JOINT MEETING

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-CITY COUNCIL

AUGUST 4, 2011

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners and Common Council of the City of Evansville reconvened the joint session and public hearing from June 30, 2011 on the proposed Reorganization Plan this 4^th day of August, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex.

President Winnecke: Good evening. I would like to welcome everyone back to our continued public hearing on the local government reorganization committee.

President Winnecke: Let’s begin by standing and joining in the Pledge of Allegiance please.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

President Winnecke: I think each of you received, each of us received an e-mail from Mr. Ziemer outlining the open items from our last meeting. So, I thought I would use that as our agenda, if you would, and go through those. We’re certainly free to go back through other matters that have come to anyone’s attention since we met last. Point one has to do with Section 7.3.2.1. This is an issue that Councilman Adams has brought up. I think that’s the right, 7.3?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That’s right.

President Winnecke: Okay. Dan, would you like to add, say anything to that?

Councilmember Adams: Well, it goes down, and I apologize for being repetitive, it comes back to the definition of a Full Service Urban District. You know, I guess, you can’t have a partial Urban District, you can’t have a halfway Urban District. You have quote-unquote, full services. If that means Full Urban District, it seems to me that that would sort of mimic what we have inside the city now. If we are paying county taxes and city taxes, if you’re paying those taxes, I think you ought to get what you pay for.

President Winnecke: What if we added language that clarified if a geographic area left the General Service District to join the Urban Service District–

Councilmember Adams: Contiguous, I think was the word we used.

President Winnecke: –contiguous–

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, I understand that. That makes sense to me.

President Winnecke: It would, at that time, receive all of the services of the Full Urban Service District.

Councilmember Adams: Right.

President Winnecke: What if we just added language to clarify that?

Councilmember Adams: Right. I think it’s pretty simple to me.

President Winnecke: Does anyone have a problem with that? Okay, we’ll consider that a straw yes. So, we can add, clarify that.

(City Councilmembers approved straw vote 7-0. County Commissioners approved straw vote 3-0.)

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Just so I understand, or John and I understand, we’re, I mean, it’s already, in the definitions it says an Urban Services District is one category, a General Services District is everything, which would be everything outside the city limits, which is now the county. If a part of that is, becomes an Urban Services District, what we want to be sure we say is that part shall be entitled to every service that is, that prior to that time was provided to people in the Urban Services District. Is that–

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –what you’re saying?

Councilmember Adams: Obviously, we’re talking about police.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, I mean–

Councilmember Adams: And fire.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: – that’s one thing, police, fire and yeah.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, right. Thank you. We can do that.

President Winnecke: Okay. Any other discussion on that point?

President Winnecke: Okay, point two was a suggestion actually, a suggestion made by Bill Jeffers, actually, relative to Section 11.1.2. This has to do with the process by which the Plan could be amended. He suggested, and I believe the attorneys agree this is a, it’s probably clearer language.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: As it’s written, it could be interpreted to mean that only the people, the identified people who voted for the Secretary of State, five percent of those people would be the people that have to, want the amendment. Better language would say five percent of everybody who voted for the Secretary of State, without regard to who they are, and we, what I did was trail the language that was used to initiate this process by the League of Women Voters, if you remember, and that’s the language that I have referred to here, which says, it would be signed, a petition for amendment would be signed by at least five percent of the voters of the Combined Government, as determined by the vote cast in the Combined Government for Secretary of State at the most recent general election. We believe that eliminates any possibility of misinterpretation and recommend that you approve that change.

President Winnecke: It sounds clear to me. Any questions?

Commissioner Melcher: I have one question. I think I brought it up once before, but not when we were speaking about it. Is everybody happy with the five percent? I always thought all petitions should have more than five percent. You know, I think it ought to have at least about 20 percent, but that might be me needing to be (Inaudible), but I just think five percent is too small. I think if you just get a group of, you get a couple of organizations, just one organization, they might have five percent among themselves. That’s, so, to me, it would be better if it was a higher number than just five.

President Winnecke: I think the initial feeling was they wanted to keep it at five, the original Reorganization Committee.

Commissioner Melcher: Because the original was that way, but we don’t have to.

President Winnecke: The State statute, the enabling legislation allows for five percent, I think that’s why they kept it in there. I think it might be difficult to be more than five percent, but maybe that’s fine.

Commissioner Melcher: I just think there should be more than five, because, you know, whatever happens, if ours don’t go anywhere, you know, we know that they could get five percent more, which is ten percent, and it’s automatically on the ballot. So, I’m just, I just wanted to throw that out.

President Winnecke: Any other discussion?

Councilmember Adams: Well, Steve, I don’t think there’s much difference in my mind between five and ten percent, but all this does really is allow people to generate a study commission, as I understand it, start the ball rolling. I think in some sense five percent would make it be more sensitive to the voters needs or whims or whatever word you want to use. Perhaps, would you worry that they might be making that thing work too hard?

Commissioner Melcher: No, I just think we need a little bit of a better, like when they do polls, they do a hundred out of a million or something. Everybody thinks that’s a great poll, do you know what I mean? I’m just saying it ought to be a little higher than five percent, whatever it is, but we don’t have to live on that all night. I just believe that.

Councilmember Adams: Are we allowed to up that?

Councilmember McGinn: How many voted? Does anybody have a number? I mean, are we talking 80,000 people voted in–

Commissioner Abell: No.

Councilmember McGinn: –Vanderburgh County?

President Winnecke: It seems like the number, I’m trying to remember here. It seems like they presented us petitions of roughly 3,300 names, I think, to start this process, which represented five percent of the people who voted in the previous Secretary of State’s race, more or less. It might have been a little less than that.

Commissioner Melcher: And they might not have been the ones that they could of, I could be wrong and the attorneys could straighten me out, it’s just five percent of the registered voters, not the ones that voted actually in that election. Isn’t that right? They just have to be a registered, but they had to vote in that election.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: No, it’s five percent of the number who voted is what it is.

Commissioner Melcher: Of who voted.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Of the number that voted, right. Not who they are individually, but just the number. So, if the number was 80,000, if there were 80,000 votes for the Secretary of State in that election, then you would need 4,000 signatures on the petition. That’s what it means.

Commissioner Melcher: Right, and those 4,000 might not even have voted in that election.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That’s not what the legislation addresses.

Commissioner Melcher: That’s the reason why I think it ought to be just a little higher, to make sure we get people that are voting.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: In answer to Dr. Adams’ question, it can be higher, it’s just that you recognize that the higher you make it the harder it will be to get that number.

Councilmember Adams: Right.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That’s up to you.

Commissioner Abell: Mr. President, I would just like to throw in that it’s a monumental task, because I’ve done it as Clerk of the Court, to make sure that these are valid petitions. You may get one in front of you with 3,300 names on it, and Alberta’s worked in this also, they probably had 10,000 signatures to get 3,300 people that were really qualified. Because people will sign, you know, they’ll be at the grocery store and people will sign who live in Henderson, Kentucky. You know, so, it’s a monumental task to get, to have it happen. I just want you to know that it’s not an easy job.

Councilmember Adams: Well, I would sure like us to be more responsive than less to the voter.

President Winnecke: Do we want to take a straw vote on the five, on this language and the five percent? Or is Steve out there by himself on this?

Commissioner Melcher: I’m okay if I’m by myself. I’m just telling you what I believe.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: It’s not that I’m trying to make it harder on anybody. Actually I’m trying to make it, you know, the one part I didn’t like too about this five percent, the taxpayers, all those other 95 percent of those taxpayers didn’t get, their taxes are paying for this, because the State said they had to pay for it.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: But, if everybody’s happy with the five, we can move on.

President Winnecke: We’re going to move one of the items up, because I know someone just arrived and one of those folks has to leave early. I thought we would talk about the fiscal impact next. County Auditor, Joe Gries; City Controller, Jenny Collins are you both here? I thought I saw Jenny. Oh, there you are. Just a second, Joe. You can go ahead and start.

Joe Gries: Okay, good evening, Councilmembers and Commissioners. We have some additional information here for you tonight. This expands on the original report prepared by Crowe Horwath. The financial analysis for the proposed reorganization of the city and county was originally presented in 2010, as I’m sure you’re aware to the Reorganization Committee. This letter and the attached summary provides a projection of the tax rates and possible cost savings due to consolidation. The letter also provides a discussion for four possible scenarios, along with analysis and explanation detailing how these figures were derived. The report examines the impact to property tax caps within the scenarios, in particular from a taxpayers perspective. I would add that the information is a projection. It’s based on certain assumptions, not all of which may come to pass. Information, it’s an estimate, and will be influenced by several variables that really no one would be able to predict at this time. We have been working with Jennifer Hudson and Dario Requiz, I think I got that right, with Crowe, and I believe they are going to take you through the summary here, or Jennifer will. Myself and the City Controller, Jenny Collins, are also here to help answer questions, and help in any way we can. I’ll turn it over to Jennifer.

