VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL

BUDGET HEARINGS

SEPTEMBER 1, 2010

The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 1^st day of September, 2010 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 9:40 a.m. by County Council President Russell Lloyd, Jr.

President Lloyd: I’d like to call to order the Vanderburgh County Council 2011 budget hearings. We are back in session, September 1^st, 2010. Attendance roll call please.

President Lloyd: For the Pledge of Allegiance, I’d like to ask everybody to stand and Councilman Raben please lead us.

(Pledge of Allegiance was given)

President Lloyd: Thank you. Before we start, just a couple remarks. Welcome to our budget hearings. This has been a difficult budget for the Council. We are anticipating tax revenue local income tax losing about two and a half to three million dollars next year and that’s the one percent tax that people pay on their paychecks. It goes to Indianapolis and they remit it back to the county. Where in a normal year, we would get about fifteen million, we’re looking at twelve and a half to thirteen. Some of the goals that we undertook for this year’s budget was, first of all, let’s preserve all necessary county services. Things that we are required by Indiana law to continue to maintain: county jail, sheriff department, county courts, county highway, and then also the government offices in this building as well as Burdette Park and some of the other things that county government entails. We looked at having no additional employees, the county has continued a hiring freeze and we’re looking at ways where we can possibly streamline government. But one of the things that I had asked at the beginning of the year, since the employees had had a zero percent pay increase in 2009, we’d asked the Council to look hard to see if we could come up with the funding for an employee pay raise for 2011. Also, this budget we chose to undertake no new initiatives. We’re having a very difficult time funding all that we have so we asked for no new initiatives, no new employees. Finally, we’ve got improvements to pay for at – there’s new computerization that the county is going into contract with. We paid over 2.4 million dollars for all the computerization in county government, more devices than employees, which is kind of an amazing thing, but some employees use multiple devices. We’ve also got improvements that need to be done at Burdette Park to keep that an attractive facility as well as road projects: north Green River Road being one of the more prominent and others. So to get started here, I’d like to thank the members that have put in a lot a hard work. Our new finance chair, Tom Shetler, I know he’s had to spend a lot of time on this under the tutelage of Jim Raben. We’ve got a new minority leader, Mike Goebel, who worked with the minority members of Council. I’d like to thank all of you for your hard work on this and we’ll undertake this at this time.

Before we get into the county budgets, a new legal requirement is that in a public hearing, the County Council adopt the Solid Waste District budget. The Solid Waste District is a quasi independent operation that they receive their funding from tipping fees. They’re actually under the administration of the city of Evansville, but the county also has administrative jurisdiction. So you should have a Solid Waste District budget in front of you and we have the executive director, Mr. Joe Ballard, is here, who can kind of give us a brief summary and answer any questions. So this is item four A, Solid Waste District budget.

Joe Ballard: Okay, thank you, President Lloyd. Let me just make a couple of comments and I can take any questions if you like. I guess first of all, as you said, we’re a, I guess, from my political science days, we’re a separate independent district. We’re neither city nor county, but both in another way. We’re a county-wide agency. We are funded actually by fees from the landfill. We’re not tax supported or anything like that so we get two dollars per ton of all the waste that goes into the landfill. The last couple of years, that had been going down pretty drastically. It has come back up in the last four or five months, so I’m sure we’ll be fine. We do recycling and waste reduction, that’s our goal or whatever, so as my little joke is, when I go to speak to somebody, I want you to generate trash, because I get money from that, so I can ask you not to generate trash. And they all scratch their heads as do I. But that’s the way it’s funded. Last year we reduced our budget from 2009 by $78,000 or sixteen percent because of less money coming in. We laid off one staff member, cut a number of things. This year the money is a bit better as I said, especially in the last four or five months, but we cut our budget again by 8.7 percent or about 37,500. So we now have a very tight, frugal budget, two staff members, our budget is $392,000. We contract with different private companies and not for profits to do our programs for us and we administer the programs. So the Household Hazardous Waste Day or Tox Away Day, we do that. Our electronics, our computer recycling day, the monthly drop or bi-monthly drop-off recycling days at the old Walmart on the westside and Evansville Day School and the 4-H Center. We contract with Wesselman Woods to do those for us. But we’re still the ones in charge of those. I can take any questions if you’d like.

President Lloyd: Mr. Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Just a point, Joe, and essentially, your revenues are down because you rely a lot on industrial waste that may happen. With production of an industry being down, therefore, less waste going into the landfill. So a good economy means a lot of good garbage out there, as well.

Joe Ballard: That would be correct, yes. When we started the Solid Waste District, we did a – me and a guy from USI’s technical assistance center, which I don’t believe they have now, we did an industrial survey. And I believe seventy-five percent of the waste that goes in this landfill, Laubscher Meadows Landfill, in this county is from industrial and commercial. That’s the great majority of it, of course, so when the economy is booming, we get trash. When the economy is slow, not much goes in there and we have less money coming in.

Councilmember Shetler: And the positive thing that you guys do is really keep things that could be recycled and reused and, or somehow in the economy, those things are kept aside through the programs that you administer through this funding that takes place. And again, no property taxes, it’s all money that comes out of fees that are placed for, primarily the industrial people who are placing their scrap.

Joe Ballard: And I guess I would say, with industrial people, from an industrial standpoint, they pay for their trash, so it’s to their advantage to reduce their waste. I mean, that’s a cost savings to them to reduce the amount of waste they generate. And a lot of industries are into doing that. I guess Toyota would be a primary example. They talk about a , they have a zero waste program at Toyota, whether they’ve achieved that I don’t know. But that is their goal.

Councilmember Shetler: Right, thank you, Joe.

President Lloyd: Other questions? Mr. Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Joe, I just want to commend you: it looks like you’ve got a good, tight budget here and pretty conservative, and you only have two employees then?

Joe Ballard: Yes, myself and Susan Jeffries. She is the administrator or Assistant Director and it’s just the two of us. We do have some funding for a part-type person. We had a retired person that worked at some of these recycling days and spent time in the office. With only two people, there’s occasion when neither of us are there, something like that, so he would fill in. And he works for the Census Bureau part of the time, too, and he’s sick right now. He got bitten by a brown recluse spider and he’s been on dialysis, so I don’t know what’s going to happen. The last time I talked to him, he said he’s doing better. But we don’t have him at this – he hasn’t worked for a couple of months, anyway. But yes, it’s two people, basically.

Councilmember Kiefer: Okay, thanks, Joe. Good job.

Joe Ballard: Thank you.

President Lloyd: Other questions? Just a point of information, all the Commissioners serve on this board and then I’m the Council representative, so you appointed me to that board and I would agree with what Joe had said about the trash does follow the economy. But obviously, the Solid Waste District, the public education, we take quite a bit of material that could just be thrown out into the fields or the woods and it gets recycled. The electronics recycling, we’ve seen tremendous growth as people get rid of televisions, old computers, and things like that. So its worked out really well and it’s been a great partnership with the community. So we would need a motion and a second to approve this budget. The only other point I’d make is that the increases are, since this is administered by the city, it’s the city increase, which I believe is two percent salary increase?

Joe Ballard: Yes, that’s correct.

Councilmember Kiefer: I move that we approve.

President Lloyd: Is there a second?

Councilmember Shetler: Second.

President Lloyd: Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Terry?

Councilmember Terry: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: I vote yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Lloyd?

President Lloyd: Yes. Approved seven/zero. Thank you.

Joe Ballard: Thank you.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Lloyd: We’ll move on to item five, Finance Chairman Tom Shetler and we’ll start with the individual county department budgets, the blue book.

Councilmember Shetler: Okay, I brought with me today a red pen, and last year I brought with me a pencil sharpener. The pencil sharpener was to keep in mind that we need to keep a sharp eye on the budget last year and get it down to the point we could. This year is to remind me that really only the federal government has the ability to write in red ink. We don’t have that ability. We have to live within our means. It is mandated by state law for us to do that. The cuts, the things that we’re recommending are being done because of really a decrease in funds that we have available to us. So this will be reminding me today that we have to keep our budget down to a point that we cannot allow any additional funds to go over into deficit spending. First I’ll move that all salary lines including FICA, PERF and Insurance will be set in at our September 8 meeting. I have before you copies of some proposed budget cuts. What I intend to do is go through department by department, go through those budget cuts, I will make a motion to approve the budget with these cuts in mind as we go through it. Please stop me if you have any questions. At that point then we could vote on the motion at that point, and then take under consideration any questions or disputes that we have that regards that. So we’ll just kind of follow along with a given motion right now to approve the budget as submitted and with the following amendments to the submission.

Councilmember Kiefer: And do you need a second for that motion? Or is that done at the end?

President Lloyd: You’re going to do a motion for each department then?

Councilmember Shetler: No, going to do a motion up to the point for, a motion and a second now, and approval up to the point that we have a question or a dispute on something and then we’ll stop it, approve everything that’s been done prior to that time, then deal with the question or dispute and go forward from that point on.

Councilmember Kiefer: I’ll second that then.

CLERK

Councilmember Shetler: The first department on page one, the County Clerk, again, the recommendations are that account number 1990, the request was for $15,470, that we make a cut of $5,470 in that, so that’s a change that makes it, that line item $10,000. The next line is 2600, request was for $75,000, to cut $20,000 out of that line, making that $55,000. The next is account number 3540, the request was for $20,000, making a cut of $5,000 in that line, for a new number of $15,000. Line 4210, account number 4210 request was for $1,000 for Office Furniture and I’m recommending to cut that $1,000. There are some surplus furnitures available to us in the basement of this building and other places, so that there would be nothing approved on that. The total cuts in that department as outlined are $31,470. Any questions, any comments, any further additions? The next then would be the Auditor’s budget and that is on page seven –

CLERK IV-D

President Lloyd: Okay, so if a department like County Clerk IV-D, if you skip it, then that’s approved, no change?

Councilmember Shetler: Yes. County Clerk IV-D and no changes to be made to that. It is as submitted.

Councilmember Bassemier: Do you want to go ahead and make a motion and a second and vote it and that one is done, or are you going to do them all the way –

President Lloyd: We’re going to keep going until there is a question and then we’ll take a motion on everything that’s been submitted.

Councilmember Raben: And Tom, it might make it easier for you just to put in the amount you want to set in rather than having to go through the request, the cut amount, because we have that before us, just give the amount you want to set each line item in.

AUDITOR

Councilmember Shetler: Thank you, coming from experience there, James. Appreciate that. Okay, page seven, the County Auditor, account number 2600 set that at $10,500. Account number 3530, set that at $4,000. Any other questions or additions in the Auditor’s office?

TREASURER

Councilmember Shetler: County Treasurer, on page 10. Actually came in for a late change himself setting the line item 3410 to a number of $15,000. Any questions?

RECORDER

Councilmember Shetler: Next is the Sheriff’s department, nothing on the County Recorder’s office, as submitted on page 13.

President Lloyd: Just one point on that one. We had some emails back and forth on whether the Recorder’s Perpetuation fund would contribute funding towards the computerization, and you saw that calculation, but I guess we weren’t able to get an agreement with the County Recorder, so there’s 800,000 in that fund and we had requested 91,000 towards 2011 computerization, but we weren’t able to reach an agreement on that. So I guess, if we could reach any kind of agreement prior to the 8^th we could change that. Is that correct?

Councilmember Raben: Yeah. And I think it’s important, you know, where that fund is healthy enough to pay their percentage of computer services, we need to try to shift those funds there.

President Lloyd: It would certainly help the County’s general fund budget if they would, you know, it’s money sitting there that I’m not sure they have any kind of budgetary request for that $800,000, where they could assist the county, and I had pointed out to Z Tuley that this was a one-time request. Whether another Council would come back and ask in a future year, that’s a different story, but at least we thought it was a fair way to allocate that. So we’ll see if we can come up with that.

Councilmember Shetler: And I might point out that this is not the only department that was asked of. What we have tried to do is to seek out other funds that don’t affect the general fund per se, that we might be able to divert some of the expenses over there, freeing up some general fund monies for possible salary increases and the like. So that was something that’s been requested of a few different departments along the way that have other funds available to them.

Councilmember Goebel: How much was that amount?

Councilmember Shetler: That’s going to affect about $91,000. Adversely affect 91,000.

President Lloyd: And I guess the reason we brought that up is we’re passing up the Recorder’s budget and I believe there was no changes to that budget.

Councilmember Shetler: That’s correct.

President Lloyd: But I wanted to point this out, that she does have that Perpetuation Fund that we requested some assistance for the computer hardware/software license maintenance, etcetera.

Z Tuley: Do you need me to come forward?

President Lloyd: Do we have any questions for the Recorder on this?

Councilmember Raben: I’ll, between now and September, Z, I’ll assign myself with the task to work with you on this, okay?

Councilmember Shetler: Alright, thank you.

SHERIFF

Councilmember Shetler: We’ll go on to the Sheriff budget, page 14. Line item or account number 1130-0199 set that in at $9,000. Line 1130-0115 set that in at zero. Line 1130-0116 set in at zero. Account number 1210 set in at $63,000. Account number 1750 set in at $133,750. Account number 1911 set in at $396,666. Account number 2210 set in at $225,000. Line item 2220 set in at $12,000. Line item 2230 set in at $80,000. Line item 3200 set in at $25,000. Line item 3310 set in at $15,000. Line item 4230 set in at zero. Line item 4290 set in at zero.

Councilmember Raben: Can I make a brief (inaudible). I did have some dialogue with the Sheriff prior to today’s meeting. One of the requests that has been zeroed out is in regards to the liaison officer for the new North High School, and as everyone recalls, the junior high opens in August of next year, the high school, the first of 2012. The Sheriff is looking at coming back to us in June or July of next year requesting that for the balance of 2011, to begin training and moving towards the direction of putting a liaison officer in that school. Along with that, I think he’s working on getting a pledge from the Evansville School Corporation to help offset some of that cost. So just letting everybody know that, and I think this is one that we’re going to look very favorably at supporting in mid-year of next year.

Councilmember Shetler: Any other questions or comments on the Sheriff department?

(Table continued on next page)

SHERIFF/JAIL

Councilmember Shetler: Next is Jail, now on page 26. And account number 1301 set in at $13,000. Account number 1750 set in at $66,000. Account number 2260 set in at $650,000. Account number 2600 to be set in at $20,000. Account number 3310 set in at $5,000. Any questions?

SHERIFF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Councilmember Shetler: No change to the Sheriff Domestic Violence on page 33.

SURVEYOR

Councilmember Shetler: On page 34, the County Surveyor, no changes to that budget.

CORONER

Councilmember Shetler: We go to page 36, the County Coroner, line item 1210 set in at 61,067. Line 2710 set in at $1,000. Account number 3190 set in at $4,000. Any questions about the County Coroner’s office?

PROSECUTOR

PROSECUTOR IV-D

PROSECUTOR GRANTS

Councilmember Shetler: Next is the Prosecutor’s office and Prosecutor IV-D, and Fees-Check Recovery, and Drug Law Enforcement Program, the Victims/Witness Assistance Program, and Domestic Violence, there are no changes to be made to that department. Any questions?

ASSESSOR

Councilmember Shetler: Next is page 48, County Assessor. No recommended changes to that department.

ELECTION OFFICE

Councilmember Shetler: Next, that brings us to the Election Office, which is on page 60. And this is fairly extensive. I’ll give you the rationale on it first. Real quickly, some of this is a matter of cash flow. We’re recommending to appropriate half the recommended amount for the year, that’s because next year is a city election year. We will be billing the city for the expenses that are incurred, so we will receive that money that will actually help us to then pay for the fall election, so that we wouldn’t need to encumber any other or get any other money appropriated at this point in time. So half the budget will work for us as far as cash flow is concerned. So, Tom, this is fifty percent of everything?

Councilmember Shetler: That is correct.

Councilmember Kiefer: Does he have to read in each and every one of these line item numbers?

President Lloyd: I think so, legally.

Councilmember Raben: You can enter them (inaudible – microphone not turned on).

Councilmember Shetler: Submit this as part of the record? Okay.

Councilmember Kiefer: Can we do it that way to make it easier?

Councilmember Shetler: Why don’t we – have we made a motion on the prior part and then we’ll make a separate motion on this to submit that, and then we’ll go on. So I don’t know if we did make a motion, if not, I make motion on the other and –

Councilmember Kiefer: And I second.

Councilmember Shetler: – approve and get a second.

President Lloyd: Okay, there’s a motion on all the prior budget changes by Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Kiefer. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Terry?

Councilmember Terry: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Lloyd?

President Lloyd: Yes. That motion passes seven/zero.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Shetler: Okay, now on the Election Office, I would move for approval as submitted. I think you all have a copy of that. The effective bottom line would be $215,530 and do I need to put anything more specific?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, I would just, so that there is not a misunderstanding on the record, that you’re not moving for approval of the budget as submitted, but approval of the budget as amended by your submitted cuts that are being made as an exhibit and incorporated into the record. Is that correct? Is that good for you?

Councilmember Shetler: Okay. So moved.

Councilmember Kiefer: Second.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Kiefer on the Election Office budget, which the budget that’s being requested will be all, one hundred percent reimbursed by the city, is that correct? I believe that’s correct. Okay. Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Terry?

Councilmember Terry: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Lloyd?

President Lloyd: Yes. That budget is approved, seven/zero.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

VOTER REGISTRATION

Councilmember Shetler: On to Voter Registration on page 62, no changes.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION

Councilmember Shetler: Page 64, County Extension. The recommendation there is on line 3530, and that’s to reduce that by $361, making that $72,934 to set in. Any questions?

AREA PLAN

Councilmember Shetler: Next is Area Plan Commission and there’s no changes recommended there.

DRAINAGE BOARD

Councilmember Shetler: No changes in the Drainage Board.

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

Councilmember Shetler: Veterans Services on page 70, one recommendation. Line item 4210 which is Office Furniture, again, I think we can direct them to go to the basement and see what we have available in surplus, but to set that 4210 in at zero. Any questions, comments?

COMMISSIONERS

Councilmember Shetler: Next is the County Commissioners budget on page 71, to set line 3040 at $18,962. Line 3500, actually is going to, there was a math error there and it needs to be set up to $45,117. Line 3620 to be set at $13,500. Line 3750 to be set in at $66,365. Line 3931 to be set in at $20,000. Any questions or comments?

WEIGHTS & MEASURES

Councilmember Shetler: Weights & Measures on page 75, account number 2210 to be set in at $4,000. Account number 2300 to be set in at $1,200. Account number 2600 to be set in at $400. Account number 3130 to be set in at $300. Account number 3520 to be set in at $1,200. Account number 3580 to be set in at $1,200. Account number 4250 to be set in at $500. Any questions or comments?

PUBLIC DEFENDER

Councilmember Shetler: Public Defender, and I might explain a little bit there. Public Defender, account 1770 to be set in at 38,202. Account number 1820 set in at, again, another math error, it needs to be set up to $40,072. And account number 3948 to be set in at zero. Now that is the Death Penalty and the recommendation on that is to try to set that in this year for an appropriation so that we can encumber the money for next year.

Councilmember Goebel: I failed to meet with the Public Defender but I’ll inform him if you haven’t already.

Councilmember Shetler: No, I actually rode up on the elevator with him and I did not discuss that with him. But that money is not being cut from there. The money is being transferred essentially into this year is what our task will be later.

President Lloyd: We want to fund the death penalty in 2010, so we’re going to appropriate 250,000 in this year and that’s why we’re not going to have anything in the 2011 budget.

Councilmember Shetler: Bill, did you have anything further to add on that? Alright, any questions?

President Lloyd: I mean, that line item will still be there if something comes up?

Councilmember Shetler: Correct. Hopefully, there won’t be because I think this would put us up to – with our match of a million dollars for the death penalty, which would be more than enough to carry in most circumstances.

SUPERINTENDENT OF COUNTY BUILDINGS

Councilmember Shetler: The next is the Superintendent of County Buildings, and that line 2210 to be set in at $300. Line 2300 to be set in at $500. Line 3510 to be set in at $750.

CIRCUIT COURT

Councilmember Shetler: Next is Circuit Court, and line 3620 to be set in at zero. That will be picked up again later on. That’s another area where we transferred money out of the general to another fund.

SHERIFF/COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

Councilmember Shetler: Community Corrections, any questions about Circuit? Community Corrections line item 1850 to be set in at $50,000.

SUPERIOR COURT

Councilmember Shetler: Superior Court line 1690 be set in at $67,284.

President Lloyd: What page is that?

Councilmember Shetler: I was looking for that and I hadn’t found it yet.

Councilmember Goebel: Page 92.

President Lloyd: Oh, I see it. Thanks. 1690-1370, okay.

Councilmember Shetler: That would have to actually go to Job Study for approval. It’s reclassifying that particular employee, so that’s why that’s being set back to today’s level. The line item 3903 is to be set at $40,000. 3941 to be set in at $7,000. Line 3949 is to be set in at $8,000. Line 4210 needs to be added to $4,000. And then it’s taken away again. I don’t understand that entry. It’s over my head on that accounting procedure there. Line 4220 is $2,000 and 4220 is also another account entry to zero it back. Any questions?

DRUG & ALCOHOL DEFERRAL SERVICE (DADS)

Councilmember Shetler: The next is the Drug & Alcohol Deferral, line 3600 at $7,650, line 3780 to be set in at $100. Justification on that 3600 is that’s rent, and we are hoping to try to get that department to look at moving into one of our county facilities where there’s ample room and stuff.

Councilmember Kiefer: And that gives them mid-year –

Councilmember Shetler: They’ve got six months.

Councilmember Kiefer: Yeah, six months to get that accomplished.

President Lloyd: And they indicated they were on a month to month lease. So give them time there.

Councilmember Kiefer: I think it’s a good move. No pun intended.

THE CENTRE

Councilmember Shetler: No changes in The Centre.

BURDETTE PARK

Councilmember Shetler: Burdette Park, which is on page 101. Line 1180 to set in at $500,000. Line 2220 set in at $2,500. Line item 2310 to be set in at $9,500. Line 3200 to be set in at $145,000. Line 3550 to be set in at $25,000. Line 3700 to be set in at $1,000. Any questions or comments?

LEGAL AID

Councilmember Shetler: The next department is Legal Aid, page 105. Line item 3140 to be set in at $1,125. Line item 3410 to be set in at zero. Line item 3730 to be set in at $200. Any questions, comments?

COUNTY COUNCIL

Councilmember Shetler: Next is County Council. Line item 1920 to be set in at $10,000,000. Line item 3461 to be set in at $456,461. Line item 3520 zero. Line item 3860 to be set in at $1,527,550.

Councilmember Kiefer: What was that number again?

Councilmember Shetler: Okay, I’m sorry. It’s $1,624,550. I’m sorry, I didn’t get the – that was on the $90,000 change there from the Recorder’s office. So if we can get that worked out, that may be revisited between now and September 8^th.

Councilmember Shetler: Okay, the next is the Riverboat.

Councilmember Raben: Hey, can we discuss that just a moment?

President Lloyd: Okay, we’re on County Council budget, page 108 and 109.

Councilmember Raben: Yes, and this is, while we’re on Contractual Computer anything in regards to technology, I would like between now and our final meeting, I think this body needs to pass an ordinance of some sort or, not an ordinance, but a resolution. I know there’s been a request made and it was filled by Matt Arvay to give us a breakdown on how many desktops, how many laptops and so on and so forth. We know that the number is significantly higher of computers than we have county employees. I think there needs to be a serious push on our end to try to limit those numbers. I don’t think you should have the opportunity, other than in certain circumstances, to have a laptop and a desktop. You know, I don’t think you need both. I think if you have a laptop, you lose your desktop. But I think there’s a substantial amount of replacement equipment that we can eliminate. I think the number is in excess of 200 more computers than we have employees. So I would like to see this number drastically dropped even between now and September. I think, you know, we need to force that issue and come back and even chop more from this.

President Lloyd: A little bit, and I’ve spent a lot time on this. A little bit of that number, a printer is a device so that counts as a machine, so I mean, an employee can have two things, a computer and a printer, right?

Councilmember Raben: But there are employees that have desktops and laptops.

President Lloyd: Right, and I know –

Councilmember Raben: The laptop, you can have a monitor for your laptop, you can have a keyboard, but you don’t need both.

President Lloyd: Right, I mean, you can have a docking station for a laptop if you take that laptop out in the field rather than having another desktop there. And I don’t know how prevalent that is. Mr. Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Thank you. Speaking about the computer services, I’m not sure how long this contract runs, but you know, I think we need to get together with the city and look at maybe getting some competitive bidding on this or maybe even doing an evaluation if it makes more sense to bring it in-house. I mean, this is a big budget item on computers. I know when we do Health care, which is a big budget item, we will look at more than one vendor or one supplier for insurance. And I think we need to constantly evaluate things in that direction for the computer services, as well.

Councilmember Raben: Good point.

President Lloyd: Real Quick. And some of the increase, the original computer budget for the county was 2.4 million, which is just a huge amount of money. The PC refresh with licenses is about 500 machines. We asked that that be dropped in half, and a five year lease, we’re budgeting about $121,000. The accounting software for the financial statements that the Auditor and Treasurer have to use and it actually goes with the city, the old VAX program, we’ve got to get off that. It’s a 20 year old piece of equipment. We’re moving that to the CCD budget, $160,234, which is a five year lease. And then the computer area had requested two new employees for county government as computer support and we cut that, which was $78,000, so we changed that to zero. I mean, we tried to do everything we could on this budget.

Councilmember Raben: And I understand, but I think there is still more room. I think things are a bit out of hand and I think we’ve gotten too used to being able to get what we want, and I think we’re beyond that point today. So we need to take a hard look at it, and you know, when we’re talking about from a contractual side where you’ve got the support, you know, the outside support. You know, if anyone of those laptops or desktops that you remove from the system is that much less work that we have to do to maintain them all. I’m confident, at least I am in my own mind, that it’s not fixed. That we’re not doing the best we can do at the cheapest possible cost we can do. And that’s all I’m saying. I think we need to look at this hard, maybe we don’t accomplish it between now and September, but we need to look at it as hard as we can and hopefully have a better grasp of and controls of these expenses by next year.

President Lloyd: Well, and it makes sense to be on the same system with the city. I mean, I think there’s a lot of advantages to that. So the city is a signer to this contract, so is the County Commissioners, and you need to get with them and I know there’s some questions and I know one of the Commissioners has some dissatisfaction, so I mean, that’s something we need to talk to them about. I believe the contract runs through September of 2011. Mr. Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: You know, one of the things that we need to look at real hard and I agree with James wholeheartedly on that, is it becomes awful attractive when they bundle the computer stuff together and they say for every hard drive and this and that, you get a new screen for thirty bucks or fifty bucks extra. That’s all it’s costing you. And you think that’s not much, but when you multiply that times $1,000 units, the next thing you know, it’s thirty, forty thousand dollars. I think it would be very prudent of us to really analyze that closely. We’re at a point now, most screens, at least around our offices and stuff, are – they’ll last for six, seven, eight, ten years. Much longer than the life of the computer itself. I like to see us try to use those, maybe buy ten or fifteen that we can shelve and as they go down, that we have a place to go to pick them up off the inventory. But there’s no sense on replacing every – a new screen for every computer that’s bought and purchased. Just ways we can make some cuts.

Councilmember Raben: There’s a lot of systems, a lot of areas where a simple refresh is all you need. And I hope I’m not dragging, the intent is not to drag anybody in to this conversation, but as an example, within our jail, our high security jail, you know, we’ve got computers that were replaced the last go around, the last refresh, and a little bit of money put in each one to refresh them and they’re now overseeing the security of our jail. So I think it’s just too easy to say they’re three, they’re four, they’re five years old. You know, I need a new computer. I think that’s not how I live my life at home, that’s not how I run my business. I think we need to stretch all this stuff out as far as we can do it and we need to find where there’s waste, and that’s where there’s a computer monitor sitting on a counter that we turn on, you know, one week out of the year. I’m sure we’ve got that in a lot of areas throughout this Civic Center, and you know, I don’t mean to belabor this, but I think, you know, this is too much money to keep allowing to be spent like it’s being spent.

Councilmember Shetler: Alright.

Councilmember Kiefer: Well said.

President Lloyd: Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: I concur. I think we’re cutting a hundred dollars here, fifty dollars there, and we’re looking at 2.4 million. We have to look very deeply into this and I don’t buy the thing that it’s every five years you get rid of it. If it’s still working properly, and it can be refreshed, I think we really need to make the lifetime continue. Thank you.

President Lloyd: Anyone else? Okay. We’re coming into the Riverboat. Why don’t we take a motion for everything –

Councilmember Kiefer: And that includes all the previous ones that we haven’t voted on, is that right?

Councilmember Shetler: So I make a motion to approve all those since the last motion.

Councilmember Kiefer: Second.

President Lloyd: Okay, we’ve got a motion to approve all the changes detailed since the last motion.

Councilmember Bassemier: Question?

President Lloyd: Mr. Shetler, and second Mr. Kiefer. Mr. Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: We’re going to do the Riverboat separate?

Councilmember Shetler: Correct.

President Lloyd: Yes. Any other discussion on the current motion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Terry?

Councilmember Terry: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Lloyd?

President Lloyd: Yes. That motion passes seven to zero.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

RIVERBOAT

President Lloyd: Now we’re on the Riverboat fund.

Councilmember Shetler: Alright, thank you. First, line 3110 –

President Lloyd: Or let me stop you on this one. Since we’ve got a number of people from the community group, CAJE, before we make these changes to Riverboat, I guess, do you have anybody that wants to speak on this? There is a line item in here for transportation service, which would be the north side bus route as well as the dental clinic, some other things. Anybody that would wish to speak on this for a minute or two, a couple of minutes? As a representative of the group?

Mark Rigney; Good morning, my name is Mark Rigney, I chair the transportation committee of CAJE, Congregations Acting for Justice and Empowerment. I actually hadn’t planned on saying anything today. So my hope is that in a year where there is a very tight budget that all due diligence is used in making a balanced county budget that reflects the best possible work for the county and at the same time, that if a particular will that CAJE represents is not included in today’s budget, we sincerely hope that it will be considered for the long term as an excellent piece of good public policy that can rear its head again next year and until it is done. Any questions for me?

President Lloyd: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else want to speak on this? Yes, please come forward so you can be on TV. Please state your name and address.

John Ward: My name is John Ward and I’m a member of CAJE and I have some experience in working with budgets and –

President Lloyd: What’s your address please?

John Ward: 2324 East Chandler.

President Lloyd: Thank you.

John Ward: And the question I have is, as the projection or the real assets or revenue increases during the year, is there a possibility of opening the budget to consider these requests? So that if, for example, CAJE would find matching funds, would there be something in the county that could match that, that would really enhance job opportunities for a lot of folks that are out in this particular area? So that’s my question.

President Lloyd: Is there a Councilman that wants to address that?

Councilmember Raben: I can address that. There will still be, there’s no definite’s with this because it’s Riverboat funding, you know, assuming that their attendance stays level. But this budget that we’re going to pass isn’t going to completely spend the unappropriated balance down, okay, so at any point next year, yes, we can consider more appropriation requests out of Riverboat.

John Ward: But that’s next year, I’m talking about this year’s budget. Is it ever open for additional requests during the –

Councilmember Raben: I mean, if the question is, is there an unappropriated balance in Riverboat? Yes, there is.

John Ward: Okay, thank you.

President Lloyd: Other questions or comments? Mr. Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: I just need guidance here. I’m in favor of the transportation service, I think it’s going to be good service and I did meet with several of the members and I don’t want to say no to this whole budget, I just need guidance, I just want to support the transportation service.

President Lloyd: Well, we could vote on that one separately if Mr. Shetler would be agreeable to that.

Councilmember Raben: There’s four lines, let’s just take the four lines, or there’s five –

President Lloyd: Go line by line? Ms. Terry?

Councilmember Terry: What would be the unappropriated balance right now for Riverboat?

Councilmember Raben: Bill has that. I don’t have it with me today.

President Lloyd: On the Auditor’s financial statement, as of August 5^th, $1,026,808 is the general fund unappropriated, right?

Councilmember Raben: No, the Riverboat.

President Lloyd: Oh, Riverboat is $642,385. I’m just saying what’s available right now, August of 2010.

Councilmember Kiefer: Stephanie, one of the things I was hoping to do with this transportation program is work with the city. You know, what I’m fearful of is, if we fund this 100%, if we fund this then our chances of getting matching funds from the city is going to be about zero. So one reason why I would prefer to wait on this is to give us a better chance to get some opportunity for shared funding from the city.

Councilmember Terry: And I’m comfortable with that. I just wanted to kind of know where we are and what the possibility was of us revisiting this again.

President Lloyd: Mr. Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, a point of clarification, though, the $640,000 and change that appears to be a balance, that money is revenue that would go into the general fund. And being two and a half to three million dollars short on COIT money, we basically are going to have to be looking at whatever is left in there to help supplement that. So it’s not that that money will be sitting idle and left there unused. That money is to be earmarked for the county budget to make up the difference of that two and a half million dollar shortfall.

President Lloyd: Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Kiefer: And potentially, that shortfall could come in greater than what we’re anticipating.

Councilmember Shetler: Right, and the other fortunate thing, if there is any good side to a bad economy, I guess, is that Aztar, you know, the Riverboat has been doing rather well during these times, and so that income stream is actually up slightly from what it has been in the past. But not near enough to make up that two and a half million dollar deficit, obviously. So it’s money that we’re counting on.

President Lloyd: Mr. Goebel and then Mr. Bassemier?

Councilmember Goebel: As far as the transportation service, I think not only do we reopen it or keep our minds open on that possibility, but we also consider perhaps a different or alternative method of running a pilot program. Why do we have to go through METS and not go through a private carrier? That’s all.

President Lloyd: Mr. Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: I’m going to have to disagree with Mr. Kiefer about 150,000 if we support this today, nobody else is going to get on board. I disagree. Being in the transportation business for fifteen years, this is just an opening and $150,000 won’t cover the expenses of this route. That’s just a starting point and they’re wanting to start this as a pilot program to see how it works. It could work only six months. I say let’s give it a chance, but $150,000 will not cover this cost. And like I said, I disagree that nobody is going to jump on this and approve this, so just –

President Lloyd: Well, and I guess that figure I quoted you on the general fund balance, that 1,026,000, we’re going to take $250,000 from that and put it towards the death penalty case. Now we will get reimbursed some of that but that’s going to hit in 2010. The other thing, I guess, Jim Raben, you had pointed out at one of the other meetings, the cost per rider was pretty high on this. We were talking about –

Councilmember Raben: I can’t recall the amount, but it was –

President Lloyd: $10,000 a rider or something – it just seemed high. And that’s the city METS quote, so whoever had mentioned looking at a private carrier, or that was you. That certainly is –

Councilmember Goebel: I think we could go that route and possibly provide the transportation at less cost and if it does build and we can show evidence that this is definitely something needed, perhaps we can then evaluate or expand. And I don’t know if we’ve looked in that direction or not. It doesn’t mean we’re not in favor of it. Certainly, there is a need.

President Lloyd: Okay, any other questions? Okay, so you’re going to proceed taking each line for a vote?

Councilmember Shetler: Line by line here. Line 3110, that is Economic Development, the recommendation is to set that in at $436,000.

Councilmember Kiefer: Is that 488 –

President Lloyd: I think we had changed that.

Councilmember Shetler: Sorry.

President Lloyd: Because, I mean, we had originally proposed a cut, what $64,000, that was going to be all of the county’s lobbying. We would propose to cut one firm and that was 12,000.

Councilmember Shetler: Okay, sorry, $488,000, change on that, and that, again, the explanation’s been given there. So I move for approval.

President Lloyd: Is there a second?

Councilmember Kiefer: Second.

President Lloyd: Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Terry?

Councilmember Terry: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Lloyd?

President Lloyd: Yes. That line passes seven/zero.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Shetler: Line 3112, which is the Infrastructure/Drainage, the recommendation is to set that in at $450,000.

President Lloyd: Is there a second? We skipped a line, but we can go back to it.

Councilmember Terry: Second.

President Lloyd: Alright, motion, this is on line 3112, Infrastructure/Drainage. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Terry?

Councilmember Terry: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Lloyd?

President Lloyd: Yes. That line item passes seven/zero.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Shetler: I looked over a line, I had it down at the bottom of the page and it’s in the second line, it was 3111, the recommendation is to set that at $300,000. Recommendation by the Commissioners was to put that at 170, the County Council’s recommendation is to increase that to 300,000. If I recall from the presentation by the County Commissioner was that there was no real guidelines that’s been set in that area. The thinking is that we need to establish some guidelines that’s universal to everyone who is participating in that program. If more money is necessary, that would certainly be something we would be open to next year to look at that once they have the guidelines in place. I think putting this amount sets, forces them to put some hard guidelines in there that will make it fair to all recipients.

Councilmember Kiefer: And that’s for the Initiative Based Assistance Program?

Councilmember Shetler: Correct.

Councilmember Kiefer: So we’re adding money to that, which is, that’s good. Thanks.

President Lloyd: Okay, so that’s a motion to set that in at $300,000. Is there a second?

Councilmember Terry: Second.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Shetler. Second, a tie between Mr. Kiefer and Ms. Terry. Any other discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Terry?

Councilmember Terry: Just a statement before, and I do appreciate putting some more dollars back into that line item. And as the liaison representative for the Council, I will definitely work with the advisory committee in working to get a more defined structure and distribution of assistance. So my vote is yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: I got a broken arm from that one, I think, you twisted it so hard, Stephanie. But it was the right thing to do. Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Lloyd?

President Lloyd: Yes. That line item passes seven/zero. Next?

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Shetler: Next is, we did 3112, so the next one is 3761, to set in at $130,000.

Councilmember Raben: I’ll move approval.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Raben. Any discussion? Dental Clinic.

Councilmember Shetler: Keep in mind, some money is in the Health Department for that as well. There are some monies in the Health Department for that as well.

President Lloyd: Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Terry?

Councilmember Terry: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Lloyd?

President Lloyd: Yes. Motion passes seven/zero. Next?

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Shetler: Line 4231, that’s the Transportation, and my only comment is that I do appreciate Mark, brevity is the soul of wit. Thank you for your comments. And as has been stated, it is something that could certainly be revisited and other alternative sources of revenue sharing more with the city, some things like that, may certainly be possible which may make this more palatable both economically and otherwise for many of us. So the suggestion is to set that in at zero. So that’s a motion.

President Lloyd: Motion to set it in at zero. Is there a second?

Councilmember Kiefer: Second.

President Lloyd: Motion Mr. Shetler. Second Mr. Kiefer. Any discussion? Mr. Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: I just want to make a comment. Same thing. I talked to many members of the CAJE organization. They’re always very cordial, very informative, good group to work with, and I appreciate what they’ve done and I do think they got it to a good starting point, that we can launch further investigation such as what Councilman Goebel said and also some discussions with other parties. So I think there’s future opportunity to work with them, but with this year’s budget and the way we’re cutting and with the COIT and other things, I support this as it’s set today. So that’s the only comment I want to make.

Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. President?

President Lloyd: Mr. Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: I really think somebody needs to step to the plate here. Maybe it’s not 150,000 but maybe we can set something in and if they don’t get it off the ground, and they don’t spend it, we can get that back, so if we don’t show other departments and the other business owners down that corridor, they might not want to give, so I think we ought to put something there and not put it in at zero. That’s my comment.

President Lloyd: Okay, well, as of right now, the motion on the floor is for zero and there’s a second. Any other discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Terry?

Councilmember Terry: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: I think with the idea of opening with something, I’ll go along with Mr. Bassemier’s recommendation and say no.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Lloyd?

President Lloyd: In this difficult situation, I don’t see us funding this initiative, but I’m certainly willing to look at other alternatives. But for this vote, I’ll vote yes, so that will be four to three, set in at zero. Thank you.

(Motion carried 4-3/Councilmembers Terry, Bassemier and Goebel opposed)

Councilmember Raben: You know, just a thought, I mean, if the thought is to get this up and moving, which it’s a little concerning that you had actually made the comment, Ed, that 150 is a drop in the bucket of what it’s going to actually cost. I would like to know what the thought is, you know, the real cost would be. But because we did increase the Initiative Based Assistance Program 130,000, I don’t know what the Commissioners -- initially, the request was for 170 and we’ve made it 300. You know, if this is to help people find work and what have you, that might be the appropriate line item to fund it from, initially. Just throwing that out there, if their –

(Tape change)

– to get it moving because the vote didn’t pass here today.

Councilmember Terry: Of course, we definitely wouldn’t want to do that because they need childcare assistance as well, if they’re going to go to work.

Councilmember Raben: Just letting you know that that’s an option.

President Lloyd: Okay, we have one comment from the public before we leave this area.

Mark Rigney: At the risk of risking my new tenure in brevity, the number that we have from the County Commissioners in terms of the cost was generated not by us, but by METS at the Commissioners request. And the number that is included is $150,000 for operating costs. Mr. Kiefer is correct that that includes virtually no contribution from the city other than infrastructure in terms of parking a vehicle and working with an existing dispatcher. The additional 20,000, because I believe the total that they asked for was 170,000, the additional cost is for the purchase of a vehicle deferred over the course of four years. So that’s where those numbers came from. I hope that’s a helpful explanation. So as far as we know, that is the cost of operating the route.

Councilmember Kiefer: Mark, I don’t think, you know, you or your group can consider this necessarily a dead issue based upon today’s vote. I think what you’re getting is, tentatively yes, we’re interested in investigating it more and open to opportunities later in the future. But at this point, we’re allocating zero, but that doesn’t mean that you’re shut out and the issue is over at all.

Mark Rigney: I understand. We’re pleased that there is long term interest being generated. I just wanted to clarify the numerical figure before that got lost in the translation. Thank you.

President Lloyd: Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, we need to move on. Mr. Shetler?

HIGHWAY

Councilmember Shetler: Next is County Highway, garage, that will be page 115. Recommendation is on line item 3001, to set that in at zero.

President Lloyd: What’s the reasoning on that?

Councilmember Shetler: Again, that’s transferring into a fund that get’s it out of the general fund.

President Lloyd: Okay, someone else can pay for it. Some other fund. Is that a motion? Or we’re going to go back to the procedure, we’re going to keep going until someone has a question.

Councilmember Shetler: Any questions, comments?

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE

Councilmember Shetler: Next is Cumulative Bridge on page 117, line item 3141 is actually to, that was set in at zero, to set it in at $1,750. Line item 4429 to set in at $10,000. Any questions?

COMMISSIONERS/CCD

Councilmember Shetler: No changes on the Auditor/CCD fund, no changes on the Coroner/CCD fund, no changes on the County – I’m sorry, there is, on the County Commissioners/CCD then, that would be the next page, and that is page 124. Line 4130 to set in at $174,000.

President Lloyd: We’re going to add a line item –

Councilmember Shetler: 4950 would be a new line item and that would be Computer Financial Services and that would be placed at $160,235.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Councilmember Shetler: Health Department, I have no changes on the Health Department.

LOCAL ROADS & STREETS

Councilmember Shetler: No changes on Local Roads & Streets.

SURVEYOR MAPS

AUDITOR/REASSESSMENT

ASSESSOR/REASSESSMENT

Councilmember Shetler: Surveyor, Property Reassessment/Auditor no change, Property Reassessment/Treasurer no, Property Reassessment/County Assessor, which is on page 137, line 1990 and that would be set at $80,000. And line 3860 to be set at $191,000. Questions, comments?

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT BOARD OF APPEALS/REASSESSMENT

CIRCUIT COURT SUPPLEMENTAL ADULT PROBATION

Councilmember Shetler: Next would be Circuit Court Supplemental. Nothing on the Property Tax Board of Appeals, PTABOA, Area Plan, County Commissioners, so we’re at Circuit Court Supplemental Adult, which is on page 142, and that’s to set that in at $12,000, I’m sorry, line item 3620 and that’s to set that in at $12,000. That’s the transfer, if you recall back a while, a couple motions ago, Circuit Court, we took seven out of and put $7,000 into this account then.

Councilmember Shetler: No changes on any of the rest of the areas of the budget that I have. So a motion to approve the budget from where we stopped a while back here. I think it was from Highway Department on up to, well, through the rest of the budget.

President Lloyd: Legal Aid/United Way is the last one.

Councilmember Bassemier: Well, I got a question on –

President Lloyd: Okay, well, there is a motion, is there a second?

Councilmember Kiefer: Second.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Kiefer. Question, Mr. Bassemier?

TOURISM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

Councilmember Bassemier: 160? Are we –

President Lloyd: Are you saying page 160?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes, page 160. That’s the Sports Complex. We’re getting ready to wrap this up and I’ve got some questions on 160.

President Lloyd: Page 160.

Councilmember Bassemier: Yeah, that’s the Sports Complex and we’re talking about approving $1,170,000 to go towards, I guess, the Sports Complex out there at the stadium, is that correct?

President Lloyd: Okay, this is in the Convention Bureau, Tourism Capital Improvement Fund, page 160. I’m not sure that that’s what that’s dedicated for. And I guess we need to find out.

Councilmember Bassemier: Well, its got Sports Complex.

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, it actually is. That’s one that we’ll want to make the appropriate adjustment to in September.

Councilmember Bassemier: And, Tom, what did you set that in at?

Councilmember Shetler: That, actually, I haven’t yet. Part of my motion that I’m going to amend that went from the County Highway to the end of the budget was to also set aside the 2000, 3000 and 4000 accounts as listed. We would post those as listed, so that wasn’t really dealt with until just now and we need to move that one out of there.

Councilmember Bassemier: We’re going to take that separately then.

Councilmember Shetler: Right.

Councilmember Raben: Well, we can – before we act on anything on this today, I don’t think any of us know if any part of this might be for contractual stuff like engineering and all the feasibility studies they’ve already done, but what we do today, we can fix at our final meeting in September, so –

Councilmember Bassemier: So you want to table this? You –

Councilmember Raben: We can let it stay in there as it is today and when we finalize our budget September, what is it, September 16?

President Lloyd: 8^th.

Councilmember Bassemier: I’m not sure I feel comfortable with that. Let’s say we all vote it in today and then we’ve got to vote it back in, I mean, address it again, and –

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, unless you know that there’s no contractual obligations for the work that they’ve already had done, that this accounts for. I don’t know the answer to that question, so that’s why I said. Any one of us are welcome to get that answer for what this speaks for between now and next week. I just, before we –

President Lloyd: I think Mr. Bassemier would like us to pull this budget out, Tourism Capital Improvement, is there any thoughts to that?

Councilmember Kiefer: Yeah, I think that’s not a –

President Lloyd: Approve everything else and pull this budget out.

Councilmember Bassemier: So we get all –

Councilmember Kiefer: Approve everything else and pull that part out.

Councilmember Bassemier: And then we can address it, if that’s okay with you?

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, I thought you were talking about zero this out today.

Councilmember Bassemier: No.

Councilmember Shetler: I will amend my motion to exclude that.

Councilmember Kiefer: And I will amend my second.

President Lloyd: Okay, so 3600 Tourism Capital Improvement $1,545,000 is not in your motion and we will consider that September 8^th.

Councilmember Kiefer: Correct.

President Lloyd: All other amendment changes.

Councilmember Bassemier: Right, and the reason why I’d like to do that, I’d like to find out if that, if we’re going to have to back those bonds up with the County Option Income Tax like she mentioned and these other bonds. I think we’ve got – she’s right, we have some unanswered questions here. And that would be great if we could get some of those answers by the next week or so, that would be great. Thank you, sir.

President Lloyd: Any other questions? Then the seconder, was that you, Mr. Kiefer? Are you –

Councilmember Kiefer: Yeah, I amended the second. Thank you.

President Lloyd: Okay, any other questions? Roll call vote please?

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Terry?

Councilmember Terry: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Lloyd?

President Lloyd: Yes. Budget amendments approved seven/zero.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Lloyd: Do we have, Mr. Shetler, any kind of idea of what the total we’ve approved today?

Councilmember Shetler: We are in the neighborhood of $63,790,359. Not that I’m giving you an exact number or anything, but –

President Lloyd: Right, okay, so that’s what we’ve cut so far and then that does not include any proposed pay raise for county employees.

Councilmember Shetler: That’s correct. That’s where we’re sitting at the present day.

President Lloyd: What was that number again?

Councilmember Shetler: $63,790,359, which is pretty flat from last year. It’s pretty equal to where we were last year.

President Lloyd: I think last year was 63,590,000, something like that.

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, 2.5 million in cuts is what –

Councilmember Shetler: Almost 2.6 million dollars in cuts.

President Lloyd: Okay, thank you for all your hard work. Any other matters to come before the county budget hearing? We will recess until September 8^th. Is there a motion to recess?

Councilmember Raben: So moved.

President Lloyd: All in favor?

(All Councilmembers voted aye)

President Lloyd: Thank you. We’re recessed.

(The meeting was recessed at 10:59 a.m.)

VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL

Recorded and transcribed by Teri Lukeman.