Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to our county council personal personnel and financial meeting dated July 29th, 2026.

For those in attendance, thank you for coming.

Thank you for being here.

For those that are watching it live or watching it recorded, we welcome you as well.

Welcome you as well.

Paula, if you can do attendance roll call, please.

Councilmember Yakarina.

Here.

Councilmember Shatler.

Here.

Councilmember Kiefer.

Here.

Councilmember Bassmeyer.

Here.

Councilmember Rabin.

Here.

Councilmember Hahn.

Here.

President Montresteau.

Here.

All present.

Thank you for being here.

Next, we'll do our Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Acarino, and I'll do the invocation.

And to the public stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Heavenly Father, as we gather today to conduct the people's business, we thank you for the opportunity to serve our community with integrity, wisdom, and humility.

During these days of intense summer heat, we ask your protection over those who work outdoors, our first responders, road crews, utility workers, farmers, construction workers, and all who labor to keep our county safe and moving forward.

Grant us clear minds, respectful hearts, and the courage to make decisions that reflect the best interest of every resident of Vanderborough County.

Help us to listen with understanding, lead lead with compassion, and always seek the common good above personal interest.

We ask your continued blessing upon our county, our state, and our nation.

Amen.

All right.

We're going.

We're going to mix the agenda up just a bit.

We're going to start with new business, and that would first be the financial impact of IDOC 2027 funding affecting the Vanderburgh County community corrections.

And we have Judge Trockman that will present that.

And staff.

Good afternoon.

Hi.

And thank you for having us on short notice.

Wayne Trockman, Vanderburgh Superior Court.

Like a lightning bolt, as I just mentioned to Councilman Rabin.

We were struck with the news in June that our treatment court was defunded by the Department of Corrections.

Our budget is about $1750,000.

Approximately $330,000 of that.

The Department of Corrections has funded this program from its inception in 2001, long before any local money was provided.

Now this body provides us significant funding.

You've seen what we've done and you've supported us and it's been appreciated.

But as I said, we had uh notice that the Department of Corrections was thinking about reductions to community corrections programs around the state, but had no idea that we would lose all of the funding to our treatment courts.

Now community corrections has three components.

One is treatment courts, and that's our intensive daily reporting program that's that I just spoke of that's been in existence since 2001.

The other is work release.

The numbers in each of the programs are approximately 140 in treatment courts.

We have about 180 people and work release, which is also a therapeutically run, mostly for drug and alcohol abusers and addicts.

And the third leg of the stool is electronic home detention.

It's also run as a therapeutic model for drug and alcohol addicted individuals.

We had recently a three-year-long study done of our program.

It was a process, cost, and recidivism study.

Are we following appropriate standards of conduct and best practices, process, costs?

Are we is the program saving money over business as usual?

And recidivism.

Are we reducing crime?

Uh making our communities safer, increasing quality of life.

And I asked that report is uh 50 or more pages long.

I asked the president of MPC research if she would create a five-minute or less video summing up the findings of this three-year summary.

And she's done that for us.

And Mr.

President, if I may I would like to play that.

It's a little over five minutes video for members of council.

Yes.

Paula.

Hello, my name is Dr.

Shannon Carey.

I am co-president and co-owner of NPC Research.

I've worked in the areas of criminal justice, mental health, and substance use disorder treatment for over 25 years, with a focus in the areas of outcome and cost analysis.

The majority of my work over the years has been in studying treatment courts, especially researching best practices, practices related to lower recidivism and higher cost savings.

I was involved in writing the original National Treatment Court best practice standards, and I continue to review and provide feedback as well as provide new research findings as the standards are updated over time.

And we have reviewed the implementation of research-based best practices in over 2,000 treatment courts across the U.S.

In 2007 and in 2026, NPC Research completed evaluations of the Vanderberg County Treatment Court.

We examined the treatment court's practices and provided feedback on where they were following best practices and where they could make improvements.

We also did a rigorous outcome evaluation and cost analysis.

For both studies.

We collected data on program activities as well as on program outcomes, including re-arrests, new court case filings, incarceration, and probation activities.

We also collected cost data on all of those same activities to determine the impact of the program on taxpayer dollars.

I'll cut to the chase.

Investing in Vanderberg Treatment Court is investing in what works.

The findings show that participants in the treatment court had lower recidivism, demonstrating an improvement in public safety, and substantial cost savings.