Jennifer Hudson: Hi, good evening. I’m Jennifer Hudson, and I work for Crowe Horwath in Indianapolis. I was instructed to prepare a letter with additional analysis based off of our original report that we presented to you in August of 2010. I want to go over the one sheet addendum that was handed out. This is a summary of the scenarios that are discussed in more depth in the letter. So, I want to focus my explanation off of this summary. I’ll direct you into the memo where it will talk about each one of these scenarios. As Joe mentioned, what we were doing is trying to project out to 2015 and what the tax rates for the county and the city would look like assuming no consolidation happens, and then assuming that consolidation happens with four different scenarios. Okay? So, we picked three taxing districts, Evansville’s Center Township, Center Township in the county, and then Scott Township. So, as you can see, in the second column it says, Tax Rate Exhibit 7A. Exhibit 7A is an exhibit that is included in our letter. This scenario is assuming there is no reorganization. We are estimating that with current information that we have about the city and the county budgets that those could be what the tax rates are in 2015, assuming no reorganization. Then, if you look at the other columns, these are the additional four scenarios. The scenarios on top assume that there is three percent savings, due to efficiencies, through reorganization, plus identified savings to date that have been projected based off of the elimination of some of the County Commissioners, the County Council and the City Councilmembers when that gets consolidated into a Common Council, as well as the City Clerk position. So, that’s what we mean by identified savings. The three percent and the seven percent, as you’ll see later, have not currently been identified, but they have been projected as numbers that seem to be reasonable and able to be achieved through reorganization. So, the first scenario that I want to talk about , based off of reorganization, would be the three percent savings, plus identified savings, assuming that the Sheriff function for law enforcement expenses only, not correctional, are captured in a Special Service District, whereby only citizens in the county, in unincorporated areas, would be paying for that expense. So, the citizens within the City of Evansville, they would no longer be paying for the Sheriff’s law enforcement expenses. It would just be the burden of the citizens in the county that received that service. So, that’s what we mean by a Special Service District for the Sheriff. So, as you can see from that tax rate, the Evansville Center Township residents could see a reduction in their tax rate due to the reduction in the Sheriff law enforcement, and then the township citizens would see an increase, because they would be bearing the burden of the entire cost of the Sheriff law enforcement expenses, without the help of the citizens in Evansville. If you go directly below that, assuming that we increase the unidentified savings from three percent to seven percent, you can see that Evansville Center Township, their tax rate may be reduced by nearly twenty cents, where as the Center Township and the Scott Township would go up by about 11 cents. They’re lower only because of the increased savings. Okay, the last column assumes that the Sheriff function is included in the General Services District, just as it is today, everybody in the county pays for the service of the Sheriff. There would be no Special Service District, people in Evansville would be paying for the Sheriff function as well as the citizens in the county. You would see a reduction in the tax rate for the City of Evansville due to the three percent savings, and the same below, you would see a reduction in everyone’s tax rates, and that’s merely just a function of the unidentified savings percentage from our analysis. The scenario, the Sheriff Special Service District, the very first scenario I discussed, with the three percent savings, that is discussed in our memo on the second page, under Additional Analysis, the first bullet point, just in case you wanted to go back and reference later. The three percent savings in the Sheriff District, the Sheriff function being taxed in the General Services District, is discussed in the second bullet point in that same section. Basically, this whole memo is discussed in the additional analysis section of our memo. So, if you want to go back later and review that a little bit further, that’s where you’re going to find that analysis. The, basically, as I mentioned, this memo basically walks through the analysis that we prepared, and it will go into more of an overall, if there’s no consolidation, the first exhibit shows what the current tax rate is, it projects it out to pay 2015, assuming no consolidation. That’s what Exhibit seven, Exhibit A is of the memo. I apologize. This exhibit here, it’s going to look very similar to what you’re used to in the consolidation report that we presented in August. It’s the same layout. This is the basis for these other scenarios that I talked about first. This is the analysis that we prepared to project out what the 2015 tax rates would be assuming no consolidation. Then on Exhibit B, the following page, this is assuming that there is a creation of Special Service District just for the Sheriff function and seven percent cost savings.

President Winnecke: Jennifer, just to kind of maybe get the ball rolling, and just for everyone in the audience, we are making additional copies. Those came just tonight and Alberta is down in her office doing that. So, we’ll get copies for everyone in the audience. If you could, maybe share with us how you arrived at the projection of a possible three percent or seven percent savings. What historical data you used to base that on.

Jennifer Hudson: Okay, the three and the seven percent, traditionally in reorganization, they project out about 15 percent savings due to efficiencies through reorganization should be able to achieved. So, the committee felt that to be conservative they would estimate seven, but if you all felt that that was too aggressive and wanted to see a lower percent savings, seeing as though this would be the very first year of reorganization, you wouldn’t expect to see full efficiencies the very first year. So, three percent might be a little more of what you would expect to see the very first year, and then as reorganization comes into full fruition, in the next few years you might see additional savings as you realize more efficiencies that maybe you didn’t realize during the initial.

Councilmember Adams: Let me go back to a more basic question.

Jennifer Hudson: Sure.

Councilmember Adams: How, what kind of documentation do you have that 15 percent is what you normally see with a consolidation? I’m not trying to question your thing–

Jennifer Hudson: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: – I just, because–

Jennifer Hudson: It is just, it’s a general number that people use when they generally put together a consolidation plan. It should achieve approximately 15 percent through purchasing power, elimination of dual services, that sort of elimination, and it may even project, you know, insurance savings and salary and benefits and reduction of work force. I’m not sure what makes up that entire 15 percent.

Councilmember Adams: But, that really doesn’t answer my question. The question I had was what documentation do you have that that actually occurs in an actual consolidation?

Jennifer Hudson: I do not have any.

Councilmember Adams: Okay, well, I’m not saying you’re wrong.

Jennifer Hudson: No, no.

Councilmember Adams: Because that’s a hard number we’ve been trying to find.

Jennifer Hudson: Yeah, and that’s why we are not using the 15 percent, and we’re trying to show more conservative–

Councilmember Adams: Okay.

Jennifer Hudson: –numbers, especially seeing as 2015 would be the first year of reorganization. It may be quite aggressive to show a 15 percent cost savings the very first year its in force.

Councilmember Adams: Thanks.

Commissioner Melcher: I guess, and Doc jumped out quicker than I could, I agree with him on that, because I was going to ask pretty much the same question, because I thought maybe you guys looked at Lexington and Indianapolis and Nashville, all of these places that we kept getting told that it all works. It would have been good to have had a spreadsheet from them of what happened their first year, their second year, their third year, and that would have been good to put in your report for here. But, if we’re just sitting here thinking I’m 16 and somebody else is thinking it ought to be ten, then all of a sudden to be more conservative we’re going to say three. That doesn’t mean anything. Unless we’ve got something we can back this up with, from other cities that have already done it, I think that would give us a better understanding of where we’re at.

Jennifer Hudson: Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: Because, right now, this will be hard to sell anybody, because they will say how did you get it and we’ll say, well, we just guessed it.

Jennifer Hudson: Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: You know, you’ve got, so I would want to take those cities that’s always been repeated every time somebody’s come up to that microphone for this, the ones, we at least get four, and if you get some our size, some of those are bigger.

Councilmember McGinn: I have a comment though that this, Jenny, you I think will back me up on this, I mean, for those of you who have never been a department head in this thing. I mean, if the Controller says you’ve got “x” amount of dollars in 2010, in 2011 you’re getting three percent less, you stretch it. I mean, I think that’s simple, rather than having the numbers. If we’re talking about a three percent reduction, if you tell a department head their budget is three percent less, it’s three percent less. I mean, what’s, this isn’t rocket science.

Commissioner Melcher: No, but that’s not what’s being asked. What’s being asked is what is the savings for consolidation? What you’re saying is what we can do right now. You’re saying what we can do right now, without consolidation. With consolidation what are the real numbers we could save? What can we tell everybody out here what we could save? We can’t say that yet, because we don’t have this backed up.

Councilmember McGinn: But, I think it’s up to the elected officials, acting in unison to make that determination.

Commissioner Melcher: And, I’m agreeing with that, but let’s see what other elected officials did after they passed.

Councilmember McGinn: I think we’re better than they are.

Commissioner Melcher: I’m agreeing, we’re better than Indianapolis now, and look where we’re at. We’re a lot better than them right now, and we’re here looking at it. So, if we’re going to do it right, let’s do it right.

Councilmember Adams: Dan, I think the independent variable here is, you’re right, the leadership can say we’re going to have a three percent, seven percent, 10 percent reduction, but what I was asking, and I think what you were asking also was using the actual data that we have now, putting the departments together, and I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying I can’t sort of wish data that a valve is going to work in heart surgery. I’ve got to have some five year read out that says this is what happens before I change my valve.

Jennifer Hudson: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: The bottom line is, I’m not trying to put you on the spot, I just think it would be good to have some, this is what happens across the country.

Jennifer Hudson: Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: I will say, I’m glad you came down, because we kept getting horror stories that you guys disappeared, and I thought August of 2010 wasn’t going to get it for this.

Jennifer Hudson: Yeah.

Commissioner Melcher: So, thank you.

