VANDERBURGH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 12, 2017

Transcription

1 The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners met in session this 12 th day of December, 2017 at 3:04 p.m. in Room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Bruce Ungethiem presiding. Call to Order President Ungethiem: Good afternoon. I would like to welcome you all to order the Board of Commissioners meeting for December 12, Attendance Roll Call President Ungethiem: The first order of business is attendance. Madelyn, will you please take care of that for us? Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Shoulders? Commissioner Shoulders: Here. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Musgrave? Commissioner Musgrave: Here. Madelyn Grayson: President Ungethiem? President Ungethiem: Here. Having three members present, we do have a quorum. Pledge of Allegiance President Ungethiem: Would you please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance? (The Pledge of Allegiance was given.) President Ungethiem: Thank you very much. Introduction of Students in Attendance President Ungethiem: I know we have one student here. Do we have others? Please come forward and state your name Commissioner Musgrave: No, you can do it right here. President Ungethiem: --you can do it right here. Erica Will: Oh, okay. I m Erica Will. I m from North. President Ungethiem: Erica is doing a job shadow. Maggie Couch: I m Maggie Couch and I m from Mater Dei. President Ungethiem: Okay, very good. Thank you and welcome. Do you want to sit up here with us? Good. We ll ask you for your opinion here in a minute. Resolution CO.R : to the General Assembly Regarding House Bill 1006 President Ungethiem: Okay, moving right along, the first item on the action items is a resolution CO.R This resolution will go to the Indiana General Assembly regarding House Bill 1006.

2 Page 2 of 31 Commissioner Musgrave: Do you want me to read it? President Ungethiem: Yes, if you could please. Commissioner Musgrave: This resolution was Commissioner Ungethiem s idea last year, and you actually spoke to Representative Washburne who put it into an amendment, but it didn t survive that process, but, a great idea is still a great idea. Let me go ahead and read it. WHEREAS, in 2015, the Indiana General Assembly passed House Bill 1006 which provided that sentenced Level 6 felons must serve their criminal sentences in a county jail within the county of the sentencing judge; and WHEREAS, on any given day, the Vanderburgh County Jail, generally has over 100 sentenced non- eligible Indiana Department of Corrections Level 6 felons housed in the Vanderburgh County Jail; WHEREAS, the Vanderburgh County Jail is currently overcrowded and understaffed as determined by the Indiana Department of Corrections pursuant to a jail Non-Compliance Letter sent to the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County on October 27, 2017, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ; and; WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County requests that the Indiana General Assembly pass legislation modifying House Bill 1006, whereby if a county jail is overcrowded, as determined by the Indiana Department of Corrections, then Level 6 non-eligible Indiana Department of Corrections sentenced felons shall not serve their judicially imposed sentences in such overcrowded county jail, but instead shall serve such sentence in a facility operated by the Indiana Department of Corrections. Commissioner Musgrave: Now, Therefore, be it resolved, so forth and so on. A very good idea, and I hope that our Legislators listen to this. President Ungethiem: Okay, we had the resolution reading. I would entertain a motion to approve the resolution for sending it to the General Assembly. Commissioner Musgrave: I move approval. Commissioner Shoulders: I will second the motion. President Ungethiem: We have a motion and a second. Anyone have any questions or any further discussion? This is obviously an issue that s going to be in the forefront of local concerns for the next few years, until we get the issues at the jail resolved. We re simply asking that the State recognize that some county jails are overcrowded. It is not that we don t want to house State inmates, it is that we physically don t have the space for them. Currently the State does have the space, their jail system is, at last count, somewhere around 75 percent occupied, where ours is well over 100 percent occupied. So, we are just asking them for some relief in House Bill Commissioner Musgrave: Let me add one thing, we get paid $35 a day to house these folks, right? President Ungethiem: Currently. Commissioner Musgrave: But, our Sheriff has shared with us that it costs about $55 a day, when you take in Commissioner Shoulders: Yeah. Commissioner Musgrave: -- all of the costs that the county has to bear. So, not only are they sending us prisoners that we have no room for, it costs more to care for them than they are paying for. Commissioner Shoulders: And, I will add too, Commissioner Ungethiem, I believe it s 142 of our 700 plus inmates are affected because of that Bill 1006? I believe that number is right at 122, Sheriff? Somewhere in that vicinity. Joe Harrison, Jr.: I think it goes up and down. Commissioner Shoulders: Yeah, it fluctuates, but I think it s between ?

