Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-02FEBRUARY 25, 2002 1 COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA FEBRUARY 25, 2002 The Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana met in regular session in he Multi-Purpose Meeting Room in the City-County Building, Jeffersonville, Indiana at 7:30 P! M. on the 25th day of February 2002. The meeting was called to order by Council President Denny Frantz, with Cl[~erk Treasurer Peggy Wilder at the desk. Also present was Clerk Barbara Hollis. Council President Frantz welcomed all in attendance, asking all those present to stand as Councilperson Ron l~llis gave the invocation. Council President Frantz then asked all those present to join him in [the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The roll was called and those present were; Councilpersons Les Merkley, Ron E lis, Denny Frantz, Rob Waiz, Barbara Wilson, Ron Grooms, and Vicki Conlin. Absent: None. Councilperson Merkley made the motion to approve the revised agenda with 18 item§ as presented, seconded by Councilperson Waiz, passing unanimously. Council President Frantz presented the minutes of the meetings of January 28, 2002 ~nd February 4, 2002 for consideration by the Council. Councilperson Wilson made the motion to approve the January 28, 2002 minutes as presented, seconded by Councilperson Ellis, pas: ing unanimously. Councilperson Ellis then made the motion to approve the February 4, )02 minutes as presented, seconded by Councilperson Wilson, passing unanimously. Mayor Galligan and City Attorney Anne Marie Galligan arrived at the meeting at 7:40 P.M. Mayor Galligan apologized for being late as they were at a Youth Commission meeting: Clerk and Treasurer Wilder presented the claim list for consideration by the Com}[cil. Councilperson Ellis made the motion to table the claim to Bloomington Ford from[[the Cumulative Capital Development Fund, seconded by Councilperson Merkley. CouncilPe~son ' ' ' ane to consult w~th an attorne ~ to Ellis commented his reason to table tlae cmim was to nave t' ' y the legality of the claim. The motion to table the Bloomington Ford claim passed on I the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilpersons Merkley, Ellis, Waiz, Wilson, and Grooms. FEBRUARY 25, 2002 2 Nays: Councilpersons Frantz and Conlin. Councilperson Conlin then made the motion to approve the claims as presented witl:~out the Bloomington Ford claim, seconded by Councilperson Merkley, passing on a vote of 6-1. Councilperson Grooms voted against passage. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bi-Centennial Chairman Larry Wilder appeared before the Council to report ano er $4,000 as been donated with $1,000 for the statue. The entertainment for Saturday will be St~ve Holy. A substantial donation was received fi:om Independent Concrete Pipe. Councilper~on Conlin has talked with Dwight Townsend who would like to have his team of mules included in the celebration. Councilperson Conlin also suggests Olympic medal winner Doug SharpI be included in the celebration. Chairman Wilder said Doug Sharp may be asked to be a gr md marshal of the parade. Mr. Bruce Herdt appeared before the Council to comment on Ordinance No. 2002-0] [-2, An Ordinance Annexing Contiguous Territory By Voluntary Petition. Mr. Herdt referred to md read aloud from the code. He contends only 150 feet of the property is contiguous which is !not enough to be legal. He feels the annexation is improper and illegal. Mayor Galligan stated thisl is a voluntary request. Mr. Herdt stated the property falls short of minimum requests annexation. AGENDA ITEMS: Mayor's Assistant Dustin White reported he will give a full update at the next meet~g. He does requests that Councilperson's funding requests for projects be in writing on letterhead addressed to Mayor Galligan.1~[° Fire Chief Mike Smith appeared before the Council to give a Fire Department re rt. Chief Smith said two firefighters are retiring. Slyvester Smith with 31 years of service and Don Murray with 30 years. Chief Smith is having the pump rebuilt for the 1981 fire truck. A room is being constructed on top of the fire house for use as a weight and training room. The work is n [~th being done by the firefighters. Chief Smith noted the need to watch what is going o ~v' ambulance services in the County. He feels it may be on the City to provide such a service in,the future. The proposed purchase of a new truck is being looked at to make it a double axel dui to the weight capacity. Councilperson Grooms asked Chief Smith to appear before the CounciI for updates and to make sure the money is in place. Chief Smith explained the bid process will take FEBRUARY 25, 2002 3 some time and it will take six to nine months to build the track. Councilperson Grooms aske if funds in Cum Cap Dev will be needed this year. Chief Smith explained they may ~ot. Grooms thanked Chief Smith for his report. Chief Smith said he is working ~ith Councilperson Kathy Haller for FEMA funding. Chief Smith said the purchase of a boat is not being pursued.