VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

JANUARY 5, 2010

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners met in session this 5^th day of January, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Troy Tornatta presiding.

President Tornatta: We’re going to call the Board of Commissioners meeting for January 5, 2010 in room 301. It is 5:00. Attendance roll call, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Here.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Melcher?

Commissioner Melcher: Here.

Madelyn Grayson: President Tornatta?

President Tornatta: Here.

President Tornatta: And, Annie, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please?

Annie Groves: I would love to.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

President Tornatta: Thank you, before we get started I would like to just recognize somebody. It’s been a tough year on Commissioners. We lost another fine steward of county government. Bob Willner passed away on Thursday, December 31, 2009 at the age of 81. He served as Scott Township Assessor and Trustee from ‘62 to ‘70, where he helped to establish the township’s first volunteer fire department and served as their fire chief. He was elected to the Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners and was the longest County Commissioner serving from 1971 until 1990. During his tenure on the Board, Willner, among the many things that he did, was a supporter of the Evansville to Indianapolis highway. Also, he owned and operated Willner Auto Service in Darmstadt for more than 30 years, retiring in 1985. He served in the Army from 1952 to ‘54 during the Korean War. If we would just take a minute, and a moment of silence for Commissioner Willner.

(A moment of silence was observed.)

President Tornatta: Thank you very much. My heart goes out to his wife, Betty, as well.

President Tornatta: Alright, election of officers for 2010. I will nominate Steve Melcher as President of the Board of Commissioners

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Tornatta: A motion and a second. Questions or comments? Roll call vote please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Melcher: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Melcher?

President Tornatta: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

Commissioner Tornatta: Alright.

President Melcher: I would like to go ahead and make the motion.....oh, thank you. I was going to let him keep that.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Now you can do anything you like.

President Melcher: I would like to make the motion for Troy Tornatta to be Vice President.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: So, we have a first and second. Discussion? Roll call please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

President Melcher: Thank you. So, we’re just going to muddle along here for my first meeting.

President Melcher: So, we need permission to open quotes. We have a Weights and Measures office renovations at 2901 East Morgan Avenue, and then there’s a Treasurer folder/inserter equipment. I need a motion.

Commissioner Winnecke: Mr. Chairman, I’ll move that we open the quotes for both the Weights and Measures office renovations, as well as for the Treasurer folder/inserter equipment.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Melcher: Okay, I have a first and a second. So, I guess we’ll need a roll call vote for that too.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

President Melcher: So, do you want to go ahead and open them and we’ll come back, and maybe you could say it under your reports.

President Melcher: Action items, right now we have a first and a final reading of CO.01-10-001. It’s an ordinance establishing the regular Commission meeting for 2010. What this is is all of our meetings have to be scheduled prior, ahead of, for the whole year. We probably should have passed this in December, but since we’ve got to pass it tonight, we’re going to have to hear it in both readings tonight. So, we want to waive the second reading. So, I need a motion for that.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: Okay, all in favor, we need a roll call vote. This has to be unanimous.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

President Melcher: With that we’ll now have the final reading. So, I need a motion for that.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: Roll call vote, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

President Melcher: Thank you.

President Melcher: Permission to award VC09-12-01, Neu Road culvert number 1061 grade stabilization to Jack Hahn Excavating for $13,040. Is John here?

John Stoll: Jack Hahn Excavating was the low bidder on the project, so it’s requested that the contract be awarded to his firm.

Commissioner Tornatta: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: We have a first and second. Any discussion? Anyone from the public? Seeing none, roll call vote, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

President Melcher: Okay, next is we have the Coroner building repair and security system quotes. We have the quotes in our packet.

Annie Groves: I’m just here if there are any questions.

Commissioner Tornatta: Mr. President, I would like to focus on the security issue. I don’t know if Annie has called. I’ve tried to make contact to let everyone know that there is an issue with the security system and they need that upgraded to–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Excuse me, have the quotes been read into the record? The amounts of the quotes? I don’t think so.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay. I think I’m going to get there. Okay, all the quotes, is that what you’re....okay. These are the bids, no, that doesn’t say who they’re from. I apologize. There’s the list. Okay.

President Melcher: One more.

Commissioner Winnecke: The one with G-mail at the top.

Commissioner Tornatta: Uh-huh. Here we go. The quote, this quote is from ABK Alarms, and it’s for a total of $2,350.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Is that right? I mean, I was thinking it was–

Annie Groves: Well, there’s two different security issues. One of them is for the monitors.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, well, I guess we need...I don’t know what you received, Annie. You need, you’ve got quotes for one project, I guess, and quotes for another project.

Annie Groves: Uh-huh.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: If that’s the way it was done. We need to know, first, what project we’re talking about, and then what the quotes are for that project. Then the other project and what the quotes are for that project.

Annie Groves: Okay. I believe I have all of that in the packet.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, but it has to be read into the record–

Annie Groves: Okay.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –it can’t just be in the....so, I don’t know if you can help the Commissioners maybe locate those?

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, there was one from Southwest Communications, Annie does that sound right?

Annie Groves: Well, this particular one that we’re talking about with ABK is the monitoring part of it, not the security part of it. They need to replace the equipment that was damaged–

Commissioner Tornatta: Right.

Annie Groves: –and they own that equipment. So, because of the equipment was damaged and the insurance company said it’s not under insurance, I need to ask for that money so that I can get the new equipment.

Commissioner Tornatta: Right, and the–

Annie Groves: So, they’re basically my sole vendor, because they are the alarm service.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, excuse me, you’re saying that ABK is the sole vendor for the monitor?

Annie Groves: Correct.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And that is $2,350?

Annie Groves: Correct.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, so that one is finished. Now, we’re moving on to the next, whatever the next item is.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, the next one is the video security recorder.

Annie Groves: Correct.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, and that particular bid was $8,118 even.

Annie Groves: No, there’s three quotes in there.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Is this for the construction we’re talking about now?

Annie Groves: Some of it, yeah, we’ve got the building construction also.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, okay.

Annie Groves: One of the quotes was–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Pardon me, I don’t mean to confuse you. When you say video security–

Annie Groves: Uh-huh.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –is that the construction contract? Or are there three contracts?

Annie Groves: Well, there’s–

Commissioner Tornatta: There’s several.

Annie Groves: –there’s several.

Commissioner Tornatta: There’s several, that’s what I’m–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, Annie, we need each separate contract for which you sought quotes–

Annie Groves: Uh-huh.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –the quotes you received for each separate contract–

Annie Groves: They are in their packets.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, and they’re having trouble finding them.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, but here’s what I’m okay with today.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay.

Commissioner Tornatta: I’m okay with making sure that the security side is taken care of so there is no issue with security. We’re going to review the other contracts that are here, and then make that decision as it comes along, but right now we have an issue with the Police Department sending out cars, or calling on a nightly basis, multiple times to make sure that no one is breaking in to the building.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And that was a separate quote?

Annie Groves: Yes.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay.

Commissioner Tornatta: So, what we need to do right now, is it just the ABK, or is it the other system as well?

Annie Groves: Well, we need the security system too. We’re having problems with people...the way our door system works is the front door opens at the same time the back door does–

Commissioner Tornatta: Right.

Annie Groves: –and we can’t see who’s at that door. So, what has happened a couple of times is as we’re letting someone in the front not realizing at the same time someone is coming in the back, because we don’t have the monitors to see that back door.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

Annie Groves: So, that’s....I really do need both.

Commissioner Winnecke: Just, as I read through this the other day, I found, I think I’m reading this correctly, there are three quotes for this project.

Annie Groves: Uh-huh. Correct.

Commissioner Winnecke: Ohio Valley Communications in the amount of $4,575–

Commissioner Tornatta: $4,110.

Commissioner Winnecke: –and then another one from Southwest Communications in the amount of $4,927, and the final for this project from Lee Hayden All American Locksmith and Alarm Service in the amount of $8,118.

Annie Groves: Yeah, and the $4,575 is actually ABK. Ohio Valley is the $4,110. However, I would like to caution on that particular one, it appears to be the lowest, however where it says that they can, it doesn’t say that they are going to install that security so that we can video it. The other ones include the video part of it.

Commissioner Winnecke: So, okay, I read that wrong. So, there are actually four quotes for this part of the–

Annie Groves: Correct.

Commissioner Winnecke: Okay, I did not understand that. So, the low bidder then is OVC or not?

Annie Groves: On paper, however, they didn’t include the video part of it.

Commissioner Winnecke: So, what’s the incremental cost with that?

Annie Groves: They didn’t say. They didn’t include it and I don’t know if they can’t do that.

Commissioner Winnecke: So, that being the case, would, based on the information that you have today, is the quote from ABK, Southwest and Hayden All American Locksmith are all equal–

Annie Groves: Yes, they’re equal.

Commissioner Winnecke: –they’ve all bid on the same thing?

Annie Groves: Yes, they did.

Commissioner Winnecke: Okay. You’re confident, based on the information that they provided that they can provide the services that you need?

Annie Groves: Yes, I am.

Commissioner Winnecke: Okay.

Commissioner Tornatta: Alright, so do we want to take these separate or all together?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I just, you threw out another number there, Annie, as we were going along. Could we, I think the record does have to reflect precisely what the three quotes, or four quotes are–

Annie Groves: Okay.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –for these items. I’m not clear yet that that’s been done.

Commissioner Winnecke: Ohio Valley Communications is $4,110.

Annie Groves: Correct.

Commissioner Winnecke: ABK is $4,575, Southwest Communications is $4,927, and Lee Hayden All American Locksmith and Alarm Service is $8,118.

Commissioner Tornatta: And three are responsive to the direct bid?

Annie Groves: Correct.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And when you say that, that has nothing to do with the ABK separate bid for–

Annie Groves: No.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –$2,350?

Annie Groves: Correct.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Got ‘ya. Thank you.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

Commissioner Winnecke: Mr. Chairman, based on the information the Coroner has presented, and based on the security issue with multiple calls during, at all hours, I would move that we approve the low bid from ABK in the amount of $4,575.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Melcher: We have a first and second. Any discussion? Any from the public? Roll call vote, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

Annie Groves: Thank you.

Commissioner Tornatta: Well, we need one for the second system.

Annie Groves: Oh, okay.

Commissioner Tornatta: That’s okay, Annie.

Commissioner Tornatta: I’ll make a motion to accept the equipment replacement for the current security system from ABK for $2,350.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: We have a first and second. Any discussion? Anybody from the public? Seeing none, Madelyn, go ahead and call the roll.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

Annie Groves: Thank you.