3 Page 3 of 31 Dave Wedding: Right now we probably have a tad bit over 100. Commissioner Shoulders: About a hundred? Dave Wedding: Level 6 felons. Commissioner Shoulders: Yeah. Dave Wedding: They do allow us to send the prisoners to other Sheriff s Offices. We just take our reimbursement and pay others. Right now we have about Level 6 s in other jails. Some of the problem is you get some females, and the Sheriff s Offices that are in close proximity to us, they don t have space for female inmates. So, we re on the phone and we re jockeying inmates back and forth. The Posey County Jail just opened up, we sent like 20 to their jail immediately, and we re working on plans to continue to send that, until we get almost all of our Level 6 s in the custody of other Sheriff s. Commissioner Musgrave: And, that takes your time Dave Wedding: So, we are working on that Commissioner Shoulders: But, Sheriff Dave Wedding: What s that? Commissioner Musgrave: That takes your time and your resources to do that. Dave Wedding: Oh, sure, yeah, and we have a person that works several hours a day Commissioner Shoulders: Right. Dave Wedding: -- making those arrangements. You know, going back and forth and things like that. Commissioner Shoulders: And losing money, due to the $55/$35 thing. Dave Wedding: Well, now, on the Level 6 s we re sending out, we re paying equal to what we re being reimbursed for. Commissioner Shoulders: Right, and on average daily it s about a hundred plus? Dave Wedding: About a hundred Level 6 felons. Commissioner Shoulders: Here? Dave Wedding: Yes. Commissioner Shoulders: Yeah, okay. Dave Wedding: Thank you. Commissioner Shoulders: Thanks, Sheriff. President Ungethiem: Any other discussion? We have a motion and a second. Roll call please. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Shoulders? Commissioner Shoulders: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Musgrave? Commissioner Musgrave: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: President Ungethiem? President Ungethiem: Yes, and it is, the resolution is approved by a 3-0 vote. (Motion approved 3-0)

4 Page 4 of 31 CO : Amending the Ordinance Establishing the County Riverboat Casino Fund President Ungethiem: Moving on to the next item, is amendment to the ordinance establishing a County Riverboat Casino Fund. This is CO The original ordinance was passed about a month ago. Joe Harrison, Jr.: I think it was November 27 th. President Ungethiem: November 27 th, and at that point in time the effective date was indicated to be for budget year Joe Harrison, Jr.: That s correct. President Ungethiem: This discussion is to determine whether that ordinance should be made effective immediately, and in order to do that, my understanding is, the first thing we would have to do was to, is to pass a motion to waive second and final reading and be able to do both readings tonight. Is that correct? Joe Harrison, Jr.: Well, you would be considering an amendment to that previous ordinance, and if you want to have it go into effect immediately, you would waive final reading of the ordinance in front of you, that would take effect immediately. So, that would be the motion, and then you would vote on the actual ordinance amendment. President Ungethiem: So, we would have two motions, one to waive second and final reading, and then the second one on the motion itself? Joe Harrison, Jr.: And both would have to be unanimous for it to take effect immediately. President Ungethiem: Okay. Commissioner Musgrave: I ll make that motion. President Ungethiem: So, your first motion is to waive second and final reading of ordinance CO ? Commissioner Musgrave: Yes, sir. Commissioner Shoulders: To take effect immediately, correct? President Ungethiem: This is to Commissioner Shoulders: To move President Ungethiem: --waive Commissioner Shoulders: --yeah, so, second, yes. President Ungethiem: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Any further discussion? Brian Gerth: Bruce, I would like to make a comment. I just want to go on record that I asked for this to go into effect for the 2019 budget, because the 2018 budget has already been passed. By moving this revenue stream to another fund, it will put funding in jeopardy as it sits today, so there will be items that will need to be adjusted, repealed or something going forward. Commissioner Musgrave: And, let me just make a comment, at the time the budget was set, the additional tax enacted by the City Council, which will pump several million dollars into the county budget for public safety was not in place, and that there is some elasticity in the county budget in order to cope with that necessity. Brian Gerth: And, that is true, it s just, it s a timing thing, so, by, I mean, we re going to have to move things around, and the budget is, we won t have the budget order until at least February 15 th. So, as far as moving these other things around, it s going to take a few months, so, I just want to put that on record.

5 Page 5 of 31 President Ungethiem: Okay, it s on record. Commissioner Shoulders: And, Commissioner Ungethiem, I will add, just to reiterate from our last meeting, we use this fund for many economic related reasons, to fund economic driven entities and organizations in our community. So, that s why this is so important to us. President Ungethiem: Okay, let s have a roll call vote. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Shoulders? Commissioner Shoulders: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Musgrave? Commissioner Musgrave: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: President Ungethiem? President Ungethiem: Yes, and the motion to waive second and final reading on ordinance CO is approved. (Motion approved 3-0) President Ungethiem: The second thing that would need to happen is a motion to approve first and final reading of the amended CO , which makes that ordinance effective immediately. Commissioner Musgrave: So moved. Commissioner Shoulders: Second. President Ungethiem: We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Both Commissioners have indicated that this (Inaudible) issues for Infrastructure and Economic Development. What we were working with here when the County Commissioners put together the budget, they put in a number of funds for that Economic Development line item and for that Infrastructure line item. The County Council, without informing the County Commissioners, took some of that money away, and on final budget passage used some of that money for operational expenses out at the jail. That was not the intent of the Riverboat money. It was never supposed to be used for operational expenses. So, the County Commissioners made the decision to, for this resolution to do what the State allows them to do, which is to take control of that Riverboat funding. Oh, I was not on, to take control of that Riverboat money and make sure that it is used for its intended purpose. So, with that in mind, any further comments or questions? Commissioner Musgrave: This ordinance mirrors, pretty exactly, the ordinance that s in place in the city. President Ungethiem: That is correct. Commissioner Musgrave: So, the Mayor submits the budget for those funds to the Council, so now we will also submit the budget to Council for that. So, this is already tried and true in our community, and I believe it will be successful. Commissioner Shoulders: And, I just, I think, I could be mistaken, that in the past that s how it used to be, I thought. Now, it s been awhile, but I believe that the Commissioners did before. Commissioner Musgrave: A lot more influence than Commissioner Shoulders: I just want to go on record on that, so. Commissioner Musgrave: --we do now. Commissioner Shoulders: Yeah. President Ungethiem: My understanding is that s been gradually eroding over time.

