JOINT MEETING

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-CITY COUNCIL

AUGUST 17, 2011

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners and Common Council of the City of Evansville reconvened the joint session and public hearing from August 4, 2011 on the proposed Reorganization Plan this 17^th day of August, 2011 at 5:35 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex.

President Winnecke: Good evening. We would like to, I would like to call to order our reconvening of the government reorganization committee.

President Winnecke: Let’s stand and join, please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

President Winnecke: Okay, on the desk before us is the latest revisions made, they are redlined, the redline copy. So, let’s start, I see the first page, first change on page three, section 1.6, first election, which adds the specific date.

President Winnecke: Then in 1.7 it adds the specific date of the start of a new government, if it were to pass. Any questions there? Okay.

President Winnecke: Next we move on to page seven. We have some changes in 5.3, Office of the City Clerk.

Alberta Matlock: Yes, put me out.

President Winnecke: Any questions there, besides Alberta?

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Okay, next we go to page eight, Article Seven, 7.1.1. It gives the specific year. Any questions there?

President Winnecke: Next page, 7.3.1.1?

President Winnecke: Nest 7.3.2.1, Services Provided. There might be some discussion here. Or not.

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: 7.3.2.1, page nine.

President Winnecke: If there are no questions there we will move on to Article Eight, 8.2, Appointments. We talked about this at length last meeting. If there are no discussions there–

President Winnecke: –9.4, Law Enforcement. Added the word “Office” twice, three times, actually five times. If there are no questions there, we move on to Article 11, we made some changes.

President Winnecke: 11.1.2, just clarifying how a citizens petition could begin.

President Winnecke: Next, 11.2.1, Membership and Appointments, just eliminated the word “Evansville”, and inserted the words “Combined Government”.

President Winnecke: 11.3, from “will” to “shall”.

President Winnecke: And the same in 11.3.3. Any questions about the revisions? Hearing none.

President Winnecke: We also talked at length about law enforcement jurisdiction questions. I noticed the Chief is here and the Sheriff is here if we wanted to continue that discussion tonight. I did not see that there was a consensus when we left last week, or two weeks ago. So, we can resume the discussion.

Councilman John: My position would be that it remain as it is today, that the districts remain the same, and that we, the spirit of cooperation that they’ve had in the past continue. So, if there’s a need to change those, between the Sheriff and the Chief of Police they change it. I think that that’s happened in the past, and I’m sure it will happen in the future with the way we’re growing.

Councilmember McGinn: I would like to comment on that also. I agree with that 100 percent, because if they are left as they are today, they will change on their own. I think we had the discussion, I think Sheriff Williams brought it up, that as an area changes from a General Services District to the Urban Services District, that means that Combined Government, or what will be City Police protection is extended to that area and thus becomes a part of the Combined Government and is part of the Urban Services District. I think whomever the Mayor is has the control over the Police Department, and, you know, they can tell them this is now your new area. I mean, I think that it becomes an automatic situation. Provision of services defined as Urban Services automatically change an area, I think, into the Combined Government jurisdiction, which is what is now known as the Evansville City Police Department. I mean, that’s the way I understood it.

President Winnecke: Okay. Anyone else?

Commissioner Abell: I don’t disagree in leaving it, if that’s what we decide to do. I just want to point out that if that is how it changes, we’re going to see the Police, what we call the Evansville Police Department now, the City Police are going to be coming, at budget time, for more police officers and we’re going to have somewhere out there Sheriff’s deputies that aren’t going to be needed anymore. So, we’re going to end up in a big, I think this is going to cause a financial problem to the people that pay the taxes in Vanderburgh County.

Councilmember McGinn: I would hope that those issues can be resolved by some of the inter-departmental agreements like we have now. I mean, we can’t pay for–

President Winnecke: Dan, your microphone.

Unidentified: We can’t hear back here.

President Winnecke: Your microphone.

Councilmember McGinn: The light is on. It’s not picking up?

President Winnecke: They can’t hear you.

Councilmember McGinn: Oh, I would think that those issues would have to be taken care of by an interlocatory or an inter-departmental agreement like we have now with certain things. I don’t think any taxpayer or anybody on this body, or whomever is on the Combined Council would want to be paying for officers of the law, that duplication of services. I mean, it might have to be. You know, until this is finally resolved by the second referendum in 20, whatever the year was, you know, the city may have to hire county Sheriff’s rather than pay them. Or, you know, it’s just, I think it’s something that’s going to have to be worked out. We can’t make that decision today, because we don’t know when areas are going to change from General Services Districts to Urban Districts. I just think we have to, we have to recognize that it is a potential issue and just take care of it.

President Winnecke: Dan?

Councilmember Adams: One of the things that I’ve maintained all along is that we need a little bit of flexibility. This, over the next ten years could be a huge problem, which I very seriously doubt it will be, or it could just be a minor thing. When we have, I mean, we’ve already gone through two major annexations, I don’t see anything hanging out there that looks, I mean, I can’t predict what the Mayors are going to do over the next ten years, but, I think, I would be surprised if there was much change over ten years.

President Winnecke: If we left it alone, this is a question for the attorneys, if we left it alone, as has been suggested, and just, do we need language to, in the Plan, that gives authority to the Police Chief and the elected Sheriff to make jurisdictional changes as they see before, either before a Combined Government takes effect, if it were to, or before 2022 or whatever the year is, do we need to give them, make that provision in the document?

John Hamilton: I think, without any language in the document they can do it by agreement.

President Winnecke: Okay.

John Hamilton: I mean, the document, obviously, doesn’t determine what happens if they don’t agree.

President Winnecke: Okay.

John Hamilton: It would stay as it is.

President Winnecke: Okay. Any other thoughts on–

Commissioner Abell: Does the city contract with the City Police have a minimum that you have to keep on the force?