[ He will be meeting with the Council in the future on projects. City Attorney Galligan presented Ordinance 2002-OR-2, An Ordinance Annexmg~ · - r n Place' su estm this Ordinance[ be Contiguous Territory By Vomntary Petition (Abe dee ) gg ' g ' ' tabled as the boundaries have not been checked as this is 100% voluntary. Councilperson Merkley made the motion to table Ordinance No. 2002-OR'2, seconded by Councilperson W~iz, passing unanimously. Of Clerk Treasurer Wilder explained Ordinance No. 2002-OR-3, An Ordinance Additional Appropriation (City Court). Councilperson Conlin made the motion to l~ass Ordinance No 2002-OR-3 on the first reading, seconded by Councilperson Merkley, pas~ing unanimously. ance No 2002 OR4 An Ordinance 'Of Clerk Treasurer Wilder explained Ordin . - -, ' Additional Appropriation (Motor Vehicle Fund). Councilperson Merkley made the motion[lto pass Ordinance No. 2002-OR-3 on the first reading, seconded by Council President Frahtz, passing unanimously. Clerk Treasurer Wilder explained Ordinance No. 2002-OR-5, An Ordinance Of Additional Appropriation (Probation User Fund). Councilperson Conlin made the motion to pass Ordinance No. 2002-OR-5 on the first reading, seconded by Councilperson Merkley, pas~ing unanimously. Attorney Galligan explained Resolution No. 2002-R-11, A Resolution Approving Agreement For Professional Services. Councilperson Merkley made the motion to pass Resolution No. 2002-R-11, seconded by Councilperson Grooms. Councilperson Waiz requested an update regarding the services. Attorney Galligan said she is sure a representative wotfl~~ be happy to come and give an update. The motion to pass Resolution No. 2002-R-11 pa~sed unanimously. I. Councilperson Grooms presented Resolution no. 2002-R-12, A Resolution Appro?ing The Transfer Of Funds To The Jeffers°nville City Hall Building Fund. Councilperson Groomsl referred to Resolution No. 2000-R-15 which does not direct the fimds. He has talked wi[h a FEBRUARY 25, 2002 4 representative of the State Board of Accounts and was told this should be done· The proceeds from the sale of the interest in the building have been receipted in the Redevelopment Fma[ d. Attorney Galligan said she had an opinion from Ice Miller to direct the proceeds to Redevelopment Councilperson Grooms said he thought the intention of selling the interest was · I to use the money to build a City Hall Mayor Galligan explained the proceeds were used to buy the Quadrangle with the intention of building a City Hall. It may be difficult to return the fu[ by December 31. Attorney Galligan said a new building would likely be leased thru Redevelopment as any large financing project would go thru Redevelopment due do concerns [for the City's debt limit. Clerk Treasurer Wilder feels the concern is the proceeds were ~ot deposited into the City and loaned to Redevelopment. Councilperson Conlin asks why there is a question now a year later. Councilperson Grooms said he brought the subject up prior to [the purchase of the CASI building. He feels the Council should have approval as the funds [are taxpayers dollars intended to build a City Hall. Councilperson Conlin would like to h[ave .... s m[ade something in writing from Ice Miller and State Board of Accounts. counc~tperson tsroom the motion to pass Resolution No. 2002-R-12, seconded by Councilperson Ellis, passing Jn[ a of 5-2. Councilpersons Conlin and Frantz voted against passage. B vote Councilperson Grooms next brings up a serious matter of continuing to table the claim for the purchase of 7 police cars. This is not a matter of the need for the cars, and not about[the right of the Mayor but a matter of the true legality of Cum Cap Dev fund. He is not sure the [fund allows for an expenditure for police cars. There is a need to get on with doing the jobs all l~a[ ve been elected to do, to come to a friendly atmosphere and a cooperative attitude. Councilperson Grooms said there is currently an impasse and there is a need to hire counsel. He did not ask[ for a war and did not encourage a war, he only suggests an attorney as a means to settle what has been called by many a conflict. He contacted Attorney Jack Vissing and he did agree as of'this morning if the Council so chooses. Councilperson Ellis said the Council does n[eed representation by an Attorney. Councilperson Conlin said she will abstain from a vote as[she 1 e[son had not been informed of this move until she read the Evening News today. Counci p r Grooms made the motion to hire Attorney Jack Vissing at the rate of $70 per hour, seconde~ by Councilperson Ellis. Council President Frantz asked if this is unrestricted, and who it was ~hat elected Councilperson Grooms to make this decision. Council President Frantz also did not know of this action until a message was left on his answering machine. He feels there is a n[eed FEBRUARY 25, 2002 5 to go thru the President and all should be informed on a matter such as this. Councilperson [ llis commented when he was President two years ago all present did things behind his back with[out informing him. He felt there were meetings before the meetings and meetings after the meet4gs. Attorney Galligan hopes Councilperson Ellis means .qgunftilperson to.