6 Page 6 of 31 Commissioner Shoulders: Fair enough, yeah. President Ungethiem: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Roll call please. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Shoulders? Commissioner Shoulders: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Musgrave? Commissioner Musgrave: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: President Ungethiem? President Ungethiem: Yes. (Motion approved 3-0) President Ungethiem: Ordinance CO is approved unanimously and will take effect immediately. Commissioner Musgrave: I just want to make sure that it gets advertised immediately. How soon can you do that? Brian Gerth: I mean, it will go through Council so, I mean, we ve already missed the deadline for January s meeting. Joe Harrison, Jr.: No, we re talking about the advertisement. Brian Gerth: Oh, the ordinance? Joe Harrison, Jr.: So it can take effect. You can put it in this week, or soon. Madelyn Grayson: Possibly Friday or Monday. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Okay. Commissioner Musgrave: Alright, could you let us know? Alright. President Ungethiem: Okay. First Reading and Permission to Advertise Notice of Public Hearing: CO.V : Vacation of Right-of-Way in Talon Place President Ungethiem: Moving on to the first reading of CO.V , permission to advertise a notice of public hearing. This is a petition to vacate.179 acres of right-of-way in Talon Place. I would entertain a motion to approve first reading and permission to advertise public hearing. Commissioner Musgrave: So moved. Commissioner Shoulders: I will second the motion. President Ungethiem: We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote please. Well, any discussion? Roll call vote please. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Shoulders? Commissioner Shoulders: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Musgrave? Commissioner Musgrave: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: President Ungethiem? President Ungethiem: Yes. (Motion approved 3-0)

7 Page 7 of 31 President Ungethiem: The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January the 2 nd at 3:00 p.m. in this room, 301. Resolution CO.R : Supporting I-69 Central Corridor 1 Selection President Ungethiem: Resolution CO.R is a resolution supporting the I-69 Central Corridor 1 selection. I think there s a couple of people here to talk about that. If you would come forward and state your name. Bob Koch: My name is Bob Koch. I m the President of a group called BridgeLink, which is a group of business people and elected officials and doctors from Henderson and Evansville. The resolution has to do with connecting I-69 from Indiana, from Evansville to Henderson. You know, if you drive on it now you see I-69 ends here at, before you get to the bridge. So, there s a group studying it right now, doing an environmental impact study on what s the best route to connect Evansville to Henderson. They have three routes chosen, they re down to three routes. Two of them replace the old Highway 41, which would displace a bunch of businesses in Henderson, and only leave one bridge to get across, because it would tear out the old bridge. We re suggesting, with this resolution, that a new bridge be constructed, which would be a bit east of Evansville, about, leave the I-69 Highway now around what would be Weinbach Avenue, and go across the river, across the Ohio, behind or to the east of Audubon Park, and then tie into the Pennyrile to continue a road all the way now then from, which would be, I don t know, Detroit down to near Memphis, Tennessee. So, we re asking the Council, or the Commissioners pass a resolution that would favor this route, this nondisruptive route, and leave the old 41 bridges, at least one of them, still there for, you know, passage back and forth through Evansville to Henderson. So, that would be our position, and we urge you to go ahead and pass this. This resolution has been passed by Henderson City Council, Evansville City Council and, I think, the Commissioners. Justin Groenert: The County Council, as well as the Henderson County government has passed this same resolution as well. Bob Koch: Yeah, so, we re asking you to join the group and give that support, please. Justin Groenert: And, I m Justin Groenert with the Southwest Indiana Chamber, for the record. President Ungethiem: Okay. Commissioner Shoulders: Obviously President Ungethiem: Any questions? Commissioner Shoulders: --I was going to thank you both, Bob and Justin, for being here today. Bob Koch: Thank you. Commissioner Shoulders: I appreciate you taking time to present. Commissioner Musgrave: I m very excited to support it. We hope that it grows wings and speeds to conclusion. I know that the BridgeLink team has worked very hard. Commissioner Shoulders: Absolutely. Commissioner Musgrave: With, you know, all of the parties, and that this corridor has moved forward with a great deal of support. So, I think that the decision makers can be comfortable that our communities will embrace it, and we want to do that embracing real fast. Commissioner Shoulders: Yeah. Commissioner Musgrave: I would be happy to make a motion to approve. Commissioner Shoulders: I will second the motion, and again how exciting this is. Thank you.