Councilman John: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Commissioner Abell: So, if you had a minimum and the county had a minimum and we’re sitting here with a lot of people we don’t really need, we’re going to be paying them anyway. Then you’re going to be hiring people to take over in the city, because you’re going to need more people.

Councilman John: I think the current agreement is for three years. So, this question will be answered prior to the expiration of the existing contract, and would be taken in consideration on the next negotiations.

Commissioner Abell: But–

Councilman John: 2015 is the year.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah.

Councilman John: In the event that it passes.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, just pointing out that I think we’re getting ourselves in a financial bind.

Councilman John: What is it you’re recommending?

Commissioner Abell: Well, I just don’t think that as, because we’re going to go into contract negotiations in the county this year, aren’t we? I don’t have any disagreement with the contract that the Sheriff’s deputies have presented, except that if they’re going to present to us a contract that requires a minimum be kept on the force and it’s a three year contract, and we start moving people around right after this new government goes into effect, I think we’re going to be sitting here with people with probably a lot of longevity that we’re going to have to buy out, people that are going to be no longer needed and whether we can move them over into the City Police Department, or if we’re going to be forced to spend...I’m just concerned about the amount of money, that’s all. I’m just worried that–

Councilman John: I understand.

Commissioner Abell: –we’re getting ourselves in a bind.

Councilman John: Are you recommending or have a recommendation on how it should be handled?

Commissioner Abell: I don’t know, I don’t know tonight, but I’m not so sure but what the attorneys need to meet with the two police departments and see if they can’t work out something that, in the event that we have Reorganized Government that does pass, that there be another type of agreement made between the Sheriff and the...it would be a waste, in my opinion, to have a good police officer on the Sheriff’s Department be let go because we don’t need him, and hire somebody in the City Police Department with no experience. We’ve given up, you know, I think that they, we need to have some kind of an agreement between the city and the county where when one starts not needing a certain number of troops, of police officers, they revert over to the other one, in the event that we have this type government. I don’t know how that, I’m not a lawyer.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I was just going to point out that, I’m not familiar with the city contract, but the county contract with the deputies does have a provision that for good cause that number, that stated number can be reduced. I’m confident that good cause would be a, you know, a reduction in the area, you know, for which services are to be provided. So, I mean, that’s there. That doesn’t answer the question you’re raising about shifting from one department to the other. That’s an interesting question.

Commissioner Abell: Shift the money too, that would be, that’s the big thing.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Right, right.

President Winnecke: But, couldn’t that be addressed through collective bargaining–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes.

President Winnecke: –with the respective bodies? I mean, if there’s a provision, for instance, if there’s a provision in the new county agreement with the Sheriff’s deputies, and a new provision in the contract with the city and the F.O.P. that says should there, should one department be diminished because of consolidated government, I’m just thinking out loud here, the other department that might need hiring would have to offer preferential hiring to the other.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Certainly that can be a matter for negotiation, yes.

Councilmember Adams: The other thing is, both of these contracts are three year contracts? If I understand this right, the government, the Combined Government doesn’t start until 2015, so, it’s going to take three years for the process to work.

President Winnecke: The county’s contract actually expires this year. So, the timing on the county’s side would work well.

Councilmember Adams: And the police just got their contract a few months ago. So, it would seem to me that would be, at that time, three years from now, this whole thing would have to be re-visited anyway.

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilmember Adams: Although I agree with your concept.

President Winnecke: Anymore discussion on law enforcement? Since there’s nothing in the Plan that talks about jurisdictional issues, I don’t know if we need a straw vote. That was just an issue that the Sheriff and the Chief brought before us for consideration. Everyone satisfied to move on? Okay.

President Winnecke: Other issues from last time?

Councilmember Adams: I don’t know whether this works or not, but there’s always the cost of consolidation, the actual initial cost of coming together. Is there any way that we could amortize that, John, over a two or three year period? I know we can’t incur debt, but I wondered if there wouldn’t, some financial way that we could make the initial cost of putting these things together, if we could smooth the costs out over two or three years as opposed to that big hit the first year. I don’t want to put you on the spot, I’m just not talented enough to know that.

Councilmember Friend: Well, if you’re looking at it from a business standpoint and you’re talking about (Inaudible) pay (Inaudible) down and (Inaudible) amortize over three years, well, you’re talking about some kind of a payment plan that would have to be phased in through, I guess, taxes and be phased in over a three year period of time of some sort. What do you say, Curt?

Councilmember Adams: Well it’s already (Inaudible)--

Councilman John: That, or you would have to borrow the money and pay it back over a three year period.

Councilmember Adams: Well, that’s what I was thinking. Could a Combined Government do that? So that the taxpayer wouldn’t be hit with that kind of initial blip.

Councilman John: I would assume so.

Councilmember Friend: Would we go through like the Bond Bank, or would we go through a Band, one of the Bands, something like that, possibly?

Councilmember Adams: Well, it might make it more palatable for the voter both in the county and the city, if they weren’t going to get this initial hit of spike of putting everybody together, you know, making everybody come to, moving equipment and doing all of this sort of stuff. If we could somehow smooth that out over a three year period, but maybe that’s another thing that the Combined Government could decide at the time, at 2015 that they want to do that.

President Winnecke: Well, I think, oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead.

Councilmember Friend: Well, it’s going to obviously be a question of where we are with cash balances in certain Funds, I mean, whatever obligations we may have between now and when that comes up. But, I could see, possibly, actually becoming our own bank if we had those funds available, spread that over three years.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

President Winnecke: I think the good news is that in Article Ten we changed the make up of the Transition Team, so the Transition Team now is all elected officials. So, they’ll have an entire year to figure that...I think that’s a good question, but they’ll have an entire year to plan for that. Who else from the Commissioners or the Council on any other issue in the document?