I'll give you some specific examples of these findings.

At two years after program entry, participants had significantly lower re-arrest rates than the comparison group for all charge types, including person and property charges, drug charges, and DUI charges.

Our example here shows that participants in the Vanderberg Treatment Court had significantly fewer felony rearrests than matched individuals who experience the traditional court system.

The felony rearrest rate was 37% lower for treatment court participants.

Treatment court participants were also less than half as likely to be reincarcerated and subsent as substantially fewer days incarcerated and on probation.

All of this translates into cost savings.

Over just the two-year period of the study, Vanderberg Treatment Court participants cost $6,777 per participant less than matched individuals who experienced the traditional court process.

And this is not just for people who successfully completed the program.

This includes any participant who received treatment court services, even if they didn't graduate.

These savings are due to treatment court participants engaging in less criminal activity.

They were not using the same system resources like police and court time, sheriff time, jail and prison bed days, probation officer time.

I'll say again, the $6,777 savings is per person.

So if you multiply that by 170 participants that were included in the study over the last two years, the total savings is over 1.1 million.

And these savings just occurred during that two-year period of the study.

Research in multiple treatment courts has demonstrated that cost savings continue to multiply over time, up to 10 years after program participation.

In future years, treatment court participants continue to engage in less criminal activity, so the cost savings continue to grow.

Extending the time out after 10 years, these savings grow to well over 16 million in taxpayer dollars.

The cost-benefit analysis showed that for every dollar invested in the program, there is a return of $2.58, just including the criminal justice system costs.

Again, this is based on participants who were included in the two-year study in extrapolating forward.

The treatment court in Vanderberg County has been in operation for over two decades and has served over 2,000 participants.

If we apply these cost savings to all the participants who entered the program since it was implemented, we get a total savings of over $68 million.

In conclusion, my policy recommendation is to invest in what works.

The bottom line is if your goals include saving money, reducing crime, and increasing public safety, you want to invest in the Vanderburgh County Treatment Court.

If this program is defunded, you'll be doing the exact opposite.

Thank you.

I'd like to ask if you would pass out copies of the one-page sheet that I'd like for you to take a look at, and then I'd like for you to hear from the sheriff.

Thank you.

Shows what the Department of Corrections was funding.

And you can see at the far right on the bottom that it's $315,000.

The actual number that we lost was $323,000 from the Department of Corrections.

Together as partners in community corrections.

And trying to keep the jail population under control as one of our goals.

Thank you, Judge.

So as you know, the jail construction project is marching onward with an estimated completion date somewhere between December and January of next year.

With that completion, the jail population maximum capacity will rise from 546 inmates to 718 inmates.

That will be the total capacity of the jail can house without being deemed overcrowded.

So it's an additional 172 beds.

Presently our jail population, including inmates who are housed at outside facilities due to our overcrowding, is sitting at around 681.

If we were to flash forward suddenly, I recall the inmates back to the facility in January, I would roughly have around 37 vacancies, 37 open beds.

Now that number assumes that no additional inmates or the rate of incarceration does not increase in the colder winter months.

However, our past our past experience shows that our incarceration does rise in the colder months.

I would fully expect the jail to be at capacity sometime in January, February of next year.

The problem arises that if the programs that Judge Trockman's drug court electronic home detention and work release provide are defunded, even an additional 100 inmates that are being sent to the Vandenberg County Jail, and we believe that the impact will be far greater than that.

But just to absorb another hundred inmates would require us to again house inmates at outside facilities.

Our current contracts have the rate anywhere from 45 dollars to 65 dollars per day.

The math is quite simple.

You're looking at $2 million a year to house inmates and outside facilities should this program be defunded.

The problem really, uh despite the saying nothing of the wonderful things that it does to reduce recidivism and improve public safety, at the end of the day, it's a math problem.

It simply costs it's less expensive to invest in drug court than it is to pay outside jails to watch our inmates.

Thank you.

Thanks, Sheriff.

Thank you.

Does anyone have any uh questions about it?

I raised a question.

Judge tell me again, I I asked prior to the meeting, uh what is the normal number that is uh serving within the program uh in treatment court?

Uh we right now the treatment courts uh have a population of 130-ish, 135.

Okay.

And I guess where I was going with this, Tom looks over here.

