FEBRUARY 9, 2016 at 5:30 pm REGULAR SESSION AGENDA · 2/9/2016 · FUND 4931-001, VOTER...

1 | P a g e

FEBRUARY 9, 2016 at 5:30 pm REGULAR SESSION AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC COMMENT 4. DEPARTMENT UPDATES 5. COUNCIL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

A. Resolution 2016-07, Appointments to Board & Commissions

B. Resolution 2016-08, Acknowledge The Public Service of Citizen Appointments Whose Terms Have Ended

____________________________________________________________________________________ 6. CIRCUIT COURT, Judge Stephen Galvin Pages 9-10

Request for Approval of Additional Appropriation FUND 1120-224, JUVENILE COIT - COURTS 30.0007 CASA $27,334.00 The Circuit Court Board of Judges wish to request the approval of additional appropriations for 2016. Indiana law requires the appointment of a CASA on all CHINS cases. The M.C. Circuit Court has been in a partnership with the CASA program dating back 30 years. That partnership has proven invaluable. Over the past five years the percentage of support from the Court has shrunk from 45% to currently 29% while appointments have increased 74%. With the increased number of CHINS appointed and additional obligation, it becomes essential to increase the funding to maintain the same quality of services provided not only to the Court but to the Community. ____________________________________________________________________________________

MONROE COUNTY COUNCIL Monroe County Courthouse, Room 306

100 W Kirkwood Avenue Bloomington, IN 47404

Phone: (812) 349-7312 Fax: (812) 349-2982

Cheryl Munson, President Ryan Cobine, President Pro Tempore

Marty Hawk Lee Jones

Geoff McKim Eric Spoonmore

Shelli Yoder R. Michael Flory, Council Attorney

Kim Shell, Council Assistant

of 150

2 | P a g e

7. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, Jim Comerford Pages 11-33 Request for Creation of New Fund with Budget Lines and Simultaneous Approval of Additional Appropriation

FUND 8148-000, 2015 IDHS DISTRICT 8 TRAINING 30.0001 Homeland Security Grant $20,200.00 This is a State pass-through grant for IDHS District 8 Training. Our office and Monroe County act as the fiscal agent for this grant. The grant funds attendance for District personnel to attend two emergency management conferences which consist of various speakers and training sessions. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8. HEALTH DEPARTMENT, Penny Caudill Page 34 A. Request for Approval of Additional Appropriations FUND 9130-000, SYRINGE EXCHANGE 20.0001 Supplies $ 2,400.00 30.0001 Syringe Exchange Expenses $12,600.00 TOTAL $15,000.00 The Health Department was awarded this grant to support the local syringe exchange program. These funds will reimburse the Indiana Recovery Alliance for expenses such as insurance, gas, vehicle maintenance, and other supplies. <><><><><> B. Request for Approval to Transfer Funds Pages 35-36 FUND 1206-000, LHD IN TRUST ACCOUNT FROM: 20.0010 Public Info $100.00 TO: 30.0005 Conf/Registration $100.00 This category transfer is needed to match the final budget approved by the Indiana State Department of Health for this fund. The state approval followed local budget hearings and a training was identified that was $100 more than we had originally placed in this line. <><><><><>

C. Request for Approval to Transfer Funds Pages 37-38 FUND 8126-015, FUTURES CLINIC

FROM: 30.0007 INS Medical Practice $1,500.00 TO: 40.0001 Equip & Furniture $1,500.00 The Monroe County Health Department is requesting a category transfer 30s to 40s for Futures Clinic. This will allow the purchase and payment of an additional work space in the flex office which will be needed once a part-time person is added to the clinic staff. Revenue is up, the funds are available and the grant period ends March 31, 2016. ____________________________________________________________________________________

of 150

3 | P a g e

9. PROBATION OFFICE, Linda Brady Pages 39-41 Request for Creation of New Fund with Budget Lines and Simultaneous Approval of Additional Appropriations

FUND 8118-004, JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) 10.0001 JAG Drug Court Coordinator $22,446.62 11.8001 FT Fringe $ 4,713.79 11.8101 FICA $ 1,717.17 11.8201 PERF $ 3,187.42 TOTAL $32,065.00 This Grant was awarded by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute to pay the salary and benefits of the Problem Solving Court Director to support the overall functioning of the Drug Treatment Court and other problem solving courts. A 2016 salary ordinance for this grant was previously approved. Part of the remaining salary and fringe benefit balance will be paid from previously appropriated money in fund 1121-226 for this position. This is a significant cut in funding from last year’s grant. After 11 years of continuous JAG funding, our award notification letter indicated that fund is not likely to continue after this year. WE are actively exploring other sources to continue funding this position through the end of 2016 and beyond. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 10. LEGAL DEPARTMENT, David Schilling Request for Approval of Additional Appropriation FUND 1000-277, COUNTY GENERAL 30.0014 Claims Settlement $25,000.00 The Legal Department’s Settlement category was cut during the hearings for the 2016 Budget. Since that time the desirability of having access to funds to draw upon for various settlement possibilites has become apparent to the County Attorney and others. An additional appropriation is requested to broaden County options in future negotiations in settlement situations. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 11. CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Brad Swain Pages 42-43 Request for Approval of Additional Appropriations FUND 1175-000, MISDEMEANANT FUND 11.8101 FICA $ 2,518.61 11.7801 Hourly $32,923.00 TOTAL $35,441.61 The Correctional Center is asking for appropriations to be put back into the 2016 Budget in order to cover Part-Time salaries. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 12. AUDITOR’S OFFICE, Steve Saulter Pages 44-46

Request for Creation of New Budget Lines and Simultaneous Approval of Additional Appropriation

FUND 1121-002, COIT GENERAL 30.0001 Contractual $235,000.00 These funds are necessary for the installation of LOW software for the financial functions in the Auditor’s Office.

of 150

4 | P a g e

____________________________________________________________________________________ 13. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Angie Purdie Pages 47-76 A. Request for Approval of Additional Appropriation FUND 1000-068, COUNTY GENERAL 30.0001 Timber Sales $40,000.00 This request has come about after being contacted by the Ellettsville Fire Department who noted after going through some statements they were missing a year of payment. After receiving information for the IDNR and checking that with information in the Harris accounting system, it has become clear NONE of the Fire Departments received their distribution in 2012. This appropriation will bring the fire departments current to 2016. We can expect the next distribution in December of this year. ($2,500 per Department x 8 Departments = $20,000 per year = 2012 & 2015 Distributions) <><><><><> B. Request for Approval of Additional Appropriations Page 77 FUND 4803-000, 2013 GO BOND 40.0001 Showers Building Repairs $ 50,731.00 40.0004 Jail Remodel $186,974.94 40.0008 Fire Suppression $ 15,287.25 40.0012 Solar Project $ 30,315.49 40.0013 Karst Connection Trail $ 34,300.00 TOTAL $317,608.68 Requesting the appropriation in the 40’s category of the 2013 Bond. All of these projects should be finishing up this year. <><><><><> C. Request for Approval of Additional Appropriations Pages 78 FUND 4804-000, 2014 GO BOND 40.0003 Emergency Notifications $ 9,464.86 40.0004 IT Hardware $209,348.53 40.0005 Energy Project $ 20,326.67 TOTAL $239,140.06 Requesting the appropriation of the remaining funds in the 2014 GO Bond 40’s category. <><><><><>

D. Request for Approval of Additional Appropriations Pages 79-80 FUND 2502-000, CABLE FRANCHISE 30.0003 Telephone Maint. $ 5,000.00 30.0011 Software Dev. Serv. $ 7,500.00 30.0014 Copier Lease $ 90,000.00 TOTAL $102,500.00

of 150

5 | P a g e

This fund was not adequately budgeted during the 2016 Budget process as these lines were not brought forward from being transferred from County General to this fund during the 2015 Budget process. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 14. CLERK’S OFFICE, Linda Robbins Page 81-82 A. Request for Approval of Additional Appropriations FUND 8146-016, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN GRANT 10.0001 Program Coordinator $ 39,939.90 11.8001 Health Insurance $ 7,588.58 11.8101 FICA $ 3,055.40 11.8201 PERF $ 5,671.47 20.0001 Office Supplies $ 1,296.75 20.0002 Equipment-Courts $ 2,543.88 20.0003 Equipment-Clerk $ 901.36 20.0004 Printing $ 5,525.00 20.0005 Travel $ 4,457.80 20.0006 Training $ 2,350.00 20.0007 Postage $ 46.00 20.0008 Kits-Law Enforcement $ 1,250.00 20.0009 Kits-Victims $ 2,250.00 30.0001 Contractual $ 46,165.85 30.0002 Partner Shared Costs $ 6,834.88 30.0003 Indirect Costs $ 18,628.64 40.0001 Equipment-Law Enforcement $ 43,412.00 TOTAL $191,917.51 This budget is designed to use funds provided to Monroe County from a 3-year Federal Grant authorized in October 2015. Limited amounts were included in the 2015 Budget due to start-up procedures limiting grant activity. In 2016 and beyond, additional grant-funded activity will occur. The new budget line amounts detail additional activities anticipated as part of this grant work. We are asking Council to authorize these line amounts for the 2016 POAP Budget. <><><><><> Page 83 B. Request for New Budget Lines and Simultaneous Additional Appropriations FUND 4931-001, VOTER REGISTRATION 10.0005 Deputy Clerk $ 30,575.00 10.0006 Deputy Clerk $ 29,195.00 11.7601 Longevity $ 800.00 11.8001 FT Health/Dental/Life $ 12,551.70 11.8003 FT Unemployment -0- 11.8101 FICA $ 6,775.61 11.8201 PERF $ 8,487.34 12.7801 Clerical Hourly (D) $ 14,000.00 12.7802 Clerical Hourly (R) $ 14,000.00 20.0001 General Office Supplies $ 2,000.00 20.0002 Printing $ 5,000.00 30.0001 Postage $ 10,000.00

of 150

6 | P a g e

30.0006 Contractual $ 6,000.00 30.0007 Dues $ 80.00 30.0008 Training $ 2,000.00 30.0010 Software & Licensing $ -0- TOTAL $141,464.65 During the 2016 Budget Hearings the Council decided to work with the Commissioners to establish a dedicated non-reverting fund to handle all election-related expenses, formerly covered by the Voter Registration department and the Election Board department. The Council voted to transfer money from the Rainy Day Fund in order to fund these two departments as part of the new dedicated non-reverting Election Fund, 4931. The money appropriated into these two departments during budget hearings will be deappropriated later in this meeting. As discussed at the January work session, there will be complete separation between Voter Registration and the Election Board even though the two are being moved into the newly created Election Fund. <><><><><> Page 83 C. Request for New Budget Lines and Simultaneous Additional Appropriations FUND 4931-002, ELECTION BOARD 10.0001 Elections Supervisor $ 33,047.00 11.7101 Hourly/Clerical Overtime $ 17,000.00

11.7601 Longevity $ 800.00 11.8001 FT Health/Dental/Life $ 6,939.87 11.8003 FT Unemployment -0- 11.8101 FICA $ 10,231.95 11.8201 PERF $ 4,692.67 12.0002 Election Supervisor $ 2,652.00 12.0003 Assist to Canvas Board -0- 12.0004 Inspectors $ 11,220.00 12.0005 Judges $ 30,780.00 12.0006 Precinct Sheriffs $ 5,200.00 12.0007 Clerks $ 50,880.00 12.0021 Janitors $ 1,700.00 12.0072 Absentee Boards $157,724.00 12.7001 Clerk & 2 Board Members $ 8,000.00 12.7003 Travel Boards $ 10,360.00 12.7801 Hourly/Clerical $ 80,252.00 20.0001 General Office Supplies $ 3,000.00 20.0002 Machine, Precinct Etc. $ 58,870.00 20.0003 Precinct Setup Supplies $ 7,500.00 20.0004 Postage $ 40,000.00 30.0001 Meals @ 100 $ 23,200.00 30.0002 Election Board Yearly Training $ 800.00 30.0003 Traveling Expenses $ 1,000.00 30.0004 Freight $ 2,500.00 30.0005 Legal Notices $ 500.00 30.0006 Ballots $ 44,475.48 30.0007 Maps $ 250.00

of 150

7 | P a g e

30.0008 Voting Machine Custodians (ED & Sat) $152,000.00 30.0010 Polling Places $ 1,700.00 30.0011 Contractual $ 74,000.00 30.0012 Voting Machine Repair -0- 30.0013 Truck Rental $ 3,250.00 30.0014 Copier Expense -0- 40.0001 Furniture -0- 40.0002 Equipment $ -0- TOTAL $844,524.97 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 15. 2016 BUDGET

A. CLERK’S OFFICE Deappropriation of FUND 1000-010, VOTER REGISTRATION 10.0005 Deputy Clerk $ 30,575.00

10.0006 Deputy Clerk $ 29,195.00 11.7601 Longevity $ 800.00 11.8001 FT Health/Dental/Life $ 12,551.70 11.8003 FT Unemployment -0- 11.8101 FICA $ 6,775.61 11.8201 PERF $ 8,487.34 12.7801 Clerical Hourly (D) $ 14,000.00 12.7802 Clerical Hourly (R) $ 14,000.00 20.0001 General Office Supplies $ 2,000.00 20.0002 Printing $ 5,000.00 30.0001 Postage $ 10,000.00 30.0006 Contractual $ 6,000.00 30.0007 Dues $ 80.00 30.0008 Training $ 2,000.00 30.0010 Software & Licensing $ -0- TOTAL $141,464.65 A Fund to Fund transfer of all 2016 Payroll and AP Expenditures will be made to preserve the integrity of any history created during January and February. <><><><><>

C. CLERK’S OFFICE Deappropriation of FUND 1121-062, ELECTION BOARD

10.0001 Elections Supervisor $ 33,047.00 11.7101 Hourly/Clerical Overtime $ 17,000.00 11.7601 Longevity $ 800.00 11.8001 FT Health/Dental/Life $ 6,939.87 11.8003 FT Unemployment -0- 11.8101 FICA $ 10,231.95 11.8201 PERF $ 4,692.67 12.0002 Election Supervisor $ 2,652.00 12.0003 Assist to Canvas Board -0-

of 150

8 | P a g e

12.0004 Inspectors $ 11,220.00 12.0005 Judges $ 30,780.00 12.0006 Precinct Sheriffs $ 5,200.00 12.0007 Clerks $ 50,880.00 12.0021 Janitors $ 1,700.00 12.0072 Absentee Boards $157,724.00 12.7001 Clerk & 2 Board Members $ 8,000.00 12.7003 Travel Boards $ 10,360.00 12.7801 Hourly/Clerical $ 80,252.00 20.0001 General Office Supplies $ 3,000.00 20.0002 Machine, Precinct Etc. $ 58,870.00 20.0003 Precinct Setup Supplies $ 7,500.00 20.0004 Postage $ 40,000.00 30.0001 Meals @ 100 $ 23,200.00 30.0002 Election Board Yearly Training $ 800.00 30.0003 Traveling Expenses $ 1,000.00 30.0004 Freight $ 2,500.00 30.0005 Legal Notices $ 500.00 30.0006 Ballots $ 44,475.48 30.0007 Maps $ 250.00 30.0008 Voting Machine Custodians (ED & Sat) $152,000.00 30.0010 Polling Places $ 1,700.00 30.0011 Contractual $ 74,000.00 30.0012 Voting Machine Repair -0- 30.0013 Truck Rental $ 3,250.00 30.0014 Copier Expense -0- 40.0001 Furniture -0- 40.0002 Equipment $ -0- TOTAL $844,524.97

A Fund to Fund transfer of all 2016 Payroll and AP Expenditures will be made to preserve the integrity of any history created during January and February. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 16. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -December 8, 2015 – Regular Session Pages 84-122 -December 22, 2015 – Work Session Pages 123-130 -January 12, 2016 – Regular Session Pages 131-150 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS ____________________________________________________________________________________ 18. ADJOURNMENT

of 150

of 150

C:\Users\cokshell\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\YM32H7TG\2015 IDHS District 8 Training Grant Council Agenda Request.doc

Department: Emergency Management [Note: in 2013 this request will be heard on the second Tuesday of the month. The fourth Tuesday will be a Work Session, unless otherwise advertised.] Month you wish this Item to be considered: February 2016 Title of Item as it is to appear on Agenda: 2015 IDHS District 8 Training Grant (15106) What is the purpose of your request, chosen from the following categories? (1) Additional Appropriation; (2) Creation of New Fund; (3) Amend Salary Ordinance; (4) Creation of New Budget Line(s); (5) Appropriation of newly received funds (e.g., grant); (6)Transfer of Funds; (7) Other. Type the Relevant Category Below: 2,3,5 Contact Person for further Information (include phone number and email address): Jim Comerford 812-325-4321 [email protected] Please give a thorough narrative explanation of your agenda request; what action are you asking the Council to take, and what is the purpose? This narrative should be restated (cut and paste) on any additional forms regarding this request. NOTE: Council has instructed Staff not to accept requests that lack sufficient narrative explanation. This is a state pass-through grant for IDHS District 8 Training. Our office and Monroe County act as the fiscal agent for this grant. The grant is in the amount of $20,200.00 and funds attendance for district personnel to attend two emergency management conferences which consist of various speakers and training sessions. Requested by Jim Comerford Date: 1-13-2016

MONROE COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA REQUEST

Please use only this form to place an item on the County Council’s Agenda. If the matter is complex, you may wish to consult with a Councilor or the Council Office. Please fill this form out as a Word document (not in PDF format) and send it as an e-mail attachment. Iif you submit this as an e-mail attachment, there is no need to submit a paper form. Please e-mail to [email protected] and to [email protected]. Contact the Council Office at 349-7312 if you have any questions. Rev: 1-13

of 150

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR CREATION OF NEW FUND WITH BUDGET LINES (Rev. 05-04)

Department Head Jim Comerford Date: 12/15/2015

Department: Emergency Management Date: 1/13/2016

Fund Name / Number: 2015 IDHS District 8 Training Grant (15106) Fund 8148

New Budget Line Number New Budget Line Name

30.0001 Homeland Security Grant

Reason for request (include a complete description of why a new fund and budget lines are needed and how the money in that line will be used)

This is a state pass-through grant for IDHS District 8 Training. Our office and Monroe County act as the fiscal agent for this grant. The grant is in the amount of $20,200.00 and funds attendance for district personnel to attend two emergency management conferences which consist of various speakers and training sessions.

Email completed form to the Council Attorney and County Council Administrative Assistant in the County Council Office prior to the deadline (see appropriate resolution concerning the Council meeting schedule for deadline dates).

of 150

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION APPROVAL FROM MONROE COUNTY COUNCIL (Rev. 05-04)

Department Head Jim Comerford Date: 1/13/2016

Department: Emergency Management Date: 1/13/2016

From Fund Name/Number:

Fund Name / Number: 2015 IDHS District 8 Training (15106) Fund 8148

Budget Line Number Budget Line Name Amount

30.0001 Homeland Security Grant $20,200.00

Total: $20,200.00

Reason for request (include a complete description of why appropriation is needed and how the money will be used) This is a state pass-through grant for IDHS District 8 Training. Our office and Monroe County act as the fiscal agent for this grant. The grant is in the amount of $20,200.00 and funds attendance for district personnel to attend two emergency management conferences which consist of various speakers and training sessions.

Email completed form to the Council Attorney and County Council Administrative Assistant in the Council Office prior to the appropriation deadline (see appropriate resolution concerning the Council meeting schedule for deadline dates). Requests received after the deadline will placed on the following month’s agenda.

of 150

of 20

2015 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT

CFDA # 97.067

Contract #0000000000000000000015106

This 2015 Homeland Security Grant Program Subrecipient Agreement (the “Agreement”), entered into by and between the Indiana Department of Homeland Security (the “State”) and MONROE COUNTY (the “Subrecipient”), is executed pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein. In consideration of those mutual undertakings and covenants, the parties agree as follows:

1. Purpose of this Agreement.

The purpose of this Agreement is to enable the State, pursuant to its authority under IC 10-19-3-3, to make a subaward to the Subrecipient from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Grant Programs Directorate, Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Grants Program, Federal Award Identification Number EMW-2015-SS-00049 (awarded to the State on August 11, 2015), for the allowable costs of this project (the “Project”) as described in Exhibit A, which is attached to and fully incorporated into this Agreement.

The administrative and audit requirements and cost principles under 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, as adopted at 2 CFR 3002 are applicable to this Agreement.

The Subrecipient shall comply with the federal grant provisions contained in Exhibit B which is attached to and fully incorporated into this Agreement and when the duly authorized representative for the Subrecipient signs this Agreement, the signatory is making the certifications required by Exhibit B.

2. Amount of Subaward.

This subaward is for an amount not to exceed $20,200.00. The funds received by the Subrecipient pursuant to this Agreement shall be used only to implement the Project in conformance with this Agreement and for no other purpose.

3. Term.

This Agreement shall begin on November 01, 2015 (“Effective Date”) and shall remain in effect through August 31, 2017 (“Expiration Date”). This Agreement may only be extended upon the written agreement of the parties and as permitted by the state and federal laws governing this subaward. In no event shall payments be made for obligations incurred, equipment purchased or work performed before the Effective Date or after the Expiration Date of this Agreement.

4. Payment of Funds.

The payment of this subaward by the State to the Subrecipient shall be made in accordance with and subject to the following conditions:

A. This Agreement must have been executed and approved by all required signatories and approvers.

B. All payments shall be made in arrears in conformance with State fiscal policies and procedures. As required by IC §4-13-2-14.8, al payments will be by direct deposit by electronic funds transfer to the financial institution designated by the Subrecipient in writing. No payments will be made in advance of the Subrecipient’s receipt of the goods or services.

C. Prior to making a payment under this Agreement, the Subrecipient must have submitted to the State a receipt or other documentation demonstrating that the goods or services have been received by the Subrecipient, all equipment has been installed, if applicable, and the Subrecipient has paid for an approved expenditure that is part of this Project. This request for reimbursement shall be submitted in the form and manner specified by

of 150

of 20

the State and shall be accompanied by sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the expenditures were allowable expenditures. If this Agreement requires the Subrecipient to provide a match, each reimbursement request shall include the documentation for the match amount corresponding to the reimbursement amount requested.

D. As required by IC §4-13-2-14.8, all payments shall be made by electronic funds transfer to the financial institution designated by the Subrecipient in writing.

5. Subrecipient’s Duties and Responsibilities.

A. The Subrecipient shall be solely responsible for the proper implementation of the approved Project. The Subrecipient shall implement and complete the Project in accordance with Exhibit A and its Application, which is on file with the State and is incorporated by reference. Any inconsistency or ambiguity in this Agreement shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (1) This Agreement; (2) Exhibit B; (3) Exhibit A; and (4) Application submitted to the State.

B. The Subrecipient shall only use the funds provided under this Agreement for the itemized expenditures identified in Exhibit A of this Agreement and shall not spend more than the specified amount for each such itemized expenditure. The Subrecipient may request, in writing, approval from the State to modify the expenditures itemized or the amounts specified in Exhibit A. This request shall be submitted in the form and manner specified by the State. At its sole discretion, the State may, in writing, approve this request. The Subrecipient must obtain this written approval from the State PRIOR to making an expenditure that is not in compliance with Exhibit A.

C. The Subrecipient shall complete the Project (“Project Completion”), which includes, but is not limited to ordering, accepting delivery, installing equipment and full completion of performance of any service agreements or contracts, by the Expiration Date of this Agreement (the "Project Completion Deadline"). The Subrecipient shall pay out the funds, submit a final report and documentation of expenditures made, and submit all requests for payment within forty-five (45) days of the Project Completion Deadline. The State has the discretion, and reserves the right, to NOT reimburse the Subrecipient for an expenditure that does not comply with all of the requirements established in this paragraph..

D. The Subrecipient shall ensure that funds awarded under this Agreement do not replace (supplant) funds that have been budgeted for the same purpose through non-Federal sources. The Subrecipient may be required to demonstrate and document that a reduction in non-Federal resources occurred for reasons other than the receipt or expected receipt of Federal funds.

E. Until this Project has been completed, the Subrecipient shall submit to the State written quarterly reports detailing the progress toward completion of the Project. These reports shall include the information, be in the format specified and be submitted in accordance with the schedule established by the State.

F. The Subrecipient expressly represents and warrants to the State that the information set forth in its grant application is true, complete and accurate.

G. The Subrecipient shall comply with the requirements in the following:

i. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Notice of Funding Opportunity (“NOFO”) for the FY 2015 Homeland Security Grant Program which is available from the State upon request or at: https://www.fema.gov/fiscal-year-2015-homeland-security-grant-program. This NOFO is hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference. By signing this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to comply that all allocations and use of funds will be in accordance with the requirements contained in the NOFO.

ii. The document titled “Indiana Department of Homeland Security, Comprehensive Training & Exercise Guidance, Volume I, September 21, 2012” (September 2012 yearly update version) available from: http://www.in.gov/dhs/2426.htm. (These requirements include, but are not limited to, the State’s requirement the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Methodology be used for all

of 150

of 20

training and exercise design, planning, conduct, and for the after action/improvement process, and, if it is available, that all training and exercises must be scheduled on the U.S. DHS National Exercise Schedule (NEXS) System to include all required information as listed on the NEXS System.)

iii. If applicable, the requirements governing the preparation of local mitigation plans in 44 CFR 201.6.

6. Requirements Applicable to Property/Equipment Purchased Using Subaward Funds.

For all tangible, nonexpendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and a per unit cost of more than $500 acquired in whole or in part with funds provided under this Agreement, the Subrecipient must comply with the following requirements:

A. Maintain records that include the following:

i. A description of the property;

ii. Manufacturer’s model number;

iii. Manufacturer's serial number or other identification number;

iv. Vendor or other source of the property;

v. Identification of the title holder of the property;

vi. Acquisition date;

vii. State Award/Agreement number;

viii. Federal award identification number or FAIN;

ix. Percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the property;

x. Cost of the property;

xi. Physical location of the property;

xii If the property was assigned to an individual, the name and title of the individual to whom the property was assigned;

xiii. Use of the property;

xiv. Condition of the property; and

xv. The ultimate disposition of the property, including the date of disposal how and to what entity property was disposed, and sale price of the property.

B. As stated under 2 CFR 200.313(a), title to equipment having an acquisition cost of equal to or over $5,000 acquired using these funds, will vest upon acquisition in the Subrecipient, subject to the following conditions:

i. The Subrecipient shall use the equipment for the authorized purposes of the Project during the period of performance, or until the property is no longer needed for the purposes of the Project.

ii. The Subrecipient shall not encumber the property without approval of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or the State.

iii. The Subrecipient must use and dispose of the property in accordance with 2 CFR 200.313(c)-(e).

C. Conducting a Physical Equipment Inventory. At least once every year, the Subrecipient shall take a physical inventory of the property and the result reconciled with the property records. Any differences between quantities determined by the physical inspection and those in the accounting records shall be investigated to determine the cause of the difference. The Subrecipient shall, in connection with the inventory, verify the existence, current utilization, current location, and continued need for the property. The Subrecipient shall enter and maintain this inventory information using the Equipment Inventory module of the Indiana Grants Management System (iGMS). The required annual updates shall be entered into iGMS by the deadline established by the State.

D. Implementing Safeguards to Prevent Loss, Damage or Theft of Equipment. A control system shall be developed and implemented to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent

of 150

of 20

loss, damage, or theft of the property. The subrecipient must submit a description of its control system either in its grant application or when otherwise requested by the State. Any loss, damage, or theft shall be investigated and fully documented and made a part of the official project records. A copy of such documentation shall be promptly submitted to the State.

E. Adequate maintenance procedures shall be developed and implemented to keep the property in good condition.

F. For all property having an acquisition cost of over $5,000, acquired in whole or in part with funds provided under the Agreement, the Subrecipient must also comply with the applicable federal requirements pertaining to equipment in 2 CFR 200.313. When any such property is no longer needed for the original project or program or for other activities currently or previously supported by the federal awarding agency, the Subrecipient must request instructions from the State, which will request instructions from the federal awarding agency, for the proper disposition of the property pursuant to 2 CFR 200.313.

G. The Subrecipient agrees to the following:

i. The property and any required support personnel shall be made available to the State of Indiana if requested as part of a state incident response.

ii. The property shall be made available to other jurisdictions within the Homeland Security District as a district asset. The use of the property shall be addressed through existing inter-jurisdictional mutual aid, district mutual aid or equipment-specific use agreements.

iii. Personal use of the equipment is not permitted.

H. These requirements are on-going and survive the expiration or termination of the Agreement and will remain in effect until the property is disposed of in accordance with the Agreement and applicable federal regulations.

7. Notice to Parties.

Whenever any notice, statement or other communication is sent to the State or Subrecipient it must be sent to the following addresses, unless otherwise specifically advised in writing.

A. State: Requests for payment and notices, reports, invoices and receipts required by Paragraphs 4, 5.B., 5.C., 5.E. and 6 of this Agreement shall be submitted to the State using the on-line Indiana Grants Management System (iGMS). All other notices, statements or other communications to the State shall be sent in writing to:

Grants Management Director Indiana Department of Homeland Security 302 West Washington Street, Room E208 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

B. Subrecipient: Notices to the Subrecipient shall be sent to the individual and address designated under Subrecipient Contact Information in Exhibit A of this Agreement.

8. Project Monitoring By the State.

The State may conduct a monitoring review and evaluation of this Project as deemed appropriate by the State. The Subrecipient will effectively ensure the cooperation of the Subrecipient’s employees and agents in such monitoring and evaluation efforts. The Subrecipient will take all actions necessary to correct or cure any findings identified by the State during its monitoring and evaluation. This provision survives the expiration or termination of the Agreement.

9. Recordkeeping and Access to Records; Close-Out Audit.

A. Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other Subrecipient records pertinent to the Federal award must be retained until February 27, 2022.

B. The State (including an authorized representative of the State Board of Accounts), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Inspectors General, or the United States Comptroller General, or any of their authorized representatives, must have the right of access to any documents, papers, or other records of the Subrecipient which are

of 150

of 20

pertinent to the Federal award, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to the Subrecipient’s personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion related to such documents. These rights of access are not limited to the required retention period but last as long as the records are retained. Copies thereof shall be furnished at no cost to the State if requested.