8 Page 8 of 31 President Ungethiem: We have a motion and a second to approve the resolution. Any further questions or comments from the public? I also sit on this board, and as an engineer and looking at the five different bridge options that we had, I immediately picked this one out of the bunch as being the most economical and most feasible. I couldn t understand, and I think, Bob, you and I had the same sentiment, why is this taking this long to complete this task in spending $30 million to figure out what s intuitively obvious to most observers when we looked at it the first time. So, I wholeheartedly support this, and hope that we can get this resolved and on the way as soon as possible. Bob Koch: Good. President Ungethiem: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Roll call vote please. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Shoulders? Commissioner Shoulders: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Musgrave? Commissioner Musgrave: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: President Ungethiem? President Ungethiem: Yes. (Motion approved 3-0) President Ungethiem: The resolution is approved by a 3-0 vote, and we will send that forward. Bob Koch: Great, thank you very much. President Ungethiem: Thank you. Commissioner Shoulders: Thank you guys. Ordinance CO : Replacing Chapter 17.26, Repealing Chapter & Amending Chapter of the County Code: Sign Ordinance Approved First Reading of Option 3 President Ungethiem: Okay, the next item is ordinance CO This is an ordinance that deals with signs, and it replaces chapter 17.26, and amends of the Vanderburgh County code. We will open this up for discussion. I think Ron London from Area Plan is here, and we have a couple of other people that may want to speak to this. Ron London: Good afternoon. I just wanted to come up here and just give you a little bit of background of where we came up with the ordinances that we have here, and then Dirck will give some descriptions of the, get into a little bit more of the meats and bones of the ordinances themselves. But, several years ago there was a working group that was put together with several sign companies, business owners, real estate agents, there were probably 30 people that sat on this board. It also had Commissioners and a City Council person involved in the discussions at that time. Basically, what we looked at was just revamping the entire sign code. This had dealt with the city code at the time. The ordinances that you have in front of you, Option #1, which you have, basically mirrors the city code. That, those discussion led, it probably took six months in that working group to come up with the new city code that you have, and the county code that we hope that you pass today. There were several discussions with all of those organizations, it probably took two to three meetings at the Area Plan Commission meeting and then coming before, going before City Council several times. I just wanted to give you just a little bit of background so that you knew what took place and how we got to that point. But, it was with a working group, and it took several months with that group to come up with this, but whenever it was all said and done, it was unanimous amongst the sign companies, the homebuilders, several of the commercial entities, real estate agents and people like that. So, I just wanted to give you a little background that we did do our due diligence whenever

9 Page 9 of 31 we did this. So, I ll let Dirck come up here and speak in regards to, kind of the meats and bones of the different options that you have before you. President Ungethiem: Okay. Dirck Stahl: Good afternoon. Dirck Stahl, attorney for Area Plan Commission. What we started with, in the case of the county, was, I think, mainly a request to change the process, as to certain entities having to, that have, I think probably because of an unintended consequence having to rezone little bitty squares of property, specifically churches and schools that have SU-1 and SU-2 approval within Residential and Agricultural zoning districts. So, we had this really odd thing where they would have to go through that whole process of, you know, coming before the Plan Commission with an ordinance, and then going to the County Commissioners to get all of that rezoned. All of the, I should mention, all four of the options in this packet that the Plan Commission considered and voted on, accomplish the removal of that process. So, that s across the board. The main difference between the different versions, other than that, is the first version, which we called Option #1, which the Plan Commission recommended approval, is what Ron was talking about in that it mirrors the city version, which does a couple of things. I should point out, there are some tweaks to it, because obviously the city and the county are not identical, but they re very minor, they re really non-substantive. But, what this does is, in addition to removing the rezoning requirement, it allows for production of, I guess, what I would call confusion, and it increases the efficiency in administering the ordinance, particularly with the staff of the Plan Commission office, but also with the developers, the sign companies, the owners that are at, coming in and asking for signs. Because, in this case, in the case of signs, the city and county code are so different. I mean, they re fundamentally put together differently, that it makes it very difficult to administer. So, that s one thing. The other thing is that, the county will get the benefit of that focus group and the working group that came together to make recommendations, as to changes in standards, as far as things like the number of signs that are permitted, the overall area of signs that are permitted, and you ll find that the, you know, one of the comments we get sometimes from the sign companies is, well, if we were doing this in the city, we wouldn t have to get a variance. Well, I think that the county would benefit from having the same circumstance where it s permissive enough that it opens up opportunities for people to have signs without variances that they wouldn t otherwise have. The specific, as I said before, the specific topic that kind of germinated all of this, was electronic message signs. Electronic message signs are, you know, in the grand scheme of things relatively new. They re becoming more and more popular. They are, nationwide, the most highly regulated type of sign that there is, with possible exception of temporary signs. But, they pose challenges in a couple of ways, and one has to do, and there are others, but one has to do with public safety. Probably the first question we get when someone comes to ask for a Special Use Permit for an electronic sign is, is this going to interfere with traffic? Is this going to be too distracting to the drivers? The second issue that comes up has to do with what, I guess, for lack of a better term I would call light pollution, where these signs put out a quantity and a quality of light, or have the capacity to, that can sometimes become, you know, people complain that it shines in their windows, or it interferes with their enjoyment of their property. We ve had a number of cases where those situations have been addressed by the Board of Zoning Appeals in the process of granting a Special Use Permit. The other thing that separates these four different versions is that, so #1 is just like the city, and it requires a Special Use Permit, but it also gets rid of the zoning requirement. #2 is like the, it s the structure of your current ordinance, which does, I mean, you do currently require Special Use Permits for electronic signs, but it stays with the basic structure of the county ordinance, which, as I said, is kind of confusing because it s so different from the city. The third option is like the city, it sort of mirrors the city, with the exception that it removes, at the request of Mr. Harrison on behalf of the Commission, removes the requirement that electronic signs get SU-13 permission. In other words, it takes out that step. And the fourth version eliminates the rezoning and the Special Use requirement, but maintains the county version structure that has proven to be very confusing. So, the Plan Commission in hearing about and voting and considering on, considering all of these four different options, voted overwhelmingly for approval of Option #1, and it rejected the other three. The conversation really centered on the Special Use question. I want to back up just for a second and talk about what Special Use designations and the Special Use process provides. The two main things that it provides are notice and hearing opportunities, so