Jennifer Hudson: You’re welcome.

Commissioner Melcher: Even though it’s dated today, it’s still good.

Commissioner Abell: Mr. Winnecke, I think, I understand what they’re saying about the assumption of the tax rate, but I do think there is one thing that maybe this does tell us. That if the, if we have consolidation and the county bears the whole burden of the Sheriff, their taxes are going to go up, and the city’s will go down. But, if we, if it remains as it is now, where the city residents pay part of the Sheriff’s–

Jennifer Hudson: Right.

Commissioner Abell: –everybody’s is going to go down a little bit.

Jennifer Hudson: Yeah, when you mean county you mean just the county residents that are in the unincorporated areas?

Commissioner Abell: Yes.

Jennifer Hudson: That is correct, yes.

Commissioner Abell: So, no matter what the percentage is, the end result is that if we tax the current county residents for the 100 percent usage of the Sheriff, their taxes are going to go up, because right now they get a contribution from the city toward the county Sheriff’s–

Jennifer Hudson: Law enforcement.

Commissioner Abell: – law enforcement expenses.

Jennifer Hudson: Right.

Commissioner Abell: But, if we keep it like it is, everybody should get a little savings.

Jennifer Hudson: That’s right.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: Am I right to assume that in the present thing that the city pays two thirds of the bill for the Sheriff?

Jennifer Hudson: That’s the way I understand it, yes.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

President Watts: Jennifer, were you guys involved in Louisville or Lexington?

Jennifer Hudson: No.

President Watts: You were not?

Jennifer Hudson: No.

President Watts: Have you done any cities comparable to us?

Jennifer Hudson: Yes, I am currently working with Delaware-Muncie consolidation.

President Watts: Have you done any that are two or three years into it? If so, did your projections hold true with them?

Jennifer Hudson: They are at the same part that you’re at right now.

President Watts: Oh, they are in the (Inaudible) with us?

Jennifer Hudson: Yeah, they are in the same phase.

Commissioner Melcher: I don’t think there is one in Indiana yet. Is there?

Jennifer Hudson: Indianapolis.

President Watts: Indianapolis.

Commissioner Melcher: Well, not counting Indianapolis.

Jennifer Hudson: Yes, that’s correct.

Councilman John: Well, to take Councilman Watts’--

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Jennifer Hudson: They did do annexations, but they have not done consolidation.

Commissioner Abell: Oh.

Commissioner Melcher: I think there’s been a township–

Jennifer Hudson: There’s several communities that are watching this one and Delaware-Muncie to see how it happens.

Councilman John: I’m sure there have been studies or at least reports done on Jefferson County, you know, Louisville area, Lexington area, maybe some other major metropolitan area. What have those shown? Have they been making this three percent, seven percent, 15 percent?

Jennifer Hudson: On Muncie-Delaware we were not making any projections of savings.

Councilman John: Well, no I’m not asking projections. Has there been an analysis of jurisdictions that have already gone through this and what their actual savings have been?

Jennifer Hudson: I’ll look into it and I’ll get back to you.

Councilman John: I would think those figures would be available.

President Winnecke: Any other questions of Jennifer or Joe or Jenny before we move on? Dan, you’re looking like you’re–

Councilmember Adams: Well, this gentleman in the second row gave us a wonderful paper about two months ago and I’ve lost it. It was some sort of summation (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) I don’t know whether they actually talked about the three (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) percent savings.

Jennifer Hudson: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) What was it (Inaudible). I apologize for putting you on the spot. That study that you showed they were (Inaudible) consolidations in that study.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Of the Louisville consolidation?

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) That they quoted in that paper.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Oh, you’re talking about the (Inaudible. Not at microphone.).

Councilmember Adams: Meta analysis, excuse me.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Meta analysis that Emmons put together? I think there were 75 or so different consolidations.

Councilmember Adams: I apologize, I left that at home.

President Winnecke: Bruce, if–

Jennifer Hudson: Okay–

President Winnecke: – do you want. Do you want him to get that for us?

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Okay. Any other questions of Jennifer or Joe or Jenny? So, if we have some additional questions, maybe you can flesh out for us and get back to, probably Joe and Jenny, and they can distribute the information.

Jennifer Hudson: Okay.

President Winnecke: Is that fair to everybody?

Councilmember Adams: Thank you.

Jennifer Hudson: You’re welcome. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thank you, Jennifer. Appreciate it.

Jennifer Hudson: Thank you.

President Winnecke: Joe and Jenny, thank you.

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll go back up to number three, review of the boards and Exhibit D. Ted, would you or John like to give us a brief recap of....John wants to, no, Ted wants to.

John Hamilton: (Inaudible. Not at microphone.)

President Winnecke: Oh, okay. Well, we don’t attack you too much.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, what we did was go through each of the boards or departments that were listed on Exhibit D to the Reorganization Plan that we received, and checked whether those boards are authorized and controlled by statute or by ordinance. If they are controlled by statute then we can’t change what Indiana law says those boards should be, so we made no change. If they are controlled by ordinance, they could be changed if the ordinance is amended. But, what we reflected on both the worksheet that we gave you, which is this one, other than the one that was attached, what we reflected there is what the make up of these boards should be based on either the statute or the now in effect ordinance. In doing that, if appointments were to be made by an executive, and that means either the Mayor or the County Commissioners, then we considered those appointments would be made by the Mayor of the Combined Government. If they were appointments to be made by the County Council or the City Council, then we had those appointments made by the new Common Council. Based on that we prepared the chart that we gave you. Then, what we also gave you is a new copy of Exhibit D, using the form that it was in when the Reorganization Committee submitted it to us, but using information that’s contained on this chart.

President Winnecke: Yes?

John Hamilton: I can add one thing, and it may be out of order, but number nine is kind of related to this on your worksheet. Number nine informs you that under the way this Plan is written, if you adopt Exhibit D as it is, you may require the full amendment procedure in order for the first Council to make any amendments, which they ordinarily could do by ordinance. We’re suggesting in number nine, and we’ve brought this to your attention before, that you may want to add some language that says any of the boards that are authorized and established by ordinance may be amended by ordinance so that you’re not restricting the first Council from having to go through that arduous process.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: But not have you go through Article 11.

John Hamilton: Right. Yes. If you don’t add that language that we’re suggesting in nine, you’re actually requiring them to go through this entire amendment procedure, which is something they should, normally would be able to do by ordinance.

President Winnecke: Yeah, I think that’s a good suggestion. I think that, to go through the entire amendment procedure for something like this might be a little cumbersome. I like the addition of that language and that suggestion. I don’t know if anybody feels otherwise.

(City Councilmembers approved straw vote 7-0. County Commissioners approved straw vote 3-0.)

President Winnecke: Okay, let’s add that language there, gentlemen. Now, back to the boards themselves, any...we also eliminated, just for your review, we eliminated compensation to all, I believe all boards, except for expenses. There are 60 boards or commissions, just for anyone out there who doesn’t have the list.

Councilmember Adams: I mentioned, if you’ll recall, that I wasn’t sure if that the Port Authority Board was necessary and viable at this juncture, but I think, obviously, we ought to leave it up to the Metro Council to decide that.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: I think that’s only about $120,000, strike out the word only.

President Winnecke: Any other comments or suggestions? Okay, then I will consider, do we want to do a straw vote or just a head nod? How about a straw vote.

Councilmember McGinn: On number nine?

President Winnecke: On boards and commissions, accepting Exhibit D, the 60 boards and commissions and the make up, their appointing authorities, etcetera.

Commissioner Abell: Plus number nine.

President Winnecke: Plus the addition of number nine, which gives us a little more flexibility in eliminating a board or Commission. All in favor raise their right hand, or left.

(City Councilmembers approved straw vote 7-0. County Commissioners approved straw vote 3-0.)

President Winnecke: Okay, gentlemen, we’re good with that.

President Winnecke: Section four, I’m sorry, number four in Section 1.6. It was suggested by someone, and I don’t remember who, that we might–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Us.

President Winnecke: Oh, the attorneys. Well, why don’t you get up and explain it then. It makes sense.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: There’s language in the statute which says the first election for the Mayor and the Common Council of the Combined Government shall be held after the first general election occurring after the approval of the Reorganization Plan as provided in the Act. That would be 2014, and rather than having to think through all that, we think it’s better to just say, shall be held at the general election in 2014. That would be our recommendation. Then, if we do that, in section 1.7 it refers to the effective date of the reorganization and describes what that’s going to be. That actually will be January 1, 2015. We would put that in instead of that language.

President Winnecke: Anybody have a problem with that? It makes it clearer I think.

(City Councilmembers approved straw vote 7-0. County Commissioners approved straw vote 3-0.)

President Winnecke: Okay, gentlemen, no one disagreed. So, please make that addition.

President Winnecke: Number five, section 11.2 denotes the combined political subdivision as Evansville-Vanderburgh Combined Government, or for legal purposes the Combined Government. The language of 11.2.1 which refers to the nine (9) citizens of Evansville, should be changed to read the nine (9) citizens of the Combined Government. 11.2.1, is everybody following, tracking? Anybody have an issue with that? Again, just clarification, page 17. Is everybody okay with that?

(City Councilmembers approved straw vote 7-0. County Commissioners approved straw vote 3-0.)

President Winnecke: Okay, gentlemen, that’s a change.

President Winnecke: Number six, Police and Sheriff, relative to jurisdictions. We have Sheriff Williams and Assistant Chief Hahn here.

Eric Williams: Good evening. I believe you all have received copies from both Chief Hill and myself of our proposed jurisdictional changes, but, before I spend any time answering questions, just a comment, based on the discussion of your very first opening remarks, section number one, which in effect creates annexation as it is today just with less restrictions, really renders this discussion a moot point. These discussions were held based on the idea that we were locking jurisdictional boundaries in for a period of time to be determined by this committee. There’s really not much value in doing this if we’re going to do what we talked about in section one earlier this evening. With that, I would be happy to answer questions about my proposal though.

Councilmember McGinn: I agree with you, what you said, because when you’re talking about, the part that is in the county now only becomes part of the city if it is, if it meets two requirements, it is contiguous and if the services are provided, the services include Police services. So, I mean, it automatically changes color when that happens.

Eric Williams: Which becomes annexation as it is today, more or less. We came up with these ideas, Chief Hill and myself, after the debate of we were going to leave law enforcement as it is today for a period of time to be reconsidered. That regardless of what everybody else did, that law enforcement was one of those issues that we wanted to pull completely away from the discussion, and that we would come up with some realistic or some reasonable jurisdictions that would last us that period of time, doing away with islands and make easy to follow boundaries and clean up some discrepancy areas as they exist today. That’s what Chief Hill and I did. Obviously, we did it differently. We had several meetings and we landed in different places, but I think that was both of our ideas when we went into those discussions.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Sheriff, if I can just ask a question for our understanding. If I understand what you’re saying now, we know that the Urban Services District is defined by the city limits of Evansville, as it exists today. The General Services District is the county outside the city limits of Evansville. If I’m hearing you right the Sheriff will continue to operate in the county, as we know it today, and the Police will operate in the city as we know it today. If we take a portion of the General Services District, which is the county, and convert that into an Urban Services District, that will then be served by the Evansville, what we know as the Evansville Police Department and the Evansville Fire Department, and that would then cut back on the area served by the Sheriff. Is that essentially what you’re saying?

Eric Williams: You just described annexation, but, yes, I think that is what we discussed that we were taking that component out it when we had this last meeting, that we were going to lock law enforcement jurisdictions in because everybody that had the county Sheriff’s Office seemed to be very happy with that, and everybody that had the Evansville Police Department were very happy with that and wanted to leave well enough alone regardless of the rest of the argument. You know, I think the discussion in number one and then listening to the discussion by the finance from Crowe Horwath takes me all the way back to the beginning where it sounds like the most reasonable choice is to consolidate law enforcement in this program, but that was an argument that’s already been had, settled and solved apparently.

Commissioner Abell: It’s not been solved.

President Winnecke: Let me ask you this, I mean, the issue of jurisdiction, I thought, came up based on discussions by you and the Chief. Is that right or not?

Eric Williams: When we became, when we were talking about the jurisdictions we said if we are going to lock jurisdictions in that it would make sense at that point in time, because we were all going to be one happy government, one happy community, just served by two different law enforcement entities, both providing full time paid professional services, both with very good mutual aid agreements with each other. We go into the city and help them, they come out into the county and help us. I mean, we work together all the time, we were just going to have primary patrol jurisdictions spelled out for a period of time before it was reconsidered in the future. With that in mind, there are some oddities in our current city-county boundaries that make them difficult to follow, it creates some islands that are difficult to police for one or the other, that at that point in time, since we were all one happy government and one happy family, that we ought to shore those up so they made the most sense so that we could both operate as efficiently as possible. There are some areas in the county, for example, what’s known as the east side bottoms for us, the big dip down in the east side for us, is not contiguous with any of our other patrol jurisdictions. So, we are sending patrol cars through the city all the time to go down there and patrol that and to answer runs for service down there. Where it would make a whole lot more sense for the city, who has contiguous beats and sectors right along that edge just to take that, provided we’re all one happy government at that point in time. We were looking at other areas where we have boundaries that dissect neighborhoods, parcels, follow irregular patterns, and my goal was to move all of those to very clearly definable roadways, so that you knew that this roadway was the difference between city and county police protection. Or Sheriff and Police Department, however you want to say it, but that was the goal we took, and that’s why probably mine looks a lot more broad and sweeping is we were looking for opportunities to make contiguous patrol beats and sections and make it as efficient for a period of ten years to come as we possibly could.

President Winnecke: Rob, did you want to say anything?

Rob Hahn: We, and you’ve got to forgive me, I’m kind of playing catch up a little bit. The Chief was unable to be here tonight. We kind of looked at remapping a little bit differently. We didn’t take wide swaths. It’s like the westside, it’s the Wal-Mart that’s closed now at Rosenberger and Lloyd, it used to be it caused a nightmare for Dispatch as well as law enforcement, because the parking lot was city, and Wal-Mart was county. So, when you would get out there everybody would complain about who was going to make the run. So, we tried to stop that. So, that small part there at the very west side, that’s what we fixed there. That would be all Sheriff’s Department. Of course, they would take Moutoux Park, that’s way up on St. Joe Avenue. We looked at it from when someone calls 911, to actually the guy that makes the run. Goebel Field we would like the Sheriff’s Department to take care of that for us please. Angel Mounds Boat Ramp as well as Dogtown, but the wide swath, I mean, that’s nothing the Chief would ever agree to. You cannot, the airport, Mater Dei, Daniel Wertz, and this has nothing to do with downing them, I’m not criticizing the Sheriff’s Department, just the sheer numbers the Police Department has, you’ve got to let them do that. You cannot have an airport, a high school, a grade school be policed by someone that doesn’t have a swat team, that doesn’t have a bomb dog, that doesn’t have a bomb robot at all. You’ve got to plan for the worst case scenario. An active shooter, someone that’s actively doing something, shooting someone at school, God forbid, you’ve got to have those tools to address it. So, that’s why we would never, you just can’t do it. So, let’s stop this year and half bickering we’ve been doing and just leave it alone. So, that’s my request. If I was out of line, I apologize.

Commissioner Abell: I have a question. I’m looking at the proposal from EPD–

Rob Hahn: Yes, Ma’am.

Commissioner Abell: – and way down here on the south side, the southeast side there’s a little bitty red piece. What in the world sense does that make?

Rob Hahn: That’s Angel Mounds Boat Ramp.

Commissioner Abell: But, why would we run the Sheriff’s Department, who the closest they have to that is way on the north side there, why would you run them all the way...if somebody was doing anything at Angel Mounds, they would be dead by the time they got there.

Eric Williams: Let me answer that for them. You have to remember, Marsha, in the current jurisdiction we are patrolling everything around that. That is ours right now, and that’s the part I’m trying to give to the city, because they have contiguous patrol jurisdictions now. That would make more sense efficiency wise. Right now we police that through mutual aid agreements with the Evansville Police Department. We handle Angel Mounds, we handle Moutoux Park and we handle Goebel because it’s out in the county also.

Commissioner Abell: But, in this one from EPD, the transfer to EPD, just above that.

Eric Williams: Correct.

Commissioner Abell: Well, why not take that too? I mean, I’m very familiar with that area, but you could almost spit from one end to the other, why would we run the Sheriff’s Department all the way across town to do that?

Rob Hahn: To be honest with you, we would be glad to have it. We didn’t want that whole, huge area of agricultural field. We’re kind of an urban Police Department. We looked at it like, Urban Taxing District, if you’re in the city we’ll take care of your law enforcement. That’s not city, but we’ll be glad to take it.

Councilman John: Marsha, you may not have been following it, all of this white area is currently the Sheriff.

Commissioner Abell: Well, but directly–

Councilman John: All of this.

Commissioner Abell: – yeah, but directly above this little red spot right here–

Councilman John: Right.

Commissioner Abell: –transfers to the city. That’s where the road connecting Angel Mounds, this down here doesn’t connect to it anyway. This road right up here connects to it, and that’s where the tornado was that took out the trailer park. I just think it is ridiculous to think that if there is a Police car sitting right here, and there’s something going on at Angel Mounds, the Sheriff from way up here has to come all the way down here and answer that call. That doesn’t make any sense.

Rob Hahn: And we go now. We’ll go then, we just left it as is.

Councilmember McGinn: In practicality, if there is consolidation and there are jurisdictional questions here, the person who is the Mayor can tell the Police Chief for coverage areas you go there. I mean, our Police Chief under this, with all due respect to Brad and Robbie, I mean, your not an autonomous entity like the Sheriff. I mean, a Mayor can order coverage in an area, for convenience, if the parties cannot work it out and should order coverage in an area that is this proper.

Eric Williams: I would also add though that, you know, as the Sheriff’s Office my jurisdiction is county-wide, and I could order coverage into the city if it was necessary. It’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. We looked at it from two different perspectives. I was looking at this as a long term solution to reach efficiencies, you know, I take a little exception to some of Assistant Chief Hahn’s comments. My office is more than capable of handling schools, we’re getting ready to take over the new North High School and the new North Middle School. We’ll be very capable of doing that. We have different philosophies on specialty teams, but we are very well aware of the Evansville Police Departments capabilities and equipment, and we call on them frequently, just as they do the same for us when they need something we have that they don’t. It’s, again, I think all of these arguments lend to take us right back to where we started that if we were to merge the two we would take the best of both and put them together and have a great police agency for this community as a whole.

Councilmember McGinn: I believe that will happen too no matter what comes out of this plan. I mean, I know enough Police officers and Sheriff’s officers, I mean, it’s going to be good, if we just decide on something and it will work itself out. I mean, we have quality people who are handling this.

Rob Hahn: Like minds can disagree. Even though we disagree, don’t mean we’re going to walk outside and start fighting. In reality, my kids go to Mater Dei and I want the Evansville Police Department to take care of them.

Councilmember Adams: Ah, I did a little background search and I need some ratification from the legal brains here. It’s my understanding that State law says that the Police Department takes care of the city and the Sheriff takes care of the county. Right now, until good people get together, these two people are going to be separate under the consolidation. I still see my constituents paying two thirds of the bill for the county Sheriff’s and it doesn’t bother me at all that you have to drive through the city and have that presence and actively come down and take care of the, along the river, because I think it’s wonderful that you actually are coming through the city to come down there, because my constituents are getting some, their money’s worth.

Eric Williams: Can I just make one comment?

Councilmember Adams: Oh, sure.

Eric Williams: Because I don’t disagree with you at all.

Councilmember Adams: Okay.

Eric Williams: We’re in the city all of the time. We do a lot of other functions that are inside the city limits, service of process, arrest warrants, all kinds of things. We’re in the city quite frequently, and we don’t mind driving through the city, my concern was efficiencies as far as making that 911 response when I don’t have a car in that area at the time and the Evansville Police Department has sectors and beats that are contiguous to it right then, and my car is coming from what would be McCutchanville to cover that.

Councilmember Adams: But you do that–

Eric Williams: My position was purely efficiency and delivery of services to everybody uniformly in the county. City and county.

Councilmember Adams: Part of public safety is imagery, and I think your coming through town is great. If you were in that situation, if I’ve misinterpreted you, you’ve told me many times you just ask them to cover for you when you are in that kind of situation right now.

Eric Williams: We do–

Councilmember Adams: And vice versa.

Eric Williams: – and that’s usually in bigger situations. On the day to day runs, report runs those kinds of things, not so much. We handle our own business. I mean, we’ll cover for each other if there’s something going on, and we do that very well. I don’t want to give anybody the impression ever that on the street that the men and women of the Police Department or the Sheriff’s Office are doing anything other than good, solid law enforcement services and work well together. I see it everyday. I see brown cars and white cars stacked up on runs and things together, working together. I never want to give that impression. I do agree with you, we like traveling through the city, because I do feel that the city residents are entitled to some services from their Sheriff, because they’re paying the freight.

Councilmember Adams: Right.

Eric Williams: No disagreement.

Councilmember Adams: I have to add this, and I don’t mean to always be the other end in your and my discussions. I happen to have been on the Airport Board when the line went right across the middle of the airport. So, it depended on where the plane crashed as to who you called. We did an in-depth study as to what would be the best response in terms of bombs and all that sort of stuff, and I really don’t feel like we ought to have to go through that process again. I think the airport ought to be in the city and be served by the city Police.

Eric Williams: That’s fine. Please take my proposal as a recommendation. What we looked at, and if you saw my e-mail today it kind of spelled out the criteria that I gave to my staff as we looked at this to balance loads. The airport used to be all in the county for awhile. We have our Command Post sitting on airport property–

Councilmember Adams: Right.

Eric Williams: –and quite frankly, if anything of any magnitude other than a crash or a theft or something at the screening station happens, not only is the Evansville Police Department going to be there with the Sheriff’s Office, but the Indiana State Police is going to be all over it and everybody that’s got a police car within however far is going to be on that scene. I mean, the resources will deploy that scene because we all recognize the importance of the airport and the significance of a major incident there. That’s just a given.

Councilmember Adams: Thanks.

Rob Hahn: Can I add one thing?

Eric Williams: Sure.

Rob Hahn: Things get so confused so quickly, and God help you guys, but if you start having different boundaries for City Fire, City Police, Sheriff’s Department, Suburban Fire, it gets so confusing for the people answering the phones and dispatching the runs it’s messed up from the get go, and you never can straighten it out. So, whatever decision you make, please make it standard across the board. It would help out tremendously.

Eric Williams: Again, I would have to take exception, because currently the area I’m trying to push to the city because it makes more sense is currently served by the Evansville Fire Department through contract with Knight Township. That, we’ve worked hand in hand with the Fire Department for a long period of time. There have been many areas in our community where it’s been Sheriff’s service for law enforcement but (Tape Flip) prior service because of contracts with townships, it’s never been an issue. Whoever shows up handles it.

President Winnecke: Anything else? We have a couple, three options, I think. We could accept either the Sheriff’s proposal, EPD’s proposal, we could, to the Sheriff’s point and our very first point tonight, based on Section 7.3.2.1, we could leave things as they are and make no jurisdictional changes and we could consider this for a couple of weeks, because we are seeing the maps and really hearing the first meaty debate on this topic in awhile. So, that would be my recommendation.

Councilman John: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Watts: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Maybe we just put a star by this and come back to it at the end of the night. Dan?

Councilmember McGinn: May I ask a question? Because the one reorganization meeting that I missed was the one where law enforcement consolidation was discussed. It was my understanding from reading the minutes and speaking to various people this is down the road for, I forget, what, ten year or 12 years, but is the goal to consolidate the departments ten years down the road? Is that what–

Commissioner Melcher: No.

Councilmember McGinn: –okay, it’s to have a decision ten years down the road?

Councilmember Adams: I understand that we were supposed to study it and therefore it was coming to a referendum down the road, 2022 or something.

President Winnecke: Yeah, just if–

Councilmember McGinn: So, there wasn’t a goal in mind other than–

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilmember Adams: The referendum.

Councilmember McGinn: –that’s what I mean, work on a plan to be voted on. Okay.

President Winnecke: Just, yeah, it says, notwithstanding, this is in 9.4 under Law Enforcement, notwithstanding the provisions in Article 11 of this Reorganization Plan concerning amendments, no action or consideration to combine the Vanderburgh County Sheriff and the Evansville Police Department shall be taken or acted upon prior to January 1, 2022. After January 1, 2022 the Common Council of the Combined Government is authorized to do either of the following, and it spells out. Okay.

President Watts: Sheriff, if I may? Sheriff, is there, since we’re going to come back to this, and Robbie, is there any, I don’t want to waste your time, I mean, are you guys to a point where I see black, he sees white? Or, because, I’ll be honest, I would prefer you guys, I mean, you guys know more than any of us sitting up here. I understand that you’re both passionate about what you do. So, I don’t want to waste your time, but if there is a consensus–

Eric Williams: Chief Hill and I have met several times on this. We had these discussions with the concept, and Assistant Chief Hahn may correct me if I’m wrong, with the concept that whatever we came up with, whatever you guys settled on was going to be those jurisdictions, regardless of what else happened until this future date and future activity occurred. So, my point was very simply that if we are going to continue down the road that, I point to you, but it was your issue, that we’re going to have what I would consider to be just a different form of annexation, then really this discussion is a moot point, because they are going to be subject to change again and again and again, as much as that might grow or change or whatever. That we ought to just probably leave it the way it is today with the mutual aid agreements we have and just wait and see what happens, because we are doing a good job with what we have today. But, if the intent was to lock in jurisdictions and say this is, which is what the spirit of that discussion was, is that the people that have the Sheriff’s Office now want to keep it, the people that have the City Police now want to keep it and they don’t want to see that change, and that was the emotional issue that led to taking law enforcement completely out of the project anyways, then that’s what we were trying to accomplish. But, if that’s not the case, you know, and I don’t think there’s any wiggle room from my side of it. You know, I think there’s probably some room to move, but I feel very comfortable with the proposal that I made as being a proposal that makes sense for the next ten to 12 years until this is finally addressed in another forum.

Councilmember Adams: I don’t think we decided that we were going to lock in anything. That was what you decided you wanted to do, and the only thing I was trying to do was to fold in some flexibility into the system, because I don’t think it’s going to stay stable for ten years or 12 years. I think there may be no annexations in the next ten to 12, there may be only one or two, and without a mechanism for which you can work that, I don’t think we’re talking about miles, square miles here going in, especially with the extra hit there that’s going to be contiguous.

Eric Williams: No, I, don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming you and I’m not saying that’s what I wanted it to be. It’s what I heard. What I wanted it to be was let’s consolidate both agencies into one and be done with it.

