The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 9^th day of September, 2009 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 9:09 a.m. by County Council President Tom Shetler, Jr.

President Shetler: Good morning. I’d like to call the meeting to order, this being pretty close to the 9^th second of the 9^th minute of the 9^th hour, on the 9^th day of the 9^th month of the 9^th year of 2000. I think we’ll call the meeting to order and take the roll call please.

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

President Shetler: There being seven members present, we have a quorum. At this time, I’d like to ask Councilman Goebel to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

President Shetler: This is our final budget hearing today and the purpose is to complete the adoption of the budget, to establish the salaries and all the employee benefits. We will be recommending to the state what the proposed tax rate should be. At this time, basically, we’re going to be discussing among ourselves as Councilmembers, after the finance chairman, Council Raben, has finished going through the budget and if any department heads or elected officeholders or anybody has any questions or comments, certainly will be welcome to bring that or any corrections or additions to some of the comments that have been made up here. So at this time, I’d like to turn the mic over to Councilman Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you. Good morning. First I’d like to move that all eligible full-time county employees receive longevity and step increases as listed in the 2010 salary ordinance. All non-union eligible Airport Authority employees receive only step increases. All Convention & Visitors Bureau employees remain at the 2009 salary levels. And then I’ll add that, move that all salaries and rates as listed in the 2010 salary ordinance be approved. And I would also ask that the salary ordinance be made part of the record. All FICA and PERF be adjusted accordingly. I make that in the form of a motion.

President Shetler: We have a motion and a second. Do I have any questions or comments? Roll call please.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next I move that Exhibits A through H be approved as listed in the 2010 salary ordinance that everyone has been given a copy of. I make that in the form of a motion.

President Shetler: It’s been moved and seconded. Do I have any questions or comments? Roll call please.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next I ask that all Councilmembers check the listing of salary and position title changes that are from the budget book and move to approve List A, and make that part of the record. Everyone has been given a copy of List A. Again, this is salary and position changes, title changes.

Councilman Sutton: And this list that we have, Jim, this List A, just reflective of just new information that we have gathered since maybe the budgets were initially presented or based upon maybe changes related to –

Councilmember Raben: Okay next, everyone has been given a copy of List B. List B, or any changes that have taken place since our last vote last Wednesday, one of the, I guess, is recently, one of the hotter topics is the Election Office, and Council President Shetler would like to explain that change.

President Shetler: Yeah, the recommendation I’d make, somewhat of a compromise here, basically, in the year ‘06, which is a comparable election year, we spent $30,000 to operate the Election Office. Since that time, and that works out to a total of, I think, 3,750 hours based on the $8.00 an hour that they were paid. Since that time, we’ve given them a 50 cent raise, so if you take that 3,750 hours, a 50 cent raise would be $1,775, I believe, something in that neighborhood. And then, if you would, or it’s $1,875, I’m sorry, I didn’t add my numbers down here. $1,875, add that to the $30,000 that we spent in ‘06, the recommendation to use the libraries as a satellite for voting, the recommendation on that is $8,930, according to the County Clerk, and that would provide 15 days prior to it. She’s actually given us two alternatives: one was at a ten day level and the other one was at a fifteen day level. Given the maximum that she’s recommending, which was the fifteen day level, $8,930, add that to the $1,875, we would come up with a total, and the $30,000 we spent in ‘06, the total is $40,805. So we’re funding at the same level we did in ‘06, adding to that the satellite areas at the libraries.

President Shetler: That is correct. She had given us, basically, two different recommendations. One was a ten day at a cost of $5,950, and one was at a fifteen day, which was at a cost of $8,930.

Councilmember Goebel: And will the library voting places be open the same amount of time as they were in 2008?

President Shetler: Yes, seven hours per day, a total of one hundred and five hours with a total of ten people working those at five different locations.

Councilmember Goebel: I think we’re all in favor of the satellite voting places, without a doubt. I wonder if fifteen days is necessary compared to ten on a midterm election, but I certainly won’t oppose it.

President Shetler: Yeah, I think this is something we can monitor, and if it looks like it would end up being less than ‘06, then perhaps we can, you know, it could be scaled back, but I think that’s to the discretion of the Clerk at this time.

Councilmember Lloyd: Well, the other thing we don’t know is, the primary, if there will be that many contested races in the primary, so, I mean, this allows for that. She would have that money in the budget and then if we see more contests for the primary, she can use this, these funds are allocated and then for the general, we could appropriate more money if necessary. So, I mean, I think that’s a good compromise. So her request of 60, this is actually bringing us up to 40,805 total dollars for the Election Office.