He went through the trouble about five years ago, four or five years ago to figure out with debt service, you know, that's now is an increasing number again because we've added on to the jail and what it costs to operate and and uh maintain an inmate within the jail.

And back then, Tom, what was that number?

Like $56 a day.

Seems like it was in that neighborhood jail.

Yeah.

Uh so I mean that's one of the beautiful benefits about the program that the judge has uh created and and kept his thumb on for a good number of years, and and uh you know it really has created a big savings, and uh anyway.

But just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that, that how big a deal it really is if if we had to forego the uh treatment court and community community corrections program, we throw them all in the jail.

I mean, we're talking about major overcapacity really quick and and a and a cost that we really don't want to take on, do we?

Well, and to that a concern I have is again, you know, a couple years ago we had the log jam with public defender's office and the additional cost of that.

I mean, uh Judge, I uh would I be correct in my assumption that the treatment court is gonna allow us to process people at a quicker rate than the than going through the typical system, and we're gonna be able to at least avoid a log jam there.

Whereas if we're throwing 170 people back into the mix, it's probably gonna create a lot of congestion and really create some issues for the prosecutors, public defenders, and basically all involved.

Our cases typically uh work through the system very quickly.

Obviously, there are no trials.

Um we don't have any data on on that, but uh I I can tell you that we move those case we do move those cases through that program.

Yeah, I mean, unless I'm missing something, the numbers seem pretty obvious to me.

And I saw the communication back and forth from the email chain.

Is this dead at the state level?

Is this a not like is this conversation over at that point?

Because can I answer that question?

Yeah.

Um I've been talking with to uh State Representative Wendy McNamara, as I'm sure you have too.

And her intent is uh, you know, the the Department of Corrections not only defunded your program but defunded multiple programs across the state to the tune of about 12 million dollars.

So recidivism programs, your drug treatment corps programs, and other programs.

So her intent is to have this meeting with Governor Braun and plea make a plea to uh please reconsider and fund those programs.

Um and uh the uh the video that you just played us, uh I I think uh I think we we should put that in with the Yeah, that's that's my question.

I mean that's what I was getting to, and thanks for adding like is this data being presented at the state level when they make these decisions?

Well, I I don't know what's been do, but I I she's gonna make a plea, and I think she should she should have this video because these are current statistics that uh that you know the it's is just there's there's some things that are just common sense to fund, you know.

It just makes sense to fund.

It helps people, it actually saves us money in the long run, and uh it's just you know senseless not to fund it.

So um uh we wish her well in her quest to convince I and I think Governor Braun is a sensible common sense governor.

I I I think he'll s I I like to think he is, you know, and I think uh uh I I hope that he changes his mind uh or or has some authority to make that change.

So we'll see.

John and it may be again it may be well, yeah, no doubt they support it, but is there anything that we can do to provide our voice behind her in that conversation?

Well, you know, I I wrote uh you wrote a really good letter, and I wrote a letter in support of of the program, and I think we're all on that email chain.

Uh I uh I mean you could you could go to that extent, write a letter in support of the program and state your reasons why.

Um that might help uh the person that we sent it to I've talked to her on the phone and uh she she gave me her reasons on why the program was not funded.

Uh but uh and and and basically her hands are tied, right?

We don't have the money, you know.

Um but uh I think if more of us uh make a plea uh it certainly wouldn't hurt, you know.

Would it would it not be better for us for you to pin a letter and for us to all just sign it instead of her emails being bombarded?

Well, I wrote a letter.

I know, but for all of us from council to sign it.

Yeah, I mean I can I can pin another letter uh that speaks again that it's it's uh the will of the council that we you know uh please reconsider.

I I can do that.

Sure.

I'm sorry, Tom, go ahead.

Well, I mean if I can be brutally honest here, I think we have to I mean from our perspective, and it looks to me like most of the savings come at the county level from this program, which is a great thing.

But I'm not sure what the state, if I'm looking at from state eyes, what I'm seeing that you would really be saving me.

And right now they don't really care.

I don't think about what it's costing the local people, because they've taken a whole lot away from us just in the last 12 months or so.

So I'm just wondering if if we can't develop the argument and show the points that does save the state money in the long run as well.

Just instead of focusing in just on what it's saving our county taxpayers.

If that makes sense.

Yeah, it makes sense.

Can you put that in uh uh the form of a paragraph or two?

Well, I I don't I I'm really asking those statistics to show that as the proof.

So I'd like to see statistics that show where the state is actually saving money and not just the county vote.

Right as a word of government.

Right.

So I shortened that paragraph to send the certificates.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Nick Mr.

President, uh, yes, sir.

I have I have to say to council, this is embarrassing for me to stand here and ask for this help.

I believe what's been said all around the room today already is true.

And that the state has an obligation to be involved in this and the funding of this program, because not only does this program make the community a safer place for all of us, reduce costs for us in the jail, but this program is also reducing costs for the Department of Corrections significantly.

In the same uh Shannon Kerry could do that same video and just insert IDOC where she mentions uh uh Vanderburgh County, because the Department of Corrections is saving two dollars and fifty cents uh uh on the dollar as well.

Because the Department of Corrections is saving $2.58 on the dollar as well.

But they've made this decision.

It's embarrassing.

But it's a good program.

And we're not going to go down without a fight.

And we're here fighting.

Well, Judge, and you certainly should not be embarrassed.

In fact, they're lucky that they have you fighting on their behalf.

You know, I'm comforted in hearing that it seems like we all have a pretty we're all kind of in the same place for where the numbers are, but I think something that needs to get pointed out is that also with what we do here.

We're serving the community.

There's a level of humanity that's involved in this, and having having had family member that has been through the treatment, Courton, seeing them continue to thrive, having seen uh the impact first hand.

It is again this is offers us the opportunity to give people a leg up who are in dire need of it.

And I think it just again, God willing we can get the state on board with this, but to Tom's point, my fear is it's a it's a matter of not caring.

Uh you know, we hear about the surplus at the state level as they're hacking us out at the knees.

It's getting, I mean, we're probably gonna have to carry a lot more burden than what we'd like, but for me the numbers make a lot of sense, and God willing we can get together next week and figure this part out.

Yep.

Anyone else?

Judge, just go ahead, James.

Just make one other comment.

And Judge knows I've I've uh always had a great interest in your program.

And so, you know, the people that get to remain within his treatment court and his programs, excuse me, I gotta turn this off.

Otherwise, we go back to they would be in the uh regular corrections facility.

And you know, his people that are being monitored, uh I mean that most of them are getting up and going to work every day.

So the families uh are still, you know, hopefully are being provided for, and we're not taking on extra uh you know work there in regards to that.

So it's it's just been such a great program, and it's been awarded so uh proudly by the state.

Hopefully, they've recog they realize that you were the first to introduce such a program, and you've been the only one that's actually worked.

So I would think that the state, you know, would actually see the light and and help us.

But then, Judge, the other problem is in the meantime, that probably doesn't happen tomorrow.

So, I mean, there's gonna have to be if we're gonna keep this going until the state comes to uh an agreement that we need to keep this going on.

I mean, there is going to be a need to to uh induce some money to hold you in place until that happens.

And I don't know, John.

Well, right now you're and I don't know how long it would be, but right now you're funded through the year, through the calendar year.

Through the calendar year, yeah.

This is 2026.

Let's hope Governor Braun and is and Wendy McNamara, State Representative come to an agreement and and um and uh uh there's light or and money at the end of the tunnel for this program.

Uh but I I can from my perspective we're not gonna let this program stop.

You know, if we have to find money within our budget to keep this uh in operation because it just makes sense for those involved in the court in the program and for us financially and for our community.

And it does have a ripple effect too to council member Sheller's uh comments, it does have a ripple effect throughout the state, it's just not in our community, you know, those two benefit from this.

So um we've got you back.

Thank you for your uh very passionate letter, which means uh meant a lot to me personally.

Okay, thank you, Judge.

Thank you.

Okay, let's uh James.

We've got appropriation ordinance.

Are you ready for this, James?

No, I think you're not ready.

Can we say this for James is not ready?

Did you hear that?

He's not ready.

Yeah.

No, you're ready.

Go ahead.

Okay, take it away.

We uh we don't have a lot of them today, but the first is under county surveyor, they're asking for uh a correction in a uh step raise on an employee, including FIC and Perth and the amount of 3900.

Uh we're just basically getting taking that salary to where it should be based on uh it's when they switched the line item where where they lost this amount.

So I don't think anybody's probably got questions with that.

We did you want to make a comment on that question?

And then we'll move on.

How's it going in the surveyor's office?

We don't get to see you much.

How's it going?

Yeah.

You busy?