Commissioner Winnecke: Mr. Chairman, then I would move that we take the rest of the repair and renovation quotes under advisement.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Commissioner Winnecke, are you not going to read the amounts of those quotes into the record?

Commissioner Winnecke: I would be happy to.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Alright, thank you.

Commissioner Tornatta: Can we submit those to the record?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: They just need to be stated for the minutes.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I don’t think Madelyn can get them unless they are read.

Commissioner Winnecke: And I would like for the Coroner to follow along to make sure–

Annie Groves: Sure.

Commissioner Winnecke: –or, maybe it’s better if she actually reads these, because she, all I know is what I’ve read in the last several days.

Annie Groves: Okay, for the construction of the roof, the gutters, the painting and the caulk; Midwest Construction came in at $45,700; Core Construction, for the same items, came in at $51,929; and Key Construction came in at $53,510. Those are all equal. They all quoted the same thing.

Commissioner Winnecke: I would move that we take those under advisement.

Commissioner Tornatta: Do we want to enter them all in?

Commissioner Winnecke: Oh, go ahead.

Commissioner Tornatta: Do you want to finish them?

Annie Groves: Sure.

Commissioner Tornatta: Finish the rest.

Annie Groves: The refrigeration unit; Shekell came in at $13,171, and then, they sent me two things, let me see here. Shekell’s would actually be $15,131. Then, Jack Frost is $16,680, and Schmitt Refrigeration is $18,694.70. Everyone there bid it the same thing.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay. I will second your motion to take under advisement.

President Melcher: We have a first and second. Is there any discussion? Any discussion from the public? Please call the roll, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

Annie Groves: Thank you.

Commissioner Tornatta: Thank you.

President Melcher: Thank you, Annie.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Excuse me, if I could just call the County Treasurer to come up here, please. Thank you, this is in connection with these bids I’m opening. Thank you.

President Melcher: Is that a sideline deal?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Sideline.

President Melcher: Okay.

President Melcher: Okay, next is contracts, agreements and leases. This is for the Assessor, an amendment to Manatron agreement for licensed software, hardware and services. It’s an amendment to the currently existing master equipment between Manatron and the county under the terms of which Manatron C-A-M-A pictorial tab software will be provided to the county for the Assessor for $5,800, together with the installation and the training services for $7,200, and maintenance services for one year for $2,900. The Assessor has funds to cover this cost.

Commissioner Tornatta: Motion to approve the addendum.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: With that, is there any discussion? Any discussion from the public? If not, please call the roll.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

President Melcher: Next is the CIO, it’s a grant agreement with Grow Southwest Indiana Workforce Board for a telecom system analysis. The grant agreement between the city, county and Grow Southwest Indiana Workforce Board, the agreement is for the short period from 12/30/09 to 1/22/10 and it’s for the grant for the lesser of the actual cost of $25,400 for the CIO of IT systems for Evansville-Vanderburgh County conducting a telecom systems analysis. The agreement contains usual and customary provisions for the subcontractor, Evansville-Vanderburgh County, to meet in connection with the administration of the grant and the grant funds. Matt Arvay as the city-county Chief Information Officer will have the responsibility of meeting all grant agreements requirements on behalf of the city and the county. So long as everybody understands that. I need a motion.

Commissioner Tornatta: Matt?

Matt Arvay: Any questions? Do you want me to elaborate a little bit?

Commissioner Winnecke: I would like for you to elaborate please.

President Melcher: Okay.

Matt Arvay: Alright, basically a couple of months ago the Grow Southwest Indiana Workforce Board contacted me indicating they had some grant monies available to explore broadband wireless studies. It just so happened about 45 days ago I was approached by the public safety community that our current data mobile radio system is starting to have problems as far as finding replacement parts. We know it’s getting old. So, this opportunity arose where we can actually do a technical study and we can go out and look at our towers. We have seven towers, water towers and regular towers, we can look at the load bearing, can we put more dishes on there? Could we look at the line of site in between the towers? We will look at the licensed and unlicensed frequencies in between. This will provide us a lot of useful information as we look to finding out a replacement system, because sooner or later we’re going to have to replace the old system. We know the speeds aren’t adequate for today’s technology, but it still works. But now when we run into not being able to find replacement parts, we’re going to have to make some decisions. We have been meeting with the public safety community and we think this is a valuable study that will help us make those determinations in the future. In addition, if we decide to go for some ARRA stimulus monies to help with some funding, this study can also accompany that and hopefully benefit the selection process.

Commissioner Winnecke: How specific will this study be? Will it come back with a set of specific recommendations?

Matt Arvay: Yes, it will. I can provide some examples of some sample studies.

Commissioner Winnecke: Would you mind kind of describing this for the folks in the audience and at home as we’re kind of looking at this?

Matt Arvay: Basically, they have mapping aspects that have the locations of the seven towers. They look at the various frequencies at the seven towers to see what type of activity are in the airwaves. They actually take pictures of the towers to kind of look at the health of the tower. Does it need any upgrades? Does it need to be fixed? They check all the antennas on the towers themselves. There will be diagrams that kind of show the activity that you’ll see there, as well as a lot of actual text information that describes what the pictures are saying.

Commissioner Winnecke: So, to be clear, this study will actually be completed by the 22^nd of this month?

Matt Arvay: It will, I will go to the Board of Public Works on Thursday, assuming they approve it, we’ll start next Monday. It’s a five day study that will be completed by the following Friday. The report will be delivered on January 21^st.

Commissioner Winnecke: Okay. Okay, thank you.

President Melcher: Any other questions? Troy, do you have any questions?

Commissioner Tornatta: Not at this time. I would just like to make a motion to approve.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: We have a first and second. Any further discussion? Any discussion from the public? Seeing none. Roll call vote, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, Mr. Arvay, that is the agreement that we’ve been talking about this afternoon?

Matt Arvay: Yes.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That we made the two changes to regarding the audit and regarding the one lawsuit?

Matt Arvay: That is correct.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Does Madelyn have the corrected copy of that agreement?

Matt Arvay: She does, and I have one extra one for her.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Is it signed already?

Matt Arvay: No.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Not signed? Okay.

Matt Arvay: We’ll be the first to sign, BPW Thursday and then the Grow–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Thank you. Thank you.

President Melcher: Okay, next we had the public hearing, but we are going to hold that till the end. We’re going to finish our Commissioner meeting. Department head reports, any department heads have any reports? Go ahead.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I have the bids, if you would like to have those? Alright, for the Armory building renovations; Deig Brothers Construction, $36,070; ARC Construction, $43,360; Empire Construction, $33,806; Industrial Contractors, $36,890.

Commissioner Winnecke: Mr. Chairman, I’ll move that we take those under advisement.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Melcher: Any discussion? Anything from the public? Seeing none. Roll call vote, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Then, for quotes sought by the Treasurer for folding machines and so forth, we have three quotes; one from Pitney-Bowes for $74,908, showing zero for a service agreement. Hasler, in care of Southern Business Machines, $56,708, plus $5,995 for a service agreement after year five. Finally, Nepost, N-e-p-o-s-t, in care of Southern Business Machines, it’s an identical quote, $56,708, plus $5,995 for the service agreement after year five. I’m unable to explain why we have two identical quotes from two individually named entities both in care of Southern Business Machines, but I think that will come through as they’re reviewed, if you take them under advisement.

Commissioner Winnecke: Mr. Chairman, I’ll move that we take those under advisement.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Melcher: We have a first and second. Any further discussion? Any discussion from the public? Seeing none. Roll call vote, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Finally, as a County Attorney item, Mr. Miller and I have for you this afternoon the agreement between the Commissioners and Mr. Miller, as an employee, and Ziemer Stayman Weitzel and Shoulders, as independent contractors, for the rendering of services for designated fees to the county for 2010. The services to be provided and the fees for those services are identical to 2009, except for the amount of the salary for Mr. Miller is different, being lower than the contract amount for the firm, as it was in 2009.

Commissioner Tornatta: We need a motion to approve?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Hopefully.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: We have a first and second. Any discussion? Any discussion from the public? Seeing none. Roll call vote, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That’s all I have.

President Melcher: Any other, John? Chris, you might want to come up next.

John Stoll: I have one item, it’s a street acceptance request for St. Joe Village Subdivision. This is for 906 feet of Will Place and 523 feet of Liberty Court. These streets were constructed it appears in the late 80's. I’m sorry, early 80's, and the, from what we can find, it appears the acceptance just fell through the cracks. The county had a policy at that time that the streets wouldn’t be accepted until a certain percentage of the lots were developed. Initially when the streets were constructed, obviously there weren’t any lots that hadn’t been constructed, no subsequent follow-up requests for acceptance could be found, so whether it was the developer, the county or both, this fell through the cracks and the streets were never accepted. So, I’m requesting that you accept the streets this evening.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: We have a first and second. Any other discussion? Anybody from the audience? Roll call vote, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

John Stoll: That’s all I have. Thanks.

President Melcher: I don’t know if you have anything, Chris, but I thought with the snow coming you might want to give us an update.

Chris Walsh: Yeah, to give you....Chris Walsh, County Highway Department. We’ve begun the pre-treatment of the county roads, doing the primary and the secondary road system. We’re about 50 percent complete. We should finish it up tomorrow. All estimations look like it could be anywhere from one inch to six inches, but we’ll be ready. This looks like it’s going to be our first–

Commissioner Winnecke: Great.

Chris Walsh: –potential storm of the season.

President Melcher: So, how are our trucks? Our trucks are all ready?

Chris Walsh: In good shape. We’re treating some of the salt. My sprayer didn’t come in, there was some tie ups around Christmas getting the sprayer in, so we’re hand treating the salt right now. So, we’re going to put the treated salt out in this event.

President Melcher: Okay, are we still short a mechanic out there?

Chris Walsh: Yes, we are.

President Melcher: Because I know tonight there is, we’ve got three new hires tonight. So, you might want to be looking about seeing what we can do about filling that position.

Chris Walsh: Okay.

President Melcher: Any other, any questions of Chris?

Commissioner Winnecke: No.

President Melcher: Thank you, Chris.

Chris Walsh: Thank you.

President Melcher: Next is board appointments. Commissioner Tornatta is going to handle these. He was doing this under his watch when he was starting. So, go ahead.

