JOINT WORKSHOP

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-CITY COUNCIL

JUNE 2, 2011

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners and Common Council of the City of Evansville met in a joint workshop format on this 2^nd day of June, 2011 at 5:35 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex for the purpose of addressing potential modifications to the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Plan of Reorganization.

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll convene our next joint workshop of the County Commissioners and the City Council. Let’s start by offering our Pledge.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

President Winnecke: Okay, from last week....I do, thank you. 2.8, dealing with Mayoral appointments, actually just, basically, board appointments in general. Our legal counsel has provided to us a spreadsheet that we requested, which defines each of the boards listed in exhibit D of the Plan. They have another column that describes whether it’s authorized by State statute or ordinance, the current appointing authority, what the Reorganization Plan recommends in the body of the Plan, whether it’s in compliance or not of the ordinance, and what they would recommend as be the appointment make up to make it compliant, and whether there’s any compensation. So, I don’t know what, there are 59 of these, I believe.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Okay, Dan, did you want to start alphabetically?

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Yeah, I mean, it’s good information.

Commissioner Abell: I do have a question. On the requirements for compliance, on the question, requirements for compliance with statute or ordinance. When the Reorganization Plan, for instance the first one has seven total, and it says requirements for compliance has eight, does that mean we have to add one to meet the requirement?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: What it means is that, in our opinion, the Reorganization Plan was incorrect in stating that it was seven total, and, in fact, it should be eight total.

Commissioner Abell: So, we need to add one to make it correct?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: In our opinion, yes.

John Hamilton: Well, wait a minute, that’s an ordinance, I believe.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: No, that’s a statute. Oh, no, pardon me. That one isn’t. I’m sorry. It’s only the statutes–

Commissioner Abell: Well, I was just using that as an example because it was the first one.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: You did, here, let me rephrase it. If the creating authority is an ordinance, the Metro Council will have the authority to adopt a new ordinance if it wants to–

Commissioner Abell: Right.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –and can make it anything it wants to make it. If the appointing authority is a State statute, then we have to comply with the statute as to the number of members. So, you mentioned number one, had that been a State statute instead of an ordinance, we would have to change seven to eight.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, I was just using it because it was the first one up there.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, I’m sorry.

Commissioner Abell: I was just trying to understand if I had, understood that correctly.

John Hamilton: We put in there what would comply with an ordinance also, but you don’t have to comply with an ordinance.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Exactly.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

John Hamilton: Then, also, in conjunction with this, Ted and I have talked, the language in Article Three has a lot of language about authority to levy taxes, authority to establish fees, authority to incur new indebtedness, all of which has to come before the new Metro Council so that any....like 3.1.4 says any subordinate agencies to establish fees, incur new indebtedness, etcetera, requires approval by the new Metro Council. So, that may alleviate some of your concerns on some of these boards.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: So, does that mean the Redevelopment Commission, what they do has to be approved by the Council?

John Hamilton: If they’re doing one of these specified items. The way this is written, if they’re going to establish fees, incur new indebtedness, or levy taxes, it requires approval (Inaudible).

Commissioner Melcher: And, they do that, so, okay.

Councilmember Adams: John, if I understand you correctly, all those on the list that said no, meant that there is not an accompanying or a back up statute or ordinance that says that the State says that has to, that particular committee or board has to be–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: No, when it says no, it means that the appointments proposed by the Reorganization Plan are incorrect.

John Hamilton: Does not comply, is not consistent with the ordinance or statute.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Does not comply, exactly.

Councilmember Adams: Can we change that?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: We can change it if it’s an ordinance. We cannot change it if it’s a statute.

Councilmember Adams: Should we study it for another week and then almost run through it like, does anybody have any questions on page one or two, or do you want to do it at all? If the Metro Council is going to have to go through the whole thing again, do you want to punt it?

President Winnecke: No, I don’t think we should punt it. I’m not a punter.

Councilmember Adams: I use both feet actually.

President Winnecke: But, I mean, there is a lot of information here.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

President Winnecke: So, and I’m fine with putting it off till next week so we can digest it all. I mean, Steve raised a good question about the Redevelopment Authority and what they would be allowed–

Commissioner Melcher: Well, I’ve always wanted them to be just like Area Plan and vote, then afterwards coming to us for, we do the final action, or whoever the Metro Council is.

President Winnecke: Right.

Commissioner Melcher: Because we’re the ones who are elected.

Commissioner Abell: Why don’t you bring it up, because it (Inaudible) also.

Councilmember Adams: I think you’re right.

Councilmember McGinn: One thing that I would like to bring up, it says on Redevelopment Commission that there’s five members, and it says five total, three County Commissioners appointments and two County Council. Instead that should be two City, we have two appointments on the Redevelopment Commission, the City Council, and this says county. So, I think that just needs to be–

Commissioner Melcher: Well, there’s two different Redevelopment Commissions.

Councilmember McGinn: Well, one’s the Authority.

Councilmember Adams: One’s the Commission and one’s the Authority.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, just to complicate it just a little more, that, for example, 3.1.4 which would require the approval of the Council for levying taxes, establishing fees or incurring new indebtedness, that’s what’s stated in the Plan. Actually to require approval by the Common Council of the activity of the Redevelopment Commission would be contrary to the statute creating the Redevelopment Commission. If someone challenged the authority of the Metro Council to do that, they might lose. We don’t know the answer. The statute gives the power to the Redevelopment Commission. This would give the Metro Council the authority to review the actions of the Redevelopment Commission. That is something not provided for in the statute that creates the Redevelopment Commission. So, a court could turn that around.

Councilmember Adams: Certainly, I’m hearing a lot of people saying this particular commission is putting out millions of dollars without any site review by elected officials. I’m hoping we can change that.

President Winnecke: So, just to make sure I understand your clarification, in the case of the Redevelopment Commission, and specifically to 3.1.4, it is not in compliance with the State statute?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The State statute gives authority to the Redevelopment Commission to do certain things regarding bonds and so forth. It doesn’t require in the statute that that action be approved by the, currently it would be by the City Council. They act without getting the approval of the City Council. If we said that going forward we will have to get the approval of the City Council, and someone takes that to court, and a court says this is contrary to the statute and we don’t want to get the approval of the City Council, we want to do it the way the statute reads, they might be successful in challenging that.

Commissioner Melcher: Right now, the Redevelopment Commission, anything over three million dollars has to be approved by the Council now.

John Hamilton: Correct.

Commissioner Melcher: That was changed a few years ago. So, I would think if we wanted it, we go ahead and do it, then we get the legislators to try to get rid of that three million, and make it everything.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, that would be the totally safe way to do it, right.

Commissioner Melcher: Right, but go ahead and move forward like we’re doing.

President Winnecke: I guess, the flip side, I can’t imagine there would be too many people that would challenge local government trying to be more, exercising more authority, or oversight.

Councilmember McGinn: Elected officials.

President Winnecke: Right, right. Okay, so is it the feeling that we move on, we study this grid. Just for those in the public or are watching at home, it’s, oh it doesn’t have a number of pages, but it’s lengthy.

Commissioner Melcher: About twenty something.

Councilmember McGinn: And, I did, I was mistaken on that number 54 is the County Redevelopment Commission, our is listed, I think, number 18 as Evansville Economic Development. So, I apologize for that.

President Winnecke: Okay, so we’ll move on. This is good information. I think it’s a good format.

President Winnecke: Okay, so I believe we left off last week at 3.3. That was the last thing that we asked Mr. Jeffers to start work on maps. I know by an e-mail I saw that he is seeking input from the State on how to do that. So, I know that work is underway. We might have quit after three point, I think we got through the entire third section. Yeah, and maybe that’s where we left off. Did we, we didn’t vote on that, did we, John?

John Hamilton: Vote on what?

President Winnecke: On the judiciary, Article Four?

John Hamilton: No.

Commissioner Melcher: No, we were going to do that tonight, I thought.

President Winnecke: But, Marsha, weren’t you, you were chatting with the judges about that?

