JOINT MEETING

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-CITY COUNCIL

MARCH 14, 2011

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners and Common Council of the City of Evansville met in joint session this 14^th day of March, 2011 at 6:16 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with Commission President ,Lloyd Winnecke, and City Council President, B.J. Watts, presiding.

President Watts: First of all, welcome to everyone. I have to, regardless of which side of this fence you’re on, thank the board for the hundreds and hundreds of hours that you have spent on this. You are a service to your community, whether people agree with you, disagree with you, the time and effort that you’ve spent trying to do the right thing and make this a better place to be is certainly commendable, and whatever you’re making let’s double your salary. Triple it, there you go, but I certainly do appreciate all, as we all do, all the time that you’ve spent, and your community appreciates it, and I’m sure that you don’t hear that very often. So, thank you very much. With that, I think Lloyd’s going to go through the procedure, and then we will go through our resolutions that we have to accept, and then we’ll get started.

President Winnecke: Thanks, B.J. Good evening. Thanks, first of all, to the Commissioners and to the Councilmembers for your willingness to get together in joint session. I think this is the logical next step in this process. As B.J. said, I’m grateful also for the hard work and long hours put forth by the reorganization committee to get us to this point. You have done a yeoman’s job, and I appreciate that. As I’ve outlined in previous Commissioner meetings, I believe this meeting is primarily for our two bodies to hear publicly from the reorganization committee about the plan that they have presented, how they got to the conclusions they’ve reached, and maybe some of the thinking behind the decisions they made. We’re not voting on the plan tonight, as just a point of order, this is an informational gathering meeting. A public hearing will be held in this same room, March 30^th at 6:00 p.m. So, mark your calendars.

President Watts: It’s 5:30.

President Winnecke: 5:30? I apologize, first correction of the night. In this very room, so we will be here again in a joint fashion to hear comments, questions and suggestions on the plan. The state statute does require each of the bodies tonight to approve a resolution indicating that we are officially considering the plan that has been presented. Again, after our public hearing on the 30^th we will have three options; we could adopt the plan as it’s presented to us, we could adopt the plan with modifications, or we could reject the plan and ask the reorganization committee to submit a new plan of reorganization within 30 days. Those are our options after we complete our public hearing on the 30^th. Again, as another reminder, in order for a plan to pass, or a reorganization plan to pass, the Commissioners and the Council must pass identical plans in terms of it going to a referendum. In terms of the format for tonight, B.J. and I have agreed that we thought we would start with section one, go through all of the questions, comments, suggestions by members of the Commission or the Council, go to section two until we’ve completed the entire plan. At that point, at the conclusion, if there are members from the public who would like to speak, you will be welcome to do so. Having said all that, B.J. if you guys want to consider your resolution first, or John.

John Hamilton: I just have one clarification. On the public hearing, the joint public hearing March 30^th, that can also be continued to a second date–

President Winnecke: Right.

John Hamilton: –so it doesn’t necessarily conclude that date, just on your procedure outline.

President Winnecke: Good point.

John Hamilton: So, that triggers the next action. So, just so everybody understands that.

President Watts: This is where we go into resolution C-2011-7, which was read into the record at the regular City Council meeting, which just says that we are considering this plan and what our options are. So, now I would entertain a motion to accept resolution C-2011-7.

Councilmember John: So moved.

Councilmember Friend: Second.

President Watts: Councilman John moved, and Councilman Friend seconded the motion, excuse me, to accept resolution C-2011-7. All Councilmembers in favor please signify by saying aye.

All Councilmembers: Aye.

President Watts: Opposed? Seeing none.

(Motion approved 8-0)

President Watts: We will move forward. I apologize, an error, I just got a text is why I know it, Councilman Mosby told us about three weeks ago that she was going to be out of town on business this day. We got with Lloyd and when you have this many schedules with people this busy, we just said, sorry, there’s no way that we can move it, and we’re not going to fit everyone. So, she sends her apologies. I told her that I would convey that. With that, resolution C-2011-7 is hereby declared adopted.

President Winnecke: Moving on, from the Commissioners, same point of order. I will read this, because we have not read it into the Commissioners record.

“Whereas, the State Legislature has provided a mechanism through Indiana Code 36-1.5-4, under which local units of government, with express approval of their citizens, may enter into reorganization and/or consolidation agreements; and, Whereas, pursuant to the Act, the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County adopted resolution number CO.R-01-10-001 on January 5, 2010, and the Common Council of Evansville, Indiana adopted resolution C-2010-2 on January 11, 2010 and the Mayor of Evansville signed same on January 13, 2010, each proposing a reorganization between Vanderburgh County, Indiana, the “County”, and the City of Evansville, and authorizing the establishment of a Reorganization Committee for the purposes of drafting a Plan of Reorganization for consideration by the legislative bodies of the County and the City. The Committee consists of twelve (12) members; three (3) each appointed by the County Commissioners, the County Council, the Mayor and the City Council. Whereas, said Committee approved the City of Evansville-Vanderburgh County, Indiana Plan of Reorganization, 1-11-11, the “Plan”, and has submitted the Plan to the Evansville City Council and to the Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners for their consideration and action; and, Whereas, the Plan is attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of this Resolution; and, Whereas, the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County now wishes to consider the Plan pursuant to Indiana Code 36-1.5-4-19, Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, by the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, Indiana, that this Resolution be read in at least two (2) meetings, and following that, after having conducted a public hearing on the Plan, the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County shall do one of the following: (1) adopt the Plan as presented to the Commissioners; (2) adopt the Plan with modifications; or (3) reject the Plan and order the Reorganization Committee to submit a new plan of reorganization within thirty (30) days, all pursuant to Indiana Code 36-15-4-20. Passed and adopted on the 14^th day of March, 2011 by the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County for the first reading on this date, and second reading March 30^th.”

I would entertain a motion to approve that resolution.

Commissioner Abell: So moved.

Commissioner Melcher: Second.

President Winnecke: A motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote please. Oh, I’m sorry.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Abell?

Commissioner Abell: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: Commissioner Melcher?

Commissioner Melcher: Yes.

Madelyn Grayson: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion approved 3-0)

President Winnecke: Okay.

President Watts: With that, I think, are we going to go into, do we want to have, I think, do we want to have an executive summary?

President Winnecke: I think we just go through it. I think they’ve done that.

President Watts: Yeah, perfect. That was my question, Becky, so.

Becky Kasha: (Inaudible. Not at mic.)

President Watts: I said, that was my question. So, don’t worry about it.

Becky Kasha: Oh, okay.

President Winnecke: Okay, section one, general provisions. I would just make a note, 1.1, in terms of the reorganization, reorganizing political subdivisions, that the Town of Darmstadt officially did decline to participate in the legal reorganization, just as a point of clarification.

Becky Kasha: Good evening, ladies and gentleman. I do have one, we’ve, of course, subsequently found a few little things here and there that needed revision. In item 1.2 there’s a reference to section 1.8, and that actually should be a reference to section 1.7.

President Winnecke: Okay. Any questions regarding 1.2, regulatory powers? Powers of a city and county combined government? Surely we’ll have some takers on the boundaries of the proposed reorganized government. Commissioner?

Commissioner Abell: I guess, I will. I’m assuming that this refers to the boundaries of the map that was presented to us?

Becky Kasha: Right. The boundaries of the combined government is the boundaries of Vanderburgh County. That particular provision would just merely be referencing the boundaries of Vanderburgh County.

Commissioner Abell: Not the way that it was divided?

Becky Kasha: No, that will be later.

Commissioner Abell: Oh, okay.

President Winnecke: Oh, I’m sorry. I apologize.

Becky Kasha: That’s okay, I mean–

President Winnecke: I was skipping ahead.

Becky Kasha: –we can take it up any time you want, but, technically, it would be later.

President Winnecke: Right.

Commissioner Abell: Okay, I’ll take it up when we get to it.

Becky Kasha: Okay.

President Winnecke: Partisan elections?

Councilmember John: This isn’t a question or comment about that, but I would like to point out that the Evansville Courier and Press did have all of this in a section, a special section in Sunday’s Courier and Press. So, for the people in the audience that maybe have not seen what we’re looking at, if you go back to last Sunday, this is printed by, courtesy of the Evansville Courier and Press. It may give you a better idea of what we’re looking at up here.

Becky Kasha: Very good. I appreciate the press, The Courier and Press, printing that for the community’s sake and for the sake of the community.

President Winnecke: One of the questions I’ve received in the last week or so has to do with the merits of partisan elections. Can you, or anyone from the committee help us understand the thinking behind recommending retaining partisan elections?

Becky Kasha: Well, I believe, the discussions pertaining to retaining partisan elections were grouped predominantly in two areas, as I recall. One was the concern that that was a huge departure from the political process and the election process as we know it today, and this was a lot to bite off as it was, and that that was, if there were merits to it, it was something that could be, perhaps, done at another time. There was also some concerns about the, I believe one might say, the law of unintended consequences of partisan elections. We undertook research about partisan versus non-partisan elections and turned to some of the literature and the studies that were done in other communities that were switching from non-partisan, from partisan to non-partisan elections or debating that concept. My research that I shared with the committee, and I indicated that there was, that non-partisan elections tended to result in decreased voter participation and a decrease in, those decreases were concentrated in the less educated and less affluent communities. I guess, you would have to say because of the racial disparities, and to some extent, socioeconomic status, that non-partisan elections then tended to have a disproportionate effect on voters, minority voters, and diminished the influence that they had in their communities. That was some of the research that we had come across. That, of course, was troublesome to us. The research also indicates without, I guess you would say political affiliation, without that informational cue for people, that they tended to base their voting decisions on other things, such as perceived ethnicity, race, gender, those kinds of things, and the issues and the qualifications of the candidates tended to be less prevalent of a consideration for the voters. It also tended to have an us versus them effect on, in various communities when people voted on the basis of things other than political parties. The alliances or the coalitions coalesced around different kinds of issues and they tended to be racial and socioeconomic, based on the literature that was I able to find. Because of the expense of running campaigns and minority representation also tended to be diminished in non-partisan races. One that I thought was interesting is that they indicated that non-partisan races tend to elevate the importance of name recognition and the importance of money. So, you tended to see well known people that tended to be wealthier were the ones who got elected in non-partisan races. My thought was why transfer power to just people with well known names and people that had a lot of money? I thought that was troublesome. Also, I believe that it, because you tend to have run offs in partisan, in non partisan elections, that you, the chances of fringe candidates being elected tends to increase. We saw that in France, I believe, in 2002, when, I believe the gentleman’s name was Lapen who was sort of aligned with the Neo Nazi Party. He begot involved in the run off with only 17 percent of the vote, because he had an energized base and was able to make it to a run off. So, those were some of the reasons that I found partisan elections to be the preference.

Councilmember Bredhold: Would you mind sharing some of that research? I am interested in non-partisan elections, and I think a lot of the things that you say about what those things tend to produce already exist, name recognition, those sorts of things. I’ve personally wondered if we could attract more people to politics if we went to, you know, if we would attract more people to step up and be leaders in this community, something that we desperately need. So, I would be interested in seeing some of that.

Becky Kasha: I can share that with you.

Councilmember Bredhold: Thank you.

Becky Kasha: I think that the research indicates that that, unfortunately, is not the case. That even though it opens the field allegedly wider to more people, people are somewhat afraid of the political process, of the election process I should say, and without the assistance that parties give, that a lot of people tend to not want to run. So, and, of course, there is the thoughts, reasonable minds can differ and there is some research and evidence to the contrary, but the research that I did indicated to me that this was a more likely scenario given where we are at now in our political arena, I guess you would say. But, I can make those studies available to you.

Councilmember Robinson: I would also like to see a copy of that, because I think might be true nationally, but I don’t think it’s true locally.

Becky Kasha: What isn’t true locally?

Councilmember Robinson: As far as people, whether you’re affiliated with a party or not, and they want that support of the party. Nationally they might, I think locally, I don’t see that.

Becky Kasha: Well, my, I did try to focus my research on city and county races as opposed to national races, because I do believe there is a significant difference between those two. There has been, to my knowledge there has not been any evidence, any research that would be particular to our area. If someone has it I would be certainly interested in seeing it.

Councilmember McGinn: Hi, Becky.

Becky Kasha: Hi.

Councilmember McGinn: You know, I’ve been a proponent of non-partisan–

Becky Kasha: Yes.

Councilmember McGinn: – from day one.

Becky Kasha: Yes, sir.

Councilmember McGinn: I’ve looked at information and all that, but here’s what I’ve been hearing and what I have found. You know, there’s a lot of code words and key words that are being used when people talk to me about this plan, and, you know, about the size of the districts and the areas of the districts and that type of thing, and I think what it boils down to, if you just cut to the chase, is people are counting how many straight tickets are voted in this area and how many in this area, and they’re, you know, this is, you know, we’ve got gerrymandering going on now on a state and a national level and it’s going to be happening here at a local level. Has there been any thought or any research on this allowance of straight tickets on just these local elections? Because, even if it’s a smaller electorate, if they’re well informed and well educated in a conscious choice rather than just pulling a lever because someone, for whatever reason, you know, I would prefer that personally, people who actually read and know who’s voting.