Yeah, yeah.

Staying that way.

Yeah.

Okay, good.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next is uh circuit court for food and uh pet adjures and the amount of sixty-two thousand.

Uh anybody got any questions on that?

Uh we do have a an eager person here wanting to lessen.

We got to hear from him.

Mr.

President, uh ladies and gentlemen, the council Ryan Hudfield Circuit Court judge.

Is there anything you want to add?

I just stood up in case you wanted me.

Yeah, is there any questions?

The judge is here, he's wanting to tell us tell us what we want to know.

But I don't have any questions.

If anybody else does, please uh come forward.

No.

If not, man, we made this too easy on you.

Easier than Wayne's job, so thank you.

Easier than what?

Wayne's job.

Well, Judge Trockman's job today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Judge.

Uh okay.

Next we have public defender.

This one, I'll give you uh little recommendation on this one.

So the request under public defender for next week is 445,000.

And uh, you know, they do have a supplemental account that we all recall that they drain for a pretty sizable amount of money last this past year.

But uh the recommendation that I would make going forward next week is uh instead of 445,000 to reduce that to 335.

So basically that's throwing uh in investigative services.

The first item is for $90,000.

We approved that budget in 2026, $60,000.

So we'll let the supplement make up that extra $30,000 that is still available.

And then same with uh uh pauper transcripts.

The request was for $80,000.

We approved $80, now they're asking for $80 more.

So again, uh we met the need there, so let that come out of the supplement fund again.

So if everybody's comfortable with that, that would be my motion next week is $335,000 on that amount, which is savings of $110,000 to the county.

Uh so clarity, so the investigative contractual services you would want to request putting it at 60 in the pauper transcript or uh what's the cut across the pauper expenses again?

Yeah, no, it yes, it would be no, it would be the original request was 120.

We approved 60, and the uh appropriation request now is 90, which was actually that puts it at 100 and something thousand dollars.

More than he originally asked for.

So he can pick that difference up with the $30,000 out of the supplement.

And the amount that you would be set again for investigative contractual would be $60,000, and then you'd ask the public defender to take that $30,000 from supplemental.

We would still be picking up the $335,000, which makes up the difference.

Okay, John, are you good with that?

Next, we've got county highway.

I don't we don't have anybody here, but it's uh everybody sees it as the rationale.

Uh so any questions within the county uh it's heavy equipment operator, uh crude payments, garage and motor, maintenance and repair.

I guess that boilers just run its life.

Say that again, John.

The boiler that they want to replace is just run its life.

Yeah, yeah.

Um I'm sure Jeff will probably be here next week to probably explain that for sure.

You just got to remember everything in that facility is old.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I agree.

Uh okay with that, James.

But it's efficient.

And then the last is river boat.

Well, there's not, it's not last yet.

But river boat is uh request for 200,000.

One 100,000 for utilities and the other 100,000 for legal services.

Uh any questions on that.

Nope.

Of which this is a typical request late in the year, it seems like every year we're uh legal services and utilities are higher than what we budgeted or expected.

So if no questions with that, we can move on to county recorder, and that's for fifty-eight thousand for contractual services.

Uh any questions on that?

If not, well, John, that's it.

And we're down to transfers, which we do not deal with today, so let's move on.

Does she want to talk?

You you you done, James?

Yes.

Okay.

Um Debbie, you're in the audience.

Did you want to say anything?

Um because I I see or not.

Are you just here to visit?

Okay.

Very good.

All right.

Well, that really concludes our meeting.

Um the um our our next meeting, we've got actually four meetings um in August.

If I can find them.

Here they are.

Uh we've got our next council meeting is two weeks from today.

Uh we'll have our county council meeting uh at 8 30 a.m.

Note that 8 30 a.m.

followed by our day one of county budget hearings, and then we'll um we'll go into um uh what do you call that session or recess, and then we'll pick up again the following day on August 13th for day two of uh budget hearings.

And then um there we also have uh remember if you put this on the city county joint department hearing on August the twenty sixth in this room at 3 p.m.

John I have a question.

Can you get up at 8 30?

Sorry, James, I get up at four o'clock almost every day, and I'm at the gym at 445.

I've yet to see you there.

But I know someday you will come.

Uh so yeah, I'll I'll make the eight thirty.

All right.

Um is there any other business come before this council?

Any other comments, questions?

Audience hearing none, we are adjourned.