Councilmember Raben: The fifteen days represents October the 11^th through October 29^th. Okay, everyone clear on that? On Exhibit B?

Councilmember Raben: I can continue on before the second. Next I’d like to move that all other 2000, 3000 and 4000 accounts for the 2010 budget be adopted as previously approved, and I would like to list those budgets: 911 Emergency –

Councilman Sutton: Excuse me, Jim. Before you move on. I thought you were going to take action on that List B, like we did on List A or are you going to include that all in with this?

Councilmember Raben: Let’s, I mean, if you would rather, we can take just this list.

Councilman Sutton: Okay, if we could. There were just a couple of things I wanted to ask on that, on that List.

President Shetler: Do you want the motion just to be on the B and vote on that, or you have a question?

Councilman Sutton: I would like for us to just vote on that List B and then move to the other items if we could.

President Shetler: Okay, it’s been moved and seconded? Do I have any questions about that? Do you have a question about that one, on B?

Councilman Sutton: Yes. On List B, there is also, includes that position in the Recorders Office, that Mortgage Deputy position. And I know a few of the Councilmembers have had a chance to meet with the Recorder in discussions about this. And I guess here’s maybe what my thoughts are and ultimately would like at the end of my thoughts, I’d like, my recommendation is that we suspend action on that, on that position and here’s my rationale behind that. I think we all are trying to be sensitive to our, what we agreed to and that was on the hiring freeze. And when we look at a hiring freeze, I mean, typically what we think about on a hiring freeze is that you’re not going to add any additional cost or additional burden to your budget and I think we’ve been trying to do that. But essentially, what we are doing maybe by this particular action here is in a kind of reverse kind of way, is that we are actually having a reduction of staff or a reduction in force that we haven’t actually announced. And I guess maybe that’s where I have a little bit of difficulty understanding maybe this approach to the hiring freeze or how we’re going about that, because there might be a number of other offices that may have some adjustments in those positions out there. I think maybe the more, the better way for us to maybe look at this, if we want to really look at the number of salary lines that we’ve got out there and make adjustments, is we sit down and take a look at all those budgets, all the county budgets like we’ve done here, and if it is determined that there are positions or salary lines that might be duplications or areas where we can no longer, as a county, be able to take on those positions, then we need to evaluate that based on the whole picture rather than just the very small micro picture that we’re looking at here, and I think I’m as sensitive to this issue as any of you guys are and trying to keep this budget in line, but I just don’t think this is maybe the best approach for us to, based upon an employee leaving, to make a decision that that particular position is no longer needed. Now we did qualify our hiring freeze by saying that if it were an urgent or an emergency related position like a position in the Sheriff’s Department or positions that are covered under contract, that we would not adjust those. But then all those that don’t fall under that category, in fact, I even made mention of it. I mean, there are certain positions out there that we know are very essential positions toward county business. Can we go through and list all those? Probably could. Have we done that? No, we haven’t. But just taking it by this approach, I feel like the more appropriate thing is maybe to suspend action on this – I feel like the more appropriate thing may be to suspend action on this until we get a better picture of what our true sense of where we are on this. And I know you guys have met with – some of you guys have met with the Recorder, but I just don’t think this is just the best approach. We may have other positions coming up along the way, which I fully anticipate that we will by the end of the year, I mean, is the decision here that we’re going to eliminate every one of those positions that become open if we don’t, if they aren’t in some of those emergency positions, then I just think it’s just a hit and miss and not necessarily a rational long-term approach that will benefit the greater good for the county.

Councilmember Lloyd: I mean, I can understand, Councilman Sutton, what you’re saying there. In this case, the Council added positions in the Recorder’s Office several years ago due to the volume of mortgages and refinancings when you had the housing boom. Those volumes are down dramatically, and we – you know, in this case it looks like there’s an opportunity here for the Council to take a position out. If housing turns around and we have larger volumes there, I think it has been mentioned to the Recorder that we could add that position back. But, I mean, there’s an opportunity here to run a more efficient office and, I guess, run a more efficient county government. So I think it’s a good opportunity to eliminate a position. And we’ve looked through the whole budget. I mean, there’s other – there may be other possibilities, but we’re in a little bit better position than the city, we don’t have to just arbitrarily eliminate jobs. But here, it seems like an opportunity for the county to save money and gather some efficiencies. So, I mean, I would be in favor of eliminating.