~Councilpersor/ k-nd cautions meetings with a majority of the membership,ir Attorney Galligan referred to the budget order from the State Tax Commission in regard to the Cum Cap Dev Fund. She has also talked with an I.A.C.T. attorney and she doesnt know what attorney will tell the Council anything different than what she has said. Mayor Galligan again said he is only trying to buy police !ars as his priority is to provide public safety. Councilperson Grooms read aloud section 5 of[the Cum Cap Dev Ordinance, questioning the provision for the effective years. Attorney Galli?n said the fund is currently set by statute. Cotmcilperson Wilson said following many bulget hours the Council felt they could skip one year on the police car rotation. The City has[ 49 officers and 49 cars. There is no reason for a bad car on the street and no Councilperson wc~uld want to jeopardize a life. Mayor Galligan said the agreement not to buy cars was not his. {t is his job to provide safety and to spend money where it is appropriate. Councilperson Merk[ley said it is not a safety issue and the Mayor was at the workshop when the decision was mad~ to keep taxes down and the budget line for police cars was left at zero for 2002. Right or wr~ng that decision was made. Councilperson Merkley asked Mayor Galligan if he was advised[the Council did not fund police cars. Mayor Galligan answered no, he understood all cap[ital expenditures were put in one fund. He set priorities for police and fire and these priorities [will not be compromised. Councilperson Merkley said the tax rate would have raised $.05 if cap[ital purchases had been left in. Councllperson Grooms called for the question which palsed unanimously. The motion to hire Jack Vissing passed on a vote of 5-1-1. Councilperson Frantz voted no, and Coancilperson Conlin abstained. Councilperson Grooms wants to make sure the same questions do not arise regarding the Cmn Cap Improvement Fund that was established with Ordinance 1651. Attorney Galli[gan explained the Council must approve moving money fi:om the Cum Cap Improvement Fu[ndl Councilperson Grooms then asked Mayor Galligan if he would be asking the Council for f~[nds from the Cum Cap Improvement Fund for the extension of Court Avenue. Mayor Galli[gan answered yes this year there may be a need for grant match money. Attorney Galligan saidl[ the Council will be asked to pass a Resolution to advertise, then there would be a public hearing to FEBRUARY 25, 2002 6 pass an appropriation ordinance. Mayor Galligan said he probably will bring this to the r[ext meeting. Councilperson Conlin said there is a need to discuss the Court Avenue extension at ~the next meeting. COUNCIL AND MAYOR COMMENTS: Councilperson Grooms thanked the Council for the opportunity to present his poin of view. Councilperson Conlin requested tax rate information for the next meeting. She wil~.[ be meeting with an organization that may donate property for a downtown garage. She would ~ike to see the City recognize Olympic medal winner Doug Sharp. Mayor Galligan agrees with recognizing Doug Sharp noting the Jeffersonville E igh School swim team needs to be recognized also. There is a need to do positive things for tlc ose outstanding in the community. Mayor Galligan said the City seems to be moving along well md there is a lot of good ahead. ~ There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilperson Conlin m~ade the motion to adjourn at 8:50 P.M., seconded by Councjd~verson Grooms, passing unanimousl½. H~S R. O,~LILIC462N~OR ATTEST: PEGGYC t- DER, CLERK AND TREASURER Memo to Jeffersonville City Council from John R. Vissing, Attorney at Law In re: Purchase of 7 new police cars fi:om Cumulative Capital Development Fund even though unbudgeted. March 3, 2002 The focus of this memo to the City Council members addresses only the issues that:relate to the ordering of the police cars after the City Council refused to include their purchase in the 2002 budget in the Cumulative Capital Development Fund and the Mayor subsequently presenting the Council with a claim for the purchase of 7 new cars from that fund. The questions of what is appropriate action for the City Council under those circumstances is the concern. Undisputed Facts: The budgets for the City are the product of the City Council's approval and adoption on an annual basis after review of submissions to that body of proposals of desired expenditures from each department in the City. The process includes meeting and public review of the proposed budgets compared with the anticipated revenues. The province of the City Council is to prioritize the various competing interests in light of funds available. The 2002 budget that was approved and adopted by the City Council after input and hearings was later approved by State of Indiana Department of Local Finance. In regard to the Cumulative Capital Development Fund specific attention and action was taken in reference to the purchase of 7 new police cars. In the past several budgets the purchase of 7 new cars and the retirement of 7 old cars was done on an