Becky Kasha: I agree,

Councilmember McGinn: Has there been any talk or any research, or is it possible to have...we can’t go non-partisan because it’s going to be a hot button issue, could we go no straight tickets on this? Is that legally acceptable under the statutory framework?

Becky Kasha: I don’t, the concept of not being permitted to vote straight ticket was not discussed. That just wasn’t a concept that we entertained. I will say, when we came up with this map, what we asked our County Surveyor to do was keep the districts that currently, or the boundaries that were currently in the city essentially the same, being told numerous times that Evansville does not like change. We’ve tried to minimize that as much as possible. Then we are, from that point on, constrained by state statutes that require that voting districts be reasonably compact, contiguous, and not split voting precincts and that kind of thing, and that was really the little information that we gave Mr. Jeffers. Certainly there was no, anything on our part to try to make districts swing one way or the other politically.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I know that the gentleman from Louisville spoke–

Becky Kasha: Yes.

Councilmember McGinn: –and his second thought was what his main, I forget how he phrased it, but he wished that they had gone non-partisan. Was that weighed, did that carry any weight with your group?

Becky Kasha: I think that that’s the first time the committee really ever considered it. It hadn’t been an issue that anybody had brought to us up until that time, and that was, I don’t believe that that is a stance that would be necessarily shared by the rest of the people in Louisville.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay.

Becky Kasha: That was the first, I believe, that we had heard that they wished they had gone to non-partisan races. Of course, there could have been other things that people heard, but no one had brought that up to me as something that Louisville was lamenting about on a widespread basis.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay. Alright, thanks.

President Winnecke: Anyone else? Okay, section 1.6.1, the compensation issue? Any questions there? Moving on to 1.7, the effective date and the transfer of powers? Just to sort of clarify, theoretically, if an organization plan were passed by our two bodies, it would be on a referendum in November of ‘12. There would be a transition committee that would work on budgeting, etcetera, for the first year of the new government, an election would take place in November of 2014, and the new government would take effect in 2015, is that correct?

Becky Kasha: That’s correct, assuming that this got on the ballot in 2012.

Councilmember Bredhold: I’m sorry, Commissioner Lloyd, did you go from 1.5 to 1.6.1?

Becky Kasha: We didn’t, I mean, we haven’t--

Councilmember Bredhold: Did we talk about the election cycles?

Becky Kasha: You may have, I think you may have skipped that, but we haven’t been--

President Winnecke: Did I skip a line? I’m sorry.

Councilmember Bredhold: I’m sorry for calling you Commissioner Lloyd.

President Winnecke: That’s alright.

Councilmember Bredhold: Commissioner Winnecke.

President Winnecke: It happens all the time, believe me.

Councilmember Bredhold: I’m really sorry.

President Winnecke: I apologize, I did, I titled that the wrong, but the cycle is correct.

Becky Kasha: Right, that cycle is correct. Then, the elections would occur every four years thereafter, and all seats would be, all seats, I guess, would be elected at the same time to minimize, you know, continuous transitioning, continuous campaigning.

President Watts: Since budgets are approved usually 18 months prior, would the existing bodies approve the budget for ‘14 in the middle of the year on ‘13? It would have to have approval from the Commissioners and the Council to approve the first year’s budget?

Becky Kasha: Say that again?

President Watts: Since the budgets are approved 18 months prior, I’m assuming the Council and the Commissioners would have to approve the proposed budget for the new government in 2014 in 2013 when those two bodies still exist, right?

Becky Kasha: I’m going to turn to legal counsel on that one. The question would be who would approve the budget–

President Watts: What did I say 18 months? With the elections that would be held in ‘13 to take effect on January 1 of ‘14, the proposed budget would be normally presented six months prior to, we would do budget hearings in July of the prior year. So, how would the budget for 2014 seek approval when there’s going to be two bodies and one doesn’t hold office yet?

Becky Kasha: The new government would not go into effect until 2015. So, the question is who would pass the budget--

President Watts: Who would approve the budgets in July of 2014?

President Winnecke: The transition committee, correct?

Becky Kasha: Right.

Mike Schopmeyer: The transition committee.

President Watts: Okay.

Mike Schopmeyer: That’s contemplated later, you’ll see that later in the plan.

Becky Kasha: Later in the plan.

Mike Schopmeyer: But, that’s discussed.

Becky Kasha: By statute they, a transition committee approves those budgets because of what you said, there isn’t a combined, elected body in existence at the time when there needs to be for the budget to be considered.

Mike Schopmeyer: So, you’ll still have each body that will have a budget, but they’ll have to work together, because the next year it will be combined.

President Watts: Okay, and that was my question.

Mike Schopmeyer: That’s why that committee, and you’ll see that later, that’s contemplated, spelled out. The statute allows for that and kind of induces you to do that, and this group included that in the plan.

President Watts: Thank you.

Councilmember Walker: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Becky Kasha: Certainly.

Councilmember Walker: (Inaudible) referendum (Inaudible) vote on this?

Becky Kasha: Whole city vote on what?

Councilmember Walker: On the reorganization, if they want it. If the public wants it.

Becky Kasha: Yes, it will go on a general referendum ballot in 2012. General referendum is not the right word. It will be a referendum question at the general election in 2012.

Councilmember John: Becky, I’ve got a quick question. It talks about we’ll keep the same cycle. Are you saying that there would be possibly an election in 2014, a city election, which is a state general election?

Becky Kasha: No. The elections would be every four years.

Councilmember John: So, it would be in ‘15?

Becky Kasha: No.

Councilmember John: There’s an election this year, a city election this year–

Becky Kasha: Right.

Councilmember John: –in 2011–

Becky Kasha: Well, once we have the first election for the combined government, then the elections will be every year, every four years thereafter, regardless of whether, when the city or the county elections were.

Councilmember John: So, the city elections may change to an even year, as opposed to an odd year right now?

Becky Kasha: Right, and there’s, my understanding is there’s some legislation at the state level to do that too, so that all of the elections are held at the same time, to cut costs. Of course, nobody’s considering legislation at the state level at the moment.

President Winnecke: Any other issues before we move on?

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, let me throw, I’m sorry, let me cut to the chase here, because we can go through this page by page. The gorilla in the room from my constituency is, what will this plan do to property taxes? I don’t see anything in here that gives us any kind of proforma or any kind of indication that exactly who’s taxes go up, who’s taxes go down.

Becky Kasha: Have you seen that we have a report on financial analysis of the proposed reorganization of the City of Evansville and Vanderburgh County?

Councilmember Adams: Yes, ma’am, I’ve seen that–

Becky Kasha: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: –and your quote to me in November was that property taxes generally would go up, but the slope of increase after the merger will be less than if it was if the merger did not go up.

Becky Kasha: That is what we would hope would happen, yes.

Councilmember Adams: Okay, thank you.

President Winnecke: Well, to clarify, because it would be up to future Councils–

Becky Kasha: Yes.

President Winnecke: –to determine how the taxes would be distributed.

Becky Kasha: Yeah.

President Winnecke: So, subject–

Becky Kasha: Obviously, the transition committee has no control over–

Councilmember Adams: Time out, I’m not talking about distribution. I’m talking about collection.

President Winnecke: No, I understand.

Becky Kasha: That’s not our decision either.

President Winnecke: But, the disbursement of how the taxes are levied across the county would not be determined, that would be determined by every Common Council.

Councilmember Adams: Sure, but what I’m hearing from people is will my taxes go up or not?

President Winnecke: Sure, I understand.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

President Winnecke: Right.

Becky Kasha: Next, I mean, if there are other questions certainly, but, I don’t know who, if you want to call on people.

President Winnecke: No, we’ll just–

President Watts: We’ll go through–

President Winnecke: –Wendy?

Councilmember Bredhold: I have a question about 1.6, I’m sorry.

President Winnecke: Go ahead.

Councilmember Bredhold: We had a gentleman come before us at the last City Council meeting representing a group called We the People.

Becky Kasha: Okay.

Councilmember Bredhold: And he was asking about the fact that the Mayor and the Common Council of the combined government will all be elected every four years at the same time. His question was about the wisdom of that and continuity, issues of continuity, which I’m sure you discussed. What is your response to any concerns about continuity?

Becky Kasha: Our, I mean, I think my recollection from the committee as a whole, and I’m sure if someone remembers differently they’ll tell me, was that we thought that it would be best to have as few of transitions as possible. Instead of having part of the Council elected every two years, we would have all of it elected once every four years. That would decrease the electioning that goes on during, you know, people perhaps act differently during election years, and we wanted to diminish how often that would occur.

President Watts: Councilman Walker, did you, are you good with your question too, about like how we’ll get to that referendum part? Okay.

Commissioner Abell: Since we’re on this I have a question. I was going to wait until we got to term limits of the Common Council, but–

Becky Kasha: Okay.

Commissioner Abell: – I guess, I also question having everyone change every four years. Having sat on probably every board sitting here tonight, I can tell you that the concern that I would have is that we have contracts in the city, we have contracts in the county with different vendors providing things, such as MRC that provides our computer services, which is now on a five year contract with the city and the county. When you don’t have any continuity, when you don’t have anyone sitting on a board that had been there previously, you don’t have any background. As you attorneys might would say, your notes, as to historical notes as to why we did what we did with that particular contract. I think those contracts are seriously important to the fundamental workings of the city and the county, and I think to not have someone on a board with a lot of new people that has some history with it would cause a lot of chaos, certainly in the beginning. I would encourage this body to think about the possibility of maybe the at-large people running with the Mayor one time, and then two years later have the rest of the Council, so that the Common Council does have some turnover. We, in the county, have existed with that since the beginning of time, and it does not create a problem for us. None of the three Commissioners run on the same time, and none of the seven County Councilman run at the same time. Now, the City Council does all run at one time–

Becky Kasha: Yes.

Commissioner Abell: –but, I think as we grow, because while this is supposed to be streamlining, this actually is going to grow government because it’s going to be one bigger government. It’s going to be a problem when we get to talking about our contracts. I just wanted to make that point.

President Winnecke: Anything else along 1.6 or 1.7? Moving on to 1.8? I have a question about 1.8.2, at the risk of offending anyone who’s an attorney, I have no idea what this means. It sounds like it was written for legalese. Could someone explain it to us?

Becky Kasha: My, the basic import of this is if there’s a section of this that is held to be unenforceable, it doesn’t make the entire, the rest of the entire document unenforceable as well. That’s the upshot of that.

President Winnecke: I understand that. Thank you.

Becky Kasha: Okay. You know, why say something with one word if you can use ten, I guess.

President Winnecke: I understand, yeah. Anything else in section one before we move to section two? Section two, the executive branch? Pretty straight forward, I believe. Curt?

Councilman John: This is basically as it is today, isn’t it? With the Mayor, he’s the Chief Executive.

Becky Kasha: Yes, right.

Councilman John: No term limits.

Becky Kasha: Right.

President Winnecke: I did have one question regarding the job expectations of the Public Information Officer. How does that, or does it differ from that of a Communications Director, a Press Secretary, or are those two different sorts of roles in the committee’s eyes?

Becky Kasha: The primary intent behind this was just to make sure that there was one person who was charged with that responsibility, regardless of who that was, so that somebody would be the one that you would go to for access to public records. It could be any number of people, but we thought it was important to have one designated person.

Commissioner Abell: Are we doing anything in section two?

President Winnecke: Anything in section two. We’re there.

Commissioner Abell: Okay. I have some things I had written notes on. One is just a little comment that I certainly happen to be one of those elected people that think we should all have term limits. I see that the Mayor and the Common Council would not be term limited. We’re not term limited now, but it doesn’t mean that that isn’t something that’s food for thought. I happen to think it would be a good thing. Legal counsel to the combined government, I don’t know where that, what the thinking was there, other than maybe you might save a few dollars having one legal counsel for both.

Becky Kasha: No, no.

Commissioner Abell: But, I think–

Becky Kasha: There isn’t one legal counsel for both. Let me just, that–

Commissioner Abell: Legal counsel to combined government.

Becky Kasha: Just like now–

Commissioner Abell: So, the Mayor has his own legal counsel, and the Council will have their own legal counsel?

Becky Kasha: Yes.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

Becky Kasha: 3.11, the Council has its own legal counsel just like you do today.

Commissioner Abell: Well, I saw it said the Council may employ, but I thought it should say shall employ.

Becky Kasha: Well, if you don’t want a lawyer, I don’t, you know–

Commissioner Abell: Well, I mean, you define shall back here. I mean, I’m not playing with words.

Becky Kasha: No, and I’m not either.

Commissioner Abell: You define shall as something they have to do.

Becky Kasha: Right.

Commissioner Abell: And if you said they may employ, to me that says if we decide we want to we can, but we don’t have to.

Becky Kasha: Okay.

Commissioner Abell: This should say shall so that we would have definitely that the Mayor has his own legal counsel and the Common Council has their own legal counsel.

Becky Kasha: That was certainly not intended to be a differentiation between the two.

Commissioner Abell: And I wouldn’t have thought it had it also said may for the Mayor, but it said shall for the Mayor and may for the Common Council.

Becky Kasha: I see what you’re saying.

Commissioner Abell: Mayoral appointments shall not require advice or consent of the Common Council.

Becky Kasha: Correct.