Commissioner Abell: Well, no, I didn’t talk to them about this. I think any of that wording is fine. (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) There was an attorney at Barnes and Thornburg that was supposed to get a hold of me (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) about how (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) as far as (Inaudible. Microphone not on.). It’s not (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

Commissioner Melcher: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, I think, I don’t know the dealing with the employees is gonna be impacted in this particular document, but since Judge Heldt did write it in his e-mail, I think it’s something that, definitely if we go to a new form of government where people that now sit on the City Council haven’t dealt with this before are going to have to be brought up to speed as to what this issue is. As soon as I get a notice from this Rick–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Rick Hall.

Commissioner Abell: –Rick Hall, yeah, I think that is his name, at Barnes and Thornburg, I will share that information with all of you.

Councilmember Adams: Great, thank you.

President Winnecke: So, do we want to vote on that, on section four, or wait till we get that input?

Commissioner Abell: I think we can vote on it without that input.

President Winnecke: Okay. I gave one of my copies to somebody last week.

Commissioner Abell: Of the judges?

President Winnecke: Yeah, Ted, do you have a copy? Okay, so the, what the courts suggested reads; “The Combined Government has no judicial branch. The Vanderburgh Circuit Court and the Vanderburgh Superior Court are agencies of the State of Indiana. The Combined Government shall provide facilities and financial support to those courts in the manner required of counties under Indiana law.” The compromise language that legal counsel has provided reads; “The Vanderburgh Circuit and Superior Courts shall remain agencies of the State of Indiana and retain all of their current powers, duties and obligations. The Combined Government shall provide facilities and financial support to these courts in accordance with Indiana law pertaining to counties.”

Councilman John: I would make a motion that we adopt the compromise language.

Councilmember Friend: Second.

Commissioner Abell: Does that start out saying, the Combined Government has no judicial branch?

President Winnecke: That was the first, that was theirs.

Commissioner Melcher: That was theirs.

Commissioner Abell: We took that off?

President Winnecke: Correct.

Commissioner Melcher: Right.

Commissioner Abell: It’s kind of hard to say (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) judicial branch.

President Winnecke: Touche. The compromise language, for the compromise language, for their purposes. Do you want to take the Council, kind of a head count?

Alberta Matlock: Do you want me to do a roll call?

President Winnecke: Or just raise your hands, I guess.

Councilmember Adams: There’s a reservation that we will address the duties of–

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilmember Adams: – or (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

Alberta Matlock: I have five City Councilpersons.

(By show of hands all five City Councilmembers present voted in the affirmative for the motion. Straw vote approved 5-0).

President Winnecke: Commissioners are all in agreement? Okay.

(By show of hands all three County Commissioners voted in the affirmative for the motion. Straw vote approved 3-0).

President Winnecke: So, we’ll go to the compromise language on 4.1.

President Winnecke: Okay, Article Five–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Maybe you could give that back to me.

President Winnecke: Sure.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Thank you.

President Winnecke: County offices retained, outlines that. I don’t know that there is anything in there from our previous discussion that was, that raised questions. I think 5.3, from my previous notes was a point of discussion, office of the City Clerk.

Commissioner Melcher: Well, later when we get to the point about the Department of Transportation Services, I’m going to suggest that we eliminate them. So, I don’t know how far that’s going to go. I think, when we discussed it a little bit last time, I think it’s great for the Engineer to go straight to the Mayor and the Council, and the same way with the Garage Supervisor, and the same way with METS. We don’t even need that. It’s just a layer that’s on top of a layer.

Alberta Matlock: Are you talking about doing away with the City Clerk’s office?

Commissioner Melcher: No, we’re talking about the Department of Transportation Services.

President Winnecke: Transportation Services.

Commissioner Melcher: Which they’re wanting to put the, to combine the Garage and the Engineer in, and probably METS too.

Alberta Matlock: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Councilmember Adams: Well, one of the criticisms we keep hearing is that we’re not saving any costs here.

Commissioner Melcher: Well, we would right here.

Councilmember Adams: What?

Commissioner Melcher: We would under this. I mean, getting rid of that, it just, it’s worked out better for me as a Commissioner going straight to the Engineer all the time and not having to go through another person first. Same way, I’ve got a better relationship with the Garage person than I did, you know, under the city. They’re the one’s that’s always getting on t.v. and giving all of the status’ of where we’re at. I just think it works better for me, and I’ve served the Council and City. Now, it worked under the city, but sometimes you had that third person you always had to deal with sometimes. So, if I was the Mayor I wouldn’t want to have that extra layer. If we’re trying to save money, now would be the time to look at it.

President Winnecke: For the purposes of Article Five then, I think we need to find a home for, since it specifically deals with the office of the City Clerk and eliminating that office, we need to find a home for the responsibility for parking enforcement and meter administration.

Commissioner Abell: EPD, a great place for it. They carry the citations around with them anyway. They write them.

Councilmember McGinn: A quick clarification on the Department of Transportation Services. That’s the Animal Control in addition to METS, I mean–

Commissioner Melcher: And, I understand, but all of them are department heads of the Mayor, and under the Council they should all address, they go to department head meetings, that’s just eliminating one position in an office. I understand that.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, okay.

Councilman John: Yeah, according to the Plan, the Department of Transportation Services is the combination of the City Engineer, the County Engineer and County Highway Garage.

Commissioner Melcher: That’s what it says, but there’s others.

Councilman John: I’m just saying those are the three that are addressed in here.

Councilmember McGinn: I mean, it’s the tree guy, Shawn’s department, I don’t, yeah, the arborist. City tree department, that’s under Transportation and Services.

Commissioner Abell: Shawn Dickerson.

Councilmember McGinn: Well, there’s about 15 of them, I think.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, some of them don’t make any sense.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: Steve, explain to me why we need a City and a County Engineer, if we’re going to put the whole thing together?

Commissioner Melcher: We don’t. I’m just saying, no, I think the Plan says it’s called a City-County Engineer Department. It also says we need qualified engineers in there.

Councilmember Adams: Sure.

Commissioner Melcher: Right? So, I’m just calling it City-County, under the consolidation. We’re going to need a City-County, it’s going to be called the City-County Garage probably.

Councilmember Adams: Sure.

Commissioner Melcher: So, I don’t believe we ought to combine, I don’t think where they’re at is probably good where they’re at because they’re spread out and they’re not all in one spot. So, if you had some problems in one area, you still got it here. I always thought there ought to be like three or four locations where, on snow days they could get there quicker. You might go into a spot to grab their vehicle and go. So, I don’t think we need to build a brand new joint garage. I do think we need to combine the Engineer’s office. That would have to happen, but I don’t think, you wouldn’t want to with the Garage.

President Winnecke: But, to your question, I think, is do we need two engineer’s in that department?

Councilmember Adams: Right.

Commissioner Melcher: No, you wouldn’t. So, the Mayor, it’s the Mayor’s appointment, right? The Engineer would be.

President Winnecke: The City Engineer?

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, so it would be whoever the Mayor picked.

Councilmember Adams: So, there would be some cost savings?

Commissioner Melcher: In a round about....yes.

Councilmember Adams: One salary versus two.

Commissioner Melcher: Exactly, but then they’re going to always, like on the garages you’re still going to have to have people like a foreman over that area, even though you’re going to have one person over it. All of that’s going to happen everywhere we go. So, all of that’s going to happen.

Councilmember Adams: Sure. Okay, thank you.

President Winnecke: So, on 5.3.3, about parking enforcement and parking meter administration, do we want to put that under the auspices of the Evansville Police Department?

Commissioner Abell: Well, I think if there would be anywhere you would put it that would be the most likely, because, Alberta, don’t the meter police, you have to swear them in to be able to write citations, and they....yeah, a police officer’s already have.

Alberta Matlock: They already have the power.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, they already have the citations.

Alberta Matlock: We buy the tickets in our office, and they come get them by the boxful–

Commissioner Abell: Yeah.

Alberta Matlock: –and take them to the Police Department.

Commissioner Abell: They’re already doing it.