President Winnecke: Okay, so, we’re at the point now where, and we’ll open it to public comment, so don’t anyone worry, as combined bodies, if we adjourn this, legally adjourn this meeting tonight, each body would have 30 days to pass the identical Plan in order for to be on a referendum in November ‘12. So, basically we have 30 days to act at the conclusion of the public hearing. So, the question is, I know there was questions earlier about whether that would fit into the City Council schedule because of city budget hearings and just scheduling of their meetings. So, if we want to continue that discussion, now is the time, I think.

John Hamilton: For the sake of the City Councilmembers, our next meeting is this coming Monday, which is very, right around the corner. Then the 29^th of August is the fifth Monday of the month, so we’re not scheduled to meet. The following Monday is Labor Day, so, to get two meetings in, which normally when we pass a resolution our rules say it should be two separate readings, or two meetings. We’re going to go past that 30 days unless they have a special meeting of some kind.

President Winnecke: So, if we–

John Hamilton: I just want the Councilmembers to be aware of that.

President Winnecke: So, it looks like the option might be, because of the Labor Day and all of that, our best option might be to continue this meeting again tonight to perhaps the first week in September, at which case we would reconvene, basically for the purposes of adjourning. I mean, from a legal standpoint.

John Hamilton: Yeah, I mean, you would still hear public hearing if there were any comments.

President Winnecke: Yeah, that’s right though.

John Hamilton: If there is literally no changes to the Plan, we could possibly get this on for first reading this coming Monday. That’s one reason I wasn’t aware of whether there were going to be any changes to it.

President Winnecke: The Commissioners have a meeting the day after Labor Day at 5:00. There’s nothing to say we couldn’t meet after that.

Councilmember Adams: Mr. Chairman, would it be worth coming back to a meeting and having a non-binding straw vote on the whole document?

President Winnecke: Yeah–

Councilmember Adams: To be absolutely sure we aren’t going to have any wrinkle that is going to suddenly make us have to come back and do it all over again.

President Winnecke: I’m assuming that based on all of the straw polls we’ve taken to date–

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

President Winnecke: – everyone, with notable exceptions, are on board with the changes we’ve made, but, I hear where you’re going.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, but we’ve not had a straw vote on the–

Commissioner Abell: Entire document.

Councilmember Adams: – entire document.

President Winnecke: We could do that tonight, if you wanted to.

Councilmember Adams: I don’t–

President Winnecke: I mean, it’s obviously non-binding.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

President Winnecke: But if we wanted to continue this meeting until after our Commissioners meeting on the 6^th of September for the final wrap up, any final comments from the public, and then we would adjourn after that, and then, at that point, each body would have 30 days to act.

Councilmember Adams: I guess, we still haven’t found out what the guy’s going to pay, the property tax guy is actually going to pay, without assumptions.

President Winnecke: Right. Well, we got that information last time.

Councilmember Adams: I mean, we certainly know what the sewer bill is going to be. We all got that information.

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilmember Friend: Yeah, I was going to say, we did get that. It looks like it’s almost a two to one split, very close.

Councilmember Adams: Right.

Councilmember Friend: Three dollars on one, eight on the other.

Councilmember Adams: But, whether people are going to have to pay more property tax or less, I mean–

President Winnecke: Well, we talked about, I think–

Councilmember Adams: – I did not like the fact that everybody assumes 15 percent, so we assume seven percent, and even assume three percent.

President Winnecke: But, I thought, and I could be wrong, but I thought toward the end of the discussion, Councilman McGinn made a really great point, and that is, if whomever is Mayor at that time dictates there’s going to be “x” percent of savings in a budget, that’s what it’s going to be. Not 15, it could be 15, it could be seven, it could be three, whatever. It could be eight, it could be five, but that is, I mean, that’s really–

Councilmember Adams: Or it could be zero.

President Winnecke: It could be zero, that’s right.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

President Winnecke: But, it’s, you know, you are making assumptions based on things that are going to happen in the future based on people who may be in office that you don’t know today. I mean, that’s the reality, I think.

Councilmember Adams: The reality could be negative too. Therefore–

President Winnecke: Could be.

Councilmember Adams: Okay.

President Winnecke: So, back to the–

Councilmember Adams: I think people are going to be hard pressed voting for something they don’t know what their property taxes are going to affect.

President Winnecke: Let’s get back to the date first.

Councilmember Adams: I apologize.

President Winnecke: That’s okay. So, is September, is that okay with everyone? We will reconvene at the conclusion of the regular County Commissioners meeting that night. I will do my best to make that a brief agenda.

Commissioner Abell: What about the Drainage Board?

President Winnecke: We may not have Drainage Board. I’ll work on that.

Commissioner Melcher: We don’t have to have Drainage Board.

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Commissioner Melcher: That’s right.

President Winnecke: Tuesday at 6:00.

Councilmember Adams: Voila! Executive decision.

President Winnecke: Let’s say–

Commissioner Melcher: Can we set it at 5:30?

President Winnecke: Let’s say 6:00 to be safe.

Commissioner Melcher: 6:00?

President Winnecke: 6:00 on–

Alberta Matlock: September the 6^th at 6:00?

President Winnecke: At 6:00 p.m.

Commissioner Abell: Okay, that will be our final meeting?

President Winnecke: That will be our final meeting.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

Alberta Matlock: Promise?

President Winnecke: I said....Steve?

Commissioner Melcher: Getting back to Dr. Adams, I though Crowe Horthwack, or whatever it’s pronounced, I thought they were going to try to get back with us with comparing other cities on if they’re going to save money or not save money. I kind of thought they were going to be here this evening and then I didn’t see them.

Councilmember Adams: That was my impression. That they were going to give us some hard data.

Commissioner Melcher: Right, and I wouldn’t mind having that on that date, if they could get that to us by that time. That would give them plenty of time.

President Winnecke: I know that the Auditor and Controller were talking to them. I’ll touch base with them and see where that stands.

Commissioner Melcher: Well, I would think they should have that information. That’s almost 30 days then from when–

President Winnecke: Okay, anything else?

Commissioner Melcher: I would like to see that, and if they could get it ahead and e-mail it to us, that would even be better.

President Winnecke: Right. Anything else from this group before we open up to the public? Okay.

President Winnecke: Public comment? Yes, sir? You have to come up and state your name please, to the microphone.

Norman Messell: Norman Messell is my name.

Alberta Matlock: I didn’t hear you.

Norman Messell: Norman Messell. Is this not on? Okay.

John Hamilton: This red light?

Alberta Matlock: Is it on?

John Hamilton: Yes.

Norman Messell: It’s on?

President Winnecke: Yes, sir.

Norman Messell: Okay, just from listening to you all talking back and forth, my understanding is the whole purpose of this reorganization is to save money. Am I right or am I wrong?

President Winnecke: That’s not everyone’s opinion.

Norman Messell: Well, that’s mainly what you here. I mean, you know, this gentleman is talking about raising taxes to pay for the transition.

Councilmember Adams: No, that’s not what I said, sir.

Norman Messell: Well, that’s what I understood. Okay. It seems to be one of the main issues is, there was something said about sewers also, right?

President Winnecke: About what?

Norman Messell: Sewers.

President Winnecke: Yes, okay.

Norman Messell: What concern does the county outside of the city have to do with sewers? Why should the people in the county, outside of the city limits, have taxes raised, which it seems like that’s the trend, to pay for stuff that’s going on in the city? That doesn’t seem quite fair to me.

Councilman John: You have to realize, sewers are a users fee. That’s how we pay for those. Only those people that have sewers pay that rate. What they’re talking about here is, currently the people in the county pay a higher percentage than the people in the city. Once, and in the event that it is consolidated, everybody will pay the same rate for their sewers.

Norman Messell: You’re speaking of people that’s out in the county that are on a sewer system?

Councilman John: Outside the city limits.

Norman Messell: Not people that’s not, that don’t have–

Councilman John: Now, people that don’t have the sewer won’t be paying sewer rates.

Norman Messell: Okay, so, you’re not talking about an additional tax? Or raising the tax revenue–

Councilman John: No.

Commissioner Melcher: They’re actually lowering it.

Norman Messell: –to put in sewers and such as that?

Councilman John: No, no. Only those people that would be getting sewers will pay sewer rates.

Norman Messell: Well, I would like to hear what reasonable amount of savings this thing can produce. I see nothing that’s in it for the people that live outside of the city limits, except a great possibility of higher fees, and I also strongly disagree, we don’t need a Mayor telling us out in the rural areas what we can or can’t do. In other words be at his, whatever he wants. I strongly disagree with that. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thank you. Next? Bruce, you might as well.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Bruce Ungenthiem, Scott Township. Everyday I move to a different place, but I’m at the same spot. The sewer question just brought up an interesting idea that I need to understand. There’s an 800 pound gorilla sitting on the city’s shoulder, and it’s called the EPA. The EPA has said within the next 20 years, I think it’s now 19 ½ , that you must comply with all of the EPA regulations, as far as discharge of city sewers into the Ohio River. I have heard estimates of the cost to fix the combined sewer systems in the City of Evansville, exceeding $800 million. Now, my question is, is that a tax based cost, or is that a fee based cost? Can we put that into this Plan that basically says that all improvements to the sewer will be paid for by the fees charged to the people on the sewer and not the general taxpayer?

Commissioner Melcher: It already is.

John Hamilton: That’s the law.

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah.

Councilman John: Yeah, I mean, it’s the law that says that the only people that are going to pay for sewers are the people that are using the sewers.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Is that true of all of the improvements that have been done to the sewers in the last 15 to 20 years.

Councilman John: Sanitary sewers, yes. Now, there are storm sewers that are not, they’re in the process of separating those. Storm sewers are not on your rates.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Okay. So, I guess my question becomes, when that bill comes due, who pays for it? The people who are now on the sewer system?

Councilman John: Or get on it in the future.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Okay.

Councilman John: Users.

Bruce Ungenthiem: It is a fee based cost, not a tax based cost?

Councilman John: Correct.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Okay, I just needed to understand that. We’ve been talking a few times about city residents paying for county services and double paying and going through that whole question. So, I did some digging, I’ll pass these out as I’m (Inaudible. Not at microphone.). I spent some time with our County Auditor, and I spent some time with our County Treasurer, and I spent some time on the Internet. I found out a few interesting things. I’ll wait until that goes around so everybody can take a look at it. I looked at this from a couple of different directions. I first looked at it from a population standpoint. By population, the total population of Vanderburgh County is 179,703 according to the 2010 census. The city population is 117,429, which is 65 percent of the people in Vanderburgh County live in the urban, City of Evansville, right now 35 percent live in a rural area. So, then I asked a question, okay, that makes sense. I asked the question, okay, by tax assessment, by assessed value, how does that break out? Well, you look at that, and there’s $6.9 billion of assessed taxes or assessed value in Vanderburgh County. $4.2 billion is in the city, $2.6 billion is in the rural area, and that means that the rural area pays 38 percent of the taxes. They are only 35 percent of the people in Vanderburgh County, but pay 38 percent of the tax base that supports the county government. So, my guess is, we get a refund? If you look further down, and look at what that means to the budget, the budget for 2011 is $84,969,000. If you take three percent of that, that’s roughly two and half million dollars that the county, the rural area is paying, up and above what they should pay based on population. If you look at taxes paid, because not all of the county budget is paid for with taxes. There are other things that help pay taxes. If you just look at the tax value itself, it’s $54 million, three percent of that is $1.6 million. So, there’s a difference between population and actual tax assessed value in the county. Now, I had a conversation with the Sheriff at the fair, and we talked about that two weeks ago. The Sheriff, I asked the Sheriff point blank, how much, how many folks in that jail that we have are city residents versus how many of those folks are rural residents. He didn’t have an exact idea, but he said, probably 90 percent are city residents. So, I said, alright let’s be real conservative, let’s take 80 percent of that, and I took that 80 percent and I took it across every line item in the county budget. Oops, excuse me.

Commissioner Melcher: Sorry. Thank you.

Bruce Ungenthiem: The county line items that are involved in law enforcement and courts and probate and Prosecutor and Public Defender and Drug and Alcohol Deferral, I basically took those line items and took them from 65 percent to 80 percent. Just to see what the difference is from a user fee of that county budget. As it turns out, the actual amount, if you look by population, it’s 65 percent-35 percent, by taxation it’s 62 percent-38 percent. But by user fee, by people who actually use the services, it’s 71 percent city and 29 percent county. That’s a difference between taxation percentage and user fee percentage of nine percent. You take a look at those numbers and say, okay, on a tax based format, that’s roughly $4.8 million. These are all hard data points. These are not assumptions. These are hard data points. This basically tells me that the people of the rural area of Vanderburgh County are not only paying their share, they’re paying more than their fair share for the county government. The second thing I wanted to talk about is the on-going issues with the Plan. There’s still an issue with the threshold vote. There’s still a problem with having one vote instead of having a vote for the city and a vote for the rural community. We’ve got over 600 signatures and we’re still counting, and before we go to a final vote we’ll present that information to you, and those 600 plus signatures say that they want to have a threshold vote, separate vote for the county, separate vote for the city. There’s still no economic justification. I see nothing from anybody, other than assumption, and we’ve talked about this several times. I see nothing other than assumptions of hard data that says this is what we’re going to save. How difficult would it be, I went on the web page and got the county budget. I’ve got the city budget, but it’s 75 pages long, and I didn’t want to print it out. How difficult would it be to have somebody go through this and say, okay, this line item we’re going to save this much, this line item we’re going to save this much, this line item we’re going to save this much. We’re going to add this much in here, we’re going to add this much in there. Is that possible to do? Both of those budgets are on the webpage.

Becky Kasha: Who should do that?

Bruce Ungenthiem: Pardon me?

Becky Kasha: Who should do that?

Bruce Ungenthiem: Who should do that? I would think the County Auditor and the City Controller.

Don Walker: We spent $100,000 to that Crowe up there.

Becky Kasha: Who should make the decision about what services should be–

President Winnecke: Yeah, let me just, yeah, hold on, we’ll continue this discussion. Go ahead, Bruce.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Okay, so, that was my question, why can’t we just take the budgets and figure out whether this is going to save any money or not. The next thing, I was in the airport Sunday night picking up my son and his wife, and as typical of airports, the plane was late. I had my two grandchildren with me, and I was trying to keep them occupied, so we played a little game called, “What’s this?”. So, we were walking around looking at the various presentations, and we were saying, well, what’s this? I would explain to them what’s this, what’s this. Well, interestingly enough I came across a presentation that had a familiar face on it. This is the presentation from the Chamber of Commerce. Let me read it to you, it says, if you look at what are arguably the two most important initiatives in our region, the planning and construction of Interstate 69 and the study of merging city and county government in Evansville and Vanderburgh County, you have to look at the advocacy and leadership of the Chamber of Commerce of Southwestern Indiana. I don’t believe that anyone with a straight face could look at you and say that those projects would be where they are today without the leadership and advocacy of the Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana. You know, I thought this was a voter referendum. I thought this was something that was generated by a petition through the League of Women Voters and that it had grassroots support, and that it was being driven by leadership within county government and leadership within...this tells me this is the Chamber of Commerce’s baby. Oh, by the way the author of this is Lloyd Winnecke, Senior Vice President of Marketing Fifth Third Bank. Okay. This tells me this is the Chamber of Commerce–

President Winnecke: Hey, Bruce.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Pardon?

Commissioner Abell: That was a cheap shot.

Councilmember Mosby: That’s uncalled for.

President Winnecke: Bruce, you know, I mean, I usually don’t respond to all of this kind of stuff, but everyone knows the process was begun by a petition of the League of Women Voters. The Chamber has always been an advocate of it. It’s always been one of their strategic initiatives. So, by the fact that I pointed that out means nothing. So, if you don’t mind, instead of taking personal attacks at me, let’s make your points about government, this Plan and let’s move on.

Bruce Ungenthiem: All I wanted to make a point about was the Chamber of Commerce was an advocate–

President Winnecke: I understand your point.

Bruce Ungenthiem: – and a leader in this point.

President Winnecke: I understand.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Okay?

President Winnecke: Okay. Point made.

Bruce Ungenthiem: The last thing I wanted to do before you go to execute your leadership role and vote on this is, basically look at a couple of different things that people have said about leadership. This is a book by Stephen Covey. Stephen Covey is a very popular person who talks about leadership. These are the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, leaders, two of those points are; begin with the end in mind and think win-win. I have to ask the question, do we know what the end is in this? I don’t think so. I also have to ask the question, is this a win-win situation for the city and for the county? I also don’t think so. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Bruce. Next.

Councilmember Adams: Bruce?

President Winnecke: Oh, sorry.

Councilmember Adams: Let me ask you a question. If you’re numbers are correct, and I believe you that they are correct–

Bruce Ungenthiem: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: – would you not think that the county people would want more representation, not less?

Bruce Ungenthiem: What do the numbers have to do with representation?

Councilmember Adams: All of it.

Bruce Ungenthiem: The numbers–

Councilmember Adams: If you’re paying for more, I would think you would want to have a say in the sewer rates.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Well, the numbers indicate that the county, the rural people, are actually paying for more county government right now than the population would suggest. That is to combat the comments that I’ve heard about the, the comments from the city folks who say that the city folks are paying double for Sheriff and for police protection. The two articles that the Editor in the paper have put on the editorial page saying that the city government, that the city folks are actually paying more than their fair share, and the reality of that is they are not.

Councilmember Adams: But, that’s what–

Bruce Ungenthiem: That’s what those numbers say.

Councilmember Adams: But, that doesn’t answer my question.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Do we want more representation?

Councilmember Adams: So you can control those costs. I happen to think people in the city are county residents.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Oh, I think they are too.

Councilmember Adams: Whether you like it or not.

Bruce Ungenthiem: I never said that the people in the city were not county residents.

Councilmember Adams: Well, by you wanting two different votes, they are.

Bruce Ungenthiem: No. What I’m saying with two different votes is the people in the county are losing their form of government. The people in the rural area are losing the only form of government they have, which is three County Commissioners and the County Council. They have no government other than that. The folks in the city are losing part of that, but the consolidation of government is being consolidated into the same form of government that is currently in the city, a Mayor and a Common Council. Because those folks that are in the rural area are losing their form of government they should, by due process, have the ability to vote on whether they want to change their form of government from a Commissioner-Council to a Mayor-Council form of government, and they should be able to do that independently. That’s my point with the threshold.

Councilmember Mosby: But, I do have a question on that, right now your form of government, when you vote on the Commissioner and your County Council, the city also votes too and there’s not a voter threshold there.

Bruce Ungenthiem: I understand that. I didn’t say that the city was losing all of their government–

Councilmember Mosby: But, why should this vote be different? Why should we have a voter threshold for this when we don’t, when we’re voting for your County Commissioners?

Bruce Ungenthiem: Because you’re changing the form of government. You’re not changing who’s in the government, you’re not changing the person that will be Commissioner, or the person that will be, you’re actually changing the form of government, and by changing the form of government you should have the ability to vote on that independently.

President Winnecke: Anyone else?

Commissioner Abell: I just want to make one comment about your figures. These are not hard figures like you said, that these are fact, because I know for a fact that the city census are wrong. Because I know for a fact, because I sat on a board of underprivileged children that there are at least 20 households where children go to Culver School that did not respond to their census questionnaire. So, you cannot say that this is how many people are in the City of Evansville unless you and a group of your friends want to go down door by door–

Bruce Ungenthiem: Those–

Commissioner Abell: – and knock on the doors and find out who’s living in those houses.

Bruce Ungenthiem: That is the best information that we have–

Commissioner Abell: But, that isn’t what you said. You said these were hard core numbers and you counted out to a percentage. That’s not correct, and don’t try to make us look like we’re stupid.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Well, they’re (Inaudible) numbers because there are births and deaths everyday. I mean, there’s never hard core numbers. All we can go by–

Commissioner Abell: You said these were hard core numbers...as a matter of fact I will listen to the tape.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Alright. What I meant by that is, these are the best numbers that we have from the 2010 census. Those are the numbers.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Bruce.

Bruce Ungenthiem: Thank you.

Jayne Buthod: My name is Jayne Buthod, I’m a Vanderburgh County resident. I didn’t plan to come up here and comment, but the tone of this conversation shifted, people were offended, people got defensive, and I know you’ve been through a lot, you’ve had to deal with this. You didn’t start this, you’ve inherited it. You’re spending a lot of your time to be here. You’re listening to a lot of people who are upset or concerned or curious or asking questions that you don’t have the answers for. Your individual political futures are impacted by all of this, but I do appreciate the comments that Mr. Adams and Mr. Melcher said about what happened to K & H answering those questions about finances. From the very beginning this thing was perported, it was pushed as the idea that it’s going to give us a bigger profile in the world, we’ll be bigger, we’ll be able to say we’re bigger, that we will have all of these savings and that the regular citizen will be able to conduct business with their government more easily. We have yet to hear anything that’s addressing those questions. We just keep avoiding them. We’re so busy doing the administrivia of trying to make this sellable, you know, we’ve taken out everything objectionable, we’re trying, you’re trying to be responsive to people’s concerns, but it’s more a matter of let’s package something that can be sold and we’ll figure it all out later. We’ve stopped talking about money, talking about savings. Something was, I read something recently, another community is considering doing this, and they’re not even trying to talk any longer about saving money. They’re talking about possible future reductions and increases. They’ve learned from other communities doing mergers that they’re not even going there anymore. So, they’re re-marketing that concept. I didn’t understand the difference in the way people who lived in the city and the people who lived in the rural areas looked at this before. I didn’t start my relationship with this concept with the merger resisting it. I’m not against change for the sake of change. I spent lots of years, you’ve seen me down here for many years coming to City Council meetings and being a participant in the city. I have a big concern about what’s going to happen to center city residents when this happens. If the merger goes through, the history of all other mergers in all of the research that I’ve done, and there isn’t a book in the library that I haven’t checked out and read and several that I’ve read that I’ve purchased, they all, all of the research indicates that the influence shifts. The power base shifts. It follows the money, and part of the reason, let’s be realistic, there’s no reason to want to merge unless you think there’s some dollars to be captured that aren’t being captured right now. Now, the rural people, and I say rural now, because I used to not make that distinction, the rural people think of themselves differently. I don’t know what kind of reaction I’m going to get when I say this, but they think of themselves as more independent, that we’re not asking for services, we don’t want to pay for them, we don’t need them, don’t bring them to us, we take care of ourselves. Now, that’s marginally true in lots of different ways, but the city looks at things differently. City neighborhoods, city residents, I want a new law to fix a problem, I have this little problem, I want a new law, this big a law for this small a problem. They want government to handle things. They want immediate results. They expect you guys to do it, and we’ll all share in the cost. Now, I personally think less government makes more sense. I think people should be more taking care of themselves, policing their own little plot, doing your own, cleaning your own gutters out, not having to get a law about it. I’m digressing, but this shouldn’t be an adversarial relationship, and it’s become one. A lot of people feel like a shotgun marriage. That’s what the voting threshold is about. You know, it’s a hostile takeover. Nobody’s asking us if we want to merge. Nobody’s telling us what those benefits will be specifically anymore. It’s all about we have the power to make it happen, or we’re going to package it in such a way that the people who weren’t paying attention are going to vote for it. I see center city people suffering and they aren’t realizing it, because they’re not paying attention to this yet. There’s only been a few people, Mr., Adrian Brooks talked about it, you know, he hasn’t been able to get enough other people hearing that point of view at this point. This whole thing has to be about what’s better for our future long range. If we simply get rid of all of the issues, push them off to the next guy, then, well, we know what happens when you do that. It’s just a mess. So, thank you for your time and your patience.

President Winnecke: Thank you, Jayne.

Commissioner Melcher: Lloyd, this might be a good time just to throw this out, because it was brought up at a couple of meetings. I know with the federal government the larger we get the less block grant money we get. We’ve said that many times, but nobody’s even took that into consideration. Maybe it just hit home when Jayne said it, but, I think, maybe the DMD Director could look at the census and maybe he could figure out before our next meeting, once we enter all of the county and the city together how small that piece of pie is going to become so we could have a halfway understanding since if we get something from Crowe Horwick about what’s happened. Maybe we’ll understand how much block grant money we’re not going to get. You know, because what happens is, when you start including all of the income in the county, that changes everything. So, where we have a smaller area, let’s say, once you change all of these big incomes well then this is going to shrink. So, I think we need to get that too before we make a final vote.

President Winnecke: I just made a note. I will reach out to Mr. Barnett and get that in the works.

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, I think he could probably throw that together in a few weeks. It’s just a matter of looking at the census. He knows what the figures are now, he knows what it is for bigger cities, and I think that would give us an idea if we’re going to lose two million, one million, half a million. Thank you.

Cathry Edrington: Cathy Edrington, newly annexed city resident. When I first started, well, I guess, back in 2000, I thought we were going to talk about sewers tonight, so, that’s where we’ll start. I think I was here back in 2002 when the vote actually occurred to do the 35 percent increase on the county residents. It’s been too many years, and I can’t recall. But, definitely I was here different times, the most recent city tax, or city sewer tax rate, whatever, and then with, I also was present at the consolidation hearings when Ed Hafer discussed sewer equalization. I was confused by the article in the paper a few days ago. I thought the rates he gave were low, or the discrepancy he gave for 5,000 gallons by Jim Garrard wasn’t totally accurate. It seems to me there’s a bigger disparity between city and county than the amounts he quoted, or the amounts that were quoted in the paper. I guess, my comment is, I’m not sure what we’re waiting on on the sewer equalization. I think we should do that now, without waiting for consolidation. I don’t understand why we made that a law in 2002, or passed that bill in 2002, but I think it’s time to change it now. For that matter, I don’t have a problem with changing the other half of that, the Sheriff and Police discrepancy, where city residents pay more too on that, I think we ought to switch both of those now, and address those issues now, instead of waiting. The other question, or the other comment that I would like to make is one reason I’m strongly for consolidation is I don’t like how it’s impacting our tax abatements. Again, I’m going by what the Courier printed, but if I trust the Courier they made a comment when Berry Plastics got their recent thing, their recent tax abatement that there was incentives if they hired residents of Evansville. To me we’re one community, not, there shouldn’t be a line, I mean, it should be residents of our county regardless of where you live. I just think for tax abatement it makes more sense doing it centrally instead of we have, you know, instead of the city residents paying for some companies or, you know, offset some companies whereas county residents offset others. To me we’re one community. But I would really like us, going back one more time, I would really like us to address this sewer thing now instead of waiting. I don’t see any reason really to wait, you know, and I say that now as a city resident where it actually hurts me more by saying that, because mine would go up. So, you know, I’m getting impacted the other way now, but I still think it’s the right thing to do.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Cathy.

Cathry Edrington: I just have one question.

President Winnecke: I’m sorry. I apologize.

Cathry Edrington: Is there any, were the rates he gave correct, because I thought they were higher than that.

President Winnecke: I don’t personally know.

Cathry Edrington: Okay. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thank you, Cathy. Next?

Toni Beamer: Hello, my name is Toni Beamer. I live outside the city limits in the county. I’m one person that lives out there that is in favor of consolidation, for a couple of reasons. One is, I can’t vote for Mayor. Let’s face it, in the city, anyplace you go the Mayor is kind of the head figurehead for what goes on in that area. I feel like it’s really important that everybody in Vanderburgh County have a say so, because I work in the city, I usually recreate in the city, go to school in the city, and yet I can have no say so on what goes on as far as the city is concerned. So, I think people in the county, outside the city limits are really disenfranchised by not having that authority. Now, I realize there’s the Commissioners, but I’m not sure it’s really the same thing, because the Mayor carries some, you know, authority, real or not, that everybody appreciates. So, that’s one of the reasons I think it’s important. The other is, when I left Evansville, I grew up here, went away for 39 years and came back, and the population went from about 140,000 to about what, 112,000-115,000 something like that now. The city is older and it’s poorer. Something has got to be done to get this city going. I’m thinking with consolidation there can be some singular leadership between a Council that cares about everybody’s needs and a Mayor that can get this city moving into the 21^st century. I mean, the future is where you guys need to be thinking, not the past. I think if we don’t start looking towards the future, Evansville is just going to continue to grind and grind and grind, more people are going to move to Warrick County or wherever. We’re losing a lot of our 20 somethings, and we need to keep those people here, but to keep them here we’ve got to have jobs. For much of what I’ve read consolidation is a positive factor in bringing industry into the area. There is no question that we need to get some more industry. We need to find some cottage industries that this area could support, because we’re not keeping up with cities comparable to ours. I, for one, if I’m going to spend the rest of my days here, I really want to be proud of this city and I want it to move forward. That’s all I have. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Toni.

Commissioner Melcher: Thank you.

President Winnecke: Next. Last call. Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: Lloyd?

President Winnecke: If no one else want to speak, we will reconvene, we will continue this meeting–

Commissioner Melcher: Lloyd?

President Winnecke: Oh, I’m sorry.

Commissioner Melcher: I found some old notes of mine that I was going to ask earlier, and since Becky is here, I would like to ask her a couple of questions about the two or three meetings, the one at U of E, USI and the 4-H. It won’t take very long.

President Winnecke: Sure.

Becky Kasha: Becky Kasha.

Commissioner Melcher: What I had on the notes was that we paid, I guess, $1,500 or something to USI and $1,500 to U of E and they had less participation at theirs, and most of them were students, and then the one they had at the 4-H Fair, which another group brought, they weren’t paid anything, and yet they had 200 people. How did the committee pick who was going to get paid and how much? I should have asked you that a long time ago. I had it on a note too and naturally we’re moving on, and when I heard your voice awhile ago, I thought now would be a good time to ask you. How come they didn’t get paid the $1,500 like everybody else did if they brought in lots more people?

Becky Kasha: Well, the $1,500, the amount that was charged was to the University of Southern Indiana to do facilitation work, to actually have people handling the breakout sessions at the meetings. That wasn’t paid to utilize the facility at USI or utilize the facility at U of E. Neither facility charged us to actually have the meeting there. That was, like I said, those were fees paid to trained facilitators to handle those meetings. For those of you who weren’t at the meetings, we, obviously didn’t know how, what to anticipate in terms of attendance at those meetings. We didn’t think it would be particularly productive to just have the whole committee sit there and have people just come up one at a time and talk and talk and talk and talk. So, we broke into small groups and had facilitators address some specific questions. That’s what the facilitators did.

Commissioner Melcher: At the two schools?

Becky Kasha: At the two schools.

Commissioner Melcher: How did it do, how did you do it at the 4-H?

Becky Kasha: We asked the Farm Bureau to host a meeting, and I, my recollection is that we asked them to have it at the 4-H because we thought that would be the most convenient place. At the time I don’t believe that Susan Helfrich who was handling the meetings or I were aware of the charge to have the meeting there. So, when that came up that they were going to charge, you know, we had said that no one else was charging us to have the meetings in the places we’d had them. I may be talking out of turn because I wasn’t present, but I believe that someone on behalf of the committee offered to pay the Farm Bureau for that and we were told to not worry about it, you know, that what was done was done.

Commissioner Melcher: Okay, so the Farm Bureau actually paid the, what fee did they pay?

Becky Kasha: To, apparently whatever the amount was, and I don’t remember what it was now, but that was to actually have the 4-H facility.

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, because I don’t think 4-H gives anything to anybody.

Becky Kasha: Well, that may well be, and I, in retrospect now, if I had realized that there would be a charge, I think we would have handled that differently. The day that they came up and talked to us about it, it caught me off guard. So, where as if I had thought it through I might have said, you know, under the circumstances we would go ahead and pay for that, but it caught me off guard. Then, afterwards when I realized how angry they were at us for that misunderstanding, I believe that one of the members of the committee offered to pay it and Farm Bureau at that point said to not be, not worry about it. We still have money in the budget if they, if they want to get paid and they think that that’s the appropriate thing to do, I, you know, I suppose the money is there.

Commissioner Melcher: Okay. Alright, that’s what I wanted to hear.

Becky Kasha: Yeah, but USI and U of E was not predominantly students. There was a cross section of people there.

Commissioner Melcher: Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Adams: How much money are we talking about with the 4-H?

Becky Kasha: I can’t recall. I’m sure there are people here who can. It was $600 or $900, I don’t remember. I think if we had known at the time that there would be a charge for the room that we had asked them to use, maybe we wouldn’t have asked them to have it at that specific location. We just thought that was the most convenient thing for the people who were involved.

Bruce Blackford: Bruce Blackford. Recalling from memory, I believe the facility was about $200. Then there were some incidental costs. We had somebody come down from Indianapolis to be sort of the moderator of the meeting and stuff and we were asking for transportation costs. That was all we asked for.

President Winnecke: Bruce, since Mr. Melcher brought it up, would your organization like to be reimbursed?

Bruce Blackford: That’s fine. It’s not a big deal one way or the other.

President Winnecke: If you would, give us the entire amount.

Bruce Blackford: Okay.

President Winnecke: Shoot that to us and we’ll see that your compensated for it.

Commissioner Melcher: I just wanted to be fair with everything, and I’ve heard from all kinds of numbers and different people talking and I just thought we ought to end it so it don’t go any further so that wouldn’t affect what we’re doing on this.

Bruce Blackford: Okay, the only thing I would ask is have you received the reports from those two meetings?

President Winnecke: Yes.

Commissioner Melcher: Yes.

Bruce Blackford: Okay. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Bruce. Anything else?

Commissioner Melcher: Thank you. Thank you, Becky.

Becky Kasha: Oh, you’re welcome.

President Winnecke: If there’s nothing else, we will continue this meeting until September 6^th at 6:00 p.m.

(The meeting was recessed at approximately 6:45 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Lloyd Winnecke                        Marsha Abell                            Stephen Melcher

John Friend                              H. Dan Adams                          Curt John

Missy Mosby                             Connie Robinson                      Don Walker

Dan McGinn                             Alberta Matlock                         Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.

John Hamilton                          Norman Messell                       Bruce Ungenthiem

Jayne Buthod                           Cathy Edrington                        Toni Beamer

Becky Kasha                            Bruck Blackford                        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.)