C. Notwithstanding this provision, if the federal regulations governing record retention and access for this grant (2 CFR 200.333 through 200.337) require additional records to be maintained, require the records to be maintained for a longer period of time, or impose other requirements; the Subrecipient shall adhere to these federal requirements.

D. If required by applicable provisions of 2 CFR 200, the Subrecipient shall arrange for a financial and compliance audit that complies with 2 CFR 200.500 et seq.

10. Compliance with Laws.

A. The Subrecipient shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and ordinances, and all provisions required thereby to be included herein are hereby incorporated by reference. The enactment or modification of any applicable state or federal statute or the promulgation of rules or regulations thereunder after execution of this Agreement shall be reviewed by the State and the Subrecipient to determine whether the provisions of this Agreement require formal modification.

B. The Subrecipient and its agents shall abide by all ethical requirements that apply to persons who have a business relationship with the State as set forth in IC § 4-2-6 et seq., IC § 4-2-7, et seq.; and the regulations promulgated thereunder. If the Subrecipient has knowledge, or would have acquired knowledge with reasonable inquiry, that a state officer, employee, or special state appointee, as those terms are defined in IC 4-2-6-1, has a financial interest in this subaward, the Subrecipient shall ensure compliance with the disclosure requirements in IC 4-2-6-10.5 prior to the execution of this Agreement. If the Subrecipient is not familiar with these ethical requirements, the Subrecipient should refer any questions to the Indiana State Ethics Commission, or visit the Inspector General’s website at http://www.in.gov/ig/. If the Subrecipient or its agents violate any applicable ethical standards, the State may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement immediately upon notice to the Subrecipient. In addition, the Subrecipient may be subject to penalties under IC §§ 4-2-6, 4-2-7, 35-44.1-1-4, and under any other applicable laws.

C. The Subrecipient certifies by entering into this Agreement that neither it nor its principal(s) is presently in arrears in payment of taxes, permit fees or other statutory, regulatory or judicially required payments to the State of Indiana. The Subrecipient agrees that any payments currently due to the State of Indiana may be withheld from payments due to the Subrecipient. Additionally, payments may be withheld, delayed, or denied and/or this Agreement suspended until the Subrecipient is current in its payments and has submitted proof of such payment to the State.

D. The Subrecipient warrants that it has no current, pending or outstanding criminal, civil, or enforcement actions initiated by the State of Indiana, and agrees that it will immediately notify the State of any such actions. During the term of such actions, the Subrecipient agrees that the State may suspend funding for the Project. If a valid dispute exists as to the Subrecipient’s liability or guilt in any action initiated by the State of Indiana or its agencies, and the State decides to suspend funding to the Subrecipient, the Subrecipient may submit, in writing, a request for review to the Indiana Department of Administration (IDOA). A determination by IDOA shall be binding on the parties. Any disbursements that the State may delay, withhold, deny, or suspend under this section shall not be subject to penalty or interest.

E. The Subrecipient warrants that the Subrecipient and any contractors performing work in connection with the Project shall obtain and maintain all required permits, licenses, registrations, and approvals, and shall comply with all health, safety, and environmental statutes, rules, or regulations in the performance of work activities for the State. Failure

of 150

of 20

to do so may be deemed a material breach of this Agreement and grounds for immediate termination and denial of grant opportunities with the State of Indiana.

F. The Subrecipient affirms that, if it is an entity described in IC Title 23, it is properly registered and owes no outstanding reports to the Indiana Secretary of State.

G. As required by IC 5-22-3-7:

(1) The Subrecipient and any principals of the Subrecipient certify that:

(A) the Subrecipient, except for de minimis and nonsystematic violations, has not violated the terms of:

(i) IC 24-4.7 [Telephone Solicitation of Consumers];

(ii) IC 24-5-12 [Telephone Solicitations]; or

(iii) IC 24-5-14 [Regulation of Automatic Dialing Machines]; in the previous three hundred sixty-five (365) days, even if IC 24-4.7 is preempted by federal law; and

(B) the Subrecipient will not violate the terms of IC 24-4.7 for the duration of this Agreement, even if IC 24-4.7 is preempted by federal law.

(2) The Subrecipient and any principals of the Subrecipient certify that an affiliate or principal of the Subrecipient and any agent acting on behalf of the Subrecipient or on behalf of an affiliate or principal of the Subrecipient:

(A) except for de minimis and nonsystematic violations, has not violated the terms of IC 24-4.7 in the previous three hundred sixty-five (365) days, even if IC 24-4.7 is preempted by federal law; and

(B) will not violate the terms of IC 24-4.7 for the duration of this Agreement, even if IC 24-4.7 is preempted by federal law.

11. Drug-Free Workplace Certification.

This clause is required by Executive Order 90-5 and applies to all individuals and private legal entities who receive grants or contracts from State agencies. This clause was modified in 2005 to apply only to Subrecipient’s employees within the State of Indiana and cannot be further modified, altered or changed.

As required by Executive Order No. 90-5, April 12, 1990, issued by the Governor of Indiana, the Subrecipient hereby covenants and agrees to make a good faith effort to provide and maintain a drug-free workplace. The Subrecipient will give written notice to the State within ten (10) days after receiving actual notice that the Subrecipient, or an employee of the Subrecipient in the State of Indiana, has been convicted of a criminal drug violation occurring in the workplace. False certification or violation of the certification may result in sanctions including, but not limited to, suspension of grant payments, termination of the Agreement and/or debarment of grant opportunities with the State of Indiana for up to three (3) years.

In addition to the provisions of the above paragraphs, if the total amount set forth in this Agreement is in excess of $25,000.00, the Subrecipient certifies and agrees that it will provide a drug-free workplace by:

A. Publishing and providing to all of its employees a statement notifying them that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the Subrecipient’s workplace, and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violations of such prohibition; and

B. Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform its employees of (1) the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (2) the Subrecipient’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; (3) any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and (4) the penalties that may be imposed upon an employee for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; and

C. Notifying all employees in the statement required by subparagraph (A) above that as a condition of continued employment, the employee will (1) abide by the terms of the statement; and (2) notify the Subrecipient of any criminal drug statute conviction for a

of 150

of 20

violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction; and

D. Notifying in writing the State within ten (10) days after receiving notice from an employee under subdivision (C)(2) above, or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction; and

E. Within thirty (30) days after receiving notice under subdivision (C)(2) above of a conviction, imposing the following sanctions or remedial measures on any employee who is convicted of drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace: (1) take appropriate personnel action against the employee, up to and including termination; or (2) require such employee to satisfactorily participate in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, state or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; and

F. Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace through the implementation of subparagraphs (A) through (E) above.

12. Employment Eligibility Verification.

This provision is only applicable to a Subrecipient that is not a political subdivision, as defined under IC 36-1-2-13, or a state educational institution, as defined under IC 27-7-13-32.

As required by IC §22-5-1.7, the Subrecipient hereby swears or affirms under the penalties of perjury that:

A. The Subrecipient has enrolled and is participating in the E-Verify program;

B. The Subrecipient has provided documentation to the State that it has enrolled and is participating in the E-Verify program;

C. The Subrecipient does not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.

D. The Subrecipient shall require its contractors who perform work under this Agreement to certify to the Subrecipient that the contractor does not knowingly employ or contract with an unauthorized alien and that the contractor has enrolled and is participating in the E-Verify program. The Subrecipient shall maintain this certification throughout the duration of the term of a contract with a contractor.

The State may terminate for default if the Subrecipient fails to cure a breach of this provision no later than thirty (30) days after being notified by the State.

13. Funding Cancellation.

When the Director of the State Budget Agency makes a written determination that funds are not appropriated or otherwise available to support continuation of performance of this Agreement, the Agreement shall be canceled. A determination by the Director of the State Budget Agency that funds are not appropriated or otherwise available to support continuation of performance shall be final and conclusive.

14. Governing Laws.

This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Indiana and suit, if any, must be brought in the State of Indiana.

15. Information Technology Accessibility Standards.

Any information technology related products or services purchased used or maintained through this Agreement must be compatible with the principles and goals contained in the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards adopted by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board under Section 508 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d), as amended. The federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards can be found at: http://www.access-board.gov/508.htm.

16. Nondiscrimination.

A. Pursuant to the Indiana Civil Rights Law, specifically including IC 22-9-1-10, and in keeping with the purposes of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Subrecipient covenants that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment relating to

of 150

of 20

this Agreement with respect to the hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment, because of the employee or applicant’s: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, ancestry, status as a veteran, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state, or local law (“Protected Characteristics”). Furthermore, the Subrecipient certifies compliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and executive orders prohibiting discrimination based on the Protected Characteristics in the provision of services.

B. The Subrecipient understands that the State is a recipient of federal funds, and therefore, where applicable, the Subrecipient and any subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors shall comply with requisite affirmative action requirements, including reporting, pursuant to 41 CFR Chapter 60, as amended, and Section 202 of Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 13672.

17. Remedies for noncompliance.

If the Subrecipient fails to comply federal or State statutes, rules, regulations or this Agreement, the State may impose additional conditions as described in 2 CFR 200.207 or take any of the actions allowed by 2 CFR 200.338.

18. Waiver of Rights.

No right conferred on either party under this Agreement shall be deemed waived and no breach of this Agreement excused, unless the waiver is in writing and signed by the party claimed to have waived such right.

19. Debarment and Suspension.

A. The Subrecipient certifies by entering into this Agreement that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from entering into this Agreement by any federal or state department or agency. The term “principal” for purposes of this Agreement is defined as an officer, director, owner, partner, key employee or other person with primary management or supervisory responsibilities, or a person who has a critical influence on or substantive control over the operations of the Subrecipient.

B. As required by 2 CFR 3000.332 for U.S. DHS/FEMA grants and 2 CFR 1200.332 for U.S. DOT grants, the Subrecipient shall:

i. Comply with Subpart C of the OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 180; and

ii. Include a similar term or condition in any covered transaction into which it enters at the next lower tier.

20. Remedies Not Impaired.

No delay or omission of the State in exercising any right or remedy available under this Agreement impairs any such right or remedy or constitutes a waiver of any default or any acquiescence thereto.

21. Severability.

The invalidity of any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, clauses or provisions of this Agreement.

22. Survival.

Any expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not affect the ongoing provisions of this Agreement or the ongoing requirements of the guidance documents, laws and regulations, or other requirements referenced in this Agreement that will survive the expiration or termination in accordance with their terms.

23. Penalties/Interest/Attorney’s Fees.

The State will, in good faith, perform its required obligations under this Agreement and does not agree to pay any penalties, liquidated damages, interest, or attorney’s fees, except as permitted by Indiana law, in part, IC 5-17-5, IC 34-54-8-5, and IC 34-13-1.

Notwithstanding the provisions contained in IC 5-17-5, any liability resulting from the State’s

of 150

of 20

failure to make prompt payment shall be based solely on the amount of funding originating from the State and shall not be based on funding from federal or other sources.

24. Lobbying Certification.

A. As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the U.S. Code and implemented at 44 CFR 18 (for U.S. DHS/FEMA grants) and at 49 CFR 18 (For U.S. DOT grants), the Subrecipient certifies that:

(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the Subrecipient shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.

(3) The Subrecipient shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including sub-contracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

B. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

25. Authority to Bind Subrecipient.

A. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the signatory for the Subrecipient represents that execution of this Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary action required under Indiana law.

B. The Subrecipient shall not assign, sublet or transfer interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the State.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

of 150

of 20

Non-Collusion and Acceptance

The undersigned attests, subject to the penalties for perjury, that the undersigned is the Subrecipient, or that the undersigned is the properly authorized representative, agent, member or officer of the Subrecipient. Further, to the undersigned’s knowledge, neither the undersigned nor any other member, employee, representative, agent or officer of the Subrecipient, directly or indirectly, has entered into or been offered any sum of money or other consideration for the execution of this Agreement other than that which appears upon the face hereof. Furthermore, if the undersigned has knowledge that a state officer, employee, or special state appointee, as those terms are defined in IC 4-2-6-1, has a financial interest in the Subaward, the Subrecipient attests to compliance with the disclosure requirements in IC 4-2-6-10.5.

Agreement to Use Electronic Signatures I agree, and it is my intent, to sign this Contract by accessing State of Indiana Supplier Portal using the secure password assigned to me and by electronically submitting this Contract to the State of Indiana. I understand that my signing and submitting this Contract in this fashion is the legal equivalent of having placed my handwritten signature on the submitted Contract and this affirmation. I understand and agree that by electronically signing and submitting this Contract in this fashion I am affirming to the truth of the information contained therein. I understand that this Contract will not become binding on the State until it has been approved by the Department of Administration, the State Budget Agency, and the Office of the Attorney General, which approvals will be posted on the Active Contracts Database: https://hr85.gmis.in.gov/psp/pa91prd/EMPLOYEE/EMPL/h/?tab=PAPP_GUEST In Witness Whereof, the Subrecipient and the State have, through their duly authorized representatives, entered into this Agreement. The parties, having read and understood the foregoing terms of this Agreement, do by their respective signatures dated below agree to the terms thereof. MONROE COUNTY Indiana Department of Homeland Security By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date:

Approved by: Department of Administration By: (for) Jessica Robertson, Commissioner This document will be reviewed and approved electronically. Please refer to the final page of the Executed Contract for details.

Approved by: State Budget Agency By: (for) Brian E. Bailey, Director This document will be reviewed and approved electronically. Please refer to the final page of the Executed Contract for details.

Approved as to Form and Legality: Office of the Attorney General By: (for) Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General This document will be reviewed and approved electronically. Please refer to the final page of the Executed Contract for details.

Julie L Thomas

8 January 2016

Monroe County Commissioner

of 150

of 20

Exhibit A Indiana Department of Homeland Security (IDHS) Monroe County (DUNS #151111726) Budget Id: 11294 Contact name: James Comerford title: Emergency Management Director address: 2800 S. Kirby Road Bloomington, IN 47403 county: MONROE phone: 812-349-2546 fax: 812-349-2052 email: [email protected]

Allocated Fund 2015 > State Homeland Security Grant Program > LOCAL > District Training > District 8-Training project manager: John Brown proposal: 2015 SHSP District Training Grant encompass project id: 38515SHSP000000

Budget Items Budget Total Amount: $20,200.00 solution area: Training unit price/rate hours amount description: EMAI Conference registration - $5,500.00 - $5,500.00 category Conference discipline Emergency Management narrative This is the Emergency Management Alliance of Indiana conference held in October of each year. The District Planning Council plans to send 20 individuals from our EMA offices, District Planning Council, District Task Force and other District partners to this conference. Cost per person $275 X 20 = $5,500.00. approved equipment # ----- description: EMAI Lodging - $6,600.00 - $6,600.00 category Travel discipline Emergency Management narrative Our 20 district members will require lodging for 3 nights while attending the EMAI conference in Indianapolis, IN. The purpose of this conference is to discuss emergency management related issues. The conference encourages collaboration and networking between our district and state stakeholders. approved equipment # ----- description: IHEPS Conference registration - $3,800.00 - $3,800.00 category Conference discipline Emergency Management narrative The Indiana Healthcare Emergency Preparedness Symposium mission is to inform hospitals, healthcare and others in the emergency management field of real solutions to real problems they may face. This conference is held annually in Indianapolis with future dates to be announced. The

of 150

of 20

District 8 Planning council wishes to send up to 20 EMA and partner personnel. Conference cost is $190.00 per person with 20 costing $3,800.00.

approved equipment # ----- description: IHEPS Lodging - $4,300.00 - $4,300.00 category Travel discipline Emergency Management narrative The Indiana Healthcare Emergency Preparedness Symposium mission is to inform hospitals, healthcare and others in the emergency management field of real solutions to real problems they may face. This conference is held annually in Indianapolis with future dates to be announced. The District 8 Planning council wishes to send up to 20 EMA and partner personnel. Lodging for 20 individuals staying for two nights while attending the IHEPS Conference in Indianapolis will $4,300.00. approved equipment # -----

Training TOTAL: $20,200.00 Budget Total Amount: $20,200.00

of 150

of 20

EXHIBIT B 2015 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

The Subrecipient agrees to comply with all of the following requirements as listed below.

1. Federal Regulations: The Subrecipient shall comply with the administrative and audit

requirements and cost principles under 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements,

Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, as adopted at 2 CFR 3002.

Some of these federal regulatory requirements are as follows:

A. Federal Procurement and Contracting Requirements. [2 CFR 200, Subpart D, 2

CFR 200.318 through 200.326]

In addition to complying with all applicable documented Subrecipient procurement

requirements which reflect applicable Indiana and local laws and regulations, the

Subrecipient shall comply with the federal Procurement Standards established under 2

CFR 200, Subpart D, 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.

As required by 2 CFR 200.326, in addition to all other provisions required by U.S.

Department of Homeland Security and the State, all contracts (a legal instrument used to

purchase property or services needed to carry out the Project) made by the Subrecipient

using funds provided under this Agreement must comply with Appendix II of Part 200

“Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards.” The

requirements under Appendix II of Part 200 include, but are not limited to, the following

requirements:

i. A Subrecipient that has a contract exceeding $150,000 must address in that contract

administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instance where contractors violate

or breach contract terms and provide for such sanctions and penalties as

appropriate.

ii. A Subrecipient that has a contract exceeding $10,000 must address in that contract

termination for cause and for convenience by the Subrecipient including the

manner by which it will be effected and the basis for settlement.

B. Conflicts of Interest. [2 CFR 200.318 and 2015 Homeland Security Grant Program

Notice of Funding Opportunity]

As required by 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1), the Subrecipient must maintain written standards

of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the actions of its employees

engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer,

or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract

supported by a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such

a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of

his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is

about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or

a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. The officers,

employees, and agents of the Subrecipient may neither solicit nor accept gratuities,

favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors or parties to subcontracts.

However, the Subrecipient may set standards for situations in which the financial

interest is not substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal value. The

standards of conduct must provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of

such standards by officers, employees, or agents of the Subrecipient.

In addition, as required under 2015 Homeland Security Grant Program Notice of

Funding Opportunity (NOFO) [Page 29] conflicts of interest may arise during the

process of U.S. DHS/FEMA making a Federal award in situations where an employee,

of 150

of 20

officer, or agent, any members of his or her immediate family, his or her partner has a

close personal relationship, a business relationship, or a professional relationship, with

an applicant, subapplicant, recipient, subrecipient, or U.S. DHS/FEMA employee.

C. Mandatory Disclosures. [2 CFR 200.113 and 2015 Homeland Security Grant

Program Notice of Funding Opportunity]

As required by 2 CFR 200.113, the Sub-recipient must disclose, in a timely manner, in

writing to the State all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or

gratuity violations potentially affecting this subaward. Failure to make required

disclosures can result in any of Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of

the remedies described in § 200.338 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension

or debarment. (See also 2 CFR Part 180 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).

In addition, as required under 2015 Homeland Security Grant Program Notice of

Funding Opportunity (NOFO) [Page 29] the Subrecipient must, in writing, disclose to

the State, within five days, any real or potential conflict of interest as defined by the

Federal, state, or local statutes or regulations or the Subrecipient’s own existing policies

that may arise during the administration of the federal award.

2. Federal Award Requirements.

A. Acknowledgment of Federal Funding from U.S. DHS.

All Subrecipients must acknowledge their use of federal funding when issuing

statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid invitations, and other documents

describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.

B. Activities Conducted Abroad

All Subrecipients must ensure that project activities carried on outside the United States

are coordinated as necessary with appropriate government authorities and that

appropriate licenses, permits, or approvals are obtained.

C. Age Discrimination Act of 1975

All Subrecipients must comply with the requirements of the Age Discrimination Act of

1975 (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in

any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

D. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

All Subrecipients must comply with the requirements of Titles I, II, and III of the

Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits recipients from discriminating on the

basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation

systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§

12101–12213).

E. Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)

All Subrecipients who collect PII are required to have a publically-available privacy

policy that describes what PII they collect, how they use the PII, whether they share PII

with third parties, and how individuals may have their PII corrected where appropriate.

The Subrecipient may also find as a useful resource the U.S. DHS Privacy Impact

Assessments: Privacy Guidance and Privacy template respectively.

F. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

All Subrecipients must comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.), which provides that no person in the United States

will, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in,

be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or

activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Implementing regulations for the Act are

of 150

of 20

found at 6 C.F.R. Part 21 and 44 C.F.R. Part 7.

G. Title VIII of the Civil Rights act of 1968

All Subrecipients must comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which

prohibits recipients from discriminating in the sale, rental, financing, and advertising of

dwellings, or in the provision of services in connection therewith, on the basis of race,

color, national origin, religion, disability, familial status, and sex (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et

seq.), as implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24

C.F.R. Part 100. The prohibition on disability discrimination includes the requirement

that new multifamily housing with four or more dwelling units—i.e., the public and

common use areas and individual apartment units (all units in buildings with elevators

and ground-floor units in buildings without elevators)—be designed and constructed

with certain accessible features (see 24 C.F.R. § 100.201).

H. Copyright

All Subrecipients must affix the applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C. §§ 401 or 402

and an acknowledgement of Government sponsorship (including federal award number)

to any work first produced under Federal financial assistance awards, unless the work

includes any information that is otherwise controlled by the Government (e.g., classified

information or other information subject to national security or export control laws or

regulations).

I. Debarment and Suspension

All Subrecipients must comply with Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, which provide

protection against waste, fraud and abuse by debarring or suspending those persons

deemed irresponsible in their dealings with the Federal government.

J. Duplication of Benefits

Any cost allocable to a particular Federal award provided for in 2 C.F.R. Part 200,

Subpart E may not be charged to other Federal awards to overcome fund deficiencies, to

avoid restrictions imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, or terms and conditions of

the Federal awards, or for other reasons. However, this prohibition would not preclude

the Subrecipient from shifting costs that are allowable under two or more Federal

awards in accordance with existing Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and

conditions of the Federal awards.

K. Energy Policy and Conservation Act

All Subrecipients must comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 6201 which contain

policies relating to energy efficiency that are defined in the state energy conservation

plan issues in compliance with this Act.

L. Reporting Executive Compensation

Unless the Subrecipient had a gross income from all sources of under $300,000 in the

previous tax year, the Subrecipient must report to the State, the names and total

compensation of each of the Subrecipient’s five most highly compensated executives for

the Subrecipient’s preceding completed fiscal year if in the Subrecipient’s preceding

fiscal year, the Subrecipient received:

i. 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts

(and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act,

as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and

ii. $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts

(and subcontracts), and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act

(and subawards).

of 150

of 20

By the end of the month following the month that this Agreement is fully executed, the

Subrecipient must report to the State this Subrecipient executive total compensation

described above. The Subrecipient can obtain additional information and guidance

regarding this requirement from the State.

M. False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies

All Subrecipients must comply with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 which set

forth that no recipient of federal payments shall submit a false claim for payment. See

also 38 U.S.C. § 3801-3812 which details the administrative remedies for false claims

and statements made.

N. Federal Debt Status

All Subrecipients is required to be non-delinquent in their repayment of any Federal

debt. Examples of relevant debt include delinquent payroll and other taxes, audit

disallowances, and benefit overpayments. See OMB Circular A-129 and form SF-424B,

item number 17 for additional information and guidance.

O. Fly America Act of 1974

All Subrecipients must comply with Preference for U.S. Flag Air Carriers: (air carriers

holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. § 41102) for international air transportation of

people and property to the extent that such service is available, in accordance with the

International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. §

40118) and the interpretative guidelines issued by the Comptroller General of the United

States in the March 31, 1981, amendment to Comptroller General Decision B-138942.

P. Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990

In accordance with Section 6 of the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, 15 U.S.C.

§2225a, all Subrecipients must ensure that all conference, meeting, convention, or

training space funded in whole or in part with Federal funds complies with the fire

prevention and control guidelines of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of

1974, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §2225.

Q. Limited English Proficiency (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI)

All Subrecipients must comply with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title

VI) prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin, which requires that

recipients of federal financial assistance take reasonable steps to provide meaningful

access to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and services.

Providing meaningful access for persons with LEP may entail providing language

assistance services, including oral interpretation and written translation. In order to

facilitate compliance with Title VI, recipients are encouraged to consider the need for

language services for LEP persons served or encountered in developing program

budgets. Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with

Limited English Proficiency (August 11, 2000), requires federal agencies to issue

guidance to recipients, assisting such organizations and entities in understanding their

language access obligations. DHS published the required recipient guidance in April

2011, DHS Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Subrecipients Regarding Title VI

Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English

Proficient Persons, 76 Fed. Reg. 21755-21768, (April 18, 2011). The Guidance provides

helpful information such as how a recipient can determine the extent of its obligation to

provide language services; selecting language services; and elements of an effective plan

on language assistance for LEP persons. For additional assistance and information

regarding language access obligations, please refer to the DHS Recipient Guidance

https://www.dhs.gov/guidance-published-help-department-supported-organizations-

of 150

of 20

provide-meaningful-access-people-limited and additional resources on

http://www.lep.gov.

R. Patents and Intellectual Property Rights

Unless otherwise provided by law, Subrecipients are subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, Pub.

L. No. 96-517, as amended, and codified in 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq. All Subrecipients are

subject to the specific requirements governing the development, reporting, and

disposition of rights to inventions and patents resulting from financial assistance awards

are in 37 C.F.R. Part 401 and the standard patent rights clause in 37 C.F.R. § 401.14.

S. Procurement of Recovered Materials

All Subrecipients must comply with section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as

amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The requirements of Section

6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 C.F.R. Part 247 that contain the highest percentage of

recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of

competition, where the purchase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or the value of the

quantity acquired by the preceding fiscal year exceeded $10,000; procuring solid waste

management services in a manner that maximizes energy and resource recovery; and

establishing an affirmative procurement program for procurement of recovered materials

identified in the EPA guidelines.

T. SAFECOM

All Subrecipients who receive awards made under programs that provide emergency

communication equipment and its related activities must comply with the SAFECOM

Guidance for Emergency Communication Grants, including provisions on technical

standards that ensure and enhance interoperable communications.

U. Terrorist Financing E.O. 13224

All Subrecipients must comply with U.S. Executive Order 13224 and U.S. law that

prohibit transactions with, and the provisions of resources and support to, individuals

and organizations associated with terrorism. It is the legal responsibility of subrecipients

to ensure compliance with the E.O. and laws.

V. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Equal Opportunity in Education

Act)

All Subrecipients must comply with the requirements of Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.), which provides that no person in the

United States will, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity

receiving Federal financial assistance. Implementing regulations are codified at 6 C.F.R.

Part 17 and 44 C.F.R. Part 19.

W. Trafficking Victims Protection Act

All Subrecipients must comply with the requirements of the government-wide award

term which implements Section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act

(TVPA) of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. § 7104). This is implemented in accordance

with OMB Interim Final Guidance, Federal Register, Volume 72, No. 218, November

13, 2007. Full text of the award term is located at 2 CFR § 175.15. If the Subrecipient is

a private entity, as defined under 2 CFR 175.25, the following provision is applicable:

Provisions applicable to a recipient that is a private entity: You as the Subrecipient,

your employees, subrecipients under this award, and subrecipients’ employees may

not:

of 150

of 20

i. Engage in severe forms of trafficking in persons during the period of time that

the award is in effect;

ii. Procure a commercial sex act during the period of time that the award is in

effect; or

iii. Use forced labor in the performance of the award or subawards under the

award.

X. Rehabilitation Act of 1973

All Subrecipients of must comply with the requirements of Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as amended, which provides that no

otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States will, solely by reason of

the handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial

assistance. These requirements pertain to the provision of benefits or services as well as

to employment.

Y. USA Patriot Act of 2001

All Subrecipients must comply with requirements of the Uniting and Strengthening

America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

Act (USA PATRIOT Act), which amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 175–175c. Among other things,

the USA PATRIOT Act prescribes criminal penalties for possession of any biological

agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that is not reasonably justified

by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose.

Z. Use of DHS Seal, Logo, and Flags

All Subrecipients must obtain U.S. DHS’s approval prior to using the U.S. DHS seal(s),

logos, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of DHS agency officials, including

use of the United States Coast Guard seal, logo, crests or reproductions of flags or

likenesses of Coast Guard officials.

AA. Whistleblower Protection Act

All Subrecipients must comply with the statutory requirements for whistleblower

protections (if applicable) at 10 U.S.C § 2409, 41 U.S.C. 4712, and 10 U.S.C. § 2324, 41

U.S.C. §§ 4304 and 4310.

BB. DHS Specific Acknowledgments and Assurances

All Subrecipients must acknowledge and agree—and require any sub-recipients,

contractors, successors, transferees, and assignees acknowledge and agree—to comply

with applicable provisions governing U.S. DHS access to records, accounts, documents,

information, facilities, and staff.

i. Subrecipients must cooperate with any compliance review or complaint

investigation conducted by U.S. DHS.

ii. Subrecipients must give U.S. DHS access to and the right to examine and copy

records, accounts, and other documents and sources of information related to the

grant and permit access to facilities, personnel, and other individuals and

information as may be necessary, as required by U.S. DHS regulations and other

applicable laws or program guidance.

iii. Subrecipients must submit timely, complete, and accurate reports to the appropriate

U.S. DHS officials and maintain appropriate backup documentation to support the

reports.

iv. Subrecipients must comply with all other special reporting, data collection, and

evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance.

of 150

of 20

v. If, during the past three years, the Subrecipient has been accused of discrimination

on the grounds of race, color, national origin (including limited English

proficiency), sex, age, disability, religion, or familial status, the Subrecipient must

provide a list of all such proceedings, pending or completed, including outcome

and copies of settlement agreements to the U.S. DHS awarding office and the U.S.

DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

vi. In the event any court or administrative agency makes a finding of discrimination

on grounds of race, color, national origin (including limited English proficiency),

sex, age, disability, religion, or familial status against the recipient, or the

Subrecipient settles a case or matter alleging such discrimination, recipients must

forward a copy of the complaint and findings to the U.S. DHS Component and/or

awarding office.

The United States has the right to seek judicial enforcement of these obligations.

CC. Acceptance of Post-Award Changes

In the event that FEMA determines that changes are necessary to the federal award

document after an award has been made, including changes to period of performance or

terms and conditions, Subrecipient will be notified of these changes in writing. Once

notification has been made, any subsequent request for payment under this Agreement

will indicate the Subrecipient’s acceptance of the changes to the award.

3. Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Grant Program Notice of Funding Opportunity

(NOFO).

As required under Clause 5 of the Agreement, the Subrecipient is required to comply with the

requirements contained in the NOFO. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the

following:

A. Use of Award Funds (Page 14 of NOFO)

Award funds may not be used for matching funds for any other Federal award, lobbying,

or intervention in Federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings. In addition, Federal

funds may not be used to sue the Federal government or any other government entity.

B. Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Compliance. (Page 14 of

NOFO)

Subrecipients proposing projects that have the potential to impact the environment,

including but not limited to construction of communication towers; modification or

renovation of existing buildings, structures and facilities; or new construction including

replacement of facilities; must participate in the U.S. DHS/FEMA EHP review process.

The EHP review process involves the submission of a detailed project description that

explains the goals and objectives of the proposed project along with supporting

documentation so that U.S. DHS/FEMA may determine whether the proposed project

has the potential to impact environmental resources and/or historic properties. The EHP

review process must be completed before funds are released to carry out the proposed

project. U.S. DHS/FEMA and the State will not fund projects that are initiated without

the required EHP review.

Subrecipients shall submit the required information to the State. The State will submit

the information to U.S. DHS/FEMA.

Additionally, all Subrecipients are required to comply with FEMA EHP Policy

Guidance. This EHP Policy Guidance can be found in FP 108-023-1, Environmental

Planning and Historic Preservation Policy Guidance, and FP 108.24.4, Environmental

Planning and Historical Preservation Policy.

of 150

of 20

C. Davis-Bacon Act (Pages 55-56 of the NOFO)

If funds provided under this Agreement are used for a construction project [including

alteration or repair (including painting and decorating)], the Subrecipient must comply

with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq.). Subrecipients must ensure that

their contractors or subcontractors for construction projects pay workers no less than the

prevailing wages for laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar

to the contract work in the civil subdivision of the state in which the work is to be

performed. Additional information regarding compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act,

including Department of Labor (DOL) wage determinations, is available from the

following website: http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-dbra.htm.

4. Federal Assurances.

As the duly authorized representative of the Subrecipient, I certify that the Subrecipient:

A. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance and the institutional, managerial

and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay the non-Federal share of project

cost) to ensure proper planning, management and completion of the project described in

this Agreement.

B. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose

that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of

interest, or personal gain.

C. Will comply with the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limits the

political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in

whole or part with federal funds.

D. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis- Bacon Act (40 U.S.C.

§§276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. §276c and 18 U.S.C. §874), and the

Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§327- 333), regarding labor

standards for federally-assisted construction subagreements.

E. Will comply with environmental standards which may be prescribed pursuant to the

following: (a) institution of environmental quality control measures under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive Order (EO) 11514; (b)

notification of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) protection of wetlands

pursuant to EO 11990; (d) evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with

EO 11988; (e) assurance of project consistency with the approved State management

program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§1451

et seq.); (f) conformity of Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans

under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§7401 et

seq.); (g) protection of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Drinking

Water Act of 1974, as amended (P.L. 93-523); and, (h) protection of endangered species

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (P.L. 93- 205).

F. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders,

regulations, and policies governing this program.

of 150


Department Head Date: January 5, 2016

Department: Health Date: January 2016

From Fund Name/Number:

Fund Name / Number: Syringe Exchange 9130


000 – 20.0001 Supplies 2,400.00

000 – 30.0001 Syringe exchange expenses 12,600.00

Total: $15,000.00

Reason for request (include a complete description of why appropriation is needed and how the money will be used)

The Monroe County Health Department was awarded $15,000 to support the local syringe exchange program. These funds will reimburse the Indiana Recovery Alliance for expenses

such as insurance, gas and vehicle maintenance and other supplies.


of 150

C:\Users\cokshell\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\YM32H7TG\County_Council_Agenda_Request_TrustAccount_Cat_Transfer.doc

Department: Health [Note: in 2013 this request will be heard on the second Tuesday of the month. The fourth Tuesday will be a Work Session, unless otherwise advertised.] Month you wish this Item to be considered: February 2016 Title of Item as it is to appear on Agenda: Category Transfer requested by Health Dept.

What is the purpose of your request, chosen from the following categories? (1) Additional Appropriation; (2) Creation of New Fund; (3) Amend Salary Ordinance; (4) Creation of New Budget Line(s); (5) Appropriation of newly received funds (e.g., grant); (6)Transfer of Funds; (7) Other. Type the Relevant Category Below: 6. Transfer of funds from 20s to 30s Contact Person for further Information (include phone number and email address): Penny Caudill 812-349-2068 [email protected] Please give a thorough narrative explanation of your agenda request; what action are you asking the Council to take, and what is the purpose? This narrative should be restated (cut and paste) on any additional forms regarding this request. NOTE: Council has instructed Staff not to accept requests that lack sufficient narrative explanation. This category transfer is needed to match the final budget approved by the Indiana State Department of Health for this fund. The state approval followed local budget hearings and a training was identified that was $100 more than we had originally placed in this line.

Requested by (electronic signature suffices) Date: February 3, 2016



of 150

REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS APPROVAL FROM MONROE COUNTY COUNCIL (Rev. 05-04)

Department Head: Date: February 3, 2016

Department: Health Date: February 2016 meeting

Fund Name / Number: 1206 LHD IN Trust Account

Transferring From: Budget Line Number

Budget Line Name

Amount

20.0010 Public Info $100

Total: $100

Transferring To: Budget Line Number

Budget Line Name

Amount

30.0005 Conf/Registration $100

Total: $100

Email completed form to the Council Attorney and County Council Administrative Assistant in the Council Office prior to the deadline (see appropriate resolution concerning the Council meeting schedule for deadline dates). Requests received after the deadline will placed on the following month’s agenda.

of 150

C:\Users\cokshell\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\YM32H7TG\County_Council_Agenda_Request_CatTransfer_Futures_30sto40s.doc

Department: Health [Note: in 2013 this request will be heard on the second Tuesday of the month. The fourth Tuesday will be a Work Session, unless otherwise advertised.] Month you wish this Item to be considered: February 2016 Title of Item as it is to appear on Agenda: Category transfer requested by Health, Futures Clinic What is the purpose of your request, chosen from the following categories? (1) Additional Appropriation; (2) Creation of New Fund; (3) Amend Salary Ordinance; (4) Creation of New Budget Line(s); (5) Appropriation of newly received funds (e.g., grant); (6)Transfer of Funds; (7) Other. Type the Relevant Category Below: 6. Category Transfer Contact Person for further Information (include phone number and email address): Penny Caudill, 812-349-2068, [email protected] Please give a thorough narrative explanation of your agenda request; what action are you asking the Council to take, and what is the purpose? This narrative should be restated (cut and paste) on any additional forms regarding this request. NOTE: Council has instructed Staff not to accept requests that lack sufficient narrative explanation. The Monroe County Health Department is requesting a category transfer 30s to 40s for Futures Clinic. This will allow the purchase and payment of an additional work space in the flex office which will be needed once a part-time person is added to the clinic staff. Revenue is up, the funds are available and the grant period ends March 31, 2016.

Requested by (electronic signature suffices) Date: January 20, 2016



of 150

REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS APPROVAL FROM MONROE COUNTY COUNCIL (Rev. 05-04)

Department Head: Date: January 20, 2016

Department: Health Date: February, 2016 meeting

Fund Name / Number: Futures 8126-015

Transferring From: Budget Line Number

Budget Line Name

Amount

8126-015-30.0007 INS Medical practice 1500.00

Total: 1500.00

Transferring To: Budget Line Number

Budget Line Name

Amount

8126-015-40.0001 Equip. and Furniture 1500.00

Total: 1500.00

Email completed form to the Council Attorney and County Council Administrative Assistant in the Council Office prior to the deadline (see appropriate resolution concerning the Council meeting schedule for deadline dates). Requests received after the deadline will placed on the following month’s agenda.

of 150

C:\Users\cokshell\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\YM32H7TG\2016 JAG Appropriation Agenda Request for Drug Court.docx

Department: Probation/Community Corrections Month you wish this Item to be considered: February 2016 Title of Item as it is to appear on Agenda: 2016 Justice Assistance Grant for the Drug Treatment Court. What is the purpose of your request, chosen from the following categories? Creation of new fund and appropriation of newly received funds (grant) Contact Person for further Information (include phone number and email address): Linda Brady; 812-349-2645; [email protected] Steve Malone; 812-349-2000; [email protected] Troy Hatfield; 812-349-2645; [email protected] Please give a thorough narrative explanation of your agenda request; what action are you asking the Council to take, and what is the purpose? This narrative should be restated (cut and paste) on any additional forms regarding this request. NOTE: Council has instructed Staff not to accept requests that lack sufficient narrative explanation. This Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) was awarded by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (ICJI) to pay $32,065 of the salary and benefits of the Problem Solving Court Director to support the overall functioning of the Drug Treatment Court and other problem solving courts. A 2016 salary ordinance for this grant was previously approved. Part of the remaining salary and fringe benefit balance will be paid from previously appropriated money in fund 1121-226 for this position. This is a significant cut in funding from last year’s grant of $62,857. After 11 years of continuous JAG funding, our award notification letter indicated that funding is not likely to continue after this year. We are actively exploring other sources to continue funding this position through the end of 2016 and beyond. Requested by Linda Brady Date: January 20, 2016



of 150

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR CREATION OF NEW FUND WITH BUDGET LINES (Rev. 05-04)

Department Head: Linda Brady Date: January 20, 2016

Department: Probation/Community Corrections Date: February 9, 2016

Fund Name / Number: 8118-004; Justice Assistance Grant (F16.738)

New Budget Line Number New Budget Line Name

10.0001 JAG Drug Court Coordinator

11.8001 FT Fringe

11.8101 FICA

11.8201 PERF

Reason for request (include a complete description of why a new fund and budget lines are needed and how the money in that line will be used)

This Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) was awarded by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (ICJI) to pay $32,065 of the salary and benefits of the Problem Solving Court Director to support the overall functioning of the Drug Treatment Court and other problem solving courts. A 2016 salary ordinance for this grant was previously approved. Part of the remaining salary and fringe benefit balance will be paid from previously appropriated money in fund 1121-226 for this position. This is a significant cut in funding from last year’s grant of $62,857. After 11 years of continuous JAG funding, our award notification letter indicated that funding is not likely to continue after this year. We are actively exploring other sources to continue funding this position through the end of 2016 and beyond.

Email completed form to the Council Attorney and County Council Administrative Assistant in the County Council Office prior to the deadline (see appropriate resolution concerning the Council meeting schedule for deadline dates). Requests received after the deadline will placed on the following month’s agenda.

of 150


Department Head: Linda Brady Date: January 20, 2016

Department: Probation / Community Corrections Date: February 9, 2016

Fund Name / Number: Justice Assistance Grant ( F16.738) Fund #8118-004


10.0001 JAG Drug Court Coordinator $22,446.62

11.8001 FT Fringe $4,713.79

11.8101 FICA $1,717.17

11.8201 PERF $3,187.42

Total: $32,065.00


This Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) was awarded by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (ICJI) to pay $32,065 of the salary and benefits of the Problem Solving Court Director to support the overall functioning of the Drug Treatment Court and other problem solving courts. A 2016 salary ordinance for this grant was previously approved. Part of the remaining salary and fringe benefit balance will be paid from previously appropriated money in fund 1121-226 for this position. This is a significant cut in funding from last year’s grant of $62,857. After 11 years of continuous JAG funding, our award notification letter indicated that funding is not likely to continue after this year. We are actively exploring other sources to continue funding this position through the end of 2016 and beyond.


of 150

of 150


Department Head Angela Purdie 1/15/16

Department: Board of Commissioners 1/15/22

County General/ 1000-068


30.0001 Timber Sales $40,000.00

Total: $40,000.00


Background History:

The IDNR returns 15% of the net proceeds from the sale of timber on state owned lands to the county from which the timber was sold. Fifty percent (50%) of the 15% distributed to the Counties is to be distributed to the rural and township fire departments within the county. In order to qualify for distribution the fire department MUST have a cooperative agreement in effect with the IDNR. The payments to Counties is made at the end of the fiscal year. The notice that is sent to the Auditor with the disbursement actually has the names of the qualifying departments.

IC 14-23-4-6 Allows the legislative body of the county to elect a greater distribution of funds to the fire departments instead of the maximum $1,000.00. MCG distributes $2500.00/Department. We have 8 Departments participating = $20,000.00

The request for $40,000.00 has come about after being contacted by the Ellettsville Fire Department who noted after going through some statements they were missing a year of payment. After receiving information from the IDNR and checking that with information in the Harris accounting system, it has become clear NONE of the Fire Departments received their distribution in 2012. This appropriation will bring the fire departments current to 2016. We can expect the next distribution in December of this year.

Email completed form to the Council Attorney and County Council Administrative Assistant in the Council Office prior to the appropriation deadline (see appropriate resolution concerning the Council meeting schedule for deadline dates). Requests received after the deadline will placed on the following month’s agenda. of 150

of 150


Department Head Angie Purdie 1/6/16


4803 2013 GO Bond


40.0001 Showers Building Repairs $50,731.00

40.0008 Fire Suppression $15,287.25

40.0004 Jail Remodel $186,974.94

40.0012 Solar Project $30,315.49

40.0013 Karst Connection Trail $34,300.00

Total: $317,608.68


Requesting the appropriation of $317,608.68 in the 40’s category of the 2013 bond. All of these projects should be finishing up this year.


of 150


Department Head Angie Purdie 1/6/16


4804 2014 GO Bond


40.0003 Emergency Notifications $9,464.86

40.0004 IT Hardware $209,348.53

40.0005 Energy Project $20,326.67

Total: $239,140.06


Requesting the appropriation of the remaining funds in the 2014 GO bond 40’s category.


of 150

C:\Users\cokshell\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\YM32H7TG\Cable Additional Agenda Request 2016.doc

Department: Board of Commissioners [Note: in 2013 this request will be heard on the second Tuesday of the month. The fourth Tuesday will be a Work Session, unless otherwise advertised.] Month you wish this Item to be considered: February 2016 Title of Item as it is to appear on Agenda: Additional Appropriation Request What is the purpose of your request, chosen from the following categories? (1) Additional Appropriation; Contact Person for further Information (include phone number and email address): Angela Purdie, Commissioners’ Administrator Please give a thorough narrative explanation of your agenda request; what action are you asking the Council to take, and what is the purpose? This narrative should be restated (cut and paste) on any additional forms regarding this request. NOTE: Council has instructed Staff not to accept requests that lack sufficient narrative explanation. This fund was not adequately budgeted during the 2016 budget process as I failed to include lines that had been transferred from County General to this fund during the 2015 budget process. The total additional request is: $102, 500.00 in the 30’s. Copier lease (30.0014) $90,000 Software Dev/Ser (30.0011) $7,500 Telephone Maint.(30.0003) $5,000 Requested by Angie Purdie Date: 1/4/16


Please use only this form to place an item on the County Council’s Agenda. If the matter is complex, you may wish to consult with a Councilor or the Council Office. Please fill this form out as a Word document (not in PDF format) and send it as an e-mail attachment. Iif you submit this as an e-mail attachment, there is no need to submit a paper form. Please e-mail to [email protected] and to [email protected]. Contact the Council Office at 349-7312 if you have any questions. Rev: 1-13 of 150


Department Head Angela Purdie 1/4/16


From Fund Name/Number: Cable Franchise/2502


000-30.0003 Telephone Maint. $5,000

000-30.0011 Software Dev. Serv $7.500

000-30.0014 Copier Lease $90,000

Total: $102,500


This fund was not adequately budgeted during the 2016 budget process as I failed to include lines that had been transferred from County General to this fund during the 2015 budget process. The total additional request is: $102, 500.00 in the 30’s. Copier lease (30.0014) $90,000 Software Dev/Ser (30.0011) $7,500 Telephone Maint.(30.0003) $5,000


of 150

of 150

ELECTION FUND: 4931001: Voter Registration 002: Election BoardPersonal Services Personal Services

10.0005 Deputy Clerk $30,575.00 10.0001 Elections Supervisor $33,047.0010.0006 Deputy Clerk $29,195.00 11.7101 Hourly/Clerical Overtime $17,000.0011.7601 Longevity $800.00 11.7601 Longevity $800.0011.8001 FT Health/Dental/Life $12,551.70 11.8001 FT Health/Dental/Life $6,939.8711.8003 FT Unemployment $0.00 11.8101 FICA $10,231.9511.8101 FICA $6,775.61 11.8201 PERF $4,692.6711.8201 PERF $8,487.34 12.0002 Election Supervisor $2,652.0012.7801 Clerical Hourly (D) $14,000.00 12.0003 Assist to Canvas Board $0.0012.7802 Clerical Hourly (R) $14,000.00 12.0004 Inspectors $11,220.00

$116,384.65 12.0005 Judges $30,780.0012.0006 Precinct Sheriffs $5,200.00

Expenses 12.0007 Clerks $50,880.0020.0001 General Office Supplies $2,000.00 12.0021 Janitors $1,700.0020.0002 Printing $5,000.00 12.0072 Absentee Boards $157,724.00

$7,000.00 12.7001 Clerk & 2 Board Members $8,000.0012.7003 Travel Boards $10,360.00

Other Services & Charges 12.7801 Hourly/Clerical $80,252.00

30.0001 Postage $10,000.00 $431,479.4930.0006 Contractual $6,000.0030.0007 Dues $80.00 Expenses30.0008 Training $2,000.00 20.0001 Office Supplies $3,000.0030.0010 Software & Licensing $0.00 20.0002 Machine, Precinct Etc. $58,870.00

$18,080.00 20.0003 Precinct Setup Supplies $7,500.0020.0004 Postage $40,000.00

TOTAL Voter Registration $141,464.65 $109,370.00

Other Services & Charges30.0001 Meals @ 100 $23,200.0030.0002 Election Board Yearly Training $800.0030.0003 Traveling Expenses $1,000.0030.0004 Freight $2,500.0030.0005 Legal Notices $500.0030.0006 Ballots $44,475.4830.0007 Maps $250.0030.0008 Voting Machine Custodians (ED$152,000.0030.0010 Poling Places $1,700.0030.0011 Contractual $74,000.0030.0012 Voting Machine Repair $0.0030.0013 Truck Rental $3,250.0030.0014 Copier Expense $0.00

$303,675.48

Capital Outlays40.0001 Furniture $0.0040.0002 Equipment $0.00

$0.00

TOTAL Election Board $844,524.97 of 150

MINUTES MONROE COUNTY COUNCIL

COURTHOUSE, NAT U. HILL MEETING ROOM DECEMBER 8, 2015

Pursuant to proper notice, a Regular Session of the Monroe County Council was called to order at 5:30 p.m. on December 8, 2015 at the Monroe County Courthouse, Nat U. Hill Meeting Room, Bloomington, Indiana 47404. The presiding officer was Cheryl Munson, President. A quorum was present, including:

Councilors Present: Cheryl Munson, President Shelli Yoder, Vice President Lee Jones Marty Hawk Ryan Cobine Eric Spoonmore Geoff McKim Also Present: Michael Flory, County Council Attorney Steve Saulter, Auditor Marilyn Stonecipher, Deputy Auditor 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by President Munson. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE President Munson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (Bruce Anderson) The reason I’m here is that in 2010 or so, around November 10th, about the same time in Afghanistan, Dark Horse Marine Corps was fighting it out. This memorial monument was rededicated to our Vietnam Era Veterans. For years it was left with the sand‐filled holes after they gutted the lights and did repair it. Now they put new flag poles up here and these two flags, as you can see the first one is the American flag and there is the corner is the POW‐MIA flag. Now those two flags are flying on a level. It is unconstitutional for our representative republic. It is disgusting. That POW flag should be recognized internationally but it is not an international flag. The email that I got from the County when I questioned this matter is that they were flying it correctly and had the right to fly it as is on two staffs at the equal and same height. Part C [of the Military Flag Code] says no other flag…should be above and/or on the same level. Those two flags are on the same level. How is it in five years that the attorney in this complex, Mr. David Schilling, who supposedly cleared whoever passed to put the new flag there didn’t manage to read the flag code? Five years, the birthday of the United States Marine Corps has gone by; five years the creation for the masonry in the Unites States the same place, also Veterans’ Days five of them have gone by. How is it that supposedly the budgetary hearing allocated the money and had read supposedly the code and law and managed to put this up there and five years, and it is only 80 feet from your guys’ window here. Five years. Can you explain to me in five years how can nobody acknowledge this?

of 150

December 8, 2015 Page 2

The reason that I came in is that I noticed during the matter with the Islamists when they took out the café in France, I don’t have TV and don’t listen to radio as much as I miss Rush Limbaugh, I don’t have the money to buy it at home. The point is that I came by and noticed that they were flying both those flags at half‐staff. I came in and tried to correct the matter. They actually did adjust the flags properly. Now France was probably one of the leading reasons for the start of Vietnam. Now I realize that some of you all may not be familiar with the history or whatever, but I found it, my step‐father served three tours in Vietnam. His last duty of tour after his brother got blown to crap as a tunnel rat, went back to identify and write letters back home to the dead. From what I know of Vietnam and the hell on earth and seeing it like this, I find it insulting that my own government would in five years pass a budget hearing to fix something, give the orders to do it, pass it through your legal office and it is completely and utterly void of the federal flag code. How? Please answer that question. How? (Lindsey Badger) I live in McDoel Gardens neighborhood for the last ten years. I’m a member of New Leaf‐New Life, I serve on their board, and I help facilitate Think Tanks in the local jail as well as teaching speech and advocacy classes as the university. Over the last four months, we’ve been working really hard building community meetings and today really want to bring, some of our group members have coordinated to come and speak on behalf of the organizations we’ve been working with, reporting results of these public meetings, testimony gathering, weekly group participation, hoping ultimately to address some critical interventions the County can make in support of our shared efforts. One of these things actually looks like it might be showing up on your agenda and I really want to sort of bring what the community has been talking about in regards to bailed bond. I also want to introduce a number of liaisons who actually come to speak to you today as IU students. They’ve not spoken in a venue like this before. It is super‐intimidating to me but I think maybe more intimidating to them. I think some of the most important work in our community is to give our young people real opportunities to participate, so I really appreciate your willingness to listen. But these students have also served as liaisons between incarcerated and free community members and over the past four months, they’ve not only met weekly in the jail to brainstorm and come up with ideas they present tonight, but also have hosted public meetings that had a wide spectrum of local service providers and advocates and they gathered testimonies from multiple sites from those most affected in and out of jail and all of these efforts have really brought so many community voices together in the things that they share. So tonight students really want to present a challenge to the bail system and propose resources that would be useful to a new place of the idea of abolishing bail comes up. We’ve been in close dialog with a civil rights lawyer who is interested in building a case in our community that would then set precedent for Indiana as a state to abolish bail. We are one of two countries in the world that uses the bail system. Others have deemed it a violation of human rights as it allows those who have money to go free and many who pose no risk to our community to sit and lose access to the resources they have. Many folks who are incarcerated or have recently been incarcerated cite house evictions which blows their credit or other bills that their credit has been blown over. A loss of resources to public housing which also means a loss of resource to their families who are in public housing and food stamps if they sign a quick plea deal to get themselves back out. And while this civil rights lawyer suggests a court case is the best way to really begin this conversation and has begun this conver‐sation nationally, he has open cases in a number of states and has also won a number of cases across the country, we really want to talk about how something like abolishing bail would come to benefit us as a community. Specifically talking about sort of the civil liability, how overcrowding, mental health issues, how jail suicide nationally has risen at the exact same rate as the jail bail has risen and how this has really perpetuated a crisis of mental health in our jails across the nation. How it is a human rights issues that we are criminalizing poverty. A number of people have been let go, some of whom, one of whom has committed a hate crime in our community very recently and was let go on a very small bond while other people continue to sit for crimes against their own bodies or paraphernalia charges. And ultimately, it will also save the county a huge amount of money if we think about abolishing bail.

of 150


We are paying for people to sit in a maximum security facility and many of them have committed harm to themselves and not to the broader community. Kennedy, as a Sheriff, said two‐thirds of the people in jail pose no risk to our community. Bill Wilson cited very similar numbers on his way out. I haven’t heard numbers from the new administration but I imagine that the folks in the jail are similar. So I would really like us to think how we could move money from a maximum security facility to supports that would ultimately both decrease the use of the jail and could potentially produce real supports to respond to recidivism because we’re not just paying for someone to sit there once. Often because of the way jail affects the rest of people’s lives, we are paying for them to sit there more than once. So I would love you to sort of listen in both to some of the great reasons for abolishing bail and some of the great solutions that have been imagined in our community for other ways we could respond to the crisis of incarceration. Thank you for your time. (Andy Brown) I’d like to talk to you guys about the experiences that I’ve had in the Monroe County Think Tank so far. Initially when I started this class, I was pretty scared because I didn’t know what to expect from being in jail other than what I had seen on TV in shows like Scared Straight and stuff like that. But after going in there and talking to a lot of the guys, my idea of who a prisoner is and would a prisoner could be has really changed, partly because a lot of these guys are really great. The general vibe of people that I got in the Think Tank was that everybody really wanted to improve themselves and they are striving to do so. I gained a lot of perspective talking to these guys on my life. I used to think you belonged in jail if you were there and if you were in there you were probably a danger to society but after talking to these people and doing a lot of research on bail laws I realized that bail is keeping people in jail even if they haven’t been convicted of a crime yet. This is a problem because bail takes away the intrinsic values that we hold so close to ourselves in the United States. One of those values is freedom and we work very hard to protect that value as well as spend a lot of money to preserve it. Now I agree that jail should take freedom away from people as a punishment but I don’t agree they should take away people’s freedom of mind. That happens all too often, especially when jails are overcrowded and a lot of jails are overcrowded. Over crowdedness is a very big problem because of the negative health effects that it has on prisoners as well as the monetary effects it has on our society. A big reason for over crowdedness has to do with bail because if people can’t pay to get out of jail the jails are going to be overcrowded. We also pride ourselves upon equal rights for all of our citizens in this county but the gap between rich and poor people has kind of turned into a rights gap as well; meaning that rich people can pay to get out of jail but poor people cannot. This rights gap also become evident when we examine the intrinsic promise of being innocent until proven guilty. I like to talk about the orange jumpsuit phenomenon when we examine this and this has to do with judges sentencing those who come into trial wearing all orange longer sentences because they look like a criminal rather than if they were free because they paid their bail and they came in in a suit and tie they perhaps would get a less severe sentence. Even if none of what I’ve said today has really resonated with you guys, I would like for you to try to picture yourself in this situation. You have just been arrested and you can’t pay your bail so you have to sit in jail for a couple of months to potentially even a year and sometimes longer. During this time you can’t work to support your family [or] yourself, you don’t have any freedom, you can’t go outside when you want, and you can’t eat when you want. On top of all of that, you have a public defender that is pressuring you to take a plea deal to make the whole process go quicker and easier but you might not even be guilty so you don’t want that on your record. This is the story of way too many people that I’ve talked to in the Think Tank and it really breaks my heart because bail takes away the intrinsic values that we are all supposed to be guaranteed and we enjoy on the outside and that is why I think that bail should be abolished. Thanks for your time. (Will Ottenweller) Good evening, Councilors. As Lindsey said, I have been participating in a Men’s Think Tank here at the county jail. I would like to talk to you about someone I’ve met through this named Kevin Mizarra. It is a name you might not recognize right now but you will soon find out how important this person has been not only to me but the Bloomington community as a whole.

of 150


Kevin is a part of a large family here in Bloomington who has seen the effects of the bail system firsthand. Kevin’s cousin grew up in a troubled life and eventually found herself in jail. The first time she walked free due to the small time charges that were incurred against her. But then there was a second, a third and eventually a fourth time. By this time the bail amount that was set for her was too much for any asset of her or her family’s to post to get her out. There was no breaking this cycle and she was left helpless and alone in jail. Eventually, the burden of this bail system became to grave for Kevin’s cousin and she tragically committed suicide. Kevin’s testimony resembles the mounting depressing that is put on people who have to face the bail system. This is just one of the many experiences that I’ve had throughout this semester that has incited my own conversion on this issue. Now I look at human rights as a whole in a completely different light. It is easy to think that there is no chance of reform, repentance or forgiveness for those who have or had been incarcerated. It is easy to think that these people are not like us because they are in jail and that there must be something different because something landed them in jail. It is easy to think that practicing the labeling theory for a group the average citizen won’t see behind high walls and barbed wire fences because the average citizen doesn’t see this population. It is easy to separate criminals from society and that is the line of thinking I’m trying to challenge here. Understanding, responsibility and compassion; all of these values are part of a network within the human rights spectrum. Understanding that not everyone comes from the same playing field and that each person experiences affect their mold. Responsibility to an individual or community to speak for those who have no voice. Compassion for the humanness in everyone and finding those things which connect all of us together. We go through life seeing things, meeting people and experiencing both good times and bad. Throughout this semester, the research I have done on criminal justice and specifically the bail system has forced me to reconsider my role within the system and I encourage all of you to do the same. In Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs transcendence and self‐actualization are at the peak of the pyramid. Most human rights experts agree that it is not possible to reach these segments without caring for others before yourself. So whether it be a 20‐year old kid sitting down with a stranger talking about their lives or a City Council member brazenly standing up for what is right, I believe there is something we can all do to help this situation in violation of human rights. Thank you. (Alexis Beck) I was a part of the Monroe County’s Women’s Think Tank and I had the opportunity to talk to many different kinds of women from all different walks of life. This experience has changed my outlook on people who have been incarcerated. Originally I thought that people who were in jail could have done something bad and they deserved to be locked away. But I learned that people all need an opportunity to make their lives better even if they made one bad mistake. I learned that people in the jail are not just a different society that are locked away and that deserve to be locked away, that they are people who have families, who have children, who have mothers, who are mothers, who are sisters, and I’ve heard all different kinds of stories about their walks of life. One story that stood out to me was of a woman who was in an abusive relationship. She wanted to leave that relationship to move with her mom but it turns out that her mom was a drug abuser and her children suffered because of that. She in turn had to go to jail and now her children are suffering even more because they have to deal with the fact that their mom is in jail. All she talks about is wanting to get out to become a better person and be a role model for her children. But she doesn’t have the opportunity because people in jail have diminished resources. This is supposed to be a place for reform; this is supposed to be a place for change. When you’re sent to jail you’re supposed to think about the thing that you did and serve your sentence and be punished for what you did. But then afterwards you’re supposed to turn over a new leaf but if you have no resources to do that, you have no opportunity to turn a new leaf, you have no opportunity to become a better person. Because of this, people have returned to jail after being out for two months but they’re back in jail for the same reason. That is because people never get to break that cycle. When she leaves the jail, she is going to

of 150


have to go back to either the abusive relationship or her mom. Nothing has changed. She hasn’t changed as a person, her situation hasn’t changed, and she only wants the best for her and her children. So I proposed that we develop a support system for people who are in the jail; we send in people like liaisons to come in and look at each individual person and develop a success plan for them so that they can be successful. We should be able to send in social workers to come up with a plan for all of these people because they deserve the opportunities that everyone else [has]. I’ve seen this plan done in Wisconsin, Tennessee and Michigan and they’ve had success with this. People have left the jail, stayed out of jail, and become a better citizen. I think that we should do this here in Bloomington because that would diminish a lot of the recidivism and help the community overall. New Leaf‐New Life is a really great program that is in the community and they often do programs that are in the jail but they have no capacity to be able to do this kind of work in the jail as it stands. So I am asking you to think about all of the women in the jail, all of the men in the jail, and think about their individual stories and help them become a better citizen and write a new ending for their life. Thank you. (Marija Novakovich) I am also part of this class. We participate in the Monroe County Jail Speech and Advocacy Think Tank. I’ve had the privilege to really get to know some of the men that we have here in our jail and I got to see them as real people which is a perspective that I didn’t really have before. They are full of stories and ideas, stories and ideas that they shared with us. One of the men decided to share a story in which he himself admitted that he was an addict and that society gave up on him. He didn’t have the resources available to him to seek help and get clean like he needed, like his family needed. Now since he is in the jail, his family is suffering. His wife and two kids don’t have him out in the community supporting them, providing for them, and living them. His crime is a result of his struggle with addiction, a mental health challenge, and have not negatively impacted the broader community. So I want to challenge the idea today that addicts are criminals that must be locked out of our community. A detox center can offer recovery and refuge and provide addicts the necessary support that they need. We can help our neighbors positively engage in our community. A professor of psychology in Vancouver named Bruce Alexander decided to look into addiction a little bit. Previously a study had been done that worked with mice and they sat in a cage all alone and were given two options of water: one was regular and the other was laced with heroine. The mice almost always chose the heroine‐laced water. They ended up killing themselves by overdosing. So Alexander decided to take it a little further and see what would happen if those mice were all in a cage together where they had food, tunnels, toys, friends, and they were still given the same two options. None of them ended up overdosing because they didn’t choose the laced water. All it took was relationships, connections, [and] happiness. If it could work like that with mice, why couldn’t it work like that with humans too if they didn’t have that psychological drive to use? A detox center can offer more than medical help, it can offer psychological help as well. It can restore those relationships, that connection, that happiness that humans need. So what would make them deviants then? Or dangerous? Or negative influences if they got clean? They deserve a second chance. Growing up, I know my generation at least, we all went through a program called DARE and I’m sure others did as well. Our parents always told us that drugs are bad, bad people do drugs, and if we do drugs we will ruin our lives and become bad people. What I’m trying to say is it is a taught habit to think that addicts are deviants. We have to think that these are real people that didn’t start out that way. Chances are they probably went through similar programs as well and their parents told them the same exact thing. So what is the cause of addiction? It has to be something else. It has to be a treatable cause. Neuro scientist and author, Marc Lewis, has published two books focusing on addiction. He told the Huffington Post, “I see

of 150


addiction as a developmental process.” There are way to reduce stigmazation [sic] by recognizing the humanity involved in addiction. At this point, addicts have suffered enough, we need to help them see the humanity in theirselves [sic]. A detox center can offer them a cleaner state‐of‐mind and allow them to work on the psycho‐logical reasons of addiction. They can reconnect with their family, friends and society. Once we help them heal their bodies, they can also work on healing their minds as well. So I ask you to change your perspective a little bit, imagine yourself as an addict, think about where your life would have turned and led you down that path. Would you change those decisions? Looking back and realizing you didn’t end up where you wanted, would you want the opportunity to change it? Make it personal and take what you’re feeling and apply it to others. If you want that second chance, others probably do too. Developing a detox center could offer that. Monroe County has a huge number of addicts and we can’t pay to arrest and incarcerate all of them just entering in the problem. Addicts need access to detox and an invitation to participate in the community in real ways. We ask the County to come behind this project diverting funds from incarceration and spending the money to provide supportive treatment to those who commit crimes against themselves. Addicts can have the opportunity to get clean and be inspired to be part of a thriving community and to become mentors and leaders in a movement to reduce addiction. Thank you. (Scott Wells) I do want to thank you for letting me have the opportunity to speak. Mister attorney, thank you very much. It is always special to come here this time of year. Christmas, they do such a great job decorating this place. It is just really nice. You know, you come in here and I just wonder, you know, a lot of times people they hear but they don’t listen, they look but they do not see. And a lot of you come in here every meeting and you don’t see something I see. If you look up there at the oak ceiling in relief, the things that go around the very upper top, you know what this is supposed to symbolize don’t you? My grandfather gave me a history lesson on that. This used to be a courthouse. Those elliptical objects are supposed to represent an egg and the dashes on each side are supposed to represent a dagger. So the egg, what does that represent? Life. The dagger is supposed to represent death. So think of it, every time you’re in here, you’re decisions, some of them are based on life and death. It is all about money, your budget. How can we pay for these things because people’s lives depend on that? Real quickly I want to review your budget this year. Number one, the Material Recovery Facility, the revenue generated which I have been fighting since 2012 to have that here. In September 3rd if you go back and you look at the budget of that from the Executive Subcommittee, now I want to fast forward to your September 8th vote. But if you go back to September 3rd and here is how you go to your website, pull up September 10th and there you can click on the subcommittee and at that subcommittee you have three people there: Iris Kiesling, Cheryl Munson, and Steven Bolin. And what happened in that meeting, the MIRF money was taken out to pay entirely that $205,000 to pay for Republic Services to haul our trash. So there is no money left in that fund. I mean the MIRF is down to zero. And I brought this up at the last District Board meeting as I was instructed to do and, of course, there has been no discussion about it, there was no comment on that. So basically, there is no money. Without money you can’t build something. Life and death kind of thing up there on the ceiling staring down at you right now. And of course now that is not the big issue because I want to couple it to where how we could raise revenue. But when I look at your September 8th budget where you voted for it six to one, everybody is thinking – I look at the September 8th budget okay, you basically don’t have any money for the budget to pay for the MIRF. So basically that was a revenue generator where you could use the revenue to offset the budget that I see now and people say government is too big to fail because we have the Rainy Day Fund. But when I look at your Rainy Day Fund and I brought this up but now it is even worse, your County budget for 2016 is a deficit budget which you passed. When I was on the Council in 2001 and 2004, we never passed that kind of budget. So you have $900,000 short and then here is the problem, on the Council in 2000, roughly 2000, when there was $8 million in that Rainy Day Fund and according to Attorney Flory over there, right before your last Council meeting, you had $3.3 million but now you’ve got to subtract the $1.2 million, the Honeywell contract, so now you’re down to $2.1 million. You have to subtract the $900,000 that you have for deficit so now you’re down to $1.2 million. And then I’m

of 150


reading there is going to be a new assessment because of this change in the government up in Indianapolis, the assessment looks like we might lose several hundred thousand dollars there and then of course the last budget you had $140,000 overtime out of the Sheriff’s budget you’ve got to pay now. So now I’m looking at this Rainy Day Fund is about $800,000. So my question for all of you up there that are running for reelection next year, okay, I asked you last time, what is going to happen when the Rainy Day Fund runs out because that, we can always grab the money, that’s our saving grace. But folks maybe next year it goes down to zero and what are you going to do? I don’t think Santa Claus is going to come down through the chimney and give you a big bag of cash and this is why I want you to think – the last thing I’ll leave you with. The revenue generator is with the MIRF. You could have made, if you really look at the numbers, Mr. Barker is the best Director we ever had here, that would have been paid off in 2.6 years with a revenue bond and if you look at it, we could generate a million dollars a year new revenue that could come into the General Fund. So I leave you with this one thing, when you say you’re too big to fail, just remember what I said, a lot of times that is what AIG said right before the big crash in 2008, the biggest insurance company in the world, we’re too big to fail, we can save ourselves and if it wasn’t for the government, they’d have been out of business. Thank you. 4. DEPARTMENT UPDATES (Linda Robbins, County Clerk) I would like to bring attention to these three employees. I want you to know, and I’m so glad that you are discussion salaries, Salary Ordinances, and things. You know there are a few people, yourselves included, and yourselves included, that work a lot of hours and very hard at what they do and these ladies work with both the protective order process and elections. And to give you an idea of what it takes to put that together, my two elections people have about 200 hours left in their comp time and they still have to take vacation and we pretty well run from one election to the next just barely getting through the time worked and time they’re required to take off after having done that. I think they’re really special. If I put my foot down, they would rather lie on their timesheet, which I won’t allow. So I think this is Sherry Morris, Sherry Morris trains our poll workers and works with us. Therese Martin which is our Elections Supervisor. And then Sara Hunt, Sara Hunt is our Protective Order Registry, she’s our Supervisor there. So I just wanted to give them a shout out tonight in addition to the rest of you who are here so late at night and input hours in. Thank you. (Julie Thomas) Hello everyone. Today the Board of Commissioners during staff time decided that it is in the best interest of the County to pursue reimbursement from the bonds of the County Auditor and County Treasurer to reimburse us for the approximately $150,000 we spent on a consultant, the Hartman and Williams Company, to balance our books and complete and audit and Mr. Flory has agreed to pursue the paperwork on our behalf. So thank you. (Munson) So Council, we have a full agenda today with several policy items on it. Many of these we discussed at our last work session so should not require a great deal of time for basic introduction. So we will begin with an amendment to our agenda. AGENDA AMENDMENT Yoder made a motion to amend the agenda to add 17(B) Last Minute Housekeeping Items which consists of transferring already appropriated funds across categories in the Auditor’s and Commissioners’ offices. Jones seconded. Motion passed by voice vote. Yoder made a motion to amend the agenda to hear Item 15, Treasurer’s Request for Retroactive Pay first. Jones seconded. Motion passed by voice vote.

of 150


15. TREASURER’S OFFICE Request for Retroactive Pay Fund 1121‐003, General COIT 10.0003 Financial Cash Manager Yoder made a motion to approve the request for retroactive pay for the position of Financial Cash Manager. Jones seconded. (Catherine Smith, Treasurer) Good evening Council. What I’m actually asking for is to pay in arrears the person who does our financial work. We had put in last year at budget time for a position that was not granted. I was asked at that time to come back after the first of the year and seek that position. I started working on that in January, worked on it in January and February, went to the PAC in February, was asked to do a couple of more things which we did, and as you can see, there were many revisions of this, we went to PAC several times and basically the long and the short of it is the process that should have took [sic] a couple of months ended up taking many, many, many months and we set aside money to pay this person and we’re not asking to use the entire amount but just what would be reasonable had we done it in an timely manner it it got to WIS. This is the position that was not sent to WIS two years ago when it probably should have been and I had requested that but it just worked out that it didn’t get sent. We finally did get it sent and then it got mixed in with stuff that was waiting for the County‐wide group. So basically what I’m asking for his to pay her those few weeks of pay, which we do have the money set aside, we’re not asking for any other money, we have the money, just to pay that to the person who did this work. (Hawk) This is the position that is trying to get our cash balanced to the bank, is that correct? (Smith) Well actually this position is the Cash Book position. The part that balances to the bank is the other position that we haven’t started because we haven’t been caught up in our work. The way it used to be, it was combined into one position. (Hawk) I just wanted to ask a question. (Smith) Yes, it is the only Financial Manager. (Hawk) Just as a matter of general information, what month are you working on now to balance the cash to the bank? (Smith) We have entered all the data up through June and we are looking – of course we were busy doing settlement and everything else we have to do – so we have all the data entered completely through June and starting July and then we’re just troubleshooting the data. There are a couple of issues with data as there always are and that’s what we’re working on now to try to get settlement. Settlement has first priority that’s what. (Hawk) I’m sorry. (Smith) Settlement has, obviously, first priority because we’re working on a time crunch to I believe December 14th, is that correct? Yes, December 14th which will be an early settlement. (McKim) No questions but I certainly supported upgrading this position and I’m glad that it was successfully reclassified but I have to say I’m very concerned about the idea of retroactive pay at this point for a position simply based on the amount of time that the process of going through PAC and the reclassification process as the Council spelled it out. That process simply takes time. We’re not generally in the practice of beginning the effectiveness of any reclassification on the first point at which one enters the process but rather at the point at which – our practice has been in the past either effective immediately when the decision is made to reclassify or

of 150


possible effective at the beginning of the next budget year. So I’m a little worried about opening the floodgates on that but I’m interested in what my colleagues say. (Jones) I very much agree with what Councilor McKim said. As a member of PAC, it strikes me that this could set a precedent that would put a lot of pressure on PAC to not really be able to devote the time actually needed to making a good decision and instead worry about whether or not we’re making the decision fast enough to save us money which I don’t think is really the way we should be making decisions on PAC. (Cobine) In line with what my colleagues have said already at this point, I think it is important to also consider the incentives that the way the system works right now. The incentive is that whether it is an Elected Official or a department head bringing a position in for consideration for reclassification, the hope is that they have worked with HR, done the research on the position, and have that very well organized and it is well understood so that they can give a clear presentation to PAC. That is the optimal circumstance I guess. But if there are complications, if there are changing variables that people can’t account for, that is going to make the process take longer but I don’t think that is really a reason to have to think about making pay retroactive. Again as has been said already, what seems fair and what has been done in the past is to try and make that apply as of the actual effectiveness of the classification or, if that is not possible, with the next budget cycle. I think that is the expectation that seems to be generally understood. (Yoder) And just to add to what my colleagues have said, I just want to add I’m also on PAC and I think first and foremost we want to make sure that the questions that we have on PAC representing the Council but first and foremost to be cautious and careful of the taxpayers’ money that we have a clear narrative of what is happening, of the changes that are being made because they are long lasting. Each and every time we have made adjustments, needed clarification, and have continued to do what we need to do in order to make a good recommendation to the Council. So I absolutely was in support of reclassifying the position and I felt that the PAC did due diligence in making sure that that process was followed and done so timely but also thoroughly. (Munson) I certainly supported the reclassification of the position but I don’t think it is a wise move for the Council to change their policy as to when a new salary approved by the Council will take effect. A call was made for public comment. (Scott Wells) I’ve been following this for years and to be honest with you Ms. Cathy Smith, if she had had the staff to begin with, fully staffed the way she needed it, it wouldn’t have been in this problem to begin with. I watch how this went back and forth like a ping pong match. You want your rooms and your staff, you’ve got to have staff to make stuff work and you’ve got to pay them right but you don’t have the money but you’ve got to support the staff and you’ve got to have enough staff members to do the job. When I was reading over the last few years how this went back and forth, the first thing I just kept thinking about, you know, if she had the right number of people in there to help her do the job, she would have done her job. Stonecipher called roll: McKim – no Cobine – no Hawk – no Yoder – no Jones – no Spoonmore – abstain Munson – no Motion failed.

of 150


(Hawk) Are we going to have to vote on that again next time? (Flory) This was a policy vote, not anything beyond that so this takes care of it. (Smith) Thank you Councilors for listening to me and just as you wish to do you due diligence on the Council and on the PAC, I as an Elected Official have to do my due diligence and I honestly believe in the deepest part of my heart that had the PAC sent this to WIS two years ago when it first went through instead of doing the work in‐house which failed, we would not be sitting here today talking about it two years later. But every other position went to WIS to be reclassified; this one PAC voted not to send it to get reclassified by WIS and asked for it to be done in‐house. That was the beginning of this debacle and it continued for two years. So I have to do my due diligence with my employees, which what I think is right in my heart, which was fight for their retro pay because I believe this position is due the pay. So please understand that I’m also trying to do the right thing as well. Thank you. 6. RESOLUTION 2015‐47: SUPPORTING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION PROPERTY Discussion of Donation of Hoosier Energy Building Yoder made a motion to approve Resolution 2015‐47. (Yoder) This Resolution covers a proposed donation to the County of a building and property located at 190 East Ellis Road. The Commissioners have asked the County Council to review certain fiscal implications of accepting the property and to state whether or not Council supports accepting the proposed donation. Jones seconded. (Jeff Cockerill, County Attorney) Let me give a brief presentation and then we will move on from there. You can see on the screens the map and the GIS picture of the site itself. It is the middle site with the building and the parking on it. This site was a former Hoosier Energy facility. Here is an exterior photo and then the photo of the main lobby when you walk in. I just [have] a couple more photos to show the board room. As you can see, this building is approximately 34,000 square feet. It is well maintained. It contains a large number of office spaces. Then I have the floor plans as they were given to us last Friday. Here is the system control area. I think you all have this in the drop box so if you have any questions as we scroll through them just feel free to ask. As you can see from the photos, there are a lot of office spaces in this building. There is also a full kitchen and other items. This one is the board room itself as well as a lounge area outside of it. The reason we are here today is because the Hoosier Energy site is being purchased by a group called I‐69 Partnership. I‐69 Partnership will be the group that maintains the I‐69 corridor for INDOT. Right now it is part of a larger purchase of all that area and essentially they are going to use the other areas for their maintenance operations. They are going to put in a salt dome and they are going to use that facility as part of their contract with INDOT. They are not allowed to own real estate. So when they portion that, that portion will be given to INDOT and they’ve requested from the County if there is an interest for the County to have this building portion of the site. I went through some of the old utility bills. For the water and waste water I had a June of this year bill. Clearly that is reflective of an empty building and it also included all the lots there so I prorated it by water usage of that building to get a monthly water bill for it being empty. I’m sure that would go up if it [were] in use. The electric bill I used that for the 2013 calendar year which I believe is a year it was in use by Hoosier Energy. So that would be more reflective of actual full use of the building. So you’re looking at approximately $80,000 or $85,000 based upon those assumptions. Again, some of the amenities are: it is a very large building; it has a lot of office spaces; it [has] large conference rooms; it includes a generator; it also has some archival space that would be good for records storage; it is a

of 150


donation so that is always something that interested [us] in this. There is a restriction with the donation. The restrictions are the we recognize that that adjacent parcel is going to be used for I‐69 maintenance and that if we do transfer this in any way, lease, sell or whatever, that those transfer documents have to reflect that the new owner is going to respect those restrictions, that there will be no suit based upon the reasonable use of the site for those activities. There has been some discussion of possible uses. Clearly Emergency Management has looked at the site for an emergency center. Records storage is one. Sheriff Reserves are currently looking for a space as well as a large office space would lend to several different uses. Highway Department maybe I think has also been discussed. So with that, I will have Commissioner Thomas answer your questions. (Munson) Are you ready for questions now? (Thomas) I just want to add one thing really quickly if I might. I do want to point out that we could lease some of this property as well and then we could also see it. So these are all options that are out there for us. Selling it would put money in County General, so that is another option for us to consider. (Cobine) So when I first heard about this, the first question that I had essentially was what is it that it allows us to do that we can’t do now that we need to do? Or barring that, given our current menu of services or what have you, is there some sort of efficiency that is met great enough given the costs of utilities, maintenance and what not that it would be meaningful for us to take on so that it would improve in a meaningful way the efficiency of government? The couple of examples that were presented tonight in terms of the uses certainly seem like good uses but it doesn’t seem to me at this point that they reach that level necessarily. The option of leasing and selling is interesting sounding but that doesn’t seem like a natural thing for County Government to do, like well we could take the donation just so we could sell it. Couldn’t I‐69 partners sell it? Why would we have to get involved? I mean I know we should look at it because it is being offered to us obviously. So that is my initial reaction to this is one basically of more questions essentially. So thank you. (Spoonmore) What is the value of the building? (Cockerill) The assessed value is approximately $2.3 million. (Thomas) That is the County Assessor’s assessed value. (Cockerill) Yes, off the property record card. (Spoonmore) So we’ve estimated roughly it will be about $85,000 just in utilities and to maintain the building per year? (Cockerill) I would think that would be the floor. Again, the water I don’t have any way to assume what that would be and again there would also be other maintenance costs. (Spoonmore) Would we be able to sell it as quickly as we’d like if need be? Or put it on the market? (Cockerill) Well I guess the answer to that is you never sell real estate as quickly as you like in my opinion. Also it is zoned Institutional which limits the market. Also there is a process that we would go through as far as getting bids and accepting bids and things like that. So I would guess that it would not be as quickly as we would like but I think that the larger time constraint would be to review zoning for that if it were going to be rezoned to make it more marketable.

of 150


(Yoder) Can you clarify a point? I know Councilor Cobine brought this up and I just wanted clarification. That was one of my initial reactions was why doesn’t I‐69 partners sell it? But in my investigation gathering, I was told that they are not allowed or can’t actually sell property. So could you clarify that point just so I have the correct information? (Cockerill) They are contractually obligated with the State of Indiana and according to the sources with that group, the contract expressly says that may not own real property in the State of Indiana. So they can’t hold on to the property long enough to sell it. In fact, they indicated to me that the likely outcome if we do not accept it is that they would pay for the property but Hoosier Energy would retain ownership of this building and that they would get the site that they are going to use for the maintenance. (Yoder) Would it be possible if it is a donation to the County, before we accept the donation – I‐69 partners could donate the property to anyone they want I would imagine, right? (Cockerill) I would think that anybody who could use it for the zoned purpose would be my guess. Again, that is the market for this structure. (Yoder) How quickly is an average rezone? (Thomas) Two to three months. (Hawk) First of all I’d like to just suggest that this is a beautiful building. When I say that I’m talking about the quality of workmanship inside the building. So for the opportunity for some group to be able to put employees in that building and make it very useful, it is a wonderful idea and I hope someone from the private sector will take advantage of having a building so ready to come in and grown their company. I do believe it should be in the private sector and not County owned because we already have space that we’re struggling trying to maintain and pay the overhead for and without some compelling reason to need that kind of additional space on hand, I think it would be not appropriate for us to accept such a lovely gift and just allow it to be in the private sector. Let’s say if one wanted to consider [to] just take it and sell it, obviously it was already marketed at one point and the buyer, if I understand it correctly, needed to get some zoning changes and that was not possible. So would we accept this as a gift and turn around and try to sell and say oh but now the County is going to provide some zoning changes? I think that would not be very nice to say well we wouldn’t do it for one company but we will do it for ourselves. But maybe I don’t understand the whole transaction. I’m just saying from standing back and looking at it, that is what it looks like. (Thomas) I can provide a little information on that. The entire property including the garages, the warehouse space, the entire property was up for sale. The issue was the extent of noise and dust and dirt, etc., that would be created on that big section that now I‐69 Development Partners will have as of tomorrow. That was the concern of the neighbors. This is an office building. Clearly any rezone can be limited to only office use which would really limit any kind of noise or distraction. The frontage road for I‐69 will go right to that location but it is also accessible from Ellis. So there will be additional amenities available. Now I will tell you that we went through a lot talking about this, the Commissioners, and in summary Mr. Stoffers supposed it; I was on the fence; Ms. Kiesling opposed it. In the end I supported it because I said, “Who am I to turn down a $2 million building without saying to the Council, ‘hey do we think we should do this’?” So that’s why we’re here. This is the opportunity or it could be a white elephant. But many of you have been able to go over there and see it. It is a beautiful building. There are some constraints to total remodel. A total remodel will require ADA compliance. (Hawk) We’d have to put in an elevator and it appeared to me from some of the information I looked at that it is not on sewer.

of 150


(Thomas) It is. (Hawk) Did you see something that said that they had to pump something out? (Jones) The building is on sewer, the rest is not. (Thomas) And there is a training building there as well and the I‐69 Development Partners said that they were planning to open that to the community but it is also gated so it is a secure area. As for the Sheriff’s Reserves, right now they’re looking to build a building and that seems like a big expense if there is one that we’re not planning to use. But of course, they don’t need the entire building. So there are both sides to that story. So I think this is just an opportunity for you all to tell us [whether or not you] want it and let us know what you think. (Hawk) It is a marvelous opportunity and if we needed that kind of space I’d sure be saying what a wonderful thing. We don’t have the ready ongoing revenue to be able to grow County Government to the extent that we could provide new services. That is just not in our budget. It is not in any kind of foreseeable budget. So I have real reservations about this. (McKim) I will say that I sympathize with Commissioner Thomas’s ambivalence. I feel the same way. In one hand I really kind of want to figure out a way to make this work. If somebody is offering us a valuable asset, it really behooves us to look hard at the opportunity. But I have so many concerns, some of which have already been voiced here, and I’m just not sure that all my concerns can be alleviated here. Obviously we have the issue of the utilities, simply the carrying costs to just own and operate the building. And I agree with Councilor Hawk, from a structural perspective it is a very nice building. I spent a long time looking at it and crawling around and going through all the offices and all the floors and there is a lot of potential there. But, first of all, we’ve already heard about the elevator situation so really only the first floor is accessible. Second, it is not a very flexible building. Nowadays, particularly for startups, when they want office space they tend to want a flexible building that has a lot of potential for remodeling. This is pretty broken up into offices. There is that nice senate chamber that we saw the picture of which is very nice and would certainly have a lot of potential; but by and large the building, particularly the basement, is broken up into a lot of individual offices, machine rooms, utility closets and that sort of thing. And the uses that we’ve seen on the previous slide, I agree they are potential uses but on the other hand, this is a building that at one time employed 150 people, this is an office building for 150 people and we’re maybe talking a couple dozen at the most. (Thomas) And you’d have to lease out the rest, yes. (McKim) And the Sheriff’s Reserves, that certainly is a potential. My understanding is that they were also really looking for a shooting range. Is that not correct? (Thomas) Well that wouldn’t be there. (McKim) Yes, I know. Thank you. I do want to talk about the land use a little bit but maybe I’ll yield and then we can come back and talk about zoning and land use a little bit more. (Jones) I’m rather ambivalent about this. As a member of the Plan Commission, we’ve been kind of wrestling with this for a long, long time. It was zoned Public Institutional – I can never remember the exact term – in order to facilitate Hoosier Electric locating there and the neighbors in the area were fine with that. They saw value to Hoosier Electric being there. When Hoosier Electric decided it was no longer a good location for them, they initially asked that it be rezoned to General Business, I believe. Do you remember, Julie? (Thomas) General Business, right.

of 150


(Jones) It was going to be a much heavier use of the area and many, many of the neighbors showed up at Plan Commission meetings and were really, really concerned in particular about traffic on Ellis Road which in the past the County has attempted to put some limitations on the traffic on that road but in actual fact we have absolutely no ability to enforce that so the traffic on that road has been pretty out of control. The neighbors are very, very concerned about a new use there that would cause a lot more hazards, be harder on the roads, and all of that kind of thing. We had also initially thought that there was going to be a much better connection from there to Bloomington which would have actually made this site much more useful but it turned out that wasn’t going to happen. Hoosier Electric then came back with a proposal for a PUD, Planned Unit Development, which the neighbors were even more concerned about and ultimately the company that Hoosier Electric was working with kind of pulled out of the whole thing and it all fell apart and that is how we got to where we are now where they have it on their hands, or I‐69 does, and needs to do something with it. My concern with this is that the neighbors were initially very, very supportive and helpful in agreeing to have Hoosier Electric occupy that site in the way they did. I don’t think that should be used as a toe‐hold or a shoehorn to push in uses that the neighbors have really good concerns about. I do think that if the County were to take this, it is much more likely that all of this could be worked out in a way that benefits the County, the neighbors, probably benefits Hoosier Energy. I think that this ultimately would be more of a win‐win situation for everyone involved even though I can see that there really are some very valid concerns. (Munson) When I first heard about this proposal, I thought, “boy this is a gift horse and we’ve got to check the teeth.” So I did with several others on the Council and with Commissioners and went for a tour of the building and had great discussions with Hoosier Energy personnel who have responsibility for the care of the building. They have been truly wonderful in answering every question that we’ve come up with. I [had a lot of questions] that had to do with utilities. But in addition to the gift horse and checking teeth, we know horses have manure and we have to identify what that might be. My thinking is that the uses that the County might put this building to are limited and I think the best use of this building would be to sell it, so that it is again back in private hands, to a business that we could make sure the neighbors would have a good fit with and that is Councilor Jones’s excellent point I think. So what other manure? How do we take care of this building until it could be sold? It could be a number of months so I looked at the costs of maintaining this building at a reduced energy level than it presently is. It is presently heated and cooled to about 70 degrees and I went through the bills that Hoosier Energy had for both water and waste water and electricity and consulted with some of their system engineers and it looks like dropping the temperature to approximately 50 degrees would get us down to at least $3,781 electric and adding in the limited water and waste water and multiplying by twelve, I came up with numbers that are roughly $45,000 per year. So you can look at it $3,781 per month or look at it on an annual basis. For the value of this building and what it would bring to the County, I think this weighs heavily to the pro side. So I look at cons and I look at pros and to me the pros weigh out. (Cobine) Kind of following up with Councilor Yoder’s question earlier about who is allowed to sell this. So if I‐69 Partners is not really allowed to transact with real property, Mr. Cockerill indicated that Hoosier Energy would maintain ownership of the building in lieu of the County accepting this. They then would be able to sell it, correct? (Cockerill) Yes. (Cobine) So my other comment about this at this point is – I appreciated very much Councilor Jones’s comments. That was a perspective about the land use function of this that I hadn’t really thought about even though I am a bit familiar with the history of that. As President Munson has now identified, I’ve been wondering this whole first year, what is the essence of being on the Council? It is identifying the manure apparently. That is an interesting way of thinking of things. But I guess in that vein, my way of thinking here in terms of us on the Council is that it seems as if your argument might be that to facilitate possibly ultimately a better land use by the County maintaining the property temporarily until it can be sold that would sort of facilitate a more ideal land

of 150


use in the end and that would be the good result. My natural inclination is to say that seems kind of complicated and assumes that everything goes right. Wouldn’t it just be easier for the County to pass and not get involved with it and let Hoosier Energy deal with selling it [and] let whoever wants to buy it deal with rezoning; just kind of let it go its course? (Munson) There is that other benefit of the sale price being $2 million to the County. We’re not being brokers or middlemen here. We stand to have a significant gain for the County that we don’t have these kinds of opportunities presented to us. (Cobine) Yes, whatever that ultimate price would be. On the one hand that seems a little bit like sort of the County going in on land speculation which seems weird to me in terms of an investment option. And again, it is a donation of the building but it would cost whatever the maintenance is which, hence, the focus on reducing what that cost is. But again, that seems more involved than I’m real comfortable with at this point certainly. (Yoder) I still remain uncertain of how I feel about this and I think I’m reluctant really more in line with Councilor Cobine in being more inclined to let Hoosier Energy continue to try to sell the building. If there is a problem with rezoning, can’t we work…? (Thomas) The rezoning issue was for the entire property, which is huge. This little piece would have to be rezoned and we haven’t heard from the neighbors yet on this piece being rezoned. So that would have to happen through the public meeting process. But when Ms. Jones talked about this, the rezone was the entire property and the concern was those shed buildings, warehouse buildings, the truck traffic, that would have come with that particular buyer. (Jones) But it sounds like they actually will still have that with the I‐69 [Development Partners]. (Thomas) The number of trucks is very, very small. I was actually surprised by the number of trucks they’re going to have. I think there [are] only two heavy‐duty trucks and four pick‐up trucks. It is very, very small. I kept thinking, “Why do they need all this property to do that?” But it is a very small number of trucks, fewer than Hoosier Energy had there. So this is going to be a reduction from what happened there. The other thing that happened in the last rezoning process is some of the land was dedicated to residential which probably can’t be built on. So there is a lot more buffer now for the residents as well which was good for them. (Hawk) I have grave reservations about us accepting this wonderful opportunity. If you were in the private sector, you’d be doing headstands. But it just doesn’t feel right to me that the County would be getting into the position of [owning] a piece of property to turn around and sell it. I don’t think we are that kind of an investor group. I just think that is not our role. If we saw a real need for the County to use it for County purposes that’s one thing; but to accept it with the full intent to turn it around and change the zoning and try to find a buyer – this is a very unique property, it could take a long time and in the meantime when you have a large building that sits vacant, it will experience more deterioration because it is not being occupied and people in it using it all the time so that they have knowledge if there is anything that breaks down. So we would do a whole lot more than just pay utilities. We would really have to have staff there every day to check it out and make certain that nothing untoward is going on and we would also have to maintain the exterior. It is not our role; that is not what County Government does. I think it was wonderful of them to offer it and I hope that the County will work well with them to try to be as helpful as we can with whatever incentive we might have to offer to make sure that we get a private business in there and bring in jobs to the community. That would be wonderful. That’s just the way I’m feeling about it. (McKim) They’re offering us lot 1. Then one of the other lots that has the microwave tower Hoosier Energy is going to retain. Then the other two lots will actually be donated to INDOT. Is that correct?