Commissioner Tornatta: Alright, under the Commissioners watch, I will take Central Dispatch, Coalition to End Homelessness, Domestic and Sexual Violence, and Economic Development Commission. Commissioner Melcher will have Evansville MPO, Mayor’s Education Roundtable, Disaster Resistance Corporation, Community Corrections and Public Defender. Commissioner Winnecke will have the Old Courthouse Foundation, ITAC, GAGE and Area Plan. Alcohol Beverage Commission, Frank Daugul; Board of Health, Dr. Catherine M. Engel; Community Corrections Complex, right now Nancy Helms, and there’s a couple more to appoint; Convention and Visitors Bureau, Greg Gee and Joe Vezosso; Domestic and Sexual Violence, Chris Ryan; Evansville ARC, Bill Nix; Economic Development Coalition, we’ll actually have a spot open; Electrical Board, Jim Rexing, Randy Breivogel and Jerry Goedde; Emergency Management Agency, Tom Barnett, Eric Williams, and Randy Gentry; Homeless Commission, Craig Berkeley; HVAC, Bob Crowe, Wayne Ravelette, and John Dillingham; Library Board of Trustees, Walt Lowe; Minority Women Business Enterprise, Darrell Ragland, Andrew Mickens, and one spot open; Parks Commission, Kenny Overton; Polling Place Advisory Committee, Robert Faulkner, Connie Carrier, Tony Bushrod, Mark Foster, and, I believe there’s still three to appoint.

President Melcher: We named five?

Commissioner Tornatta: We can go back to that. Pardon?

President Melcher: We named three, I think.

Commissioner Tornatta: I named four.

President Melcher: Okay, Bill Bennett was on.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

President Melcher: And, we’ve got one vacant and Roberta Heiman.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay. Then, for the polling place, in addition, Bill Bennett, and Roberta Heiman. Roberta is here. Roberta, give me a nod, because I never did get to talk to you. Are you still wanting to serve on that board.

Roberta Heiman: Sure.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay. Okay, thank you. Redevelopment Commission, Kirk Knight, Chuck Whobrey, Jim Will and Chris Kiefer. Workforce Investment Board, Andy Goebel. Any additions to that at this time?

President Melcher: Yes, I would like to go back to one of them. I think we got it. The Construction and Roofing Board.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

President Melcher: All of them want to go back on for one year. It’s Steve Hagedorn, Heidorn, excuse me, Ron Dauby and John Elpers.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, and I will make all of those in the form of a motion.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: We have a first and second. Any discussion? Anybody from the audience? Seeing none, roll call vote, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

President Melcher: Any new business?

President Melcher: Old business?

President Melcher: Let’s go ahead and move to consent items.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: Thank you. Madelyn, would you mind reading them?

Madelyn Grayson: The consent items for the January 5^th meeting are as follows; approval of the December 15, 2009 Commission meeting minutes; employment changes, there are three for the Health Department for the Commissioners to initial tonight; the County Auditor has the December 2009 A/P vouchers, an employee benefit rollover letter, the Substance Abuse Council December 2009 meeting minutes and 2010 budget recommendations; the County Clerk November 2009 monthly report; the County Treasurer October 2009 monthly report; Weights and Measures monthly report for November 15^th through December 15, 2009; the County Engineer has approval of pay request number 96 for the Burkhardt-Green River TIF projects in the amount of $66,004.55; the County Commissioners have a request for extension of payment of back taxes for 820 North Elliott, 401 NW Second Street, 1213 West Florida, 1410 North Garvin, 321 North Garvin, and 403 East Florida; AMR has a third quarter 2009 financial report and invoice; the Evansville Police Department has a request for waiver of Centre fees not overtime for various events for 2010; and there’s a department head report from the County Engineer. Oh, and the extension on the payment of back taxes, I assume, is until March 1, 2010.

Commissioner Tornatta: Yeah.

President Melcher: Right, with that, do we have any discussion? Anybody in the audience? Roll call vote, please.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

President Melcher: With that, we’ll go to our public comments section, session. Is there anybody that has anything to say tonight, not about consolidation, but anything else? Because this is our regular public comment.

President Melcher: With that, then we’ll go ahead and go into the public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and hearing public comment on a proposed reorganization of Vanderburgh County and the City of Evansville. Now, I thought we would kind of start it with, Ted, would you mind going through the first couple of procedures?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: No, certainly. As everyone knows, Roberta Heiman and the League of Women Voters collected and then presented to the Commissioners, I don’t remember the exact date of that, but, I think a couple of meetings ago, the requisite number of signatures of qualified voters in Vanderburgh County to begin the statutory process for having a question regarding the consolidation of Evansville and Vanderburgh County be on the ballot. Following that, the Commissioners authorized the publication of notice of a public hearing on that question, and that notice was duly published and within the requisite amount of time prior to today, and today is the date set for that public hearing. Following the hearing today, the Commissioners have 30 days, starting today, so, they could today or anytime within the next 30 days adopt a resolution either supporting the process without a rejection threshold, meaning that when the election is held in November, if it is, the vote would be by the entire Vanderburgh County residents, and the majority of those voting would carry the day on that question. A second resolution might adopt would be to continue with this process, but to have it be with a rejection threshold, which would mean that if this is on the ballot in November there would be two sets of votes, one by residents of Vanderburgh County living outside the city limits of Evansville, and another by residents of Vanderburgh County living within the city limits. To carry the day it would require a majority of the voters inside the city and outside the city. The third resolution the Commissioners could adopt would be to reject this process, in which case this would stop now. If the Commissioners vote for it to go forward under either of the two guises, with or without a rejection threshold, then the day after that happens we would certify, or the Vanderburgh County Clerk of Courts would certify to the Clerk of the City of Evansville that this is a resolution of the Vanderburgh County Commissioners, and that resolution would be available to be heard at the next meeting of the Evansville City Council that it’s willing to hear it. It doesn’t necessarily have to do it at the next meeting after it receives that. The City Council is not required to hold a public hearing. The City Council would in its wisdom and in due course adopt a resolution, it must adopt a resolution, and to go forward the resolution needs to be substantially similar to the resolution adopted by the County Commissioners. If it is not, it comes back to the Commissioners and it gets reconsidered again. If it is substantially similar, for example, if both bodies voted to go forward with the process without a rejection threshold, then after that, within 30 days, the Commissioners and the City Council would appoint a committee to begin developing and fleshing out the form of reorganization of city and county government that they are proposing, and then it goes from there. I think I’ll stop at that point.

President Melcher: That’s good. I did ask, since this was a night that the City Council didn’t meet, I did ask if they wanted, since they don’t have to have a public hearing, if any of the City Council members wanted to come. They were invited. I know we’re in conflict tonight, because we got one e-mail, since we put this meeting on and we got it actually yesterday saying that we’re in, we’re actually doing it at the same time as the fire stations. We set our meeting last year. I don’t know when those were set, but this is a separate issue for us right now. It’s not a city, but I did ask the City Council members to come if they wanted to. I also asked about the Town of Darmstadt and wanted at least somebody here from Darmstadt. I also asked about them doing a resolution too. Did you find out if they’re going to do one?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: No, no. The process would allow, right now all the process will allow is for the Vanderburgh Commissioners....I guess, there’s a third thing the Commissioners could do, which would be to adopt a resolution to change the kind of unification that they request to be, for example, of Evansville, Vanderburgh County and the Town of Darmstadt. If the Commissioners adopted a resolution like that, then it would then go to the City Council and it would go to the Town Board, or the Town Council of Darmstadt for approval. I will tell the Commissioners that I have spoken to the attorney for the Town Council of Darmstadt, and he may be here, I don’t know, he indicated that possibly he or some member of the Town Council would be present, but I never received any indication that there would be a desire to be included in this unification. So, as far as the County Attorney’s office knows at this point, the only entities, governmental entities to be included in this process would be the City of Evansville and Vanderburgh County.

President Melcher: I just didn’t want to leave them out, because I believe that if we had left them out that could have left a door open, like you and I discussed for a lawsuit down the road.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, yeah.

President Melcher: I really would feel comfortable if they would do one themselves, you know, either against or for it. Any other discussion before we–

Commissioner Tornatta: President Stobbs is in the audience. Come on up, if you would please. Bob, not to put you on the spot, but I didn’t know if you had had any correspondence or....no, okay. Anyway, just trying to get your thoughts on the process.

Bob Stobbs: Okay, the Council we have been e-mailing back and forth between all of us and the discussion has come up on this, and over the last month or so we kind of did a little survey of the residents in the Town of Darmstadt as to what their feelings would be in regards to this. Basically, what it boiled back down to was that the Town of Darmstadt was incorporated in 1973, and at that time, I think that there was a movement going at that time to merge the city and county government together. That was one of the reasons why the Town of Darmstadt decided that they wanted to become incorporated and become an independent town. At this point, the consensus of the Council for the Town of Darmstadt, we have decided at this point that we do not want to be included in the consolidation of the government. We wish to remain as an independent town.

President Melcher: And that’s kind of what the feelings were, and I kind of knew the history, but I just wanted to make sure that we got something on the record, because everybody brags about Indianapolis, and we’re more consolidated than Indianapolis is, because they still have Mayors and towns and that in Marion County too. So, but I just didn’t want to leave you out if you were wanting to be part of it or not part of it.

Bob Stobbs: Thank you.

President Melcher: Okay.

Madelyn Grayson: Sir, can you state your name for the record, please?

Bob Stobbs: Beg your pardon?

Madelyn Grayson: Can you state your name for the record?

Bob Stobbs: My name is Bob Stobbs, S-t-o-b-b-s.

Commissioner Tornatta: Thank you, Bob.

President Melcher: Okay.

Bob Stobbs: Thank you.

President Melcher: Does anybody have any questions? Thank you. Do you have anything else you want to say before we get started? Well, probably, Roberta, since you got the, we’ll let you go first. We’ll spend as much time as we can. We want to hear as many people as we can. This is an open meeting.

Roberta Heiman: I’ll keep it short, Steve.

President Melcher: I don’t think we’re going to get out of line here, but just in case we’re going to be gentlemen and women about being here. So, we don’t want to be putting anybody down on which way they want to go. We just want to move forward. Go ahead.

Roberta Heiman: Thank you. I’m Roberta Heiman. I’m President of the League of Women Voters of Southwestern Indiana. I’m a resident of Vanderburgh County and the City of Evansville. I’ll just reiterate what I said to you a couple of weeks ago when I presented the petition to you. I also brought some more petitions, and I want to mention this because these came in over the holidays, people who went to the League’s website, printed out a copy of the petition, signed it, put it in an envelope, addressed it to us and mailed it in, in favor of voters getting to decide this issue. How many times have you seen literally hundreds of people go through that effort in support of something? It just doesn’t happen. Usually the only time hundreds of people come out for something is to protest, but in this case this is a citizens petition, signed by more than 3,300 residents of this county and city saying come up with a plan and submit it to the voters and let the voters decide whether they want to be a single community, a single community, or continue as a divided community through the rest of this 21^st century. At this point the petition that the League submitted to you is taking a stand only on, it’s a neutral petition on the question of merger. It’s a petition saying let the voters decide it. This issue has refused to die for forty years. It keeps being recycled. If it’s not decided this time, my guess is that it will come back. It’s an issue that has refused to die, and it’s time to submit it to the voters, and that’s what we’re asking you to do. We ask that you proceed with haste in order to get this on the ballot in November. A citizens committee, bipartisan citizens committee would draft the plan and have six months to do it. We think a good, hard working committee can meet that deadline. That’s what we’re asking at this point for you to do. I will be glad to answer any questions. I would like to make a point that I’ve not heard raised in all of the discussions on this. Mr. Melcher you mentioned that in Indianapolis they still have all those separate towns and separate Mayors.