Commissioner Abell: I do not think that any policy making appointments should ever be by one body, whether it be the one body of the Council or the one body of the Mayor. Policy making decisions, if they are appointed bodies–

Becky Kasha: Okay.

Commissioner Abell: –removes the ability of the public to have direct input into the people that are governing them.

(Applause)

Commissioner Abell: I can give you a really quick little, Jim Price, a wonderful City Councilman for many, many years wanted a stop sign put by Harrison High School. A Councilman elected by the people in the First Ward wanted a stop sign in the First Ward, and when he went to the Safety Board they denied it and he had no recourse. He should have been able to have that done because he was elected by those people that lived there and they wanted a stop sign. Whether or not that had anything to do with traffic count or whatever is not the issue, the issue is when the people elect us we’re a representative form of government. I’m not a representative form of government if I have no control over the people that have been appointed and that are now controlling the people that they are making legislation for. Sure, we can call them and say we would like for you to do this, but we can’t force them to do it.

Becky Kasha: I guess, I don’t see, maybe, does someone else understand that issue? I don’t, I mean, we’ve had appointed bodies, the Mayor has some appointments, the Council has some appointments. The Mayor doesn’t ratify the Councils appointments, and the Council doesn’t ratify the Mayor’s appointments.

Commissioner Abell: But almost all of our boards have like two appointments from the Mayor, two from the City Council, two from the County.

Becky Kasha: Right.

Commissioner Abell: They don’t have just everybody’s appointed by the Mayor.

Becky Kasha: They’re not. Did you, the list in the back, we went to great pains to make sure, and I, excuse me, that we went through, and with very limited exceptions made sure that there was bifurcated appointing authority on these boards. So, there aren’t–

Commissioner Abell: Where?

Becky Kasha: –it’s pages 22 through 27. In very, I would say far and away, most of the boards have appointments by both the Mayor and the Council. Excuse me.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Becky Kasha: I can’t hear you, what?

Councilmember Adams: I’m sorry. It’s all dominant by the Mayor.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, it is.

Councilmember Adams: My list, the Mayor gets three, we get two or something like that. I would like to echo my colleague’s worry about non ratification of major appointments by the Mayor. I think that the Metro Council should also ratify that.

Becky Kasha: Should the Mayor then ratify your appointments? I don’t–

Councilmember Adams: No, just the converse. I agree with her.

Becky Kasha: The Mayor is elected–

Councilmember Adams: Yep.

Becky Kasha: –as well. So–

Councilmember Adams: His appointments, I think, should be approved by the Metro Council.

Becky Kasha: Okay, point noted.

Councilmember Adams: And, I also would like to, I’m getting a lot of feedback from my constituency about term limits, that they really would like to see term limits by the Mayor, a three or four year, as well as the Metro Council. What was your discussion on that in your group?

Becky Kasha: Our discussion was that there are term limits every time there is an election. If people are unhappy with the people that represent them, they vote them out.

Councilmember Adams: Okay.

Becky Kasha: I will say, just for my own curiosity, I went back and looked, and since 1900 we’ve had two Mayors that served more than two terms. In those situations it was three terms, and then in Frank McDonald’s term he had one additional year because of the resignation of his predecessor. So, at least from the Mayor’s perspective, we have not had, you know, dynasties.

Councilmember Adams: Well, that sounds slick, but I’m just reflecting what I’m hearing from my constituents.

Becky Kasha: I’m just trying to explain the rationale that we had.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

Becky Kasha: It really wasn’t slick, it was just, the idea was that you have elections, and if you, if people are not happy with who represents them then they vote them out.

Councilmember Adams: And what I’m hearing from people is that they disagree with you.

Becky Kasha: Okay, that’s fine.

Councilmember Adams: Great.

Becky Kasha: You wanted my opinion, or our opinion–

Councilmember Adams: Yep.

Becky Kasha: –and that’s–

Councilmember Adams: I agree, thank you.

Becky Kasha: Okay.

Commissioner Abell: Well, I would just like to submit for our consideration that when we come to this point we might want to think that some of these boards have an elected official on the board, so that there is some input from the elected officials to that board from the people that put us where we are. Thank you.

Councilmember McGinn: Just, a point on that if we’re going to be thinking about that, we need to keep in the back of our minds that there’s some laws, and Mr. Hamilton found them for me when I was very interested in being on the Evansville Redevelopment Commission. If this Council approves their budget, then we have a legal conflict of interest, and you have to quit one to, you can’t do both. So, that budgetary process does cause some problems.

John Hamilton: I was going to raise the issue, I don’t know if you know the answer, a lot of the boards are controlled or set up by state statute–

Becky Kasha: Right.

John Hamilton: –as the enabling statute. They say who appoints what.

Becky Kasha: Right, our legal counsel has indicated to us that under the statute that we’re operating under that we have the authority to make whatever changes would be necessary to effectuate the plan.

John Hamilton: And that would override whatever those other–

Becky Kasha: I mean, it’s untested thus far, because no one else has done this under this statute on this scale. There have been some others, but not on the city-county scale.

Councilmember Adams: But, certainly we do need elected officials on these boards, even in a non-voting capacity. We need some accountability. We need some sort of feedback, and we’re not getting it right now.

Councilmember McGinn: I think, elected officials, in my experience, have a tendency to ask more questions when someone comes before them with a multimillion dollar contract and says sign. What about ex-officio members? I mean, I can’t imagine that that would be a conflict. Have you checked on that? If a non-voting, an elected official being an ex-officio member on one of these boards just to ask questions? No vote on the budget which would avoid that conflict. I mean, maybe I’m speaking out of turn–

President Winnecke: No, that’s good.

Councilmember McGinn: –but the lack of questions being asked about issues at various boards is what causes me concern. You know, ex-officio as opposed to voting would kind of make me sleep better at night.

Becky Kasha: My, I guess, I would just, I would point out too that there aren’t, for the most part now, most of these appointed bodies do not have anybody from, any elected officials on them. So, that would be a substantial change.

Commissioner Abell: Well, this is a substantial change.

Becky Kasha: Oh, it is. I’m just saying–

Commissioner Abell: And, they’re not working good now, which is what we’re trying to say, because we all know this because we deal with them day in and day out. They’re not working good now–

Becky Kasha: Right.

Commissioner Abell: –which is why we would like to see some changes.

Becky Kasha: No, understood.

Councilmember McGinn: And the main question that I get is why didn’t someone ask, and then they tell me the question. I say, well, you know, I wasn’t at that board meeting. So, I mean, does that solve some issues people have if there’s at least an elected official there to ask questions and engage in debates as opposed to voting? I mean, do you guys, ladies and gentleman, I mean, is that–

Commissioner Melcher: I can throw something in, I used to attend the Redevelopment Commissions, and I used to ask a lot of those questions, but you never got an answer. So, if you’re an ex-officio there, you can do all the talking you want to, and they’re not going to do anything. They’re going to vote the way they want to vote. So, they’re not really listening to you. I questioned one time between Christmas and New Year’s, and I said you’ve got this major project going on, we’re between Christmas and New Year’s where’s everybody at? Nobody knows this is going on, and you’re going to pass it tonight, and they did. So, I think just having somebody ex-officially is not really going to give you the answer you want, because it’s not going to happen. You know, I’ve recommended a lot that all these bodies should, and I know that’s a lot of work for the Council, but that’s something to think, like redevelopment, they shouldn’t be allowed to spend a nickel. They should be like Area Plan and just say this is what we pass, now it comes to us, the County, whatever it’s going to be called, the joint Metro Council, they’ll be the ones that make the final decision, because they have to answer to the elected taxpayer. Because we’re elected, and we want to make sure that that happens.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, or even every contract they sign is subject to our ratification. That way we don’t usurp a state function. I mean, will that work, Johnny?

John Hamilton: I don’t know how they define the Council as the legislative body, and who’s going to have the power to make contracts under this entire plan. Is it similar to what is there now?

Mike Schopmeyer: Indiana went bankrupt in the 1800's. Remember that? As a result we have a lot of quasi governmental bodies; Airport Authority, Levee Authority that are required to be separate because of the fact that we have one of the tightest limits on the ability to finance of any state. So, without that you would cripple probably the ability to finance many of these areas. So, that’s why, that’s how it came to exist is because of the two percent debt limit that exist, from my old State Board of Accounts days. So, one way to do it besides ex-officio is a liaison and have reports. As we went to other cities, Nashville, for example, this body, I’m assuming this is the new Metro body, for example, votes on the school budget. You want to talk about a big item, take out all these little ones were talking about, in some areas where they’ve unified the government they’ve gone to that. There seemed to be no interest in that here when we had the meetings, but Councilman John has brought this up many times over the years, you have some central area as John has raised with you, it creates these problems with our statutes for these limits. So, maybe the best way is to have liaison and reporting, where they periodically report, and the information officer is an attempt to have this central depository, is one attempt to create that check and balance. But, remember, you always have the appointments, so, you have the power of the appointments, you do have the appropriation power in many cases, so, there’s a lot of checks and balances. They’re really not any different than we have now. I mean, many of these things you talk about exist today in the current government.

Commissioner Abell: Mr. Schopmeyer, we understand they exist today. What we’re trying to say here is, like for instance, the Minority Business Women, they haven’t had a quorum for the last three meetings. What we’re trying to say is put, make this such an important thing that one of us are on it, that we make sure people show up, that we make sure business is conducted, and then we make sure that the people who are paying the taxes are well represented on all of these bodies. That’s not happening now. If we’re going to make a huge change, which this is, why not make it a better change, and not just a change, but a better change, and we think it would be better if some of us had input on these boards rather than....I can go sit at the Minority Business Women’s meeting, but I can’t do anything to help them have a quorum.

Councilmember McGinn: Also, I know the conflict statements there, but we have the Mesker Park Zoo and Botanical Garden Advisory Board, and that requires, it doesn’t require, it authorizes and allows an elected member of this body to serve. So, we did that by city ordinance allowed that to happen, and, I guess, we legislated away the conflict. This board does okay the Parks and the Zoo’s budget, so, I mean, if this enabling legislation authorizes a member, an elected member of the Metro Council to be on, I mean, there ought to be one on the Works Board, Water Board, Safety Board, Parks Board, anybody who spends money there should be an elected official on there. Do you think if we make it by law it eliminates this conflict?

Mike Schopmeyer: Possibly. As we alluded to earlier in one of the questions, this statute, I can read the cites, but there’s four or five provisions that we’re acting under and that this committee adopted this plan gives very, very broad powers. So, I suppose that’s something that could be looked at. I wasn’t today trying to say not to do this. I was trying to say why it is, has been this way and why this group elected to go with the status quo was because of the two percent debt limit, you’ll bump into that on certain of these that have debt, redevelopment being one, somebody mentioned, you mentioned redevelopment. I mean, that’s one that clearly exists because of the debt limit, Levee Authority, Airport Authority, the ones that are dealing with large sums of money. But, you know–

Councilmember McGinn: Those are the ones we (Inaudible) on.

Mike Schopmeyer: –WBE/MBE, I wouldn’t see why that couldn’t be done. I mean, I don’t think there’s much of a budget there in many of those cases anyway, not, where there’s bonds. You know what I’m getting at when I say not much of a budget. There’s not a bonding that goes on, and that’s where you get into debt limit. Then, you’ve got what Mr. Hamilton pointed out, and that is if you approve the budget you’ve got that legal problem. The statute is pretty broad. It could be tried.

President Winnecke: So, for clarification, John or Ted, you’ll run the trap on whether we could modify the plan to include appointed, or elected officials on these boards?

President Watts: We’re just talking about boards that have the authority to spend money, correct? If you have the authority to spend money–

Mike Schopmeyer: Most of them have authority to spend money though, don’t they?

President Winnecke: Yeah, most of them have budgets. So, they’re spending money.

Mike Schopmeyer: Yeah, I mean, that’s going to be almost all of them.

President Winnecke: Yeah, I mean, everyone’s got a budget.

Mike Schopmeyer: I think this came up–

Councilmember Adams: This became a problem with something that was determined in the 1800's. I’m not sure that it’s still viable in the 21^st century.

Mike Schopmeyer: It is on bonds.

Councilmember Adams: Let me finish please.

Mike Schopmeyer: If you want to be taxes–

Councilmember Adams: Let me finish please. You did bring this up, so I would you to try to help me with this, the bond debt capacity, which is defined two percent of one third of the assessed value of the city and the county. Something when we merge that debt capacity, if I remember correctly is about 44 million. Suddenly you lose 44 million ability to do it. There was a certain amount of debt for the county and a certain amount of debt for the city, when that comes together it comes pretty close to exceeding the bond debt capacity. I don’t think anybody understands that by this merger you’re going to lose 44 million dollars of bond debt capacity.

Mike Schopmeyer: I’ll let Mr. Hafer address that, it was his committee, but I’m not sure about the accuracy of that.

Councilmember Adams: Okay, well, I mean, it was in the newspaper that when you did bring these two together–

Mike Schopmeyer: Well, it must be true.

Councilmember Adams: Well, I mean, I don’t know. You don’t get 88 million.