annual basis. In 2001 Jeffersonville, like national, state and local govemmental units experienced economic shortfalls that required reallocation of funds and the opinion of the City Council was to adopt a more conservative approach to spending from that fund to keep fi'om running out of money in the 2002 budget. The Budget Summary for the Cumulative Capital Development Fund is at/ached as exhibit A. The total expenditure set was $315,943,00 which was reduced to $305,764,00 by the Certification of the Department of Local Government Finance. See exhibit B. Five specific line items were addressed in the Cumulative Capital Development Fund Budget: 480 Police Department Vehicles; 483 Fire Truck Lease; 485 Computer Lease; 486 Software Development; and 487 Fire Department Capital. The City Council · adopted the budget that made a conscious decision to fund only two o£those items, being 483 the Fire Truck Lease in the amount of $68,943. and 485 Computer Lease in the amount of $47,000. The other three items, including the purchase of police cars in item 480, were not intended to be funded in 2002. Items 480, 486 and 487 were funded as zero. The City Council set aside the sum of $200,000. for funding of all other total capital needs of all departments of the City for 2002. This was designated as 479 miscellaneous and was the attempt at fiscal responsibility in a climate of reduced revenues for all governmental units state, local and national. The intent of the City Council to allocate these items in the 400 series (capital expenditures) of all department budgets on a case by case basis would allow some comfort in the prioritization of expenditures to the benefit of the taxpayer. To facilitate this plan all 400 series budgets for all departments were left at zero. If a capital need for a given department arose it would have been presented to the council and justified by the department making the request. This budget was different from previous budgets and the subject of some disagreement by the administration and was reported in the newspapers. A specific news article appeared in the Jeffersonville, Evening News on September 5, 2001, discussing this topic· An additional story on September 17, 2001, at the adoption of the budget specifically noted the zero funding ofpolice~cars for 2002. In October the topic arose with no change in the budget. On December 26, 2001 City Council President Merkley and Vice President Waiz sent a=oa'itten directive to ChiefPavey to cancel any order for police cars which might have been ordered since they were not going to be funded in 2002. See exhibit C. On January 28, 2002, ChiefPavey took delivery and signed · purchase agreements for 7 Ford Crown Victorias from Bloomington Ford in Bloomington, In. and acknowledged to that dealer that the sum due for each Ford was the sum of $20,367.25· The cars were equipped and placed into service prior to presentation to the City Council of the Claim for payment from the Cumulative Capital Development Fund. The City Council has declined to pay the claim and has referred this matter to council for review. ~ssues: Did the Ci~_ Council.follow appropriate procedures in adopting a budget? The answer to this question is yes they did. Simply because thy funded a practice of purchasing 7 new police cars iff past budgets they are not required to fund them in future budgets. Two cases seem to address these issues. The first is the case of Folev ¥¥- Indianapolis, 421 NE2d 1160, June 24, 1981. In this case the city council had an absolute right to stop funding tuition grants to Police after a practice of doing so for a number of prior budgets. While the holding in this case addresses forms of police compensation the greater holding is the premise that "...the council adopted a budget ordinance..., which specifically authorizes them to approve or modify the budget · proposed by the Director of the Department of Public Safety and requires them to appropriate monies for the budget as approved"(l165). The case of Pilfer v. Town 2f Edinburg, 684 NE2d 587, September 23, 1997, actually allowed the Town Council of Edinburg to eliminate police positions for economic reasons, ffthe council can eliminate actual police positions by a decision to not fund them, they are well within their rights to elect not to fund purchase of police cars on an automatic plan. The compelling point of these cases is that it is the province of the city council as the fiscal body of the city to determine what will be budgeted for'purchases and they have the sole right to elect to not fund items for economic reasons. The Jeffersonville City Council had the ultimate authority to decide to purchase or not purchase new police cars. Is the City of deffersonville contractual(¥ bound to purchase the 7 police cars obtainedfrom Bloomington Ford on danua~ 28, 2002? Maybe. Initially the answer seems to be an obvious Yes. After review of the case of Hamer v. City Of Huntington, 21 NE2d 407, 1939, a question seems to arise that merits further investigation by the City Council. In this case a taxpayer filed suit against the city for their actions after a new fire track was delivered and in service. The court held that the purchase was not effective nor binding. In this case the money to buy the truck had not been appropriated by the City Council of Huntington and could not be ratified afterward to make it binding. I remind you that this was a suit by a taxpayer individually. The case holds that "Na executive department, officer or emplo},ee thereof shall have · power to bind such city to any contract or agreement, or in any other waF, to any extent beyond the amount of money at the time already appropriated by ordinance for the purposes of such department; and all contracts and agreements, express or implie& and all obligations of any and ever~ sort, beyond such. existing al~t~ropriations are declared to be absolutell: voi~'600. (This same language has become the statutory language found in IC 36-4-8-12 (b ) "A city department, officer, or emplovee ma¥ not obligate the city to any extent beyond the amount of moneY appropriated for that department, officer, or employee. An obligation made in violation of this section is void. "This is the current statute today.) "Any party dealing with a municipality is bound to take notice of the limited powers of the municipality and of the laws governing the municipality in making contracts"603. In the case here with the police cars, what was given to Bloomington Ford when the order was placed? Obviously no copy of the 2002 budget or its adoption resolution was provided. Did someone sign a purchase order at the time of order? If so who authorized the purchase? What confirming documents or letters were given to Bloomington Ford to induce them to order these 7 cars when the adopted budget says they were not to be purchased? Bloomington Ford is a designated provider of police cars and familiar with governmental purchases and should b6 on notice that when spending taxpayer money special appropriations are necessary. If they failed to follow procedures they may be without recourse. The legislature has given the dealer a remedy, if it reasonably complied with the contract making provisions and was not negligent in relying on the order placed by th.e city. lC 36-4-8-13 Violations by city officiah offense; liability Sec. 13. A city official who recklessly: (1) issues a bond, certificate, or warrant for the payment of money in excess of an appropriation; or (2) enters into an obligation prohibited by section 12 of this chapter; commits a Class B misdemeanor and is liable on his official bond to any person in]ured by his actions. ' Can the Mayor o_f the ci~ invoke authori~_ granted in lC 36-9- 15.5-8 to o/der these police cars and spend the money out o_f the Cumulative Capital Development Fund? Sometimes. In an important part the statute reads as follows: (c) Money held in the cumulative capital development fund may be spent for purposes other than the purposes stated in section 2 of this chapter, if the purpose is to protect the public health, welfare, or safety in an emergency situation that demands immediate action or to make a contribution to an authority established under IC 36- 7-23. Money may be spent under the authority of this subsection only after the_executive of this municipality: (1) issues a declaration that the public health, W el[are, or sa[etv is in immediate danger that requires the expenditure o£ money in the [un& or (2) certifies in the minutes o£ the municipal legislative bodl2 that the contribution is made to the authority [or capital development purposes. Not ordering 7 new police cars is not an emergency. It was a decision reached by the Jeffersonville City Council after deliberation during over a month o~'budget workshops and hearings. In any event no record o[emergencv designation exists. I am not aware of any other provision set out in the Indiana Statutes that would allow overriding of an intentional act to · remove these monies from the 2002 budget. The fact that $200,000. was designated as miscellaneous is not relevant to allow these to be purchased from that money as undesignated funds. The funds that were undesignated were funds that had been reserved under the 400 series of the city department budgets a£ter excluding the item 480 [rom £unding. I~hat provisions exist ~f a public employee makes unauthorized expenditures ? This is a question that never should be asked since it should not occur in a government where elected officials are obligated.to work together for the benefit of the taxpayer. The earlier cited provisions oflC 36-4-8-12 and IC 36-4-8-13, however, do apply in most circumstances involving these matters. When reviewing this issue through the WestLaw computer system of information retrieval', one particular case keeps coming up no matter how the question is phrased, that being the case of Dwayne M. Brown v. State of Indiana, 684 NE2d 529, August 20, 1997. This case represents the extreme and deals with misconduct and misuse of public tax dollars by the Indiana Clerk of Courts. It reminds us that misapplications of public money is potentially h criminal act. It makes an analysis between mistakes and deliberate acts. In