Councilmember McGinn: I do too, because we’re going to end up doing it, I mean, and that may not make this pass, so I can completely understand the reasons why it’s off in limbo. I do not disagree with that, but like Dan said, the way chapter seven or paragraph seven of this reads that an area is fully taxed when it becomes an Urban District when it receives all of the services. This is going to take awhile, this isn’t going to happen. You know, things work, and the infrastructure is built and the lightings are there, we may take in six or eight square blocks a year, if we’re lucky. Then if things work well, I mean, some of these other people may want to come in or they want to do it earlier. I mean, this is a very slow process. I mean, to get into a hurry I think is one of the worst things that we could possibly do. If we set up the framework where eventually the entire county and the city will have the same services, we’re looking at 50 years. I mean, let’s be realistic.

Eric Williams: I’m trying to educate myself, I’ve done the best I can to try to follow along with this, and I understand exactly the progression that you just laid out on how that occurs. The language I heard was all of the Full Service District services are provided and then you can start taxing. What would be the mechanism...because everything else is infrastructure based, building sewers, water, street lights, sidewalks, all the other kinds of things–

Councilmember Adams: Fire.

Eric Williams: – but that is generally something that somebody just directs to happen. If it’s a contiguous six blocks, somebody at some point is going to have to say, okay, Fire Department you are now going to service this, Police Department you are now going to service this, and now we’ve accomplished that goal. Now we can tax them. I’m not sure I understand how that happens. Does that make sense? That you’re talking about two entities that are, that you may not have to add anything to make it happen, as where all of the others are construction based or adding something or attaching something or hooking something up.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) If you don’t (Inaudible) it’s ambiguous. (Inaudible) or not, this particular section or that (Inaudible).

Eric Williams: I guess, that’s what I’m trying to understand in my head, just really for clarity sake, because if I’m confused maybe there might be others. I may be the only one. That we’ve done all of these other things and then once that happens then we’re going to say now we’re going to hit Police and Fire and we’re going to roll them into there, and now we can start taxing you.

Councilmember Adams: I think it’s the other way around.

Eric Williams: And, see, I don’t, so we start taxing you and then we’re going to roll those in. That’s what I was trying to get the progression of how that would work, because I agree with you, and I understand the concept that the likelihood of mass annexations or mass changes would be slim. Yeah, I mean, they’re not going to be huge. I get that, but it’s really more where are we at and how do we want this to proceed?

Rob Hahn: If I can answer your question, B.J., or we’ll be here until tomorrow. I can’t see much wiggle room. I just, I think the Sheriff would agree and everybody here would agree, this has been a year and a half of unnecessary bloodletting on both departments and we need to put it behind us, but, the airport, schools that’s unthinkable.

President Winnecke: I think what I’m hearing from this group is that we want to, yeah, we need another couple of weeks, at least. So, we’ll, right–

Commissioner Abell: I have a question of Mr. Ziemer.

President Winnecke: Absolutely, yes.

Commissioner Abell: I’ve heard the comments there’s no wiggle room, we’re not going to do this. Who’s decision is this? Isn’t this the decision of this body? Aren’t we the ones that are writing the rules for how this is going to happen?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes, Ma’am.

Commissioner Abell: That’s what I thought. Thank you.

Councilmember McGinn: Then again, as a point of clarification with talking about, I mean, we still have two taxing districts. You’re going to have the General Services, which everybody in the combined area, and then more taxes on some people when they get all of the city services. It’s a step up, is that correct? So, there is a way to finance some of that infrastructure with the General Taxing Service District.

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilmember McGinn: I mean, we don’t have to do all of this stuff, figure out how to do it before they are part of the county. I mean, I just want to make that clear. Okay.

(City Councilmembers and County Commissioners unanimously agreed to table this issue until the 8/17/11 meeting and not take a straw vote on the Law Enforcement proposals at this time.)

President Winnecke: Okay, I think the next, the last item on our punch list from our last meeting has to do with the review of the district maps prepared by Mr. Jeffers. Does everybody have those with them? This actually, we’ve probably had these for two or three meetings now. One map represents the layout, the proposed layout for 12 district maps. And, then three districts A version, three districts B version, those represent the geographic areas from which an at-large candidate would have to reside.

Commissioner Abell: This is the (Inaudible. Microphone not on.). Do you want to know which one of the two at-large’s we like? Is that what you want?

President Winnecke: Yes. I think that’s the only, or if someone doesn’t like any of them, we could always direct Mr. Jeffers to go back–

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Commissioner Melcher: If you look at these, and you go by, I think Bill even said that district, I mean, the B plan was the best one. It’s more like it is set up right now, and that’s what the School Board is. If you look at the numbers they’re pretty close. The other one is a thousand or two thousand off, we could be sued by the ACLU. We could be sued about anything though. So, I would think B would be the one we would probably want, because it looks like that’s a little bit more like what it should be.

Commissioner Abell: I agree.

Commissioner Melcher: I like B. If there’s going to be one, I like B, plus the numbers are close, and that’s the main goal of whatever we do was numbers have got to be under five percent.

President Winnecke: What section are the districts in? What article?

John Hamilton: Under the legislative (Inaudible. Not at microphone.) .

President Winnecke: Is that three?

John Hamilton: Yes, 3.4, 3.5, 3.52. Starting in 3.4 and 3.5.

President Winnecke: Just to review, we’re saying that there would be three at-large members, they would be voted on by the entire Combined Government area, the Combined Government area shall be divided into three separate at-large districts, one at-large member shall reside in and be elected from each of the three at-large districts, is what we’re saying. The language and the map reflects that. We’ve heard several version B’s. Do we have any other thoughts over here?

Commissioner Melcher: I think it’s a no brainer.

(City Councilmembers approved straw vote 7-0. County Commissioners approved straw vote 3-0.)

President Winnecke: Okay, version B it is.

President Winnecke: Okay, that gets us through our punch list from last meeting. Before I ask the attorneys to kind of give us an update of where we are on a time line, are there any other issues in the Reorganization Plan that any member from the Council or the Commission would like to bring forward tonight?

Commissioner Melcher: I do want to, getting back to the rejection threshold resolution. I know we can’t do a (Inaudible) vote here, so I would like on our next Commissioner meeting if we could have it on the agenda.

President Winnecke: To discuss the issue?

Commissioner Melcher: Discussion and maybe even vote on it.

President Winnecke: To vote–

Commissioner Melcher: We could have a discussion on it again, and it may be that we–

President Winnecke: It would be a non-binding vote.

Commissioner Melcher: I’m not talking about this one, I’m talking about our Commissioners meeting.

President Winnecke: I understand that. Maybe, to help, this might just be a great segue into where we stand from a time line, and we’ll address your–

Commissioner Melcher: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: Let me just, before you get into the legalese, are we happy with the data we got about the water equalization thing? Did we get a sense as to how much people are going to pay if we equalize the water? The property taxes and the water equalization thing were the two things that I was trying to figure out whether they washed each other out in terms of the burden of the tax. Are we happy with our–

President Winnecke: I’ll have to go back and review, I don’t remember off the top of my head.

Councilmember Adams: I don’t think we ever got–

Councilmember Friend: I think it was (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) , the people in the city would have to pay eight dollars a month on the average.

Councilmember Adams: Right.

Councilmember Friend: The people in the county (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) about four dollars. (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) like that. It was a little under eight dollars.

President Winnecke: Who sent us that e-mail? Was that Jim Gerrard?

Councilmember Friend: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Councilmember Adams: I think Gerrard.

President Winnecke: Would you mind reaching back out to him?

Councilmember Adams: Not at all. Not at all.

Councilmember Friend: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Councilmember Adams: I’ll e-mail Jim Gerrard.

President Winnecke: Okay, Ted. Thanks.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, we’ve been having a continued public hearing, and the enabling statute provides that to, that what is to happen is that there be a public hearing on the Plan, and following the public hearing, or the adjournment of the public hearing, then each body, that is the City Council and the County Commissioners must, within 30 days, either adopt a resolution, either accepting the proposal of the Reorganization Committee, modifying the proposal of the Reorganization Committee, or sending it back to the Reorganization Committee for further action. The actions of both the City Council and the County Commissioners must be identical. So, we have been going through the process of a public hearing and you’ve been taking straw votes. Once you get to a point where your straw votes indicate that the City Council and the County Commissioners are going to probably, I guess, be in agreement on a Plan, then you would adjourn the meeting, the public meeting, and then within 30 days each body would vote, and, presumably, based on the straw votes, you would be adopting an identical Plan to put forward for a referendum.

President Winnecke: Then, to Commissioner Melcher’s point, relative to the rejection threshold, help us there.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, that’s part of the Plan.