Mike Schopmeyer: Yeah, Crowe, understood.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

Mike Schopmeyer: And the debt has to stay with the units. I mean, this isn’t exactly to your point, but that debt has to follow the units. So, we’ll, if you live in one district, you may, until those bonds are satisfied, they’ll continue to be paid off by the old districts even though we’re going to have a whole new set of districts.

Councilmember Adams: So, for some 20 or 30 years the people in the city will be paying off their debt and the people in the county will be paying off their debt, but who pays off the new debt that the combined–

Mike Schopmeyer: It would be county-wide, as you suggested.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, so then we end up with $120 million worth of debt, $132 million worth of debt.

Mike Schopmeyer: While my undergraduate was in finance, I didn’t do the finance–

Councilmember Adams: Well, I’m not asking you, I’m just working it out in my head. If you still have bond debt capacity for residual from the city, and a bond debt residual from the county, and then you have a new bond debt capacity potentially, I think that’s 132.

Ed Hafer: I’m Ed Hafer. I was fortunate to chair the tax and finance sub-committee. Councilman Adams, the question was asked specifically of Crowe, and as I understand what you’re saying, if it’s the same question that we asked them, that if the assessed valuation of the county is, you know, used for one, which includes the city, in fact, we actually duplicate that when we do the city, because the city’s assessed valuation is included in the county. So, therefore, if, in fact, it all becomes one, we’re going to lose that $44 million, your number, not mine. I was told that no, that’s not the way that it will work, and that’s not the way that it works right now. That there may be some debt limit reduction, but it shouldn’t be significant. I’m an architect and the last thing you would want is an architect giving you financial advice, but the question as specifically asked of the financial consultants, and they said it would not make a significant difference.

Councilmember Adams: Honestly, sir, I’m a retired heart surgeon, I don’t really know this either, but somewhere along the line–

Ed Hafer: We’re good company to talk about it.

Councilmember Adams: –no, right. I’m certainly getting tachycardia here when you tell me that you’re not–

Ed Hafer: You’re way over my head.

Councilmember Adams: When you tell me that you’re not quite sure what the number of the debt capacity is going to be, it sounds like it’s coming out of the ether. I would love to know what that’s going to be. I mean, I think the taxpayer needs to know what they’re bonded for.

Ed Hafer: I mean, let us get that number for you.

Councilmember Adams: I would love it.

Ed Hafer: It would be based upon today’s assessed valuation.

Councilmember Adams: While we’re talking about money, thank you so much for giving us tonight an itemized bill of what you did with $108,000. I really appreciate that, truly.

Ed Hafer: Okay.

President Winnecke: Is everybody ready to move on? Section three, the legislative fiscal branch, Common Council, authority and general obligations of the Council? I suspect one of the big issues would be the number of, numbers folks would like to talk about.

Councilmember Adams: Yep.

President Winnecke: Connie?

Councilmember Robinson: How did we come up with 11 members instead of 20? I guess, I’m concerned about minority representation.

Ed Hafer: Don’t mistake my eagerness to jump up here. I think it came about, I don’t think, it came about in very early meetings that we had there were people who expressed a concern of preserving the rural areas and having representation for the rural areas. There was concern about minorities in the traditional districts within the city. It seemed like a pretty simple thing to do, in the beginning, to the greatest extent possible to preserve the six wards within the city. We didn’t hear a lot of complaints about the status quo. In doing that, then used sort of the traditional north-south border of St. Joe, and everything east of that, Scott Township, McCutchanville would be one district, totally outside the city. A district that would be 100 percent residents of the county outside the city. Then, the other one, the remaining area outside the city to the west of St. Joe. The numbers worked out. That average, at that time, was about twenty thousand three or four hundred per district. I think the map that you have in the study does a pretty good job of that. Mr. Jeffers certainly helped lay that out. That all seemed to work pretty good. We’ve heard there should be more. I think part of ours was the fact that if you have more, you know, you tend to, you run the potential of maybe not adding minority participation or rural participation, would you rather have one or two of eight, or one or two of ten? In fact, you could actually maybe reduce it. The number of, using the new census data where, you know, we work out to about 22,500, you know, per....when you look at some of the other consolidated governments within the Midwest, around the Midwest, Indianapolis is about 31,275 per district, Lexington is about 25,750, Louisville is about 28,800. Nashville is only 15,900. Nashville has 40 districts, no, 35 districts and five at large Councilmembers. So, we heard from Jerry Abramson, Mayor Abramson, from Louisville who said the more districts you have, the stronger the Mayor will be, because larger Councils tend to dilute authority among themselves and lack consensus building. It may not satisfy you as an answer, but it just seemed to feel good to most of us, the numbers that we had.

Commissioner Abell: It doesn’t feel good to me, Mr. Hafer. I have, I asked Mr., well, first of all, I think this, it was drawn on the 2000 census. Mr. Jeffers numbers were drawn on the 2000 census.

Ed Hafer: That’s correct.

Commissioner Abell: Not the 2010.

Ed Hafer: That’s correct.

Commissioner Abell: So–

Ed Hafer: And we stated time and time again that, no matter what we put out as a part of this plan, in January we won’t have the 2010 numbers, and whatever we do will have to be redrawn anyway. But, that, we still recommend the eight districts and three at large.

Commissioner Abell: And you still recommend one representative in Scott Township, rather than two, even though there’s no question that Scott Township is destined to grow, and has grown immensely in the last ten years.

Ed Hafer: Well, but, you know, it may very well grow by those numbers, or by that drawing of not just, I believe, that’s what, the 8^th district, Scott Township?

Commissioner Abell: Yes.

Ed Hafer: Being the 8^th district, and is that the 1^st district then out there? That would also grow.

Commissioner Abell: But, the numbers of the people out there are already much greater than they were when this map was....I actually have an e-mail from Mr. Jeffers, and I know that he was told to do it this way, that he actually said that it shouldn’t be done this way. It should be done on the 2010 census. I don’t think there’s any question that Scott Township is going to grow. If that weren’t the case, I think that they would hang the School Board up by their thumbs for building a new high school out there. I don’t know how we can say this is a plan for the future. This is a plan for the past.

Councilmember Bredhold: Do you have Bill Jeffers’ numbers in front of you, Marsha? What, how, is it a significant number that has grown?

Commissioner Abell: Mr. Jeffers is here. If Mr. Winnecke doesn’t mind, let’s bring him up here and let him answer that.

Councilmember Bredhold: I mean, I think that, you know, we don’t want to over represent Scott Township either.

Commissioner Abell: No, we don’t.

Councilmember Bredhold: There are methods in the plan that would allow us to change the structure in the future.

Commissioner Abell: But, I do think any plan should be done on today’s numbers, not 2000 numbers.

Councilmember Bredhold: I’m just wondering how significant those–

Ed Hafer: Councilman Abell–

Councilmember Bredhold: –the difference is?

Ed Hafer: –we’ve said that from the beginning, but we also are required by law to turn this plan in by January the 11^th. There were not 2010 numbers available at that time, but I think those who have been in attendance at our meetings, you know, we said time and time again, no matter what we do, it’s going to change when the new census comes out. You know, I mean, you’re absolutely right.

Commissioner Abell: Well, I don’t think, I don’t know how we as a....I certainly am not going to feel comfortable voting on something on these old numbers. I would want them changed by our next meeting. I mean, if it’s a plan, it is, and if it isn’t, then let’s throw it away, but.

Ed Hafer: There’s a process–

(Applause)

Ed Hafer: –that, I mean, it’s not just a matter of (Inaudible) reorganization. Just as we can’t figure a budget or a tax rate, or a tax levy or a tax rate. We’re prohibited from doing that. We also do not have the right to establish these districts, you know. The state statute outlines how, you know, how these are to be done. So, somebody’s going to redo it. I think the issue is eight versus ten.

Councilmember Robinson: I think it needs to be more than ten.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Commissioner?

Ed Hafer: I think it finally comes back to the Commissioners and the Council.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, excuse me. Commissioner Abell, the plan cannot be amended by the plan committee any further at this point. It’s presented to the Commissioners and to the Council. I’m addressing your comment that it be changed by the next meeting. If there are going to be changes in this plan, from this point forward, they have to be changes made by the City Council and the County Commissioners that are agreed to, and then reported back. So, for the meeting on March the 30^th, we can’t change what the plan committee has done. We can certainly discuss changes, but it can’t be changed by the next meeting, if I understood your comment.

Commissioner Abell: Well, then when can we amend it to make the changes so that we all like everything that’s in it?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: When you, when the, after the public hearing has occurred, and it’s finally finished, assuming that you don’t continue that meeting, within 30 days after the public hearing, the County Commissioners and the City Council will decide either to accept the plan, to modify the plan, or to reject the plan. The County Commissioners’ report and the City Council’s report must agree if it’s to go forward to the referendum. If they don’t agree, it goes back to the plan committee for revision.

Commissioner Abell: So, by May 1^st then? If we have it May, April, March 30^th is our next meeting, then by April 30^th we make all the amendments and changes that we want to make? I’m actually not asking the committee to make any anyway, let me state that. I’m actually talking to this group. I’m not really talking to them.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Oh, okay. You said by our next meeting, and I thought you meant March 30^th.

Commissioner Abell: Well, I meant by our next meeting, yeah, but I understand that we can’t do that.

Councilmember Adams: Are these amendments to be accepted by a majority vote, or does it have to be two thirds, or does it have to be unanimous?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: It’s just passage by, it’s a majority vote, which is all your vote is required.

Councilmember Adams: What I’m hearing from my constituents is that they would like more representation. I think there’s a happy medium, and I would suggest that maybe we think about increasing the Metro Council to 13 or 15. I know that there was some minority where a few people on your committee that felt that also. People really, I think, the magic number of 20,000 could be 15 for us. I don’t think we should get as many as we have in Nashville, but that’s a totally different thing. Some, I think, at this existing thing, I think we need to parse so that we have more, if you will, village representation. I think people are afraid of losing their representation at this juncture.

Commissioner Abell: I agree.

President Winnecke: Other comments?

Ed Hafer: Okay.

Councilmember McGinn: Question on that. Is that done by redrawing these districts? Or is it just by adding Council people at large?

President Winnecke: You could, anyway we want to do it.

Councilmember McGinn: Either way?

President Watts: As long as it’s an odd number.

Ed Hafer: I mean, I think in reality that, to come back to you, Commissioner Abell, you’re going to do this twice, because this isn’t going to take effect, you know, until, at best, sometime after 2012. You’re going to have to redistrict based upon the current districts and the current census information, you know, as a city and a county before then. Then you’re going to do it again, if it passes.

Commissioner Abell: If it passes this body, or if it passes the general public’s vote?

Ed Hafer: If it passes the general public.

Commissioner Abell: Well, see, that’s my concern is that I don’t think we’re giving the general public, they need to know exactly what the plan is. If we’re going to be piddling around with it while they’re voting on it, they don’t know what they’re getting.

Ed Hafer: Okay.

Commissioner Abell: But, I’ll–

Ed Hafer: Okay.

Commissioner Abell: – you know, in the concern for time, I’ll quit discussing this.

President Winnecke: We’ve got all night. I do.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, but I’ve got a lot more comments.

President Winnecke: Oh, okay. Any other discussion on the legislative, fiscal....John?

John Hamilton: Yeah, I have a comment. On 3.1.3 and then especially 3.1.4, doesn’t this address some of the concerns of Councilman Adams and Councilman McGinn where it says that to the extent that state law authorizes an authority, board or commission to levy taxes, etcetera, this plan provides approval by the new Metro Council before any of that can happen? Isn’t that what some of you were concerned about?

Councilmember Adams: I just want people to understand there are some ramifications, bond debt capacity ramifications. I don’t think people even understand the term, but I wanted to bring it out so they did understand it.

John Hamilton: Okay, but I’m talking about the point earlier that you made where you wanted input on these different boards that were appointed and different commissions that were appointed, doesn’t 3.1.4 address that issue?

Councilmember Adams: Well, I think there’s no reason why we couldn’t put accountable elected people on all boards that spend money and allow them a vote, because of the wide powers that we’re supposed to have with this thing, and then see whether the Supreme Court likes it or not.

John Hamilton: But, the way I’m reading this is, the way it’s going to be set up is that the new Council would actually have to approve any budgets, levy of taxes, establishment of fees, incurring of any new bonded indebtedness by any of these, unless I’m reading it wrong.

Councilmember Adams: I agree with you, Mr. Hamilton. Unfortunately, if we have enough vaguerity, I’m afraid that the public will react and we won’t even get to a Metro Council.

John Hamilton: Well, I was just asking if this is what you were looking for, or if you’re asking me to look at something more.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I just, I mean, maybe I’m going to reiterate the same thing that John just said. As I heard that you were interested in perhaps having a member of the Metro Council be on each one of these subsidiary boards so that we would know that the, somehow the Metro Council knows what those boards are doing and they can’t just run off and do whatever they want to do. This section, 3.1.4, requires that the Metro Council approve whatever those subsidiary boards do with regard to levying taxes, adopting fees and so forth. Which makes it redundant really to have somebody from the Council be on the board, because the Council’s going to have to approve what the board did after it does it.

Councilmember Adams: So, the Redevelopment Commission would have to come to the Metro Council to get approval for spending millions of dollars?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes, under this section.

Councilmember Adams: Thank you. Okay.