some cases repayment by the public employee of misdirected monies is appropriate. I have enclosed a copy of the case for'your review. I make no further comment. A greater problem is the lack of available money to satisfy the claim sent to the Cumulative Capital Development Fund. If monies were plentiful, the City Council would not have deferred · the purchase of the 7 new police cars in the first place. If the City Council pays the claim from the $200,000. set aside for the total of all other capital expenditures within the city for 2002 what hardships will the taxpayers experience as a result of the inability of the city to perform their basic services with necessary capital items that would otherwise have been available? This is the primary concern. Summation 1. The Jeffersonville City Council was proper in its acts of setting a budget and excluding 7 new police cars from purchase in 2002 for economic considerations. 2. Investigation as to Bloomington Fords reliance on documented purchase orders or written authorizations for purchase in light of the budget as adopted should be conducted. 3. No emergency existed under IC 36-9-15.5-8 to allow the executive to purchase police cars through the Cumulative Capital Development Fund without the City Council adopting a resolution amending their budget for 2002. 4. The City Council seems to have acted appropriately in denial of thais claim. 5. Further investigation into the act of ordering these 7 new police cars should be undertaken with apPropriate action taken against the individual or individuals responsible including the opportunity for the individual or individuals to source sufficient monies to pay this debt or to make claim under their official bond. 6. Return the cars with payment for miles used if no other solution is offered by the individual or individuals found to be responsible for this unnecessary and publicly embarrassing situation. 7. Set up a system of purchase orders by ordinance, that restrict purchases of capital items .without attached certified council resolution giving prior approval to the purchase and publish this ordinance to all known vendors to the City. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this issue and please advise if further action is desired. John R/Vissihg Attompy at Law Vissi~g and Grayson LLP 432 E Court Ave. Jeffersonville, In. 47130 (812) 288-5141 2002 BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR FUND: Cumulative Capital Development 2391 Jeffersonville City 1030205 Taxing Unit DEPARTMENT: Cumulative Capital Development Budget Forn~ No. 1 r Items Total Estimate I Approved 0 68,943 47,000 0 0 115,943 200,000 0 200,000 315,943 4 CAPITAL OUTLAYS Machinery and Equipment 480 Police Department Vehicles 483 Fire Truck Lease 485 Computer Lease 486 Software Development 487 Fire Department Capital Other Capital Outlays 479 Misc. Capital Purchases 484 State of IN Loan Payment Total CAPITAL OUTLAYS TOTAL BUDGET ESTIMATE (I) (We) hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and fair estimate or the necessary expenses of the Cumulative Capital Development Fund Name: for the caledder year 2002 for the purposes therein specified. Date this day of Department Name: 315,943 Signature and T[fie of Officer(s) or Deoartment Head 0 r- -,< >oc>o~ 0 ~ m~ z ~ zU m m> ~z z> m Z Z Z C) CD ©--t ? °>m°. 'ti i'-' ~< ~m> ITl ~° o _.9. m Z o '~' o o ~ o o o ,.~ oo88~ bo~b 0 0 0 0 CCZ ~z Z -q z 0 C Z m o 0 0 m Z -< 0 © CD m Z Z m 000~ 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 m -4 FR © ~,~ o ct,, c', co o co o c~ ~ o e o co ~ bb b b b b b b b bo b b b bo m ITl 0 -0 © F~ Z 0000 .o ? ? .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z © Z "-I oo0 o0o0 o0o0 0o0o 0 0 o 0 Z 0000 0000 0 0 0 m o f > z © 0 z 0 0000 bbbb Z ~> ' $~ © ~z Z m z -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z m -u --t m -{ Z m o ~. o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ~0Z FFI Z "TI Z 0 r'n 0 0 0 Z 0 rn "'g. )> o~° 0 0 Z Z THE LES MERKLEY Councilperson 1" District December 26, 2001 Chief Mike Pavey Jeffersonville Police Department City-County Building Jeffersonvilte, IN 47130 538 E. Court Aven Jeffersonville, IN 47 (812) 284-0848 Ho (502) 693-7276 Mo lesliedrnerkley @compus, Dear Chief: It has been brought to our attention that your department has ordered new police cars for the yea: 2002. As you are aware the 2002 budget did not include any money for the purchase of tbes{ vehicles. Moreover, you were informed of this fact prior to the Council passing the budget. While we understand there may be a need to for new vehicles, the budget constraints make it verl difficult to make that a reality next year. Therefore, we would respectfully request that you advis~ us as to how you intend to fund the purchase of these vehicles since they are not in the budget. More importantly, please rescind any order for the new vehicles until we can further discuss lundin Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. Sincerely, & . Les ~ent i~:Vice President xc: Tom Galligan Peggy Wilder Denny Frantz Barbara Wilson Ron Ellis Ron Grooms Vicki Conlin 130 ne file