President Melcher: They do.

Roberta Heiman: Before Marion County and Indianapolis were consolidated, those little separate towns were not thriving. They were not thriving. Before Indianapolis and Marion County consolidated Indianapolis was known as “Indianoplace” or “Nap Town”. Senator Lugar who was Mayor when the consolidation happened, Bill Hudnut who led the city for 16 years after the consolidation both say that transformation of Indianapolis would not have happened if the consolidation had not happened. The people in Speedway, a thriving community today, it would not be thriving today if that consolidation had not happened. No suburb anywhere thrives if it’s the suburb of a stagnant city. Darmstadt will not thrive if it continues to be a suburb of a city that is not growing. It’s a point that needs to be considered in the discussions that will come in the coming months. Thank you very much. I will answer any questions that you might have.

President Melcher: Any questions? Thank you.

Roberta Heiman: Thank you.

President Melcher: Alright, when you come up just state your name and your address and where you live so we would get all of this on the record. So, that way we can kind of figure whether you are city or county, outside the corporate limits.

Emmons Patzer: I can be clear on that. I am not in the city. I am in the county, and I would make a recommendation that if you do consider, you consider with a rejection.

Commissioner Tornatta: Name?

Emmons Patzer: Now, the–

Commissioner Tornatta: Name?

Emmons Patzer: –name is Emmons Patzer.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

Emmons Patzer: I’m at 510 West Mt. Pleasant. I appreciate the fact that the League of Women Voters have brought this to your attention. It has festered in the community for quite some time. For that reason it should be brought forward, it should be discussed. I have a couple of key issues though with it. One of them that I’m concerned with is the time line. The time line between now and August is aggressive, in that sense I do disagree with what Roberta said. The reason that I feel that it will become clear when I look at some of the details about what the issues are on the table with respect to what consolidation means to people. For example, I’m concerned about land use designations. I’ve considered, for example, buying a large tract of land within this community, within the city limits, and found that the agricultural zoning situation doesn’t allow a tax situation that’s favorable for that investment. I’m concerned that that tax situation for agricultural land in expanding into the county would extend that same issue to county residents, which include a lot of agriculture businesses. With that consideration, it’s not a small scale issue. That agricultural zoning relationship has a state relationship that has not been rectified at this point in time. Secondly, I’m concerned that what we have is a city that has invested monies on a debt obligation creation basis. What it’s done is it has built an infrastructure all around downtown, and it’s funded it with debt obligations that it intends to pass to the county residents. In essence creating a taxation without representation issue. And, third, I think what we’re missing is we’re living back in the past. Think about what has happened to cities across this nation, cities are a centralization concept. Yet what we see today is social media, right? What’s expanding in our world is the connection of people not through centralized government in a consolidated sense. We see our businesses reaching outward in our communities. We’re building in Green River Road, we’re building north, we’re building south. In fact, do you realize that right now we’re under consideration for a Metropolitan Statistical Area to be named Owensboro-Evansville Statistical Area? The growth to Warrick County, the flight, people have fled this city, and they have fled to the county for a reason. Darmstadt residents made very clearly what that reason was. We’re going to see a flight from this community outward to other areas like Warrick County. Now, with that said, the other key point that I think Roberta made was that economic viability is critically dependent upon a consolidated government, and cited Indianapolis as an example for that. What I would like to make as an alternative example is Silicon Valley, one of the most vibrant economic areas of this country. Where is the consolidated government out there? Silicon Valley is not an entity. It’s not a governmental entity. It’s a leadership posture that has been taken by a community of people, a social network of people that have created that vibrance. Silicon Valley is made up of Palo Alto, it’s made up of San Jose, it’s made up of Sunnyvale. It flourishes with diversity. If you are familiar with those communities, those communities are made up where people want to live a particular lifestyle. The young people tend to go to Palo Alto. The families tend to go to Sunnyvale. What we want to create is an opportunity for people to live where they want and not be forced to a centralized consolidation. Now, with that, I think we should celebrate diversity and live with that diversity. We should not encourage a centralized business district that we have invested in for 30 years or more with walkways, with Victory Theaters, with stadiums that the population doesn’t want, and now we’re going to end up trying to consolidate and make the rest of the county pay for that. So, what I am suggesting is, at a minimum if you don’t reject it, you allow this to go forward only with the rejection where we split the vote between county residents and city residents. Thank you.

(Applause)

President Melcher: Thank you. Any questions? We have an open mic, whoever wants to come next. I don’t really want to put a time line on it, but I can’t let people drag out ten or fifteen minutes. His was about the right time. So, if you just–

Brenda Bergwitz: Mine is going to be short. My name is Brenda Bergwitz, 3646 Orchard Road, Evansville, Indiana out in the county. I am totally against the merger, and I’ve talked to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people out in the county that are against this also. Dittos to the man, the gentleman that just spoke. Thank you.

(Applause)

Carol Davis: Carol Davis, 3905 Needle Leaf Point, Evansville, narcissistic County. I guess I get two votes since I live in the city and the county. Fifty years ago Evansville was about the same size as Nashville. Evansville has not only been stagnant in growth, but really has gone basackwards in progress. Politics and collective bargaining has been successful all these years in keeping a stranglehold on growth for the sake of votes and a few government jobs. It’s time for the media to do some real investigative reporting. Report the facts about the pp pay, pay and perks, of the County Commissioners down to the County Garage janitor. Inform the senior citizens freezing and doing without proper nutrition and the working poor trying to keep afloat in a job not related to collective bargaining or government, how their sacrifices are supporting jobs with amenities they don’t have. It’s time media does a Paul Harvey reporting story and report the rest of the story. People are ignorant of the facts. They are not dumb. Dollars and sense, s-e-n-s-e, investigations will reveal how the public is blindsided by rhetoric. Thank you.

President Melcher: Thank you.

(Applause)

President Melcher: Next?

Mike Sandefur: My name is Mike Sandefur. I’m a resident of Vanderburgh County. I guess, well I’m also a member of the Freedom Makers. I don’t know if you guys have heard of us, but we’re one of the groups that stopped Mayor Weinzapfel when he tried to secretly take away our homestead credits. I’m not speaking for that group, but I can say that this group is going to be very active in this matter. To discuss the direct issue here, I think, I personally think this Commission would be insane to move forward with this proposal. We have ,essentially, to forfeit any of its sovereignty to the city, makes no sense at all. We have essentially a, at this time, a narcissistic dictator who had rather build an arena than fix the sewers and keep them from (tape flip) the citizens of this community. We have a Mayor that had rather shut down the fire stations than be fiscally responsible. We have a Mayor that has secret meetings to take away our homestead credits. We have Mayors and Councilmembers that meet in private to see how they can limit free speech in this community. I think that this Commission would be ill advised to give away any sovereignty of its own to an organization such as that. Thank you.

Commissioner Tornatta: Can I, I just–

(Applause)

Commissioner Tornatta: –want to ask one question. How do you feel about the general public making those decisions? I mean, you talk about the dictatorship–

Mike Sandefur: Well–

Commissioner Tornatta: –but, one would say we could close this down to your judgement and make the decision ourselves, or–

Mike Sandefur: We are, let me do say this, one of our cornerstones as the Freedom Makers is that we believe that you are either making freedoms or you are taking freedoms away. As an elected official we want you to look at every decision and say am I making you more free or am I taking your freedoms away. So, hence the freedom maker or the freedom taker. Now, we are fine working within the political process, and if part of the political process allows you to say no, then you are welcome to say no. If you feel on the other hand that you need to bring this to a vote, you are welcome to bring it to a vote. You’re welcome to do anything that your political process and the law allows. We support that. I’m only saying that I think it would be ill advised to bring this forward, because I don’t think you’re going to see very much support for it at all.

Commissioner Tornatta: So, let me get back to my point, and let me finish.

Mike Sandefur: Please.

Commissioner Tornatta: So, does your group stand for–

Mike Sandefur: My group–

Commissioner Tornatta: Let me finish.

Mike Sandefur: I’m sorry. I apologize.

Commissioner Tornatta: Does your group stand for letting the general public have the freedom to vote? Or does your group stand for a dictatorship to tell you how the vote, or how it’s going to be?

Mike Sandefur: I cannot speak on behalf of my group. That’s why I’m here speaking on behalf of me. So, that group will have to make that decision themselves.

Commissioner Tornatta: In your opinion, speaking as Mike Sandefur?

Mike Sandefur: My opinion speaking as Mike Sandefur is irrelevant to the group. The group would have to decide within themselves, within their own decisions of what they want to do, and that discussion I’m sure will come up, but I have no place in putting my opinion forward for the group.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, alright. Thank you, Mike.

Mike Sandefur: Thank you.

President Melcher: Alright, any other questions? Next?

Philip Fisher: My name is Philip Fisher. I live at 811 Southeast Third Street in Evansville. I also was the project coordinator for the study that was done 2004 and 2005. There have been three study committees, all of them came to the conclusion that a unified government would be both more efficient and more effective in carrying out the functions of government. Right now at our first public meeting, which was attended by over 100 people, one of the things that we learned people do, generally, many people do not understand the functions of local government. They don’t understand the division of duties among the townships, the county and the city. So, a unified government would be simpler. It would be simpler for economic development purposes. Instead of having to meet with Commissioners and the Council and the County Council, you would have one chief executive, probably, and one Council. Every city that we studied that has done this, the elected officials, the business leaders that we talked to thought it had been successful and a good idea. One of the concerns that has been expressed is that county residents would be taxed for city obligations and city services. That is not necessarily so. In some unified governments all residents are taxed the same. Nashville, for example, but Lexington, however, set up different taxing districts so that people were taxed according to the services that were being provided. So, if you had a volunteer fire department, you would pay for a volunteer fire department rather than a full time fire department and so on. The 2005 recommendation that the committee gave called for the creation of such taxing districts and modeled it on Lexington, which at that time had 11 different taxing districts, which really gave the Council a lot of flexibility because they could add services incrementally as they were needed or requested, rather than in annexation where you have to provide all of the services all at once. So, I think that would be a very good idea. Then I would like to address the issue of whether this should be a single vote or a split vote with a rejection level at each level. As a city resident I pay all of the county taxes. I pay for a Sheriff’s Department which does not patrol my street. They have jurisdiction, but we don’t get any services from them. As it stands now, city taxpayers, to some degree, are subsidizing county services. The unification of government would provide at least the opportunity for a fairer system of taxation than we have now. Thank you. I would be glad to answer any questions.