10 Page 10 of 31 that surrounding neighbors can come in, or just concerned members of the public can come in and address the concerns that they have about things like the, you know, excessive light, you know, or being obtrusive, or being too distracting to drivers and thus a public safety concern. But, it also, and probably more importantly gives the Board of Zoning Appeals the ability to make changes and to have, to work with the sign companies, the owners and the surrounding property owners to accommodate those concerns. Not only does that solve problems when it comes to the underlying concerns, such as public safety and the obtrusiveness of the light being generated, but it also reduces, dramatically reduces, the number of complaints that you get later on. So, it tends to satisfy everyone. So, we consider it an important part of due process for surrounding property owners especially, to have the ability to come in and talk about how they want to preserve their, not only the safety for their children and their community, but also their property values. Because you can imagine, especially in a residential area, if you have a sign that is in the wrong position that s too bright, that is, you know, has other things that could be changed about it, it can really be very obtrusive. We get lots and lots of remonstrators that come in and talk about electronic signs, particularly in residential neighborhoods. Now, you would think that the, you know, while it should be a no brainer that churches and schools don t have to rezone that little, you know, square of land, we do get remonstrators, in residential areas, where churches and schools want to put their signs, because they want to make sure that they re going to be positioned and operated in a way that is, has the least impact on their enjoyment of their community and their property. So, this process happens frequently, and I wanted to talk to you about an example of that process, but before I do that, I want to pass out your Special Use ordinance, and just say a couple of things. So, the way Special Use approval works, and the way the process works, is similar, very similar to the way the BZA considers variances, in that it has specific criteria that it has to follow. So, you know, there are three things that BZA does, one is variances, two is Special Uses, and three is appeals. With variances they have very strict standards that they have to match, almost boxes they have to check. With Special Uses they have these, if you look at the very bottom of the first page, it starts enumerated considerations, they go one through six, whether the specific site is an appropriate location for the use, whether it will adversely affect the surrounding area, whether it will pose a serious hazard to vehicles, pedestrians or residents, and so forth. Those are all the type of considerations that I m talking about here. Those are the type of considerations that people come in and talk about when they are concerned about having a new electronic sign in their area or in their neighborhood or across the street. So, those are very specific things that the Board of Zoning Appeals is supposed to consider. So, you have a variance, which is a very strict set of things. You have this, one through six criteria that must be considered, it s not quite as strict as a variance, but what it s not like is an appeal, where the BZA is basically given little to no guidance as to the standards that it s supposed to consider, by either the ordinance or the statute. So, the process is that people come in, the applicants come in, usually represented by a sign company, and they talk about their sign, they have a sign plan, and they present information as to dimensions of the sign, the position that, where it s going to be located on the lot, how high up it s going to be or how close to the ground it s going to be, and they can talk about things like hours of operation or dimming effects or things like that. Back in 2012, and I guess I should mention, very rarely are these denied. You know, in fact, I can t think of one that s ever been denied, but when I said the most important thing that it provides is an opportunity for the BZA and the applicants and the neighbors to work together to figure out how to do this in a way that s least obstructive, this is an example. Back in 2012 there was an application for an electronic sign on Green River Road, and it was just north of Morgan Avenue, and this was, this particular one was River City Pawn. So, north of Morgan Avenue, but south of Theater Drive on the, you may remember, you may know where this is, on the east side of the street. When it was first presented in July of 2012, there were some concerns voiced about the proliferation of signs, in general, on that little shopping area, which is kind of like, I guess, you would call it a strip mall. The concerns were that this sign shouldn t be added to those, it should replace one, or more. You would think, you know, naturally, given that electronic signs are considered to be quite effective, and that s why they sell so many of them, compared to other kinds of signs, that it ought to be able to at least replace a sign, a regular nonelectronic sign. So, the discussion ensued about that, and I m pointing this particular one out because it will be familiar to Mrs. Musgrave, because she, at that time, sat on the Board of Zoning Appeals. And, she echoed the concern that had originally been expressed by the President of the BZA at the time, Mike Rudolph, and during the roll call

11 Page 11 of 31 vote she said, I m going to vote no, and I wish that they would take the existing sign and replace it with the electronic message board. I don t necessarily have a problem with electronic message boards. So, as it turned out, there was someone absent, so they couldn t come up with four votes either way, and that immediately kicked it to the next meeting, because it was a no action result. At the next meeting, when the applicants got back up, Mr. Rudolph immediately asked, So, what s different now? What have you done in the last 30 days to try to address the concerns that were expressed by the people who voted no last time? They really didn t have any changes. They didn t have any new information. They were just back because, I mean, essentially it was on the docket. You know, Mr. Rudolph made the same kind of comment, he said, You know, in my opinion, if nothing has changed and it remains the same, that s an awful lot of signs for that one business. If you stand back a couple hundred feet, north and south, there s an awful lot of signs up and down there. So, basically, nothing was changed to fix the concern that was expressed, and at that point the result was, again, three to three, three approve, three deny, and, Mrs. Musgrave, you may recall that you voted to deny it on that occasion as well. Although nobody made any comments. But, the next month, when everyone came back, the gentleman from the sign company said, What I passed out to you is a revision I think was discussed at one of the previous meetings where we have now moved the electronic message center, and now moved it underneath that existing sign head, so the appearance will be that it looks more like one sign, rather than having the separation, so that it s more than one sign. There was a short discussion after that, but at that point it passed. There was only one no vote. You know, that s the process that it goes through where you have, not only the members of the BZA who are, you know, experienced in this sort of thing after hearing them over and again, but also you have the opportunity for people to come in. We have example after example after example of residents who will come in and they will ask that, at least that they be heard, and usually it results in some kind of a concession or a condition or a revision to the sign plan, where the sign is either moved up or down, or back or forth, or turned some way, or restrictions are placed on the brightness of the sign, or the hours during which its displaying messages, or the hours which it s displaying static messages versus moving messages. You know, there have been churches, there was recently a little insurance agency, or a CPA down on Covert in the middle of a bunch of residences, and that really speaks to the process and why it s important. So, it s not an arbitrary process. It has specific criteria, and it s one that we have found has been quite valuable in allowing the public to protect their property and to protect their safety. It also is a problem solving process. Taking that away does, it does remove a step, but it removes a step that is valuable to people, because there s not just one voice to consider here. There s the person who s applying for the sign, who s probably going to get the sign, and there are the voices of those who are around, especially in residential areas. I keep saying especially in residential areas because the version that the Plan Commission is recommending cuts it off at C-4. So, from C-4 through all of the M zonings; M-1, M-2, M-3, there is no requirement for a Special Use Permit. It s only in those areas where you have less intensive development, and particularly in areas where you have houses, where you have homes and other forms of residential uses, and that includes, of course, in the county, that includes Ag as well as the R-1, R-2, R-3. So, those are the differences; number one is the one that was overwhelmingly recommended, because it eliminated the rezoning, it mirrors the city, and it preserves the Special Use process, the notice and the hearing and the opportunity for people to be heard. The other three were rejected because it, they each lacked one or more of those things, except that, as I said, they all eliminate the rezoning requirement. If anybody has any questions about what the differences are, or what the process is, or what the requirements are oh, one other thing, part of the difficulty with regulating electronic signs is that there s, it s very hard to have a one size fits all kind of scheme. So, in these cases, because they present different challenges, having, you know, sort of a baseline set of requirements that are contained within your ordinance, and then supplementing that with this review process where they can be tweaked, where the sign plan and the use and the operation of the sign can be tweaked, really helps to fit each different situation and the concerns that are expressed. So, that relieves the obligation of the ordinance, frankly, to have really specific, rigid standards and requirements in some respects. President Ungethiem: Questions? You indicated that this does not apply, this Special Use Permit does not apply to C-4 and above. Dirck Stahl: Correct.

12 Page 12 of 31 President Ungethiem: If the sign is on a C-4 lot, and next door, five feet away, there s an R-1 lot, does the Special Use Permit apply? Dirck Stahl: I don t think that you will have an R-1 next to a C-4, the way the zoning typically is. President Ungethiem: But, if it did? Dirck Stahl: There s usually a buffer. President Ungethiem: It would not apply. Dirck Stahl: No, it would not apply. President Ungethiem: It would not apply, because the sign is actually in a C-4 area. Dirck Stahl: That s correct. President Ungethiem: My understanding, and what we re looking at here is Option #1 and Option #3, my understanding is the difference between Option #1 and Option #3 is this Special Use 13 designation. Dirck Stahl: Right. President Ungethiem: My concern with Special Use 13 is its 100 percent subjective, and not objective, meaning there are no criteria set in place that gives the Board of Zoning Appeals direction as to how they are to determine what the final course of action is. When I sat on Area Plan back when this was going through, I tried to push for objective things to put into that that indicated that it must be x, it must be y, it must be z, and x, y and z have to be measurable. That did not occur. You can measure the intensity of light with lumens, and you can measure it at the property line. You can measure the difference between one night and another, and you can put parameters around that, but that did not happen. That did not become part of the Special Use 13 requirements. So, my biggest concern is, when we get to a situation like this, where it goes to a Special Use, if we adopt Option #1, and we get the Special Use 13, the Board of Zoning Appeals has the authority, if you will, to approve one sign that maybe they think may be not restrictive, or not intrusive on this property, and three months later not approve another sign, with very similar or identical criteria around it. That s my concern is that subjectivity, and the fact that it may be applied differently in different locations, and there s no objectivity, there s not measurability to how that SU-13 is going to be applied. Dirck Stahl: I remember those discussions as well. I think, you know, there are points made on both sides. It s difficult, I think it s difficult to come up with what those standards would be that would be applicable in every specific scenario. The other thing that, whether you re measuring lumens, or you re measuring anything else, or, you know, the height or the size or anything like that, it s not necessarily going to take into account things like positioning, and things like whether and to what extent there are specific concerns for motorists in that area, whether there are, you know, maybe other adjustments that could be made, as far as the number of seconds between frames, or the number of seconds between different messages. Those are, the way you expressed it was, it gives the BZA the authority, and I would say it gives the BZA the flexibility. It gives the BZA the flexibility to be able to say, okay, and again, I have literally never seen one rejected, I mean, since 2012 I have not seen an electronic message sign application denied. What I have seen is the process working the way it s supposed to work, which is people come in, they talk about what they are concerned about, and the BZA absolutely does have specific criteria that guide them. That s what I handed out. I understand they re not put in scientific terms or, as far as, you know, measurements, what you re talking about like measuring lumens at a certain distance, or things like that. President Ungethiem: You have to humor me, I m an engineer. I deal in numbers. Dirck Stahl: I understand, but they are specific in the sense that they don t just give the BZA free reign to say, well, you know, you came here today wearing yellow pants and we don t like that, so we re not going to approve this. Or, you know, your cousin s a jerk. President Ungethiem: But, it doesn t prevent that from occurring either.

13 Page 13 of 31 Dirck Stahl: That doesn t, well, ultimately, nothing prevents that from happening, because, you know, if people are going to make inappropriate considerations and inappropriate votes, then you have a remedy, which is to take it to court. Unfortunately, I mean, even with this Body, there are, when you re acting not as a Legislative body but as an Executive body there are remedies that, you know, if people are aggrieved or feel like they re aggrieved, they can ask for somebody to review it. That s a recognition that there are always limits on, you know, on any given day reasonable minds may differ, and one body, or member may see things a different way than another. But, that s because we re all human beings, you know, we re not computers. Commissioner Musgrave: I did sit on the BZA for four years, and it s a professional group of people, but for me, observing that process, he s right, never denied one, you may have adjusted one percent of the applications that ever came through. So, for me it was an unnecessary expense, you have to pay to come to the BZA, so you have to file, and you have to pay, and then you have to wait to get to the board hearing. So, it s time and money, when your sign could up and promoting your business and furthering your cause. So, for me, Option #3 is the way to go, cut some of that red tape. I m willing to enter the brave new world where businesses put up the sign, and if we encounter unintended consequences in some negative effect, I would be willing to reconsider it then, but I think that the process that we have in place is overly restrictive, it costs too much and takes too long. So, I m going to make a motion to approve Option #3. Commissioner Shoulders: I mean, really the difference, again, is the Special Use, and I see, anyway, thank you for your presentation, Dirck, I m going to second that motion. Dirck Stahl: President Ungethiem, if there was one thing I could just say to address that President Ungethiem: Uh-huh. Dirck Stahl: --if that s alright. The Area Plan Commission has, as has been widely publicized, has recently worked to adjust the schedule for Special Use Permits, as well as other things, like rezonings and variances. Commissioner Musgrave: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) Dirck Stahl: Right, and so those efforts are clearly very important in terms of allowing businesses to move forward with their plans, and allowing us to be as, well, we talk about obtrusive, you know, to be as unobtrusive as possible, while still maintaining an appropriate level of oversight or regulation. So, those are concerns, whether it s the cost of the Special Use permit application, or the timeline or things like that, that have been adjusted recently, and that can be further adjusted without depriving property owners of their due process. President Ungethiem: Did you second? Commissioner Shoulders: Yes. President Ungethiem: Okay, let me ask, from a legal standpoint, in sequence, which direction do we have to do this? You mentioned that we would have to vote on both of them. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Yeah, what I would it really doesn t matter. I think you can vote to approve Option #3, which is, I think, in ordinance form. And, as far as Option #1 is concerned, you should vote that down, since Area Plan did approve that at their meeting last month or the month before, so that that particular ordinance would not go into effect. Commissioner Shoulders: I was going to ask, Commissioner Musgrave, were you present at that meeting? Because you serve on that Board. Commissioner Musgrave: I served on it. I don t serve on it presently. Commissioner Shoulders: Oh. Joe Harrison, Jr.: No, on the Area Plan Commission. Commissioner Musgrave: Oh, on Area Plan, oh, yeah, I m on Area Plan.

14 Page 14 of 31 Commissioner Shoulders: But, you, so you were present? I didn t know if Commissioner Musgrave: I, um, left before they started discussing that. Commissioner Shoulders: Okay, I didn t know, I was just curious, because since you re the Commissioner that serves on that, I didn t know if.okay. Commissioner Musgrave: I would be happy to make a motion after we conclude this vote to address Option #1. President Ungethiem: Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the first reading of Option #3 of ordinance CO Any further questions or comments? Seeing none. Roll call vote. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Shoulders? Commissioner Shoulders: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Musgrave? Commissioner Musgrave: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: President Ungethiem? President Ungethiem: Yes, and it is approved by a 3-0 vote. (Motion approved 3-0) President Ungethiem: The final reading of that will be on January 2, 2018 at 3:00. And, now I would entertain a motion for the Option #1. Commissioner Musgrave: Normally I would make a motion to approve and then vote no. Is that the way you want us to Joe Harrison, Jr.: That s fine. Commissioner Musgrave: Okay, so I make a motion to approve Option #1, but be clear that I will be voting no. Commissioner Shoulders: Well, okay. So, we approved number three, and, so, second. President Ungethiem: It s a double negative. Commissioner Shoulders: Exactly. President Ungethiem: Okay, there s a motion and a second to approve motion #1. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Option #1. President Ungethiem: Or, excuse me, Option #1. Any questions or comments? Roll call vote please. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Shoulders? Commissioner Shoulders: Yes to the double negative, or no, I m sorry, no, no, no. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Whatever you want to do. Commissioner Shoulders: No. Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Musgrave? Commissioner Musgrave: And I m voting no. I don t want to approve Option #1. Commissioner Shoulders: Yeah. Madelyn Grayson: President Ungethiem? President Ungethiem: And I will vote no as well. (Motion denied 0-3)