Councilmember McGinn: But, again, isn’t this just limited to the three, I’m talking about if a guy on a board hires his brother-in-law to dig ditches and put in water lines, you know, I mean, that’s just totally off the wall. That’s not in here. It’s not the day to day contracts that are in there. This is levy, budgets and bond indebtedness, which–

John Hamilton: Okay, if you’re getting into contracts, then you’re getting into separation of powers. Has that been addressed, Mike? I mean, is that something you feel like, when you talk about changing the powers of executive versus legislative? You know, it’s normally an executive power to make and enter into contracts, and the legislative does not have that authority, are you suggesting that we even have the power to change the separation of powers as defined by state law?

Becky Kasha: No, I don’t think we–

John Hamilton: Yeah, it’s in the Constitution. It’s even Constitutional.

Becky Kasha: I think, we don’t have that opportunity–

John Hamilton: I don’t think–

Becky Kasha: –I have to say this is not something that the committee even thought about.

John Hamilton: Right.

Becky Kasha: So, addressing questions about this, it’s a little hard for us to answer, because it’s not something that we ever really considered asking those 11 people to serve on these 60 boards or something.

John Hamilton: I’ll look at it, Councilman, but my opinion right now is I don’t think you can enter, cross that separation of powers.

Councilmember McGinn: Well, that’s, I don’t want to go there either, you know, that’s a whole other course, but, again, that’s why I thought the possibility of an ex-officio member of every board that is an elected body. Because it’s the asking of questions that, what I hear, what I know is lacking at the board level on some areas.

President Winnecke: Anything else in section three?

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, I have something else in section three.

President Winnecke: Sure, go ahead.

Commissioner Abell: No geographic districts for at large members. The three at large candidates who receive the highest number of votes regardless of what voting district they reside in shall be elected. Currently, at large Commissioners have to live in a certain area.

Becky Kasha: That’s true.

Commissioner Abell: This theoretically you could, I live on Stringtown Road, which would be the Fifth Ward, I could run for the Councilmatic District in the Fifth Ward, and the other three people running at large could live across the street from me and all four of us could be on one street and get elected. I don’t think that’s a good form of government.

Becky Kasha: I don’t–

Commissioner Melcher: That’s what we have now.

Commissioner Abell: Not in the Commission we don’t.

President Winnecke: The city it does.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, the city does, but the Commissioners don’t. Well, you know, if we’re going to have combined, I mean, I think the Commissioners have some part here that I think...I just think that’s a bad idea.

Becky Kasha: That, there was some discussion about that in the committee, but we felt that whoever gets the highest number of votes should win, regardless of where they live. That was the feeling of the majority of the people on the....I mean, reasonable minds can differ, certainly, and there are pros and cons to both of that, but that’s the way we came down.

Commissioner Abell: Well, that speaks back to Connie’s concern that the minorities would be left out, because, you know, people could, people in one area could all decide to get four votes from one area. I think that that really opens itself up to have some real problems.

Becky Kasha: Well, and conversely three people from the Fourth Ward could run and be elected for at large.

Commissioner Abell: Well, oh, I understand, but that doesn’t make it right either direction.

Becky Kasha: That’s true, and whoever runs against those three people who live next door to each other doesn’t mention that in their campaign literature, I suppose that’s a....I just really guess I trust the voters a little bit to make wiser decisions.

Commissioner Abell: Ooh.

Becky Kasha: Oh, okay. Well, sorry–

Commissioner Abell: Run a campaign sometime.

Becky Kasha: Excuse me?

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible) campaign (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Okay, any, going on, we’ve discussed the number of district seats. Do we, any more points on that? We’ve discussed, to some degree, the issue of term limits. Any other issues there? Compensation?

Adrian Brooks: Pardon me, committee, Commissioners and City Council.

Becky Kasha: Come on up.

Adrian Brooks: I was against this number.

Becky Kasha: I was waiting for you.

Adrian Brooks: So, I don’t want you to think that we are just a big, happy, unified group over here. We do have differences of opinion. We respect the work that Ms. Kasha has done, and she’s led us well, but we have a number of differences of opinion about, for instance, the number of Council people. We’ve always felt that the way it is presented would dilute the influence of both those who live in rural areas and those of us who live in the center city. We wanted more Councilmembers, because we felt that it would create a micro political dynamic where people would feel like they had representation. Currently, whether you agree with me or not, when it comes to County Council, County Commission, those of us who live in the city really are not that, feel that represented by those two bodies, to be very candid with you. We feel like we get assessed, we pay our taxes, but in terms of what do we get for those dollars in representation and interaction, it’s very little. So, and I think the county feels that way as this plan goes forward. We’ve developed a quite tight network with our friends in some of the rural areas over needing more representation. We like 15, but if you tossed around 18 or 20, I don’t think any of us would be upset about it. That’s, I’m just being honest, because we feel like if this plan goes into effect with 11 representatives, that a lot of us would not have effective, interactive levels of representation. That is how we feel about this issue. There are other issues that you will discuss that I’ll be happy to come back up here and be the dissenter on. There are a few other issues I dissent, but this is one of them. This is not any disrespect to anyone. It is my perspective as a member of the committee that was given the task of putting this together.

Councilmember Bredhold: Reverend, I have a question. Did I hear Mr. Schopmeyer make the opposite point? That the more people you add to that body, the more diluted minority populations would be? Don’t you think there’s a point in that?

Adrian Brooks: Well, sometimes we say things and I disagree with them. I’ll just put it that way, without being a long winded Baptist preacher, I just disagree. I’ve looked at case studies that indicate that the more representation you have, the happier the electorate is because they feel like they have a voice. If you dilute that and you allow 11 people to cover our whole county, I think that those who are in the rural area, and I’m just going by conversations I had with some of my dear friends at the Hornville Tavern. That’s right, the Reverend went to the tavern and a few other places. In those discussions there was some concern about not having enough representation.

Councilmember Adams: You will never find a lack of opinion from Debbie Schneider who owns Hornville Tavern.

Adrian Brooks: Yes, sir.

Councilmember Adams: She’s a dear old friend of mine.

Adrian Brooks: Well, it was a great experience, good food, and I wouldn’t have any problems with having three, four African Americans on a city-county Metro Council. I wouldn’t have any problem with having more female representation, Latino representation, representation from the lesbian/gay community. I think everybody needs to have representation here. The rural community needs to have adequate representation, and I don’t think that this plan addresses our concern. That’s my opinion, mine only. That’s all.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Adrian. Section three, any other comments before we move on? Everybody comfortable their questions have been answered there? Section four, the judicial branch? No significant changes there.

Becky Kasha: If I may.

President Winnecke: Yes.

Becky Kasha: We have received some input from the Circuit Court and the Superior Court, their Chief Judges who aren’t interested in changing the concept, but interested in changing the wording, because the judges truly are a state agency. So, that, where you, the plan doesn’t recommend any changes in how things are doing, or how things are provided through the court system, but the language of the plan isn’t correct. So, that’s going to have to be amended to provide that they’ll remain agencies of the State of Indiana, but the combined government would provide facilities and personnel and such as they do now. The upshot of that doesn’t change.

President Winnecke: Right. Okay, section five, elected offices other than Mayor and Common Council. This is where we get into the issue of the Constitutional offices. Becky, talk a little bit about the election cycles. Would they remain in different years, as the proposed Metro government?

Becky Kasha: The county, the nine county offices mentioned in section 5.1 would stay on their current election cycles.

President Winnecke: Okay, thank you. What about the legal needs of these county offices? Currently under the Commissioners, the County Attorney under the auspices of the County Commissioners provides legal counsel to them. What about going forward, would they fall under the Mayor’s legal counsel? Or was there thought to that?

Becky Kasha: No, I don’t think that we addressed that point.

President Winnecke: Okay. Also, this section outlines that the City Clerk’s office is eliminated and how those duties are dispersed among other offices. I wasn’t sure what 5.4 really means.

Becky Kasha: I think that’s just a catch all situation so that we have assigned certain duties to certain officials, but if there is something that needs to be accomplished that isn’t already in a statutorily defined office, then that, just like it is today, that’s something that’s picked up by a department, a board, a commission, an agency and that sort of thing.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: Would you not think that the Metro Council should approve those disbursement of responsibilities with the Mayor?

Becky Kasha: Our feeling was that that was an executive branch decision, so that’s, it was more appropriately in the office of the Mayor.

Councilmember Adams: But, you don’t think you might consider the possibility of the Metro Council approving those assignments?

Becky Kasha: Again, it’s an issue of the Mayor would decide how the particular operation needed to be handled. If there was a department, just like now in the city, then a department would be created. I don’t think the City Council approves departments now, and I don’t, as a legislative function that wouldn’t be in their, under their purview. Boards and commissions, agencies, authorities, I do believe that there are situations where the City Council does create boards and agencies. So, I guess that could occur, and that doesn’t mean, I guess, from time to time that this city, that the Common Council would do that.

Councilmember Adams: Well, what I’m hearing, again, from my constituents, that people are afraid of the concentration power of the Metro Mayor. I would think in anyway that we could dispel that fear, enhances the possibility that this measure may pass.

Becky Kasha: Alright.

President Winnecke: Any other questions or discussion on section five? Section six discusses the financial planning and the budgeting process.

Becky Kasha: Just another clerical point of order. In section 6.2 in that last full sentence, we say that certain duties would be assumed by the County Auditor and the County Treasurer, that probably ought to say Combined Government Auditor and Treasurer, just not have any modification at all.

Councilmember Adams: I would suggest that under 6.3.4 that the Common Council also be able to decrease a line item. I think that we need to have the Metro Council be a true legislative body that really does have a chance to effect changes in the budget, as we have at the state level.

Councilman John: We already have that authority. We can decrease or eliminate budget items right now.

Councilmember Adams: Well, I mean, what I would like to see us do is be much more active about how we go line by line through the thing. So, that we can alter the budget as we send it back to the Mayor. I want more strength from the Metro Council is basically what I’m saying.

Becky Kasha: Yeah.

Councilman John: Right now we’ve got all of those abilities with the exception of adding–

Becky Kasha: Right.

Councilman John: –we can make recommendations–

Becky Kasha: Yep.

Councilman John: –but under state statute we can’t add.

Councilmember Adams: We can’t add to the bottom line though. We can’t suggest that the budget be higher.

Councilman John: That’s what I’m saying.

Councilmember Adams: In toto.

Councilman John: We can’t increase it, but we can eliminate it or decrease it under the current state statutes.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah. Well, I’m trying to make the point that we do need to make the Metro Council more powerful in terms of the money.

Becky Kasha: Well, this is merely, and actually it’s an increase in the power of the Common Council, because that’s not something that can currently be done now. Because, obviously, you can decrease, you do it all the time, it’s not mentioned here, but this was an attempt to expand, and I just, probably that needs to be clarified so we’re not implying that you’re no longer allowed to decrease. So, that’s a point taken.

President Winnecke: Becky, what’s the mechanism for an additional appropriation during the course of the year, after the budget’s been approved? Or anyone on the committee.

Becky Kasha: What I’m, I don’t think that’s anything that’s statutory. I don’t think that was something that was, that we proposed how that would be handled. I guess, that’s–

President Winnecke: So, Ted or John, would that just be the same process? For additional appropriations?

John Hamilton: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Okay. Any other questions on section six? Section seven, tax rates and service districts?

Councilmember Adams: I guess I would have a question on legal counsel. Do you think it would be possible to have the same tax rate, property tax rate all over the Metro area?

John Hamilton: Possibly.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, can we effect a change where we would have the same tax rate all over the Metro area?

John Hamilton: You’re talking about in this Plan of Reorganization?

Councilmember Adams: Yes.

John Hamilton: I would think the answer to that would be yes. Is it possible? I believe yes.

Councilmember Adams: The reason I’m asking is it is in conjunction with getting rid of the sewer kicker for the people outside of the city. If you take away something, you’ve got to give something back. I would think there are some people that are paying more property taxes than others.

Becky Kasha: I would, I believe I understand your point, but I would point out that because existing debt has to be carried forward by the entities that incurred the debt, that, for that reason, the rates can’t be exactly the same, and that there are services provided in some parts of the Combined Government that wouldn’t be provided in others. It wouldn’t be fair to ask people to pay for services they don’t receive. So, that’s why we did the urban services district and the general services district. I mean, as a concept, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, but I think there’s just, those two factors have to be taken into consideration.

President Winnecke: Who else?

Becky Kasha: If you have issues, Mr. Hafer did a considerable amount of work on the sewer issue, if you have some specific issues.

Commissioner Abell: I have questions on the sewer.

Becky Kasha: Okay.

Commissioner Abell: I could be reading this wrong, but in reading this it talks about the general services district, and, right now, I think, the Town of Darmstadt owns their sewer and they bill their residents. Is that correct?

Ed Hafer: That’s correct.

Commissioner Abell: But, the City of Evansville sends the residents of Darmstadt a water bill?

Ed Hafer: That’s correct.

Commissioner Abell: Okay. It says the general services district, that the general services district includes all real property within that boundary, including the property within the Town of Darmstadt. So, does that mean that they’re going to be billed for their sewer by the Town of Darmstadt, but then we’re also going to bill them for a portion of the sewer on top of that?

Ed Hafer: Sewers don’t have anything to do with service districts. Service districts are relative to taxes. Sewers are paid for by fees.

Commissioner Abell: So, they will continue with their sewer exactly like it is, and this won’t affect it in any way, even though it talks about the Town of Darmstadt?

Ed Hafer: That’s correct.

Commissioner Abell: Okay, because they had questions about that.

Ed Hafer: Okay.

President Winnecke: Any questions relative to the make up of the general and urban services district, districts?

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) The gradual change that you wanted in part to go to those districts I thought was very fair, and I thought your definitions of the service districts were excellent.

President Winnecke: On section 7.4.1, page 10, talking about the manner in which the general service district could be expanded. Excuse me, yes, the manner in which the urban services district could be expanded, what would be the harm, in the committees opinion, by deleting section two of that, which allows the city administration, the Metro, the Combined Government’s administration, or Council, to start the process versus just having a petition by a majority of the residents in the area? Yeah, that’s essentially an annexation sort of question.

Ed Hafer: What was the first sentence of your question?

President Winnecke: What would be the harm or difficulty by removing section two of that clause, which allows the city to basically expand the urban services district versus just having a majority of those residents asking to be expanded into the district?

Ed Hafer: I don’t think there’s any harm in it. It was really there to sort of a retroactive if an area is receiving all of the services, then the Common Council or the Mayor can say you need to be part of the urban district. You’re already receiving them, you’re paying the taxes for them, it’s, you know, it’s a, in a sense kind of a non-event at that point.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Ed Hafer: It is really to be sort of the opposite of annexation where, you know, the city goes out and says we’re going to annex this and we’re going to provide it. In this case, if the city has provided all of the services from an urban services district into the general services district, outside the urban services district, got that? Then it would just be automatic. So, I don’t think there’s any harm at all in, at that point it’s strictly a matter of titling.

President Winnecke: Right.

Mike Schopmeyer: I would debate that.

Ed Hafer: Alright.

Mike Schopmeyer: You knew I would. City annexation power you pointed to, but let’s take a case in point, I-164 corridor. We don’t have sewers all up and down that. We’ve taken them to Warrick County, up above Darmstadt, and you have a desire, you as a Council, or the Mayor, to take that up there, and when you do you’re going to go right past these areas that need to be served. I think a good case study of this is what, I believe the Commissioners just dealt with with the Barrett Law for the neighborhood that wanted the sewers. What did we end up doing in the end? We didn’t end up having the petition take effect, but we ended, didn’t we end up with the government, in effect, the executive or legislative branch taking the sewers up there? So, what happens is that having been, representing a lot of neighborhoods in petitions, that that majority vote is very difficult to come by sometimes. Yet, you still have a public need to get those services there. Primarily, I doubt if it will be trash collection. If it’s trash collection I would agree with Ed. Just leave it to number one, but there are a lot of other services that become important. For example, if industry goes along that interstate, a good portion of it, the south side’s our county, you have to have certain fire protection for industry to go in there. They may require it to be city fire versus a volunteer fire department that serves. So, I would, as an attorney, and I would respect my colleagues opinion, I’m not sure I would, as a government attorney, want you to take away that ability to do that, because there’s times in which, unforeseen, that you or the Mayor may need that. It happens all the time. I just used your example. I mean, at the end of the day, I watched it on t.v. hours after hours after hours that the Barrett failed. So, you’re leaving yourself to Barrett only for police, fire, sewer, water, which are critical services. The rest of it, trash collection, the others are less important. I forget what the other, trash collection, bus service, street lights, well, those could be left to (a), but I think police, fire, sewer, water, I’m not sure I would take that power away from those four. That’s just my advice.

President Winnecke: Any other questions in section seven? Section eight, appointed agencies of the combined government?

Commissioner Abell: Commissioner Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes, ma’am?

Commissioner Abell: 8.3, I would just like to reiterate that it says that with regard to any board, commission, agency, authority created under the effective date of the Combined Government, a majority of all appointments thereto shall belong to the Mayor of the combined government. I think that’s the statement that many of us have had objection to. It still gives the majority of the power to the Mayor, and not to the Common Council.

President Winnecke: Anything else in eight? Dan?

Councilmember McGinn: Just a question, do we have, does this body, City Council, do we have the power to remove a Mayoral appointment to a board? Or is that a department head that we have the power to remove? Does anyone know off hand? John?

John Hamilton: Remove an appointment?

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah.

John Hamilton: Or a department head?

Councilmember McGinn: Well, either a department head or a–

President Watts: We could zero out his salary, but I don’t we can (Inaudible).

Councilmember McGinn: Okay.

President Watts: Our option would be to set their salary at zero dollars.

John Hamilton: I don’t think you can remove an appointment any more than he could remove someone that the Council had the power to appoint.

Councilmember McGinn: That’s what I’m asking.

John Hamilton: Usually it’s the appointing authority that can remove.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay.

Councilmember Adams: Could you have a resolution of no confidence? I guess you could have a resolution for anything.

John Hamilton: I mean, it’s not binding.

Councilmember Adams: Right. Yep.

President Winnecke: Okay, section nine, consolidation of city and county departments?

Commissioner Abell: I have a comment on nine also.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Commissioner Abell: And this is just something that I would like for the Council to consider. If this does in fact become our form of government, we’ve been dealing with on the county level the request for bus service of the Highway 41 north corridor to the businesses that employ people up there. If we’re going to have a consolidated form of government, I would like to see us at least take a look at our bus routes, so that if we can in fact get people to jobs that now cannot get there because they don’t have transportation it does need to be something we need to look at.

President Watts: I would echo that city-wide. I think as things start to disperse, if this passes, it’s the perfect time to say, hey, what’s working and what’s not? Let’s revamp the routes that aren’t getting used, and the routes that do need more access, I think it’s the perfect time to do it.

President Winnecke: Can we talk about, in this section, Department of Transportation Services is discussed whereas the City Engineer, the County Engineer, the County Garage Superintendent all fall into the auspices of the Division of Transportation Services. Law enforcement is in this section. Surely there’s going to be some questions or discussion about law enforcement.

President Watts: Do I read this correctly? Is there going to be a City Engineer and a County Engineer under one Transportation Department?

President Winnecke: Yes.

President Watts: It would be two–

President Winnecke: Correct, there would be two engineers.

President Watts: I’m a little confused by that, I guess.

President Winnecke: I’m just saying that’s what it says. I’m just saying what it says.

Commissioner Melcher: I had a question on that too. I marked a bunch of them, but this is one. It should just be one engineer, I would think. Then, I also don’t think it ought to be under Transportation. I think the engineer ought to answer to the Mayor. I think that ought to be separate. Working on both sides of the aisle now, I know it has to be separate. I would say the same thing with the garages. If we combine the highway, if we’re combining the highway and the city garage together, that person should answer to the Mayor.

Councilman John: Correct me if I’m wrong, what this is basically saying is those departments that now exist as City Engineer, County Engineer, County Garage, will be combined into the Department of Transportation.

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, and that–

Councilman John: It doesn’t say they’re going to be separate. They’re all going to become one.

Commissioner Melcher: And, that’s what I assumed too.

President Winnecke: I didn’t really read that.

President Watts: That’s what I misread.

Commissioner Melcher: But, I don’t think they ought to be under the Department of Transportation Services. That’s my opinion, and we could discuss that.

President Winnecke: Where did you think it ought to go?

Commissioner Melcher: I think it ought to just be a department head and be straight under the Mayor.

Ed Hafer: A Department of Engineering?

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, Department of Engineering, Department of the Highway Garages, city and highway garage. They should be answered straight. They shouldn’t have to go through, there shouldn’t be another body in between them. They ought to be able to, you know, we’re the, Councilmembers, I know County Council doesn’t, but we get calls all the time about snow and everything. I don’t want to go through two or three different people. I would rather be able to go to one, or two, but not three or four.

Ed Hafer: Isn’t this the way it currently is structured in the city?

Commissioner Melcher: It is in the city, but not in the county.

Ed Hafer: Yeah.

Commissioner Melcher: And the county is working great. I was on the city for a long time, this part works better the way the county does it. In my opinion it does.

President Winnecke: Law enforcement? Silence fell in the room. I don’t believe this for a second. I know Reverend Brooks has something he would like to say about it. He’s already warming up.

Councilmember Adams: I’ve really thought long and hard about this, and I think that if this section of the Police and Sheriff merger is in this, it will destroy this issue. I think we should not, at this point, put the Sheriff and the Police Department together. I think both individuals have indicated initially that they would like to be left alone. I think there are good reasons for that. I think, at this juncture, again, I would think this should not be a part of the merger document.

Barbara Harris: Good evening. Barbara Harris. One of the major reasons why we started thinking about this was the fact that we were trying to in some way help keep the costs down. Some of the things that are in the plan aren’t necessarily going to save money. We could probably save money here by having one person at the top rather than two. By state statute we have a Sheriff, and the Sheriff has the ability to do not only patrol outside the city, but, obviously, he could still do that inside the city. Go ahead.

Councilmember Adams: I’m all in favor of keeping the Constitutionality of the Sheriff’s Department. I just have never seen a smaller group of maybe a hundred and whatever it is, a hundred and, I’m not real sure of the number, let’s say 110, take over basically a group of 360, unless the smaller group had venture capital. I think right now, honestly, it’s sort of a, something that’s gone astray in terms of a beauty pageant between the two individuals, very good people who are doing their job–

Barbara Harris: That was not our intent at all.

Councilmember Adams: Well, I think the relationship between the Police and the Fireman are about the worst that it’s been in about 20 years right now, and all I’m trying to do is take it off the burner and just leave it the way it is and let three to five years go by and have the Metro Council look at it and so forth and so on. There are lots of places who do not have the thing. I’ve talked to somebody who was in Indianapolis, and they’re still fighting it out up there.

Barbara Harris: I would comment on the phraseology about a smaller unit taking over a larger unit. That’s not what would be doing here. You wouldn’t take those members of the Sheriff’s Department and say, okay, now you have to take care of all of the city too. It would be a consolidation of all of the policeman in the city and the Sheriff’s deputies in the non-city area into one unit. Those people, those policemen in the city would very, very likely keep the same jobs, the same routine. Have you read the plan, our vision of the combined?

Councilmember Adams: Yes, ma’am, I have, three times, and I think you’d better talk to some of the police in the city, because they–

Barbara Harris: Well, that’s not what, we–

Councilmember Adams: They totally disagree with you.

Barbara Harris: Okay, but do you see where we were coming from is what I’m asking?

Councilmember Adams: Yes, ma’am, I do.

Barbara Harris: Where we’re coming from is we’re trying to save money–

Councilmember Adams: But, I just think right now the people in the city are petrified, for example, that they are going to lose their CPO’s. Whether it’s true or not, I don’t know.

Barbara Harris: Not true.

Councilmember Adams: Well, you don’t know that.

Barbara Harris: That’s not the plan.

Councilmember Adams: You don’t know that.

Barbara Harris: It was never the plan to take anything away from the city structure.

Councilmember Adams: You don’t know that.

Adrian Brooks: Without getting into that debate, you, both bodies, have an opportunity to create a progressive model. That model could remain the same, or you could look at some other models that we tossed around with a Police Commissioner set up. We also tossed around a Public Safety Commissioner set up, so that the two law enforcement bodies would remain separate. So, those were models that were tossed around. So, since you have the final say so, if the plan was submitted, some of us developed heartburn over, you obviously have heartburn over it–

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

Adrian Brooks: –so, what we’re saying is, if you don’t agree, then here’s an opportunity, I think, for us to use your creative genius’, your creative minds, to come up with something that you think will be more palatable to the people you represent. We would embrace that. Thank you.

Councilmember Adams: Thank you.

President Winnecke: Any other questions?

President Watts: Did we hear from any other places that had combined law enforcement? I mean, I don’t–

Adrian Brooks: We looked at case studies from combined law enforcement. We also looked at those who remained separate. There were pros and cons in both instances. The statistical data that you looked at, in both instances could support leaving them alone, it could support combining them. Who, it was hard to tell, we were in the midst of recovering from a recession, so there were some communities that were harder hit and you saw spikes in criminal activity. So, it was hard to know if the combined law enforcement was a part of the problem, or if it was simply the economy. So, I mean, the timing of our assessments has to be considered as well.

President Watts: Yeah, and I asked, correct me if I’m wrong, I believe Indianapolis, when they did this, the Sheriff originally–

Adrian Brooks: Right.

President Watts: –took over as proposed in here?

Adrian Brooks: Yes, sir.

President Watts: And, didn’t, did they go back and amend that now?

Adrian Brooks: I think that there was a reversal, yes, sir. I also want to point out that, I mean, you know, we looked at the plans that were presented by both our able Chief and our able Sheriff. The plan that the Chief actually submitted pointed out a savings of about four million that he saw in potential merging of the systems with, you know, going forward. So, I would encourage you to look at those two plans, and perhaps come up with a creative model that our community in totality can embrace.

President Watts: I’m in no doubt questioning, I see our, I don’t know if Brad’s here or not, but I see our Sheriff.

Adrian Brooks: I think the Chief is here.

President Watts: Okay, I apologize to you.

Adrian Brooks: Yeah, they’re both back there. That’s how well they get along. I mean, you know, they’re both back there together now. They both have been two gentlemen in this process. I want to commend them for that.

President Watts: I certainly don’t claim to know more than a tenth of what those guys bring to the table, but what we have are two separate departments now, when it comes to public safety, I’ve never, ever had a complaint that says the Sheriff or the Police Department’s not done their job, and it seems so simple to me. That’s why I’m a little confused by this one. Again, I’ve not spent the time that you guys have on it, but kind of where I come from, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It seems that both of those departments absolutely are world class. My fear is that if you’ve got two great players and you mix them up, it may not work out the way that we want it to.

Adrian Brooks: We present, we’ve always said that we have two outstanding law enforcement agencies in the Evansville Police Department and in our County Sheriff’s Department. Nobody disagrees with that at all. I think there is an opportunity for you to allay the fears of the constituency with your creativity.

President Watts: Thank you, sir.

President Winnecke: Anything else on section nine? Hearing none, we’ll move on to section ten, the transition? I think it, maybe it would be helpful for the combined bodies to hear just sort of an explanation, sort of the Reader’s Digest version of what the transition committee will do, when its clock will start, when its work is done, etcetera.

Becky Kasha: The statute that we’re working under provides for the transition board, or what we’ve called it, I’m trying to find it, a transition board. The transition board basically steps in and tries to get the new government settled in before they would take office. So, that they can hit the ground running, if you will. So, we put together this transition board, two members of City Council, two from County Council, the Mayor, one of the County Commissioners, and someone else selected by the County Commissioners, and someone else selected by the Mayor, a member of the Police Department, the Sheriff, two members of the reorganization committee, one selected by the Mayor and one selected by the County Commissioners, and then if there were other people that the board felt was appropriate to add that by majority vote they could add people to that committee. If you go down to section 10.2, by statute, these are the duties that the transition board would have. This would go into effect 60 days after the plan is voted by, voted in by the referendum, by the voters in a referendum. So, the specific duties of the transition board would be to establish the boundaries of the districts of the Common Council, as we talked about before, so, we would be looking at whatever the most current data would be at the time to make those districts conform to state statute, which requires that all districts have essentially equal populations, contiguous, reasonably compact. So, for example, you couldn’t have a district that, you know, was a mile all the way around the border of the county, or something silly like that. So, within the limits imposed by the State Constitution and the state statutes, they would put together the boundaries of the districts, they would adopt tax levies, tax rates, and the budget for the first year of the operation of the Combined Government. So, that’s what the transition board does.

President Winnecke: Really, there weren’t, am I misunderstanding, is their work really over a two year period, Becky?

Becky Kasha: Let me see here.

President Winnecke: I guess, that’s kind of my confusion.

Councilmember Adams: It doesn’t form until the referendum passes, obviously.

Becky Kasha: Yes, it would–

President Winnecke: ‘13 and ‘14.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

Becky Kasha: Right, we envision them, this starting 60 days after a referendum would pass, and then their work would conclude then when the new office, elected officers were sworn in.

Commissioner Melcher: So, basically, it takes effect the second or third, or whatever that date is in January 2013 and goes to the end of December 2014?

Becky Kasha: Right, that’s the way we envisioned it.

Commissioner Melcher: Okay.

Becky Kasha: And, certainly, the transition board–

President Watts: I would just throw out there that, and I apologize for missing this, and correct me, with the adopting of tax levies, I have a little bit of a problem with appointments by members.

Becky Kasha: By what?

President Watts: Appointments of someone that’s not an elected official. Like the City Council appointing two City Council members, that’s great, but an appointment by the Mayor, or an appointment by the County Commissioners that’s not an elected official, who’s going to set tax levies and tax rates concerns me a little. What was, was there a number, or was there something you were trying to get to with the transition? I mean, are we trying to get expertise in all of these different areas?

Becky Kasha: No, I mean, we examined a variety of models, and, frankly, I don’t, this is one of those things I think there could be very many right answers to what this could be.

President Watts: Okay.

President Winnecke: This could be–

President Watts: And, Mike, because this is where you’re talking about this answers the question I asked a while ago?

Mike Schopmeyer: Exactly.

Becky Kasha: Right.

President Watts: Okay.

Mike Schopmeyer: That’s the one you asked earlier, and it’s provided for under 1.5-4-7, they call it joint board, we elected to call it transition board. And, besides the budget, which is the issue you eluded to, that’s the big one–

President Watts: Yeah.

Mike Schopmeyer: –which, you know, would you want them to work on the ‘13 budget? You may not. You may say ‘13, well, that’s for ‘14, or ‘13 you’re doing ‘14's, you may say, well, let’s just leave it the way it is now. But, certainly for the ‘14 come ‘15, I would think you would want to have this board.

President Watts: Have that in place.

Mike Schopmeyer: This is also sort of as a sweep up, even though this thing seems voluminous, it’s 40 pages, realize that section 36 of the Code is, you know, real thin paper this thick. So, this also exists to sweep up for those issues that we may not have contemplated, like, you know, you talked about the appointment of the boards, issues like that. Those kind of issues that, we can’t contemplate everything. If you go ahead with law enforcement, that’s why you see the law enforcement officials here, and then we included the executive branch, because they’re going to tender a budget, I mean, the budget still starts with them. So, that was the thought that it gave a two year period, this is something that’s all together new. It gives you time, in two years, for a statutory fix.

President Watts: Then, all those would have to come back to the bodies to be approved, any statutory changes?

Mike Schopmeyer: Well, you know, you’re a creature of the State of Indiana, so some of these might–

President Watts: Okay.

Mike Schopmeyer: –you know, you don’t have great Home Rule power in Indiana. You may need to go to the General Assembly. This committee gives you a two year period, well, Mr. Avery is here, it would be used to serve to go to them and say, hey, we need this fixed. For example, the board appointments, that would be an example where you could possibly work through those changes. Realize, this is going to be the first government in Indiana, in the 92 counties like this, I mean, you’re crafting your own, we have been given the power by the General Assembly to craft our own. That’s amazing. I mean, that’s really pretty fascinating. So, that’s why this is in here, because there’s going to be a lot of loose ends you need to work through. John and I were talking today, we had a question on how do we do this? This is different. So, that’s why it exists.

Becky Kasha: I would point out that the only budget or tax levies that this group would work on would be the one for the first year of the Combined Government. They may start working on it well in advance of that. There are probably several ways to put this together. It could be that the transition board of the non-elected people can’t vote on financial issues, something like that. I think there are ways to address those fears, because people had mentioned that to me in talking too, that it wasn’t appropriate to have non-elected people making those kind of decisions. I think that’s a valid concern.

President Winnecke: Steve?

Commissioner Melcher: I think we could discuss this later, because aren’t you going to ask kind of a committee from each side to work on some of these problems to come back?

President Winnecke: Yes.

Commissioner Melcher: Okay, because I believe and as, kind of Marsha said it earlier, when we’re voting on this plan, I think everybody ought to understand where everybody’s going to be coming from. Not a transition committee to do it a year after they voted yes or no. Or, yes, it would have been in this case. So, I think we need to know exactly if it’s going to be 11, 15 or what’s it’s going to be and where they’re coming from.

Becky Kasha: Well, I don’t think that the transition, I see your point, but I don’t think, the transition committee couldn’t decide to have a different number of districts, but they will be the ones who adopt the districts. You know, does the line go here, or does the line go there? You know, the boundaries of the districts, not the number of the districts. It’s, that kind of authority is not in the hands of the transition committee, but, by statute, the statute that we’re working under, that’s one of the duties that are assigned to this transition committee is to put together the boundaries.

Commissioner Melcher: But, that’s after the election. I mean, that’s after they vote for it.

Becky Kasha: Right, but, I can’t help that. I mean, that’s the way the statute is, and, to your point, using the more, the most current population data we have.

Commissioner Melcher: No, we, from the beginning we always knew we were going to have to use the new census.

Becky Kasha: Right.

Commissioner Melcher: I think Bill Jeffers did a great job just giving you what you requested, because all he was trying to do was hit a stage to start with. That was an easy stage to start with. City Council represents 21,600 now, it’s one of the best in the state as far as being equal. So, I think that was the stage to start with. So, I think that was a good deal, but I do think it comes down to, when you start doing these districts, we probably need to know where they’re going to be at. The transition board then maybe should just be some kind of wording, whatever is voted on, if the vote is yes, then they have to accept what the drawing has already been. Then, once the new Council gets there, they’ve got the powers to change it. It don’t have to be every ten years.

Becky Kasha: I don’t know how often that is. I would have to defer to your expertise on that.

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, they could change it. They will change it as time goes on. So, we just need a model or something, I think, with all of the current information. I think that’s something we can start working on right away.

President Winnecke: Other questions regarding the transition section of the plan? Hearing none, we’ll move on to the amendment section. Any questions here? Dan?

Councilmember Adams: I’m sorry to, I’ve wondered, 11.2.1, membership and appointments, the plan review commission, and I just couldn’t figure out why the Circuit Court Judge had three appointments to the plan review commission.

Becky Kasha: I’m straining my memory here. My recollection was that it seemed to us that that was, the well respected people who maybe didn’t have a dog in the hunt.

Certainly, again, this is one of those, there’s lots of ways this could be accomplished, I believe. We, threw out, what we thought was our best effort, and, certainly, there are other ways to come about this. But, I will say, we initially had thought about having this, any changes in this go back to a referendum vote, but our legal counsel informed us that you cannot have things go to a referendum vote unless it’s provided for in state statute. So, that wasn’t an option for us. That is something a lot of people have asked us to do, and we agreed it made sense if that’s the mechanism that started it, that’s the mechanism that ought to be employed to change it, but that, oddly enough, is not an option. That’s not to say that the legislature may not change that in coming, well, weeks, months, years, but for the moment that’s not an option as far as we’ve been made to understand.

Councilmember Adams: I guess, I would comment that the Circuit Judge three appointments might not have a dog in the hunt, but it also might end up like Russian roulette in that you might get three people that were opinionated, you just didn’t know their opinions until the time.

Becky Kasha: That may well be.

President Winnecke: Anything else under section 11? Section 12, just, not just, but a list of recommendations by the reorganization committee. Any questions or comments regarding the recommendations?

Commissioner Abell: I have a question on 12.7. It’s recommended that the Combined Government employ Certified Professional Engineers. In the Engineering Department, or for some other purpose? I don’t, what are we going to do with these people?

Becky Kasha: You’re right that could have been stated better. It should have said when we are hiring engineers, that they should be certified.

Commissioner Abell: Oh, okay.

Becky Kasha: Instead of lawyers, how about that?

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Becky Kasha: No, you know, when you write things sometimes you know what you mean, and then when other people read it, it’s not as clear, so I appreciate the comments.

President Winnecke: I think, maybe we’re at the point of wrapping up here, since it’s the next to last, it is the last page. The efficiency study recommendation I think is interesting, talk a little bit about the feelings on suggesting that, and how encompassing the committee expects that might be.

Becky Kasha: This was an idea that we got from some of the other cities we talked to, and, Ed in particular, had explored this with some of the other–

Ed Hafer: I think it probably started with Lexington, which has an efficiency study done every, I don’t know, 15 years or something like that where they come in and look at, you know, how government is functioning, how the community has changed and government needs to change with it. I would equate it to the efficiency study that was done a few years back by MGT, a company out of I forget where for the EVSC, where they looked at staffing and departments and salaries, and things they were doing in-house versus out of house and vice versa, and, you know, supposedly saved, you know, huge amounts of money for the School Corporation. You know, it is not, I think the committee, from the very beginning said, you know, we’re only going down to a certain level. It’s not up to us to dissect, you know, the Area Plan Commission’s methods and procedures and how they operate and what their fee structure is and these sorts of things. That’s just an example, across the board, but we did believe that that is something that should be done by the new government once they take office.

President Winnecke: Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Abell: Mr. Winnecke, I would–

President Winnecke: Yes?

Commissioner Abell: – if anyone is interested, there is a publication from the American Society for Public Administration. It has a website of arp.sagepub.com, and they did a study eight years after Louisville, Kentucky had their combined government, and they have published a report on it. It might be interesting reading. It’s an efficiency survey of some sort of Louisville, Kentucky.

President Winnecke: Could you repeat the website?

Commissioner Abell: It’s arp.sagepub.com.

President Winnecke: Thank you.

Ed Hafer: That’s good, and I just point out if you go to the Lexington-Fayette County government website, a copy of their latest efficiency study, which, I think, is only two years old is on there.

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) copies for everyone.

President Winnecke: Thank you, Bruce.

Bruce Ungenthiem: It cost you $25, so I saved you all a bunch of money.

President Winnecke: Any other comments from the Commissioners or the Councilmembers before we open it up to comments from the floor?

President Watts: I would just echo that after seeing the work that you’ve done and discussing, I’m even more impressed with the task that you took on, because there’s nothing easy about what you did. So, thank you all very, very much again. Regardless of anything that’s amended or what, I hope you know that we and your community certainly appreciate what you’ve done. So, thank you.

President Winnecke: Anyone else before we open it up to the floor?

President Winnecke: I would remind everyone that on April, I mean, on March 30^th at 5:30 in this room we will have an official public hearing for anyone who would like to come and express comments, suggestions or overall opinions. So, having said that, Bill Jeffers looks like he’s standing up first, so.

Bill Jeffers: I want to go home first and drink some of that delicious water. I’m thirsty. Just echoing Mr. Watts’ comments, I attended many of the meetings of the committee and watched it evolve, listened to all of the discussions, and it was, at times, grueling for them, and they did do a monumental job. Whether you agree with it or don’t agree with it, the credit belongs to the people that did the work. I’m sure that now you will amend it, either to make it better, or take it in the direction you want it to go. I’m going to reserve all my comments on a lot of things until the public meeting, because that’s where they belong, March 30^th. But, I do believe that this plan that’s in front of you tonight has a lot of defects, some of them are serious and some of them are very minor. I just want to go through here, real quickly, and point out some minor ones, save the serious ones for later. Some things I think might have been skipped over. Before I do that, I would like to say that Ms. Kasha and the committee described adequately and accurately what took place with the districting map. Their description was adequate and it was accurate. I may have sent an e-mail to Ms. Abell, I don’t recall the content, but that e-mail is a public document and anyone that wants to look at it can look at it and take the content, you know, for what it is. But, I don’t believe I said quite what was reflected here tonight, and my comments were made in the newspaper earlier this month and I’ll stand by them. Okay, on page three, under 1.3, boundaries of the Combined Government, usually the state wants a meets and bounds description, not a simple map. On page four, under 2.7, executive officers, the Mayor appoints all of these executive officers, and, excuse me, the text, the verbiage here is–

President Watts: Where are you again, Bill? I’m sorry.

Bill Jeffers: Page four, section 2.7, executive officers.

President Watts: Okay, thanks.

Bill Jeffers: Are excluded from civil service. Now, I don’t know about the City Council, I haven’t worked for the city since 1981, but the city, the County Council, and I’ve worked for the county since 1981, has a personnel policy that we all must follow. Mr. Ziemer is familiar with it, I assume being excluded from the civil service that that phraseology might indicate that the people the Mayor appoints as executive officers here don’t have to punch a time clock, don’t have to not drive their cars to another county, whatever. I think that’s a fault in the text. I think they should be held to the same personnel policy as anyone else that works for the county. Page five, section three, section 3.1.2, authority to establish fees. Certain fees for certain services are set by the state statute. I don’t care what this enabling statute says, the state’s not going to allow you change that. For example, the Recorder’s recording fee, Corner Perpetuation Fund, $5.00 per deed, those things are set by the state, should be recognized as such. Section, or, excuse me, page six, oh, I just had a little note here. I would like to point out, during the discussion of the at large members all being from the same neighborhood, Ms. Abell, Dr. Adams and Curt John, how close do you all live together?

Councilmember John: Dan Adams about a block, and, Marsha, what are you two or three blocks from me?

Commissioner Abell: About two, and Mr. Tornatta recently moved (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Councilmember John: I know a couple, three years ago Marsha, I mean, Angela Koehler-Walden lived about two blocks from where we live.

Bill Jeffers: Right, but you three are basically at large, a County Commissioner and two at large City Councilmembers live within a block or two of each other currently. All three of you are popular enough to be re-elected at large. Just a point of interest there. The reason that I brought that up is because some guys from Darmstadt said, you know, we could take over the whole county. You know, we could have a Mayor, and, we could elect a Mayor and three Council at large and one district person all from Darmstadt. Yeah, that could happen. Just, I’m just pointing that out, out of interest. I’m going to skip that one, because that’s not minor. Okay, page nine, section 7.4, it was said up here at the podium tonight that if all the services were extended to one of our neighborhoods out in the unincorporated county, which would be the general service district, if all of the services were extended to us, we should be in the, brought into the urban service district. I’m not arguing with that, but this plan does not say all, it does not use the word all services. There is no qualification or quantification in this plan as to which services, how many of them would have to be extended before you were eligible for annexation. I call it annexation, because as Commissioner Winnecke pointed out, section 7.4.1 (2) is an annexation, or enables annexation. It’s just another word. Page 12, under the composition of the transition board, and also page 13, same topic, it doesn’t say who appoints the attorney for the transition board. The legal counsel for the transition board. It doesn’t say who appoints the professional consultants for the board. It says of the board’s choosing. I’ve never heard of such a thing as the Mayor or the County Commissioners not selecting through a professional process, professional consultants or hiring an attorney. So, I don’t think you want to hand that power over to a transition board, even though there are members of your body on that board. Page 15, section 10.8.3, there is no drainage code in the county, or, excuse me, in the city. The county has had a drainage code since 1994. I don’t believe the city has ever adopted a drainage code or a policy for storm water control. So, that might, you might want to adjust the language in here so that when you have a consolidated government, if you have a consolidated municipality there is a drainage code, county-wide, that is the same.

Becky Kasha: Is that something that could be added?

President Winnecke: Deleted.

Bill Jeffers: I just have a note out here to the side. I’m getting blurry vision here. I don’t know what it really says, but I know that the city does not have a drainage code, and if you want to combine governments you should have a code that applies to the entire county.

President Winnecke: Oh, I see where you are.

Bill Jeffers: Or the entire municipality. That’s all the little, minor glitches that I noticed that you all passed over, and I thought that I would bring those to your attention if it was okay.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Bill. Just kind of start lining up if you would like.

Bruce Blackford: Hello, my name is Bruce Blackford. I’m with Vanderburgh County Farm Bureau. The Evansville-Vanderburgh County Reorganization Committee tonight presented you with a plan for reorganization. Vanderburgh County Farm Bureau urges you to reject this plan. Vanderburgh County Farm Bureau has participated in many of the information and discussion meetings that were part of the committee’s process. Unfortunately, the Plan of Reorganization continues to have several provisions that cause us to recommend rejection of the plan. For example, the adoption of the proceeds, or process of the plan favors city residents versus non-city residents. As proposed, the plan requires only a simple majority of all Vanderburgh County citizens. To be fair it should require at least two thirds majority, or at least 50 percent of the city and non-city residents in a separate election. The plan does not contain adequate structure to provide that the transition board or Common Council abides by the plan if adopted. Instead it allows the new Common Council to change the plans’ provisions at any time with a simple majority vote. Cost savings to the citizens of Vanderburgh County will be minimal at best, according to the studies that have been completed. Because the proposed plan does not provide an appropriate resident approval, a defined plan of implementation, nor a clear, significant cost savings, Vanderburgh County cannot support this plan and we suggest or recommend that you reject it. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Bruce.

Bruce Ungenthiem: It’s been quite a long evening. Not nearly as long as the committee has spent on this plan. I want to thank them for their time and their service on that. It’s very commendable that they did that. Thank you very much. You brought forth a plan that was very close to what you were instructed to do. You were told to bring back a plan with a very strong Mayoral position and you did. You were instructed to lay out eight districts such that the city wards would remain essentially the same, and essentially control the consolidated Council, which it will do. I especially want to thank Mr. Bittner, Ms. Harris and Reverend Brooks for their efforts on the committee, and their no vote on the proposal. This is indication that this proposal before you is not a unanimous vote. History has shown us that a democratic form of government is the hardest type of government to set up and maintain, and, yet, to my knowledge no one on the committee reports any experience in training on the subject. The question would be why were there no faculty members from the local high schools, local colleges who have training in government on the committee to give some guidance on this effort. To the Council and the Commissioners, I think all of you are aware this evening that there are several weaknesses in this plan. You’ve had your chances to ask questions and try to get clarification on that, but one of the things that has not been brought up, and Marsha did that earlier, is that there was no look at what has happened in some of these, I shouldn’t say there’s no look, there’s been nothing represented here that indicates what actually happens when you do something like this. Does this actually work? I took an opportunity to take a look at the results of the Louisville consolidation, since the Louisville consolidation and Mayor Abramson has been quoted several times in this thing, and found the report that you guys have in front of you now. It was published in the American Review of Public Administration, it was written by Dr. Savitch, Dr. Vogel and Mr. Lee, or Mr. Yi, three gentleman who work at the University of Louisville in the political science and government affairs department. In fact, Mr. Vogel is the chair of that department. I’m not going to read the whole thing to you, because, quite frankly, I had to read it about three times to figure out what it said in some places. The academia sometimes tend to run on and give footnotes and it gets a little cumbersome to read. But, let me read you a conclusion on the summary, that summarizes on page 18:

“ Comparing the data on Louisville’s pre and post merge economy tells us that for the period under consideration–“

That would be the four years before consolidation and the four years after consolidation.

“–the “break out” thesis did not work. A radical change in government was not met by new, economic energy. Nor did a “shake up” appear to bring about any short term bump or long term changes of slope or real shift in postmerger averages. Since the onset of the merger, we cannot discern any unusual boost in per capita income, employment, numbers of business establishments and the like.”

Basically, what they are saying is all of the rhetoric that was put out by the political people in Louisville and the elite business people in Louisville that spent over a million dollars in advertising to advertise this, simply is not true. It didn’t work. Now, the study does not even include the years 2008 and 2009, and they point that out that it did not include the years 2008 and 2009 when the economy downturned and the postmerger actually got worse. Now, is there an alternative? Yes, the study indicates that on page 22, three cities, Portland, Charlotte and Denver chose to keep their local government form and form a collaborative between those governments that were more flexible as the needs and the community grew. Kind of sounds like we have now, except the collaboration might be a little off. We’ll need to work on that, but they have been successful, and they did grow. Okay, so, what I would ask you to do is consider the plan that’s in front of you and consider who put this plan together. Who were the people in the background pushing it? What kind of unbiased information do you have on the plan and whether it works? Is it in the best interest of the voters of Vanderburgh County? One final note, think back to when you were in high school listening to your government teacher, and ask yourself what would he or she recommend in this particular instance. I know the answer my government teacher would have told me. His name is actually on a plaque down here in the entrance. My government teacher was the late David Koehler, and I think, Lloyd, yours probably was too. He’s a former member of the City Council, and I think he would look at me with those big, baby blue eyes and ask is this a good representative government for the voters? Ask yourself that question. Thank you.

Mike Sandefur: Yes, Mike Sandefur, a Vanderburgh County resident. First of all I want to thank the County Council and the Commissioners here, you’ve been given some lemon and you’re trying to make some lemonade. We appreciate that. It’s not going to be an easy process. I guess, this, to some extent, I guess, the humor in this reminds me of a Greek tragedy. It’s, I don’t see anything good coming from it. I guess I would start by asking, is there anyone on this Council who would approve that the U.S. government abolishes its Constitution and sets up a new form of government on a simple majority vote? Would you give up your national sovereignty on a simple, majority vote? Well, we have a long standing government right here that has worked for a long time, yet we’re proposing to abolish it on a simple, majority vote. We need some type of higher level to do that. I think we need a two thirds vote to abolish a long standing government. I don’t think you abolish any successful, long standing government on a simple majority. You know, I will say probably the best thing I heard tonight came from Mr. or Commissioner, or Councilman Watts there, when he said if it’s not broke, don’t fix it. Okay? That is where we’re at. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. I also heard Mr. Schopmeyer state that, you know, this is a great opportunity, it’s fascinating that we’re doing this, we’re the first in the state. You know, I would also call that a guinea pig. Quite honestly, do you want to put all of the residents of this county and this city, do you want to call them a guinea pig and say we’re going to go forward? I think we have to think very carefully about doing that. A few other quick observations, partisan, non-partisan participation and so forth, I don’t recall the exact quote, but it came from George Washington, which he said a dual political structure or political parties could greatly undermine the Republic. I think when we look at how the partisanship that has went on, right now we’re 14 trillion dollars in the hole. How did we get there? I think it had a lot to do with partisan politics. I think you, if we do move forward with this, we have an opportunity to reset that model back, and as our founding father defined it, and try to do away with the partisanship. The at large, you know, with due respect to the at large members here, I don’t see a purpose for those. I think that they can be divided into either regions or by population and be fully, absolutely represented by those folks in there. I think that will give us a higher level of representation. I think a few more numbers may be appropriate. I think the at large folks should roll into some type of process which would give the direct voters of that area a voice in what they say. Lastly, I’m going to talk about, briefly, what Commissioner Abell brought up and Bruce brought up on this, that document, “Beyond the Rhetoric: Lessons from Louisville’s Consolidation”, I urge you to read that, take a few minutes. It takes, like Bruce said, it takes a lot longer than a few minutes to read it, but, I think you’ll only come to one conclusion, that it didn’t work in Louisville. As a matter of fact, one of the things they talk about is the inner city. Right now the inner city is represented by the City Council, but with the mergers of a larger body and a larger area, such as the county, what happens is, and it’s quite simple, follow the dollars. The dollars goes into the suburbs, the dollars goes into the development outside of the city, and in just about every, single example, the inner city has suffered substantially and lost representation substantially. So, I would ask you to consider that as well. Thank you very much.

President Winnecke: Anyone else? Seeing none, and hearing no other comments, again, our next joint meeting, March 30^th, 5:30 p.m. in this chamber. We appreciate everyone’s time and participation. I guess, we jointly stand adjourned.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.)

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Lloyd Winnecke, President

Marsha Abell, Vice President

Stephen Melcher, Member

(Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson)