JOINT WORKSHOP

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-CITY COUNCIL

MAY 12, 2011

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners and Common Council of the City of Evansville met in a joint workshop format on this 12^th day of May, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex for the purpose of addressing potential modifications to the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Plan of Reorganization.

President Winnecke: We’ll pick up where we left off last week at our workshop. We stopped with article four, and just to kind of re-clarify sort of the ground rules, this is intended to be an open handed discussion between members of the Commissioners, the Commission and the City Council. We’ll go through, get through article seven tonight. I would like to get done in the neighborhood of 6:30-6:45, if possible. Anyone who would like to speak, any member from the public who is here that would like to speak, may do so at the conclusion of the, of our workshop area. So, having said that, we’ll, if it’s okay, we’ll proceed. Oh, and the sound.

Councilmember Adams: Can I throw in something here? Because, one of the things that sort of bothers me in this whole thing is that we don’t have a good handle as to exactly what change is going to happen (Inaudible), excuse me, what exactly is going to happen in terms of changes of property taxes to the two different entities. Whether it’s going to be just, and, I think for anybody to vote for this thing, pragmatically, they are going to have to know how much they’re going to increase, or how much it’s going to decrease. Is there a process by which we can find that out while we’re deliberating over the week, and that be a part of our final report? Because, otherwise, I don’t think people are going to vote for it.

Councilmember Friend: Well, the other side too, as you will probably remember, the bonding capacities, we’ve got two entities with bonding capacities–

Councilmember Adams: $44 million.

Councilmember Friend: –yes, and, how is that going to affect it? How is that going to affect the underwriting of the bonds in the future? There’s a lot of financial information. I agree with you on that.

Councilmember Adams: I mean, is there some way–

Councilman John: I would suggest that you contact the Controller and the Auditor, and have them get together, collaborate, come to their best estimates of what it’s going to be, since they’re the ones that basically submit and prepare the budgets and determine the rates.

Councilmember Friend: Agreed. Can you do that?

President Winnecke: I can do that. I will do that. I will reach out to both of them.

Councilmember Adams: The other issue, I’m not going to be here next week. I don’t know whether we’re going to get to the reorganization committee, but I sure would like to have a guarantee that whatever the votes on, the reorganization committee can’t change. Maybe that’s not even in the language, but, I think the public has to know that this is what I’m voting on–

President Winnecke: My sense–

Councilmember Adams: – (Inaudible) or not–

President Winnecke: – and maybe John and Kathryn could correct me–

John Hamilton: Do you mean the Transition Committee?

Councilmember Adams: Transition, excuse me, I’m sorry.

President Winnecke: I think we can determine that in this plan.

Councilmember Adams: Okay, good.

President Winnecke: So, I think that when we get to the Transition element–

Councilmember Adams: I just didn’t know if I was going to be here or not.

President Winnecke: Oh, okay. I agree with that. I’m 100 percent in agreement with you tonight.

President Winnecke: We did hear several of you mention last week about the amplification in the room. We’ve gone back to the drawing board, we have new microphones, hopefully, it will be better this week. If not, I guess, next time we’ll go back up there, but, we’re just trying....let’s see what you think about this time.

President Winnecke: Article four talks about the judiciary. As the attorneys said last week, there are two, there is one suggested paragraph set forth by the judges, and another sort of compromise, which reads pretty much the same, to me. You know, it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. I think they say the same, basically, that the courts remains agencies and a function of the State government, and that local government is still required to provide the financial resources for them to operate.

Commissioner Abell: Mr. Winnecke, I would like to ask that we put this article four (Inaudible), maybe until the next meeting. I am reading the note at the bottom from Judge Heldt. I have some serious issues with this. The verbiage says, the people who work for the Courts, I realize this is not part of the system, but it’s like an historical note. It says, the people who work for the Courts are not county employees and are not governed by the County personnel policies. It says, since we’ve had issues with the County Commission and the Council about this over the years. We have had issues with the Courts having been a person that worked over there for eight years, I can tell you that there were issues, but if we allow them to take on the stand that they absolutely are not county employees, I think they are going to have to come up with a handbook all of their own that’s going to have to have some major issues in it. They’re in our computer service. They’re part of our IT. They sign on, and they have to be, there has to be some mechanism that this county has control over their usage of IT. You have to sign a document stating that you understand the limitations of your use of our IT system. It’s extremely important in some of the more sensitive areas. An employee that has access to the Courts can remove, with the proper access, can remove someone’s court record, release people from prison by doing the right entry in the computer system. This county can’t be held responsible, being sued for something like that if these people are not, if they’re going to have a statement here that says they’re not county employees and they’re not bound by our policies. If they’re not bound by our policies, then I would think that the Courts are going to have to come up with their own handbook of what their policies are. What hours these people work, the fact that they don’t discriminate. What if they fire somebody and we get a discrimination case filed against us because we don’t have any control over them, because they don’t have to follow our policies, so we have to defend them when they don’t follow our policies? I think this is, you know, in having read this, I would like to be able to spend some time checking with courts in other counties, how they’re dealing with this thing. I don’t think this is a standard way that people view this. I think they view the people in the Courts as county employees. I don’t think they’re viewed, I think the Court Reporters and the Baliffs and every one of those other people are all considered county employees.