Councilman John: I would assume that the employees that you currently have that are trained in that would transfer maybe to and under the authority of the Police Department without being sworn officers that do all of the things that a normal Police officer would do, because their responsibility is going to be to ticket the cars.

Alberta Matlock: Yeah, we only have two meter police now. That’s it.

Commissioner Abell: How many meters do we have?

Alberta Matlock: About 35.

Commissioner Abell: It’s mostly time collecting, isn’t it? (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Alberta Matlock: Yes, it sure is. It’s three hours out there, but the thing is, it takes one meter police just to do the Civic Center, which is the front out here, and go back to the meters. They have to go over in the Post Office lot. So, by that time, that’s hour parking, well, by the time they go to hit all of those places, one girl is tied up all day just going from the Civic Center to the back 40, to the meters, over to the, down the walkway and over to the Post Office. The other one, the other meter police hits the side streets downtown, down this way. We used to have four meter police when I was there, I mean, back then. Did they have more when you was?

Commissioner Abell: I’ve slept since then.

Alberta Matlock: I knew at one time–

Commissioner Abell: I think there may have been maybe at one point five–

Alberta Matlock: There were seven under Betty Lou Jarboe, she told me that. Then, after another Clerk come in, they kind of cut them down a little.

Commissioner Abell: I think we had one meter repair person, and four (Inaudible. Microphone not on.), but I think (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

President Winnecke: Okay, is there a consensus? Everybody–

Councilmember Adams: You could consider outsourcing them like they did in Chicago. That’s turned out to be a disaster.

Alberta Matlock: Let me tell you something. These meter police that we have, they get on it. They really do. They do their job.

Commissioner Melcher: Yes, they do.

Councilmember Adams: In Chicago they spend all the money.

Alberta Matlock: Well, we try to get all we can.

Councilmember Adams: In Chicago they spend all the money and there’s none left.

Alberta Matlock: Well, Evansville is just going to spend all of the money that they get from the parking meters and for the parking police.

Councilmember Adams: That’s different than (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

President Winnecke: So, is there a consensus on 5.3.3 that we put that under the auspices of the Evansville Police Department, rather than the Department of Transportation Services? Everybody raise your hand if you are in favor of that. A consensus there? Okay, good.

(By show of hands all five City Councilmen present and all three County Commissioners voted in the affirmative for the motion.)

President Winnecke: Okay, I think everything else in Article Five, the term limits, 5.5 pertains to the Constitutional offices.

President Winnecke: Article Six?

Commissioner Abell: Do you think there’s any purpose in saying that the Director of Budget and Finance has to be an accountant? I only say that because they said that the Engineer’s office should have Civil Engineer’s, so, I’m thinking–

Councilmember Friend: Marsha, I’m glad you brought that up. We should probably specify some type of qualifications for that, honestly. I would think–

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Councilmember Friend: It would be great to have a CPA there.

Councilmember Adams: Do we need more than that?

Councilmember Friend: No, I think that would be fine. A CPA would be a great–

Alberta Matlock: That would be a good asset.

Councilmember Friend: Absolutely, yes.

Councilmember McGinn: Back in Article Two then, 2.7.1, talking about executive officers, which includes the Director of Budget and Finance, that might have to be changed, “shall have appropriate professional, educational qualifications and/or equivalent experience in a field”. So, you know, if we want a CPA, we’re going to have to tweak that language a little bit also.

John Hamilton: What section is that?

Councilmember McGinn: 2.7 it says the Mayor shall appoint a Director of Budget and Finance. Then, the qualifications, that’s an executive officer, these qualifications, as they now stand, say you have to have a professional education, professional and educational qualifications or equivalent experience. So, if we want a degreed professional, we have to eliminate that or equivalent experience. I mean, if we want to. Though, I do have to say there have been exceptions when someone who has no clue, no qualifications to do something has actually done something.

Commissioner Abell: Zoo, great.

President Winnecke: That law school training came in handy.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, it did. Yeah, yeah.

Councilmember Friend: Let’s face it, I mean, that position, is running the budgets, it’s only about money at that point.

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) He knows more about it than I do.

Councilmember Friend: Well, with all of the, I mean talking about GASB’s that are out there, that’s the General Accounting Standards Board pronouncements that are coming on board, these are going to affect a lot of city and towns. You know, I talked about GASB 34, 45, they’re going to be rolling out more and more each time. I think the person needs to have some type of a handle with that, and your Certified Public Accountant would more than likely have that. It would be a combination of that and governmental accounting. I mean, you can take some CPA’s that have never worked in municipalities or government accounting may not know much about it. I don’t work much in that. That’s professional, but you may have some out there that do, it could be a combination.

Councilmember McGinn: Some certification along with the (Inaudible).

Councilmember Adams: Would you add to the CPA, perhaps, five years of post graduate experience so that you don’t get somebody right out of school?

Councilmember Friend: Well, generally you have to have two years of experience to get certified in Indiana, for instance.

Councilmember Adams: Right. Is that enough for what you’re talking about?

Councilmember Friend: Well, it generally should be. After two years you would get seasoned up, in my opinion.

Councilmember Adams: So, CPA is enough?

Councilmember Friend: Yeah, I think so.

Councilmember Adams: I agree. Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: Couldn’t we just add to 2.7.1 that the Director of Budget and Finance must be a CPA? That way you don’t worry about changing that, because there’s other positions that you might want that or in.

Councilmember McGinn: I like that, I mean, I agree with John.

Commissioner Melcher: You might get somebody that has 20 years experience somewhere that moved here.

President Winnecke: Yeah, is everybody good on that? Raise your hand if you like that, we’ll insert in 2.7.1 requiring that the Director of Budget and Finance to hold a CPA certification.

(By show of hands all five City Councilmen present and all three County Commissioners voted in the affirmative for the motion.)

President Winnecke: The only other thing, item that I believe that needs to be, in 6.3.4, would be the number of representatives, up to ten.

Commissioner Melcher: What number was that?

President Winnecke: 6.3.4. This has to do with increasing a budget line item by the Council. Increasing that number from eight to ten, because we increased the number of representatives from 11 to 15.

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, I just wrote super in there, but we’re going to put the number in? Okay.

President Winnecke: Is everybody good with that? Raise your hand if you’re good with that. Okay.

(By show of hands all five City Councilmen present and all three County Commissioners voted in the affirmative for the motion.)

President Winnecke: Okay, 6.3.4 goes to ten.

Commissioner Abell: I have a question for John Hamilton. Is there some, is there a city ordinance or something in writing that requires the budget be prepared at a certain time?

John Hamilton: By State law.

Commissioner Abell: A State law, okay.

John Hamilton: I don’t know what the practice is in terms of when the city–

Councilmember John: The Controller is normally given notice of a time schedule, must be adopted by this date–

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

Councilman John: –must be published, must be approved by City Council on such and such a date. It sets out when you do your actual budget, when you do your elected officials salaries, and when you do the other employee’s salaries–

Commissioner Abell: And that will just–

Councilman John: – so, those are set by the State.

Commissioner Abell: –transfer?

Councilman John: Department of Local Finance. Pardon me?

Commissioner Abell: That will just transfer then to the new?

John Hamilton: Right.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: But, I must say, I’ve found it kind of frustrating that we get something like this ten minutes before the time we’re supposed to vote on the budget. It would be nice that all of the information was in a week or two before we’re supposed to vote on it.

Councilman John: But, I think, in the past, I don’t know about last year, but I had required over a number of years that we had a minimum of one week in advance, or I put the budget session off.

Councilmember Adams: Well–

Councilman John: We need it at least a week to review it.

Councilmember Adams: –I agree with you, yeah. I mean–

Councilman John: We used to get it on a Friday and have to do it on Monday.

Councilmember Adams: – last October I got something on my desk ,and I’m saying I’m supposed to vote on this?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Excuse me, I just had another note there from an earlier discussion. Do you want to include a decrease as well? One of you mentioned that.

Councilmember Adams: I mentioned the fact that I didn’t think the language allowed us to decrease, even though it’s allowed now, and I wanted to be sure that we weren’t giving up that right with the language of the merger.

John Hamilton: State law allows you to decrease it, but we can certainly clarify it so that there’s no question that it’s allowed. I assume, do you want that by just a simple majority?

Commissioner Melcher: Yes.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

John Hamilton: As State law provides?

Commissioner Melcher: Yes.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And, not require the ten?

Councilmember Adams: I didn’t want some technicality getting rid of that for us.

John Hamilton: I think you would be allowed to, but we’ll clarify it just so everybody is comfortable.

Councilmember Adams: Well, this is a big deal.

John Hamilton: I had made a note on there.

Councilmember Adams: I mean, this allows the Metro Council really to act as a legislative body. I mean, this is a really–

Commissioner Melcher: Well, the Council has always lowered or something. I mean, they’ve always had–

John Hamilton: The State law gives you that right now, to lower it.

Councilmember Adams: Humor me.

John Hamilton: Pardon me?

Councilmember Adams: Humor me.

John Hamilton: Okay.

President Winnecke: Okay, Article Seven.

Councilmember Adams: Was there any discussion about equalizing the sewer rates?

Commissioner Melcher: 7.2.1.

Councilmember Adams: Over a three year period?

Commissioner Melcher: It says a three year period.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

Councilmember McGinn: Of course, you know that means all city residents can be raised (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) understands that also, because I’ve had talks on this thing about, gee, we’re going to decrease the county’s. I say, well, think about it folks, we’ve got a combined sewer problem, ours may be raised to equal the county’s in the first phase of the sewers. So, let’s don’t act like this is a great deal for everyone. This is still a big, major problem.

Councilmember Adams: Well, water seeks it’s own level.

Commissioner Melcher: And payday is on Friday.

President Winnecke: Any desire to change that? Service districts? My first note in this Article, it was 7.4.1. I’m trying to read my handwriting here.

Councilmember Adams: We talked about that (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: A super majority, so, two, point two in 7.4.1, or request, this would read; “a geographic area in the general services district may be converted to the urban services district or special services district upon either a petition to the Mayor or Common Council by a majority of the residents in such area, or a request–

Councilmember Adams: By the Mayor and the Common Council.

President Winnecke: By the Mayor and a super majority?

Councilmember Adams: Ten?

President Winnecke: Yes. Is that clear?

Councilmember Friend: 7.4.1?

President Winnecke: 7.4.1.

Councilmember Adams: So, you have to have the Mayor and two thirds of the Metro Council–

President Winnecke: So, an administration could not go in an unilaterally do this. It would have to have concurrence with ten members of the Common Council.

Councilmember McGinn: Which mirror (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Right. Or, just, you know, residents could petition to do that. Do we want to take a vote on that? Everybody raise their hand if you... okay, we have a consensus there. Okay.

(By show of hands all five City Councilmen present and all three County Commissioners voted in the affirmative for the motion.)

President Winnecke: Okay, Article Eight, appointed agencies of Combined Government. This really gets back to article D, in many cases, or exhibit D rather. So, we’ll put that off until next week.

Councilmember McGinn: As part of next week’s discussion, I know last week there was preliminary discussion on whether or not some of these boards should be paid. Is that on the table still to discuss that?

President Winnecke: Sure.

Councilmember McGinn: (Inaudible) pay.

President Winnecke: And, in the grid, it’s noted whether they are compensated or not.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay.

President Winnecke: So, we can certainly include that in the discussion next week.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay.

President Winnecke: Okay, Article Nine.

Commissioner Melcher: Okay, while I’m still here, I’ve got to leave at 6:30 for my Veterans Council meeting. I have to run, we talked about 9.2, this is where I talked about last week that we just eliminate that department and have all the ones that are under that department answer directly to the Mayor and the Council.

Commissioner Abell: Did we not look, do we know who all of those people are that are under that?

President Winnecke: How many boxes there are, FTE, yeah.

Commissioner Abell: I mean, I know like Animal Control, I never have understood why that’s in the Department of Transportation Services, but, I don’t know, some of them may be–

Commissioner Melcher: It just seems like there was a group that all got thrown under one deal.

Commissioner Abell: Some of them may be so specific that we could put a couple together without, I don’t think we want to create too big of a group, if there’s 30 or 40. I don’t know how many there are.

Commissioner Melcher: Well, there’s not that many.

Councilman John: I believe it’s addressed in another section where it talks about the Mayor and boards that aren’t specifically provided for in this, that if it’s a service that’s needed, he gets to create that department and appoint the department head. Are you looking for someone to oversee that, like is currently done? Okay.

Commissioner Abell: No, not necessarily, but, nor do I want to make it so cumbersome that the Mayor’s got, spends the first two days of every week just answering questions from every department head.

Councilman John: I know Animal Control is under there, I think METS reports to Mr. Ziemer, street maintenance, the City Garage, the City Engineer.

Commissioner Melcher: The cemeteries.

Councilmember McGinn: The City Engineer is separate, and levee is separate.

Councilman John: Separate budgets, but they kind of work with Ed Ziemer.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay, yeah. Pat Keepes.

Councilmember Adams: Steve, I need your help on this. This, essentially 9.2 says that we’re going to have a City and a County Engineer, should we change that to the Metro Engineer and get rid of a position under this thing or not?

Commissioner Melcher: Well, I assumed that’s what it meant. The City–

Councilmember Adams: But, it doesn’t, it says two separate people.

Councilman John: I think it’s addressing the current departments. There’s a City Engineer, there’s a County Engineer–

Councilmember Adams: I gotcha.

Councilman John: –and there’s a County Garage, and that’s going to be combined and eliminated as county departments and put under as a city department.

Commissioner Melcher: That’s the way I took it. So, I got it highlighted. I figured that same thing with the Garage.

Councilmember Adams: Is there any verbiage in here that says the two engineers are going to become one?

President Winnecke: No.

Councilmember Adams: I didn’t pick it up.

Commissioner Melcher: No, but if you’re going to have a combined, it’s going to be one. I mean, it wouldn’t be two. If we’re combining them–

Councilmember Adams: I think if you don’t say it–

Commissioner Melcher: Well, if we have to...I think this is for the attorneys to answer then. If we’re combining these two, they don’t need two people co-managers, you just need one. So, do we–

John Hamilton: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Councilmember Adams: Please.

John Hamilton: I think–

Councilmember Adams: I mean, we’ve heard–

John Hamilton: – (Inaudible) to combine it into one.

Councilmember Adams: – yeah, we’ve heard criticism after criticism that we’re not saving any money here. I think every position we get rid of we are saving money.

President Winnecke: So, Steve–

Commissioner Melcher: So, do you want that in a motion?

President Winnecke: Pardon me?

Commissioner Melcher: Do you want that made in a motion?

President Winnecke: No, I’m thinking through what the right next step is. I mean, I’m wondering if maybe, you know, to the point that I think several people are going, you know, how many people report up to this one position? You are going to have a span of control issue with so many people reporting up. I’m not saying eliminating is bad, but we need to think through–

Commissioner Melcher: Well, I think now that we’ve got a Deputy Mayor where we didn’t have before, and everything, I think there would be so many under the Deputy Mayor, maybe some of these smaller ones. You know, that’s kind of where I was heading. I figured, and then we’ve got the Mayor, so, I mean, we’ve added people and we’ve added more Councilmembers than what we started out too. So, I think the Mayor will give the Deputy Mayor so many of these and he’ll take the bigger ones. I mean, I would if I was Mayor. I would want a handle on the Engineer and the County Garage and METS, and the Animal Control and the cemeteries and that I would give to the Deputy Mayor.

President Winnecke: Maybe the thing to do is look at an organizational chart, a new proposed organizational chart, so we can see the boxes, see what we....much like what the lawyers have done on the appointments. You know, where are there savings? It doesn’t really make sense to eliminate a position.

Councilmember Adams: Well, if you go to the Ft. Wayne organizational chart, they actually have a police, fire and personal services and that’s it, and everything else is under the personal services. I’m not saying you have to go that way–

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilmember Adams: –but, there is a way to streamline the org chart. I will throw in there, there’s a 16 page budget summary in the Ft. Wayne thing that is awesome. The people of Ft. Wayne know exactly where the money is going, what’s going up, what’s going down.

President Winnecke: So, is there a consensus here on Transportation Services? Or a direction that you would like to go?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I’ve never been City Attorney, but currently the Transportation Department, as you know it, under Ed Ziemer, reports to the Board of Public Works. The City Engineer reports to the Board of Public Works. Cemeteries report to the Board of Public Works. So, that’s your controlling entity, and then the Board of Public Works, by statute, the three members are appointed by the Mayor. So, that really creates your chain, as it exists today in the City of Evansville.

Councilman John: And, while I agree with you, I do think that Ed kind of oversees those departments, and then they bring the department heads to those boards to answer questions and ask for permission to do things. Similar to many of the department heads coming to the Council for money, but usually the leader of that group is here to address it.

President Winnecke: Steve, anything else on this?

Commissioner Melcher: No, I just think that it’s prudent that we do that at this time, if we want a plan. So, I think we could do that. Or, if you’re going to keep them, then eliminate the Deputy Mayor. I’ve never figured out what the Deputy Mayor’s going to do yet. So, I was just trying to find ways to–

Alberta Matlock: It would be what Rose does.

Commissioner Abell: Well, you know, Steve, I didn’t know what the Deputy Mayor was going to do either, but now that you bring this up about getting rid of this, I think it might be like the Lieutenant Governor is to the Governor. There’s certain departments that actually do report to the Lieutenant Governor. So, maybe these are going to be like departments that will report to–

Commissioner Melcher: And, that’s kind of what I thought. That’s why, I’ve been going back and forth on this thing. I’ve got notes all over the place here.

Councilmember McGinn: I wonder, should we have a list of who all are department heads maybe? I mean, when you think about it, there’s, we’ve only mentioned a few. At the combined meetings, when I was a department head, I mean, you would have, well, they were never there, but the cemetery, there’s how many cemetery superintendents?

Commissioner Melcher: One.

Councilmember McGinn: Just one? Then, Human Relations, Levee–

Commissioner Melcher: I don’t think Human Relations goes to the Board of Public Works.

Councilmember McGinn: They have their own board.

Commissioner Melcher: Right.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: It really would go a long way to have an org chart.

President Winnecke: I know the Reorganization Committee got org charts. I will get those and we’ll present those next week. We probably won’t be able to iron it out, but we’ll present the current org charts from city and county government next week at that meeting.

Commissioner Melcher: And if we could get them ahead of time, that would give us time to look at them too before we get here.

President Winnecke: Okay. Got it.

Commissioner Melcher: With that, I have to leave to go to my Veterans Council meeting of Vanderburgh County.

President Winnecke: Okay. 9.4, law enforcement. Who wants to take the lead there? Missy?

Councilmember Mosby: I am opposed to the Combined Government with the Sheriff’s Department and the Police Department. Also, we had requested some information from Sheriff Williams and Chief Hill. I was wondering, do we have that information yet?

President Winnecke: I have not received it. Have you guys received that? Specifically, we asked language to clarify and simplify jurisdictional concerns, and language to clarify the roles and duties of, just to clarify that the roles and duties of each department do not change, and any future reorganization would be subject to the final version of Article Eleven, if I’m reading my handwriting correctly.

Councilmember Mosby: Should we–

Councilmember Friend: Did we address if there’s a, I hate to use the term annexation, spell out whether that will go with the urban, I mean Police Department, or is that going to stay, how is that going to be defined? We got into that.

President Winnecke: We did get into that.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, we did.

President Winnecke: Did we clarify–

Councilmember Friend: What did we decide?

Councilmember Adams: I’m just saying the full service district, it comes into the city was paying for a full time service district–

Councilmember Friend: Right.

Councilmember Adams: –ought to be controlled by the Police and I think the (Inaudible) myself.

Councilmember Friend: Oh yeah, I agree with you.

Councilmember Adams: You may not agree with me.

President Winnecke: No, I do agree with that.

Councilmember Friend: I do agree with you.

Councilmember Adams: I think we agreed that we’re going to put this off until 2018, and a lot of things can happen in that...and we may not even get to it in 2018, whoever that is. I’ll probably be dead by then. But, the bottom line is that, I think, we need some elasticity in that thing, because (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

Councilmember Mosby: Commissioner Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes, Ma’am.

Councilmember Mosby: I think we should hold off on this section until we can talk with Sheriff Williams and Chief Hill, because, you know, we did request some information. I know they’re working on that for us.

President Winnecke: That’s fine. That is fine. Is everybody good with that?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: While you’re pondering that. I think we had discussion last time about whether it should be 2018 or 2020, or whatever. I don’t think any straw votes were taken. So, we don’t really have any direction yet how to rewrite that aspect of this. So, I think that’s another item to be discussed.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible) 2018?

Councilmember Friend: Well, what I found out is this, that is so near. We should have about a ten year period of time here. The reason why I say that is, in discussion with some law enforcement, we’re trying to attract in some recruits into Evansville, they look at this as, that is, that’s, it’s becoming a problem whereby it’s up in the air. I think you go a decade out, you might be able to avoid some of this. I think 2018 might be a little soon.

Councilmember Mosby: I agree with Councilman Friend. I did speak with also Police officers and the Sheriff deputies, along with Chief Hill and Sheriff Williams, and I really feel it needs to at least be ten years.

Commissioner Abell: I think we tried to hit in on–

Councilmember Friend: Well, if we’re going to err, then we should err on 12 years, not eight.

Councilmember Adams: So, it would be 2020.

Councilmember Friend: Yeah, 2020. 20/20 –

Councilmember Adams: That’s all the more reason. All the more reason that if you have a full service district–

President Winnecke: Well, Chief Hill said never. Twelve is closer to never than ten is.

Commissioner Abell: I’ll get with Susie Kirk and see if I can get an election schedule.

Councilmember Friend: Sure.

President Winnecke: Okay, so that takes...oh, excuse me.

Councilmember Adams: So, everybody understands, I added the fire protection also with that. I don’t want you to miss that.

President Winnecke: Right. Did you get that? Is everyone good with that?

Unidentified: Absolutely.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I don’t follow what you’re saying by fire.

President Winnecke: This is if a geographic area becomes, a new geographic area becomes part of the urban service district, then they would receive the services of the Evansville Police Department–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And the Fire Department?

President Winnecke: –and the Evansville Fire Department.

Councilmember Friend: But, are you sure, because taxes would be affected.

President Winnecke: Is that right, Dan?

Councilmember Adams: Yeah. (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) of 2020. That’s going to show up awful quick.

Councilmember McGinn: If I might ask a point on this. A straw vote was taken on this? You know, I missed a couple of meetings. So, there’s already been a straw vote on putting this off? Or there hasn’t been?

Councilmember Adams: Missy, do you want to wait? I know (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

President Winnecke: We did not take a straw vote.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: Do you want a straw vote on this particular part of allowing full service districts to have Police and Fire?

Councilmember McGinn: No, I mean, just the delay.

Councilmember Mosby: I’ll be honest. I would like to see some members from the Sheriff’s Department and the Police Department so we could ask some different questions and make sure that we–

Councilmember Adams: I’ve done that, and they’re very much in favor. So, I don’t have a problem with it.

Councilmember Mosby: It’s up to the rest of the Council.

President Winnecke: That’s fine.

President Winnecke: Article Ten, the transition. We had a discussion at, on the composition, and, basically, let me re-read my notes here. We did get a lot of, I recall a lot of comments in the public hearing on the composition of the board, of the Transition Board, and the authority it would have, excuse me, versus the authority of elected officials.

Councilmember Friend: Well, Councilman, I mean, Commissioner Winnecke, the way we thought is, we had a tie breaker problem if we combined the county and the city, the County Council and the City Council together, we would have an even number. So, we thought those two bodies would be the Transition Team, because they are elected officials. Obviously, we would have to come down to some way in which, we would have an even number, wouldn’t we? So, we would have to deal with that if we’re going to do that.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: What did you say?

Councilmember Adams: I said, the way we’re going, I’ll quit.

Commissioner Abell: You were saying the City Council and the County Council?

Councilmember Friend: Yeah, we originally–

President Winnecke: Well, we talked about–

Councilmember Friend: – talked about combining them both.

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: We talked about those two bodies being the Transition–

Councilmember Adams: You know what, you could have somebody, like the House of Representatives. You could have any elected Commissioner make the difference.

Councilmember Friend: Sure, that would be one way.

Councilmember Adams: A County Commissioner elected by the County Commissioners to represent them, and therefore have an odd number.

Councilmember Friend: That would be a good idea.

President Winnecke: Or the President–

Councilmember Adams: The Vice President.

President Winnecke: –or you know, whomever, one of the officers of the Commissioners, President, Vice President.

Councilmember Adams: That would make it odd.

Councilmember Friend: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: I have said that the Vice President of the United States (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

Councilmember Friend: Amongst other things.

Councilmember Mosby: So close.

Councilmember Adams: So, do we need a motion in terms of having the Transition Board be the elected members?

President Winnecke: Be the, I think it would need to be the legislative bodies of city and county government.

Councilmember Adams: Right, with a representative from the Commissioners.

Councilman John: I would recommend that the Mayor be on there. I mean, it’s going to be his administration that has to operate the city. So, he probably should have some input on the transition. That would give you your odd number.

Councilmember Adams: Maybe the county would feel more comfortable with a guy from the County Commissioners on there.

Councilman John: Just a suggestion.

Commissioner Abell: I don’t really care, except that I do know from having been a County Councilman and now being a County Commissioner there’s a lot of things I’m doing now that I didn’t know about when I was a County Councilman. I’m not so sure that without a Commissioner and a Mayor on here, there may be some things that fall through the cracks that the two Councils don’t know about.

Councilmember Adams: So, you’re still (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

Commissioner Abell: Well, I just, you know, don’t want to leave anything out.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible) the people I want.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) an odd number.

Commissioner Abell: Maybe what we need to do is once it’s done, have the Mayor look at it and the Commissioners look at it and make sure that nothing was left out.

President Winnecke: You’re still going to have a–

Councilmember Adams: Can we (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) favor, can we have a straw vote on whether we have (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) elected officials?

President Winnecke: Sure.

Councilmember Adams: I make that motion.

President Winnecke: Okay, so the motion is that the two legislative bodies actually form, combined, serve as the Transition Board.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Councilman John: The County Council and City Council?

President Winnecke: Actually, I guess, it would be the two fiscal bodies is probably the best.

Alberta Matlock: Who seconded?

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) City Council (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

President Winnecke: Yeah, okay, there you go. Yeah.

Alberta Matlock: Who seconded the motion?

President Winnecke: John.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: But, no executive?

President Winnecke: Well, we’re not there yet. I don’t think. So, we’re stuck on an even number.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I thought, pardon me if we’re maybe not hearing right. I thought you were describing who would be the Transition Committee.

President Winnecke: We are.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: If that is limited to the City Council and the County Council, it would not include the Mayor, for example. I don’t know whether you want the Mayor involved in transition or not, but, or a County Commissioner for that matter.

Councilmember John: The reason I bring up the Mayor, is because whoever the next Mayor is going to be should have some input on the transition. The Commissioner will no longer be a Commissioner and won’t be involved with the day-to-day operations. So, I mean, that’s the logic behind that.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) I agree with you. I think the Mayor ought to be on it. He’s going to run it, I think we also need to have the County Commission represented somehow.

Councilmember McGinn: Just their knowledge, so the Transition Board doesn’t overlook something.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, and there will, in fact, be County Commissioners during the transition years. So, certainly there will be a Commissioner available to serve on the Transition Team, if you wish.

President Winnecke: I wonder how often that will really come into play?

Councilmember Adams: And how much (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilman John: What about serving in an advisory capacity without voting rights?

Commissioner Abell: That’s a good option.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: The Mayor (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Commissioner Abell: At least that way (Inaudible. Microphone not on.).

President Winnecke: Okay, so, Dan, are you going to amend your straw poll–

Councilmember Adams: That the Mayor be an active and have the administrative or representative of the County Commissioners for advice. Does that make sense?

Councilmember Friend: Yeah. I’ll second that.

President Winnecke: To serve with the two bodies? Okay, everybody good with that? Missy?

(By show of hands all five City Councilmen present and all three County Commissioners voted in the affirmative for the motion.)

Councilman John: I think, Mr., it might have been Bill Jeffers that brought this up, that he wanted to know who would have the authority to appoint the attorney or consultants during this time?

President Winnecke: I would say the leadership of the two bodies would be my guess. The City Council and the County Council.

Councilman John: So, whoever they put as Chairman of the Transition Team could select it? Okay.

President Winnecke: Anything else under Article Ten?

Commissioner Abell: I just have a question.

President Winnecke: Sure.

Commissioner Abell: On the effect of contracts, Mr. Ziemer might be able to answer this, where it says that all contracts between the county and a third party and the city and a third party shall remain in effect. What if they don’t want them to remain in effect? Let me say, what if we have a Combined Government and the city has a contract, I’m not picking on them, but it’s just an easy one for me to pick here, for towing with one company and the county has a contract for towing with another company, and they want to have one tow contract?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, the fact of the matter is we’re going to be bound by the rules of contract, and we can’t get out of, I mean, the city contract for towing is with somebody, and we can’t break that contract just because we’re changing the type of government we’ve got.

Commissioner Abell: But, there’s no longer a city, who’s the contract with? If there’s no longer a city government–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That’s really what the Transition Team will have to–

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –deal with is how you’re going to handle two contracts like that, and either buy it out or something. Because, contract rights will continue to exist until the contracts expire. Good reason, if this is approved, when enacting future contracts to limit the terms of those contracts so that they won’t tend to run beyond the term of the transition year.

Councilmember McGinn: You could always put a notification date, 30 or 60 days by either party to terminate–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: In the event of this, yes.

Councilmember Adams: Ted, do me a favor, walk me through, one more time, about how the indebtedness of the county, the indebtedness of the city come together? Will the city folks get rid of their city indebtedness, and the county get rid of their indebtedness, and then suddenly after the magic date there will be indebtedness for the Combined?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I don’t feel qualified to answer that question--

Councilmember Adams: Okay.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: – at this point. I can tell you that indebtedness that’s owed by either the city or by the county will continue to be owed until those respective indebtedness’ are retired.

Councilmember Adams: And are paid by those people who originally incurred them?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That is what I understand is contemplated.

Councilmember Adams: So, the city debt will have to be paid off by the city people. The county debt will have to by the county, and then there will a new entity of debt coming from the Combined Government?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes, from the Combined entity.

Councilmember Adams: Thank you.

Councilmember McGinn: There again, we want that CPA to be the Director of Finance.

Councilmember Friend: Yes.

President Winnecke: The only other note that I had under Article Ten was under 10.7.1, and I just had an asterisk and a note that said “the fiscal body is to determine employee classifications”. This is to Commissioner Abell’s point discussed earlier about employees in the judiciary. I think that’s what made me write that down.

Councilmember Adams: Oh, there it is. Do you want to put including judiciary?

Commissioner Abell: Will we, I assume that someone, maybe the Transition Team will be writing a new Combined Government handbook?

President Winnecke: Well, there would have to be one, yeah. It could be a merger of the two existing, but, sure.

Councilmember Adams: We sort of have to wait until she gets some feedback from Mr. Hall as to whether or not you want to add–

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilmember Adams: –a dependent clause of including the judiciary employees.

President Winnecke: So, we would come back to that.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

President Winnecke: I had no other notes in Article Ten. What about anyone else?

Councilman John: Under 10.8.3, I had one that the city, at this point in time, has no drainage code, or policy. So, that’s something that would probably have to be adopted. That was probably also Mr. Jeffers that brought that up.

John Hamilton: I had the same note. It was from Mr. Jeffers. 10.8.2, the city has no drainage code. I think the Engineer’s office uses the county guidelines (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: So, we need to add in 10.8.2 that the city needs to develop a plan?

Councilman John: Yeah. (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Okay.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: State statute creates the drainage code for the county, and that’s for the entire county, even the parts of the county that are in the city. It’s just that it’s administered by city people in the city, and by the County Drainage Board in the county.

John Hamilton: I think that will be covered in the unified code of ordinances is adopted.

President Winnecke: Okay.

President Winnecke: Amendments, Article Eleven. In my notes, my first note was 11.1.2 on the citizen petition, the written petition signed by at least five percent of the registered voters in the Combined Government who voted in the most recent Governor’s election, asking for the appointment of a PRC to study a specific proposal to amend the Plan, the formation of a PRC to study that specific proposal shall be considered by the Council, at ten votes. But, I also had five percent of, for this process to start, it began with a petition by five percent of people who voted in the previous Secretary of State’s race. So, we, there was some discussion of making that the criteria versus the Gubernatorial election.

Councilmember Adams: We shot down 20 percent.

President Winnecke: Yes.

Councilmember Adams: Figuring it was too high (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) .

President Winnecke: Well, we thought it was, it should have the same threshold that would start a process.

Commissioner Abell: Do you want to substitute Secretary of State for Governor?

President Winnecke: And the number is five percent instead of 20 percent.

Councilman John: Ten votes (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)?

President Winnecke: Right. Is everybody good with that? Straw, show of hands. Okay, good.

(By show of hands all five City Councilmen present and all three County Commissioners voted in the affirmative for the motion.)

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I would just maybe point out, you see in this section it refers to registered voters. A while back in 7.4.1, which deals with the urban services or special services districts, it just talks about a council by the majority of the residents. I think we’ll want to change that to say registered voters at least in that area and not a majority of the residents, so that like every member of my family can’t be a part of that, it’s just the registered voters. I mean, my grandchildren can’t sign up, and that sort of thing, though they would like to.

President Winnecke: That’s back in 7.4.1. Any other questions under Article Eleven, the amendment?

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: On eleven?

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) Are we all in favor of changes in 11.1.2?

Councilmember Mosby: We had show of hands.

President Winnecke: We did. Do you want to raise your hand, Dan?

Councilmember Adams: Yes.

President Winnecke: Great, raise your hand.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Okay, that gets us through the Plan, with some things to come back to, most notably, and perhaps the longest piece of discussion for next week, appointments. I think we should come prepared to talk, to take a straw vote on term limits. That’s something that we need to figure out where we, where our breaking point is, and, hopefully we’ll have some law enforcement language. This is just my hope, but if we can wrap all of that discussion up next week, next week is our last scheduled workshop, so maybe, I suspect it will take a couple of weeks for our learned counsel to make the changes. We could reconvene then on the 30^th of June to see what document we have.

Commissioner Abell: There’s nothing that requires us to vote on that document on June 30^th?

President Winnecke: No, that’s just when we continued our public hearing.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And it can be continued to another date beyond that.

Commissioner Abell: Because we’ll get the document and we may still want to make even further changes?

President Winnecke: Right.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

Councilmember McGinn: So, June 30^th is our next official meeting?

President Winnecke: Well, next week–

Councilmember McGinn: Next week, then June 30^th.

President Winnecke: –then we’ll take a couple of weeks off to allow these guys to make the modifications. Then we’ll reconvene on the 30^th.

Councilmember Adams: John, how much more information do they need to get a dry run of property taxes change?

John Hamilton: Who?

Councilman John: The Auditor’s Office.

Councilmember Adams: We were looking for–

President Winnecke: We are.

Councilmember Adams: – way, way back–

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilmember Adams: –we were looking for somebody to give a sort of pro forma about changes in property taxes.

John Hamilton: We have not been involved in that.

Councilmember Adams: Well, I apologize. We were going to–

President Winnecke: We can probably start now, since we’ve pretty much, I think we know–

Councilmember Adams: Got districts and so forth like that.

President Winnecke: I’ll talk to each of those guys.

Councilmember Adams: It’s kind of important that they (Inaudible).

President Winnecke: I understand.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: My recollection was there was some question of maybe having Crowe Horwath, who are the financial advisors to the Reorganization Committee, and I think there’s some unexpended funds there still that might be dedicated to asking them to do another projection.

President Winnecke: I think what the consensus was initially was to, let’s modify the Plan, see what direction it was going to go, sit with the Auditor and Controller to see what their recommendation is. They may recommend that we go back to Crowe Horwath for a final pass at it.

Councilmember Adams: I don’t think (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: No, I understand.

President Winnecke: Anyone from the public that would like to come forward and speak?

Bruce Blackford: Good evening. Bruce Blackford, 8701 St. Wendel Road. Just a couple questions, can I get a copy of the appointments, your 26 pages so we could see that?

President Winnecke: Sure.

Bruce Blackford: Okay.

President Winnecke: He can have mine.

Bruce Blackford: Was there any discussion of a balanced budget amendment? To keep the–

President Winnecke: It’s in there. It’s in the Plan.

Bruce Blackford: Okay, I didn’t see it. Then, could I get a copy of the organizational charts, what you were talking about? Then, is there, I was reading through here, I didn’t see an actual definition of what required or defined an urban district. Did they have to have all of the services, part of the services to become an urban district? So, if they had city lights and sidewalks and water, but did not have sewage and transportation, could they still become a service, or an urban district? Or does it have to have all of the services or just part of them to become an urban district? There’s not a definition of what, you know, it lists a bunch of different things, but it doesn’t say you have to have all of them, part of them, you know, if you had city lights in and then that qualifies you to be an urban service district, to be then put into that. Because then you would get the Police protection and other things, and I would just like some clarification on that. I wasn’t for sure what defined an urban district.

Councilmember McGinn: Sidewalks shouldn’t be. I mean, I know that subdivisions developed both in the city and in the county, sidewalks it seems like are summarily waived at all times anyhow. So, that was a question that...I know the subdivision control ordinance does say that they’re supposed to be there, but they’re waived a lot, right? Waived all the time.

Bruce Blackford: Well, I guess, I was just looking for some clarification and definition. Then, you were talking about the bonds, that the city’s responsible for theirs and the county’s for theirs, what if in five years they come due and they’re rolled? There is no more city and there is no more county, then would that, would those bonds if they were then rolled become joint to everyone? Because you guys do that, don’t ya?

Councilmember Adams: No, you don’t have to roll it.

Bruce Blackford: But, I mean, they can be. So, if a city bond came due in five years and you decided to roll it–

Councilmember Friend: Well, more importantly, what about callable bonds.

Bruce Blackford: I have no idea. I’m just asking.

Councilmember Friend: I mean, if we have any callable bonds. You get that immediately. They can come due immediately, if you want to roll those.

Bruce Blackford: Right.

Councilmember Friend: I mean, you know, the interest rates, if you have high interest rates that’s going to drop, you’re going to call the bond.

Bruce Blackford: Right. So, if they do and you guys want to refinance those bonds, how will you, there is no more city, how would you guys account for them staying in the city’s expenses versus being spread over the entire county.

Councilmember McGinn: It seems to me, there are certain revenue streams are always earmarked to pay the bonds, at least on the city level, and also the county. It says, you know, “x” amount comes from property taxes and so much comes from Riverboat. I mean, I think you would have to have those same streams, you know, same revenue streams.

Councilmember Friend: You would have to identify the streams of revenue, don’t you?

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: I think his point is well taken. You do have city–

Councilman John: I would think that even if the new entity assumed those, that they could designate that the prior payers, in other words, the ones that are already on the property tax list as obligated for those bonds, they could keep that same list of taxpayers. I don’t know if it’s spelled out in here or has to be, or if it’s by State law–

Councilmember McGinn: Because the only time a bond–

Councilman John: but (Inaudible).