of 150


(Cockerill) That is my understanding and how it has been explained to me. (McKim) So INDOT will actually, as an agent of the State, be exempt from local zoning. (Munson) Yes. (McKim) So they’ll be able to use it for essentially whatever they want regardless. (Thomas) It is zoned correctly anyway. (McKim) But I mean INDOT can ignore the zoning. They are not bound by local zoning. (Cockerill) That is my understanding yes; that the local zoning laws do not apply to State institutions. (McKim) Okay, thank you. I believe, as Councilor Munson had mentioned, that we could keep the building for a couple of months before selling it but I just think that is wildly optimistic. First of all, I don’t think we would be able to sell it until it was rezoned. The uses of Institutional Public are so limited. Ironically, the one thing that we could build on it is a MIRF, that does seem to be one of the permitted uses, and other utility‐related business: telecommunications, waste water, water, or government buildings. (Thomas) School and government. (McKim) And school and government. But I think even if it were for sale with an expanded zoning, it would take a long time. It is a limited property. Its access to I‐69 is okay but not great. I think this has already [come] up, it is not as good as people had hoped it would be. So where the exit is where you turn into the property right now on State Road 37, you’re actually going to have to go two miles further north to the Sample Road interchange and then two miles back south on the frontage road that will end just beyond this property. So essentially next year when Section 5 [of I‐69] is complete, it is going to become four miles further away from town than it is right now which is certainly a concern. The other thing is because of that distance from town and because there is no bus line going out there, for example, I think we would want to be very cautious about putting a lot of public‐facing services out there just because it might be quite difficult for some people to get there. The primary benefit of this building besides the fact that it does have a lot of offices is its visibility on I‐69. It does have good visibility on I‐69 even though the access isn’t that great. I just don’t think we are the right party to be able to capitalize on that particular benefit. I guess I just don’t think that we should be involved the business of real estate speculation. We already have several assets that are underutilized including Showers, which as far as I understand is not full and we don’t have a long list of tenants wanting to get in there, and then the Thompson property, which is still undeveloped. When we acquire property, we should be acquiring it because we need the space. We purchased several buildings in recent years to make sure we have the space for those essential government functions. I think we are right at about the right balance now with possibly a little more capacity than we need, not less. So as much as I really like this idea and really want to help out Hoosier Energy and I‐69 Development Partners, I’m just inclined to let this one go. (Jones) Well certainly everyone’s arguments are extremely persuasive and this is the kind of thing that is really difficult to make a decision about. Where everyone else sees this as being something outside of what local government should be doing, I guess the way I kind of look at it is that local government is being starved by the State mostly. Local government barely has adequate resources to function. Maybe we need to become a little bit more innovative in how we’re going to fund ourselves and maybe we shouldn’t just assume that something shouldn’t be done because it hasn’t been done. Because the truth is we need to be looking at new things and figuring out better ways to fund ourselves. So for that reason I’m rather inclined to support this even though I can see that it would be somewhat chancy. It could not work out the way we wanted it to and that would

of 150


certainly be very unfortunate. So I’m going to suggest that for the moment maybe we table this and look into it a little bit further [and] consider the zoning problems a little bit further. Do we have any time to table this? (Thomas) The closing is tomorrow. (Jones) Oh, okay, forget that notion. It just is a very difficult decision. (Munson) It is. I agree with Councilor Jones on the sad situation of local government finances. We can’t really grow them. I see the best of all possible worlds being the County receiving this donation, taking care of the building at the cost that I’ve identified and that includes Marty’s very important point of making sure that it is checked every day by maintenance staff because we have an investment in this building until it is sold. But I think a sale would net us a great deal of money that we can’t imagine receiving from any other source and I just would like us to be able to put this money to work for the taxpayers of Monroe County. I see a sale to a private business as being the best possible thing to do because that puts the property back on our tax rolls and this is important for us as well. (McKim) I agree that putting it in the hands of the private sector and keeping it on the tax rolls is exactly what needs to happen; but I think Hoosier Energy is going to need to be the ones that do that. But I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the Commissioners bringing this to us. They didn’t have to. I appreciate that they brought us into the fiscal decision making because we would have to figure out a way to provide maintenance and utilities for that building and that is one of my biggest concerns. I just don’t see where we have the slack in our budget and I doubt the Commissioners do either but I really appreciate that they involved us in the decision making. I think that is the way local government should work. (Thomas) Thank you for that and that is exactly why we did. It took us a while to come to a decision and we finally leaned to the side of accepting it but we knew we had to be here to talk about it before we signed any paperwork and that is one of the contingencies was Council’s acceptance. Our approval was with definite connections and definite requirements that had to be met and that is one of them. A call was made for public comment. (Scott Wells) I serve on the Plan Commission. I believe we seen this thing morph about three different times. So we’ve heard it and the one thing I will say, the most important thing are the neighbors that live there. I came in on the first meeting and I counted about 27 people. For them to come to a meeting and stay through the whole thing and they were so concerned about the transportation problems, the traffic. So whatever you decide you’ve got to think about those folks. That is the most important thing. A lot of them are retired folks. They’ve paid their houses off, they don’t want to move, and they feel like they’re being encroached enough by I‐69 itself and then, of course, if this thing went into a PUD and then morphed into a big, high, intense use, they certainly weren’t for that. So think about that. I’ve been listening to all the arguments. You all have got great arguments. It is a tough one. But what I see here is you’re maybe getting into something that government is not really meant to get into and I keep thinking of this big whirlpool you know and you’re starting to pay the utilities, the sewer and all that and then some other things start happening and you’re getting sucked into this whirlpool and then all of a sudden it is like maybe we shouldn’t have got into this. That is what I’m worried about. You think we can sell that and make some quick money and then get them on the tax rolls but I’m cautious about this. I think Ms. Hawk and Mr. McKim made some real good points; especially, on the transportation. This is not quite as accessible as you think it is now because once I‐69 goes in Sample Road is the only way you can get to it in a lot of cases unless you drive through the fence and I don’t think you want to do that. But the point is I really think on this one I don’t know if I would be getting into this because there are too many questions I still have. I’ve been trying to listen to all the arguments here but you’ve got to make a decision and it’s got to be done in five hours. Of course I haven’t got all the packets like you have so I’ve not seen every‐thing on this one but I am not convinced this is the way to go at this time. But then like I said you’ve got a lot more information. But good luck on your decision, this is a tough one.

of 150


Stonecipher called roll: Jones – yes Munson – yes McKim – no Spoonmore – no Yoder – no Cobine – no Hawk – no Motion failed. (Flory) It is hard for me to believe that they’ve entered into this without some sort of a fall back plan. I wouldn’t necessarily assume that there wasn’t time to look into it further if that is what you feel that is what you really need. If they entered into this thinking it is all or nothing and they’re counting on you agreeing to this then there is a problem with how they’ve even stepped into this. (Munson) It was a question I asked repeatedly, “Can we have more time to consider all the issues that could come up?” The answer was, “No.” Something about their contractual agreements; I have no idea. (Flory) There may be more time now. (Munson) Mr. Cockerill, can you answer Mr. Flory? (Cockerill) I think you probably heard the same answers I did. They needed to close because they have to begin maintaining the highway this winter and so they needed to close the property in order to do some construction on the site that is going to INDOT so that they can have the facilities ready to maintain the highway this winter. (Munson) Thank you. [Councilor Hawk left the room.] 6. ORDINANCE 2015‐45: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING USE OF A CRIME INSURANCE POLICY IN LIEU OF BONDING Yoder made a motion to approve Ordinance 2015‐45. (Yoder) This ordinance adopts a provision of State law that permits a fiscal body to obtain the protections of an insurance policy to cover losses of money rather than rely on obtaining bonds. Jones seconded. (Cockerill) I think I’ve given you the bulk, if not all, of the relevant information at the work session. I would just add that the one question at that work session involved cost and to my surprise I asked our carrier for increase in limits from the $50,000 we had traditionally held in our crime insurance policy up to $150,000 and then up to $250,000. It is a $108 difference to go from $50,000 to $250,000 and it is a little bit less than that to go to $150,000. So all the reasons we talked about earlier, the budgetary impact of approving this up to the $250,000 limit would be $108. That is the difference between what our current premium under our current limits would be to increasing the limit to $250,000. I guess if you have any other questions but I think that is the question you guys left me with. Again, if we do the individual bonding, it is much more of a gamble as to what those [costs] would be based upon credit history of the people. We did some research on our bonding and the pricing of our current bonds. The result we thought was that there is probably a minimum of $100 per bond, that is

of 150


what we think the lowest the industry would charge for any bond. So if we have 30 people, we are looking at $3,000 for the $5,000 coverage and that would be $415 less than what we’re looking at for a $250,000 coverage. Again, at the work session we talked about why it is important to have a higher aggregate limit as opposed to $5,000 per individual. We also talked about transition and a bond is specific to the person so if there were any change in a position that we would have to get re‐bonded then that would be an additional cost. So this is more of a fixed cost over the year kind of idea. But if you have any questions, I’m more than happy to answer them. A call was made for public comment. (Lindsey Badger) I’m curious at how much this is still looking at charging the individual or if this is looking at coming completely out of County budget and what the implications then would be for individuals who face charges who are used to paying their bonds. So what is the sort of financial discrepancy between the individual? (Cockerill) I think what we’re talking about is two different types of bonds. I think that this is a surety bond which is required by the State of Indiana now and, again, the State Board of Accounts produced an opinion that says we can use a crime insurance policy. This is for internal County employees and making sure that there is protection against loss from those kind of incidents. This is not a court‐issued bond or anything like that. Currently, we provide this insurance for all employees who handle money but our limit is $50,000. The State law required a $5,000 surety bond for each employee and there is language in there that says if approved by an ordinance by the fiscal body then a crime insurance policy may be used. The State Board of Accounts has indicated they will take no {inaudible} if we did that. So this is just an internal County insurance program. Either way it is an insurance program, it is not a surety bond. The County has always paid the charges for that insurance as we have Elected Officials who do have to have surety bonds and the County has always paid the cost for those. So this is different than that bonding system. Stonecipher called roll: Spoonmore – yes Cobine – yes McKim – yes Munson – yes Jones – yes Yoder – yes Motion passed. [Councilor Hawk returned.] 7. RESOLUTION 2015‐40: A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR CALCULATING AND BUDGETING HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES Yoder made a motion to approve Resolution 2015‐40. Jones seconded. (Yoder) This resolution responds to a request of the State Board of Accounts to adopt a written policy that sets out the methods Council can choose from when calculating and budgeting the health‐related benefits offered to full‐time employees regardless of the funding source for those full‐time employees. Mr. Flory will give us further detail. (Flory) As Council member Yoder just said, we’re doing this in response to a request from State Board of Accounts. We already have a policy whereby we come up with a dollar amount that we need to use to subsidize health benefits that we provide for County employees. We provide really fine health benefits to the County employees and they have a cost that we cover ourselves. We have a County health clinic. The clinic actually supplies a lot of medications and certain lab tests. We have the cost of certain health insurance premiums that

of 150


we pay ourselves because we do have stop loss insurance to see that our self‐insurance costs do not rise beyond – or we are protected against them rising beyond a certain point. We have certain incentives for people to keep up good health and we actually work with consultants to see how much should be paid out for various health benefits. So there is quite a bit of expense that is part of the County budget. I think it is very important for everybody to understand that this is not an expense that is taken out of County employee salaries. It is a good subsidy and assistance to the salary that a County employee does get. Let me give you a very quick anecdotal example from my own experience. I had an eye irritation the other day. I called the clinic [and] got into the clinic the same day. I went in and met immediately with a nurse practitioner which checked things out and said we’ve got some eye drops here in the clinic and I will give you a bottle. She also said, I do know that there is a preferable type of medication that I can prescribe for you and I will go ahead and give you that; see how the stuff that we can supply you with works and if you want to try something else you can check on this. Out of curiosity, I took the prescription that she wrote over to CVS; the eye drops would have cost $180 and my copay would have been $30. So it was nice to have the benefit of just going to the clinic and getting what they could supply me with. The way this works is we talk with our consultants and see how much it is going to cost us to keep the clinic running and provide various health insurance benefits. We come up with a set dollar amount and we focus on full‐time employees in order to see how those costs are theoretically apportioned. So the big question that arises is, we have employees who are paid out of the County Option Income Tax or Property Tax but we also have a lot of full‐time employees who are paid out of grant funds. So the question that State Board of Accounts was asking was when you tell an employee who is paid out of regular County funds, certain County funds are diverted in order to subsidize their healthcare. So if you are going to a grant agency and saying, to subsidize this employee’s healthcare how do you come up with that figure? So we have put in writing two various ways we can do it. Once we come up with the dollar amount that we need to budget for the level of health services that we want to provide, you can either take the total number of full‐time employees and divide that into the amount and there you have a per FTE dollar amount and you can tell a grant agency when somebody is applying for a grant [that] this is the dollar that we are ascribing to a full‐time employee for these health insurance benefits. It doesn’t mean that they take the benefits; it is not based on whether they do or do not take insurance. We have full‐time employees who have spouses who work for IU or other companies in town [who say they] get better insurance benefits through [their] spouse’s employer and choose to use those. But you still look at full‐time employees and come up with a number to ascribe a certain level of support to. It is kind of an accounting technique to do this. Another way is when you find the actual dollar amount that you want to budget towards these services, rather than dividing it by all the employees and having a certain amount, you can look at the total amount of payroll that you pay out and you simply do a calculation and say if our payroll is $65 million and we want to wind up with a $4 million pool of money to budget toward this, what is the percentage that you would multiply times 65 million to come up with the 4 million and you tell the granting agencies or the departments when they are applying for grants that this is the percentage that we are assigning to any full‐time employee when they are calculating the employee’s salary and the fringe benefit costs. So that is all that is at work here. Let’s leave out of the calculation for right now questions of legally‐required health insurance that we are supposed to be providing now under the American Healthcare Act. If the County decided that it wanted to cut back on its healthcare benefits, there is absolutely no requirement that the money that they would not be spending toward the clinic for the medications, lab tests or anything else that we do provide would have to be worked into the County employee’s salary. You could use that money to pave County highways, to buy more police cars or anything else. So that is a very important point. The money that goes to this is not a tax upon or does not come out of County salaries, it is a subsidy and benefit for all County employees that they can take advantage of if they want to.

of 150


So what we have put into writing is two options. You can choose either one you want at budget time or before budget time. We’ve had some discussion about this. I think what we will really just need to do is just look at the past dollar figures and salaries and other things and see what way the two different calculations, what affect it would have on various granting requests for benefit support and come up with the way that we think is better. I’ve worked a great deal with Councilor McKim on this and I think he states the mathematics of this better than I probably could if you want to go into that. But anyway, we can look at our past history and make this choice. The resolution simply says for the benefit of the State Board of Accounts, here are the two ways you’re going to do it and it also spells out how we might actually bring this money in. Once you set up a budget and have that there, we’ve talked about the possibility – the way it is built up now in our health insurance fund with each payroll, a certain percentage is paid into the health insurance fund. But since you’ve budgeted the money, it exists there once the budget is approved so you could simply do a draw on that money once settlement occurs at the beginning of the year, a draw on half of it let’s say, and move that over into there. When the next settlement occurs midyear or so, you draw the other half. I’ve tried to set this up so you have broad options available to you, not so that it is some sort of a straightjacket that forces policy decisions and actual actions that you might say is really not a good idea. We’ve tried to set it up so that it gives you freedom, but things are spelled out and we will easily be able to point to State Board of Accounts and say, here is how we came up with that request and advice to our departments when they are seeking grant support. (Munson) Thank you. (McKim) I think that the most important thing about this policy is to have it passed tonight because this is essentially fulfilling a State Board of Accounts comment. It doesn’t have to be perfect. What it does is essentially document what has been our practice and therefore provides the documented substantiation of how we’ve been taxing budgets to be able to pay for the employee health insurance benefit. It does allow an additional option that we haven’t yet exercised and our HR Director, Ms. Panzarella, also has some other thoughts about possibly another option that I think at some point in the future we should consider. That point might be at the next work session but I think at this point the most important thing is to have this policy in place that documents what our current practice is. (Munson) I appreciate the work of Councilor McKim and Michael Flory putting this together. As Councilor McKim said, it is important that we act on this tonight to meet a State Board of Accounts requirement. This is a policy, we don’t need public comment; we don’t have a financial matter but I would prefer a roll‐call vote since it is policy. Stonecipher called roll: Cobine – yes Yoder – yes Spoonmore – yes Munson – yes Hawk – yes McKim – yes Jones – yes Motion passed.

of 150


8. RESOLUTION 2015‐46: MIDPOINT HIRING POLICY Yoder made a motion to approve Resolution 2015‐46, adoption of a midpoint hiring policy. Jones seconded. (Munson) This resolution is to assist with recruitment of highly‐qualified applicants for certain County positions. This resolution would allow department heads to request permission to fill job openings at the three‐year salary level with highly‐qualified applicants who have no prior Monroe County work experience. This is something we discussed at our work session. I don’t know if anybody needs further explanation or not. (McKim) I think it is important to provide that kind of flexibility and it just allows us to treat equivalent experience at other similar institutions as acceptable for our County pay bump policy. (Hawk) I think that while there are many reasons why we might want to do this, there are also other reasons why it could very well cause some problems with other County employees. If you’ve been working for County Government for ten years and you are as high as you’re going to go because you’ve already hit that midpoint and that is as far as you’re going to go and someone brand new comes on board and they make as much as you’re making, it seems to me it is going to cause some unrest in the County Government. So that is the negative side of the argument, but I can see a positive side as well. For instance, like with the Courts, when they needed to hire someone for Bailiff and they had somebody that was just going to be perfect for the spot. I do understand the reasons why this could be a good thing, but I also see many negatives. (McKim) By the way, I agree that we need to fix that issue where employees are absolutely capped at the midpoint. That is very much on our to‐do list. (Hawk) That was a part of our discussion at the work session and it was the one part that will help me be able to vote in favor of this if we really make a commitment that those folks that aren’t going to be sitting there stuck at that midpoint amount. (McKim) Absolutely. (Munson) I would like to comment for the public and for County employees so they don’t have the misunder‐standing that a brand new person hired at the midpoint might be making the same salary as a County employee who had worked ten years. The new employee would not have longevity, so the difference is longevity. (Hawk) It is not enough to make the difference. (McKim) It is not a career {inaudible}. (Munson) I will add further that the Council has a work group. We are actually meeting tomorrow to discuss salary issues and this is in preparation to bring it before the whole Council. We are considering the issues of benefits as well as salary and increased bumps, as they are referred to, so thank you. Councilor Yoder had to leave and I’ve asked Councilor Jones to please read the next business and Councilor McKim, will you hand the seconds for us? (McKim) Yes. Motion passed by voice vote.

of 150


9. HONEYWELL PAYMENT IN FULL Request for Additional Appropriation Fund 1186‐000 Rainy Day Contractual Agreements $1,800,000.00 Jones made a motion to approve the request for additional appropriation. McKim seconded. (Munson) At budget hearings the Council agreed to pay in full the Honeywell contract, which had been based on a ten‐year repayment period to be funded during that time through savings resulted from the energy efficiencies instituted in County buildings. As a result, the County will save on the interest associated with a ten‐year payment structure and free the amount scheduled for future payment to meet other County obligations. (Flory) Madam President, actually I have just received the actual payout amount that would be required. (Munson) Is it different than what was advertised? (Flory) We advertised a safe amount because we didn’t have the final number. If you would like to ask for a friendly amendment to amend the resolution, the dollar amount is $1,691,338.03. McKim made a motion to amend the amount to $1,691,338.03. Jones seconded. Motion passed by voice vote. (McKim) Just paying off a debt. (Munson) We talked about this extensively at the last meeting. A call was made for public comment. (Scott Wells) Good evening again. Where’s the beef? Yes, I remember that old commercial. I’m just looking at where’s the money? What I’m talking about is the Rainy Day Fund. Remember when I spoke publicly at public comment, actually I was using $1.2 million; it is actually more. So I understand you’re paying more so you have to pay less interest which is fine, but when you add up that number now it is modified $1,691,038 but when you add it up to the bottom on here, another Rainy Day Fund of $1.6 million. Now remember, my first statement I said was Mr. Flory, a good attorney here, said right before the County Council meeting last time I was here, he said the Rainy Day Fund had $3.3 million. So when you add those two up right there, it is almost totally taken down to zero. Now I don’t know all the specifics of how you’re doing this but that is the way my math works. And then I’m not even talking about last month you had $140,000 problem there with that money, I don’t know how you’re paying that. And of course when you passed the deficit budget this year, there was $900,000 there that I remember unless you’ve already subtracted that out. I don’t think you have. But when I’m looking at these numbers I just want to ask you a question. How are you paying for this? It looks like there is no money there. Where is the revenue stream to pay for these different items here? I would appreciate somebody, because I am a taxpayer and I balance to the penny my budget and I’m not even adding in, there’s some other things I could throw in there, like this new Assessment that is going to change. It looks like that might cost us another couple hundred thousand dollars. I’m looking at 2016. I would to know who is going to be able to answer my question is very simple. I just add these two up here and that’s been amended up there at the top but you’re almost at $3.3 million, your entire cash reserve for Monroe County is that money. When that’s gone what are you going to use? Thank you. (Munson) Thank you. (Hawk) Could the Auditor’s staff please give us the balance of the Rainy Day Fund?

of 150


(Therese Chambers, Chief Deputy Auditor) As of the close of business yesterday, December 7, 2015, it was $3,323,307.51. (Hawk) And the question would be since our information that we received with the packet said information is going to follow and with the next request, is that request going to change from a million six to some other number? (McKim) I think that is open to Council discussion. That million six is definitely higher than the amount we had discussed so far. (Hawk) Right and when I was looking at this when I was reviewing the packet, I thought well that’s not the right number. (McKim) Yes, it is quite a bit higher. (Hawk) So whatever information is going to show up here, which didn’t show up, I figured we would adjust it. (Flory) We always advertise very high {inaudible}. (Hawk) I understand that, but this is a lot higher than what we had talked about. (McKim) I want to just make sure everybody understands here. This is not new spending. This is money that we are paying off a debt that otherwise we’d be paying off every year in our General Fund budget. So first of all, just the simple act of paying off what used to be an expense means that we are relieving that pressure in the General Fund budget, so freeing up an equivalent amount per year in the General Fund. But then also, remember that this is a guaranteed savings program, so what we actually purchased with this $1.6 million is actually contractually‐guaranteed energy savings. If they don’t deliver then Honeywell actually has to eat and pay us the difference. So it is really important that no one thinks we are taking on new spending here. We are simply paying for something that otherwise we would have paid from the General Fund and paid interest over a period of time and instead we’re paying it out of the Rainy Day Fund. (Hawk) I’d like to just remind you that of course I support this, it was my idea to do it. I remember sitting there in the rain in the parking lot, I’d just been to a closing and I’m going, how can we make this budget work for next year? and we’ve got all of the spending out for this Honeywell project, if we pay that off we will free up that money on a yearly basis and at the same time be having to pay out less dollars for the expenses that Honeywell covers. So it made logical sense to me that we take what we had in savings [and] pay off a debt because we’re getting in less interest than what the interest is we’re paying out. It made no sense to me to do that, I sort of like that little program that says, yay we are debt free, I’m a debt‐free kind of person. So I really think this is the right direction to go, I was just trying to get some numbers to sort of maybe relieve some concerns of those that are here tonight. (McKim) And there is one more piece that really hasn’t been voiced here and that is in our discussion with the Department of Local Government Finance. It actually turns out that having a large Rainy Day budget actually harms our case for any possible excess levy appeals based on the property tax appeals that we lose or shortfalls due to error. Essentially, we have too much money in our Rainy Day Fund and that actually harms our case. So we are actually doing a better job by lowering that amount of Rainy Day Fund but then freeing up the equivalent amount in our General Fund. (Munson) I would like to ask, looking at the bottom line of both Item 9 and Item 10, what is the amount that we were proposing to consider for the Election Fund? I thought it was about $945,000; that just sticks in my mind.

of 150


(McKim) There are two pieces to that. I guess this is germane to this particular discussion. One is what we need to pay for next year’s election and then the other is the amount we decide to pay toward future elections in our agreement to pay for a four‐year election cycle in four essentially equal payments. Now I think we still need to do some work with the Election Board to determine what an estimated four‐year cycle is. We haven’t had that conversation yet. But I think somewhere around $1.2 million would do a pretty good job of covering – it would probably be a little bit short – it would well cover the costs of next year’s election but also seed the fund for future elections with a couple hundred thousand dollars and at least start the conversation. We can always do that analysis, work with the Election Board to come up with that four‐year estimate. (Hawk) I really believe that we need to look at the four hundred and some thousand that is going to be like the one‐fourth that we’re putting in. We need to understand that is a part of our 2016 budget. That nine hundred and some, we’re pulling out and we’re saying we’re going to do this, it is a one‐time thing. But that four hundred and some thousand we need to add on to what we already have for planned spending for 2016 so that we won’t somehow forget and thing 2017 we don’t have to come up with that $400,000 again. So I think we would have gone ahead and included it somehow in budgets had it been advertised that way when we were doing the budget hearings. So we just have to make sure when we get to Item 10 having to do with the Election Fund, that we do it in such a way we don’t lose track of that four hundred some thousand. (Munson) It will be a fund that is proposed every year at budget time. (Hawk) Right, and that four hundred some thousand, we could actually do it in the form of an additional appropriation at the beginning of the year when the State says yes they’re ready for us to ask for the additional appropriation and then that would actually show as an expenditure in 2016. The way this is now it would show as an expenditure in 2015 and when you go back and look at the history of it it might be real confusing. So I hope that when we get ready for Item 10 that is what we will do. (McKim) I had a good argument with Mr. Flory about this very subject earlier today? (Hawk) Okay, did I lose? (McKim) No, I agree with you entirely actually but we will come to that. (Hawk) Okay. (Munson) We will wait for number 10. A call was made for public comment. (Scott Wells) It is real simple. I’m sitting here listening to this and it is almost like it is the greatest thing since sliced bread that we take our Rainy Day Fund down to zero. But you know next year when you get to next year, I bet you’re going to have some item that you’re going to say, hey you know we need some quick cash right now, and what happens when the Rainy Day Fund is down to zero. It is awful close with this proposal you’re putting together and I just wonder how are you going to pay for that quick cash that you need when you have that happen? Because it is going to happen. You know how it is, you have emergencies and I’m just wondering how you’re going to do it? I mean you can’t just create a tax out of the blue to pay for your bills. Stonecipher called roll: Hawk – yes Jones – yes Cobine – yes McKim – yes

of 150


Munson – yes Spoonmore – yes Motion passed. 10. COUNTY COUNCIL Request for Approval of Transfer of Funds From: Fund 1186‐000 Rainy Day Fund $1,600,000.00 To: Fund 4931‐000‐Election Fund, Line 9199 Transfer In $1,600,000.00 Jones made a motion to approve the transfer of funds as presented. McKim seconded. (Munson) At budget time, Council decided to request the Commissioners to establish a dedicated, non‐reverting fund to hold money to be used for future elections. (Flory) Again, the dollar amounts we’re talking about are set up to give you almost complete latitude to go as high as you might like to go. We knew at the time that we were setting them very high. I just check with the Clerk and she confirmed that $945,000 is what the Council budgeted in her budget for next year’s election expenses. There was no budgeting of $400,000 or an additional chunk of money to go toward building up future expenses. That was discussed at budget time. We decided that was a course of action that you did want to take but no actual steps were taken along that line. That is one reason we went and asked for a dedicated, non‐reverting fund to be set up. I think the reason you actually voted to appropriate $945,000 into their Election Fund was it was too late in the process to simply take that out of the budget at that point in time and know for certain that a dedicated, non‐reverting fund would be set up and other sources of funding would be tapped into to pay next year’s election expenses, which are coming whether we like it or not. So that money is in the budget and my recollection is that at budget time there was a discussion of deappro‐priating those funds once the dedicated, non‐reverting fund was set up and once Rainy Day Funds, whatever level you would choose, are put in there to help underwrite them. So your question tonight is of the $945,000 that you’ve already budgeted for next year’s expenses and of the projected ongoing annual costs that you would like to see this fund built up by, how much of that would you like to transfer from the Rainy Day Fund into this dedicated, non‐reverting fund tonight? That money will not be appropriated. We will have to come back in January and ask for an actual additional appropriation of the funds so they can be spent next year for ongoing election expenses. (McKim) I want to clarify some basic facts here. I’m looking at the budget worksheets right now and I’m seeing that we appropriate $844,525. (Flory) We advertised high but the actual final amount was 844? (McKim) We budgeted $844,525. But there is another component. My understanding is this fund has to also include the Voter Registration expenses as well. So we also appropriated $141,465 for Voter Reg. Does the Clerk’s office agree with those numbers as I read them? I just want to make sure we get them right here. We appropriated $844,525 for Election Board and $141,465 for Voter Registration. (Munson) Okay, so I just added that up and that is $985,985. (McKim) So $986,000 is a rough sum of the two of them.

of 150


McKim made a motion to set the transfer amount from $1,600,000 to $986,000. Jones seconded. (McKim) Just to explain that, again I’m agreeing with Councilor Hawk that we need to do some more analysis and some more work with the Election Board before we figure out what that four‐year average is going to be and that is probably better handled in 2016 anyway so that it comes out of the 2016 budget essentially. (Hawk) As a part of that, I think we should look very carefully at the four hundred some thousand coming not out of the Rainy Day, but out of the balance we have cash‐on‐hand. (McKim) COIT right. We have $2 million surplus in COIT as well. (Hawk) Right. You know you can always move from Rainy Day over into the other funds but you cannot always move the property tax General Fund over into Rainy Day anymore, the only thing you can add is like 10%, so you’re really better off to spend down wherever your cash is and then move Rainy Day over into wherever you need it as long as you don’t let your cash get down too far. Regardless, we have to watch that Rainy Day Fund. I think speakers tonight have made it clear it is getting spent down. We all know it is getting spent down but still this makes the best use of it because there was absolutely no way that we could continue not being prepared for the Presidential Elections. This is the better way to do it. (McKim) And again, not new spending, just spending on what we always knew we needed to but there wasn’t a good mechanism to budget for. (Munson) Okay, we have an amended motion; let’s speak to that please. (Hawk) The Voter Registration, the reason why that’s higher, is that a higher amount because it is a Presidential Election year so indeed it is anticipated that that election is going to be about $1 million it looks like? So the amount that we have to plug in for the yearly basis we had thought was going to be four hundred some thousand, I’m hoping it is not going to be a whole lot more than that. (McKim) It will be a little bit more than that. Now I’m looking at the Voter Registration and it is not radically higher for this year. It is maybe $20,000 higher, so it is not radically higher. (Hawk) And as we move forward from year to year, if it looks like their ongoing expenses can be adjusted downward then there is nothing that requires us to be four hundred some thousand in there every year if it appears that is going to make that grow too fast. (McKim) I was making that point and Councilor Dietz made that point before as well. (Munson) We have present tonight our County Clerk and two of her election staff and they were nodding affirmatively with respect to the amount. (Hawk) As a reminder, in years past on of the reasons was that the Chief Deputy did the election so that it really saved a lot of money because that is what the Chief Deputy’s main responsibility was was being in charge of the election and that is not the way it is handled now. So that puts an additional rather large amount that we have to pay for in our election expenses. (Flory) Does anyone recall when we met with DLGF what [the dollar amount] we suggested we were probably going to be moving. (Munson) I thought it was about $900,000. (Flory) Okay.

of 150


(Munson) It was either that or it was $990,000. (McKim) Well that is about what we’re talking about, $990,000. (Munson) I think it was $990,000. (Flory) Because I do want to report. (Munson) We should explain what we’re talking about. Councilor McKim, Councilor Hawk and I, along with Mr. Flory went to the Department of Local Government Finance to explain what we were doing with this particular proposal. I think we got a very reasonable reception there and I think that was a valuable thing to do. So those were the numbers that we talked about. (Flory) Because I do want to report to them the action that we’re taking tonight to show that we’ve carried through with our stated intentions on what we were going to do with this fund. (Hawk) I’d really like for you to include in that information that we will be voting on the four hundred some thousand as soon as possible at the beginning of 2016. (Munson) Yes, in 2016, that is the second part. (Hawk) So that they won’t think that we made story up because that was part of our conversation with them. Motion to amend dollar amount passed by voice vote. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Spoonmore – yes Munson – yes Jones – yes Cobine – yes Hawk – yes McKim – yes Motion passed. 11. CLERK’S OFFICE A. Request for Creation of New Fund with Budget Lines and Simultaneous Additional Appropriation Fund 8146‐015, Violence Against Women Grant 10.0001 Program Coordinator $ 8,776.16 11.8001 Health Insurance 1,667.47 11.8101 FICA 671.38 11.8201 PERF 1,246.21 20.0001 Office Supplies 150.00 30.0001 Contractual 1,481.08 30.0002 Partner Shared Costs 3,055.38 30.0003 Indirect Costs $ 4,186.83 Total: $21,234.51

of 150


B. Request for Creation of New Fund with Budget Lines Fund 8146‐016, Violence Against Women Grant 10.0001 Program Coordinator 11.8001 Health Insurance 11.8101 FICA 11.8201 PERF 20.0001 Office Supplies 30.0001 Contractual 30.0002 Partner Shared Costs 30.0003 Indirect Costs Jones made a motion to approve the request to establish two new funds with budget lines and for simultaneous appropriation in the 2015 fund of $12,361.21 in the 10s, $150.00 in the 20s, and $8,723.29 in the 30s, for a total appropriation of $21,234.51. McKim seconded. (Sara Hunt, Protective Order Assistance Partners, Clerk’s Office) Under the Civil Protection Order Act, all Circuit Court Clerks in Indiana have to provide not only the forms necessary to petition the court for an order of protection but also assistance in reading and completing all of the forms necessary to petition the court for an order of protection. In 2011, Linda really built on that responsibility and called together an interdisciplinary group to come into the Clerk’s office and provide collocated clerical assistance as well as victim support services to individuals that were seeking protective orders and that partnership included, of course, the Clerk’s office, the office of the Monroe County Prosecuting Attorney, the IU School of Social Work, Middle Way House – our local victim services agency, as well as the IU Mauer School of Law’s Protective Order Project and we have been providing collocated services since that time. So in order to make the program sustainable, we knew we were going to have to seek funding and we applied for and were awarded funds from the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women. That source of funding really seeks to encourage these types of community responses in order to address this issue and better serve victims and wraps the entire system around these individuals. So we were awarded $449,674 over a three‐year period and we are requesting a new fund and line items for this amount for 2015 and we will be submitting more for 2016 and the years following. (Hawk) Thank you and the women of this county will thank you too. (McKim) This is fantastic. How much did you say was the total amount of the grant? (Hunt) $449,674 over a three‐year period. (Linda Robbins, Clerk) I do want to mention that this has only cost us so far Sara’s time in this. She has been, up until we were awarded the grant, a part‐time $14 an hour [employee]. She has her degree in Social Work. She has put in I know way more than her 28 hours allowed. We’ve had lots of conversations about it but I’m so lucky to be able to put her in as the coordinator for all of this. With this grant we also have partnered then with Monroe County Sheriff’s Department and I think that brings everything together that we could have ever hoped for. (McKim) That’s just terrific. (Robbins) Thank you, Geoff. (Jones) Congratulations. (Munson) So you will be coming back in year two and in year three so that we can….

of 150


(Robbins) This was awarded September 30th and effective October 1st this year so we are running behind a little bit and so I will see you in January with our needs for 2016. (Munson) Okay, thank you. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Cobine – yes Munson – yes Hawk – yes McKim – yes Spoonmore – yes Jones – yes Motion passed. 12. PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE Request for Creation of New Fund with Budget Lines with Simultaneous Additional Appropriation Fund 8121‐016 VOCA Grant 10.0001 Victim Assistance Director $14,917.00 10.0011 Victim Assistance Assistant 14,917.00 10.0047 Victim Assistance Assistant 14,917.00 30.0001 Travel and Training 2,451.00 Total: $47,202.00 Jones made a motion to approve the request for new fund with budget lines and simultaneous additional appropriation as presented. McKim seconded. (Beth Hamlin, Prosecutor’s Office) This is actually an action you voted in favor of last month and I mistakenly had a typographical error in the fund number so I’m hoping you are still supportive of it this month. (McKim) This is great and I just want to take advantage of having you up here for a slightly unrelated question. Can you possibly tell us if all of the Title‐IV D money has come in for the year yet or do we still expect another payment? (Hamlin) I don’t want to say definitively without looking at the fund. Sorry, I’d be happy to send you an email. (McKim) I will follow up with you tomorrow if that is okay. (Hamlin) Yes. (Hawk) One of the things that I was going over today was the revenue and it looked like we were about $700,000 short to get in all of the revenue. (Hamlin) $700,000 short? (Hawk) Not just for that. So I was then looking for some big ticket items and the two big things that I saw of course was part of the IV‐D. (Hamlin) I would have to research for certain. This is the 26th pay cycle so that will be reimbursable for this year. There will be a two‐thirds reimbursement on whatever payroll submitted for the 26th pay. I don’t know what that will be though.

of 150


(Hawk) And also the Auditor’s staff here might want to weigh in on this because she gave me some answers a while ago. (Chambers) September was the last time that we received any money from Title IV‐D; that covered May, June and July. So we still have yet to see August, September and October. (Hamlin) I’m assuming that you’re talking about the reimbursement to County General, not our incentive, correct? (Chambers) Yes. (Hamlin) I will follow up. I know we submit the report quarterly so that would probably make sense. I will look into it tomorrow. (McKim) Sorry, I didn’t mean to ambush you. I didn’t get a chance to talk to you during our break. (Munson) Important end‐of‐the‐year housekeeping lists. (Hamlin) But I will assure you that we put in a request for the reimbursement for every penny we are able. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Cobine – yes Hawk – yes Jones – yes Spoonmore – yes Munson –yes McKim – yes Motion passed. 13. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Request for Creation of New Fund with Budget Lines and Simultaneous Appropriation Fund 8145‐000 Emergency Management Performance Grant 30.0001 Homeland Security Grant $5,111.00 Jones made a motion to approve the request as presented. McKim seconded. (Jim Comerford) Good evening. This is just service grant that we get each year. We normally get this grant after we do our EMPG, it will come in February. This year grants up there decided to do it before the others. So they put it out and it is a flat amount that we get for furthering our Emergency Management programs. This is the one grant we get that is a flat dollar amount and there are items that we can buy and we can choose what items there are and we’ve done that. The items that are on this one this time are some tablets that will help us do our damage assessment. After a disaster you go out and do your preliminary damage assessment. It has an app we’ve bought on it through 39 Degrees North and those tablet will help us do that. The other money in here is for other things that we buy like give‐out materials and educational materials that we put out during the year. It is just creating the line and funding the line to service the grant. (Hawk) We’re going to need a lot of money for Homeland Security. (Comerford) There is a different one they put in this year that I have an award on and just got the contract so I will probably be back next month with another one when I get the paperwork done.

of 150


(Munson) Well we will welcome you back every time with a new grant. Congratulations on this one. Thank you. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Munson – yes McKim – yes Spoonmore – yes Cobine – yes Hawk – yes Jones – yes Motion passed. 14. HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Request for Approval to Transfer Funds Fund 1159‐000 Health From: 30.0200 VaxCare $4,000.00 To: 40.0001 Equipment/Furniture $4,000.00 Jones made a motion to approve the request for transfer of funds as presented. McKim seconded. (Penny Caudill, Administrator, Health Dept.) Good evening. We have what I think is good news. The State Health Department has looked at and decided that they are going to hire four State‐employed Disease Intervention Specialists. As you know, we have one that is on a grant that we have that works in the STD program. So the State is looking at hiring four of those DIS that will actually be State employees and they will come with laptops and all those kinds of things. They are looking for four local health departments to take each one of those and strategically place them so that they can help on a daily basis with that local health depart‐ment’s jurisdiction; for example, we cover 12 counties. Then in a state of emergency, for instance what happened in Scott County or something like that, then they would call those State DIS out and reposition them very quickly to help. So with that they have asked if we would consider being one of those local health depart‐ments to take one of those State DIS. With that it means re‐shifting some staff and rearranging things and so we said we would be happy to do that but we will need some different office furniture to make that space and so have asked if they would be willing to reimburse us for that. If we can make that, we would have to encumber it because it is the end of the year, but they have agreed to do that actually up to $6,000. So when I put this in it was $4,000 so if there is a possibility of making that up to $6,000 that would be wonderful. If not, we will work with whatever number we have. But that is what this is for, for us to move the money into equipment so that then we can spend it but the State can reimburse us for that. (Munson) Thank you. But you’re not asking us at this point to change that amount? (Hawk) We could, we don’t have to advertise a transfer. (Munson) We don’t? Okay. So you are asking us to consider…. (Caudill) Yes, if you could make it up to $6,000 then we can figure out what we need and transfer that amount if that is doable. If it is not we will work with what we need to work with. Did that answer your question? (Hawk) Is there $6,000 there to transfer? (Caudill) I believe that there is. As I am sitting here, I don’t have access to that. That is why is said up to $6,000. There should be but I don’t want to say that right now.

of 150


(Munson) Can we check that? (Caudill) 1159, it is line 30.0200 VaxCare line. (Stonecipher) We don’t have access to that on this computer. (Caudill) Oh, okay. (Munson) What would be the best way to phrase that? Does anybody have a recommendation? (Hawk) If we absolutely knew there was $6,000 there to transfer, we could say $6,000 since you don’t have to advertise it. It is really not going to cost us anything because if they need more than the $4,000 then there will be money there to use. But maybe if we just said $5,000 that will get you somewhere in the middle. (Caudill) Yes, absolutely. Like I said we will work with it. (Hawk) And you’re not going to spend $5,000 if you don’t need $5,000. (Caudill) Exactly. We know that whatever that limit is then we figured out basically what desks and we’re trying to make sure it matches what is in the new clinic. You know, we want to have matching things if we’re putting new things in there. (Hawk) If for some reason you are short money to do that then could you not do this next year as well to pay a claim? (Caudill) Well the reimbursement money would come out of, I think, the State’s 2015 budget. (Hawk) What if we say $6,000 and if there is not $6,000 in there then you’re not going to spend the $6,000. (Caudill) Exactly, that’s why I said up to $6,000 perhaps. (Hawk) Well we can’t, we have to say a definite number. I suggest we put $6,000. That means when they get ready to transfer if there is not $6,000 they are not going to transfer $6,000 because they won’t have $6,000. (Flory) That is the way to go about it; set a high number and if you can’t cover it, you can’t cover it. (Caudill) Okay. (Munson) Could you state that in the form of a motion? Hawk made a motion to amend the amount of the request from $4,000.00 to $6,000.00. McKim seconded. Motion passed by voice vote. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Hawk – yes Cobine – yes McKim – yes Munson – yes Jones – yes Spoonmore – yes Motion passed.

of 150


B. Request for Approval of Additional Appropriation Fund 8126‐015 Futures Clinic 12.7801 Part‐Time Hourly $9,142.00 Jones made a motion to approve the request for additional appropriation as presented. McKim seconded. (Caudill) We have had a grant through the Futures Clinic, so through Indiana Family Health Council, for a Certified Navigator and that grant period ended in September. Then they received a no‐cost extension that will actually go through June. Originally the contract came back as September and we just got a letter today that said it was June although we knew originally that the money would only go until June. So it was just kind of a typo in that sense for them. So this is just to appropriate [that] additional $9,000. They did not get an extension of that grant for us to have a Certified Navigator for another year or two years but to use the money that Indiana Family Health Council had not expended and that will get us through June. So we will still have a Certified Navigator through June. (Hawk) I would really like to see you do some kind of outreach for people to become more familiar with the fact that we have Monroe County’s Family Planning Clinic and all of the services that are offered there because we’ve seen so much debate recently and people who should be in the know don’t seem to understand or even recognize the fact that Monroe County has our very own Family Planning Clinic and we offer so many services there and there are so many people who could really use those services and they don’t even know they are there. So I think we just have to do a better outreach. (Caudill) Yes, and that is a difficult one sometimes to figure out the best way to do that. We’ve found word‐of‐mouth is probably our best advertisement. We’ve done radio ads/reminders. We are working with the Public Health Clinic to provide Gardasil to people who are eligible for Medicaid and then do that referral into the Clinic, so there are some things, health fairs that we’ve done that we’re trying to work on. So we’re always trying to work on that. (Hawk) Can I suggest that you go to speak during the comment time with the City Council because I’m not certain the people on the City Council even know – I’m not saying all of them but I think some of them are not aware. (Caudill) Okay. (Hawk) And it may be because the name of the clinic is Futures, maybe it should be named Monroe County Future’s Family Planning or something so people will see it easier. But that is a conversation for another day. (Caudill) Well we always refer to it as Future’s you are absolutely right and it was a year or so ago that the Board, because of just what you’re talking about, people not recognizing, so we did make sure it was Future’s Family Planning Clinic so that people understand that it is reproductive health services. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Spoonmore – yes Munson – yes Hawk – yes McKim – yes Jones – yes Cobine – yes Motion passed.

of 150


(Caudill) There’s one comment that just made me think too. One of the things that our recent Clinic Manager has had billing and more coding experiences, our revenue has increased dramatically in terms of third‐party reimbursements to the point that we have made a request – so I will probably be coming back to you with this – to add a part‐time employee for the clinic. So that will free up the Clinic Manager to do more outreach and administrative things. (Hawk) Awesome. (Munson) Good to hear. (Caudill) Yes, we’ve already brought in the revenue from collections – and when I say collections that is fees and insurance and those kind of things – to the amount that we expected. The first six months of the grant cycle we brought in what we expected to bring in for the year. So she’s done a great job. (Hawk) Wonderful. 16. AMENDMENTS TO 2016 SALARY ORDINANCE Jones made a motion to amend the 2016 Salary Ordinance as outlined in Exhibits A and B. These amendments cover reclassification of the Payroll Financial Representative in the Auditor’s office, increase in the part‐time hourly pay range in the Auditor’s office, adding a salary line in the Recorder’s Perpetuation Fund to cover outlier funding for a Deputy Recorder, and increasing the range of the part‐time hourly in the Recorder’s office, reclassification of Financial Cash Manager in the Treasurer’s office from PAT II to PAT IV, adding salary lines in the 2016 VOCA Grant Fund in the Prosecutor’s Office for Victim Assistance personnel, and increasing the Veterans’ Affairs Service Officer Director from part‐time PAT II to full‐time PAT IV at 40 hours. In addition, Exhibit B sets out changes to the notes section that serves to clarify certain language, combine longevity notes in one central section, to add references to various collective bargaining agreements that now cover certain employees, and to delete references to former employees who were grandfathered for certain considerations but who are no longer employed with the County. McKim seconded. A. Auditor’s Office 1121‐002 – General COIT From: 10.0004 Payroll Financial Rep COMOT V 35 hrs 1 Year $33,995.00 12.7801 Part‐Time Hourly Range: $10.00 ‐ $15.00 To: 10.0004 Payroll Financial Rep PAT III 35 hrs 1 Year $37,232.00 12.7801 Part‐Time Hourly Range: $10.00 ‐ $19.95 B. Recorder’s Office 1189‐000 – Recorder’s Perpetuation Fund From: 10.0002 (No Budget Line on the Salary Ordinance) 12.7801 (No Budget Line on the Salary Ordinance)

Add: 10.0002 Deputy Recorder (supplement salary to 10.0002 Recorder Gen) Outlier $1,730.00

12.7801 Part‐Time Hourly Range: $10.00 ‐ $16.25 C. Treasurer’s Office 1121‐003 – General COIT From: 10.0003 Financial/Cash Book PAT II 35 hrs MID $36,793.00 To: 10.0003 Financial Cash Manager PAT IV 35 hrs MID $41,286.00

of 150


D. Prosecutor’s Office 8121‐016 – VOCA Grant Add: 10.0010 Victim Assistance Director $14,917.00 10.0011 Victim Assistance Assistant $14,917.00 10.0047 Victim Assistance Assistant $14,917.00

E. Veterans’ Affairs Office 1000‐012 – General From: 10.0001 Veterans Service Officer/Director (P/T) PAT II 20 hrs MID EXEMPT $20,953.00 To: 10.0001 Veterans Service Officer/Director PAT III 40 hrs MID EXEMPT $44,606.00

F. Notes For The 2016 Salary Ordinance (in Yellow) (items have been moved into an alphabetical order) #1 – Page 1 – Remove “Recommendation On” from title of Recommendation On Longevity

#2 – Page 2 – Move Probation Officers Longevity Pay Note to Longevity Section #3 – Page 2 – Remove “Recommendation On” from title of Recommendation On Supplemental Wages #4 – Page 2 – Retitle “Assessor’s Reassessment Fund” to Assessor’s Office ‐Remove the Level 2 certification language for the Assessor and Deputy Assessor ‐Replace with the language that incorporates Level 2 and Level 3 Certification for the Assessor and Deputy Assessor pursuant to IC 36‐2‐5‐3.5 #5 – Page 3 – Correctional Center – add the statement “Supplemental Wages for employees of the Correctional Center are covered in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement”.

‐Remove paragraph 4

#6 – Page 4 – Sheriff Department – add the statement “Supplemental Wages for the Sheriff’s Deputies are covered in the current Deputy Contract”.

#7 – Page 4 – Miscellaneous Provisions – Retitle “Sheriff – Miscellaneous Provisions” to Correctional Center ‐Due to the Collective Bargaining Agreement paragraphs 1 and 2 can be removed with paragraphs 3 & 4 (Page 6) being renumbered to 1 and 2. #8 – Page 5 ‐ Remove from the Temporary Employees Title – “Amendments To Salary Ordinance: Miscellaneous Provisions”

‐Remove Nancy Sinn, Opal Smith, Jacqueline Ehman from the list (Munson) Council, you have before you details of Exhibits A and B and we’ve discussed this at various times in the last two months. (Flory) This reflects the sort of omnibus 2016 Salary Ordinance Amendment that we have been discussing. As you all know, in October we adopted our Salary Ordinance for the coming year and every year when we adopt it in October we begin making amendments almost at the very next meeting. Since we adopted that Ordinance, we have had some reclassifications that weren’t accounted for in that Salary Ordinance so we’ve tried to collect most of them into one action that we could take at this December meeting. We’ve also gone through the notes section and tried to do some clean up and streamlining of some verbiage that is included in that format for the Salary Ordinance. So we put those together and the list that you have

of 150


before you, and they’re included with the Salary Ordinance as Exhibits A and B, and that will take care of our aimed at omnibus cleanup that we always wanted to do before we get into 2016 exactly. (McKim) Where is the 2016 Salary Ordinance? (Hawk) I looked today and I couldn’t find it. (McKim) In the drop box I see it only up to 2015. (Stonecipher) It is online. (Flory) Our practice is, as I’ve explained it in the past, the 2016 Salary Ordinance, if you go to the County’s homepage, we have a link to the Salary Ordinance. If you click on that you will have going back to 2012 or so. So if you click on 2016 or any given year, you will have the original adopted Salary Ordinance, you will have the most recent version amended of that year’s Salary Ordinance, and you will have a chronology that has been built up over time of all the changes that have been made to the Salary Ordinance. So it was the best way we could come up with to have always easy access to and up‐to‐the‐minute version of the Salary Ordinance but also the history that we needed. So it is on the County’s website homepage? (McKim) It is. (Flory) And I think there may even be some chronology that has been added because we made one or two short amendments since October. (Munson) So I really appreciate having the history of changes to the Salary Ordinances, it does help us. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: McKim – yes Jones – yes Hawk – yes Spoonmore – yes Cobine – yes Munson – yes Motion passed unanimously. 17b. AUDITOR’S OFFICE Request for Approval to Transfer Funds Fund 1216 Auditor’s Ineligible Deductions From: 30s Category $545.31 To: 20s Category $545.31 Fund 1000‐068 Commissioners/County General From: 30s Category $3,000.00 To: 10s Category $3,000.00 Jones made a motion to approve the request to transfer funds as presented. McKim seconded. (Flory) At the end of every year there are efforts to try to bring budgets into balance and spend every last penny that has come in from a grant but not ask for an additional appropriation if it can be avoided. This is listed as

of 150


last‐minute housekeeping items and they were indeed last minute, I think they came in about 4:30 or so. Very simple small amounts but they help cover obligations that are out there that need to be met and they’re doing it with already appropriated funds. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Jones – yes Cobine – yes McKim – yes Munson – yes Spoonmore – yes Hawk – yes Motion passed. 17a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 11, 2015 Budget Hearing Jones made a motion to approve the minutes. McKim seconded. Motion passed by voice vote. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS (Hawk) A very Merry Christmas to all of our County employees and all the people listening at home. I’m still they’re sure riveted to this exciting program this evening. I want to say that it has been a joy this year sharing responsibilities of County Government with the people on this County Council and if we are not to meet again until the beginning of next year, I just want to say Merry Christmas to you folks and a very happy New Year. (McKim) That was nice. Thank you. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of updating the Monroe Lake Master Plan. This is actually the first Master Plan update since 1967 and this effort has been going on for some time and seems to have totally slid under the radar from what I can tell. Public comment has been going on on this since September. They have an Open House planned for December 15th from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. at the conference room in the Middle Wabash Area Office down at Monroe Lake at 1620 East Monroe Dam Court to view the planning efforts so far and make input to the plan. I plan to be there and I hope others who want to make sure that our community’s interests in Monroe Lake are included in this plan show up as well. (Jones) I just want to wish everyone a fantastic Holiday Season in whatever way they like enjoying it. (Cobine) Happy December everyone. I guess I missed this but I heard earlier that I should say, perhaps a little bit belatedly, happy birthday Councilor Hawk. (Hawk) Actually since everyone knows how old my daughter is I can’t really fib about my age, can I? (Spoonmore) I just want to also wish everyone Happy Holidays. It has been great working with my new colleagues up here for this short amount of time but I’m looking forward to all the work ahead in 2016. (Munson) Happy Holidays to everyone on the Council, to the staff the works with us so hard, and to everyone who works to serve the public in Monroe County Government. A very special holiday treat would be for us to not have a meeting on December 22nd which would be a terrible way to celebrate the Winter Solstice. (McKim) You’re not cancelling it yet, are you?

of 150


(Munson) I’m not cancelling it yet but it is possible that we won’t have to meet. So people who are interested in whether the Council is meeting or not check the County website please. Otherwise if we don’t hear from you in the rest of this year, Happy Holidays. 19. ADJOURNMENT President Munson adjourned the meeting.

*** *** ***

The Minutes from the Regular Session of the Monroe County Council held on December 8, 2015, were approved on ________________________________, 2016.

Monroe County Council

Aye Nay _______________________________ ________________________________ Cheryl Munson, President Cheryl Munson, President _______________________________ ________________________________ Shelli Yoder, Vice‐President Shelli Yoder, Vice‐President _______________________________ ________________________________ Ryan Cobine, Member Ryan Cobine, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Eric Spoonmore, Member Eric Spoonmore, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Marty Hawk, Member Marty Hawk, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Lee Jones, Member Lee Jones, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Geoff McKim, Member Geoff McKim, Member Attest: ________________________________ Steve Saulter, Monroe County Auditor

of 150


COURTHOUSE, NAT U. HILL MEETING ROOM DECEMBER 22, 2015

Pursuant to proper notice, a Work Session of the Monroe County Council was called to order at 5:30 p.m. on December 22, 2015 at the Monroe County Courthouse, Nat U. Hill Meeting Room, Bloomington, Indiana 47404. The presiding officer was Cheryl Munson, President. A quorum was present, including:

Councilors Present: Shelli Yoder, Vice President Marty Hawk Ryan Cobine Eric Spoonmore Geoff McKim Also Present: Michael Flory, County Council Attorney Marilyn Stonecipher, Deputy Auditor 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Shelli Yoder.

DEPARTMENT UPDATES (Linda Robbins, Clerk) I want to talk to you about a situation that we became aware of earlier this last election. About a week before the election, it was discovered by V‐STOP that one of the vendors did not count a straight‐ticket voter ballot correctly when there was any variation on a straight ticket but vote for three race and that was our vendor. They made the suggestion that we should stop and recount every one of those ballots. But as we looked at what the law is and how those votes would be counted, we quickly recognized that voter intent would be lost completely. I have given you some examples, and this is the best way to see it if you want to look at that code. This is the current statute and it doesn’t protect voter intent in any way, shape or form. We did a review of one of our precincts from the municipal election and found that one out of every six ballots had a change. That is a 17% variance in how those races would be counted. Frankly, if we had a close race for any‐body that could actually throw the race from one to the other. So we see this as a problem and we’ve been in contact with the Indiana Election Division and the State Clerk’s Association in trying to get this rectified. Their immediate thought was well we need to get everybody to follow the law. Our thought – and our being the Monroe County Election Board – really felt that it was more important that they change the law instead of having all of our vendors having to go to the costs to redo their counting and how they tally the votes and then go through certification again because guess who pays for that if that’s the case. None of the vendors or election vendors actually follows the law. They all follow voter intent. This is a big deal and it is concerning that they want to do something different. For example, if you look at this, this individual has voted a straight‐ticket Republican party but as they go down to the Common Council at Large, it is a vote for three race, they voted for one Democrat and two Republican candidates. So anybody want to venture what the voter intended? I will say they intended it as marked. [Next slide.] This is, according to law, the only vote that would count is the Democrat vote. This individual who voted a straight Republican ticket lost both Republican votes by voting for a Democrat in here. [Next slide.] This is a straight‐party Democrat who voted for one

of 150

Monroe County Council Page 2

Democrat and one Republican. How do you think this would count? It counted as one vote for a Republican candidate. We have five examples. This is voted a straight‐party Republic ticket but in the choices voted for two Republican candidates and one write‐in candidate. How do you think this should be tallied? The write‐in vote is the only one that counts; the two Republicans were lost. (Hawk) I think this is the problem in that if we just remove the straight‐party vote entirely and then people really had to look at the ballot and vote for the person and if they chose to vote for entire one party or the other, they could go down and mark that ballot that way. But if this is causing a problem, I’m hoping the State will change it and just rid the whole ballot of the straight‐party ticket. (Robbins) We have some language changes that we have proposed regarding this section of law that doesn’t really talk about the straight voter ticket because I feel that if we want to get that done this year, it is a short session, we’re less likely to get it done. I think we have a better chance of getting voter intent reestablished instead of the straight ticket. We spent a lot of time working very hard so the voter only has to know who they want to vote for when they walk in on the day they vote. This is so blooming complicated, it took several of us, including the Indiana Election Division, days to go through different scenarios and come up with these sample ballots that you have here. So we would prefer really, I want to make you aware, as you know we have next year an at‐large race for Council that will be affected if we have to go by current statute and I would also like to encourage you to talk to any legislators or to anybody else you know about how you might see that it fits. There are several possibilities to it including getting rid of straight‐ticket voting. But I just feel that voter intent is precious and I’d like to see a continuation of us honoring their wishes. So thank you so much for letting me…. If you can alert the legislators or do whatever you want, whoever you can regarding this information to help facilitate a change. The Indiana Election Division let us know about what they thought we should do before the election last time. As an Election Board we voted again for maintaining voter intent but when we talked about what needed to be done and I said something about a legislative change, they didn’t inform me that December 10th was the deadline to get any new things in. So now we need to find somebody who will add it or help sponsor a change to another bill. Thank you so much. (Yoder) Thank you, Clerk Robbins, for the information and the update. It is definitely something we need to be aware of and act on. I do want to draw attention to the fact that President Munson is not able to be here so I will be chairing the meeting tonight. On our agenda we have two important items to consider. First is the initial step for the Council’s role in considering a tax abatement. It is a request from RSSJ Rentals. Council will make a preliminary determination tonight whether or not to proceed with consideration of a tax abatement for an improvement to land located in the Westside TIF District. If we decide to proceed, more detailed information will be presented at our January 12, 2016 meeting with a chance then for public input and final action by the Council. The second item is consideration of an Interlocal Agreement between Monroe County and Lawrence County for safety improvements on a stretch of road located in both counties. I’ve asked Geoff McKim to read the motions for tonight’s actions. 2. FIRST HEARING OF RSSJ RENTALS TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION Resolution 2015‐49A: Preliminary Approval of Tax Abatement for RSSJ Rentals McKim made a motion to approve Resolution 2015‐49A. Spoonmore seconded. (Jeff Cockerill) A tax abatement is a two‐step process; there is a preliminary determination that an economic revitalization area designation which in this case means the parcel that it is on would be seen as an economic revitalization area which is necessary in order for a tax abatement to be approved on that ground. By statute, if you make the preliminary determination, the next meeting has to be noticed in accordance with the law, a map

of 150


of the area in question – in this case the parcel – will be in the Assessor’s office for the public to view. I imagine we might also put it on our webpage in some form as the geographic nature of the thing and then the next meeting would be a hearing where the public could come in and give comment as well as a final action by the Council on both the ERA designation and the tax abatement itself. The Economic Development Commission (hereinafter, “EDC” or “BEDC”), which is a three‐member body, one is a City representative, one is a County Council appointee, one is a County Commissioner appointee, is the investigatory arm for tax abatements and certain other economic development tools. They reviewed this and approved it unanimously and passed it to you with a recommendation for approval. The Redevelopment Commission (hereinafter, “RDC”), because this is in a TIF District which has bonding and other kinds of financial obligations associated with it, we have historically always had the RDC review tax abate‐ments that would be within their boundaries. They also forward this with a unanimous recommendation for approval. Since it is in the TIF District, statute had changed three or four years ago that requires the County Commissioners to review it as well and that will be in their meeting in January. (Hawk) Of course I’m always happy to see new job creation. I will say that it seems to be there is a bit of a philosophy change in this swing toward considering tax abatements that are somewhat different from what we’ve done in the past. But if this is the philosophy change the Council wants to go to then I welcome that and I would welcome all comers if they are part of a service industry and they feel that they are deserving of a tax abatement, bring forward your request because it appears that if this goes through that we are saying that is the direction we wish to go, especially if they bring in higher‐paying jobs. I don’t think we will see that we have done that in the past to any great extent. Is that correct? (Cockerill) The one that strikes me as being approved for a service industry would be the Teletron buildings in the early 2000s. There are some with a service component but the rest of them that I can think of all are manufacturing. (Hawk) Right, generally speaking we have in the past made it clearly manufacturing and not service. But I am hoping that we will hear further information here that will make it so that it doesn’t feel so much like a service industry. But if indeed at the end of the day if we determine that it is more of a service industry and we welcome that because the jobs are so high paying, then I think we have to be very clear to the public we’ve changed the direction we’re going and we welcome all others to bring their requests if they come forward with a new building or new equipment or something of the sort. (McKim) I think we probably want to hear a little bit about the project from the petitioner before we debate the finer nuances. (Hawk) That’s why I said I’m looking forward to hearing if there is another direction and maybe I’m looking at this entirely wrong. I did make a phone call today to the BEDC so this is not like last minute and not being prepared but to let them know what my questions might be. (McKim) I think that the service versus manufacturing distinction is not as bright line as you might want to think it is. The example of MDB Nash Finch, a grocery supply corporation, that we gave a tax abatement to, that is a distribution and logistics company; they are not manufacturing in the way we might think of manufacturing. (Hawk) But it is not quite the same thing as a service. (McKim) And I’m not sure that this is either. I think the distinction is more does is solely serve local users and just shuffle money around in the community or does it bring new money into the community and pay higher‐wage jobs and I think in this example….

of 150


(Hawk) It would be sort of like Crider & Crider because they have big trucking industries and so forth and so if they would add more equipment or they would…. (McKim) I would encourage them to…. (Hawk) Right, absolutely. (McKim) If they want to make an investment and create new jobs. (Hawk) That’s the reason why I’m making this statement because I think in the past they might have been discouraged from it and if we believe that this is the direction to go and the kind of great jobs it brings, let’s put that message out so that we can grow jobs in that direction if we believe that is the way to go. You see what I’m saying? I’m not saying I’m against this; I am saying we need to get that good message out if we’re going to be open for consideration of this kind of an industry and job creation and we believe that is the right direction, let’s put the good message out that we want to encourage that kind of a job growth. (Yoder) Before we put that message out, let’s hear from Bobby Scank, the petitioner, and Dana Palazzo, with the BEDC. I know they are here to shed some light on the project. (Dana Palazzo, BEDC) Bobby came to us a couple of months ago to talk about the project and what his vision was for [it]. So we sat down and have been helping him along the process of getting this tax abatement in. As you will see in the application, it is bringing up to 20 new jobs in the community and that is our mission, to bring quality jobs to Monroe County. When we say quality, that usually means well‐paying jobs and if you look at the wages for these jobs that are coming, they’re great. Twenty new jobs in Monroe County excites us and I think it should excite the County as well. Beyond that, the project is bringing new developments or new construction that will be on the tax payroll now and even with the abatement, that is new revenue for the County. Something that we struggle with as an organization is finding available properties for new businesses. We are tasked with attracting new business to town, helping the existing companies grow, move about as they need, and often times we have a real issue with finding available property for them. So this is a new facility in that small‐ to medium‐sized industrial buildings and so that is super important to us to have that option as well. What is not mentioned in the application but what Bobby could probably talk a little bit more about is maybe his phase two and thinking about the other new buildings that would come with this project. Again, new inventory for us to have in our database as we are trying to attract these new jobs. As far as the service industry question, maybe Bobby could talk a little bit more specifically about that but I don’t think there is anything in the application process that says it can’t be a service industry. I think diversity in the types of jobs that are coming in is important too. As much as we want technology and life sciences and jobs that require higher education, I think this type of work is super important to have that option for our county residents as well. But along with that it is not just a service industry. Similar to, like you said, Crider & Crider, they will be providing trucking services but also offering different building construction material movement and general contracting opportunities as well. So that is kind of the reason that we support the project. We think it is a good project, new jobs, quality jobs. If there is anything else you have as far as questions or maybe Bobby do you want to talk a little bit about your perspective on this? (Robert Scank, Petitioner) We should apprise them that 100% of the abatement is going to go to the tenant. That means nothing to me but to entice them to get them to come to Bloomington. This is why part of the abatement I told them I would go after it. That is what we’re holding up on now is whether we get the abate‐ment. Most of the jobs that have been created in Bloomington in the last 15 years, like Marty said, are service jobs. Usually service jobs are low paying. These are in excess of $20 an hour and $9 in benefits. So these are jobs that we can put in. Now phase two – and I was with Doug Bruce today – we want to put three or four more buildings on there. What we are doing is bringing that rent rate in. If we can with this tax abatement, I’m in the $8 to $12 range

of 150


where if you go around town it is $15 to $21. So to entice jobs to come to Bloomington, my objective is to keep those rents as low as possible. Now McKim pointed out that they have only signed a five‐year lease so hope‐fully we can amend it to a five‐year tax abatement. Right now you’re collecting less than $1,000 a year on this property. Even with the tax abatement, by the time it is over with, if I let it sit another ten years, you’re still going to come out financially a lot better. I own the Post Office and I refuse to go for a tax abatement on that because I wanted the Federal Government to pay the taxes. They said I had to when they didn’t supply me the information and now they pay $19,000 a year in property taxes. Which if I would have got a tax abatement, they wouldn’t. But I didn’t think the Federal Government needed a tax abatement from Bloomington, Indiana. So I just waited for the one mistake they made and said we can’t do it now. My objective is to get good jobs in Bloomington. I own restaurants and have for fifty years. I pay my people well but if you go around, they just don’t make the money that the jobs. You know we’ve lost several industries that had good‐paying jobs. They lost RCA, we lost Otis Elevator, and those jobs are going to come back between five and fifteen people. We’re not going to get a new factory that is going to come in and employ 300 people. Now with I‐69 that may occur, but up until now it wasn’t going to occur because their criteria is to be by an interstate. So maybe we will have that opportunity and I hope we’re in a position as a county if we do get that opportunity to take and do it. So if there are any questions you have for me, I will be glad to answer them. (Hawk) I would just like to add that I’ve always tried to make it clear that the tax abatement has more to do than just the dollar amount. It really has to do that we are sending a message to the public, and not just to our local public but to all of the employers around who might be considering a move here to Monroe County that we are welcoming new jobs, that we are welcoming new employers. So we want to, in every way we can, be as welcoming as possible. I do think that we have an obligation to at least have asked this question and I appreciate your answer and would appreciate, of course, any new growth in high‐paying jobs. (Scank) Phase two is two 10,000 square foot buildings and then on the frontage of Vernal I want to put something like an office complex because Angelina is the road, it used to be Ridgeline when they built it, is off the beaten path. But as you go down Vernal I want a nice building on that front piece of property. So phase two, phase three. I had two meetings today on those and every one of them, I’ve told Keith from Horn Property does a lot of my rental stuff and I told him we do not want a job that pays under $20 an hour going on that project. I don’t need the money. Well I would like to have the money, but I don’t need it. But that is my criteria. We’re not going to put somebody in there that is paying somebody $10 or $11 an hour. We’re building stuff so we can get good jobs out there and if they can’t afford it, they can only afford to pay their people $10 an hour I don’t want to sign a lease with them because I don’t know where they’re going to be three years from now. (Flory) For anyone who doesn’t understand how a tax abatement works and I know you all do, this is not a tax cut in any way. If it is paying $1,000 in taxes right now, it will always pay $1,000 in taxes. He is going to make an economic investment in the property which is going to lead to a higher assessment and higher taxes and the abatement simply means that those taxes are factored in over a period of years. So there will be a tax increase even in that first year and at the end of the five‐year period or whatever in an abatement, they’re paying the full assessed value of taxes. I think rather than consider this to be a new direction, it is probably better to consider it as an expansion of scope. The old direction we’re still going to follow: manufacturing, biomedical. We’re still going to get that if we have the opportunity. But this may be, to some extent, and that is something we can look into, just an expansion of scope on what we’ve done in the past. (Yoder) And this is just a vote to hear it again in January. Just for clarification it is not a yes or no; it is just do we want to hear it again in January and have a month to bring about additional questions and information should we need it?

of 150


(McKim) I had some numbers that I thought would make sense to go over briefly with the Council. This goes along with Mr. Flory’s explanation of how a tax abatement works. So what I’m showing here is a spreadsheet that starts out with the assessed value of the project. Now originally I think in the application it was listed as $300,000 but my understanding is that it is going to be significantly more than that. So I used $425,000 as the model here. But, of course, whatever the value of the investment is the abatement will scale accordingly. So the request is for a five‐year abatement. Just for folks who aren’t really familiar with the way tax abatements work, what a five‐year abatement really means is that only the new taxes on the new investment are abated 100% only for the first year of the abatement and then the value of the abatement declines to the end of the term. So a five‐year abatement would be 100% for the first year, 80% for the second, 60, 40, down to 20% for the last year of the abatement. Then after that the full taxes would be paid. I used the estimated tax rate that was provided by the Assessor’s office. So there are really two different numbers that you can kind look at a tax abatement from the perspective of and both of those numbers together sort of tell the story of a tax abatement. The first is the column here labeled Estimated Revenue Not Received and that is essentially the value of the abatement. From the government’s perspective, that is the downside of it; from the taxpayers’ perspective that is the value of the abatement. Using these assumptions that I just told you, the value of the abatement to Mr. Scank, and he is passing on that value to the tenant, would be about $21,000 over the five‐year or over the ten‐year period it is the same. So like I said that is kind of the down side. So that is the money that is foregone by the local unit of government. But then on the other side, as Mr. Scank mentioned, that property right now is only generating about $1,080 of property tax a year. So with this invest‐ment, even with the tax abatement, the other side of the story is how much more revenue would the local unit of government have. In this case the unit would have, over a ten‐year period, almost $50,000 more in property taxes. So in other words, despite having a five‐year tax abatement, over a ten‐year period, the property would be responsible for another $50,000 in property taxes. So it is just really important to understand it that way. A tax abatement does not mean a loss to the unit, it is the investment that is being made in this property will result in additional taxes being paid. In fact, not only are higher taxes being paid by the end of the abatement, but even by the second year of the tax abatement, if you will look here I have two columns labeled Cumulative Without Improvements and Cumulative With Improvements, so one is the without, one is the with; after the second year even with the tax abatement, the property will be paying more in property taxes than it would without the investment and without the abatement. Do you see what I’m saying? So even by the second year we’re already coming out ahead. It is only in that first year that the new assessed value is abated 100%. So that is kind of the yin and yang of the tax abatements. What is foregone but what is gained by the local unit of government. So I just wanted to make sure everybody kind of understood how those numbers were derived. If anybody has any questions, I’d be happy to answer. (Flory) I point out quickly, that doesn’t even factor in increased income tax, County Option Income Tax on the higher salaries. (Hawk) So tonight’s vote is? Can we have a motion placed on the floor and let’s have a vote? Because the vote merely says that we wish to hear more at the next meeting. (McKim) Actually, I’ve already moved approval of Resolution 2015‐49A. Hawk called the question. Stonecipher called roll: McKim – yes Cobine – yes Hawk – yes

of 150


Yoder – yes Spoonmore – yes Motion passed. (Yoder) Great, thank you; we will see you in January. (McKim) I have some additional comments that I will probably send out in writing just so as not to waste anybody’s time here. 3. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MONROE COUNTY AND LAWRENCE COUNTY Resolution 2015‐48: A Resolution Approving the Proposed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Between Lawrence County, Indiana, and Monroe County, Indiana, Regarding the Improvement of Hunters Creek Road McKim made a motion to approve Resolution 2015‐48. Cobine seconded. (Yoder) Dave Schilling with the Monroe County Legal Department is here to speak about the Interlocal Agreement. Welcome. (David Schilling, County Attorney) Thank you very much. This relates to a road project that was approved in 2012 and funds were appropriated for it. It involves federal and state funding as well. They’ve progressed far enough in the project through the engineering that they’ve realized that they needed to acquire about five parcels in Lawrence County so they asked how we were going to be able to do that. The answer is only with Lawrence County’s permission. So this Interlocal Agreement is designed to give Monroe County permission to acquire road‐right‐of‐way and do road construction in Lawrence County and then we will turn those road improvements over to Lawrence County for maintenance. (Hawk) I did speak with Lisa Ridge today to see if there was anything that we needed to watch for that would cause additional expenditures. This is not something new; it is the kind of thing that you have to do if you have a road that takes a little bit of some of the other county. So it is just going to work the way it always has that once we’ve done this, you turn it over to the other county. If it is totally in the other county, I believe they will be taking care of it. If it is like County Line Road, then there has to be other agreements as well. But this is a great project and I’m looking forward to seeing it come to fruition. (Schilling) This will not only improve traffic flow and safety in that area but it will [also] allow the federal government to close the portion of Tower Ridge Road that they have been wanting to close for years. So we’re going to kill two birds with one stone. As far as any extra costs, I think the only extra cost involved would be if we have to file any imminent domain actions for the Lawrence County parcels. We would have to go down to Lawrence County so there would be a mileage fee and that is about it. (McKim) By the way, I have a map of the project up on the screen right now if anybody is interested. I’ve been excited about this project for years and I’m glad that it looks like it is going to be ready hopefully for bid letting at the end of next year, the end of 2016 is my understanding. One of the benefits that I think people might not realize, it is not just allowing the federal government to close a road but what it is actually going to do is double the size of our contiguous wilderness area. So think about this from a tourism and adventuring eco‐tourism perspective. The Deem Wilderness is already a terrific tourist draw for this part of the State but the effective contiguous wilderness will double when Tower Ridge Road is able to be closed. So this will make an existing asset even more valuable. Hawk called the question.

of 150


After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Spoonmore – yes Yoder – yes McKim – yes Cobine – yes Hawk – yes Motion passed. (Schilling) We would like to have two originals signed. We will send those down to Lawrence County; the Council and Commissioners down there are going to meet next week and then we can each have an original signature page. (Yoder) Thank you. That concludes our agenda for tonight. Does anyone have any Council comments before we adjourn? I just want to wish everyone Happy Holidays, enjoy time with family and we will see everyone at the beginning of the New Year, 2016. 5. ADJOURNMENT Vice President Yoder adjourned the meeting.

*** *** *** The Minutes from the Work Session of the Monroe County Council held on December 22, 2015, were approved on ________________________________, 2016.


Aye Nay _______________________________ ________________________________ Cheryl Munson, President Cheryl Munson, President _______________________________ ________________________________ Ryan Cobine, Vice‐President Ryan Cobine, Vice‐President _______________________________ ________________________________ Shelli Yoder, Member Shelli Yoder, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Eric Spoonmore, Member Eric Spoonmore, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Marty Hawk, Member Marty Hawk, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Lee Jones, Member Lee Jones, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Geoff McKim, Member Geoff McKim, Member Attest: ________________________________

Steve Saulter, Monroe County Auditor

of 150


COURTHOUSE, NAT U. HILL MEETING ROOM JANUARY 12, 2016

Pursuant to proper notice, a Regular Session of the Monroe County Council was called to order at 5:30 p.m. on January 12, 2016 at the Monroe County Courthouse, Nat U. Hill Meeting Room, Bloomington, Indiana 47404. The presiding officer was Cheryl Munson, President. A quorum was present, including:

Councilors Present: Cheryl Munson, President Ryan Cobine, President Pro Tempore Lee Jones Marty Hawk Shelli Yoder Eric Spoonmore Geoff McKim Not Present: Steve Saulter, Auditor Also Present: Michael Flory, County Council Attorney Therese Chambers, Chief Deputy Auditor Marilyn Stonecipher, Deputy Auditor 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by President Munson. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE President Munson led the Pledge of Allegiance. (Munson) So to begin tonight, I want to announce that we are not going to have a State of the County Address but I think we should reconsider this for future occasions because there are points of information that are not well understood by the public and perhaps we will have still have a State of the County Address at our work session. Tonight’s meeting is primarily organizational. This means that we will deal with election of officers, appoint‐ment of Council members to liaison positions, appointment of Council members to Council committees, adoption of calendars for our work schedule, and appointment or reappointment of citizen members to various boards or commissions. All these are vital to the smooth running of Council business. 3. DEPARTMENT UPDATES [None]

of 150

Monroe County Council January 12, 2016

Page 2

4. PUBLIC COMMENT [None] 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Jones nominated Cheryl Munson as President and Ryan Cobine as President Pro Tempore. McKim seconded. Motion carried by voice vote. 6. 2016 COUNCIL CALENDARS A. Resolution 2016‐01: Personnel Administration Committee (PAC) Calendar Cobine made a motion to adopt Resolution 2016‐01. (Cobine) As it has been for the last year, this will maintain the PAC meetings on the first Tuesday of each month at 4:00 p.m. with exceptions for Holidays. These meetings will be held in the Council Conference Room on the Third Floor of the Monroe County Courthouse. For the specific dates refer to the County website. Jones seconded. Motion carried by voice vote. B. Resolution 2016‐02: Council Regular Session Calendar Cobine made a motion to adopt Resolution 2016‐02. (Cobine) Similar to the last motion, this keeps the meetings on the second Tuesday of each month for regular session meetings, in the Nat U. Hill III meeting room of the Monroe County Courthouse at 5:30 p.m. with exceptions for Holidays. For the specific dates refer to the County website. Jones seconded. Motion carried by voice vote. C. Resolution 2016‐03: Council Work Session Calendar Cobine made a motion to adopt Resolution 2016‐03. (Cobine) As with the previous two motions, it will maintain a similar schedule as last year. The work session meetings will occur on the fourth Tuesday of each month beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Nat U. Hill III meeting room of the Monroe County Courthouse. Jones seconded. Motion carried by voice vote. 7. COUNCIL ORGANIZATION A. Council Appointments to Boards and Commissions Cheryl made a motion to appoint the following to Monroe County Boards and Commissions: Ambulance Advisory Board: McKim Bloomington Economic Development Corporation: Munson Community Corrections Advisory Board: Jones Convention and Visitors Commission: Munson Downtown Bloomington Commission Board: Cobine

of 150


Page 3

Emergency Management Advisory Committee: Cobine Environmental Quality and Sustainability Commission: Spoonmore Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce: Yoder Metropolitan Planning Organization: McKim Plan Commission: Jones Solid Waste Management District Board: Munson Veterans’ Affairs Advisory Committee: Jones Jones seconded. McKim called for a roll call vote. Stonecipher called roll: Yoder – yes Spoonmore – yes Munson – yes Jones – yes Cobine – yes Hawk – no McKim – yes Motion passed. B. Appointments of Council Liaisons and Committees (Munson) Next I would like to announce the appointments of the following Councilmembers to liaison [positions]. These appointments do not require a vote. Assessor: Jones Auditor: Cobine and Hawk Aviation: Yoder Building: Spoonmore Clerk: Spoonmore Commissioners: Munson and Cobine Coroner: Yoder Council Office: Munson Courts: Jones and Spoonmore Emergency Management: Cobine Extension: McKim Health: Jones Highway: Hawk and McKim Human Resources: Cobine Legal: Yoder Fair Board: Munson Parks: McKim Perry‐Clear Creek Fire Protection District: Cobine and Spoonmore Planning: Jones Prosecutor: Hawk and McKim Public Defender: Yoder Recorder: Jones Sheriff: McKim and Munson Soil and Water Conservation District: Jones Stormwater: McKim

of 150


Page 4

Surveyor: Spoonmore Technical Services: Cobine Treasurer: McKim Veterans’ Affairs: Jones Weights and Measures: Yoder Youth Services Bureau: Spoonmore (Munson) Council we have other Council appointments that we make and that is those of individual Council members to Council Committees. Again, these are not open for vote but this is a prerogative of the Chair. Let me announce these very quickly. Council Administration Committee: Cobine, McKim and Munson Council Appointment Review Committee: Jones, McKim and Munson Council Salary Review Committee: Cobine, McKim and Munson Personnel Administration Committee: Cobine, Jones and Spoonmore Joint Commissioners‐Council Committee Fleet Financing and Energy: Jones and Munson 8. HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Request for Approval of Additional Appropriation Fund 8138‐000 Immunizations 30.0001 Immunization Expense $67,378.00 Cobine made a motion to approve the request for additional appropriation. Jones seconded. (Penny Caudill, Administrator, Health Dept.) Good evening. Last year in 2015 we received funds, I believe it was $50,000, for immunizations and, as you know, we contract with IU Health Bloomington for public health nursing services which do include our immunizations. So the State garnered some more funds and we were eligible to apply again and this year we have received $67,378 for continuing the work to improve immunizations in Monroe County. (McKim) I just want to hammer again on the importance of immunizations and I am so glad that our Health Department is taking such an active role in promoting immunizations. (Caudill) Well to that, let me just highlight a couple of things. We have the final year report and they did 37 school‐based clinics. They added 436 were activated in MyVax Indiana through the clinic which is a means for you to check your own vaccination records if they’re entered into the registry. We had drive‐through point of distribution exercise that we actually offered flu vaccine and we increased the storage capacity for vaccine at the clinic. So those were some of the things that they did with that money. (Munson) I know how hard it is for parents to keep track of vaccination records, especially if they move between different doctors. Is this something that anybody can do for their children? (Caudill) Yes there is a vaccination registry, it is referred to as CHIRP (Child Health Immunization Registry) and so My Vax Care is linked to that so that people don’t have to call their doctor if they change their doctor. The doctors are supposed to enter that into CHIRP and then you have that record and you can go into it no matter where you move. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Munson – yes McKim – yes Jones – yes

of 150


Page 5

Hawk – yes Spoonmore – yes Yoder – yes Cobine – yes Motion passed. B. Request for Creation of New Fund and Budget Lines Fund 9130‐000, Syringe Exchange 20.0001 Supplies 30.0001 Syringe Exchange Expenses Cobine made a motion to approve creation of the new fund and budget lines. Jones seconded. (Caudill) As you know, we were approved by the State Health Commissioner and the State Department of Health in December to have a yearlong syringe exchange program and that requires an annual renewal and constant reporting, but with that approval we were able to make application to a private foundation, the Health Foundation of Greater Indianapolis and Age United, and it is for $15,000. We have an agreement with Indiana Recovery Alliance to actually run the syringe exchange program. So this will provide insurance that is required in order for them to do that. This will mainly be a mobile service and so it will provide for gas and vehicle maintenance as well as some supplies and educational material. We didn’t get this in time for it to be advertised so we will be coming back for the appropriation. (Yoder) I have a question about the Indiana Recovery Alliance with the relationship. Can you explain how the Health Department and the Indiana Recovery Alliance work together, how the reporting gets back to your department just for accountability purposes? (Caudill) Certainly. We with the State approval, it is really the Health Department who is in charge of the program and so we have opted, due to capacity and those kinds of things, funding to use that third part and Indiana Recovery Alliance has been doing harm reduction education with people so they already have some of that rapport built and so they were a good partner for us we felt. We have a scope of practice; we have a contract with them so they have to follow the law. We will be monitoring that. The State requires monthly/quarterly reporting and initially some weekly reporting just to kind of follow what is going on. We have staff both on our staff and Indiana Recovery Alliance will be doing some training with the State in the next week or so on that reporting system that is available to us through the State. So it will certainly be closely monitored as I’m sure you know and probably all of you know that the legislation even allowing health departments to make this request is limited and so it is up for renewal in a few years so we will have to show evidence that it is having a positive impact in order for that to continue. So reporting and data collection is going to be vital. It will be private so we won’t have names of people associated with that. So people can get services without worrying about being targeted or something like that. That is specific in the law that they cannot be targeted if they are using this service. And that is important but we also need the data to show that it is working. (Yoder) I would agree. I know we have the Council, the County has a relationship through the Sophia Travis Community Grants with Indiana Recovery Alliance. I just wanted to hear and let the public know what kind of accountability is out there through this grant and the partnership we have with them. (Caudill) And it is truly a community partnership. They are going to be doing that on‐the‐ground work but it is not in a silo so we will have other testing sites. Positive Link will be a part of that, Centerstone and Mental Health Services are a part of that. We have plans to do an on‐site location once a month that will expand services, so wound care and some of those things. So that is kind of in the pipeline as well and we can expand as we get things up and going and see what else we can do.

of 150


Page 6

(Spoonmore) So this syringe exchange program is in response to a high number of Hepatitis C cases here in Monroe County? (Caudill) Yes. (Spoonmore) It is very expensive to treat folks who have come down with that illness, right? (Caudill) It is very expensive. There are some new treatments that are available but each pill is $1,000. So a 12‐week treatment would cost at least $84,000; it could be more than that, and that is for the medication, that is not for your lab work or your doctor visits. So that is very expensive. So prevention doesn’t come without a cost but prevention is almost always, I just hesitate to say always, much cheaper than trying to deal with something on the other side. For example, the cost of a syringe is less than 50 cents but one study found that for every dollar invested in prevention through syringe exchange, three to seven dollars will be saved in treatment costs. (Spoonmore) That is great. I just wanted to take a minute here and express my support for this. These issues of needle sharing and addictions is a serious problem and the State of Indiana has appropriately recognized this public health emergency in Monroe County. We know that there is no cure for these blood transmitted diseases and most people who have these illnesses, as you stated, probably can’t afford to pay for the medical treatment. So it is important, I think, that we deal with this problem proactively and do what we can to prevent needles from being shared even if it means exchanging used needles for clean ones. So I think this exchange program is a prudent response that will save lives here and will also work to reduce healthcare costs in our community and also help prevent further transmittal of Hepatitis C and HIV. Thank you. (Caudill) The other thing that I always like to make sure that people understand is syringe exchange isn’t new across the county, it is to Indiana, and there is as much as 30% reduction in accidental needle sticks to first responders, law enforcement, I think that is a huge plus and it tends to clean up the community. So where someone may have previously discarded a used syringe or needle in the park or along the street, they may now bring that in and so there is evidence to show that it actually cleans up the streets. (Munson) I’m very grateful to our Health Department for being proactive in seeking out support from the State to help us deal with this huge problem and I look forward to further reports from you as to how it is working. So thank you. (Caudill) We will certainly give those. And again, it is a community effort. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Hawk – yes Jones – yes Yoder – yes Cobine – yes McKim – yes Munson – yes Spoonmore – yes Motion passed.

of 150


Page 7

9. SECOND READING OF TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION FOR RSSJ RENTALS, LLC Resolution 2015‐49B: Part II Approval of Tax Abatement for RSSJ Rentals, LLC Cobine made a motion to approve Resolution 2015‐49B which is the second action for consideration of a tax abatement for RSSJ Rentals, LLC.

Jones seconded. (Munson) I know that Councilor McKim has been tracking information about this tax abatement. Would you like to present this now? (McKim) It would make more sense to have Mr. Cockerill present first. (Jeff Cockerill, County Attorney) I think I was before you in December at the second meeting. I just want to make it clear to the public the process and what we’re going through tonight. Any tax abatement has to be in an Economic Revitalization Area (“ERA”) and State statute requires a two‐meeting process in order to establish a tax abatement. The first meeting is a preliminary resolution where the Council says yes we’re interested in moving forward, notice is then published and there is information that people can see where this is at and look at some of the documents involved and what the business is going to do because at the end of the day that is one of the decision‐making points for a tax abatement. This item is also in our Westside Economic Development Area so it has gone through the Economic Development Commission with a positive recommendation. The Redevelopment Commission indicated that this would not impair any obligations that it otherwise has and also the County Commissioners reviewed this last Friday and approved the issuance of this tax abatement. So it comes to you know with all the other approvals in place. It is not your decision whether to grant this tax abate‐ment or not. This tax abatement has been requested for a five‐year period. All the other ones we have had have been for a ten‐year period, that is one of the differences. The business owner is here to answer any questions about the business or if you have any other questions that you think I could be helpful in answering, I am more than happy to do that. (McKim) I had presented these numbers at the work session as well and I just wanted to get a chance to go over them very quickly. This is a document that has been in the drop box and available to the Council as well. I just want to kind of quantify the impact of the abatement on property taxes for the property. I’ve done an estimate over a ten‐year period. As Mr. Cockerill did say, this is a five‐year abatement that is being requested. As you can see from this chart here, the five‐year abatement, the way that works is that the first year 100% of the assessed value of the new investment is abated. The next year, 80%, 60%, 40%, 20% and then after the five‐year abatement is expired then zero percent of the new assessed value is abated, meaning the property owner is taxed on 100% of the value.

of 150


Page 8

The paperwork that we had used $300,000 as an estimate of the value of the investment but based on the testimony we heard at the last Council meeting and at the Economic Development Commission meeting, I’ve adjusted that up to $425,000 as a more realistic estimate because apparently the investment is already planned to cost well over $300,000. So $425,000 is the estimate here and I just wanted to point everybody’s attention to three numbers on this spreadsheet. The first number which is the orange in the lower left‐hand corner is what I’m calling essentially the value of the abatement to the taxpayer. This is an estimate of the revenue that is not received by the government by virtue of the abatement. So what we see is that using the tax rates provided by the Assessor’s office and obviously assuming that the tax rates don’t change in the interim, the value of the abatement is about $21,400. So that means that the property taxpayer, the owner, would be paying over a ten‐year period $21,412 in property tax less than if he did not have the abatement. So that is the foregone revenue side of the equation. Then the other side of the equation is what are the additional taxes that are paid on this property based on the existence of this investment versus had this investment not been made or this project not been done? That is the box to the right in darker yellow. So that box shows that over a ten‐year period the owner will be paying almost $50,000 more in property taxes than if he had not made this investment. So that is kind of the yin and yang, the revenue foregoing versus the additional revenue to the Tax Increment Finance District associated with this investment. Then the final cell that I’ve highlighted is the yellow cell on the upper right. All that is trying to show you is if you look at the last two green columns, one labeled Cumulative without Improvement and Cumulative with Improvements, those are the cumulative property taxes paid on this parcel over a ten‐year period with the status quo versus if this investment had been made. So we can see even after the first year, by the second year of the abatement, the investment is still actually paying more in property taxes than they were without the investment. I do that because a lot of people think that tax abatements mean that the property taxpayer doesn’t pay taxes. I just want to make it clear that even after the first year in an abatement the taxpayer is actually paying more in property taxes than they were the year before. So I’m happy to answer any questions about these numbers. Those numbers are in everybody’s folder if you’re interested. Obviously, they are estimates; I made the assumption that the tax rates didn’t change; and we made the assumption that $425,000 is a reasonable additional assessed value associated with that improvement. (Hawk) Many people in the public believe that if a property is within a Tax Increment Finance Area that changes the property taxes that person pays and that is absolutely not the case; they pay the same tax rate as anyone else in that area. If it is the Richland Township total tax rate, then the people inside that Richland TIF, all of those businesses, they pay the same tax rate. (McKim) That is a good point. A lot of people do misunderstand that, you’re right. (Flory) I do think it is important to add we touched on this at an earlier meeting. Mr. McKim has just focused on property taxes. One of the appeals of a business being brought forward for a tax abatement is that they’re paying salaries at a fairly‐high level too. So that should bring additional income tax into the County from the higher salaries that are paid to people. (Munson) Yes, I recall that from the previous meeting and thank you for bringing up that point. (Hawk) I would just say that this is somewhat of a movement away from what the Council has allowed abatements for in the past because this is more of a service company and I’m certainly going to support that if that is what our desire is that we’re going to start considering those. As I said at the work session, I wanted to make certain that if we are to consider those then we need to get that message out so that others who would

of 150


Page 9

like to come and request a tax abatement that they will see that we have changed somewhat our direction. I think that is the only fair thing to do because in the past these have not been passed on to us from the Economic Development Commission. But at this point in time, good jobs are something I think we all want to support. So I just wanted to get that message out there. (Jones) This sound like something that would clearly be an asset to the community and Geoff’s figures certainly make it seem very worthwhile. As far as I know, Indiana is the only state that allows tax abatements within TIFs and this is something that I take rather seriously. As a general rule, I am just not willing to support a tax abate‐ment within a TIF. I think this is going to pass with no trouble at all but if it were needed, I would vote for it. But just to express my opinion, I probably will not. (Yoder) Just by way of clarification and to Councilor Hawk, the issue she raised, specifically I would be interested in hearing from the person who has made the application regarding how is it different? (Hawk) And perhaps it isn’t different and perhaps it is just a new direction that we’re going to go because maybe that is how we’re going to start creating jobs. (Yoder) I would just like clarification. (McKim) I guess I do just want to say one thing, that I think maybe this discussion about jobs that could be considered to be in the service industries I think probably must have happened quite some time ago because I don’t think this Council – I even haven’t ever had that, I’ve been here for eight years now and that was never a policy or even a practice that I was aware of. (Hawk) And I’m not saying it should be, I’m just saying if this is what we’re going to do and we can assist in creating jobs that have good salaries and we’re going to see a lot of that with I‐69 coming through I would suggest that we would probably rather have the jobs here in Monroe County as in some other county nearby. So I am certainly open to this. (Bob Scank) The thing about it is, even with this tax abatement, the County doesn’t get any more money no matter what I pay in taxes. Who gets money are the ones that are on percentages. I believe the school systems are on percentages or whatever. Because you guys are set up on a flat rate aren’t they? (Cockerill) It is not a flat rate. I think what he is alluding to is that it is in the TIF District and the TIF District operates to the point where taxes are placed into an allocation fund that is used to pay indebtedness or for projects within that TIF District and so therefore it is not that they pay a flat rate, it is just where the rate comes to a number and where the fund that tax ends up into to be spent for and the Redevelopment Commission is a County entity where the strings and what that money can be used for is different than if they lived outside that TIF District. So I live outside the TIF District, my County taxes go toward general county functions, the General Fund and then the Cumulative Bridge and the Cumulative Cap Fund. It is different in the TIF because all that funding is captured to reinvest within the boundaries of that TIF District. (Hawk) The increase only. (Cockerill) Yes, the increments. (Hawk) All the other units still get the base. (Cockerill) Yes, the base is still there but the increment goes – which would be what we’re talking about with a tax abatement, the increment would go toward the TIF District. So it is not a flat rate, it is the same dynamic

of 150


Page 10

rate that every other taxpayer who are living in the same unit’s territory pay. It is just where the money goes to is a different fund in the general funds of those entities. (Scank) Yes, I believe you guys have the opportunity with this abatement, and I agree with Marty, it needs to be expanded. When we can bring jobs to Bloomington – I’ve owned restaurants, I’ve been in Bloomington 50 years, and that is the jobs that will be creating are the service industry. These are jobs that are general construction and stuff like that and those are the jobs we need to bring to Bloomington because the ones that compete for those minimum wage jobs or a little above are students. So we need jobs where the man can go home and the woman can go home and support themselves and I think you guys have got a great opportunity with I‐69, you’ve got these districts set up, and if it wasn’t for a tax abatement, 100% of this tax abatement is getting passed on to the person that is renting it. I’m not going to make one cent of the tax abatement. Okay if I didn’t get the tax abatement I know he wouldn’t have come. That is part of it. I’ve got to keep my rents down low enough to attract people that are paying in excess of $20. This is on two acres out of nine point some because they took some for Angelina and they took some for Vernal. Next we will start working on phase two which is two more buildings and then out front on Vernal I don’t know what I’m going to do. But anything that goes in there is going to be in excess of $20 an hour or I won’t build it. (Flory) I’m not aware that any application for a tax abatement has ever come to the RDC or EDC that wasn’t given careful consideration and they have not been blocked at that level. So if there has ever been any self‐censorship or somebody thinking this isn’t a possibility for me and they decide not to even bring it forward, that is not anything that we have set out as a rigid policy or tried to get the word out. And as far as this being a change in direction, I think it is vital to say this is more an expansion rather than a change. Anything we did before we will be glad to do again: biomedical research, manufacturing, things like that. But to the extent that this is something of a different animal, it is just an expansion not a change or shift. (Munson) Thank you for making that point. I want to make an additional point and that is with the tax abate‐ments, the Council annually reviews the commitments of the person granted the abatement with respect to the number of jobs provided and the salary and just so the public knows in this specific case, could you tell us again the number of jobs you’re projecting and the salary rate? (Cockerill) They indicate that they are going to have a total of 20 employees and the salaries are going to be $21.10 an hour. They also indicate that their other benefits are going to equal at least $9 an hour. So the salary plus benefits is going to be over $30 an hour. (Scank) And the other thing is that if we don’t meet this, which I agree with is there is a claw back so that means you guys can go back and recapture. If we don’t do what we say we’re going to do we will recapture and that will be between me and the tenant. But we plan on doing it is all I can say. We’ve got 44,000 students in Bloomington and thank God for IU med where they can get insurance there. But you go out in the normal workforce and anybody getting paid insurance, I dare you to find anything other than factories and some of the high‐end stuff that is paying their medical insurance. Bloomington, it is time for us to get better jobs in Bloomington and that is just how I see it. (Spoonmore) I will be happy to support this. I’m delighted that these jobs are coming to Bloomington. I think it will be a real benefit to the community. (McKim) I appreciate Councilor Jones’s comments on a tax abatement within a TIF, I know that has been kind of a controversial issue. Although I don’t think Indiana is actually the only one it is a relatively infrequent combination of economic development incentives. I’ve put some thought into rebutting some of the arguments against granting tax abatements in TIFs – or at least addressing them. I have about five minutes’ worth of remarks written down and I think I’m just going to not give them. I have posted them on my blog and so I encourage anybody who is interested to go read that blog posting. I did it a couple of weeks ago right before

of 150


Page 11

the work session and I’ve modified them a little bit. So if you’re interested seriously in that issues, because I think it really is an interesting and important issues, how do we get economic development right and how do we do incentives right, and not incentivize the wrong thing. So if anybody really has any interest, please I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts. (Hawk) If you really wanted to abate that situation then you would look at the numbers of properties where it is owned by the State so we’re not getting any revenue from that. So it just seems to me that getting something with a tax abatement, if you’re only looking at the dollars that are coming in there…. (Scank) If it means anything, I owned it before there was a TIF out there. I didn’t ask for it. (Jones) I’m sorry I didn’t know about your blog before, it might well have changed my mind. I really wish this project weren’t in the TIF because I would love to vote for it. (Scank) It will bring $5,000 a year in if I just plow it and put corn in it. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Cobine – yes Munson – yes Hawk – yes Yoder – yes McKim – yes Spoonmore – yes Jones – no Motion passed. 10. COMMISSIONERS Request for Approval to Transfer Funds Fund 4806‐000, 2015 GO Bond From: 40.0005 Miscellaneous $25,000.00 To: 20.0001 Administrative Fees $25,000.00 Cobine made a motion to approve the request for transfer of funds. Jones seconded. (Flory) This is a fairly‐simple housekeeping action. When you first set up and approved the GO bond, you appropriated up to $2 million amount into the 40s category. They now find that they need money to be expended from what would normally be a 20s category and simply ask to have $25,000 of the amount in the 40s category transferred down to the 20s. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Cobine – yes Hawk – yes Yoder – yes Jones – yes Spoonmore – yes Munson – yes McKim – yes Motion passed.

of 150


Page 12

11. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Request for Approval of Additional Appropriation Fund Number 8147‐000, 2015 SHSP County Competitive Grant 30.0001 Homeland Security Grant $15,129.79 Cobine made a motion to approve the request for additional appropriation. Jones seconded. (Jim Comerford, Coordinator, Emergency Management) Good evening. This is another grant from the State Homeland Security and it is a State pass‐through grant for $15,129.79 and we just need a fund created for it and a line and then the money appropriated into it so that we can purchase the equipment and the services that we have in there. The two items that are in this particular grant are we have two portable radios, one for myself and one for my deputy, that are what they call dual‐band so we can do our State 800 and the VHF that the fire departments do on the same radio without having to carry two radios around with us. The other item that is on there is for continuation of our damage assessment with 39 Degrees North. (Cobine) I’m all for a lighter utility belt so that sounds good; room for something else probably. (Comerford) Right. In fact I have a Deputy Director now, the VHF radio we only had one of them to begin with so that gives us both one and also combines it for us. (Yoder) Jim, in many places whenever I would imagine seeing the emergency management person is always bad. Every single time you come in here it is always great. You always come in with getting grants or ideas so thank you. It is always good to see you. (Comerford) Thank you. I hope it stays that way, I hope we don’t have anything real bad happen. (Yoder) That’s exactly right; we’re thankful. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Munson – yes McKim – yes Spoonmore – yes Yoder – yes Cobine – yes Hawk – yes Jones – yes Motion passed. 12. YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU Request for Approval of Additional Appropriation Fund 9129‐000, GYSD Grant 20.0001 Project Supplies $ 600.00 30.0001 Transportation 400.00 Total: $1,000.00 Cobine made a motion to approve the request for additional appropriation. Jones seconded. (Mark Delaney, Acting Director, YSB) I have Allison Zimpfler here with me as well, she is our Community Education and Training Coordinator. We are here tonight to request the creation of a new fund with budget lines and appropriations for the Global Youth Service Day grant that we received. It is the first time that we’ve

of 150


Page 13

received this grant. We are actually the lead agency for the Monroe County Youth Council. So this particular money will be used for support of the Global Youth Service Day which happens on April 15th of this year. (Hawk) It doesn’t take a lot to really provide some of the services that the youth really are going to enjoy and learn from and so $1,000 may not seem like a lot compared to some of our other budgets, but this is going to make a really great time for the youth there. So thank you. (Delaney) Absolutely, thank you. (Munson) Mark and Allison, thank you for winning yet another grant and a new grant. I hope it is something that might continue for us. (Delaney) Thank you. This is definitely something that we haven’t been able to do in the past and with the new positions, Allison is actually in a new position at the YSB, we did the organizational change and the restructure last year. So things are really moving along. After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Hawk – yes Cobine – yes McKim – yes Munson – yes Jones – yes Yoder – yes Spoonmore – yes Motion passed. 13. HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS A. Building Commission Deappropriation of Fund 1000‐312 Secretary – COMOT III From: To: Difference:

10.0008 Secretary (COMOT III) $30,575.00 $27,816.00 $2,759.00 11.8001 Fringe 6,420.75 5,841.36 579.39 11.8101 FICA 2,338.99 2,127.92 211.06 11.8201 PERF 4,341.65 3,949.87 391.78 Total: $3,941.23

Cobine made a motion to approve the deappropriation as presented. Jones seconded. (Flory) I can give you some background and this actually goes in line with a policy decision I think you would need to make. When we were in budget hearings and budgeted for this position it was held by somebody who was at the midpoint salary range. They left that position and after they left a new hire was brought in at the beginning salary range. The Salary Ordinance was correctly approved with the lower beginning range salary. The policy decision I think you want to think about is it is budgeted at a higher amount and the budget is the higher amount. You need to think whether you want to, when you learn of positions being filled at a lower level, do you always want to deappropriate those funds? If you do that means that your reversions at the end of the year are going to be less. It won’t mess up the way they are paid because payment of any employee is governed by the Salary Ordinance, the amount budgeted and the policy. So even if the Salary Ordinance and amount budgeted hadn’t been changed, our policy is that a new employee coming in with no background does start at the beginning level. I was talking to the Auditor about this earlier and he pointed out that going in and

of 150


Page 14

deappropriating every time the opportunity comes up may result in reversions being less and I think it will be helpful when we see actually what our reversions have tracked over time if that is something that you want to keep in mind as you make these decisions. But for right now, it is a savings of almost $4,000 and deappro‐priating the money will give us a more accurate picture of what we are budgeting and expecting to spend in the coming year. (Hawk) I think that if we do this, and I’m certainly not saying that we should not do it, then we need to have something in place that would trigger making sure we adjust everyone’s budget, not just the Building Department but throughout. I’m hoping that maybe through payroll they would be able to adjust it, there would be some way that we would be notified because let’s say if you have a much larger budget and you’re hiring some of these folks in at a lesser amount, let’s say if you have an hourly line, you can move that down into hourly and spend more money than what we really thought that they would be spending on hourly, what we had originally budgeted for hourly. Some of these larger budgets could really make a lot more use of hourly which maybe we don’t support. So I don’t know whether the payroll department, whether there is anything that would just trigger it so that it is not a lot of extra work but I do think that maybe once a month or every two months or something we could go through and adjust several and read them all off at one time so we’re not taking two or three hours to do it. (Munson) So what you’re saying is have a regular housekeeping action every two or three months to take care of this across all departments. (Hawk) Right. (Munson) Well that’s certainly better than taking it one‐by‐one every time. It really is a housekeeping matter but it is an important one because it forecasts for us where we are. I do recall that we had to deal with a cash flow issue at one time and I think you all remember that. Again that is something that is pertinent there. (Hawk) We could send that message out to the department heads that we expect them to notify us so that we’re not having to work so hard to find it. But then hopefully there will be some other way we can trigger it as well. (McKim) I completely support that idea. While it is true that your reversions are going to be less, your budget is also going to be less too. So when you deappropriate you’re essentially saying that there is zero percent chance that is going to be spent. If you’re relying on reversions there is some non‐zero percent chance that it could be spent. So just like Councilor Hawk said, it could be transferred to hourly for example. (Flory) It is almost like giving yourself a $4,000 reversion in January. (Jones) I would like to ask Mrs. Chambers where or not this is going to be very disruptive to the Auditor’s office? (Therese Chambers, Chief Deputy Auditor) I don’t think it would be disruptive, per se; but it would be time consuming for the payroll person. We do have a payroll backup that could possibly fall into this. If we would be fortunate enough to get Ms. Stonecipher’s position taken to full time, this might also be something we could add to her duties. She volunteered that. (Jones) This is something that I would be in favor of doing these deappropriations and especially bundling a lot of them together but I really don’t want to put a whole lot of extra work on the Auditor’s office so I would like to find another way to do it. (Hawk) It may be something that we don’t know about that he is going to be able to say oh well sure we can see that as it comes through.

of 150


Page 15

(Yoder) I would like the idea of being able to have a better idea when we do go into budget hearings and looking at departments’ budgets to have a better idea of really what was spent versus just starting from the same place every year and expecting those reversions. So while I agree with Councilor Munson I don’t want to put any more undue burden on the Auditor’s office, it does seem like it would be a way for the County to have a better idea of really what we’re spending year‐to‐year. (Cobine) Similar to everybody else, I think this is a good idea to do and in terms of what is the trigger that initiates the Council office being aware of this, that is something we can’t hash out right now, I don’t believe, but it is something that bears a little bit of looking at I think. We do typically receive a notice from department heads when they’re planning on hiring a new position, of course that is for any position whether it is going to be at the same level or not, so that is maybe a slightly wider net but what follows that? How do we become aware that there is a need for the change in the Salary Ordinance, for example? That could be a trigger as well. So I think the details of this can be worked out and I think everybody is onboard with trying to minimize the amount of additional work it might be however that works out. So this is a hopeful change for the future. (Flory) I don’t see this as being a big administrative burden. They do send us an email saying I’ve got an opening would Council review, if you don’t have any problems with filling it, they act within 48 hours, if you want a further review then that kicks that off. So that is our tickler right there that there is a change in a position and we can simply do some simple follow up or alert payroll down in the Auditor’s office that you may be getting a change and we can announce at a department head meeting that we want department heads to let us know if they fill a position with somebody at a lower rate. So I just don’t think it is a huge bureaucratic burden that we’re putting on anybody, including ourselves. (Munson) I think it is a big difference between doing this six times a year and four times a year; four makes better sense to me since we are on a calendar of twelve months anyway. Would this be just a matter of course that payroll would handle with the Council office? (Flory) No, we deappropriate the money and let the Auditor know for their budgetary reasons; payroll just pays the amount that is requested when the pay invoice comes in. So they should be able to track it as the same thing. But it doesn’t put any burden on payroll that I can see. We’re doing a lot of important discussion because it is kind of a policy decision but it really took about 40 seconds to read the actual motion and when you know that it is part of this thing it should move fairly quickly I think. (Munson) I think so too. So Council what is your pleasure? Do you want to act on this motion that is before us tonight and then move toward our general policy for the future? After a call for public comment, Stonecipher called roll: Yoder – yes Spoonmore – yes Munson – yes Hawk – yes McKim – yes Jones – yes Cobine – yes Motion passed.

of 150


Page 16

B. Auditor’s Office Fund 4604, 2013 GO Bond [Pulled from agenda.] 14. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 13, 2015 Regular Session October 13, 2015 Budget Adoption October 14, 2015 Budget Adoption Cobine made a motion to approve the October 13, 2015 Regular Session minutes as presented. Jones seconded. (Hawk) I have not read these. I’ve spent a lot of time working on County Government. (Munson) Some of those minutes are really long. (Hawk) I’ve waded through parts of them and then I’d get stopped and be talking about whatever the latest crisis is for County Government. Even if I am not on any of these committees, by the way I am still working almost full time for County Government. It is possible for me to just say pass when we get ready for the votes? (Munson) Of course. (Hawk) And I will tell you, I have gone to these minutes with some questions and trying to find some answers and the other wonderful thing that Ms. Stonecipher is able to do for us is if I say, “What was it we did about so and so?” because it is hard to remember all that and boy she can pull it up and say, “Here it is in the minutes,” and she has it ready for us. I just cannot say thank you enough for that. I appreciate it. Motion passed by voice vote. (Munson) Do you wish to record your pass? (Hawk) No, I read that one. It is the budget minutes. Cobine made a motion to approve the October 13, 2015 Budget Adoption minutes. Jones seconded. Motion passed by voice vote. Cobine made a motion to approve the October 14, 2015 Budget Adoption minutes. Jones seconded. Motion passed by voice vote.

*** *** *** RESOLUTION 2016‐06:

Making Council Appointments and Reappointments to Certain Boards and Commissions for 2016 Cobine made a motion to approve Resolution 2016‐06, making Council appointments and reappointments to certain Boards and Commissioners for 2016.

of 150


Page 17

(Munson) So now I would like to call on Councilor Jones who has taken on the big job of heading up the Council’s Appointments Committee and she can tell us about the three Boards and Commissions that are being filled tonight and just tell us what they do please. (Jones) We have the Alcoholic Beverage Commission which oversees licenses for serving alcoholic beverages. Environmental Quality and Sustainability Commission is, of course, dealing with various situations that have to do with the quality of the environment and the sustainability of our community, they are very frequently directed by the Commissioners. Parks and Recreation, I think we know what that does. The Redevelopment Commission, I’m going to say basically oversees the TIFs. (Munson) So I think you can see that these are very important jobs that our citizens are doing in our community. Jones seconded. (Hawk) I’m going to pass since I’m just seeing this just now. I appreciate the work that the Council members on the Appointing Committee have put on this but I’m going to pass.

of 150


Page 18

(Munson) The other member of the Appointments Committee was Councilor McKim and we have appoint‐ments that come due on January 1 and we are anxious to fill them right away. Some of these Boards and Commissions are very busy, they have work they want to tackle so we did rush to get these appointments made and interestingly, the City of Bloomington has their appointments come due on February 1 rather than January 1. This is something that maybe the County will look at in terms of having a little more time to recruit people to serve on Boards and Commissions and for an Appointments Committee and for all of us to be able to make these considerations. (McKim) I want to thank all of our citizen appointees. I know a lot of them put in some good time and some of the jobs can be quite challenging so we appreciate everyone who is willing to serve. (Munson) I want to extend our collective thanks to the outgoing members of these Boards and Commissions and we will deal with a resolution about that at our next meeting. Motion passed by voice vote. (Jones) We do still have several openings at this time on our Boards and Commissions for Council appointments. We have one opening on the Environmental Quality and Sustainability Commission and we have two openings on the Women’s Commission. (Munson) Thank you, and you may find applications on the County’s website and pass the word please to people you know who might be interested in either of those Commissions. 15. COUNCIL COMMENT (Cobine) Early in December, Monroe County CASA, which stands for Court Appointed Special Advocates, welcomed 17 new advocates to the CASA program including the County’s own Eric Evans, the Director of Monroe County’s Technical Services. These advocates will not be assigned to one or more of the 94 children in Monroe County who are waiting for an advocate. CASAs are community volunteers who are professionally trained to gather information about the child, his or her family, needs and possible services, and to speak on behalf of the child in court. To become a CASA advocate, please go to www.monroecountycasa.org/volunteer‐application to download and application or you can call 812‐333‐CASA for more information. The next training for CASAs begins in February on the 19th. (Hawk) This is the beginning of a new year, a new day, and we have a lot of work ahead of us. I’m not so sure it started out real well for some of us seeing some of the problems that we’ve had in the last week or so but we’re going to work through it, we’re going to follow along and we will have some perhaps at the work session working through some of these things that we will be discussing. What I wanted to say is that I’m hoping that at the beginning of this new year that our County Commissioners will do something that I’ve been asking for for quite some time and that is let the light of day in on those Tuesday meetings. They may seem boring to some and I know it is not a real organized thing because it is sort of like our work session but if they had it in here they could have the cameras rolling and the public could hear what is being discussed about the public’s business. We’ve started doing that with the Redevelopment Commission. I’m not sure everybody wanted to do that to begin with and now they really, I think, embrace the idea. So I’m hoping our Commissioners will do that as well as I am hoping that our new Mayor, Hamilton, will suggest that happen with their Redevelopment Commission just as our has because they’re making so many decisions with the public’s dollar and there are some new appointments there as well. So I’m hoping that this will be a new year for this County and for this City that will bring more of the meetings open to the public and let the public hear what is happening with their business. (McKim) Hear, hear.

of 150


Page 19

(Munson) Well let me add for the Council and for the public that I attend or the Vice President attends each of the Commissioners’ Tuesday meetings and we take notes and we send them out afterward to share with the entire Council because people have other things they do, for example, their jobs. So taking turns is very helpful but it is not quite the same as being there and hearing the discussion live and I agree that it would be good to have this on CATS and I wish it could work out. I agree with Councilor Hawk on this. (Hawk) Thank you. We could watch it live or if we don’t have the time to watch it while it is going on Tuesday at 2:00 and we wanted to watch it the next day at 7:00 at night we can do that as long as it is on CATS so I’m hoping we will do that. (Yoder) I would agree with you. I think how it helps is it brings greater insight and a bigger picture into our con‐versations because so much of what we talk about it interconnected but when we get them piece‐mealed out like that, how many times we get different agenda items, it is difficult to sort of piece it together and how it fits within the whole County. So having those meetings broadcasted does provide a richer context to other things going on in the County. (McKim) And I really don’t feel like it has harmed the Redevelopment Commission discussion at all. I’m not a member but I attend every one of those meetings and the discussions seems every bit as robust and frank as it did before the cameras were there. (Hawk) As I said, I think they embrace it; I think they are really happy to do that now. (Munson) And I think the format that we set up [for Council work sessions] with the tables clustered in the center [with] all of us facing each other which supports communication is something that I think the RDC went to and I think the Commissioners would be able to work with that as well. But meanwhile, I will go home tonight and I will correct some misspellings in my notes and send them to you soon. 16. ADJOURNMENT President Munson adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

*** *** ***

of 150


Page 20

The Minutes from the Regular Session of the Monroe County Council held on January 12, 2016, were approved on ________________________________, 2016.


Aye Nay _______________________________ ________________________________ Cheryl Munson, President Cheryl Munson, President _______________________________ ________________________________ Ryan Cobine, President Pro Tempore Ryan Cobine, President Pro Tempore _______________________________ ________________________________ Shelli Yoder, Member Shelli Yoder, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Eric Spoonmore, Member Eric Spoonmore, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Marty Hawk, Member Marty Hawk, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Lee Jones, Member Lee Jones, Member _______________________________ ________________________________ Geoff McKim, Member Geoff McKim, Member Attest: ________________________________ Steve Saulter, Monroe County Auditor

of 150

FEBRUARY 9, 2016 at 5:30 pm REGULAR SESSION AGENDA · 2/9/2016 · FUND 4931-001, VOTER...

Documents

Transcript of FEBRUARY 9, 2016 at 5:30 pm REGULAR SESSION AGENDA · 2/9/2016 · FUND 4931-001, VOTER...