we can get this process handled. But to this point we should have their rears in here today explaining to us what needs to be done, talk about some numbers, give us the low down and let us make our decisions from those people. We haven't done that.

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President?

Council President Bassemier: I'm going to say that I disagree with that. We are not ready for them to come down here but we'll go over here-

Councilmember Tornatta: But you're wanting the information, they have the information.

Commissioner Fanello: How are you going, exactly, how are you going to get the information if you don't have the experts down here giving you the information?

Council President Bassemier: Well I'd like to think-

Commissioner Fanello: Listen, just for a minute.

Council President Bassemier: Okay, I'm sorry.

Commissioner Fanello: None of us sitting here at this table are bond counsel attorneys, none of us sitting here at this table are financial advisors who have the knowledge to issue a $35,000,000 to $50,000,000 bond. None of you can answer those questions. I can't answer that question and I know that none of you can either.

Council President Bassemier: Let me have the floor one more time. How do we know, how do they know what we want when we don't know what we want yet? 

Councilmember Tornatta: We do know what we want.

Council President Bassemier: That's what we are here today for is to find out what we want so we can tell them, pass that along to them.

Councilmember Tornatta: We know what we want, we don't know what we can afford.

Commissioner Fanello: They were going to tell you what you were going to get for your money.

Councilmember Raben: Let me-

Council President Bassemier: Mr Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: I will yield to Mr. Raben and then I'd like to make a comment going back to what Mr. Sutton said. I think he's on the right track.

Council President Bassemier: Okay. 

Councilmember Raben: First of all Mr. President, I think most of the questions today would not be addressed by the individuals that you instructed not to come down. And they do have a fee for that, it's like $275 an hour.

Commission President Mosby: They were coming down free of charge.

Councilmember Raben: Okay.

Commission President Mosby: It wasn't costing us nothing.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. Pittman was in here at our most recent Council meeting and the question was asked of him, when does the process begin? What is our next step? He made it very clear. We can't do anything until we get a drawing. We cannot begin any part of the process until we receive a drawing in our hands, so why would he need to be here? What's he, he's already made that clear.

Commissioner Fanello: He had a time line for the bond issue. Mike Claytor from Crowe Chizek had budgets to present to give you some information about what his project-

Councilmember Raben: He had a time line? He said...that was the question asked of him, he couldn't-

Commissioner Fanello: Well there are things that can be accomplished before the land is purchased. There are things that we can be doing right now. You guys are not listening. There are things that need to be accomplished right now. There are several things that need to work together. We don't need to just do one before you do number two. There are a lot of things that can happen simultaneously right now and we're not doing that.

(TAPE CHANGE)

Council President Bassemier: Thank you. Mr. Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes, uh, I don't believe that any of the discussion that we have had to this point has been immaterial. This is a public meeting, this jail belongs to the public. It is not my jail, it's not the Council's jail, it's not the Commissioners jail, it's not the Sheriff's jail and that is one objection I had to Owensboro, by the way, they put the Sheriff's name on the jail and I know you are not asking for that. I am not implying that, the Ellsworth Memorial Jail, no. It would probably be the next sheriff, yeah. But, going back, I think Councilman Sutton pinpointed exactly what I thought we should be doing during this meeting and that is we should mutually agree on a process, I would think that in addition to a site on that process we should include a delegated group, perhaps to discuss issues that we may have with the Building Authority. Presently, I don't know how much money they have in the bank to do things. I know that they collect rent and I know that when this fountain was built out here which is the air conditioner for this building, it was a million dollars and they paid cash. I know that when we bought the lot across the street for parking which is where that parking garage down there on Sycamore should have been put, that was a stupid mistake because it would have served the Victory and the Centre and this building, all three, and it would have made sense, it made too much sense I guess. But, we own that and we paid cash for that. They have some money. They are a player in this and they manage buildings well, the rent is not cheap, but they manage well. I will agree with the Sheriff, I don't think that they have done as well with the jail as they should have done but I think in the process and going back to your point Councilman Sutton, that is what we need to do today. We are not here to write contracts and we are here to set a process and I think that is what we need to do. I would say that step one perhaps is to talk with the Building Authority and to see if this site is feasible or if we need to acquire more property. The downtown master plan has been mentioned and I will soon be 65 years old, I don't know how many of those master plans I have seen in my lifetime and how much money has been wasted. We've gone to round lights and I don't want to go into all of that but you know there is not going to be a central park sitting back here and this building is still going to be sitting here and they are not going to cut a road through the middle of this building and we all know that. That's just not going to happen and those suggestions are absolutely laughable, they didn't even include the jail in that plan at all. So, you know I am not going to even (inaudible) with much more time that what I have spent. But, I would say let's go to the Building Authority, let's look at a site, let's look at specifics about how many beds, how many bed, how many beds, do we want the whole thing together or does it make sense to perhaps separate the juveniles someplace else, I don't know. Then, lay out the plan, get a bonding issue going, we can't fund this without a bond, we may well have to go to the Building Authority or someplace else because of the limitations of our bonding capacity, you know, and have some stuff in here that is much more precise and explicit than what I see. Because what I see here is too much of a blank check period. But, if we set this process up I think we can get from this point to where we build this thing and get on with our lives.

Council President Bassemier: Okay, in all fairness, I have to go back, let's let the Commissioners, you want to comment to that? And then we will go back to the next one.

Commission President Mosby: Councilmember Hoy, I have listened to you, I have listened to Councilmember Bassemier and everybody gets talking about picking a site and then I hear you say later on in the sentence of the paragraph that we have got to know what we want so that we can get a site. Well, there is one way to know what we are going to get or what we want or what we need or what it's going to look like and that is with an architect and until we get a contract and we know what we want and we did vote at one point, we had all of the judges in the Commissioners meeting, we had juvenile and we have had everybody in and we voted to do 650 expandable to 1,000, 20 to 24 in juvenile detention and 30 in community corrections. Now, whether we get all of that for $35,000,000. That is what the architects have to answer. That is what, they are going to tell us once they've drawed a, drew the design and the CM will work with them and they will give us a price on what that will cost and then they will give us a price on what we can get. The one thing that I keep hearing you say is, let's get a site. I am going to back the Sheriff, the site is not going to drive the jail. That is exactly what you are saying. You know, let's go buy the judges parking lot and end up building it ten stories high because it is not big enough and that is what you are sitting there saying. You keep saying, let's get a site, let's deal with the Building Authority, let's do this. You know, I don't want the site to drive the jail. I want to be sure that I have enough land when I decide to build it, you know, Commissioner Mourdock would say that it is like building a house, I guess you would buy a lot 30x30.

Councilmember Hoy: I don't think I mentioned ten stories.

Commission President Mosby: And try to put a ten thousand square foot house on it.

Councilmember Hoy: Or anything like that. I do like my own words used and not words substituted in my long speeches. 

Councilmember Sutton: I think I was the one-

Council President Bassemier: Oh, I am sorry Royce, I will get back, I'll go this way, Mr. Winnecke was next.

Councilmember Sutton: I think I was the one who originally had the floor.

Council President Bassemier: Well, you asked everybody's opinion.

Councilmember Sutton: I asked your opinion and I asked them to give their opinion-

Council President Bassemier: Well, you got Hoy's, now.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, I mean, they never really, I mean, you gave your perspective on what the process would be. They never got a chance to respond on what, and he was responding to Phil, he wasn't really responding to-

Council President Bassemier: Well, okay then back to Mr. Mosby. Well, what do you want to do?

Commission President Mosby: Well, the first thing that I would like to do is get beyond this meeting and get a contract signed. All we have asked is to fund, we have not asked to fund $5,000,000 and I don't know where it keeps coming up that we want to spend $5,000,000. We asked funding of $600,000 through the end of the year to pay for the services that have been rendered or will be rendered through the end of this con-, through the end of this calendar year. Now, it is also in the letter that we sent Counselor Ahlers and I talked to Councilmember Raben, that fees do not have to be paid up front. Fees will be billed in phases and they will be billed as the work is done and they can be billed monthly or quarterly. So, it is not like we are spending $5,000,000 up front and paying for something that we are not getting. And if we terminate the contract, that is going to be over. So, the first thing we are going to have to do. We need to get an architect on board, get a contract signed, fund the $600,000 until the end of the year. Then let's move forward and get the architects to tell us that the site we are looking at is capable of handling the building that they are going to design. Not to be, we don't want the building site to be driven, I don't want the building site driven. We will look at the fact that we want to build 650 to 1,000 beds, 300 and 20-24, they come in, they will tell us in approximately a week, or two or three what we can get for the $35,000,000, $30,000,000 after the fees and what it would cost to build that. Now, these are the things that gotta be done. I mean we have gotta have somebody on board. I talked to Tom Pitman, you are not going to go out for bonds, you can start some processes, but he said you're not going to go out for bonds until you have at least a preliminary plan or some specs approved and they have to be done with a contract, with an architect. You can't go out and just do a bond without having all of this done, so, I mean, unless we're going to get an architect and unless we are going to get some money appropriated, you know, I am not into stiffing these architects and that's about what it looks like. You know it looks like, it looks like we want to stiff the architect here. You know and I am not going to be a part of that. You know, if we can't get money approved, then we will tell the architect to halt, you know stop, because we don't have anybody that wants to pay you. I mean, these people have done a lot of work, they've got money invested up front already that, you know, they have more or less did it, what I would call gentlemen, and it's call gentleman's agreement. And I would think that everybody in this room has been a part of that at one time or another but you know it is time that we step up to the plate. We put our money where our mouth is and we say we are going to move forward. You could take a vote today. If you don't want to fund it and you don't want to bond this project, take a vote and we will stop and we won't even build a jail.

Council President Bassemier: We couldn't do that today.

Commission President Mosby: Well, no we couldn't but, on April 4^th we voted or you voted, I didn't, but you voted on April 4^th, that you were willing to spend $35,000,000 to do a jail and in that resolution it says either for the remodeling or building of juvenile, community corrections and jail. Everybody wants to know where we get the impression that money is in place, that right there tells me that there was $35,000,000 voted on in this council. You also set 2.7 million aside February 7^th, so people want to misconstrue how do you think you have money available to start an architect and then to pay for a contract that is how you do it. You know I take that as a gentleman's agreement thinking that you people set 2.7 million aside to pay for costs towards this jail and that you are willing to do a $35,000,000 bond. If I misinterpreted that then I need for you to tell me so. I need for every councilman here to vote and tell me that they made a mistake that day.

Council President Bassemier: No, I don't think that we made a mistake, we voted for $35,000,000 for a 500 bed facility whatever. We would like to see that $35,000,000 but according to what we have seen so far, we haven't seen that in writing. I won't take the floor. Mr. Mourdock, I need to ask you your opinion, let's get another Commissioners opinion on your wish list. Mine was land, Mr. Mosby was that we need to hire an architect, is that right? Mr. Mourdock, what is your opinion on this? You are awfully quiet over there.

Commissioner Mourdock: It is not like me, is it? First of all, I agree with what Royce said and what Phil said a moment ago. I think the purpose of this meeting ought to be to define what the process is. And the process is what I think that the first objective of this meeting ought to be and I say that in contract to land or architect or anything else. It's gotta be the process. Obviously, the people on the Council aren't comfortable with where we are with the process. The people on the Commission, the majority of the Commission aren't comfortable with where the people on the Council are. Until we reach some sort of consensus as to how we go forward with this thing in toto, why are we going forward at all? Because this isn't the first, or isn't the last of these sessions, it's just the first of many of them because this is going to be head-butting from now until the cows come home. We have to have some sort of process in place that deals with each one of these issues. Phil said something a few moments ago, and I think I know what he meant, but I am not sure. He said something about having, you didn't use the word teams, but task force or something, maybe that is something that needs to happen between members of the commission and members of the council so that the land issue is dealt with. Maybe that is what needs to happen between selective members of the council and with the architects agreement. We need a plan, we need a plan. I am continually befuddled by the fact, as David said, on April was it 4^th, is when the vote was taken here on the $35,000,000? If this Council voted $35,000,000 and it did and everything it has done since then has said $35,000,000 it seems to me with the words that have come back from architects that apparently that can't build a 650 bed jail plus a 300 bed community corrections plus a 24 bed juvenile, it is time to start setting some things aside to meet the budget. The first issue is what's the budget and you have told us that. And we have to deal with that reality. And until we have the process in place to look at each one of these issues, we have nowhere to go.

Council President Bassemier: Thank you, Mr. Mourdock.. Mr. Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: I would propose that we move forward with a two prong approach to get this process going and it addresses the question Royce raises and Phil and Richard and David. First, I agree with Commissioner Mosby, we need to set aside, we need to set the wheels in motion to fund the $610,000 that is owed the architect. But, I think that we need to do two things and proceed in two prongs. First, is to renegotiate the contract in phases, the first phase being, so that they can be compensated for the money that you feel they are owed. The second phase, that they be compensated for the land selection process, the third phase you would have to outline beyond that, that is beyond my knowledge. While that is going on I think we should instruct the bond counsel and we work in conjunction with your body and our body to start the process. If we need to pass a resolution to officially get the bond work going, let's do that. But, I think that there are two prongs, two ways we can go, two avenues to proceed at the same time to get everyone's concerns taken care of and not delay this project.

Council President Bassemier: Hold it, Catherine, Dave, do you want to address that?

Commissioner Fanello: Do you want to go first.

Commission President Mosby: I will address it because it is one of Counselor Ahlers questions, he referred to phases and the answer that they give is that yes it does. The service architect provides typically for a following series of phases. Services from schematic design through construction. For reference we list in here again, schematic, 15%; design and development, 20. We got the phases. I mean and they are going to build by phases and I don't understand what you are saying this is a phase.

Councilmember Winnecke: There is no phase, honestly for, that I see for the initial $610,000. I am just throwing something out to try and get this thing forward. 

Commission President Mosby: Well, the $610,0000, if I'm right, correct me, or if I'm wrong, correct me, but that is the basic services part of this contract, the $500,000 plus.

Commissioner Mourdock: But, I think what Lloyd is saying-

Commission President Mosby: That is the first thing that you have to do, that is the first 15% of the start of the deal here.

Commissioner Mourdock: But, I think what Lloyd is saying by phases, and correct me, but I think what you are saying is that you have a payment certain for this amount of work, period, and conceivably you could stop there. It is likely that you will go on to the second phase and there is a set payment for that phase. Then there is a third phase, so is that what you are envisioning?

Commission President Mosby: Okay, then Craig has wrote in here, we will provide the Commissioners with a proposed time line for invoicing through the duration of the project, just for such planning purposes at the completion of phase that there is a time period for the owner review so in effect the payment of fees take place phase after phase.

Councilmember Winnecke: I think that is fine. I mean, in my mind that is fine as long as the first phase to me, to set the language in place so that they are compensated for that money, I think that should be the first phase of the contract. They've clearly provided the program for the county and they should be compensated for that and the second phase should be, in my opinion, is selection of the site.

Commission President Mosby: It says design development, but okay.

Councilmember Winnecke: It seems like, you know the consensus is, selection of a site is critical. So, let's make that the second phase of the contract. They're paid "x" number of dollars to be compensated for or to help select the site and then we go on.

Councilmember Sutton: Councilman, let me clearly understand what you are saying. So, you are saying three separate contracts or a contract that separates it into three phases?

Councilmember Winnecke: I don't have a personal preference as to how it is done. Just so it is spelled out in clear language what each step is and what they're being compensated for and what services they're providing.

Commission President Mosby: Okay, in the second phase that you are talking about I guess on site, United will be involved in telling us, yes this is a site and yes the building will fit the site but that is where Bernardin Lochmueller comes in for the $15,000, they do the site surveys.

Councilmember Winnecke: That needs-

Commission President Mosby: It's in here.

Councilmember Winnecke: It just needs to be spelled out.

Commission President Mosby: Okay, site survey, $15,000 and it is spelled out in the contract and that is listed as one of the additional fees outside of United's scope. So, I mean it is all in there and that's why I say, they don't actually have site listed in here because they do the basic services, which they call 15% and then they went on to design/development and then contract documents and then to bidding and then construction. This site is done by Bernardin.

Councilmember Sutton: Can I ask us a question? This is the Council.

Council President Bassemier: Yes.

Councilmember Sutton: You know I think that we have kind of heard about what options we are working with for the $35,000,000 perimeter. I mean, are we prepared as a Council, to look at something different than what PMSI recommended to us on what the complex ought to include. I mean, obviously, that has to be something that we have to factor in before we really proceed too far into this process. If we got the whole, the entire pie, you know that would be fantastic, if we could get that, but based upon what this Council has set as a cap are we prepared to take less than what we may have ultimately wanted in this process? I think we really have to at least ask ourselves that question and go into this with our eyes open knowing that is a possibility.

Council President Bassemier: That's a good point, Mr. Sutton. But, we are not at that point yet. We have to find out before-

Commissioner Fanello: Councilmember Bassemier, I'm sorry, I was going to comment that I think that is an excellent point and couldn't be more well said, that's a lot of the heart of the matter right here. You said $35,000,000 budget earlier this year but no one really had a basis for the $35,000,000. Now if we are going to build what this county needs it may go beyond $35,000,000 and what we have to decide, which you have to decide and you have to decide it very quickly, is am I building for today or am I building for the future? Personally, I am not going to sign my name to any project that builds for today and doesn't build for the future. So, I think his is a question that has to be answered as it is the whole crux of the matter.

Council President Bassemier: But, we are not ready here today to answer that.

Commissioner Fanello: Well, you may not be able to answer today but you should be-

Councilmember Sutton: I am not saying that we answer the question, I am saying to be prepared when we get to that point to consider that. We may get all or we may get less.

Council President Bassemier: Oh, I am sure that we are prepared, whatever we have to do to get us a new jail because we need it. Mr. Mourdock?

Commissioner Mourdock: Can I clarify something that was said there. Catherine just said that the $35,000,000 was not to, she didn't use this word but it was sort of pulled out of the air. It is my understanding, and I am asking any Councilmember to clarify this, but the $35,000,000 was determined based upon the revenues that you thought you could set aside, is that correct? So, that it was not just, not raise taxes.

Commissioner Fanello: And you just clarified my point right there, we are only thinking about today and not tomorrow.

Commissioner Mourdock: No, we are thinking about it fiscally and in a responsible way, which is the Council's function, Catherine. That's what the constitution says.

Commissioner Fanello: Exactly, and I commend them for that and I respect them for that but the decision has to be made. Are we going to go beyond that so that we can build for the future. I mean, we are going to waste more money in the long run building for today and not thinking about tomorrow. So, what's the point?

Councilmember Raben: Could I? I am going to try to put that in the common ordinary business sense, okay? I have been involved in two construction projects in the last ten months, I have two ongoing right now and in the private sector, you don't necessarily build for the ten or twenty year or thirty year projected future. You build what will accommodate the business that you have today expandable with what you will need five or ten years from now. So, when we address a 650 bed facility, the Sheriff said that we have 360 in there today, I don't think and God bless us if we do fill that thing up in the next five years, if we double our capacity in the next five years there is a bigger problem than what we are discussing here today. So, if the amount of money that we are able to spend brings us 450 or 500 beds, that should accommodate our needs if our system works together like it should accommodate our needs for the next five or ten years. It should, the facility should be expandable for more beds than that but the worst thing we could do is build a jail that 200 beds sat vacant for the next ten years or we will fill them up. The alternative isn't good either way that you look at it. But, I am going to hit on just a few points, Mr. President, that have been brought up. First of all, Mr. Hoy stated that part of our plan of how we begin this process is number one thing was site selection. Number two should be the bonding and what have you. I mentioned thirty days ago that before we can begin that process we must establish an authority. Where are you at establishing an authority?

Commissioner Fanello: I agree with that and there is a time line that Tom Pittman, the bond counsel attorney has for doing that. There is specific steps we take and that would have been presented today had he been here and I will get it to you within the next couple of days. 

Councilmember Raben: Okay.

Commissioner Fanello: Those are things that he has to work on, not just us.

Councilmember Hoy: He is joint bond counsel to both bodies.

Commissioner Fanello: Yes.

Councilmember Hoy: And the bonding, we do have to vote on the bond as a Council, that is part of our responsibility.

Commissioner Fanello: Yes, yes.

Councilmember Raben: As far as the $650,000, have you as of today received an invoice or itemized statement for that $650?

Commissioner Fanello: I'm going to go back to your question about the building corporation. I believe he has it on the time line, the draft that I saw, to happen within the next three to four weeks.

Councilmember Raben: Okay.

Commissioner Fanello: On the draft, invoice-

Councilmember Raben: And what in that, I mean, since you have seen that, what are they, are you planning to establish a jail authority or use the existing building authority, what's the plans on that.

Commissioner Fanello: I believe that the plan is to establish a jail authority.

Councilmember Raben: Okay.

Council President Bassemier: Hold it, we need to change the tape.

(TAPE CHANGE)

Councilmember Raben: Do we have a itemized statement on that?

Commission President Mosby: They were supposed to be sending one down. When I talked to Craig Burgess last Thursday or Friday he was going to get us an invoice in here the first of the week.

Councilmember Raben: And that would be expected with any bill.

Commission President Mosby: They totally agree. We asked them to let us know what they thought we were going to incur before the end of the year because we would like to budget and pay for what we incur and they said we'll get you...and they just said approximately $610,000. They said we will get you an invoice on that. That invoice should be coming down and it might be over there, I don't know, I didn't ask Tammy or Patty today. 

Councilmember Raben: Okay, if nobody objects, I'm going to hit on one other point. Brad, had mentioned that someone had stated to you that this facility that we would need would need approximately nine acres, was that correct?

Sherif Ellsworth: I think that's what they said- 

Councilmember Raben: The source of that was whom?

Sherif Ellsworth: -for what he's designing.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I might mention this, again the back forty has been brought up a hundred times today. Through a conversation 30 or 45 days ago with Steve Utley, I don't know if Steve is in the crowd today. Steve did you not tell me the back forty was anywhere from 11 to 14 acres. 

Council President Bassemier: Mr. Utley, come on up here. 

Councilmember Raben: That's okay, I'll just quote him on that then. The back forty is 11 to 14 acres of asphalt so think that site would be okay for the facility that we're talking about needing. Again, I'll stop at any point but I've kind of waited on some other questions within the contract. Does anybody care if I proceed. 

Council President Bassemier: Go ahead Jim, you've got the floor.

Councilmember Raben: I look across the room if another Council person or Commissioner wants the floor I'll stop.

Commission President Mosby: The only thing I was going to do was address a couple points you made a minute ago. 

Council President Bassemier: Go ahead, Mr. Mosby.

Commission President Mosby: When you were talking about 450 beds, I mean, I will go back to the fact that we had 419 in the jail at one time, no 428. If for 35 million, and I'll just be honest with everybody up here, if for 35 million all I'm going to get is 450 or 500 bed jail then I don't see us moving forward with that project. You're going to accomplish two things. The day we open it, you can break ground on the next one. So you can have a ribbon cutting and a ground breaking because you're not going to build a 500 bed jail and not have it full within the first year. I looked at the PMSI study and they kept referring to 1999. That jail is not going to open in 1999, that's gone. We're going to open in 2005 maybe. So let's look 6 years beyond what PMSI was talking about. When we knew we had 428 in there, I think you're kidding yourself if you think 500 beds is going to hold us. And if we don't build additional Community Corrections, them people are going to end up in the jail. Now that's what I heard the judges tell me in a Commissioners meeting. You can't put them in Community Corrections and then build some beds in the jail. 

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I think I was clear on the fact that I stated that it may only be good for the next five or ten years but that's the median designing a jail that's expandable. 

Commission President Mosby: You were talking-

Councilmember Raben: To build for those needs-

Commission President Mosby: You were talking about a building for your business, well you probably have that luxury of going out and looking at what you need. Right now we've got a Federal Judge over there telling us that we better build something. We don't have the luxury of just-

Councilmember Raben: We're not under any court order.

Commission President Mosby: We're not under court order, you're right, not yet. I mean, you could be at some point in time. We don't have the luxury of just saying this is what we want. I mean, we're all sitting here building a jail because we know we have to do it. We know what we've had in there and we know what we got in Community Corrections and we know what we got on the waiting list. We know what we got on ankle bracelets. Add it all up and it will tell you what you need. 

Councilmember Raben: The pending suit has nothing at all to do with any of the discussion of the new jail. Again, we're not under any court order.

Commission President Mosby: I didn't say we were.

Councilmember Raben: That discussion shouldn't even come up because that carries no clout with the actions that this-

Commission President Mosby: Just before we get there.

Councilmember Raben: Council's taken. 

Council President Bassemier: I think Mr. Raben has got a couple more points. 

Councilmember Raben: I was going to address a few contract issues and I didn't want to be redundant and I wanted to find out if anybody else was going to hit on these items first. In terms of reimbursable expenses, one concern that I also have on page...on exhibit A page one of two. They discuss mileage will be reimbursed and per diem to be reimbursed and then other items such as overnight lodging. Are those items not part of the 3 million dollar contract? 

Commissioner Fanello: No, and they weren't in the Centre's contract either. Reimbursable's are never a part of the fee. There's always a small amount set aside for reimbursable expenses in architectural contract. These are capped at $190,000. 

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I might also...what is the connection with...I'm unclear as to United and DLZ. DLZ is what?

Commissioner Fanello: DLZ is also one of the top rated jail firms in the country. They're a team. As was when Ed Hafer presented his proposal and he was teamed up with Jacob Facilities.

Councilmember Raben: Are they part of the 3 million dollars?

Commissioner Fanello: Yes, there is no extra fee for DLZ. This is all one team fee.

Councilmember Raben: Okay.

Councilmember Hoy: Except for the construction manager. That's-

Commissioner Fanello: Except for the construction manager, which you would be paying that fee to a general contractor anyway. So that's not an additional cost in the project. I just want that to be clear. The construction managers fee is not an additional cost of the project. It is a fee that you would be paying through a general contractor to do a lump sum bid. We're paying someone to do it who can break it down and get us a less expensive bid. I want that to be made clear.

Councilmember Hoy: We'll have to differ there because I think it'll cost us more alone. 

Commissioner Fanello: We'll I'm going to differ with you on that, it's not.

Commission President Mosby: Counselor Hoy, you just said they told you that in Kentucky this morning. You said that they just told you this morning in Kentucky that they didn't use a General they used a CM. That's what the CM is. A CM takes the place of your General. You save the additional percentage that the General normally gets and the CM will go out and do your bidding for you. You just said that they did it in Kentucky.

Councilmember Hoy: That's exactly what they did do and I'm concerned that we might also get some other fees with the contractor. When that comes down that's the part that bothers me. 

Commissioner Fanello: I want to address one thing that you brought up last week. I think you made the comment and correct me if I'm wrong, something about the architect also serving as the construction manager or you felt like the architect could do what the construction manager would do, is that-

Councilmember Hoy: What I said was that...as on the Centre, over here, we had a local architect that's why we didn't have travel expense because we had a local architect. 

Commissioner Fanello: But you still had other reimbursable expenses, postage, things like that. 

Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, but there wasn't any travel from Indianapolis or any place else. What I said was that if United and DLZ combined are as good as I think they are, and I believe they're a good firm. That's not what we're debating here at all. If there were a General Contractor, you know, you would not need a Construction Manager. We were not told last week that there would not be a General Contractor. Now, we're being told that today and this points up one of the problems in this process. We need to get this aired out. If we're going to have a Construction Manager and that person then is going to sublet everything that sets a different line item but we have not been told that until today and-

Commissioner Fanello: Well, you can't have both. You can't have a General Contractor and a Construction Manager. 

Councilmember Hoy: Well, some people have had them. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Sure you can. More often than not. 

Councilmember Hoy: More often than not, that's the case. It is done. 
 

Commissioner Fanello: In that case I would agree with you, that you're spending more money than you need to. 

Councilmember Hoy: That's my point about clarity. We don't...we've not achieved clarity and we're sitting here, in this meeting, trying to achieve clarity which is not easy. But that helps. If we're going to have a Construction Manager and not a General Contractor then I want that on record. 

Councilmember Raben: I've got one last point. Well, I may have others but I'll stop at this point. This is one that I over looked as I've reviewed the contract a week or two weeks ago. I've just picked this up over the weekend. On page 23, under item six. Expense for professional liability insurance exclusively to this project. Is that standard? I might ask the legal Counsel. Is that standard in a project? 

Commissioner Fanello: First of all, I'm going to answer that question. That is only if we want excess coverage other than what they're providing. They have provided their insurance sheets that are attached to the contracts. If we desire anything in excess of that-

Councilmember Raben: I saw that. There's two million dollars in limited liability.

Commissioner Fanello: Yeah, if we desire anything in excess of that then they would have to charge us for it. We're not desiring anything in excess of that. 

Councilmember Raben: Okay, well it doesn't state excess. That needs to be stated because as I look at it, it's as if we're expected to pay a bill of $57,000. 

Commissioner Fanello: Well, no, that's incorrect. 

Councilmember Raben: That's something in the contract that needs to be corrected. I might ask, have either of the commissioners spoke with Dennis Feldhaus as to whether or not he thinks two million dollars is enough liability for this project?

Commissioner Fanello: From what I understand, that's standard. Anybody can correct me if I'm wrong. 

Phil Hayes: The Centre was one million.

Commissioner Fanello: The Centre was one million dollars as Counselor Hayes informs me. 

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, I respect Commissioner Mourdock's opinion and I guess I'm kind of wanting to hear what are some of things that were holding you up and are still holding you up with signing a contract for this process? 

Commissioner Mourdock: I guess the easiest way to begin that is what I was saying before, Troy. I want to make sure there is a full process in place and I don't have that sense right now. You know, like Commissioner, I'm sorry, like Councilman Hoy, I just heard a moment ago for the first time that the Construction Manager is going to work in place of the General Contractor. That's not the predominant way it can work. It can work that way. I want to make sure and I think it is mandatory under the oath that each one of us took when we became officials of this county that we have a process in place that everybody knows what's going on here. The Council has its duties to deal with the financial matters. I think you're totally inbounds to ask the questions that are being asked here about this contract. Certainly the Commission has the choice of selecting who the contractor will be and who the Construction Manager will be. But I think to work through that contract in great details, I said before, with some team that's made up of members of this Council plus members of the Commission. I think that's the good way to get this thing started and move it forward. I think having some team look at the various sites together again, meaning people from this Councill and people from the Commission and people from the Sheriff's office. I think that's pretty darn important. I hear we don't want to put five names of possible sites out there because the price will go up and I'll argue the opposite. If you put five sites out there and all those people want to sell the competition is going to bring the price down. There's no problem in putting the word out there early. We've got to get some public discussion on this anyway. So, I just want to see a whole series of steps that take place that makes sure that everybody is informed and everybody knows what's going on. I'll go back also to the comments about the 35 million dollar limit. I think the Council has acted in good faith in establishing that limit and I think the Commission needs to act as quickly as it can and I think this is what Royce was saying as well. To find out what we can get with that 35 million. If we just said, kind of slipping from where we are right now, if we just said to the architect how many beds can you build us for 35 million and if, in theory, he came back and said a thousand and we'd say okay good, then we know we have room for Community Corrections because we don't need a thousand bed jail. Instead of building something and then wacking away at it and cutting it to make it fit, I think we ought to be going the other way. Start out with what we're mandated or could be mandated and to do by a federal judge. The judge doesn't care about Community Corrections, the judge doesn't care about juvenile. The only thing we're looking at potentially as an order is the jail. I think we ought to start with our budget and look at that jail on its own to see how many beds 35 million dollars will buy us. If in fact 35 million will only buy us 400 beds then I think we've got another issue before us. But we don't know that. 

Councilmember Tornatta: Alright, two questions back to you. Do you have a full process plan that you would like to implement? The second part of that is, you mentioned the 35 million dollars and how it was fiscally right. Are we saying that we will never look at enhancing the process by which we run our county and if that does mean that we have to raise taxes at some point? Are we not willing to do that to try and give people the benefits that they need in this county? I think too many times we worry about our big record. I don't think anybody is going to throw a plaque on the wall that says that the County Council kept taxes this certain rate, of course the county didn't go anywhere necessarily and we aren't providing some of the same services because we're cutting back to try and maintain that tax level. Those are questions that I've always wanted to know. Just being on a year, I want to know are we maintaining a tax basis so we can be proud of our seven, eight, or nine years that we held it at that level or are we saying that we have to look also at the benefits of living in this county for the people that live here?

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, to answer the second question first, that's the Council's question to answer. You know, I know the Council, certainly its present makeup right now does take a lot of pride in making sure that the taxes have not gone up. Now, if the Council changes its mind on that, they're free to do that. I think, and I've said this once before at that microphone, we could look at the old courthouse and probably poll this community and people would be able to say, and willing to say, yeah I'm willing to see my taxes go up to redo the old courthouse to some degree. I don't think you'll see that with the jail. You know, most people in this community still believe, throw them in and throw away the key and that's what they understand about the jail and unfortunately, unfortunately, I think the (inaudible) heads that the Commission and Council have been at over the recent months with this have only made that situation worse because I think people are frustrated about reading this and they don't care. I think there is a sales job by every one of us in this room to make sure people understand why we need a jail. As far as the first question, do I have a plan? Give me an hour at sitting at this laptop and I could give you a real good plan as far as the various components that I think need to be dealt with multilaterally here with members of the Council and members of the Commission. If we don't do this together it isn't going to happen. You know, we're acting like we're the Taliban versus the good guys. We're having a little war here and there's nothing being resolved. 

Councilmember Tornatta: I agree. I think what Mr. Sutton brought up is that, you know, maybe it's as simple as doing what he said. Fill out the flow chart, facilitate the ideas and pull them out, maybe that's what we need, a facilitator, we sat through a meeting that showed that. Sue Ellsperman pointed out that facilitation sometimes brings the best of both worlds to all parties.

Commissioner Mourdock: Steve Utley and I just yesterday were speaking of that same thing. We both used that name. We are back to the point, and I hate to say it this way, but back to the point where Sue Ellsperman can come in with this group if we all put our minds to it and we could work through this thing, I think in two or three sessions. 

Councilmember Tornatta: One other thing. I know we've been back and forth to one another. Mr. Raben, and Mr. Winnecke have given valid points on some things in the contract. I think that one thing that Ms. Fanello has done is really worked diligently along with Commissioner Mosby on trying to go through the contract in doing their (inaudible) to get the best contract for this county. I think at times we forget that they are trying to make themselves come away from this project with all the I's dotted and T's crossed and make things as palatable for the county as well as...they have to answer for that particular institution. 

Commissioner Mourdock: There is one thing that everyone of us as politicians believes in. There is one thing that everyone of us as a politician works towards and that's to make ourselves look good and that's just the way the system works. I don't believe that Catherine and David have done anything that they think deliberately would make themselves look bad. Nor do I think that of any member of the Council. The fact is, we all look bad if we're not communicating the way this process should be working. 

Council President Bassemier: Good point Mr. Mourdock.

Commission President Mosby: I could only say that over the last 10 or twelve days that I have tried to communicate with the Council and with Counselor Ahlers, I mean, I've met with Councilman Raben, two or three times along with Jack Waldroup from United and I've had conversation with him. I've answered every question that I know they've presented to me. I've still got all the answers today of the questions that Councilman Raben wrote down and the ones that Counselor Ahlers had. So everyone of them questions are answered. To me, I've taken that line to try and communicate. I was hoping at this meeting we'd be further than what we are. I thought by answering them questions and getting them cleared up and you know, what the caps could be on a 30, 40, 50 million dollar jail. I was hoping that would get us beyond this and we'd have the professionals standing here today telling us what we could probably get for 35 million and what it would take to get this, this, and this and a time line of where we need to go from here. That was my whole intent. My whole intent was to have this project move further along than what it is. 

Commissioner Fanello: Right, and I would just like to-

Councilmember Sutton: Why not bring them in? Why not-

Commissioner Fanello: Exactly.

Commission President Mosby: I was told it's too-

Councilmember Sutton: I mean, I know what's taken place today but that's history, we're already into this. If that's what is...you guys would like to...the county, not just the Commissioners and Council, but this county to hear from that perspective. I think we need to hear that. I think there's some real valid credence to the whole idea of having some type of facilitated issue. It's very obvious to me, I say here to the question I asked some 45 minuted ago and I heard four or five different perspectives on what the process was going to be. Some of them was similar, some were different. It's very clear that there's not a consensus on what that process ought to be and the merits of why that ought to take place that way. If this is the way we're going we really aren't going anywhere. So people may have some good ideas and have some good justification for that, but the reality is, it's not going anywhere. I think...I would hope that before we leave this meeting today that we leave away with some type of understanding or agreement that we're going to sit down as two bodies and any others who may be interested and work through what that process is going to be and get this thing going. Put it on a time schedule of when these processes, when these things are going to occur and what those things need to be because I hear a lot of discussion, a lot of good dialogue, a lot of good ideas thrown out there, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you aren't going to do anything.

Council President Bassemier: Good point Mr. Sutton. Mr. Mosby, would you want to set up some kind of, I don't know, some kind of a plan to meet with a couple Council members and your group kind of meet in the next few days or whatever? Would that be-

Commission President Mosby: Are you talking about bringing the professionals?

Council President Bassemier: Yeah, that too. 

Commission President Mosby: I was going to answer Councilman Sutton's question here. I thought that was the intent of this meeting as I said a minute ago. That's why I worked with Councilman Raben and Counselor Ahlers. I tried to present you, Mr. President, with an agenda last Tuesday or Wednesday. I took that agenda to your administrative assistant and gave it to her and said please get with President Bassemier and get me an answer. Now, that was to no avail on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. I went back over to her office on Friday and she said she was meeting with you on Friday afternoon. She said I'll get you an answer. I finally called that office yesterday twice and got a return phone call from you at 2:30 to tell me not to bring the professionals down. I'll tell you, this is how the project is being stalled. I'm not arguing this with you.

Council President Bassemier: No, the project, to be honest with you, the project is not being stalled. I don't think we're at a point yet to bring these people in from Indianapolis. 

Commission President Mosby: Well, that's why I dealt with Councilman Raben and met with him-

Council President Bassemier: I knew he was meeting with you too-

Commission President Mosby: -and tried to answer all the questions.

Council President Bassemier: I've been talking to Mr. Raben on your conversations.

(Inaudible) Several talking at the same time.

Commission President Mosby: What I was going to say is Councilman Raben had told me he would try to let me know by Monday's meeting if his questions were answered and the answers that I gave the counselor, if they were sufficient so that we could move forward in this meeting. 

Councilmember Sutton: I'm just saying it doesn't solve-

Commission President Mosby: I'm ready to move it forward.

Councilmember Sutton: If that's what you want to do, I'd be interested in getting the information. 

Commission President Mosby: I'll bring them down next week. 

Councilmember Sutton: If that's what you want to do. I think we'd be agreeable to at least hearing what they have to say. I mean, it gives us a base of information to work with. 

Commission President Mosby: As long as you can tell me that we're going to move forward on this contract and that you're willing to fund the 600,000 I'm willing to get them people in here. I don't want them coming in here and then we're going to stiff them. That's not my way of dealing with people. So if we can't make a gentleman's agreement and we can't sign the dotted line, we've got a problem. You know, that's just the way I feel. If you're willing to say we'll fund the 600,000, we want to move forward, and we'll sign the contract, then we'll have Tom Pittman and we'll have Mike Claytor and we'll have Mark Shireman down here.

Council President Bassemier: Of course that has to come to a vote, but Mr. Mourdock we're just trying to set up something that-

Commissioner Mourdock: Respectfully, David I'll say that from the tenor of what I've picked up in this last hour and half or whatever it's been, I don't know that anybody in this room is going to be able give you what you've just asked for. I'm going to get back to what Councilman Sutton and what Troy said a minute ago as well. I mean, it seems to me that there are enough differences between the Council and the Commission on this. If we want this thing to go forward smoothly we've got to have some better basis of communication, consistently. Not just once, not just to get past the 636,000 dollars or whatever because I can see us going through, well okay we'll do that and then after that is paid we're right back here again on the next issue. That's not going to work for any of us. We've got to have something in place to keep this process moving not just for one check or one payment. Unless we do something as Royce was saying with the continuing process it seems to me we're setting ourselves up to fail.

Commission President Mosby: I've answered every question in the contract that they have brought forward.

Commissioner Mourdock: Understand, I'll give you credit for that David, I believe that's true.

Commission President Mosby: Okay, so what we're talking about here Commissioner is signing a contract and making the first payment. We don't have to make the second payment until we determine that the work is done and they present us with a bill.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, as an issue of contracts I think, and I'm not the lawyer in the room obviously, but I think once you start down that road and sign that first payment you've essentially signed onto the whole contract. 

Commission President Mosby: No, you can terminate the agreement at anytime by the owner. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Finish the sentence, you read it before, you can terminate them for-

Council President Bassemier: Let's change the tape, I'm sorry.

(TAPE CHANGE)

Commissioner Mourdock: - state your issue than just what this contract is about. It is about this whole project and the people on the Council and this Commission want to make sure that the way this whole process is proceeding is part of a total plan that is seen from where we are today until we're ready to cut the ribbon and start making the operational payments after that ribbon is cut. And everybody has got to be comfortable with this thing, not just this piece of paper between us and United and DLZ, or not just this piece of paper between us and Shireman. Its got to be the whole process.

Commission President Mosby: You know, and I guess, truthfully, I don't understand where the problem comes in with the contract. I mean, we've addressed everything in this contract that possibly can be addressed. If it's the fees, I didn't see anybody over there in the County Commissioner's chambers jumping up the night that you wanted to pay PMSI $135 an hour or $40,000 to sit and write an RFQ to get to the point of where we're at. We wrote that RFQ in that office over there free of charge. Didn't cost you one penny, didn't cost this Council one penny. Nobody said anything then.

Commissioner Mourdock: Good point, and you know why they didn't say it when we paid PMSI that money?

Commission President Mosby: I'm talking about the additional money to bring them back on board after the first of the year to write the RFQ that we wrote for nothing. You wanted to pay PMSI to write the RFQ to review, to interview them and to select an architect. We did it free of charge. I didn't hear anybody from this Council or anybody else over in that Commissioner's chambers saying hey, we need to see if this is excessive, we don't want to spend this amount of money. We're sitting here talking about a contract and everybody wants to pick it apart over 10,000 bucks.

Commissioner Mourdock: Let me use that as an example, David, and I don't - I think it's pretty well a waste of time to go into history, but I'm going to use one just for example because you brought it up. PMSI, when we wrote that contract, the much maligned contract for $98,000, nobody in this Council complained about it. We didn't have people jumping up and down saying, why are you wasting $100,000, because everybody had bought into the process. Half the people in this room had been involved with that process and they knew what was going on with it. And that's what you need to deal with. You're not dealing with necessarily facts, okay, you're dealing -

Commission President Mosby: But you -

Commissioner Mourdock: No. Listen to me, David. You're not dealing with facts, you're dealing with perceptions. Everybody in these chairs has a different perception of this whole project. Whether you like it or not, we have to deal with all those perceptions because we were all equally elected by the people of this county. We have to deal with everybody's perception. We do not have unicameral government. You know, it takes both branches here. And to make this process work, we've got to have both sides fully involved and engaged and committed and willing, and that's what we don't have right now. 

Commission President Mosby: And I agree, but -

Council President Bassemier: Why don't we just go ahead and put all this down in the past and let's start fresh. What do you want to do from this point forward?

Commission President Mosby: Sign the contract.

Council President Bassemier: Do you want to meet, Catherine? Make a suggestion because -

Commissioner Fanello: First of all, Councilman Winnecke had two good suggestions. First of all, we need to get a contract signed. We need to get them paid and I think that they could probably provide an addendum like they said that would detail the phases and the payments that need to be made during those phases. I don't think that's a problem. They've said they're willing to do that. We need to get that established and done. We need to get our professionals here to tell us what are we getting for $35,000,000 or $30,000,000 construction costs. We need to get the budgets on the table, we need to get the time line from the bond counsel, all these things needs to happen simultaneously. So I'm going to ask Commissioner Mosby if we can get a contract in place and the Council moving on the $610,000 appropriation, you know, can we get our experts down here to give us the information. We cannot do this on our own. You have to have the professionals involved. And we cannot do this without a contract. I mean, we are not smart enough and we have never built a jail before. We can't do this without having the professionals on board.

Council President Bassemier: You know, our counselor made a point, and I don't want to use you, could you put in that contract, what was it, that 650 beds or the 500 beds or the 250 on the - whatever, they're going to do, can that be in there? I mean, like we said, there's not enough information on this contract to -

Commissioner Fanello: That can be in there, but I think we need to ask the question first, what are we getting for $30,000,000. If they can't build 650 beds for $30,000,000, there's no need to put it in there. If they can only build 200 beds for -

Council President Bassemier: Well, whatever we start at but -

Commissioner Fanello: I'm just saying, let's get the budgets on the table. Let's get their estimates, let's get the information from the professionals like we should have had today, and we would be probably much farther along today if we'd had these people standing here giving us the information. But I think right now, you know, we need to have some kind of agreement that we're going to fund the $610,000, and that we've got a contract in place to get these professionals to keep them working so that we can move forward. This can all happen simultaneously.

Council President Bassemier: Let me ask you, the counselor wants to say something, would you mind if our counselor wrote up something from the first stage to kind of protect us to see what we're getting for the $650,000?

Commissioner Fanello: I would definitely mind because this is our county attorney for the County Commissioners, and the County Commissioners negotiate contracts.

Council President Bassemier: Well, if they could work together on this then, I mean, that's -

Commissioner Fanello: We've answered all of Counselor Ahlers questions and I don't think there's - unless, I'm sure President Mosby would like to say something.

Council President Bassemier: Have they answered all the questions, legally? I mean, to protect us?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, I guess the answer is - depends on how you define answer. Mr. Mosby and I had a cordial conversation and we talked for about an hour and he responded to questions I had. At the end of the conversation I don't think either one of us agreed with each other. So, I mean, it depends on - I think they responded but I don't know that in terms of the issues that we raised, I think we've talked around it and I don't think, I guess as Mr. Mourdock said, that there's ever been a meeting of the minds as to what the real answer is for everybody to move forward. I guess one of the biggest concerns and as I hear everybody collectively saying, is that I think at the beginning when Mr. Mosby talked about that in the contract it had the scope and that we were going to get 650 beds and 225 community corrections was juvenile, then it was clarified that it was in the minutes, but not in the contract. And it seems to me that if that is the scope, as you said, that certainly needs to be in the contract. If United Consulting says we can't do what you've set the scope for the $30,000,000, then it seems like we don't have a contract - I mean, we've got to get a meeting of the minds here so that we make sure we're not into a bait and switch situation. I mean, either they can or they can't do that. And to define that, there were other proposals, I know, from some of the other groups that you looked at for jails that were able to tell you to a penny what you could get for $35,000,000. So clearly it can be done. Now that's an issue for all of you to decide. It's not a legal issue, it was my intention and I've tried to stay out of all of this, but just to respond to you, the question, I've read the United Consulting response. It was furnished to me by Mr. Hayes and Mr. Mosby. Our conversations have all been cordial, although I'm not sure that we still agree on some of these points. 

Commission President Mosby: Well, which point don't we agree on? I mean, I guess that's the question. 

Jeff Ahlers: Well, I think the big issue - I can't speak for what we agree on or not. That's the problem. I represent seven people here which makes it a little more difficult than if you represent the governor or the mayor and you've got one client. So it's difficult for me to respond to that question. I can tell you that there are concerns by various members still, on probably more than half of the points that were raised that I don't think an agreement has been reached. But I guess you guys can take a vote and decide if you've reached an agreement. But that's what I hear, but it's difficult for me to speak for seven people, because as you've heard, they all have differing views. 

Commission President Mosby: Well, I hear what you're saying and I guess I can try to interpret part of what you're saying, and if we try to address that, and you are right, the scope was in the Commissioner's meeting, the contract says $30,000,000. We have also asked them to tell us what it will cost if we go 650 expendable, 300, and 20 to 24. In the letter that I sent you after me and you had that discussion, it also tells you in there that what a $40,000,000 project would cost us and what a $50,000,000 project would cost us. In their original answer, it also tells you that if the project goes from $30,000,000 to $20,000,000 it will be a little bit less. You know, I mean, a lot of it has to do, depends on size. And that's with anything in life. I mean, the more you buy, the more you're going to pay and I don't know how anybody can get around that. For somebody to say that the fees were going to double was totally inaccurate, because if you look at the percentage, if we go with a $50,000,000 project, the percentage is coming down to around 9.2% as opposed to 10.3. So, I mean, we've tried - and I don't know what other, I guess, questions you're talking about. We've tried to answer, you know, the question on who owns the prints. I mean, he give you three different reasons in there, you know, why they thought they should retain ownership to the prints. They also said, you know, if we have to insert a couple of words to clarify the language, that's fine, too. So, I mean, we've tried to clarify that. I mean, I've tried to clarify every answer that I could possibly clarify. The day I was sitting at lunch with Councilman Raben he was like, I don't really know, talk to Counselor Ahlers. Well, when I talked to you, Counselor, you was like, I don't have a vote in this. You know, I don't know why I'm trying to negotiate this.

Councilmember Raben: Just to clarify that, you asked me, what would be the legal language, and I said I don't - I'm not an attorney. I'm not qualified to write legal language, that I would prefer that you would have United and your attorney get with our attorney and establish some new language.

Commission President Mosby: Well, the question I was talking about, Councilman, is when I said, what are you really concerned about, what is the main issue. And you said, well, I have two or three, but I don't really know, I need you to talk with the Counselor. That's when I said, tell him to call me. I'll be glad to talk with him. I mean, he went through Counselor Hayes and that's fine, but we did end up hooking up. I tried to answer what I thought you brought up that day and everything I talked to him about, and that's why I faxed him the additional sheet. 

Councilmember Raben: A quick important point, you mentioned that in the letter, it states, this pertains to ownership of plans that they state in there that they could change some language. I don't see where that's stated in this letter.

Commission President Mosby: It's not in the one you got. It is in the one I let you read at dinner that day.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. Ahlers' letter?

Commission President Mosby: No. When we went to lunch that day and I tried to address your questions, I let you read that. I'll read it to you again. 

Councilmember Raben: You read a paragraph from it but I -

Commission President Mosby: No, I gave you -

Commissioner Fanello: We're wasting time here. We're wasting time. We're going over contractual issues, contract negotiations, where are we headed today? Where are we headed?

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, -

Councilmember Tornatta: I got a quick question for Commissioner Mourdock.

Council President Bassemier: Go head.

Councilmember Tornatta: Of the scope, we talked about the scope and at this point the majority voted for the scope, okay, what do you see as the process of attaining that scope for the facility that we want and then how do you propose that we scale that back or what means do you propose of getting to a number if it be $35,000,000?

Commissioner Mourdock: I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying -

Councilmember Tornatta: The question is, there was a scope that was voted on by the majority, -

Commissioner Mourdock: Right, 650, 300 and 24.

Councilmember Tornatta: Exactly. Now assuming that obviously we're going by that scope which I don't know why we wouldn't, what means do you see for attaining that scope and then what means do you see for bringing that to $35,000,000 if it doesn't make that, foreseeing the future.

Commissioner Mourdock: First of all, I don't think you can answer that question necessarily as, coming back to Royce's question, you know, what's the first thing you want to do. I see that as being down the road a little bit. If we had these lines of communication open where we were ready and we'd hired the architect, I think what we need to do is the architect, as I said before, is say, okay, now we know our budget is $35,000,000. We're going to take out the architect's fees and whatever that number is and the construction manager's fees and whatever that is. Now we have, I'm going to make up a number: 30.78 million dollars. What can you build us in jail capacity for 30.78 million? And if the architect at that point comes back and says, well, 30.78 million of hard dollar construction costs will, in fact, build you a 650 bed jail, great. We stop right there. We know we have a 600 bed jail. If he says it's only a 400 bed jail, then I think - I'll follow up with what Catherine said, we have to say, is that what we really want to do or are we going to bite the bullet. Is the Council going to bite the bullet and say, gee, I guess we really do need to raise taxes to do something. But I think you have to keep questioning yourself through this process.

Councilmember Tornatta: I understand.

Commissioner Mourdock: You can't just draw it on the page and say, here it is without any options. I think that's sort of the decision tree you have to build on. But it seems to me we need to see what we can get for that money.

Council President Bassemier: Dave, let me ask you -

Commission President Mosby: And the professionals have that. I mean, they're ready to present exactly what he just said. Here are your fees, here's the CM's fees, here's the amount of money that's left over and here's what you'll get.

Council President Bassemier: Okay, do you need to, let me ask you, I don't think anybody on the Council here, I know several of us, probably the majority is not ready to sign this whole contract, the whole contract, because -

Commission President Mosby: Well, the contract comes as a whole. 

Council President Bassemier: Well, can't we piecemeal this thing -

Commission President Mosby: No. I'm not going to piecemeal the jail, and I'm not going to piecemeal the contract.

Council President Bassemier: I tell you what, we probably are wasting our time maybe, because I don't think the Councilmembers will sign such an open ended contract, but we can meet if you want to. There's several things in here that we cannot sign because we do not know what we're getting for our money and so I will say, we can set up a meeting or whatever.

Commission President Mosby: Okay, you don't know what you're getting for your money, and when you bring the professionals on board, that's what you're going to find out. What you're going to get for your money.

Council President Bassemier: Is that before or after we sign the contract?

Councilmember Tornatta: It would have been today.

Commission President Mosby: I was going to say, it would have been today -

Council President Bassemier: We wouldn't have voted on this -

Councilmember Tornatta: It doesn't matter -

Commission President Mosby: I've done signed the contract. I mean, we've done signed the contract.

Council President Bassemier: We're going to meet with the group -

Commission President Mosby: The only thing pending here is are you going to fund it -

Council President Bassemier: - this out first and then we'll have another meeting with -

Commission President Mosby: The contract is not void. I don't guess you understand that.

Council President Bassemier: Oh, I understand it. I've read -

Commission President Mosby: Well, the contract is not void because, I mean, under, I guess I'll have to get my papers out again. Title 36 1.12.5, this contract is not void. The Commissioners have a contract. Now whether you decide you want to fund it or not is another question. If you're going to tell me that your 2.7 million dollar appropriation on February 7^th doesn't fund this, and if you're going to tell me that your intent on April 4^th to issue a 35 million dollar bond does not give us an intent to go forward with the project, then you back up and you take a vote and you tell me we're not building a jail. And then I'll tell the architects that we just stiffed them and gave them a false impression and that all bets are off.

Council President Bassemier: Counselor, what would you recommend to the rest of the Council? What should we be doing to protect us and the taxpayers on this contract?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, I think the Council already took action within the past month and passed a resolution setting forth that there had been no appropriation and had been no funding of these contracts and so I don't think there should be any mistake and that the record has been clear all along, and that there was no appropriation to fund these contracts. So then, I guess what I am saying to you is that unless you fund those contracts, I mean, I guess it doesn't move forward unless you resolve these differences on the contracts. So I guess it comes down to whether or not, as I hear it here, it's a take it or leave it, or you're able to come together -

Councilmember Tornatta: Right, and we don't want to stall that and may I make a plan here? May I be a liaison, a one on one liaison with Commissioner Mourdock, and may Mr. Winnecke be a one on one liaison with the two Commissioners, and we try and figure out ways to hash this out? I've had contact with Mr. Winnecke, and maybe that's a possible way to facilitate this before the facilitation. 

Council President Bassemier: I would kind of like to recommend Mr. Raben, too, our finance chairman.

Commission President Mosby: There's one way we can decide this. I mean, I talked to Baker & Daniels yesterday. We can take it to the State Board of Tax Commissioners and they'll make a determination. And really, I believe that's the point we're at. Is we just need to let them determine whether I.C. 36-1-12-3.5 is correct.

Council President Bassemier: You want to answer that, Jeff?

Commission President Mosby: So, I mean, that would be the easy way of solving it.

Jeff Ahlers: I think we've already addressed that point. I mean, unless you guys want to rehash that, I think we went through that at the last meeting. We've got our interpretation and you've got yours. I don't think that it makes any difference. You end up in the same place in the end. Regardless of what the State Board of Accounts says, there's been no appropriation, so there's no money there. I mean, you can have a contract and you can sign it and say that we've signed it, but unless it's funded, it's nothing more than that. But that's -

Commission President Mosby: Well, it can be funded out of the proceeds of the bond, so unless -

Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, but there's no bond unless this body approves it. So where's your bond?

Commission President Mosby: That's my question then, did your action on April 4^th, was it not good?

Jeff Ahlers: April 4^th, what?

Commission President Mosby: When they said we are willing to consider issuing a

bond for either rebuilding or construction of one facility or three facilities? The resolution that you passed.

Jeff Ahlers: That resolution said nothing about a bond.

Councilmember Raben: It might have.

Jeff Ahlers: It did not.

Commission President Mosby: Give me a copy of it. I'll get you a copy of it. We've got it over in the office.

Jeff Ahlers: I've got it right here in front of me and there's nothing about a bond. All it was was a resolution to set a cap on the funding. But, I mean, I guess -

Commission President Mosby: To set a cap on a $35,000,000 bond, okay.

Jeff Ahlers: No. It does not say bond and it's not my intention to get into an argument with you here. But, I mean, it does not say that and I guess the real problem becomes, though, is again, it goes back to consensus. You know, you're saying that we're not going to get what you define the scope as for 35,000,000, so, I guess, if we were wanting to get into questioning each other, does that mean that you intend to disregard the limit? I mean, it becomes really a matter of whether you all want to reach a consensus or whether you don't. But, and I'll be happy to speak with you, Mr. Hayes or whatever you want to do.

Commission President Mosby: I'm more than willing to reach a consensus and a limit. I mean, I would love for somebody to tell me yes, we will appropriate the money. Yes, we'll go forward. And I'd like to get the professionals down here next week and I'd like to see the time lines on issuing bonds, and I'd like to see what we can get for $35,000,000 and we'll have that information, and what it would cost us to go the other route.

Council President Bassemier: That's a good point. What's you all's pleasure? You want - I'm sorry, Mr. Winnecke.

Councilmember Winnecke: I'm sorry, I just had to raise my hand high. I was getting a little tired here. I think getting the professionals in...you know, I think that's great and I'm sure they have a lot to offer, but they'll have one piece of the puzzle, and there's a major piece of the puzzle missing and that's our land costs. And that's why I think we've got to look at this thing in phases and I don't think we're looking at the phases. I, too, want to pay the architect for the services rendered to date. And if they can offer an addendum, a one page agreement, whatever it is, with the itemized bill that Mr. Raben referred to, we can see that - we can approve that in our December meeting, we can get that behind us. I think the next phase needs to be somebody determining when - earlier someone said site selection would be done in about three months. Okay, that's February. At that point, you said one to three weeks, I believe, once they look at the sites and say, this site could work or this site cannot work. And then we get the professionals in and say, okay, here are the budgets. I mean, to me, that's where I see this thing going. 

Commission President Mosby: And that's where we disagree because I just said a minute ago, I will not have a building driven by site. 

Councilmember Winnecke: And I'm not suggesting that, David.

Commission President Mosby: Well, you're saying let's get a site and let's -

Councilmember Winnecke: I'm saying, let's get a site before we know whether we can live within the $35,000,000. I mean, the issue, if the professionals come in next week and they say you can only get a 450 bed jail for $30,000,000 and you can't get community corrections and you cannot get a juvenile detention facility, I mean, they're basing that without a land cost, and that's probably the most critical element. I'm just saying, let's figure out where the site is and then tell us what we can do within our means. 

Commission President Mosby: They're making an estimation for land cost is what they're doing. And if we put it on the back forty, maybe we save our money. They're making a rough estimation on land cost. 

Councilmember Winnecke: So that would be included. 

Commission President Mosby: Yeah.

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay.

Council President Bassemier: Yeah, that's the first I'm hearing -

Commission President Mosby: They are going to give you what they consider a total budget. I mean, I've talked with them. They're coming up with all costs that they can think could be included. So, I mean, what you're going to see from the professionals, what you would be seeing right now is exactly what they think you'll get for $35,000,000 or $30,000,000 and then they're going to tell you what they think a jail, community corrections and a juvenile detention will cost you. And they're also, I've asked them to break it down just to do two, jail and community corrections and possibly jail and juvenile detention. 

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay, that's great. Then can the contract be redone, however you want to phrase it so it breaks down these phases, because the first element of the contract, of the phases that you described earlier, calls for schematic design, 15% of whole, so that's roughly $462,000. That's why I think it needs to be, the contract itself needs to be redefined and these more clearly defined phases. The first phase being the program scope, they've already provided, and that would include the 600 some odd thousand dollars. The second phase would be however the language would be written to include determining where the land is or where the site is. The third element of that would be whatever needs to happen beyond that. 

Commission President Mosby: Well, and as I said a while ago, you keep referring to site, and United and DLZ are not doing the site, Bernardin is. And that site can fall right in before design development. All we got to do is get something from the architects that tells us, you can put this on five acres or you need 20.

Councilmember Winnecke: And that's fine, but -

Commission President Mosby: There's no sense in looking for five and buying five if we need 25.

Councilmember Winnecke: But let's lay that out in the contract. And I do not think that's clearly defined in here.

Commission President Mosby: Well, and I think as the Sheriff stated a while ago, I mean, he has worked with them, they have looked at a couple of sites, and they have told us, I think, bare minimum is nine but there's probably (inaudible) more comfortable there. And that's what we're looking at. But, you know, I mean, -

Council President Bassemier: At what cost?

Commission President Mosby: I'm just saying, you know, they're the professionals, let's get them on board, let's deal with them.

Councilmember Winnecke: And I'm saying I agree with you. But let's do it in clearly defined phases -

Commission President Mosby: And I will disagree with you and President Bassemier, that this is an open-ended contract because I've addressed everything that you two have said. 

Councilmember Winnecke: I'm not saying it's open-ended, I said -

Commission President Mosby: It might not agree to you, but, I mean, we've addressed -

Councilmember Winnecke: I just want to say it's not clearly defined.

Council President Bassemier: I tell you what, I've got Sandie right now, she's looking up a date for next week maybe, if that's okay, and see if we have to advertise that. Jeff, do we have to advertise that? We probably do again.

Commission President Mosby: Next week, we're going to be out of town Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Council President Bassemier: Okay, well you all suggested a meeting, so...you got some dates? We've got to move on here. 

Commission President Mosby: I guess - when are you coming back?

Council President Bassemier: We'll change the tape here.

(TAPE CHANGE)

Commission President Mosby: - do something next Thursday at like 2:00 or something. I'll just come on back.

Council President Bassemier: And to address it, the open-ended contract, the reason why I said that was because we do not have a land site, some of this ground in Vanderburgh County is going from $50,000 to $100,000 an acre, and we might need 20 acres. So -

Commission President Mosby: Let me ask you a question, President. Are we coming back in here to negotiate contracts or we going to come back in here and move forward?

Council President Bassemier: Well, I think we moved forward today.

Commission President Mosby: I don't. I think we're still at the same point when we walked in this room.

Council President Bassemier: Well, you know the story about opinions. But we're going to set up a meeting and we'll get your experts - I'm sorry, Jeff. We'll get your people in here and we'll go from there, but I think this was a productive meeting. I think there was some very viable points brought out in this meeting. I don't think the other group should have heard just yet, because we haven't ironed all this out yet. So can we set up a meeting to continue this meeting? Mr. Hoy, you got something you want to say?

Commission President Mosby: No, I ain't setting (inaudible) --

Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, I'm not sure we've moved at all, one point on which I agree with Commissioner Mosby. I'm not sure we've moved that far today at all. It would seem to me that we may need a facilitator a mediator or someone who would get us to the point where the process that is set up and the contract that is signed dovetailed, and work together in an orderly fashion. I do not believe that that is what we have in this contract at all and unless there are substantive changes in this contract, no, I won't vote for it. I will just say that plainly. I think that's why we need to sit down and mediate something that brings together process and contract. I think Mr. Winnecke is on the right track at that point. I think a lot of us are and I think that's what we need to do. I also am not wanting to stiff anybody. I have no desire to stiff United or DLZ, but it's my job as a County Councilman to make sure that the county is not stiffed and I think this contract stiffs the county. It's too open. It needs to be tightened down and I think that we need to do that in a mediated meeting. And that would be my recommendation because I think if we come back without some kind of commitment to that sort of process, we'll be sitting here saying all of the same things, having all of the same arguments. Because the issue here between these two bodies can be summed up in one word and that issue, and this is not going to be popular, nobody is going to like me saying this but it's how I feel, and I always say that and I always say how I feel, we have an issue of trust here. That's the issue, and that is the major issue we're dealing with. And that's why I think we need someone to mediate us and bring us together so that we achieve a level of trust so that we can get this project done, financially take care of the architects who have been selected, that's been done, and move ahead with a contract that we can live with.

Council President Bassemier: You all have a problem with that, getting a facilitator in here and -

Commission President Mosby: I do. I mean, I'll go back to what you said a minute ago. I mean, he's talking about the contract and I think, what'd you tell me, we know what opinions are, something that like. That's what you said. I mean, everybody is going to have an opinion and I guess if he wants to do my job, he doesn't feel like I'm capable of doing my job. He's sitting there telling me I can't do my job and he doesn't feel like this contract is worth the paper it's written on. Well, I have a job to do as a County Commissioner and it's to get a contract and sign it, and he has a job to fund it. So I'm not going to come over and try to tell him how to fund it and I'm not going to tell him what's the best way to do it. 

Council President Bassemier: You know, back when Mr. Mourdock had that Blue Ribbon Committee it worked very well. We had a facilitator, we had everybody involved, the Sheriff, the Prosecutors, the Council and the Commissioners, and it worked fine. So, would a facilitator, I think it would work fine -

Commissioner Fanello: I'm going to give you my honest opinion on that. If we're all not mature enough in here as elected officials to work this out and we need a mediator in here, we all better step down. 

Council President Bassemier: Well, it's not exactly a mediator, you know, they bounce ideas back -

Commissioner Fanello: No, this is like go to your corner, time out.

Council President Bassemier: No, it's not. If you'd been there, it was very productive.

Commissioner Fanello: No, we were hired - I am not going to spend taxpayer dollars to get a mediator in here. We are all of an age, and adults and elected officials for goodness sakes. If we can't work this out, this is ridiculous.

Council President Bassemier: Phil?

Councilmember Hoy: I think it's ridiculous for you to ask us to sign such an open-ended contract such as this without some substantive changes in it that ensure some sort of financial safety for the Council. Mr. Mosby did -

(Inaudible - Councilmember Tornatta interrupting Councilmember Hoy)

Councilmember Hoy: If you were going to quote me, please quote what I say. Don't say I'm talking about ten story buildings when I'm not -

Commission President Mosby: I didn't say anything about a ten story building.

Councilmember Hoy: And don't say that I am telling you you can't do your job when I'm not saying that. What I am saying is, we have a roomful of major differences, they're not just between you and me, there's quite a number of them here and all I'm saying is, we need someone to bring us together. I don't think that that's an admission that we're not mature individuals. In fact, I think to have someone convene us and work with us as a mediator would demonstrate that we are mature individuals who would be willing to sit down and have genuine, thorough, thoughtful compromise that will get us to the point of building the jail that we need to build.

Councilmember Tornatta: And I agree with that, Councilman Hoy. I think that the facilitators are used in Fortune 500 companies on down. That's a, they're very positive role people. The first thing I asked was would it be possible to have a liaison to the Commissioners to see if something could not be, some of these problems, communication problems, can be brought out. Now that's one thing, Commissioner Mourdock, that you brought out about the communication lines. I'm throwing my hand across the aisle to say I'll be your liaison and go across and if Mr. Winnecke would do that, he would be liaison there, and try and work some of these issues out. Now that's what I have offered across, now what better communication can you have there than to do that even before a facilitator is on board? 

Commissioner Mourdock: If that was a question directed to me, I'm certainly open to talking to you any time, any place, Troy. We've met before outside this building and I'll do that again. However, if we're going to do that, I need to be privy to all the communication. I keep hearing about a letter that's gone back and forth between the Commission and Council, I've never seen it. So I don't know what's been addressed in the letter David's talked of, so I agree with Phil. I mean, this issue is bigger than the contract. It isn't about the contract. I think in one sense, Catherine, you're right. We've wasted a lot of time here today because we're talking about the contract and it isn't the issue. It is trust. This group, everybody in this room has got to work together. And until we do that and recognize that all of us have a role, it isn't just the Commission's role to sign a contract, I mean, we have to communicate. It isn't just the Council's role to approve funding, they have to communicate. They have the right to their views just as we have the right to ours. And if we have to have some give and take, that's what it's going to take. 

Commission President Mosby: And I totally agree with you. They have a right to their views and we have a right to ours, and if I don't agree with them, but it's their job to do it, I mean, I can't talk them out of it. 

Commissioner Mourdock: That's right, but you can't talk them out of it just by saying here it is, take it or leave it, which is the way it's perceived.

Commission President Mosby: That's not the case, Commissioner. I told you over the last 12 days I've tried to work with them. I've tried to be the facilitator myself.

Commissioner Mourdock: David, you're not hearing what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what you think in the sense of how this is proceeding. What matters is how people are perceiving it. And they're perceiving that the issues aren't being addressed. And somehow we've got to change that perception. 

Commission President Mosby: Okay, and that's what I want to ask Councilman Hoy when he says there's no caps on the funds, and I've heard him say this five times today, what is not capped? I mean, that's just my one question. What is not capped? What are you uncomfortable about?

Councilmember Hoy: I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that the scope of the project is not spelled out specifically in the contract, that's one. I'm quite concerned that we haven't, we don't have a plan in place for seeking a site. You have said quite correctly that we don't want the site to dictate, however, whatever site we choose will dictate some things. It always will. The footprint of that site, no matter where it is, will dictate some things. The other thing that will dictate the site and the building are financial considerations. I am not comfortable with the word, assume, in the contract in terms of the 30 million. That's too vague a word and it is a word that attaches to a lot of the contract that I think is too vague. I think probably as we push this down the road, we are going to have to be very intelligently discussing whether or not we do all three facilities and what we choose first. I've already gone on record as saying I do not believe we should have a 300 bed community correction complex. I realize that they're mostly gone, I think there's two judges left, three, and a juvenile judge, who is interested in the juvenile section. But I think, you know, that we may have to trim that expectation because what we're being forced to do legally is to build a jail, period. I'd love to see a juvenile facility. I think I would put that ahead of community corrections on my list but others may not do that. That's why we need to sit down together. And that's not clear. And I am not content with United's answer about who owns the plans at all. And I want it to be clear that United, DLZ and we, all of us, stick together throughout this whole process because you can get out of (inaudible) and that's always had to be in there, but that does give an escape clause. And I don't know that it's possible to change this, but I am not comfortable with the amount of fees that are connected with this contract, even though I am aware that you all have looked at other contracts in other cities. I am just looking at my own feelings about what this costs. And I think those costs are too high and they need to be more carefully delineated should we expand this project and we might. So those are the things you asked me and that's my answer, what I'm uncomfortable with. 

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President -

Commission President Mosby: I couldn't remember all of -

Council President Bassemier: Jim, Mr. Winnecke and then I'll go to you.

Councilmember Winnecke: Did you want to respond?

Commission President Mosby: Well, he started at one. I was trying to keep track, but, I mean, I lost count at about six. And, I mean, I don't know which one to even refer to first, but, I mean, I guarantee you, I could sit down and answer 99% of what you just said. Do you have the paper that I sent Counselor Ahlers?

Councilmember Raben: David, let me interrupt just a moment. They answered it in their terms. I mean, the first item addresses ownership of plans and as to why they feel that under no circumstances should we own those plans. Nowhere does it address that they're willing to make any amendments to those articles. Nowhere. And if these plans, you know, if these plans are custom plans, if they're not plans for another jail, you know, I assume that for $3,000,000, these are going to be custom. I should be able to travel anywhere in the United States and not find another jail like it. For $3,000,000 I'd better not find it in St. Joe or Porter or somewhere else. So if these are genuine custom drawn plans to our specific needs, then we should have ownership to them. There is one phase in the contract, give me a minute to find it, but it states - what it's pertaining to is at some point should you decide that you want to renovate or extend from the existing facility, that you would have to get written permission from United to do so. That sounds simple, but what if they decide not to allow you to do that? So then you have to -

Commissioner Fanello: What page are you talking about?

Councilmember Raben: I'm finding it. But, David, you're exactly right. They did supply a reply, but it's just because they replied doesn't mean we go along with it. And again, what Councilman Hoy is saying, I don't think we're going anywhere until we work out all these problems within the contract. And I've asked, I've begged and pleaded that one or two of the Commissioners sit down with one or two, maybe Republican and Democrat from both sides, from both bodies, sit down together, work out the problems along with our Council, work out the differences in this contract. And again, I've only addressed my concerns. I don't know about everybody else's. And Catherine, give me just a moment and I'll find that.

Commission President Mosby: Well, Councilman, you say they replied. I mean, you asked me to ask them what would be the total amount of dollars for 30, 40 and 50. I mean, they supplied the information. It's right there in black and white. I mean, now if you're going to tell me you don't agree with it and you want to pay them whatever you think they're worth, I mean, that's a different story. I don't come in and dictate a price on your tires.

Councilmember Raben: They answered part of that, but again, part of my concern was a better definition of scope, change of scope. You know, when they state throughout a contract a change of scope -

Commission President Mosby: Okay the change of scope, and it's like they addressed in one other letter that I had. Change of scope is if we go from $30,000,000 to $20,000,000, the fees get smaller. But if we go from 30 to 40, of course, they increase a little bit.

Councilmember Raben: Do they state that in the contract as being the clear definition of scope? Where in the contract do they clearly define scope?

Commissioner Fanello: I don't understand and I wish someone would clarify because I really want to understand. When everybody says the scope is not clarified, what are you looking for in the scope? What do you think the scope should say?

Councilmember Raben: Our point exactly. What is that? Is that change in light fixtures in the project? If we go from porcelain light fixtures to something else, is that change in the scope?

Commissioner Fanello: No.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, let's define exactly what is scope. I mean, I'm asking you. You define that for me.

Commissioner Fanello: I understand that, but we might have a hundred pages of what a change in scope is. I think -

Councilmember Raben: For $3,000,000, what could have the potential of being ten million dollars, I'd say it's important enough that they take 500 pages. Let's have it in the contract.

Commissioner Fanello: And I don't know that the answer is not - and I don't know that the answer is not - well, I just don't know that the answer is not in the contract. I'm going to look for it myself.

Jeff Ahlers: So, Mr. Mosby defined the scope and thought it was in the contract but then said that it was not.

Commissioner Fanello: That's not the scope he's talking about.

Councilmember Raben: As to the other comment I made, Catherine, it's at the bottom of page 13. It says the owner shall not use the instruments of service for future additions or alterations to this project or other projects unless the owner obtains prior written agreement with the architects.

Commissioner Fanello: And I imagine -

Councilmember Raben: So ten years from now, if we need to add another pod to that jail, and we want to use those blueprints because we know how those walls are designed, that we need to knock holes into, they're stating no, you can't do that unless we give you written authorization. I mean, it wouldn't behoove them to give us written authorization because they may want to draw -

Commissioner Fanello: And I would like for them to clarify if that's what they mean or not.

Councilmember Raben: And again, there's tons of those. I addressed the insurance issue, I addressed there's one paragraph that states that there is no limitations on cost, let's -

Commissioner Fanello: Jim, we could sit here all day. Each one of us have a different interpretation of this contract. You know, this contract has been negotiated in the best interest of Vanderburgh County and I resent anyone at this table who says it wasn't because I don't think I was elected to take care of myself. I was elected to take care of my constituents. And what I am saying is that we can all have a different interpretation, but I think the attitude that we're taking with this is, well, you didn't negotiate that in the best interests of the county. You know, this must be wrong. That's not the case. If you have questions, that's fine. But I think we're getting to the point where we're nitpicking here. 

Councilmember Raben: Okay, well again, what I think we need to do, I think what Mr. Hoy said and I think I've heard Councilman Winnecke state, this Council is not willing to go any further until first we work out the little problems that we see within this contract.

Commission President Mosby: Okay, Councilman, I just want to address scope for a minute. And in paragraph, it tells you here, in paragraph 1a, scope describes a project to contain a jail component and community corrections component and a juvenile detention component. Paragraph 1.1.1.1 -

Councilmember Raben: Wait a minute. Where are you at? 

Commission President Mosby: I'm giving you the paragraph numbers.

Councilmember Raben: Page two?

Commission President Mosby: No, I'm not in the contract. I'm just giving you the paragraph numbers that -

Council President Bassemier: He's on that response back to -

Commission President Mosby: And it's the paragraph 1111 also describes the project of consisting of jail, community corrections, juvenile detention components and further states that all shall be of new construction. 1.1.1.3 establishes the construction budget at $30,000,000, 1.1.2.1 describes the objective or the use of the facility as consisting of the three aforementioned components. We feel these provisions more than adequately set the size, scope and nature of the project. Them are addressed in them four paragraphs and it tells you what you're getting and establishes a budget. And it's as far as they can go with scope until we decide the next step and that's after the architects tell us what we can get. 

Council President Bassemier: Mr. Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Two things. One, to Councilman Tornatta's suggestion earlier, I mean, I'd be happy to act as liaison or I'm sure Councilman Wortman is, I think he's officially the Commission liaison, but if it's Curt or myself, I mean, I think either one of us would be glad to do it. You know, gosh I'm whipped. Now I think the horse is about dead today. And if I could offer a suggestion here, maybe the thing to do is have us and Jeff draft or draw up specifically all the fiscally related issues of the contract that we still have issues with, get them to either you or Counselor Hayes in the next week, ten days, whenever the time frame is. While that's going on, you guys continue to bring your professionals down at a mutually agreed upon date to hear what they have to say and we can keep all this dialogue going. But I think if we go much further today, you know, we've all got dinner plans, I suspect. And I've got to be at work at 8:00 in the morning.

Council President Bassemier: Catherine, hold on. Would you all agree to that? If I nominate two people to work with two of you or all three of you, would you all agree to that? 

Commission President Mosby: Susan ain't going to agree to that.

Council President Bassemier: Who?

Commission President Mosby: Susan. Not if two of you is going to work with three of us.

Commissioner Mourdock: Wait a minute, who says it can't be a public meeting? I mean, just make it a public meeting.

Commission President Mosby: That's what this is. Where are we getting? 

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, hopefully we're making some progress. But yes, it can work, Ed. There can be public meetings. All we have to do is advertise them. 

Council President Bassemier: Okay, well, what's you all's pleasure? Do you want to meet again and bring...I guess we just keep it at -

Commissioner Fanello: I just have one question. Councilman Winnecke said that we would address fiscal related issues with the contract and that's within the Council's realm to ask questions about fiscal related matters. But Councilman Raben is bringing up all kinds of questions. So are we going over every page of the contract, which is really not within the scope of the Council's duties, or are we addressing the fiscal matters? 

Councilmember Raben: I addressed one that may be borderline, and if you really think about it, it has everything in the world to do with the financial aspect of it. Ownership of plans that you're paying $3,000,000 for to design, when that project is done, I would assume that I own those plans for any future needs or use I may have for them. That is a financial matter.

Commissioner Fanello: And I understand -

Council President Bassemier: I'm going to take one more question. Evidently, we can't have -

(Inaudible)

Council President Bassemier: We're not agreeing on a facilitator, we're not agreeing on meeting, so I guess we'll have another open meeting. Do you all - Mr. Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: I wanted to make a motion just to the Council, Council motion, I want to ask our legal counsel, Mr. Ahlers, if what I'm about - I'm going to make a motion, an overture motion. May I do that in this meeting of this Council for the Council?

Jeff Ahlers: Sure. This meeting has been advertised. I mean, you just can't make appropriations.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay. I move that the County Council overture the County Commissioners to have a joint meeting with a facilitator present to work with us on establishing a process and on making clarifications and changes in the proposed contract. 

Council President Bassemier: Do I have a second on that motion?

Councilmember Raben: Second.

Council President Bassemier: Second by Mr. Raben. Any discussion? 

Councilmember Tornatta: I don't know that we can change the contract. What are you talking about changing the contract?

Councilmember Raben: We have to have a contract to sign.

Councilmember Hoy: I'm just talking about discussing those changes, that we have a facilitator, that we overture the three Commissioners to have a facilitator help us get to this point that I spoke of a while ago.

Councilmember Tornatta: Can I say, if you're having a facilitator, could we not make the facilitator address some of the problems as opposed to trying to come up with some different areas in the contract?

Councilmember Hoy: That's what -

Councilmember Tornatta: I think we talked about a process. If we're doing a process, a facilitator might be a good area to do a process, but to go through a contract, I think that's A) it's borderline stepping on the boundaries of this board and B) it is being vague for a facilitator.

Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, all I want - and your point is well taken. I don't want this person to write the contract, I simply want them to try to bring us together on a process and on points where we can have some agreed give and take in this contract. We would not be writing the contract, but I don't think, I'm not sure I can divorce the two in mind. That's why I put the two together and see where that - surely that would move us, you know, a step forward in terms of getting us together and all I'm saying is, let us overture the Commissioners and then the Commissioners, or they're also in session, they can respond. I would just like to see us try this and whatever funding it takes to bring this person in, it wouldn't be a great deal of money to do that. 

(Inaudible - several conversations held at once)

Commissioner Mourdock: Turn the mike on.

Phil Hayes: (Inaudible - comments not made from microphone) and I'm just concerned that...

Jeff Ahlers: You don't think this falls in the purpose? I'm just saying, I think Council just votes, you guys, if you want to vote separately, but, I mean, this all falls within the purpose of jail contracts doesn't it? I mean, if you want -

Phil Hayes: I'm concerned about the shape of the Open Door Notice. (Inaudible - comments not made from microphone) I'm concerned that it's too broad for the Open Door Law and just (inaudible) rather than a formal (inaudible) you might still be within the framework of discussion (inaudible). That's the only, just an observation.

Jeff Ahlers: Well, and I appreciate you pointing that out. I guess my thought was is that I thought the purpose of our meeting was -

Teri Lukeman: This is the ad.

Jeff Ahlers: It says for discussion of and action on contracts and services for jail and corrections projects. I guess in my mind, I would think that this motion is part and parcel of saying this is what we propose that we do next in that step on that issue. Isn't that the intent that it is?

Councilmember Hoy: That's the intent. 

Council President Bassemier: Okay.

Phil Hayes: (Inaudible - comments not made from the microphone)

Jeff Ahlers: You're suggesting you think everyone has to vote on it?

Phil Hayes: No, (inaudible - comments not made from the microphone)

Commissioner Mourdock: May I ask a -

Jeff Ahlers: That's up to Councilman Hoy. You know, I don't know. No, no, I mean, that's fine. I guess all I - I don't know. I guess I see it as being on the topic and I guess either body can take action. At first I thought you were saying we had to vote together or something. 

Council President Bassemier: Let's change the tape.

(TAPE CHANGE)

Council President Bassemier: We have a motion and a second. Discussion?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes, discussion and referenced to a mediator more or less in them terms?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes, a mediator or facilitator.

Council President Bassemier: Facilitator, same thing. Okay, I have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? Roll call vote with County Councilmembers only.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Uh, because I don't understand the total scope of this I have to vote no.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes. 

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: No.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

Council President Bassemier: Yes. So that is 4-2, it passes. (Councilmember Sutton left meeting before vote was taken). No, where are you, we will turn it over to you now.

Commissioner Fanello: I personally like Councilmember Winnecke and I will still work with you to go over these questions, but I am going to, I am going to make a motion here, I will go ahead and make it but I will also make it again at Monday night's meeting, if I need to. I make a motion that we direct our President to set up a meeting with the State Board of Tax Commissioners, I believe the County Auditor will need to be involved in that. But, I believe that this is something that can be decided by the State Board of Tax Commissioners and we won't need to pay a facilitator and waste taxpayer dollars. So, I am going to make a motion that we get that moving and get that meeting set up with the State Board of Tax Commissioners, because I have been told by our bond counsel that that is where we can get resolution on this issue and I think that is where we need to go.

Commissioner Mourdock: Do you agree Catherine, even if, and I think that is what I heard Councilmember, I am sorry Counselor Ahlers, say before, even if they rule yes to the validity of the contracts, that it is still dependent upon the council to approve the bonds.

Commissioner Fanello: That is, I want their opinion and ruling.

Commissioner Mourdock: But, do you agree with that?

Commissioner Fanello: I don't work for the State Board of Tax Commissioners. I want to get their opinion and ruling. I can't give you an answer because I don't have all of the answers.

Commission President Mosby: What was your question?

Commissioner Mourdock: My question was, and I heard Jeff say, that even if the State Board of Accounts --

Commissioner Fanello: Commissioners.

Commissioner Mourdock: Thank you, Tax Commissioners comes through and says, yes, the Commission has done the proper thing here and that maybe the contract isn't null and void, it still becomes dependent upon the issuing of the bond.

Commission President Mosby: Right.

Commissioner Mourdock: The question is then, do you agree that the Council is ultimately involved with issuing that bond?

Commission President Mosby: Then the council will have to issue a bond, I agree. We just need to clarify who is going to sign this contract and we are not getting it worked out here, so, I mean, she has a motion on the floor.

Unidentified: Is this discussion?

Council President Bassemier: No, that is not us.

Commissioner Mourdock: No, this is ours. I don't have any problem going for that information because it is still going to be the Council's call. So, I will go ahead and second.

Commission President Mosby: Okay, a motion and a second, so ordered.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I have one other motion, if I could then, just to be consistent with what the Council just did, I would move that the County Commission act in a, call it a shadow motion, to the words of Councilman Hoy here a few moments ago regarding a facilitator.

Commissioner Fanello: I am not going to second that because I am not going to waste taxpayer dollars for things that we can work out ourselves. I am willing to sit down with Councilman Winnecke and get some questions answered. I am willing to sit down with Councilman Tornatta and have done so. I called Councilman Raben last week and he wouldn't return my phone call but I will sit down with Councilman Winnecke and get these things worked out but I am not wasting taxpayer dollars on a facilitator.

Council President Bassemier: Jim, you can address that now since you pointed your-

Commission President Mosby: Since, yeah, this is our meeting, I will just be honest, since we are going to do this and go to the State Board of Tax Commissioners just to go ahead and get clarification, I don't see right now where it is going to be beneficial to do that.

Council President Bassemier: Jim, do you want to sum this up? Evidently we didn't go anywhere.

Unidentified: It died for lack of a second.

Councilmember Raben: Now, I guess now I am confused. You have taken the position then that your actions that were taken when you signed this contract, that you stand behind that you still consider that the contract is valid and that no legal, illegal action was taken, with that, understanding your position and the statute that you quoted from earlier that states that any payments made to the contract would be paid out of bond proceeds, I guess I would interpret that that the request for the appropriation December 5^th has been cancelled, correct?

Commissioner Fanello: No, I believe we need to pay them for the work to be done.

Councilmember Raben: Now, you can't have it both, the best of both worlds.

Commissioner Fanello: You are still going to get reimbursed from the bond issue, Jim.

Councilmember Raben: Again, your position-

Commissioner Fanello: You are not paying them, you are not paying the-

Councilmember Raben: It states that what you've done is legal so long as it's paid out of the proceeds of the bond.

Commissioner Fanello: And you can be reimbursed and that is-

Councilmember Raben: Well, you can't have the best of both worlds.

Commissioner Fanello: Well, the State Board of Tax Commissioners-

Commission President Mosby: Or other fees, it states, I mean it states that in the contract. You can pay them out of the fees that you set aside, the 2.7 million.

Councilmember Raben: I am going to stick to your statute and I will consider it.

Council President Bassemier: Does anybody want to make a motion for adjournment?

Councilmember Wortman: I make a motion that we adjourn this meeting right now.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to adjourn.

Councilmember Winnecke: Second.

Council President Bassemier: Meeting adjourned.

(Meeting adjourned at 3:49 p.m.)
 

__________________________
David W. Mosby, President

______________________________
Catherine Fanello, Vice President

______________________________
Richard E. Mourdock, Member
 

_____________________________             ____________________________
President Ed Bassemier                               Vice President Lloyd Winnecke

____________________________             ____________________________
Councilmember James Raben                     Councilmember Phil Hoy

_____________________________           _____________________________
Councilmember Curt Wortman                    Councilmember Royce Sutton

_____________________________
Councilmember Troy Tornatta

Recorded by Teri Lukeman. Transcribed by B.J. Farrell, G. Tucker, T. Hochstetler & T. Lukeman.