Councilmember McGinn: –would be called to refinance it and have to pay less monthly payments. So, I think the original streams of income, I mean, again they’re obviously more than adequate to pay for a reissue of a called bond. I mean, I don’t think that’s a problem.

Councilman John: But, his concern is–

Councilmember McGinn: Who signs the paper.

Councilman John: –yeah, I’m not paying for it now. If it’s rolled over and I’m included in the city, do I start paying for it if it’s rolled over? What I’m saying is, they ought to have a mechanism where they can say we’re going to keep the same tax rolls, the same people are going to pay it. They’re going to go down, but the people that have been brought in that were no longer obligated will still not be obligated.

Bruce Blackford: Right, and just like if you were a general service district and in three years you become a urban one, then it’s, you know it gets complicated–

Councilmember McGinn: Oh yeah.

Bruce Blackford: – and confusing, and we’re trying to keep the thing straight and separate in some aspects. I just want to know, in the future, when there is no city and no county that when some debts come due or roll then how is that accounted for? It’s something to think about and discuss and it’s way above my head. The last thing I had was on 10.8.3, it defines land use and firearms ordinances. It says if a general service district becomes an urban service district it basically falls into the regulations and rules of the urban district, which would be city ordinances. If you would happen to define 41 and take it and find it as urban service district because of the growth, you have tons and tons of farm ground in that area that all of a sudden is going to be trying to farm in city type ordinances, in dust, in animals, and a lot of rules and regulations are going to be falling on these farmers that, you know, I don’t have any clue all of the city ordinances and regulations for animals and veterinarians and licensing and that, you know, by the way it reads they would then all have to start licensing their animals and the cattle and the fencing and the size of the grass and the hay and everything else would, then they would be going into those city regulations.

President Winnecke: Yeah, there is no intent to do that.

Bruce Blackford: Right, it’s just something, maybe a clarification that Ag land is somehow segregated and not responsible for city ordinances and lawn care and that kind of stuff, because they grow hay and they grow it high, then all of a sudden they are told they are being fined that they’re not mowing their pasture every week.

President Winnecke: As to your first question about the services. I think 7.3.2.1, I mean, it spells out the services in an urban service district, page nine.

Bruce Blackford: Right, it says an urban service district is created to be a service and taxing district that is bound by the corporate limits of the City of Evansville immediately prior to the effective date, but then it goes–

President Winnecke: The next point outlines the services (Inaudible).

Bruce Blackford: Public transportation, but, I guess, it doesn’t say all, it just has a list. It doesn’t say it needs, must have all of these requirements, or some of them, or anything. So, there’s not a definition. I guess, I would just ask that you put the word “all” in there. To become an urban service district you must have all of these requirements to meet the criteria of becoming an urban service district.

President Winnecke: We’ll look at that.

Bruce Blackford: Okay. Thank you.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Just, excuse me, if I can. There is a provision here, as you see in 10.8.3 though that refers to land outside the urban services district as of the Effective Date of the Transition will continue to be treated that way. Land within the urban services district effective as of the date of the Effective Date will be governed by laws in effect for the urban services district. So, it’s laws that are in effect for property in or out of an urban services district as of the Effective Date will continue to be the laws for those districts after the Effective Date.

Councilman John: Unless they’re brought into the urban district. Is that correct?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Beg your pardon?

Councilman John: Unless they’re ultimately brought into it.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Unless they’re brought in, yes.

Councilman John: Then, they’re subject to–

Bruce Blackford: That was my question. If it’s brought into an urban service district, then it falls into a different code of, set of laws.

John Hamilton: My comment on that, to change to an urban district requires a public process, it requires either the citizens to ask for it or the Mayor and two thirds of the Council to approve it after a public process is gone through. So, it’s not like these are going to be automatic things that happen.

Bruce Blackford: Right, but if you’ve got, you know, 1,000 people and they decide to be in it, and three of them are farmers, they’re going to lose probably most of the time, but they may own two thirds of the ground that’s going to be coming into that urban service district that they make their livelihood off of. That was my concern.

President Winnecke: I think Becky can help us.

Becky Kasha: Yeah, I think the idea of the firearms and the land use ordinances apply to land currently outside of the urban services district. That will not change even if you come into the urban services taxing district. Those are going to be, that will be something separate from the taxing district. Don’t confuse those two things. So, even if your land comes into the urban services taxing district, the land use ordinances that were in effect, as of right now, will not change.

Bruce Blackford: Okay, but it is changing somewhat, because they then go from County Police protection to City Police protection.

Becky Kasha: But, that’s not what that addresses. That talks about firearms ordinances and land use and that kind of thing. I mean, the idea about city versus Sheriff wasn’t addressed in this Plan, because under our Plan it was all Sheriff.

Bruce Blackford: Right.

Becky Kasha: So, that is something that has to be addressed. But, that’s, the question of whether land use ordinances are going to change if you come into the urban services taxing district, it’s not.

Bruce Blackford: I guess, then it gets confusing to me, because, you know, you’re in urban but you’re still going by the county regulations. I mean, I was just looking for some clarity.

Becky Kasha: But, we will have one set of regulations, but depending on where you live within the Combined Government, you will, different things will apply to you. We’ll still have one set, it’s just that if you, at the moment that this comes into effect lived outside of the city limits, the code will have to be written so that your land use rights are not affected by the change.

President Winnecke: I understand.

Becky Kasha: Now, your taxes might change as you get different services.

President Winnecke: But, you would still be able to use the land and use the firearms as you would today.

Becky Kasha: Exactly, because we certainly never intended to impinge on anybody’s...and if there’s a better to say it, you know, I’m all for it, but I do think that that’s the–

Bruce Blackford: That was the general idea of it. I just was looking for clarification on it.

President Winnecke: We’ll ask the attorneys to see if they can wordsmith it maybe.

Bruce Blackford: Okay.

President Winnecke: Bruce, here’s a copy of that. You can have my copy.

Bruce Blackford: Thank you.

President Winnecke: It’s not stapled. Anyone else that would like to come before us and speak, offer comment? Eldon?

Eldon Maasberg: (Inaudible. Not at microphone.) First of all–

President Winnecke: Eldon, could you state your name for the record.

Eldon Maasberg: Eldon Maasberg, I live in Vanderburgh County, not in the city. Out of all of you’s here, how many of you’s was at Chief Hill’s when he brought the man down from Indianapolis at his meeting at the library? Other than about five or six of us from back here, how many of you? I think you were there, weren’t you, Lloyd?

President Winnecke: It was at the School Corporation, right?

Eldon Maasberg: Yes.

President Winnecke: Yes, I was there.

Eldon Maasberg: Was any of the rest of ya’s? I thought that was a very interesting

meeting, because when I come away from that meeting, and you’re heading down the same road if you listen to what you’re doing now, the City Police ain’t any further today than they were when Indianapolis went into consolidation. I think that would be the biggest mistake you could make by leaving them out of consolidation the route you’re going. Another thing, to talk about what Bruce was talking about, if I remember right, I can’t think of the girls name but she’s the Animal Control woman. Her last name is Freeman, I thought in the city limits you ain’t allowed to have any livestock, when you get in there, you know, put new livestock in. Now, if you had livestock when your consigned in, you can keep them, but if the livestock dies or you have to take them to the butcher, you can’t put any back, I guess. So, that rule is on your city ordinance right now. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Eldon. Anyone else? Hearing none, thanks for coming, and we’ll see everyone back here next Thursday.

(The meeting ended at approximately 6:50 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Lloyd Winnecke                        Marsha Abell                            Stephen Melcher

H. Dan Adams                          Dan McGinn                             Curt John

John Friend                              Missy Mosby                             Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.

John Hamilton                          Alberta Matlock                         Bruce Blackford

Joanne Alexandrovich              Eldon Maasberg                       Others Unidentified

Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Lloyd Winnecke, President

Marsha Abell, Vice President

Stephen Melcher, Member

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