15 Page 15 of 31 President Ungethiem: So, the result of all of that is, on January the 2 nd at 3:00, at the next Commissioners meeting will be the final reading of Option #3, for ordinance CO Commissioner Shoulders: Correct. President Ungethiem: Okay, I think we got through that. County Engineer President Ungethiem: Now on to department head reports. John Stoll: I just have one item this afternoon. I received a request from the developer of the Wolfe Creek Condominium project out on the west side, he wants to change his pavement section on his roads from six inches of rock and three inches of asphalt, to five inches of rock and four inches of asphalt. I discussed this with the County Attorney, and he said since the Commissioners approved the original pavement section, through the approval of the road plans back in October, you would need to approve this option, if the developer wants to go that route. So, I would request your approval to allow him to go to four inches of asphalt with five inches of rock. Commissioner Shoulders: So moved. Commissioner Musgrave: Second. President Ungethiem: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All of those in favor signify by saying aye. All Commissioners: Aye. President Ungethiem: Opposed? (None opposed) President Ungethiem: The motion carries. (Motion approved 3-0) John Stoll: That s all I have. President Ungethiem: Anytime somebody wants to put more asphalt down on the ground, we re okay with that. John Stoll: I didn t have a problem with it either. President Ungethiem: Make sure it s flat. John Stoll: Thanks. President Ungethiem: Thank you, John. Any other department heads? Seeing none. New Business President Ungethiem: New business? Commissioner Musgrave: Do you want me to separate out the towing contract at this point? Or do you want me to do it when we get there? President Ungethiem: That was in the consent items. If you want to pull that out, I guess now is as good a time as any. Commissioner Musgrave: I do. Do you want me to begin, or would you like to begin? President Ungethiem: Just as an introduction here, we are entertaining a new towing contract for Vanderburgh County. More specifically for the Sheriff s Department, and the current towing contractor, I think the contract expires the end of this year, and they re looking for a new three year renewal, I believe is the

16 Page 16 of 31 Joe Harrison, Jr.: That s correct. President Ungethiem: A new three year renewal on that towing contract. So, with that Commissioner Musgrave: And the County Attorney has sent out a draft contract. I ve gone through and made some notes, and I ll just got through a couple of, I ll go through all of them. It shouldn t take too long. The Sheriff did request, and I m looking at Page 2, Item 9, but I m not certain that that s where it would go. The Sheriff requested immediate response for environmental clean up. I did not see a timeline for that, or reference to immediate response for environmental clean up in here. So, I think, if that s what he wants, I don t see that here. On Page 3, Item number 15, I think this is a new one, a new paragraph where we re asking for reporting from the vendor on a quarterly basis. We also ask for a list of fees charged for services to be provided. I think that we need to add there that this fee list must be posted on every tow truck and at the place of business. I think that needs to be very available to the public. Joe Harrison, Jr.: It will be at the place of business, that s in the contract. Commissioner Musgrave: Yeah, I want it on every tow truck, because that s at any rate. Number 19, where we ask that all drivers of towing vehicles be drug tested at the time of hire, and maintaining a random drug testing program for all of its drivers. I didn t see a provision where we would actually know that that had been done. Was there one and I just overlooked it? Joe Harrison, Jr.: I don t know if that s in there, but that is done. That is done by, that s required to be done, but I don t Commissioner Musgrave: Yeah, there s no reporting provision in here for that. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Well, the person would probably not be employed anymore if there was a problem. Commissioner Musgrave: That s true. Joe Harrison, Jr.: I know that s relevant. President Ungethiem: They would go away? Commissioner Musgrave: At the top of Page 4, in a continuation of a paragraph from the page before, it talks about changes to the price of county towing must be ed immediately, and it list several offices, but it doesn t list the County Commissioners Office, and I feel it should. Storage of Vehicles (B) (2), the Sheriff requested secure storage for vehicles involved in criminal cases or fatal crashes to be under 24 hour surveillance. In all of this storage of vehicles, I did not see that secure storage with 24 hour surveillance. I know that that was a particular request of the Sheriff. Number 10, it says that the contractor is not going to charge a fee, so forth and so on, and I think that it s, unless it has prior approval for such charges have been attained from the county, I think county is a little vague. I think it should be County Commissioners, but it shouldn t just be county, because you know, shoot that means anybody. There s a typo on page five, under paragraph 13, it says this area shall he completely sealed, and it should be be completely sealed. Those are all of my comments on that, except for I asked that the agreement should be amended so that the contractor must be current in all his State, Federal, local taxes, and that failure to be current would result in immediate loss of the contract. I ve had some research done, and I have a two and a half page list of various items, and I ll just read the captions and I ll enter it into the record. The outstanding Federal Tax Liens filed against our current contractor and/or his wife. The first one is for $21,000 for 2014, and that s a Federal Tax Lien. The second one is again a Federal Tax Lien for $64,883, also on January The third one is a Federal Tax Lien against the Hamrick s in the amount of $17,600, dated Then there are some outstanding judgements entered against Hamrick s Recovery Service. There s a judgement for three thousand nearly eight hundred dollars. There s outstanding Federal Tax Liens filed against Hamrick s Diesel Service & Repair. The first one is for $33,300 plus; the second one is for $23,400 plus; the third one.could you get the Power Point ready to go? The third one is a Federal Tax Lien filed against Hamrick s Diesel & Repair for twenty, nearly twenty five thousand. The fourth one, Federal Tax Lien for nearly five thousand. The fifth