Councilman Sutton: Well, Councilman Lloyd, I know we had some discussion about what those numbers are. I mean, you had one set of numbers, the Recorder had another set of numbers regarding the number of filings. But based upon the historic trends, I think what we’re seeing is that based – even though this is seemingly a down market for housing, we’re still on par due to the same number of filings that we had in 2008. And I think the last numbers, it was something like 7,200 filings and the total for last year was right at about 15,000 on filings. So we are right on par with what we had last year, so that’s why I’m trying to get maybe some rationale, understanding of why we would just selectively just take one department rather than looking at the whole picture.

President Shetler: I, honestly, personally don’t feel like it was arbitrary in any way, I mean, I really feel as if, looking at those numbers and citing the statistics that you’re citing, that when you divide in the work, basically, they were operating with about 4,000 pieces or recordings per each individual. And today, they’re something in the neighborhood of a couple thousand. So, obviously, the efficiency isn’t quite there as it once was and there just is an opportunity. Now if it were a 24/7 operation and it was costing us overtime, if it were an emergency situation, I think that’s a different ball game there. But it just so happens that the Recorder’s Office happens to be one of the first ones that come up, I don’t know that, I certainly would not act any differently whether it would be the Clerk or the Treasurer or the Auditor, or whoever it may be if I saw their caseloads decrease and that each individual person wasn’t being as efficient as they once were, that I would think that would be a triggering mechanism for me, anyway.

Councilman Sutton: And I think that’s perfectly sound, but when we think about a mortgage and what we do on the county’s end, there’s several offices that are affected or touched by the Recording of a mortgage. You’ve got the Assessor, you’ve got the Recorder, you’ve got the Treasurer, you’ve got several offices, so if those are down, wouldn’t that touch on more than one office, I guess, rather than just one?

President Shetler: Well, in addition to that hiring freeze, we also said that we wouldn’t go out and really slash jobs, but as they came available, that we would do it through attrition. And that’s kind of what I’m looking at here. Councilman Raben?

Councilmember Bassemier: Tom? You talked with Ms. Tuley, you was going to address this sometime after the first of the year again about if she needs that employee. Is that what, was that your conversation?

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, I can elaborate on that just a moment. I did have the opportunity to discuss this along with Councilman Goebel with the County Recorder. And I think both of us expressed concerns about the future and I know, for one, that I made a commitment that if we see a big turn in filings, that she has my support on revisiting this issue for sure. One thing you’ve got to look at, and everybody makes very valid points here today, is housing starts are down and, you know, interest rates for a number of months have been at a real low. So I don’t think you’re going to see a huge increase in housing starts particularly if interest rates go back up. I mean, you should see more today than you will when interest rates go up a point or two or, who knows, it could go up five points. So, and again, because the interest rates have been low for quite some time, a lot of the refinancing, you know, has taken place. So again, when interest rates go up, you’re not going to see a lot of refinancing either. So it’s kind of, you know, nobody knows. Nobody can see into the future, what’s really going to happen in regards to that office, but as long as everybody is understanding of the fact that just because it’s low today doesn’t mean that it will be low a year from now or even six months from now. We can readdress this issue when we need to. And, you know, she certainly has my word on that, that if things change, we’ll revisit this. And that’s all I’ve got to add.

Councilmember Goebel: This position is not going to be filled at this particular time according to what we have at our desks, is that correct?

President Shetler: But it will also be eliminated from the salary ordinance at this point in time.

Councilmember Raben: The salary line will not be set in. It will be set in at zero.

Councilmember Goebel: But if it’s brought before us again, this position can be recreated just as it was before the opening.

Councilmember Goebel: And I believe the Recorder is planning on coming to us at a later time yet this year to try to fill it, so we would still be able to revisit at that particular time?

Councilmember Raben: And, you know, I did forget to mention one thing, you know, the Commissioners have just a week or two weeks ago, signed a contract with a firm to do some of the in-house things that, I don’t know if they were part of this individual’s responsibility or not, or whose within that office, but there has been a contract signed to have some in-house things done that might free up some other time for other individuals.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I mentioned that, that I didn’t know if it had anything to do with this position, but it could possibly have something to do with other positions. So again, nothing is forever, you know, she has my commitment that, if things make a drastic change, that we’ll definitely look at putting this back on the table.

President Shetler: And I do want to remind everybody that we do have that – I don’t know the exact title, is it perpetual fund, or whatever, the money that keeps accumulating off of filings and stuff that is set aside, that we cannot use in the general fund per se, but can be used for part-time to get things ready for the contract. And so, that does shift a lot of that burden off of regular, every day workers and shift it to part-time people that can get that work on to it, and as that’s more automated and digitized, that’s going to save a tremendous amount of time and effort, I think, in the long run as well as the employees, so it should make the whole operation of the office even more efficient as time goes on. Okay, any other comments or questions? Yes?

Councilmember Lloyd: Can we make an addition to List B? I would just want to take a look at page 142, 1090-1990 Extra Help for the County Assessor/ Reassessment. I just wondered about, we had set that in at $40,000, I’d like to hear discussion on that, but I –

Councilmember Lloyd: Page 142 in your budget book. The Extra Help, I would propose that we cut that $20,000.

Councilmember Lloyd: 1090-1990 Extra Help for County Assessor/Reassessment, I would propose to cut that $20,000, and make that $20,000 even.

President Shetler: So you’re asking to amend the motion that’s on the floor to approve List B to add this to?

President Shetler: We have a motion and a second. Okay, any questions about the amendment?

Councilmember Lloyd: Well, if you go back to prior years, we spent $14,000 in that account in 2008, so this would be a pretty healthy increase, a budget request of $40,000, to me, seemed excessive. That was, as we went through this budget last week, that may have been an oversight.

Councilman Sutton: Councilman, have you spoken with the Assessor or anybody on –

Councilman Sutton: Okay. It looks to me, I guess at this stage, you know, we’ve been dealing with this budget almost a month, this is the first time I’m hearing –

Jonathan Weaver: Good morning, Jonathan Weaver, your Vanderburgh County Assessor. This is the first I’m hearing about this idea, too. I will say that in prior years or at least for 2009, there was $75,000 budgeted for part-time help, now when we had all the separate offices, and what we’re proposing is a $35,000 savings, with this $40,000, and we have the Reassessment coming up. I think Councilman Raben eloquently put it, well, last week, saying the Reassessment is starting July 1^st, 2010.

Councilman Sutton: So what you’re saying is, this $40,000 number that we see requested for 2010, and just kind of looking at the historic patterns in there, and it’s 14, $10,000, around that range, the historic, the older patterns are based on just the Assessor’s office, the County Assessor’s office, whereas the $40,000 here, now you’re taking in those new offices and the amount that they had for this particular expense is now being (inaudible) but you’re saying now, that’s $30,000 less than if you would total up all those offices –

Jonathan Weaver: I didn’t hear the numbers Councilman Lloyd mentioned and I don’t have those off the top of my head, but what we proposed for this 2010 budget was a savings of $35,000 when you accounted all the Assessor offices, the four prior to the referendum, the three big townships and myself, was $75,000 for 2009. And we’re asking for 40,000, which is a $35,000 savings.

Councilmember Raben: I don’t want to make false assumptions here, but is one of the concerns here that Reassessment doesn’t begin until July 1, that we’ll bring staff on much earlier than that?

Councilmember Lloyd: That was one of my concerns, that we’re really only looking at half a year.

Jonathan Weaver: Well, we’re also getting an early start on reassessment, too, we have permission from the state to begin early and that’s what we’re – it’s called a rolling reassessment, and that’s what we’re doing right now, we’re in the process of revamping.

Councilmember Bassemier: Jim, I’d like to leave it as is, and then if he don’t need it, he won’t use it. I mean, he’s not going to waste it. I mean, we’re taking all of them in account now, instead of just one since they’ve all combined now.

Councilmember Kiefer: I just wanted to ask, Jonathan, on that, I mean, have you done a calculation on your man hours on what you’re going to need and do you feel comfortable with the 40,000, is what you’re saying?

Jonathan Weaver: I think it’s a good start considering what we put in the Assessor plan for you guys earlier this year and implementation of Pictometry, I think we’re off to a good start with that 40,000, yes.

Jonathan Weaver: You know, it’s hard to say at this point in time, but I would hope not.

Councilmember Kiefer: Okay, so you’ll be able to keep 40,000 or less, is what you’re saying?

President Shetler: In years past, the assessments were kind of done somewhat sporadically, but they were supposed to be like every five or ten years or something. And it seemed like there was a large surge then of manpower that needed to be done, obviously, because if it were done once every ten years or whatever it might be, you’d need a lot of field people to go out and measure and do the various different things. But now we’re on a rolling deal where, essentially, all properties are kind of reassessed or re-evaluated about every three years or so. So it’s more of a continual perpetual thing that’s going on as opposed to that surge, is it not?

Jonathan Weaver: Prior, there was a surge, prior to my term. Now we’re getting on a rolling, so this is the beginning of a rolling theory.

President Shetler: I’m wondering, you know, because now we also have Pictometry, I was thinking that that was a part of the Pictometry thing, was that we’d have people that would be able to, with a lot more precision, be able to measure those properties and the houses and detect new things that were built that we didn’t have knowledge of prior to.

Jonathan Weaver: We figured it would be, without Pictometry, it would cost nearly $100,000 in field work. So it is saving. The savings are there.

President Shetler: In the – now, since we’re doing this rolling, are you suggesting that you may need 40,000 in extra help annually or is this a one-time shot?

Jonathan Weaver: I’m saying, like, we’re requesting $40,000 for this, for 2010, and we’ll see how it goes and I’ll get back to you.

Councilmember Lloyd: Just flipping through here, in prior years it looked like 21,000 for Knight last year and 30 for Pigeon, roughly, and those are the two big ones, the other ones were pretty marginal. So –

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, actually, I think we need to wind the tape back just a moment. First there was a motion made. I made the original motion so I would have had to make the motion to modify the original motion, so we need to unwind that.

President Shetler: Well, you could take the questions separately, and add that to it as amending, and that’s what in effect we were doing.

President Shetler: Do you want to amend – do you wish to amend your motion then?

Councilmember Raben: No, I think we need to allow it to stay, the original motion.

Councilmember Lloyd: Well, then, we can just vote on the other one separately. So I’ll withdraw my motion to make it separate after our vote on the first – List B.

Jeff Ahlers: I might suggest, in order to clarify through all this that perhaps Mr. Raben ought to just restate his original motion just so that the record is clear as to what we’re voting on, which I understand is just List B, as originally stated. Now whether or not to clarify, you want to go ahead and read those four items on there so the record is completely clear as to what everybody is voting on and then you can take the Assessor issue as a separate motion next, is that what you want to do?

Councilmember Raben: That’s fine, as a matter of clarification, the original motion was for List B, which included the Recorder, the Election Office, Superintendent of County Buildings and County Council.

Councilman Sutton: And I would ask if we could take that Recorder separate from those other three. I don’t have any problems with the other three.

Councilmember Raben: Alright, so I will amend my – now we’ve got another amendment. Okay, --

President Shetler: I think it would make more sense to withdraw the motions, allow them to make separate amendments to that, vote those up or down, and then make the whole thing as it’s done after the amendments are done.

President Shetler: Do I have any amendments that anybody would like to – would you want to put that in the form of a motion to put the Recorder position back on there?

Councilman Sutton: I’d ask that we – my motion would be to set the Recorder in with no change, so right now, it’s being placed in at zero, but my motion would be at the $25,235.

Jeff Ahlers: (Inaudible – microphone not turned on) Right, all I was saying was, as a matter of point, that until List B is voted on, it hasn’t been cut so there’s no need to restore anything, correct? I mean, as it sits right now, --

Councilman Sutton: My motion then is line item, there would be no change made to that line item for 2010.

Jeff Ahlers: Right, well, okay. Does it make it easier, do you want to just vote on all of them separately? Is that easier or do you just want to make a new motion and state exactly what we’re voting on so that it’s clear?

Councilmember Raben: Just so I understand, the motion is to approve the 1040-1150 as listed in our proposed budget book.

President Shetler: So we have a motion and a second to restore the position in the Recorder’s office. Roll call please.

Councilmember Goebel: If this is restored now, then the Recorder will have the opportunity to fill it or will the Recorder have to come back to us before the filling?

Councilman Sutton: Well, we’re not moving to restore it because this hasn’t been – restore means it’s already been eliminated. The action is to not take any action.

President Shetler: For ‘09, I would say that she would probably need to come in and discuss it with us, given the resolution that we passed a few weeks ago on the hiring freeze. Come the year 2010, that position is there, and it allows the opportunity to fill that.

Councilmember Lloyd: Councilman Sutton is asking to take this off of List B, basically.

Councilmember Lloyd: So a vote, if you vote aye, you’re agreeing to take it off List B, if you vote no, you want to keep it on List B. Is that right?

Councilmember Raben: Vote yeah, you’re not doing anything, it’s as listed as submitted in the budget.

Councilmember Bassemier: I talked with Z, I think she really needs it. I’m going to vote yes also.

Councilmember Goebel: I don’t mind restoring for next year. I do not think we should fill it at this time this year, so I vote yes.

Councilmember Kiefer: This has been a really complicated question, but considering the fact that you guys have had extensive conversation with the Recorder and considering the fact that there is a commitment to fill that position later if it’s needed, I’ll vote no.

(Motion fails 2-5/Councilmembers Lloyd, Goebel, Raben, Kiefer & Shetler opposed)

President Shetler: So the motion fails then. I think it was 2-5: two for and five opposed.

Councilmember Raben: I would like to make a motion on the other three items on List B, which are the Election Office 1210-1120, Superintendent of County Buildings 1310-2300 and County Council 1480-1920 as listed on List B.

Jeff Ahlers: You’re going to need to include the Recorder, too, because it wasn’t removed, right?

Councilman Sutton: I think what he’s trying to do is just do those other three – I was assuming you’re just going to take that Recorder separately since we don’t have any action on that.

Councilmember Raben: As it is now, yeah, we will have to come back to the Recorder, so we’ll take these three because, again, we’re going to end up wanting to exempt it again, so we’ll have to take these three separate.

President Shetler: It’s been seconded. Do I have any questions or comments? Roll call please.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, now I’d like to make a motion for Recorder 1040-1150 be set in at zero.

President Shetler: It’s been moved and seconded. Do I have any questions or comments? Roll call please.

President Shetler: Yes. There being four ayes and three nays, the motion carries.

Councilmember Lloyd: Okay, I’d like to make a motion, County Assessor/Reassessment 1090-1990 Extra Help be cut $20,000 and be set in at 20,000.

President Shetler: Hold on a minute, Mr. Weaver. Do I have a second on the motion?

Councilmember Lloyd: County Assessor/Reassessment line item 1090-1990 Extra Help be cut $20,000, so it will be set in at 20,000.

President Shetler: We don’t have a second. We’re asking if anybody would second that.

President Shetler: We have a motion and a second. Do I have any questions? Any comments?

Councilmember Goebel: I have a question. Jonathan, this will, the rolling reassessment, next year all properties will be assessed, is that correct?

Jonathan Weaver: That is the goal. We have until March 1^st, 2012 to complete it. And I’d like to say, we’ve given back two full time positions this year to the county. We feel we’ve done our part to help save close to 200,000 for the 2010 budget. And to have to come back next year if we were to need that money is just, you know, it puts, you know, it wastes my time and it wastes your time. We understand we’re in a budget crunch, but we are the office that brings in the revenue. And I need the resources to be able to do that. And like I said, this saves, the original requested amount of $35,000 lower than this year’s.

President Shetler: So this money is until 2012? I mean, the Reassessment is not due until 2012?

Jonathan Weaver: As we said when we met last November with the referendum and the consolidation, that this is a work in progress. You know, we went from nine offices to one. And I feel we’re doing our part to streamline and become efficient and save taxpayer dollars. I mean, we’ve cut, we gave back a position in January that saved roughly 28,000, I mean, we just gave you back a position a couple of weeks ago that saved roughly another 27,000. And alls we are asking for – alls we’re asking for is part-time help, and we didn’t have any part-time help money this year.

President Shetler: Is that length of time that you’re going to have to do the assessment, is that longer than what it’s been in the past years? Because it seems like it was always done within a nine or twelve month period of time.

Jonathan Weaver: Originally before this passed, July it was, it was until July 1^st, 2011. Now they’ve pushed it back a year so it’s 2010 to March 1^st, 2012.

President Shetler: Now, my point is that, and perhaps you don’t have the history on it as I don’t, and I’m thinking ten years ago when we had another form of assessments that we actually worked under, when we had the surge kind of an operation, it seemed like that was a brief period of time, you know, like a nine months or twelve month period of time that they had to get that operation completed. And now I guess we’re learning that it’s a twenty-four to thirty month, which, what that’s telling me is that the need for creating with temporaries may not be quite there as it was in the past because of the way the state has redrawn the whole idea on reassessments, on being in this more rolling method.

Jonathan Weaver: You know, I don’t know the history on the time-frame with the past reassessments, but I will say that the numbers are there. As Councilman Lloyd mentioned, in 2008, Pigeon and Knight had their part-time budgets just for those two townships are more than what I’m originally requesting for 2010.

President Shetler: I don’t know, Jim, I don’t know if you or Royce could give, you know, years past on the time that we did assessments and if it was drawn out for a long period of time like this is or I was thinking it was a short period of time.

Councilmember Raben: No, it’s typically drawn out, you know, the whole duration. I mean, that’s pretty much how it has been in the past. But I think what may be concerning here to Jonathan is, is this 40 just until July or are you going to come back for 40 more? You had stated earlier that you thought you could make it all happen with this 40 and, I mean, is that your intent, to go the balance of the year on this 40?

Councilmember Raben: Okay. I mean, that, to me, that makes a big difference. If you think this 40 is it, you know, then we’re not looking at 40 more down the road, then I’m comfortable with 40.

Councilmember Lloyd: The motion was to take the County Assessor/Reassessment Extra Help 1090-1990, we had set it in at $40,000 a week ago, I would cut that $20,000 and set it in at $20,000. That’s the motion and then there was a second as well.

Councilmember Kiefer: I’m going to vote with the consideration that you’re not going to come back in July and that the whole 40,000 is going to get the job done. I’ll vote no.

President Shetler: Yes. There being two ayes and five nays, the motion is denied. Thank you.

(Motion fails 2-5/Councilmembers Sutton, Bassemier, Goebel, Raben & Kiefer opposed)

Councilmember Raben: That concludes List B. Next, I move that all other 2000, 3000 and 4000 accounts for 2010 be adopted as previously approved for the following: 911 Emergency Services, Airport Authority, Area Plan Commission, Auditor, Auditor/Reassessment, Bond Issue, Burdette Park, Circuit Court, Circuit Court Supplemental Adult Probation, Convention & Visitors Commission, Convention Center Operating Fund, Coroner, County Treasurer, County Assessor, County Assessor/Reassessment, County Recorder, County Clerk, County Clerk IV-D, County Commissioners, County Commissioners/CCD Fund, County Council, County Highway, County Co-Op Extension, County Surveyor, Cum Bridge, Disclosure Fees, Drainage Board, Drug & Alcohol Deferral Services, Election Office, Health Department, Jail, Jail Bond, Legal Aid, Legal Aid/United Way, Local Drug Free Community, Local Emergency Planning Commission, Local Roads & Streets, Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals/Reassessment, Prosecutor, Prosecutor Fees, Prosecutor Check Recovery, Prosecutor Drug Law Enforcement Program, Prosecutor IV-D, Prosecutor Pre-Trial Diversion, Prosecutor Stop Domestic Violence, Prosecutor Victims/Witness Assistance Program, Prosecutor Forfeiture Fund, Public Defender Commission, Riverboat, Sheriff, Sheriff/Community Corrections, Sheriff/Mis-demeanor Housing, Sheriff/Vanderburgh County Community Corrections, Misdemeanor Offender, Sheriff/Domestic Violence, Superintendent of County Buildings, Superior Court, Superior Drug Court, Superior Court Supplemental Adult Probation, Surveyor Maps, Surveyor Corner Perpetuation Fund, The Centre, Tourism Capital Improvement, Veterans Administration, Voter Registration, and Weights & Measures.

Councilmember Bassemier: Jim, before you get a second, would you leave out the Airport? Just the Airport, I’m going to abstain from the Airport.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I would like to remove the Airport from the list of budgets in my prior motion.

President Shetler: We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Roll call please.

Councilmember Raben: And then I would like to move that all other 2000, 3000, and 4000 accounts be adopted as previously approved for the Airport.

Councilmember Raben: I will restate it again. I move that all other 2000, 3000, and 4000 accounts be approved for the Airport.

Councilmember Bassemier: This is just the Airport. Okay. I couldn’t hear over here.

President Shetler: Yes. There being six ayes, no nays and one abstention, the motion carries.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next, all Councilmembers have been given a copy of the final insurance data. I move that the County Council approve the 2010 budget as listed. These figures represent the County’s share of the county’s three current health plans, with a total employee contribution of 8%. The figures are for full-time county employees and do not include insurance for Superior Court Magistrates. I would like to make this insurance budget listing made as part of the record. I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Raben: Let me, real quick, I need to make – along with this motion, if you turn to your insurance data, I need to make one – there is a typo. It’s on the first item, County Council/ General Fund insurance, the correct figure is $9,800,116, so it’s $20,000, there’s a $20,000 typo there.

Councilmember Raben: It’s on your insurance – it’s the 2010 approved insurance. It’s not that one.

Councilmember Raben: The first item under County Council General Fund, there is a $20,000 typo. Omit $20,000 from that, should be $9,800,116. And with that, I’d like to make that in the form of a motion.

President Shetler: Alright, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any questions or comments? Roll call please.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next, I move that the Council set a tax rate as deemed appropriate by the State of Indiana Tax Commissioners following a review of our final budget.

President Shetler: We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Roll call please.

Councilmember Raben: Next, I move that we set the Cum Bridge Tax Rate at .03 cents per $100/assessed valuation.

President Shetler: It’s been moved and seconded. Any questions or comments? Roll call please.

Councilmember Raben: And next I move that we set $1,000,000 in COIT into Local Roads & Streets and $1,000,000 in COIT into the County Highway Fund. I’d like to make that in the form of a motion.

President Shetler: It’s been moved and seconded. Do I have any questions? Yes, Councilman Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Those are the same figures as 2009, is that correct? And based on the COIT numbers coming in, that would be adequate, that we have adequate funds for that?

Councilmember Raben: Okay, that, as far as our regular business, takes care of my part. I’d like to thank everybody for their hard work and effort and the spirit of cooperation that all of us – we worked very well together again this year as we always do, and I’d like to thank everybody. Just to give you an idea where we ended up today, the cuts that have been voted upon represent $2,562,864. The total approved budget after today is $63,561,053. So when it’s all said and done, that represents almost 47,000 budget less than last year. So we were able through everybody’s hard efforts to bring this monster in under last year’s figure and with that, the taxpayers, you know, I think it was everyone’s intent for them not to see a rate increase and we’ve done everything possible we could to make that happen, and it’s, you know, everyone’s hopes that that’s what’s going to happen. And it may possibly even see a reduction and, again, thanks to everybody. And if you have any questions, I’d be glad to answer them.

President Shetler: I would like to also add to that, Jim, and point out, with Mr. Weaver out there, and Z out there, and the Sheriff, Sheriff Williams, and seeing Rick, different department heads, elected officeholders, without these guys being involved and Gary, different ones being involved and really working hard at doing their part, it’s been a team effort. And it certainly hadn’t been the Council sitting here with an axe wacking away at it. They came in here ready to make our jobs a lot easier and I certainly greatly appreciate that. And appreciate the effort that all of us have put into it, the amount of time and effort. I know in the beginning, I passed out the pencil sharpeners and I think everybody was reminded constantly that this is a time of sharpening those pencils, so I appreciate it. Yes, Councilman Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes, I’d just like to say, I really pondered a long time. I really wanted to give the county workers a two percent raise, and, you know, I brought it up about three weeks ago and I know we’re going to come in some hard times, and I’m really saddened by the Whirlpool layoffs, and I really wish we could have gave the employees a two percent raise, but I didn’t think it was there. Here at the end, I thought maybe we could find it for them, and I surely hope next year that we can find it for them and I know last year the county officeholders, they gave up their raise and I really, really wanted to give it to them. My heart was in giving it to them but I was just afraid, with, I know the economy is going to be really tough next year, going to get tougher, you know, with the property tax cuts and stuff like that, so like I said, my heart was in giving the county employees, the hard working county employees a two percent raise, but I was afraid to right now. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.

Councilmember Lloyd: I wanted to also echo what Councilman Raben, Shetler and Bassemier have said. I think bringing this budget in below last year is quite a feat and I commend all of you for your hard work and depending on where the assessed valuation falls, we don’t know if the rate would go up or down a little bit. I think the County Council has certainly done their job to try to keep that rate as low as possible for taxpayers. Thank you.

Councilman Sutton: Again, without being redundant, I think this Council has done a tremendous job in bringing this home. Jim, leading the way as finance chair and making some very hard choices in some places and the department heads, from the very onset being very agreeable and bringing to us workable budgets that were I think reflective of not just the economic times, not just the changes that we’ve had to adjust to from a tax standpoint from the state, but reflective of what the community needs to deal with from a county side. So I’d just like to commend everyone for their hard work. I think what we’re going to find is this is a budget that will work for Vanderburgh County. It’s a budget that, it’s, we’d like to have done some other things, I think we are still, continue to be supportive of visionary measures, you know, we continue to put money into projects or money aside for future projects that will build potentially jobs for this community. We’re continuing the support the dental clinic, which I’m very proud of, and continue to support the Initiative Based Assistance Program, which is providing day care for thousands of families, or has provided for thousands of families throughout this community. So we’re doing some very creative things while at the same time I think we’re being very prudent and as we’re looking at things, since we had the lengthy discussion about hiring freeze, things we’re continuing to take that a step at a time, and I think we’ll grow and find the best fit for what works for the county. So, Mr. President, I just commend you for working us through this whole process.

Councilmember Goebel: I’d like to also thank Councilman Raben for his leadership and all the members of this body for working within our means. And as Ed mentioned, it’s unfortunate we couldn’t grant pay raises, but we did preserve jobs and benefits, and in today’s economic situation, I think we’ve done that under last year’s budget, so thanks also to the department heads for coming in with a flat lined. Thanks, everyone here.

President Shetler: And Bill, I didn’t mean to overlook you, and I apologize, you’re over to my left here, and harder to see. Alright, anybody else, any questions or comments? A motion for adjournment would be in order.

Councilmember Raben: We had a lot of accolades for everybody, which was truly deserved, but I forgot Sandie and Sarah Nunn, also, Teri, everybody that’s behind the scenes doing a whole lot more than what we even want to think about.

President Shetler: Thank you, Jim. You’re right. The next meeting is September 30^th at 8:30, our regular scheduled meeting.

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 a.m.)