President Winnecke: So, Steve, what you’re suggesting, what you’re asking is if we–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Oh, excuse me, I’m sorry, I misunderstood your question. The question of the rejection threshold was determined by the City Council and the Commissioners initially when they proposed going forward with the public hearing. It’s our opinion, that is the opinion of John Hamilton and myself, that to change that we then have to go back, have a public hearing on that issue and then have the Commissioners and the Council adopt new resolutions forwarding this to a committee to develop a reorganization plan, and then go through the steps that we have been going through. Now, it’s true that that could probably be shortened considerably since a Reorganization Committee has already studied this and brought forward a Plan, which is the one you are reviewing, but there is no assurance that if you each determine to start over again, which is what you would be deciding, you are going to refer it to a committee, and that is the Reorganization Committee, that committee can then study this and decide to recommend something new, which you would then get and start reviewing just as you are reviewing this now. So, I know that, and, so, it’s our opinion that you have to start over again if you’re going to change your vote on the recommendation for no rejection threshold.

President Winnecke: Steve, does that help you with where you are?

Commissioner Melcher: Yes, but nothing would stop me from making a motion though to do it, and then it just dies for a lack of a second.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That is correct.

Commissioner Melcher: And it gets voted down.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That is correct.

Commissioner Melcher: Thank you. That’s what I would like to have.

Councilmember Adams: Let me be sure I understand, sir. When you say a straw vote, we would go through and re-again formally vote, or give indication to all of the things that we’ve changed from the original Plan? I mean, I think there are about six or eight or 20, I don’t know, 15 things that we’ve altered from the original Plan.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes, sir.

Councilmember Adams: So, we’ll come back and do that again at a later meeting a week or two from now?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well–

Councilmember Adams: This would not–

Commissioner Melcher: It wouldn’t be us, it would be the separate bodies.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well–

Councilmember Adams: Is this the last group meeting we’re having?

President Winnecke: No, I don’t think so.

Councilmember Adams: I don’t think so either.

Commissioner Melcher: No.

President Winnecke: No, I think, if I could jump in, I think our straw votes along the way, the latest document we have is the document that the majority of each body is comfortable living with today.

Councilmember Adams: Right.

President Winnecke: So, the additional changes we’ve asked the Council to provide to us we’ll get in a new update, and we’ll go through and review those to make sure those are good, like we’ve done in the past.

Councilmember Adams: Okay.

President Winnecke: In my mind, the document is getting closer and closer to being–

Commissioner Melcher: It is.

President Winnecke: –baked, yeah. Is that fair?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That is fair. Then, if, and I think I understand , Commissioner Melcher, when the Commissioners get ready to consider the Plan, which has been approved by straw vote, but only by straw vote, Commissioner Melcher may introduce at that time a motion to change the resolution to require a rejection threshold. He can certainly make that motion at that time, it would be voted on by the three Commissioners, and the majority would determine that issue so far as the Commissioners are concerned. If there were a similar motion made by a City Councilman when they are considering this, they would vote on that issue. Once that’s disposed of, however it’s disposed of, then you would vote on the Plan that’s before the City Council and the County Commissioners, and, presumably that’s going to be a Plan which you’re probably going to approve because of the results of the straw votes, which is the idea of going through this. We know that the Plan has to be identical, and we’re trying to get to a point where we think we are identical. Otherwise, if the, we get to the actual vote, not the straw vote, and the City Council approves a Plan which is in some respect different than the Plan approved by the County Commissioners, we’ve got to come back together again and start talking.

Commissioner Melcher: With that–

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible) different (Inaudible) one thing different.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I beg your pardon?

Councilmember Adams: It’s not some things that differ–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: One thing, one thing, yeah, anything.

Councilmember Adams: That’s what I thought.

President Winnecke: Steve?

Commissioner Melcher: With that, it’s time for me to go to my Veterans Council meeting. I’ve gotta run. So, I have to leave. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Okay, let me just, just real quickly on my punch list, Dr. Adams is going to run down water utility information–

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

President Winnecke: – we’re going to get additional information on tax rates, and we’re going to have additional thought and discussion relative to law enforcement boundaries.

President Winnecke: With that, I would propose that we continue this hearing until the 18^th of August, two weeks from tonight. How does that float everyone’s boat?

Councilmember Adams: Great, what time? 5:00?

President Winnecke: 5:00.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: What? Oh, there is? What time does it start? Oh.

Councilman John: What about Wednesday?

President Winnecke: Wednesday the 17^th? Is that good, everybody?

Councilman John: What’s the date?

President Winnecke: Wednesday the 17^th?

Commissioner Abell: August 17^th?

Commissioner Melcher: I’ll just have to cancel (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

Commissioner Abell: 5:00 or 5:30?

President Winnecke: What do you like? 5:30? 5:30. The 17^th, okay.

President Winnecke: As has been the case in the past–

Councilmember Adams: I’ll miss American Idol then.

President Winnecke: – anyone from the audience that would like to come to speak their mind. Start to file up, Bruce is going to get there first.

Bruce Ungenthiem: I tried to be last last time, so I’ll try to be first this time.

President Winnecke: You just sat closer to the front that’s all.

Bruce Ungenthiem: I’m not sure where to start.

Alberta Matlock: Well, you have to give me your name first.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Bruce Ungenthiem. I’m a resident of Vanderburgh County in the Town of Darmstadt. Where to begin this, let’s begin with the most important issue probably and that’s the voter threshold. I hold in my hand a Plan for Reorganization, and as you can see not everything is black, some is blue, some is red, some is green. These are the changes that you have made to this Plan. Now, I tend to disagree with you on this subject, because if I read paragraph five in the introduction of this Plan, it says voter threshold, as required by the Act the City-County determined that there will be no voter threshold when this Plan is voted on as described in the foregoing provision. It seems to me that if you’ve changed all of those things in that color, it would be a very simple process to go in here and change this and say, required by the Act the City-County determined that there will be a voter rejection threshold in this Plan, and you can do that tonight if you so choose. It does not have to go back to committee. It is in this Plan that you’re changing right now, and you can change that. Now, with that said, we had a little booth out at the fair, unfortunately, I didn’t see any of you guys show up or I would have tried to get you to sign a petition. The petition basically says, we the undersigned residents of Vanderburgh County do hereby support and request from the duly elected Commissioners of Vanderburgh County a separate threshold vote for city residents and non-city residents of Vanderburgh County on the referendum for consolidation of this city and the county governments in Vanderburgh County. I have over 500 signatures in one week on this referendum, or on this petition, over 500 county signatures on this petition, and I have 35 people from the City of Evansville who signed it, because they don’t believe that it’s fair to try to merge two governments together without each individual unit having the ability to vote on it. We’re going to continue to collect these signatures over the next month so that the time when you guys get ready to make this vote, my guess is we’ll have this doubled at least. So my request for you on this threshold vote is to listen to the people. The people want a threshold vote. You know, I’m not really sure what we’re scared of. If this is such a good idea, if it’s such a great economic boon to the area, then the people in the city and the people in the rural areas should overwhelmingly vote for this. So, why not have a threshold vote. It costs you nothing. It absolutely costs you nothing. It’s just two separate votes. They both have to be approved. So, think about that, because I don’t think it needs to go to any further committee, since you are changing the Plan anyway. Just change it. I agree with Mr. Watts when he made the statement that not having it would be, I will paraphrase this, because I don’t know your exact quote, not having a threshold vote would be like having a hostile takeover. Mr. Melcher has already indicated that he won’t vote on it unless there’s a threshold vote. What I would ask the rest of you to do is to stand up and be leaders and actually make this decision and make the right decision, because leaders do the right things. That’s the threshold vote. Can I finish? I don’t know about the rest of you, but I spent 33 years reading eyes and understanding what people are thinking by the way they held their eyes, the way they looked at folks when things happen, and I think you and I were both relatively disappointed that we didn’t get any kind of numbers of any substantial documentation on the economics of whether this thing is actually going to save any money. I would caution that even though we are going to look at what happens in other areas, and I’ll get you that data, I think I’ve got it at home on my computer, it’s not an apples to apples comparison, city to city. Evansville and Vanderburgh County are fairly well consolidated with a lot of the services that they produce or that they have right now. We have joint purchasing agreements, we have the library systems are already put together, the city or the School Corporation is already put together. So, if I look at what we’re going to actually put together, we’re going to put together the City Engineer’s office, we’re going to consolidate a couple of people at the top, add a few more people underneath that are appointed instead of elected. I would be very, very surprised if we can achieve even the three percent that we’re making an estimate on as savings. So, be careful with that, because I would like to see what it’s going to save the City of Evansville and Vanderburgh County based on where we are right now with most everything consolidated. Talk about the Sheriff or the law enforcement portion of it. Dr. Adams, Sheriff Williams and I had a discussion when we were out at the fair, and we were talking about the very thing you were talking about, that it’s not fair for the City of Evansville to pay for the Sheriff’s Department and have the City Fire, and I said, okay, well how much, you know, how much does the city pay versus how much do the non-residents or the county people pay? Well, it’s roughly two thirds to one third, or whatever that is. Okay, then I asked the Sheriff, tell me something, where’s the biggest part of your budget? He said, well, it’s in the jail and the courts system. I said, okay, just give me a guesstimate, of the 600 people that are sleeping on the floor in the jail, well, there’s only a hundred sleeping on the floor, but there’s, of the 600 people that are in the jail right now, how many of those people came from the rural area versus how many of those people came from the City of Evansville? He thought for a minute and he said probably 90 percent are inside the City of Evansville. I said, when they go to the courts system, when they go through the Clerk’s office and they go through the subpoenas and all of that other stuff that you’ve got to do, what percentage of that is city people versus rural people? About 90 percent. I said, so what you’re telling me is that I’m paying for a third of the cost of the Sheriff’s Department, and I’m only getting ten percent of the service? Yeah, that’s pretty much the way it’s going to be. So, think about that. It’s not just the patrol cars that are on the street, which he has 108, I think, 108 people doing patrol. It’s not just the patrol cars. The biggest cost of the Sheriff’s Department is the jail and the courts. The people who use the jail and the courts system are the urban citizens of Evansville by 90 percent.

Councilmember Adams: John, am I wrong in that usually it’s the salaries and perks that are the largest part of a...I haven’t looked at the, I’ll be honest with you, I haven’t looked at the like you have the thing, but I would have thought the largest part would have been salaries, pension, benefits.

Bruce Ungenthiem: (Inaudible. Not at microphone.) percent (Inaudible. Not at microphone.) salaries and benefits.

Councilmember Adams: How much.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Around 83 percent.

Councilmember Adams: So, I would challenge your point on the 90 percent.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Well–

Councilmember Adams: I’m not challenging that 90 percent of the people come from inside the city–

Bruce Ungenthiem: Okay, well, look at the jail–

Councilmember Adams: – but in terms of the amount of dollars spent–

Bruce Ungenthiem: – and the courts system which is–

Councilmember Adams: – it would seem to me that–

Bruce Ungenthiem: – that the Sheriff has, the Sheriff is a unique situation, because he has the jail and he has to support the courts–

Councilmember Adams: But, he’s got Sheriffs, he’s got a pension plan, he’s got a bunch of people that he has to pay, and that’s usually the largest. That’s my understanding. I could be wrong. This is your time. I apologize.

Bruce Ungenthiem: No problem, I just want to point out, you’re getting your monies worth in the city. Don’t’ worry about it. I had to sit there and look at the people’s anguish on their faces as the Sheriff and the Deputy Chief went back and forth and back and forth, and I’m thinking, you know, this would all be a whole lot simpler if we just consolidated the local law enforcement branches, instead of bickering over who’s going to take care of Mater Dei High School, and who’s going to go out to the airport when somebody has a false alarm. I would strongly suggest that you take, have another proposal. You were talking about three proposals, there’s another proposal on, that’s there, put the law enforcement consolidation back in the Plan. I know it’s not going to be popular to some of the political folks, but , you know what, I spent 33 years working for a company that I didn’t always agree with what the leaders, what the leaders of our company did, but once they made that decision and went on with it, then I went ahead and abided by it. To your point, you’re the leaders of this community, you’ve got to make a decision of what’s best for the community, other people will then follow. The last point I had, I have some other ones, but we’ll get to those as we get later on. The last one I’ve got is the at-large districts, you indicated that they would be three different districts but voted on as a county at-large. Is that the way the County Commissioners are voted on right now?

President Winnecke: It is.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Okay. I would propose that if they are in that district, that only the voters within that district vote on that person, because what will happen is a person representing district one could actually be elected by people in district two and three. I would propose that district one elect district one’s representative, district two elect district two’s representative, and district three elect district three’s representative.

Commissioner Abell: Then they wouldn’t be at-large.

Councilmember Adams: That’s the whole point of being at-large.

Bruce Ungenthiem: No, if they were at-large, they should run county-wide.

Commissioner Abell: They’re doing that.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Well, I mean, there would be no districts, they would be at-large. They are district representatives–

Councilmember Adams: We’re trying to give the county more representation. At-large people (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) area.

Councilmember Friend: Bruce, if I may, what we have now (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) City Council, we’ve got three people from the Fifth Ward on this Council. Myself, Councilman John and Dr. Adams.

Councilmember Adams: And that’s the way it should be.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Okay, I’ve taken enough time. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Bruce. Sir?

Roger Madden: Yeah, Roger Madden, Evansville security police, U.S. Air Force, nuclear weapons. I think, we might have had a few more problems than the Sheriff and the Police do here, but if you take the count, well, they’ve already brought up, they all overlap, they all respond to the emergencies, they both have specialty teams, and with the things these days with Homeland Security, I’m sure they even have nukes covered. But, if you take the county, you divide it into six sections, however many patrols they want, the Police cover what they cover, the Sheriff covers their areas, which are the extremities, but covering the whole county, so you’ve got dual coverage no matter where you are. As long as they aren’t sitting at the donut shop and getting fat and they’re making their responses, they’re taking care of the people, they’re doing their patrols, like Bruce just said, we’re getting our monies worth. So, that’s just a bunch of pissing and moaning. As long as they’re covering the people and taking care of us, and, this Break the Silence t-shirt, we’ve got about 20 dead kids in the last ten years in Southern Indiana, most of them around here. If they were spending more time taking care of the people, responding to incidents of child abuse, rape, molest, etcetera, we wouldn’t of had 20 dead kids. So, if we quit playing politics and we start taking care of our citizens we’ll be a lot better off.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Roger.

Leslie Simmons: My name is Leslie Simmons. I’m the current President of the League of Women Voters of Southwestern Indiana. I’m going to start by giving you all a big thank you. I can tell that you have spent hours of your time and talent working on this Plan, and it sounds like you have hours to go. But, we all appreciate your attention to detail, and, first of all, want you to know that you’re efforts are appreciated however this gets resolved. The time is right to embark on the endeavor and to continue to move forward to a referendum vote. Clearly you have carefully considered each element of the proposed Plan for a merger. We are pleased with the modifications that you made to the initial draft that was presented to you. We believe a merger of local governments can achieve an improved environment for economic development, a stronger voice for our community within the state, and a consistent, accessible and representative leadership for all county residents, for all county residents, because we all live in the county, without increasing the cost of government. Tonight we’ve heard a lot of emphasis on efficiencies and cost savings. We believe those are there. I have some documentation of that, but there are a lot of other things to consider that would be beneficial outcomes of a merger. It has been mentioned many times that some areas of services that are provided by city entities within the city limits, and those that are provided county-wide have already been merged very successfully. This is the next step to bring everything together. Look at how wonderfully this group has worked together. Again, we ask that you continue to move forward to give voters of the community the opportunity to come to a full understanding of your proposal, Plan of merger and to have that opportunity to vote on that. Don’t let it stall. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Leslie. Eldon?

Eldon Maasberg: About that.

President Winnecke: Good to see you.

Eldon Maasberg: Yeah. My name is Eldon Maasberg. I live out in Armstrong Township. My first question is why ain’t these working up here? These cameras?

President Winnecke: They’ve been out for a while.

Eldon Maasberg: I know. I’ve been watching both of your meetings, old ones and then now this one, they just took them off the t.v. What are you trying to hide under the table that we’re not able to watch it? Which gets to another point, this thing has cost us over $100,000 to get this far, and if you don’t put the City Police in this thing, or I said that wrong, if you don’t put the police together, it’s going to cost another $100,000 before this thing gets done in the next ten years. Why not put the two together right up front? I think it would be money saved to us all in the long run. I also think we ought to go with Ungenthiem’s idea, have two votes, I think that’s a better deal than this slam dunk deal. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Eldon. Who else? John, did you want to add something?

John Hamilton: Just a procedural thing on that threshold question. The statute is very clear that when each body adopted their initial resolution, that is where the threshold question is decided. So, the basis of our opinion, if you want to revisit that, we have to go back and have either a new or amended initial resolution, which, in effect, does start the process. I mean, the statute is very specific that that is where that issue is to be dealt with.

President Winnecke: Thanks, John. If there’s no other business to come before these bodies....did you want to say something, sir? You kind of looked like you were going to raise your hand and then.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I just was going to say–

President Winnecke: Not you, Ted.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: What?

President Winnecke: This guy. The guy behind you.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Oh, you’re not talking to me. Well, how come you’re not talking to me?

Alberta Matlock: We’ve been talking to you all evening.

President Winnecke: I can talk to you anytime.

Les Lantaff: My name is Les Lantaff, I live in Scott Township. I was just going through this report here, and it amazes me, if you go through there and look how many things are assumed. You know what assume means? Thank you.

President Winnecke: Did you have anything to say? Okay, I would move that we continue this public hearing until August 17^th at 5:30 p.m.

(The meeting was recessed at approximately 6:35 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Lloyd Winnecke                        Marsha Abell                            Stephen Melcher

B.J. Watts                                 John Friend                              H. Dan Adams

Curt John                                  Missy Mosby                             Dan McGinn

Don Walker                               Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.                    John Hamilton

Joe Gries                                  Jennifer Hudson                       Eric Williams

Rob Hahn                                 Bruce Ungenthiem                    Roger Madden

Leslie Simmons                        Eldon Maasberg                       Les Lantaff

Others Unidentified                   Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Lloyd Winnecke, President

Marsha Abell, Vice President

Stephen Melcher, Member

(Recorded by Alberta Matlock. Transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.)