President Melcher: Any questions?

Commissioner Tornatta: Not right now.

President Melcher: I know you did the committee and you was part of it and you did a great job when you did that committee. I think you tried to answer a lot of questions, that’s why I feel like if the committee gets going here pretty soon, the committee will be able to take your study, and you might even be asked to serve on it.

Philip Fisher: Whether I’m asked to serve or not, I do have all of that stuff organized–

President Melcher: It’s just a matter of tweaking that and getting other stuff?

Philip Fisher: Well, I would say I agree with Mr. Patzer, the time line of getting it done by, in time for a November election is very short. The committee that I worked with, with me as a part time employee, or consultant rather, took two and a half years to do the work. To ask a volunteer board to do this from scratch would be impossible. To the extent that they can use our work, that might speed things up.

President Melcher: Well, that’s what I was thinking. If they use your work that gives them a footprint.

Philip Fisher: Yes.

President Melcher: Okay.

Commissioner Tornatta: The only comment I’ll make is the same one I made before, I am in no mood to rush this to the point that we do it wrong. So, if it’s done, I am in no mood to do it wrong. To say that we’ll get it right the next time, that’s not going to be on my watch. So, whether it goes or whether it doesn’t, it’s going to be done the correct way.

Philip Fisher: Also, if you expect a detailed report of findings, there had better be some funding for this project. Because I think to ask a volunteer board to do that is not realistic. Thank you.

Commissioner Tornatta: Thank you, Phil.

President Melcher: Thank you.

(Applause)

Brenda Bergwitz: Again, my name is Brenda Bergwitz. I won’t be here but just a second. I proudly belong to the United Freedom Makers, but there again, at the same time, if it put on the ballot in the fall, let the people vote. But, again I am very proud and honored to be a part of the Freedom Makers. I guess, one thing, really, I’m against it is we have outstanding fire departments here in Evansville, we have outstanding volunteer fire departments, and right now the other Freedom Makers are at the other meeting out on First Avenue at Ivy Tech, because we couldn’t be at both, and I live in German Township and we have an awesome German Township Fire Department, and I don’t want nobody taking my fire department away from me. Thank you.

(Applause)

Richard Clements: My name is Richard Clements. I’m a resident of 818 South Lombard Avenue in the City of Evansville. Thank you for allowing this opportunity to express our thoughts and beliefs before you on this issue. Just real quick, I’m a fifth generation resident of Vanderburgh County. My family has been here and has deep, deep ties. So, this is an issue that I think very seriously about. In 2006 when this last issue came before us, I headed a group that was opposed to consolidation for a number of reasons. I would just like to talk to, real quickly, about the study that took place. I would request that the Board ask for any study that was produced during that effort, and I also find it interesting the mention of money when the last issue of a report was paid for his services. That aside, what I want you guys to think about is what is the nature of this whole endeavor? Is it for better representation? Is it for more effective government? Is it more efficient government? Then to ask yourselves, what does that mean? Does combining two layers of government into one large body necessarily translate into cost savings? I say no, and I think the evidence supports that. There are a number of legitimate academic studies which have looked at a number of consolidation efforts, and don’t seem to support what appears on the surface to be something that is cost effective. As a matter of fact, what you often see is that the government grows in relation to economic development efforts. Then, really to think about why this is being asked. It ultimately boils down to tax money. The government’s role, as you are all well aware of, is to pass laws. What is law, by the aggregate use of force to defend life, liberty and property. No more, no less. Beyond that it becomes either sanctioned theft, or petty oppression. I don’t mean to get so philosophic, but it is what it is, and that’s what our system of free government does. If we consolidate our government, is it to push economic development? If that’s what it is, does economic development mean taking more tax payer dollars to do what, to build edifices here or there? Does that necessarily translate into a more vibrant community? Or, is it the people themselves that make the vibrant community? I ask as we go along this path, that you think deeply and you think clearly about what it is you are being asked to do, and that you consider the voice of the people outside this city with equal weight as those within the city, so that we don’t have a takeover. Thank you very much for your time.

(Applause)

Bill Jeffers: Good evening. My name is Bill Jeffers. I’m the Vanderburgh County Surveyor. I wanted to comment on similar issues to what Dr. Fisher commented on. I believe he said something to the effect that unified government would be more effective and efficient. Well, we surely would like to have that. There’s no problem with more effective and efficient government. Restructuring government for that purpose would be laudable. But, he also said, in the next sentence, I believe, that he noticed during....well, first of all, I would like to say that I worked against the consolidation committee, spoke against it. I spoke negatively when they first started, but over a period of time I came to really appreciate Dr. Fisher’s methodical and deliberate approach to the issues, and the way that he and his fellow committee members came into our offices, the elected offices, and really looked to see what we did, as opposed to what some of the other planners of restructure have done. They actually came in, when you look at that report, while I might not agree with everything that was recommended by that unification report, it is a methodical approach. It was deliberate. He gathered as much information as he could from all of the departments and office holders who were willing to speak with him and his fellow committee members. It would be a good place to start. But, I want to drop back to some other notes that I had jotted down. Like I said, I’m not opposed to reforming government through a restructure, maybe that will take the form of a complete consolidation of city and county structure, maybe it will be some hybrid of that, maybe it will be eventual. I really don’t see the need to charge head long towards that end. As Commissioner Tornatta said, if it ends up not providing full services, the highest degree of services for the price that we taxpayers, all of us taxpayers pay, and have come to expect, particularly with regard to public safety, police and fire. Also including in public safety, engineering services, highway maintenance, highway building, those are all public safety issues, flood control, traffic planning, etcetera. I don’t think any of that should be sacrificed just to get, as one previous speaker said, in a hurry, or with haste, I believe was the comment. I truly believe it has been the case, in more than one instance, that so called government restructuring plans came from pressure from outside special interests, certain special interests, and resulted in faulty plans based on insufficient effort to fully discover what the real functions of the government offices are. I would give you, as an example of that, the Indiana State Chamber of Commerce’s complete plan. I think the date is 1999. That was poorly conceived. Where they recommended, for example, and, I guess, maybe you’ll see that I took it personally, but it’s just an example that’s close to home and I use it as an example. I don’t take it all that personal, I’m retiring in three years and what happens will happen. But, the State Chamber of Commerce, and I’m not saying that the local Chamber of Commerce agrees with it, I’m just saying what I read online, reduced the County Surveyor’s office to a single person supervisor operating out of the County Garage. A single employee, with no technical staff, called a Drainage Supervisor. That shows you the incomplete nature of their investigation into what a County Surveyor actually does. That didn’t happen with Dr. Fisher’s report. I’ll just throw that in there. He actually came in and looked at what we did. But, all the statutory duties currently assigned to the County Surveyor by State law and local code, keep in mind that those are activities, the majority of activities assigned to us by State statute and local code take place outside of county right-of-way, on private property, serving the public, and are not completed by the City Engineer when annexation takes place. The County Surveyor continues to perform those tasks, even under annexation. So, when you go county-wide, if the city were to be the premier, or the end result, county boundary to county boundary city, the Board of Works while they might assume the Drainage Board functions, they will not assume, the Engineering Department will not assume all the other functions that the County Surveyor carries out on private property. Meanwhile under the compete plan, the County Highway Department cannot work off right-of-way on private property, therefore all of those services under some forms of consolidation would just go away. Those, or they would be contracted out to a private firm, consulting firm at $150 to $200 an hour, whatever, per man. Unfortunately, other plans that have followed the compete plan have kind of mimicked the Chamber’s plan, including the Shepard-Kernan recommendations. So, what I’m suggesting is that we, if we do move forward, I hope we move forward with the study, that we do so deliberately and carefully so that the resulting recommendations reflect reality rather than a blind rush to the goal line pushed by special interests. That’s why I take exception at the suggestion that we should proceed in haste. That’s just a recipe for an incomplete plan. Consolidation, I believe, if it does happen, should happen from the county side. I think the county should end up being the municipality, not the city. Why? Because we need to retain accountable elected office holders in policy making positions, rather than department heads appointed and beholden to a “Boss Hogg” type single executive. I don’t think a vertical, linear structure of government reflects the intent of the original constitutional of county government in the State of Indiana. It’s been called “horse and buggy”, this current structure has been called “horse and buggy”, but those original founders of our Nation and the Northwest Territory which eventually became this State and four other states, five other states, “horse and buggy” was good enough for them, and it’s good enough for me. Many proponents of the top down, single executive, vertical structure of local government, I hear from them the slogan, well, “the buck stops here”. That’s convenient, but I say to them, so does accountability. Those department heads come into a meeting on Monday morning with that top executive, he tells them what he expects out of them, they go back to their offices and the accountability is only at the Mayor’s office or the single executive’s office. When someone, you’ll find....well, I don’t need to go there, I think everybody knows what happens when you call an elected officeholder compared to what you call, when you make a telephone call to an appointed officeholder. Also, I think a three member executive commission provides great opportunity for diversity on that Board, rather than a single Commissioner. It provides the opportunity for three civic minded individuals of diverse profession, ethnicity, gender to simultaneously share and serve in a part-time capacity. I think that’s much better than a single executive. A three member Commission, with staggered elections, election dates also tends to maximize the opportunity to oust an ineffective administration. We’ve seen that happen many times. If you’re effective, you stay. If you’re not effective, it changes. I’ve run out of notes, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

President Melcher: Thank you.

(Applause)

Taylor Payne: Good evening. My name is Taylor Payne. I live at 501 Park Plaza Drive. I have no comments for you this evening either pro or con on the subject of unification, but would instead comment that I would ask you to submit this question, allow this question to be submitted for a referendum to the people. As to the nature of that submission, I would ask that, as with other county-wide determinations, like elections etcetera, that that be done under a one man one vote rule, with no threshold set for a carve out of people who live outside of the city limits, but let each one person who is a resident of Vanderburgh County have their one vote on the issue. Thank you.

President Melcher: Thank you.

(Applause)

Steve Schaeffer: President Melcher, members of the Commission, Steve Schaeffer resident of outside the city limits in Vanderburgh County, 11942 Wayland Court. In addition to being a resident of Vanderburgh County, I also represent the Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana. Before I begin, I wanted to pass out a letter that I think that you have all received. Can I pass that out?

President Melcher: Sure. Do you have an extra one?

Steve Schaeffer: Yeah. Yes.

President Melcher: Can you give one to the attorney? I’ll get you one.

Steve Schaeffer: I have more copies as well. On behalf of our member companies and their employees and all of the individuals that signed the petition, we respectfully urge the Commissioners to move forward and adopt a resolution to move forward with this process. To look at the city-county reorganization process that is commonly referred to as House Enrolled Act 1362 that was passed in the 2006 legislative session. I actually came from Indianapolis today, and it was interesting to walk in the State House and almost every single individual that I encountered asked about the process that is potentially going to happen in Evansville and Vanderburgh County. You have legislators that are continually talking about how local governments are going to survive in the current environment and with the possibility of property tax being implemented into the Constitution. Every community is looking at ways to become more efficient, and to spend their money wisely. This is a great opportunity to look at ways to do that. If you recall, the Evansville City Council produced a plan in 2005, that developed a plan, that came up with a process to look at consolidated city-county government, however that plan was not granted a referendum. Instead the legislature created the process, as I mentioned before, a process that any community in the State of Indiana could go through to look at these types of reorganizations and possibly enter into them. Without a doubt, the reorganization process is complex, but it contains numerous checks and balances for the entities that are participating throughout the process. So, there are many safeguards throughout the process that look out for the interests of the entities that are participating. As you continue discussion on this process in whether or not to move forward, we ask that you look at a couple of things; first it’s been mentioned before, look and use the 2005 proposal as a starting point. In 2005 or ‘06, I believe all of the bodies in local government, the Commissioners, City Council, the Mayor and the County Council all approved resolution supporting that that plan go to the public for a referendum vote. It was a result of a two year study, numerous hundreds of interviews, and research was done, so, I think, as it was mentioned before, it would be a good place to start. Not only the 2005 study, but in 1990 and the other reports that have been done over, I think, a 40 year period. So, there’s a lot of data and work that’s already been done that a committee can potentially look to. Secondly, we urge that you grant a county-wide referendum without a rejection threshold. State statute allows the legislative bodies to determine the type of referendum, but I believe, as Taylor Payne just mentioned, referendum votes that have occurred in the past, whether it be gaming, the EVSC strategic plan, the township Assessor referendum, even Vandi-Gov, they were county-wide elections without rejection thresholds. I can personally attest to being there during the session when the city-county reorganization process was being developed, and the rejection threshold language was inserted into the legislation as a roadblock to success. So, that’s something to consider when you’re making your decision. It should be pointed out that, I believe when the League of Women Voters submitted the signatures, that about 900 of those signatures, of the 3,300, or of the certified signatures were from individuals outside the city limits. Finally, administrative support, I would like to, the Chamber would like to offer any administrative support to the reorganization committee. Obviously, it is a complex process with an aggressive time line, but it can be done. It doesn’t have to be done hastily. I think with a full time coordinator and a staff of volunteers it can be done. There’s a lot of research out there. We’ve been talking about this for forty years, long before I was born. So, we wanted to make that offer out there to staff and potentially help this reorganization committee meet the proper deadlines and other work that needs to be done to meet that August, I believe, 1^st or 2^nd deadline to have the County Election Board certify a question to be on the ballot. As you’ve mentioned before, the merits of a consolidated government are to be examined by the reorganization committee during this process. This hearing is just to decide whether or not that examination should take place. With that said, we strongly encourage you to move forward as quickly as possible so that this process can begin. A process that will hear input from supporters and opponents alike of consolidated government, and to make sure that the public is aware, through an aggressive public education campaign, after a plan is developed, but we strongly feel that it should move forward. So, thank you for your time. If you have any questions, feel free to answer any.

President Melcher: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you.

(Applause)

Les Shively: Good evening. My name is Les Shively. I am a property owner in the county. I live in the county at 1226 Longmeadow Way, and due to the efforts of the City Council and the Mayor, I now own property in the City of Evansville where my business is located. Although you have to go through Warrick County to provide those services. I don’t think the city has figured that out yet. That’s my position, my constituency, if you will, on this issue. Also, I’m one of the older people involved in this issue. It’s goes back to the days when I was an intern for Russ Lloyd, Sr., when the ill fated Vandi-Gov was considered and defeated quite handily at the polls. The interesting thing about that was, it was because it was a plan conceived by, as someone mentioned, special interests or a narrow group of people, with all the right intentions, but the public was not included. In fact, I think if you look at the analysis, if you broke down the vote between city and county, it was defeated even within, among the voters located within the corporate limits of the City of Evansville. Now, here’s the reality we face, and we have a wonderful tool that the creativity of the General Assembly gave us in 2006. This act that Steve just outlined, lets us start from scratch. There are no parameters except for a few things that Ted described a while ago, some constitutional offices, things of that nature. For the most part, we can create any type of local government formation we want. We’re going to have to, and it can address all of the concerns, it can address the zoning concerns. It can make sure that it’s equitable that farmers, which are an intrical part of our economy aren’t paying additional taxes for the land they own, for the productive activities, just because we’re now a metro government. It can deal with all those issues. It can preserve volunteer fire departments, by the way, I represent the Knight Township Department, allow them to continue to provide those services. This is as creative, the limitations are really the limitations of the people within the county. We have a clean slate to work with. Why should we look at it? Well, here’s some reasons, some factual reasons, we’re the second smallest county geographically in the State. We have a population less than 200,000 people, and we have all of these layers of government, and whether this contributes to economic development or not, the reality of it is, Lexington’s growing because they’re a consolidated government. They compete with us for jobs and industry. Same with Louisville, same with Nashville. So, intuitively you think, well, maybe we need to look at how government is structured and how it delivers services and how it does it in a way that allows the economy to grow. The economy is not growing here. Now very well at the end of the study we may very well find that what we have is working just fine, and that in and of itself, the process itself is worth doing. But, the one way not to grow this community is through annexation. Annexation is draconian, it’s regressive, all it does is create more money flowing into the coffers of the city with no new services, no new opportunities for the folks here in Vanderburgh County. I favor a county-wide vote because I entrust the Commissioners and the City Council members to put together a study committee that is diverse that would put together a form of local government that embraces all of the constituency groups, because we all are one community. The second smallest geographically, only 170,000 people. We’ve lost sight of one thing, we’ve been the leaders on consolidated government, whether we realize it or not. We did so 55 plus years ago when we put together one of the first forms of county-wide school systems. People in Indianapolis are still amazed how successful the Evansville-Vanderburgh County School Corporation has been, consolidating all of those township schools. We lead the way. We can lead the way again. We’re not here to talk about a proposal. We’re here to say how can we, with our collective creativity and wisdom, make this community better? We can do it. Let’s take the opportunity. Yeah, we’re going to have to buckle down to get things done by August. We can do it because we have quality people in this community that can get the job done. Thank you.

(Applause)

President Melcher: Next?

Chris Palitomous: Good evening. My name is Chris Palitomous, city resident, 4204 Hunters Trace in Evansville. The last time I actually came to a meeting in this chamber it was for the City Council for the annexation. This is a small crowd tonight. I don’t know why you all don’t draw a bigger crowd than the city does, but I think that it has something to do with–

Commissioner Tornatta: Marketing.

Chris Palitomous: –the fact that....marketing? Yes. I think that it has a little bit to do with the fact that they spoke their piece, the people who are against annexation, I think that many of the people in the county are against the consolidation for that reason. That’s a practical thing that I just said. But, I would actually like to talk about a principle thing, because I hear lots of things that are being talked about practically tonight. The principle is that we have government that’s been set up with checks and balances. Parts of those checks and balances are having towns and cities and counties and states and a federal government. Each one of those has a separate government so that you can’t have the efficiency that’s bad efficiency. If you have a government that’s tyrannical because it’s consolidated all the power into one place, buying into the premise that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, that if you all are a good County Council, or whatever government is created through the city, that’s fantastic, and we can have economic growth, we can have wisdom, great. But, what happens when you get one that’s not so good and they’re efficient? Well, then you go backwards faster. So, when you look at these things, I think that our Founders put these things into place as a checks and balance, not just against bad legislation, but against bad legislators and bad elected officials. So, Mr. Tornatta asked the question, should we put this to the voters? Well, there’s a principle here, and that principle is that we use the word democracy a lot, but we’re not a democracy, we’re a representative republic. In that you all have an authority that’s a delegated authority, and elected authority to exercise things that promote, not just economic prosperity, but maintain freedoms. Consolidation of government eliminates the possibility of people having a closeness to the government. You can look at the Kernan-Shepard report and some of this township thing, I’m opposed to that based on this same principle. The principle is separation of powers, checks and balances. We don’t want bad efficiency, although good efficiency would be nice. We have to look at the balance of separating those things out. So, one of the folks that talked about this social networking that we see, that when people are allowed to be free these things spread out, but when we consolidate these things into one thing, it becomes more difficult. I can come here and have representation with you fairly easily. Much harder for me to deal with somebody on the State level. Much, much harder for me to deal with somebody on the Federal level. The more you break that down and consolidate it, the more you bring that power in, the more you separate yourself from the people. I’ll give an example, the last time that I spoke at a Council meeting was the City Council and that was two years ago, before it got real popular in the paper to discuss who’s going to be able to go through those little check boxes downstairs. So, I went through them for the first time today, and it has a real Communist kind of feel to it going through there. But, what it does, it set up an aristocracy where the elected officials are a little bit more separate from the people. When you consolidate the government, I think you’ll be doing that. So, I’ll answer any questions, you know, I have more thoughts on that, and maybe I’ll write you all a letter later.

President Melcher: I do want to say one thing, I had to go through it three times to pass to come in tonight. Just so you know, I’m going through it. Thank you.

Chris Palitomous: Thanks.

(Applause)

Manfred Stahl: I’m Manfred Stahl. I live on Old Boonville Highway. I haven’t heard anything said about Indianapolis and Marion County. Is that a bad example of consolidated government? For a while I thought maybe it cost them rather than saved them. If consolidated government can save the city taxpayers and can save the county taxpayers, then definitely do it. It’s probably fine. If not, why it should definitely stop before we consolidate. Each one of the city and county offices can probably do things better. I in my own business can do things better, I can do it without incorporating or without partnershiping. There’s always something that we can improve on. I think the part that makes things work well is whenever we can elect officials and officeholders and, hopefully, that they can do better than the last person. We strive for that, and that’s part of our process. So, I’m a little bit concerned about putting too much power in too few of hands. It can be good, but it can be bad. So, if we can get some definite savings to the county taxpayer and also the city taxpayer, why fine. If not, why I think we need to forget it. Thank you.

Commissioner Tornatta: Thank you.

President Melcher: Thank you.

(Applause)

Mike Shopmeyer: Mike Shopmeyer, 862 South Lombard, live next door to Richard Clements. I have a different view than Richard. I have traveled to Lexington for extended visits, as well as Louisville and Nashville with all three of our Commissioners, and have studied this for a long time. When I was a much younger man I served on the unification reorganization committee under Frank McDonald. I don’t know when that was, but it was before the subsequent two committees, and I too, like Dr. Fisher, have, as I know Joe Harrison, Jr. does as well, has files and files and files of information from those studies. That group likewise, which was set up to be diverse, have pro, con, city, county, again the same set up, came to the same conclusion as did the most recent studies. I think it’s important to look back at history and ditto some of the things that Steve and Les Shively said. Our country was founded by conventions that formed our Constitution, and many people tonight have cited the Constitution, and as an attorney I would be first to point out that our Constitution has no allowance for this county government, for a Surveyor, for any of those branches of government. All that our Constitution provides for is the State of Indiana and the United States government. In fact, in our government, when we were originally formed, was a confederation. Eventually they all came back and there was the same disagreements that are in this room right now. There wasn’t referendums back then, but the same group, they were dispatched from very different places, Catholics from Maryland, Baptists from Rhode Island was it, I think? You had diverse groups from all over the country that these states were formed for those purposes. They originally came in to form 13 different states, with no United States of America. No united government, and after many, many, many meetings, just like we’ve had over the 40 years, they elected to unify this great country that allows me to hop in my car and drive to California without going through however many checkpoints I would have had to have gone through, which allows my children to have all the rights of all 50 states, and all of the other blessings that this great country has created. So, this is not a new issue that is before us. It’s an issue where people have unified before, and greatness has come of it. Les pointed out aptly, and as did Steve, what’s before us, because of the new legislation that we worked hard to enact through the Chamber of Commerce and many, almost everyone in this room that’s in front of us, is legislation that allows us to mold, unify, reorganize, not consolidate power. It’s very important that what is put together by the committee, and I certainly support, as does Taylor Payne who I’ve worked with for years on this effort, that we need to let the voters have the right to vote, and it needs to be county-wide. I’m a taxpayer, I live in the city, as Dr. Fisher pointed out, I’ve subsidized the Sheriff’s Department, which is the largest part of your budget, for years and years. I’ve served on your side of the table as well. I know that I make a lot more money as a lawyer representing and doing local government work in this current disorganized, duplicating, inefficient, ineffective system we have. It is very much a “horse and buggy” system that was created in 1816 and needs to be modernized to take into account all of the social media and the new technology we have today that can make it much, much more effective for our people. What did we find when we went to Louisville? What did we find in Nashville? What did we find in Lexington? Well, we found not a single minority group that spoke in opposition. We didn’t find a single Democrat or Republican, because that comes into this every time, that this is all an attempt to consolidate power in the Democrat Party or the capital “R” Republican Party. We found in all communities, all three of them, that was no longer an issue. In fact, there was no organized opposition in any of the three communities, and we sure as heck looked for it. None of the three communities. Nashville had the most interesting story and they have, undoubtedly, in my opinion, been the most effective, in Davidson County, very, very large geographic county. Les pointed out aptly we are the smallest geographic county, so it will probably work best here. So, they had all kinds of interests because it was so large. What they found was they supported it, the newspaper supported it, both parties supported it, and it lost, just as we lost the first time around. So, they dispatched themselves on an annexation program. I too have represented, in fact represented Les in the annexation on the east side. I know what annexation does. It is very much heavily balanced in favor of the city and the people have no vote on the organization of the government they receive. Zero vote. It is an awful manner in which to reorganize, to unify our governments. It is the wrong approach. In Nashville, once that approach started, they voted again, I forget what it was, eight years, and they voted it in overwhelmingly. I’ve seen the polling data in this county, and most people support unified government. It’s almost at the same level, interestingly, most of us worked on the referendum for the riverboat, and it almost tracks that the same. County, city, interestingly, there is almost more people in the county in favor of it than the city, which is ironic, for the reason I stated. From a taxpayer’s standpoint, I live in the city, I pay for the Sheriff, your biggest line item, I get none of the services. We’ve had the Sheriff driving over the county to go to Waterworks Road, we’ve got the County Garage driving out from St. Joe to get to Waterworks Road on my side of the county, driving right over the city’s garage and their people. It’s heavily ineffective and inefficient. So, I would ask that we not let annexation be the way in which we form our local government, but that we allow the voters, that we allow a group to come together for, against, Richard Clements has served on the committees with me, put everyone on it and see if we can form a government that has bifurcated taxes to protect folks, that forms districts for every different neighborhood based on ethnicity, whatever we think is appropriate and that there be 15 seats up here in a local governmental legislative body, instead of two legislative bodies, two executive branches, which costs us a lot of money anyway. So, I would move that we let the people vote. Thank you.

President Melcher: Thank you.

(Applause)

Commissioner Tornatta: Hey, Mike, I do have one comment.

Mike Shopmeyer: Sure.

Commissioner Tornatta: How many people from the city are in the county jail? That’s where you just say touche and you go on.

Mike Shopmeyer: But, I fund the county jail to the same level.

Commissioner Tornatta: You’re right.

Mike Shopmeyer: Touche, I got you on that one, just the same as the Sheriff.

Commissioner Tornatta: But, it’s just my point, my point is sometimes we forget that the Sheriff does and the county does maintain the jail, and the city has no part in that, the city coffers has no part in that budget.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at microphone.)

Mike Shopmeyer: I think that, and those are good points, and in the unification, reorganization effort those need to be studied. There are forms of government where the Sheriff, an elected Sheriff, as has been pointed out by Mr. Jeffers, I mean, whatever we form, we may very well have the Sheriff as the law enforcement for the county elected. I mean, that, I don’t know–

Commissioner Tornatta: I think all these points are–

Mike Shopmeyer: Giving people the right to vote for it, that’s the point.

Commissioner Tornatta: Yeah, great point to deliberate.

Mike Shopmeyer: And we get to form our government. Think about that, the State gave us that power, which they don’t have to do. So, we have very limited home rule in Indiana. This is a big deal that this legislation passed. Thank you.

Eldon Maasberg: My name is Eldon Maasberg. I live in Armstrong Township, 14747 Lutterbach Road. Ted, did I understand you right, that the City Council does not have open meetings?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: They have open meetings, but they are not required to have a meeting dedicated to a public hearing on this issue. In other words, they could take this up, if it got certified to them in time, they could take it up at their meeting next Monday. It’s a public meeting, you certainly could go to it, but they don’t have to advertise it as a public hearing.

Eldon Maasberg: I misunderstood you then. I thought the way you said it that they were just going to be, their meetings are closed–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: No, no.

Eldon Maasberg: –that’s where I think a lot of your meetings, there’s three of you sitting up there, where we’ve got one Mayor with blinders on like horse and carriage days and he appoints people around him to do the work. Talk about consolidation in our school corporation, I live in Armstrong Township, I seen what happened with the corporations. Then you’ve got, because they, the people in the country did not vote for it, but the city did. It went in that way. We in Armstrong Township had to buy our school back.

(Applause)

Eldon Maasberg: We also, I sat in a meeting with Berkman , talked about, he drawed a line just north of Cynthia Heights, says we do not have but one school north of this line. I said, I asked him, I says, you know why? I says it was your corporation that done away with Armstrong School. Now, I as a farmer, we’ve got land that’s going to be in creek bottoms, will never be publicly housing or that, or buildings. It cannot be put in commercial use because of the floodplain, just like Union Township. There will be no houses down there, Federal law says you can’t build in a floodplain. Now, the city wants to tax us for their new stadium across the street, which he paid somebody around him, which he only can put people around him that was on his side. He don’t listen to other people. They talked about that survey four years ago, I understand a farmer was on that thing, when it come time to stand up, they did not listen to a word that farmer said. He, they went and put what they want in that study that suited themselves. If that’s what we’re heading for, I would rather see a county government rather than a city government, because at least we’ve got three people up there instead of one person. Thank you.

Commissioner Tornatta: Thank you, Eldon.

President Melcher: Thank you.

(Applause)

Commissioner Tornatta: Find out how many more people want to speak.

President Melcher: Is there--

Commissioner Tornatta: How many more people wish to speak? Could we have a raise of hands, just so we know. So, Cathy, you’re it.

Cathy Edrington: Cathy Edrington, 6236 Country Lane. President Melcher, and other Commissioners. I actually wrote my comments expecting the City Council to be here, and possibly the County Council.

Commissioner Tornatta: We have representatives today.

Cathy Edrington: Right, right.

President Melcher: I think we have one.

Commissioner Tornatta: They’re listening.

President Melcher: Don Walker is here, so. Is there another Councilman here?

Commissioner Tornatta: John Friend.

President Melcher: Oh, I didn’t see you, John, sorry.

Commissioner Tornatta: President Russell Lloyd from the County Council.

President Melcher: Okay.

Cathy Edrington: I’ve lived in Vanderburgh County for 20 years, as a county only resident. I work in downtown Evansville at one of the companies receiving city tax abatement. I’ve had city water and sewer everyday I’ve lived in this county, and wouldn’t go without it. I think one of the big issues to me is consistency and fairness. In recent years one company got denied tax abatement by the county, I believe, and was awarded it by the city. Whichever side was right, it was an inconsistent message that we sent, and it’s got to be a little confusing. I watch all of the county government meetings, and it seems to me that in these tough times it is getting more obvious sometimes that the employee benefits aren’t necessarily always the same. It just seems like we would have more consistency and fairness with one Council making those calls. The other thing to me is, as I’ve mentioned before, is tax abatement. I don’t even like the word, and I think most people know that, but we all benefit from tax abatement. As I said, I live in the county, and I work for a city company, I work for a company in the city with tax abatement, and that, I mean, it almost needs to be spread across the whole population, because otherwise you’re not, you know, it’s impacting people differently and you’re not, everybody’s not paying their share. A comment was made earlier by Mr., I’m sorry, by Mr. Patzer, that the debt obligation to the city would be passed on to the county residents, it already is. That’s one of my big issues. As a county resident it bothers me that the City Council handles issues that impacts all of us, particularly the park bonds are county-wide even though the City Council has the power over them. As I said, I get water and sewer, but the City Council, through the Water Department, or Water Board, whatever, makes those calls and votes on those bonds, and specifically as we handle the bigger issue of the CSO situation it’s a huge cost and the City Council is making those calls. Although every county resident obviously isn’t on city water and sewer, the boundaries extend farther than the city limits. Also, when the City Council deals with big issues like the arena, I think those are huge issues that should be decided by a board that represents all of us. One other issue, none of you were Commissioners at this time, but when the tornado hit, I felt better when our Mayor got involved, because he’s the central point in this community. The tornado actually hit in the county, but I feel it’s more of a, I felt better when our Mayor was involved in that crisis. My summary point is this, often consolidation gets delayed by how it will impact police and fire, and whether there will be savings. I would suggest that if we’re going to get into that conversation, I would suggest we somehow figure out a way to move some of our financing to a board that is over the whole community, specifically water and sewer and park bonds, I guess need to go under the County Council if we’re going to delay stuff. I just would like all of the major projects to be decided by a board that represents all of us. That’s my comments.

Commissioner Tornatta: Thank you, Cathy.

President Melcher: Thank you.

Cathy Edrington: Thank you.

(Applause)

President Melcher: I want to make sure that everybody has their turn. Does anybody else have anything to say? Because one thing we want this process to be is going to be open. I think people need to be educated on what’s happening. I think that’s the most important part is the education. So, when we have these meetings, I’m sure they are going to be open, they’ll probably have a question and answer period after every meeting. That’s kind of what I’m looking for, because I want everything open. I want everybody educated, because if you don’t get educated, you’re going to have a hard time which way you want to vote. Did you want to say one more thing?

Brenda Bergwitz: (Inaudible. Not at microphone.)

President Melcher: You have to say it at the microphone. That’s the only way we get it on record.

Brenda Bergwitz: Again, my name is Brenda Bergwitz, and I want to thank you all for having it put in the paper today. That is the best way to get the message out there if that’s what you want to do is get the public involved. Again, thank you very much for putting it in the paper, because that’s what it’s going to take is getting the word out. Thank you.

President Melcher: Well, that’s our plan, our plan is to make sure that everybody’s involved and everybody has their say. Anybody else have anything else to say this evening? Alright.

Commissioner Winnecke: First, I would like to thank everyone who came out tonight on a raw winter night to share a diversity, or a diverse number of opinions. We’ve heard history lessons, just by my notes, all of which are good, I’m not poking fun. We’ve heard philosophical points, we’ve heard practical points, we’ve heard a pretty unified thought on annexation, we’ve heard about fairness, we’ve had questions on the motives of this process and the timing, but I think the most important thing we’ve heard is that there is a great diversity of opinion in this community. One of the more interesting thoughts that I think was expressed was by Mr. Shively, in the sense that the opportunity that is before this community based on the legislation that is in place is that we can create a clean slate and form a government really the way we envision it as a community. Having said all of that, the matter before us tonight, to me, is whether we move, how we move forward? I favor moving forward with the process, because I do believe from the bottom of my heart that the voters of the City of Evansville and Vanderburgh County should vote on this and there should not be a rejection threshold. I believe we should move, we should start the process quickly, but as several mentioned tonight, we should do so in a deliberate fashion that makes sense for everyone.

Commissioner Tornatta: Thank you. I will say that, you know, this has come on pretty quickly, but I think that it has been a deliberate push thus far. So, I do enjoy the, just the many personalities that have come forward to express their opinions and the people tonight as well. Seeing that, I think that there are some things that we’ve realized over the past three or four years, and that is we must find new ways to run government. Government as it was is not as it is today. There are new ways. We have groups talking to groups, the city talking to the EVSC, the city, the county and the EVSC talking about how we are going to be more efficient. We’re not in the same environment that we were 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 50 years ago, ten years ago when I started. I think the process needs to move forward. At what speed, as I’ve cautioned the groups, we must make sure that we do it right. In fact, I want to throw out a couple of things that I’ve talked to even the Chamber about and they were very prompt in getting me back some information, but instead of worrying about people serving on this committee, what about the criteria that the people serve under, serving on the committee? You may look at me puzzled, I say instead of picking, for instance, Mr. Maasberg, we do look at a farmer to serve on this committee. Instead of picking “x” business guy, we look at a businessman, and that person is chosen from the authorities that will place people on this committee. That way we have criteria for the committee first, then put people into place. I think you will get your best suitors for that committee at that point without bringing politics or any ulterior interests into the mix. Then, you know, we’ve had three or four studies on consolidation, I think we need to have those individuals that have the most knowledge that headed those committees sit down and talk about how they did that process, so we do have at least some type of structure when we start our new slate or our new process. I think it is exciting that we at least had the opportunity to go through a process like this, whether it’s voted up or down. I am of no, I have no opinion at this point, because I have not seen one ounce of what this potential new government structure would be, but I’m excited if people are excited to look at the efficiencies. Knowing where our finances are, and could be in the next few years, any efficiency and any opportunity we have to make our community better when others are stalling I’m in favor of. So, with that being said, I thank everyone for coming tonight. I am with Commissioner Winnecke for the least restrictive, I don’t believe as much as, and I’ve lived in the county as well, that we put any more weight into a city or a county vote than one vote. We don’t do it at election time when we’re electing our officials, and I sure wouldn’t want to do it in any other measure. So, at this point I’m for the non-rejection measure and to move forward.

President Melcher: I too want to thank everybody for coming, and the Chamber did offer to help. I think we also have to thank the Women League of Voters with their interest group about getting this to the table. Most of the time when this thing happens, a real citizens committee is like the rezoning on Majestic Place. The citizens got together. It wasn’t any group, it wasn’t any thing, they just started calling all of their neighbors, and started beating at the houses. I think that’s the real citizens group. I wanted it with a rejection threshold, because I kind of felt like the county members, the county people have moved out of the county to get out of the city, and they will be overswelmed with the city vote. But, I also know how to count, and that’s one thing I’ve learned, right away there’s going to be two. So, that’s the one it’s going to be done by us, naturally. But, I do want to thank everybody, and I think we are going to move forward with this, because I want to move forward with it also. I think we just need to move forward with this. I don’t know the time frame on the resolution. You know we could do it at our next meeting, and then it can move on. Or, will you bring us a resolution so we can read it and see what it says?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, I have, as you know I have submitted several forms of a resolution–

President Melcher: Yes, you have.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –to you, and if you, for example, you could adopt this tonight to get the time frame moving. Or you can wait till your next meeting which is the 19^th, or any time in between that you are having a meeting, a duly called meeting.

President Melcher: I would, on the resolution, like I told you already, I want one without all of the fluff, just straight forward. I think the fluff out to be the committee. They’re the ones that ought to decide what’s going to be in there and what’s not going to be in there, how it’s going to handle. I don’t think we need to say anything, we don’t know. We don’t have nothing to back that up. So, I would like to at least see a straight resolution.

Commissioner Winnecke: Mr. Chairman, based on the, I think we can accommodate that based on the resolutions provided by our County Attorney prior to this meeting. I would make a motion that pursuant to th authority granted under Indiana Code 36-1.5-4-11 (a), the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County propose a reorganization between the political subdivisions of Vanderburgh County and the City of Evansville. Further, that pursuant to Indiana Code 36-1.5-4-12 (b) that the vote on the public question regarding reorganization between Vanderburgh County and the City of Evansville be conducted on a countywide basis without a rejection threshold. Further, that pursuant to Indiana Code 36-1.5-4-15, within 30 days after the adoption of this resolution by both Vanderburgh County and the City of Evansville, a reorganization committee be established pursuant to the provisions of Indiana Code 36-1.5-4-16 (a) (1). I make that in the form of a motion.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Melcher: We had a first and a second. Is there any further discussion?

Commissioner Winnecke: Just to clarify the process, assuming this is approved by this body tonight, the next step is for it to be certified by the County Clerk, and then be sent to the City Council for its consideration. Is that correct?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That’s correct.

President Melcher: So, when can you have it ready for us to sign?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: It’s ready tonight.

President Melcher: Okay, that’s kind of what I thought.

Unidentified: Can you move a little faster? It’s going a little slow.

Commissioner Winnecke: We have the other versions also.

President Melcher: Yeah, we were kind of hoping we could get another version, but we’re not. So, with that, any other discussion? Okay, Madelyn, will you call the roll?

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Winnecke?

Commissioner Winnecke: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Melcher?

President Melcher: With my vote I’m just giving the people the right to vote on what kind of government they want. I vote yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

President Melcher: So, with that it passes unanimously.

(Applause)

President Melcher: Is there any other business to come before the Commissioners this evening?

Commissioner Tornatta: Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Winnecke: Second.

President Melcher: All in favor say aye.

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Melcher: We are adjourned.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.)

CONSENT ITEMS:

Commissioners:

Approval of the December 15, 2009 Commission Meeting Minutes.

Request for Extension of Payment of Back Taxes to March 1, 2010:

         •        820 N. Elliott

         •        401 NW Second St.

         •        1213 W. Florida

         •        1410 N. Garvin

         •        321 N. Garvin

         •        403 E. Florida

AMR Third Quarter 2009 Financial Report and Invoice.

EPD Request for Waiver of Fee/Not OT for 2010 Centre Events.

Employment Changes:

County Assessor (1)                 Auditor(1)                        VCCC (1)

Health Dept. (3)                        County Clerk (1)             Public Defender (2)

Prosecutor (1)                           Circuit Court (1)              Sheriff (1)

Auditor:

December 2009 A/P Vouchers.

Employee Benefit Rollover Letter.

Substance Abuse Council December 2009 Meeting Minutes & 2010 Budget.

County Clerk: November 2009 Monthly Report.

County Treasurer: October 2009 Monthly Report.

Weights & Measures: Monthly Report: Nov. 15- December 15, 2009.

County Engineer: Pay Request No. 96: Green River-Burkhardt TIF Projects.

Department Head Reports: County Engineer.

Those in Attendance:

Stephen Melcher                      Troy Tornatta                            Lloyd Winnecke

Bill Fluty                                    David Miller                               Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.

Madelyn Grayson                     Annie Groves                            Matt Arvay

John Stoll                                  Chris Walsh                              Bob Stobbs

Roberta Heiman                       Emmons Patzer                        Brenda Bergwitz

Carol Davis                               Mike Sandefur                          Philip Fisher

Richard Clements                     Bill Jeffers                                 Taylor Payne

Steve Schaeffer                        Les Shively                               Chris Palitomous

Manfred Stahl                           Eldon Maasberg                       Cathy Edrington

Others Unidentified                   Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Stephen Melcher, President

Troy Tornatta, Vice President

Lloyd Winnecke, Member

(Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson)