VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

APRIL 21, 2003

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners met in session this 21^st day of April, 2003 at 5:51p.m. in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding.

President Mosby: I would like to call to order Board of Commissioners meeting of Vanderburgh County, April 21, 2003. Introductions are as follows, Tammy McKinney to my far right, Superintendent of Buildings; Kevin Winternheimer, our Corporate Counsel; Commissioner Fanello; myself; Commissioner Crouch; Auditor, Bill Fluty; and Recording Secretary, Madelyn Grayson. Everybody please stand and join us in the Pledge.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

President Mosby: Motion to approve the minutes of the April 14^th meeting.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

President Mosby: Approval of the April 21, 2003 Executive Session, earlier this afternoon.

Commissioner Fanello: I move approval of summary minutes of the Executive Session, which began at 5:03, ended at approximately 5:45, and discussed pending litigation and collective bargaining.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

President Mosby: Bid opening and advertisements, Phil Lawrence, permission to award VC9903-2003 Burdette Foods, and VC-07-2003, Burdette Park T-Shirts.

Linda Nalley: I’m Linda Nalley. I’m with the Purchasing Department. I would like to award the bids for Burdette Park concessions. The number is VC9903-2003. The award goes to the low bidders based on their shaded category. Diamond Foods, Weber Foods, Sara Lee, Fischer and Schwan’s. If you have the bid in front of you, they are shaded areas based on their category.

President Mosby: Does everybody have the shaded areas? Any questions or comments? Do I have a motion to entertain permission to award bids to the, on certain items to certain bidders?

Commissioner Fanello: I move approval that we award the bids to the low bidders on the Burdette Park Foods.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: A motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: VC-07-2003.

Linda Nalley: Okay, the Burdette Park T-shirts, the award goes to the low bidder in each of their shaded categories, which was, basically, Siegel’s for $3,285.70, and then Pro Mark got a little bit of it, which was $637.50.

President Mosby: Chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: I move approval.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: A motion and a second. So ordered. Any questions? Thank you very much.

Linda Nalley: Thank you very much.

President Mosby: Superintendent of County Buildings, permission to award surplus properties to non-profits.

Tammy McKinney: I wanted to make sure all the Commissioners had a chance to look over the proposals that we opened last week regarding the four addresses of the surplus properties, and how you want me to proceed with those.

Kevin Winternheimer: This is also the time and place for the public hearing to solicit public comment. The public has a right to voice their opinion on whether....I think we only had one proposal, from one organization.

Tammy McKinney: Right.

Kevin Winternheimer: If the public has any comments on whether they should or shouldn’t be awarded to this one particular group, this would be the time to do it.

President Mosby: Is there anybody here that would like to speak to non-profits receiving surplus properties. Seeing none.

Commissioner Fanello: I move approval to award the bids to, I believe the correct name is Evansville Black Coalition?

Tammy McKinney: Correct.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to award bids to the Black Coalition. So ordered.

Kevin Winternheimer: I’ll bring the deeds for the next meeting to be signed.

President Mosby: Next, Emergency Management, Citizens Corp Council Grant. I think everybody’s got it in their packet. Are there any questions? Any comments?

Sherman Greer: No, just that this is the grant I told you that I would be back to see you this week on. So, I think we’re finished for awhile here right now, but the more money we get in here, the better off we are.

President Mosby: I agree with that. The chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: I move approval.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered. Thank you, Sherman.

Sherman Greer: Thank you.

President Mosby: Execution of the lease of the jail project from the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Building Authority.

Commissioner Fanello: I believe you have in your packet, or not in your packets, but, I believe Madelyn has in the signature file the copies of the signature pages for the lease, which was executed at the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Building Authority meeting. So, we just need to execute our portion. I move approval.

Commissioner Crouch: I’ll second. Just a couple of questions. Does County Council have any role in this? Do they need to budget or appropriate any money for the lease rental agreements?

Commissioner Fanello: They will not do that right now.

Commissioner Crouch: At some point in time?

Commissioner Fanello: They’ll take care of that at their respective budget times, yes.

Commissioner Crouch: Okay. This just has the $3.3 million as a maximum, is that not correct?

Commissioner Fanello: Right. Everything is calculated at a higher than–

Commissioner Crouch: Right.

Commissioner Fanello: –for a higher estimate, just to be safe.

Commissioner Crouch: So, the payments will support a $35 million project? Thank you.

Commissioner Fanello: Hopefully, we’ll get some really good interest rates if we can get it issued in the next couple of months.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second on the Building Authority. So ordered.

President Mosby: Next we have execution of bonds and closing documents for bond refunding.

Commissioner Fanello: Madelyn also has those documents, and as you remember we recommended that we refund one of our bond issues. The Council took us up on that recommendation, and they did go through their appropriate motions, I believe, at their last meeting. Just to let you know what the outcome was of the refunding, we did get a decline of our interest rate from 5.64% to 2.72%, and our annual payments will decrease by $180,000 on average over the remaining life of the bond, which is through January 1, 2010. So, we’ve been successful in saving the taxpayers approximately $180,000 per year. So, I would move approval of executing the documents.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: A motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: We have one contract between the Sheriff’s office and the Teamsters. Is there any questions?

Commissioner Fanello: I move approval of the contract between the Sheriff’s office and Teamsters.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: A motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: Anybody in the public who would like to speak?

President Mosby: Any New Business or Old...any New Business?

Commissioner Crouch: Just a little note. We published the polling places–

President Mosby: Oh, I’m sorry.

Commissioner Crouch: –and I believe we included the county in those. Will we be doing another publication? In the ad it had the city and the county polling places.

Tammy McKinney: No, I think we just published the city one’s. Isn’t that correct, Madelyn?

Madelyn Grayson: I have a copy of the ad here, but I was told by Voters Registration it was just up to Ward 6-16.

President Mosby: 6-17 should have been the last one.

Commissioner Crouch: I just got a call, and someone said that they saw in the paper that it was also county. So, I don’t know if they were confused.

Kevin Winternheimer: You might want to check and make sure the paper put the right one in, and didn’t run an old ad.

Madelyn Grayson: This copy does have Scott and Union in it, and that was not what was sent over to them.

Commissioner Fanello: No, because, I believe you copied us in on what you sent over, and they were just city polling places.

President Mosby: Is Scott and Union the only two that got–

Madelyn Grayson: No, there’s Perry, German, they’ve got an old ad in here apparently. I’ll have to check with the paper tomorrow. I didn’t even notice that.

It does run again this Friday, because we run it twice. So, I’ll have to have them bring a proof over.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

Kevin Winternheimer: I don’t think you really need a motion, because you approved the city polling places before. So, we just need to get the ad corrected is all.

President Mosby: So–

Commissioner Fanello: And we need to check and see if we’ll get credit for that, since we did send over (Inaudible).

President Mosby: Well, not as much credit, as just have them run the new one twice, or run a correction.

Kevin Winternheimer: Yeah, that would probably be better, to not only run it Friday, but run a corrected ad too.

President Mosby: We, oh, will you call them tomorrow? Could you ask them to run a correction at their expense?

Madelyn Grayson: Yes, I will.

President Mosby: Because, I mean, they’re the ones, I mean, as long as we got the correct copy.

Madelyn Grayson: I mean, I’ve got a copy of the ad that was sent over right here, and it doesn’t have those on there.

President Mosby: Okay, well ask them if they’ll run a correction on it.

Madelyn Grayson: Okay.

President Mosby: Then we got another one that runs Friday any how.

Madelyn Grayson: I will let you know tomorrow.

President Mosby: Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner. I didn’t see it, so. Is there any other Old Business?

President Mosby: Any New Business? Anybody in the audience?

President Mosby: Department head reports, County Engineer, John Stoll.

John Stoll: First item I have is a Notice to Bidders for contract number VC03-05-01, Repair and Repaving of Duesner Road and Roth Road. I would like to request that this be approved and advertised.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: Next I have a set of street plans for Havenwood Meadows Subdivision. This is located on Hillsdale Road across from Bluegrass Farms Subdivision. This is for Section One of that subdivision. They are just platting this portion of the subdivision down to this heavy blue line here. As a part of this, they are proposing to put in a right turn deceleration lane, and a passing blister out on Hillsdale Road, because there’s a crest of a hill right here, and they want to just try and improve the safety of the intersection. I request that the plans be approved, subject to them providing final details of the passing blister, because they’ve got some drainage issues they are still trying to resolve. Everything else within the plans looks fine.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll move approval with the stipulations by John Stoll.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: The last item I have is in regard to the Mt. Pleasant Road Project. I have a supplemental agreement with Morley and Associates for additional work fora total of $17,097. The reasons for the supplemental agreements are due to some design changes that we’ve been requested to make by some of the property owners, as well as the railroad. First of all, back when we met with CSX several weeks ago, they had requested that we just avoid working on their right-of-way at all. So, in doing that, we would need to taper the road back down to two lanes prior to getting on to the railroad right-of-way. It turns out that if we taper it back to two lanes before we get to the railroad right-of-way, we have a very short section of three lanes road. So, it gets to the point where it’s not worth tapering out to three lanes just to turn around and send it back to two again. So, item number one in this supplemental agreement is for $6,957 to redesign 785' of road back to two lanes, rather than three. That would keep us off the railroad right-of-way. In doing so, we’ll save more in construction than the $6,957. So, it will provide that benefit. The second part of the supplemental is due to a problem we have on one property. It’s on the Smith property at the corner of Clear Creek Drive and Mt. Pleasant Road. The way the intersection was originally designed, it follows that taper there highlighted in green. The problem is the septic system for that property is located in the general facility of that area that is shaded in green. So, if we redesign and change it to a tighter radius, then we can miss the septic system. Otherwise, we’ll have to either rebuild the septic system or provide sanitary sewer to this property. That part of the redesign is $6,736. Here again, because there’s no sanitary sewer immediately available to that property, this would be cheaper than the alternative of providing sewer. The final part of the supplemental is $3,404, and that was for the Kelly property, which is located just west of the bridge on the south side of the road. They have a lake that they were concerned that they weren’t going to have enough water draining into the lake, unless we made some design changes. We can make some design changes fairly easily. These would accommodate sending more water towards the Kelly property, as they had requested. The way the design currently was done, we have a couple of pipes stubbing out to manholes, and all this water drains to the north, and then out. If we eliminate these pipe connections here, and then add a pipe here, we can send more water towards the lake, which is located out in this area. That part of the supplemental is $3,404, which is cheaper than if we had to go out and condemn that property. So, even though there’s a pretty high price tag on the supplemental, the alternative, it’s cheaper than the alternative in each of these three options. So, I would request that the supplemental be approved.

Commissioner Fanello: I move approval.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: That’s all I have unless you have any questions on anything.

President Mosby: Any questions?

John Stoll: Thanks.

President Mosby: County Highway, Dennis.

Dennis Hudnall: Good evening. Dennis Hudnall, County Highway. First of all I want to discuss Pioneer Rail Corp, and where we stand right now, as far as getting the work done on three railroad crossings. One at Boonville-New Harmony, one at St. Joe, and one on Mill Road. I think Suzanne had talked to some people in the public, and finally we got a hold of Mr. Bruce, or Alan Brown from Pioneer Rail Corp. We kind of pinned him down to a date, and the date that he gave me was the 27^th of May that we would start working on the rail at Boonville-New Harmony. We would have to close the road between, let’s see, it’s Highway 65 and Lutherbach for approximately one week. Then I have a meeting set up with him on May the 19^th to discuss St. Joe and Mill Road, when we can proceed on those. So, I think that’s the best time frame that we can hope for right now. So, the public has been calling me, I know they’ve called Suzanne. I don’t know if they’ve called anyone else, but I think this will benefit the county by getting some of this work done. So, by probably the end of June we should have all three of them done.

President Mosby: Okay.

Dennis Hudnall: I did get a response from the letter that we wrote, and I think Suzanne got it. I didn’t know it was a response, because it didn’t come from the same person I wrote it to. So, but a response is better than none. Anybody have any questions?

Commissioner Crouch: Those dates are May 27^th through–

Dennis Hudnall: I’m going to close the road from May 27^th to June the 4^th.

Commissioner Crouch: Okay, great, and I appreciate you staying with this. I know you had to be a little tenacious, but I know people appreciate it.

Dennis Hudnall: The squeaky ends gets the oil, I think. So, we’re glad to get it done for the county residents. Anyone else have any questions?

President Mosby: Any questions?

Kevin Winternheimer: Do you want to go ahead and do a motion though to approve those dates and closings?

Dennis Hudnall: I request approval of those dates.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered. Any other questions or comments for Dennis? Thank you, Dennis.

Dennis Hudnall: Okay.

President Mosby: County Attorney.

Kevin Winternheimer: No report tonight.

President Mosby: Superintendent of County Buildings.

Tammy McKinney: I need to ask permission to have a reprint of cards, voter cards, for Oaklyn Library. I can’t think of the ward and precinct right now, but they added on, and it changed their address. So, five-five. Madelyn told me. So, we just need to reprint those cards.

Commissioner Fanello: Do we have to make a motion to do that? Is that not something Voter Registration can take care of?

Tammy McKinney: Tony and Connie wanted me to ask permission to reprint them, so.

Commissioner Fanello: I can make a motion that we allow them to reprint, but we don’t really...Voter Registration takes care of that. We don’t really have any jurisdiction over that.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: A motion and a second. So ordered.

Tammy McKinney: They just asked me, so, I told them I would. Also, I’ve been checking into the phone lines for the Election Office. They have actually six phone numbers that go to that office. So, and they are active. So, now I’m trying to find out where those lines are. So, that’s where I am with that. I have phones, if I can find out where the lines go, we can set them up. So, it’s kind of a mess.

Commissioner Fanello: So, we don’t have to get any new phone lines?

Tammy McKinney: We don’t have to get any phone lines.

Commissioner Crouch: (Inaudible. Mike not on.)

Tammy McKinney: Got to find them, and where the numbers are going to.

President Mosby: Sounds like we need to borrow one or two from them. Okay. Any questions? Comments? Anything else?

Tammy McKinney: Not unless you have any questions about my report. The scaffolding did start today at the Courthouse. I was over there at 7:00 with them, so.

President Mosby: Okay.

President Mosby: Burdette Park, Gary.

Gary Hohman: Gary Hohman, Burdette Park. All we have is our work report before you tonight if you have any questions.

President Mosby: Any questions or comments for Gary? Thank you, Gary.

Gary Hohman: Thank you.

President Mosby: Is there anybody from Soil and Water or Ozone?

Norma Duckworth: Norma Duckworth, Soil and Water Conservation District. I don’t have anything unusual to report. I think you have our reports. Are there any questions?

President Mosby: Questions? Thank you very much.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to accept the Ozone Officer’s report.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: A motion and a second. So ordered.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to accept Consent Items.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: A motion and a second to accept Consents. So ordered. We will now go...we will entertain a five minute break, and we’ll go right into zonings. So, we will be on break.

(There was a brief recess at 6:14 p.m.)

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING BOARD

APRIL 21, 2003

The Vanderburgh County Rezoning meeting for April 21, 2003 was held during the County Commission meeting in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding. The Rezoning petitions were heard beginning at 6:22 p.m.

President Mosby: I would like to reconvene the Board of Commissioners meeting, April 21, 2003. We were now at Rezonings.

President Mosby: First reading, we have one rezoning tonight, VC-11-2003, petitioner, William Koester, 13000 Warrick County Line Road, request change from Ag to M-2. Do I have a motion to accept first readings?

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve first reading.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: That will bring us to the final reading of rezonings. First we have VC-5-2003, petitioner is Charlestown Square LLC, address 730 Citadel Circle, request change from C-4 to C-2, down zoning. Do we have any questions? Questions?

Les Shively: I would just correct one thing from last, from the Plan Commission meeting. At Plan Commission we said 192 units, and, by the way, Mr. Max Kendall, the developer of this project, is present, and I believe we’re going to 220?

Unidentified: 224.

Les Shively: 224. Again, this is a down zoning, and all of the traffic projections and all that was done several years ago when it was assumed it was going to remain C-4.

President Mosby: Okay. Are there any questions by any member of the Commission?

Commissioner Fanello: Just one question.

Les Shively: Yes, ma’am.

Commissioner Fanello: I think there was a question at the Area Plan Commission about access. There’s something here that says there’s no access available to this site from roads within Vanderburgh County.

Les Shively: That’s true.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

Les Shively: This is a property I’m very familiar with, it’s on the other side of the lake from my office. The residents will have to do just like me, we’ll have to go into Warrick County, and get on Eppworth Road, and go down Stahl Road, which has already been improved by the developers of Charlestown. They widened it, and have maintained it also in cooperation with Warrick County. If you’ve ever been down Stahl Road it’s more than adequate to handle what’s already out there, in terms of the commercial development. There is access, but it’s just not in Vanderburgh County. Although, were you looking at another spot, maybe on Oak Grove, possibly?

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Les Shively: Yeah, the only thing that needs to be done...there will be only the one access point off of Stahl Road, which will involve completion of what’s shown on the plat for the entryway. They are going to kind of extend that Stahl Road back into there.

President Mosby: Any other questions? Any remonstrators in the audience? Anybody that would like to speak to petition VC-5-2003, 730 Citadel Circle? Seeing none. Chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: I move approval of VC-5-2003, request to change from C-4 to C-2.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: How about a motion to call the roll?

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to call roll.

Commissioner Crouch: Yes.

President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Crouch?

Commissioner Crouch: Yes. Oh, second.

President Mosby: I knew what you meant. Commissioner Fanello?

Commissioner Fanello: Yes.

President Mosby: Commissioner Mosby, yes. There being three yes’, no nays, VC-5-2003 is hereby declared adopted.

President Mosby: Next VC-8-2003, petitioner Moore Investment LLC, 800 Schutte Road, request from Ag to R-3.

Les Shively: Mr. President, members of the Board of Commissioners, my name is Les Shively, representing the owners, the Betty J. Weber Trust, et al, as well as Moore Investments, the petitioner and ultimate developer of this property. Since we don’t have the nice computerized photographic material, I’ll give you the next best thing Mr. Morley gave me this evening, which is an aerial photo of the subject property. What we have superimposed on the aerial photo of the property is the proposed site plan and layout. Just briefly, this is a request, as I said, from Ag to R-3. About over a year ago there was a proposal before you to do a combination of C-4 and multi-family. There is no C-4 associated with this project. No commercial development, and this is a totally different developer, no connection. The only thing that is the same is the owners of the land and the location. The staff report from the Plan Commission indicates that this proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The specifics of this proposal would involve an 80 unit apartment complex. The way this would be done would be ten, eight unit buildings. Four on the first floor, four on the second floor. These would be two bedroom units. A couple of things from the development standpoint that I think are important for you to note. Because we have more than five acres involved here, we will have to file a drainage plan that will come before you, when you wear your other hats, that is as the County Drainage Board, you will have to approve that plan. In addition, we will be submitting this particular site plan with more details when we go for an improvement location permit. At that particular time, the County Highway Engineer and EUTS will have their complete report done, along with our traffic impact study, which will have been completed, and they will then determine what additional improvements need to be done in this particular area for ingress and egress. Commissioner Mosby contacted me last week, and indicated the county’s desire, there may be an opportunity for them to avail themselves of some additional funds from the state to make improvements on Schutte Road, and asked me to explore with Moore Investments their agreement to provide additional right-of-way along that portion of their property that borders Schutte Road. They are agreeable to doing that. I talked with the County Highway Engineer, John Stoll, he doesn’t know how much they are going to need, so Mr. Stoll said, I made the suggestion,

and he thought this was the proper way to proceed as well, that the amount of right-of-way to be dedicated will be determined at the time that they go to site review. Which means that the dedication of the sufficient right-of-way will be a condition on their improvement location permit, which you know is the prerequisite for them to pull the rest of their permits. So, again, he will donate the right-of-way to be determined by the County Highway Engineer. We don’t know if it’s10' or 15'.

President Mosby: That’s fine.

Les Shively: Also, preliminarily it indicates that we can do that without affecting our meeting the requirements for off street parking. So, it’s sort of a win-win proposition. To be quite honest with you, Mr. Moore is more than happy to do this, because I think the improvements at Schutte Road helps improve the quality of this project, if not the whole situation out there. While we’re on traffic, if I could just take a moment. The buildings, the way we’ve located the buildings in proximity to the right-of-way for State Road 62 at that point, isn’t it? State Road 62 is such that we’re far enough back from the right-of-way, and there’s sufficient right-of-way there that any improvements that would occur later to that portion of what we refer to as the Lloyd Expressway west, would not involve the acquisition of any of the buildings or those improvements. We have had discussions with the West Side Improvement Association, and one of the things that they had requested, pardon me, was that we provide landscape buffering and screening, again, along that portion of the property along Schutte Road, so as to prevent lights from automobiles in the parking lot bleeding over, shining over to the residential properties to the west. We’ve put that in a covenant and restriction. I know you are not in the business of enforcing covenants and restrictions. So you have a complete picture, here is a copy of the proposed covenant restriction. It runs in favor of the adjacent landowner, yet as a request of the Westside Improvement Association we’ve also put in there....you will need a copy too? There you go. I always forget that. We put a provision in there that allows the Westside Improvement Association to enforce these covenants and restrictions. One other request that was made by the Westside Improvement Association has to do with students living in this particular project. We had stated our intention and our plan of Moore Investments to limit the number of students, in terms of a percentage of the total population of this community to 10%. They had requested we put that in a covenant and restriction, and I indicated at the Plan Commission meeting that I would look into it. Unfortunately, Geneva Capital, which is providing the financing for this project will not allow the developer to encumber the property with that restriction. However, we have represented to the Westside Improvement Association that, number one, all the tenants will have to sign a one year lease, which students don’t like to do. There will be no sub-letting, and that all occupants, that is adult occupants, will have to be signatories to the lease. It is really in the interest of the landlord, and I’m not beating up on students here, but in the business of multi-family, especially this particular project with this limited number of units, you want low turnover. This is going to be in the upper rent category. You want tenants who are going to be there for a long term period. Students don’t fit that profile. This is the best we can do. I told Mr. Padget of the Westside Improvement Association I would give him a copy of the lease that we are going to use so that he knows what the provisions are in there. I would also note this, I’m not aware of any other restrictions that apply to any of the other apartment communities in that vicinity; Mission Viejo or Copper Creek, I don’t believe has any restrictions, but we certainly understand the concerns. But, again, I think the provisions of the lease, and the intentions of this developer, stated at the Plan Commission will provide the necessary checks and balances for that particular use. Notwithstanding the fact that by making the right-of-way available will assist in improvements to Schutte Road, if in fact there is an increase in traffic. I would just note in final remarks that exclusive of land costs this will be a $3.7 million project. Based upon the current tax rates, or assuming they are, I guess, the assessed valuation using rates we can work with. That means in annual tax revenue about $5,200 per building, or $52,000 in property tax revenue. So, at the end of the day if this rezoning is approved, not only do you get a project that’s consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the county, you get right-of-way donated for the improvements to Schutte Road, and an additional source of property tax revenue for local government operations. Again, I’m more than happy to answer any questions that you have at this time. Also with me this evening is Mr. Jim Morley, Jr. of Morley and Associates, they are the project engineer, and will see this project through, through the site review, etcetera, and Mr. Greg Moore of Moore Investments. Again, by the way, this received a vote of 11 in favor and one abstention at the Plan Commission meeting earlier this month.

President Mosby: Are there any questions at this time of Mr. Shively by any member of the Commission? Seeing none. Are there any remonstrators? Are you a remonstrator? Okay. You can come to the mike.

Kevin Flittner: I’m Kevin Flittner. I live at 7110 Broadway, which is down at the bottom where all the water will run to. One of the questions I have is, is where is the sewer going to go? Where is it going to come from?

President Mosby: Are you speaking of sanitary or are you speaking of storm?

Kevin Flittner: Sanitary, as well. I have a lot of concerns with this project.

President Mosby: Okay.

Kevin Flittner: That’s just one of them. You said if there was any questions.

President Mosby: I don’t know where they are going to be picking up a sanitary from, and I don’t know if...you can answer it? Okay.

Jim Morley, Jr.: Do you want to do it as we go?

President Mosby: Yeah, let’s go ahead and do it as we go.

Kevin Flittner: I have a few questions, so.

President Mosby: Okay, that’s fine.

Jim Morley, Jr.: The sanitary sewers, there’s sanitary sewers down there at the University. Then there is also sewers north of here, I believe. Either way, chances are we’ll have to install a lift station, do a forced main, a pressurized system over the one that is currently existing, accepted sewer.

Kevin Flittner: Do you know how big the sewer system is? The existing sewer system?

Jim Morley, Jr.: Well, the minimum in the county standards would be an 8" line for a public line.

Kevin Flittner: Well, I’m sure it’s a lot larger than that if it feeds from the school. It runs by my house, so, I think, it’s 24" to 48". I also know that the school intends to grow and grow, and my question is, is does it, is it going to be cutting the school out of some of their sewer capacity?

Jim Morley, Jr.: No, and the way the public utility works, they don’t reserve sewer capacity for any one person. The public utility works on a first come, first served basis, as far as sanitary sewers are concerned. However, the 80 apartment units, the amount of sanitary sewer that 80 units would require is minimal in the big picture as far as whether it would allow the University to expand or not. 80 apartment units would not drive the expansion of the unit.

Kevin Flittner: Alright, what about city water?

Jim Morley, Jr.: City water, I believe, there is water that runs down Schutte Road.

Kevin Flittner: Sure there is. I mean, how much does that take away from the residents and the school itself?

Jim Morley, Jr.: Again, it’s a minimal amount. The water utility has a certain level of pressure that they maintain inside the lines, and would not allow us to tap it if it was going to adversely affect and make it so your faucet ran dry.

Kevin Flittner: I’m just looking at the growth of the west side of whether or not how much, how long it’s going to take before they have to dig everything up and put in either a larger sewer line, or a larger city water line to keep the west side amply supplied. I understand that this is relatively a small unit. I understand that there is not, you haven’t quite got all your fine details on this, but they are concerns.

Jim Morley, Jr.: On water and sewer both, on all the utilities across the board, an 80 unit project, I don’t anticipate is one that would make or break any utility as far as their ability to serve other people in the area. I believe it’s a good size water line that runs up Schutte Road. But, again, the water is the same as the sanitary sewer where it’s on a first come, first served basis as far as who gets taps and who does not get taps.

Kevin Flittner: Okay. The other question I have is on how big the retaining pond is going to be, and how deep.

Jim Morley, Jr.: The retention basin will be based off of the Vanderburgh County drainage ordinance. The size of it has not been determined yet. However, there is ample room on the site to do what needs to be done. The retention basin will allow, will make it so the water that leaves this site now is no more than what the existing 10 year storm, a storm that happens once every ten years, whatever that leaves the site now–

Kevin Flittner: I understand that.

Jim Morley, Jr.: –so, that’s all governed by the drainage ordinance.

Kevin Flittner: The retention pond is not going to be on the part you’re trying to get rezoned. Is it on property that is going to be owned by this same affiliation?

Jim Morley, Jr.: Yeah, just because it was strictly a retention basin, we didn’t feel a need to rezone it.

Kevin Flittner: Okay. I have other concerns. One is that there is a tract of land on the side of this that is not yet purchased. It is owned by somebody else that could basically be, and probably will be, again, rezoned for this, and can I show you what I’m talking about?

President Mosby: Sure.

Kevin Flittner: I brought this, this is where (Inaudible), this is what’s left (Inaudible) brought down the road, and potentially be apartments as well. My main concern is runoff of all this. I have a flooding problem at my place, and have always had a somewhat of a flooding problem, but it keeps growing and growing. In the name of education I’ll put up with it, but it’s getting to the point where it’s noticeable.

Jim Morley, Jr.: The property to the east of here, we can only drain our water in the same manner in which it’s draining now, versus jumping watersheds and so on and so forth. It all drains to that channel.

Kevin Flittner: You know, I can show you some of these pictures. It may not matter. That’s my farm. That’s why I’m concerned.

Jim Morley, Jr.: Where are you at in the big picture? I don’t know where you are at.

Kevin Flittner: I’m a mile and a half down the road, right down here.

Jim Morley, Jr.: Over here?

Kevin Flittner: Yeah, I’m here. Here. That’s where all this runs, and this runs, and another thing is Catherine last year based your last vote on this on the fact that there had not been a water shed study done on this. On this area up here, and the county has spent $190,000 on doing a watershed study on Carpentier Creek and Bayou Creek, but it may not even touch this yet, and that study is not even done yet. The worst, we, the west side, are still eating the problems from before of all the water flooding problems on the west side. So, I am concerned about that.

Jim Morley, Jr.: I don’t–

Kevin Flittner: I understand.

Jim Morley, Jr.: I don’t know what flood study you are referring to. I can tell you that any drainage will be done in accordance with the ordinances, and shouldn’t have a negative impact on you whatsoever.

Kevin Flittner: Well, so far there isn’t any negative impact, because that six acres you’re wanting to rezone, and all this other field that could be rezoned soaks up water that would not have to run down there. I understand that you’re going to let it out in a retention pond at a slower rate, but it’s still coming. So, the drainage issue is a big issue with me.

President Mosby: What he’s referring to is the Carpentier Creek study. It’s just a study that we’ve conditioned with a consultant.

Kevin Flittner: Oh, okay.

President Mosby: To try and look at–

Kevin Flittner: It all feeds into Bayou Creek, and where my creek flows into, and your water off this apartment project will flow into as well. Your impervious surface runoff of such, vehicles and everything else up there is going to go into that retention pond. Oil floats. The first thing out is that oil. The first thing that’s coming down on me with that oil is the other stuff. So, I have concerns about it. I’m not trying to say that I want this shut down. It’s better to have apartments than it is commercial zoning, okay. It’s just the lesser of the two evils, and I want to make sure that...I would rather see this delayed until the Drainage Board had a good meeting on this, or some of the other issues were heard, but I don’t think that is going to happen. But, I do want to issue my concerns on the drainage.

Les Shively: Did Mr. Flittner state his name, his address for the record? Do we have that?

President Mosby: Yes, it was 7010 Broadway, I think.

Kevin Flittner: 7110.

President Mosby: 7110 Broadway.

Les Shively: (Inaudible) the Commissioners, but when this does come to Drainage Board, even though he is not an adjacent landowner, we will make sure that he receives notice so that he can participate in that hearing.

President Mosby: Okay. Are there any questions by any member of the Commission? Are there any, did you have some more comments?

Kevin Flittner: Other than the traffic issue, which I think they’ve done a good part on that. They are trying to help out on the traffic issue, and the security of it, and the buffer zones.

President Mosby: Yes, they addressed the buffer, and they are addressing the right-of-way, so that we don’t have to buy the right-of-way, they’ve agreed to that, so.

Kevin Flittner: Right.

President Mosby: Are there any other remonstrators? Anybody else–

Fred Padget: I’m Fred Padget, and I represent the West Side Improvement Association. First of all the attorney, along with the developer did meet with the neighbors early on and we do appreciate that. We had concerns, we have concerns with the traffic and the southbound, northbound left and right turn lanes, but that will be addressed somewhere down the line, we understand that. Parking spaces, in the calculation we had some, I’m not sure it was calculated correctly, but, again, that will be handled down through site review somewhere. The one thing that I would say about parking spaces is that if there is a heavy student residence, each of them will have cars. So, I’m not sure the normal standards of two cars for one apartment would be applicable. There may be more parking required, or there may at least be a problem. The other thing, the attorney mentioned that as regarding lighting to the west, the way the parking lot, there was a covenant developed, and we very much appreciate that also. So, those are things that one way or another have been resolved. Our main concern at this point is still excessive student renters, and the disturbance that can be associated with it. Mr. Shively and I talked this evening to quite an extent, and we may have at least some comfort, but according to some of the people at USI their feeling is that the apartments will be totally student occupied within a period of a couple of years. Of course, we do support USI, it’s mission, and the student body. We believe that’s a tremendous asset to Vanderburgh County and to Southwestern Indiana and the surrounding region. We do have great concern about the apartment complex becoming an off-campus party house for USI students. The close proximity to the campus adds to this concern. The attorney talked about a 10% limit, at least in the minds of the developer, that was expressed at the Area Planning Commission. We’ve talked with the attorney about trying to develop a covenant, and that seems not realistic in their mind because of the financing considerations. We understand the one year lease, and that does deter students to some extent. We understand sub-letting and that’s more or less kind of a normal provision of a contract anyway, or a lease. The other thing is all residents signing the lease would certainly be helpful. So, I guess, at this point, from my standpoint and from Westside Improvement’s standpoint we’re not totally convinced that the student housing, or that the student renters will be controlled. We do have great concerns about it. On the other hand it would probably be, maybe a little bit going too far to withhold any thoughts of approval of projects. So, at this point, I guess, the thing that I would say is based on the commitments from the developer to try to maintain that 10% student housing, and to set up the leases such that it will help to deter student housing, then we really have no opposition to the project. Thank you.

President Mosby: Any questions by any member of the Commission?

Beverly Behme: David, may I say something?

President Mosby: Yes.

Beverly Behme: I think Mr. Flittner suggested that the zoning be postponed until the drainage approval. The permit processes are done in stages.

President Mosby: Right.

Beverly Behme: Zoning has to be first. Then site review, and that will bring in the drainage approval, but the zoning has to come first.

President Mosby: Okay. She was addressing your one concern. Okay. Is there any questions of Mr. Padget?

Commissioner Fanello: I just have one question. It will probably be for Mr. Shively. About the student housing–

Les Shively: Yes, ma’am.

Commissioner Fanello: –exactly, you can’t discriminate against students, obviously.

Les Shively: Yeah, you can.

Commissioner Fanello: You can?

Les Shively: That’s one of the few...we discussed it at the Plan Commission. That’s one of the few types of residents you can discriminate. They are not protected under federal housing.

Commissioner Fanello: Could you just explain for the record how that–

Les Shively: How the law works?

Commissioner Fanello: Right.

Les Shively: Well, it’s my understanding of the law, you’re very strict in terms of, for example, you can’t have restrictions based upon race, gender, ethnicity, family make-up, whatever the situation is. There are very strict rules. However, students aren’t protected under those federal rules. Is that what you wanted me to explain? If you want me to explain why we can’t put it in a covenant, first of all, we were initially requested to put it in a use and development commitment. The Plan Commission won’t enforce that because that’s not really land use. There’s no way they can police that. How do they police it? You know, and so they asked about a private covenant, and, you know what they say the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rule. The people who have the gold for this project is Geneva Capital. They don’t want it encumbered. They don’t , you know, it creating any encumbrances that would affect their collateral. I can tell you having represented probably the largest apartment developer and management group in southern Indiana, the business of student housing is a totally different market. You build different structures. You don’t spend $30.7 million on 80 units that you’re going to have student housing and that kind of turn over. You do a whole different deal. You don’t do ten buildings spread around with eight units. I mean, you just don’t lay it out this way. This is laid out for a top end rent, low turn over, long term leasing folks. That’s how this is set up. You know, Moore Investments, they’re not in the student housing business. They don’t intend to be. They were more than willing to put that in there, but for the fact that their lender wouldn’t let them do it. Again, the best we can do is share with the West Side Improvement Association the lease to show that there is no sub-letting, and one year leases, and all occupants have to be signatories on the lease. If that answers your question.

Commissioner Crouch: What will the rent be on these units?

Unidentified: $750 per month.

Les Shively: $750?

Commissioner Crouch: Do you know how that compares to the student housing on USI?

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Madelyn Grayson: Can you please come to the microphone sir, and identify yourself.

President Mosby: Yeah, I was going to say.

Les Shively: Give the range of the rents.

Greg Moore: I believe the student housing is somewhere right around $200, maybe a little bit less. They get four people in per unit, on a two bedroom. They pay per semester. So, it’s kind of tough to break that down exactly how much is going towards rent versus the other fees that they have over there.

President Mosby: Are there any other questions? Any other questions from...could you please state your name and address for the record?

Greg Moore: Greg Moore, 4455 Foxmoor Drive, Newburgh, Indiana, Moore Investment Group LLC.

President Mosby: Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Moore? Seeing none. Come on. You need to come to the mike.

Kevin Flittner: As far as that goes, the $750 that’s per unit?

Greg Moore: Yes.

Kevin Flittner: Now, there’s a two bedroom unit right?

Greg Moore: Correct.

Kevin Flittner: Well, at USI the mass units are two bedroom units, and they put two guys, or two girls in each unit, or in each side of the unit, each bedroom. So, therefore that breaks down to where they could, the students could rent your apartments for less than $200 a month. To me, that’s pretty cheap rent.

Greg Moore: That it would be, but, you know, four guys or four girls moving into one apartment is going to throw up a red flag that they’re most likely students.

Kevin Flittner: There isn’t a covenant saying that they can’t be students.

Greg Moore: No, but we are, the way the property is going to be marketed we’re going to, basically, say no students allowed. You are going to have some students that just get in that, you know, are maybe older individuals going back to school for their masters or whatever, want to live near campus. Those are the type of individuals, that’s why I want to keep it kind of at 10%.

Kevin Flittner: I couldn’t afford to do that. I mean, without having a partner or something. It just sounds kind of fishy to me. I mean, it really does. You’re $750 for a two bedroom apartment in this town is not really that much.

Greg Moore: Market rent right now for all of Evansville is 67 cents per square foot on a one bedroom, and 62 cents per square foot on a two bedroom. At $750 you’re looking at 75 cents per square foot rent, which is considerably higher.

Kevin Flittner: You guys are leaving a lot of holes in this thing. Okay. I wanted to add something too about that drainage thing. Your elevation up there where you’re building is like around 500'. 521 the highest point, 500 in the lower point, and you’re going to knock down some, do some grading, right?

Greg Moore: Sure.

Kevin Flittner: So, you’re about 500'? I’m about 370, that’s 125' fall between your place and my place. Granted there’s some distance between there, but you’re talking rough terrain in between there too, and that water is still going to come down pretty fast. Even your retention ponds and so forth. If they give you the zoning to build these apartments, and they build more and more, and you’re going to have to build, somebody is going to have to build other retention ponds. There is a security risk too I’m looking at as far as there’s a buffer zone around the school that’s all residential, not apartments, not apartments that’s not even affiliated with the school or students. I’m just curious as to who you’re going to be renting these apartments to.

Les Shively: Can I address that please? I didn’t realize we were going to have Q & A here this evening, but–

Kevin Flittner: I’m just curious.

Les Shively: I will say this, we’re going to be meeting the demand on the west side. Right now the apartment occupancy rate on the west side right now is at 97%. Right before you start hearing comments on this particular application there was a request before you for 220 units on the east side of high quality apartments from an investor from Indianapolis. There is a high demand in this community, both east and west, for high quality, multi-family, rental housing. Don’t ask me to try to explain why, because we all still have low interest rates, and the housing market still seems to be going strong. But, Mr. Kendall, if he would have stayed here could have shared with you this evening also, in his particular project, a lender came to him saying we want to invest in Evansville, Indiana, a multi-family, because we believe that’s the market that has not, you know, reached a saturation point–

Kevin Flittner: Multi-family–

Les Shively: Sir, can I....yes, multi-family. So, the market speaks for itself. Again, just let me say from the student situation, if you were going to build something to accommodate students, you would build something like student housing. You wouldn’t do ten buildings, spread apart with eight units in a building. You would do something totally different to maximize your cost, to maximize your return on investment. What is being proposed here is to meet the demand for high quality rental housing on the west side of Evansville, which Mission Viejo has a capacity. Copper Creek, which I think is your newest community is pretty well leased out, and those are both high quality end, they do not cater to students, although they don’t have any restrictions that I’m aware of, but they are well patronized by people that are looking, young professionals, empty nesters, those sorts of people who are looking for that type of housing on the west side. I hope that answers your question.

President Mosby: It does. Thank you. Any other remonstrators?

Jim Seibert: I’ll try to make it relatively quick. My name is Jim Seibert. I live at 7117 Walling Drive, which is approximately a half mile south of this development. I know the Webers, I go to church with them. Their son coached my son in basketball. You know, I’ve got nothing against developers wanting to build properties and earn a profit. I’ve been in the construction industry myself for over 20 years, and I’ve been involved in billions of dollars worth of projects. So, I understand wanting to go out and maximize your development dollars. However, it still doesn’t alleviate my concerns about traffic. This is a residential area. We fought the traffic for years and years with USI. They finally built an overpass. We finally alleviated the traffic, now here we are going to dump probably 800 cars a day back out on to this highway, back out on to Schutte Road. I get that from 80 units. Apartment dwellers usually have approximately ten cars per apartment that make traffic out onto the road per day. I do have drainage concerns. It is a flash flood type situation down through that valley as it is. Last year we had remonstrators that live in that valley. They will tell you how high and how wide that water gets to screamin’ down that valley when we have a good rain. This road, there is a culvert at this point where they are going to be putting in a retention basin that is approximately 6' to 7' below Schutte Road as it is. By the time you add free board on top of that to allow retainage for this storm water, you’re probably looking at a top of pond that is 10' below Schutte Road, at that point in time. I think that makes a common nuisance as well. As well as the fact that I think it’s going to become a big plug for everything that drains to the west of this road. I’ve heard they are saying that they would like to put limits on students. That they don’t think it’s a problem, however, I do know that this is going to be off campus. They won’t have campus security patrolling these apartments. Students do get in there, it’s going to be party central. I went to Purdue University, I saw what the housing near a campus goes for, especially when it’s off campus. $750 is cheap for off campus housing that close to there. So, I know that the students will be going after this housing. Other issues; light pollution, noise pollution, it’s hard to see the sky at night out there as it is now. Now you’re going to add another 80 units with outside lights, with area lighting. I know there are steps that can be taken to minimize this. However, it is just something that you have to take into account, noise pollution from vehicles, from more traffic on the road. All these things can be engineered out. I’m a professional engineer myself, I know that. The biggest concern that I do have is, just look at your drive in from the east side of Evansville into Evansville. You’ve got shopping center after shopping center after apartment complex after dealership, automobile dealership, that’s all you see until you get to downtown Evansville. You come in from the west side, you’ve got tree lined highways. It’s a rural area, that’s why we bought our homes out in that area. I’m just afraid that if you put this apartment complex at the corner of Schutte Road and the highway, the natural extension for these guys is to go next door to Felstead and the highway and put a big complex there. Then you can go down Felstead Road quite a bit, you can put more apartments there. Then if the Webers want to sell their properties, you can go up Schutte Road, or down Schutte Road south on it until you are all the way butted up against Clark Lane and the USI campus. There has been steps in the past to limit development at Boehne Camp Road. It’s gone a little bit west of Boehne Camp Road now, but they have pretty much limited it there. You drive down there now you see promise of the Hahn development, and we look at the back end of restaurants, we look at air condition units, it’s not a very pretty sight. They haven’t done much as far as landscaping, seeding. Now we’re looking at an empty Shyler’s. You go a little bit further past that you’re looking at an empty Dog ‘n Suds, you’re looking at an empty Kentucky Fried Chicken. You’ve already seen the results of over building closer to town. I’m just afraid that if you put this out there, before we know it, it’s going to be completely built from USI all the way into town. That’s why I just ask that you limit it to the Boehne Camp Road area, and not go any further west. If single family residents want to build on these type areas, I have no problem with that. Smaller condominium type developments want to build there, I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the high density residential apartments going in there. Thank you for your time.

President Mosby: Is there any questions of Mr. Seibert? Thank you very much.

Jim Seibert: I do want to remind you of one thing. Last year there was two separate issues that came before the board. One was for commercial and one was for residential. In separate votes, they were both voted down. It wasn’t just strictly a commercial development that came before the county last year.

President Mosby: Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Seeing none. The chair would–

Les Shively: Just briefly, I’ll be brief.

President Mosby: That’s fine.

Les Shively: Just picking up on what Mr. Seibert said, I wasn’t here last year, plus there are a lot more people here that are opposed to this project than you’ve heard from here this evening. You’ve heard from a lot of folks, and you’ve heard from the West Side Improvement Association, and you’ve heard their comments that are mostly favorable with regard to this particular project. All I can say is that because we are disturbing more than five acres, we’re going to have to do the drainage plan. That has to follow your ordinance, the county’s drainage ordinance. It has to be reviewed by Mr. Jeffers, and has to be voted upon by you after we give notice to all the affected landowners, including Mr. Flittner who we’ve agreed to give notice to. Traffic, traffic is going to be improved. There is a situation where you’ve got $52,000 a year in additional property tax revenue and donated right-of-way to probably address a situation on Schutte Road that needs to be addressed now, if the funds are available and the right-of-way is available. This is a project greatly pared down from last year, 80 units. We think it’s consistent with the overall land use. The Plan Commission has said so. Mr. Seibert would like to see single family residential. The fact of the matter is the proximity of this property to the highway does not lend itself to single family development. I can, I would make this statement. If it was a property that the market place was looking at for favorable for single family development, since we have gone through one of the biggest housing booms, and Mr. Pedtke would attest to that from the Builders Association, unprecedented for this area, someone would have snatched that property up and subdivided it and built homes on it, at least within the last two or three years. That hasn’t happened. The Webers have tried several different approaches to try to market this property. This is a win-win plan. It’s a well thought out plan, and it’s a plan, as Ms. Behme has indicated to you, this is just the beginning. We still have to go through the site review process. We still have to go through the County Drainage Board. At the end of the day you’re going to have a high quality project, and additional resources to make improvements out there on the west side. We would respectfully, and, by the way, I think the Webers are here this evening. Could you stand up, folks? Thank you. We would ask for your favorable approval here this evening, and your assistance in seeing this project go forward. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you, Mr. Shively. Are there any other questions by any member of the Commission? The chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve VC-8-2003, A change to R-3.

Commissioner Crouch: And I’ll second.

President Mosby: This requires a roll call. Commissioner Crouch?

Commissioner Crouch: I have been out to Mr. Flittner’s property, and I’ve talked to him several times on the phone, and I understand his issues in relation to drainage, and in relation to traffic and safety. While this may be an appropriate use of the land, there are issues that do need to be dealt with, and they do need to be resolved. As a homeowner in another part of the county that’s very fast growing out on the north end, where we see a lot of development, and I live close to 41 and to 57, I’m always pleased when the residential development goes in, or a similar development, only because that tends to keep the commercial and industrial further from my home. It has to be a good development. I think that is the main concern with this, is that it must be a good development. So, the issues, as they relate to traffic, and the issues as they relate to drainage need to be dealt with by the appropriate boards, and need to be dealt with safely and thoroughly. I will be happy to go with Mr. Flittner, or Mr. Seibert to any of those boards, the drainage, when we meet with the Surveyor, the site plan, in order to ensure that their concerns are dealt with, and that they feel comfortable as we move forward. With saying that, I’ll vote yes.

President Mosby: Commissioner Fanello?

Commissioner Fanello: Yes, I would like to say that, you know, last year when we were presented with a development out there, I was not pleased with that development, and was not pleased how that whole process worked. I am against seeing any commercial in that area, but I do not have a problem with residential, because I do believe it stays consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for land use. As Commissioner Crouch stated, you know, the traffic concerns will be dealt with in site review, and we as a board will deal with the drainage plan. So, I think we still have a long way to go on the project, and I think it will be a good project. I’m happy to say that I’m glad to see residential there and not commercial there. So, I vote yes.

President Mosby: Myself, I will just say that I’m committed to trying to upgrade the traffic out there. I’ve talked with John Stoll, I think, everyday for the last 365 days, and he’s tired of talking to me. I had him again last Friday when I found out that the developer was willing to donate the right-of-way to try to improve the traffic out there. I am very happy to see residential going in this area, because I dealt with this same petition last year on the commercial, and the commercial and residential together, and that didn’t seem to be of any favoritism to the public. So, I’m going to vote yes on this issue. We have three yes’, no nays, and petition VC-8-2003 is hereby declared adopted.

Les Shively: Thank you very much.

President Mosby: Thank you. Is there any other business to come before the board?

Commissioner Fanello: Do we not have minutes to approve from last month’s rezoning?

Madelyn Grayson: We combined those with the Commission minutes, so they were approved already.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay. Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m.)

CONSENT ITEMS:

Travel Requests: Health Department (5)

         Employment Changes:

         County Clerk                   Center Assessor             Burdette Park

         Recorder                         County Council 

         Request for Service: Jail.

         Sheriff: Weekly Jail and Community Corrections Reports.

         Those in Attendance:

         David W. Mosby             Catherine Fanello           Suzanne M. Crouch

         Kevin Winternheimer      Bill Fluty                          Tammy McKinney

         Madelyn Grayson           Linda Nalley                    Sherman Greer

         John Stoll                        Dennis Hudnall               Gary Hohman

         Norman Duckworth         Les Shively                     Kevin Flittner

         Jim Morley, Jr.                Fred Padget                    Beverly Behme

         Greg Moore                    Jim Seibert                     Others Unidentified

         Members of Media

         VANDERBURGH COUNTY

         BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

         David W. Mosby, President

         Catherine Fanello, Vice President

         Suzanne M. Crouch, Member

         Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.