Councilmember Friend: (Inaudible) Indianapolis (Inaudible). Indy?

Commissioner Abell: I don’t know, but I’ll be happy to take that on. I can’t take it on tonight, but if you’ll put this aside for a couple of weeks, I’ll certainly find out.

Councilmember Adams: Let me ask you also, in addition, I’ve sort of got this thing that, and I have no experience with the Courts and you guys do, do they provide you with a yearly budget and do you have to approve it or not? I mean, do you have a chance to challenge it?

President Winnecke: Oh, yes.

Commissioner Abell: The Council does approve the Courts budget.

Councilmember Adams: So, you don’t necessarily rubber stamp what they come to you with a budget?

President Winnecke: The, what happens is–

Councilmember Adams: So, that says that they’re saying in this thing, you know, you provide the bread, we brought our own (Inaudible).

President Winnecke: The Chief Judge of the Superior Court annually presents a proposed budget to the Common Council, to the County Council, as does the Circuit Court Judge. They’re separate budgets. The County Council, they have final authority. There are a couple, there a few elements that are dictated by the State, but, by and large, it’s like every other county office in terms of how the budget process works.

Councilmember Adams: So, there, you can trim it?

President Winnecke: Yes, absolutely.

Councilmember Adams: Okay.

President Winnecke: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: I don’t want to get that (Inaudible).

Commissioner Abell: Well, and there are a lot of issues, when you say someone does not have to follow our policies, our written county handbook that says this is the way you handle termination, this is the way you handle disciplining people, if that’s saying to me, and that’s what I read in here that the judges don’t want to have to abide by that, they should not have the freedom to violate what actually is a law, our county handbook is written based on the ability to hire and fire people. I think that they’re county employees in that they benefit from our days off that we close this building, that they benefit from county health insurance, they benefit from county PERF, so, I think that’s pretty ambiguous. That’s like we want both sides of the bread. You know, you’ve got to decide where you’re going to eat. I don’t like that at all. I would like to spend a couple of weeks–

Councilmember Robinson: If they’re not county employees, who are they?

Commissioner Abell: I think they want to say that they’re State employees, but the county is going to pay for them.

President Winnecke: The judges are State employees.

Councilmember Robinson: The judges are State, aren’t they?

President Winnecke: Yeah, they’re actually compensated by the State.

Councilmember Adams: Steve, you have some experience with this, what do you think?

Commissioner Melcher: Are you talking to me?

Councilmember Adams: You have experience with this, what do you think?

Commissioner Melcher: Well, I brought it up already, that’s why I was calling some people, I think they should be county employees, because they’re not State. Who handles it all? I had this discussion, and I was trying to figure out why this is the case. So, I don’t know. I agree with Marsha on this. I just think that if they’re not theirs, then why are we, what handbook do they follow? I understand, and I’m being told that they follow both books, they follow the county and the State. The State’s got a handbook (Inaudible). They’re following both. That’s what I’m being told.

John Hamilton: May I comment?

President Winnecke: Absolutely.

John Hamilton: Just so you know, the discussion I’ve had with both Kathryn and Ted, you’ve got three things here. Three different versions. The first version says, the Vanderburgh Circuit Court and the Vanderburgh Superior Court shall become a function of the Combined Government. The second version is what was submitted, I think, by Judge Heldt, it says, the Combined Government has no judicial branch. The compromise version, which I think Rebecca Kasha and myself and Ted have looked at it and approved, the intent is to preserve the status quo, whatever the status quo is. The bottom thing is just an e-mail from the judge. It’s not language that would go into the Plan. So, I think, the third version, the intent of it, at least, was to put language in there that did not give either one more powers than they have under this, and to preserve the status quo, which, basically is that, you know, they’ll retain whatever their current powers and obligations are, and that the Combined Government shall provide whatever Indiana law pertaining to counties says they shall provide. You can still have your dispute over, you know, the county employee issue, but, I think that’s the intent of this compromise version. Part of the complication is, on court systems, is the State has laws that says you shall have a Bailiff, or you shall have a Court Reporter, but they don’t fund it. So, they’re mandating that you have to have those positions for each judge, but then the county has to fund it, so, then you’re back to your question, which is an excellent issue.

President Winnecke: So, maybe, Marsha, if you want to take on the....research that and get back to us. Maybe it’s as simple as clarifying and inserting a sentence or two in one of these paragraphs clarifying the issue of personnel policy.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, I don’t mind the article four the way it’s written, you know–

President Winnecke: Right.

Commissioner Abell: – it’s going to go in there.

President Winnecke: Just additional clarification.

Commissioner Abell: It’s just that I think there needs to be an understanding that, that’s not the way it is. Unless they want....you can’t have it both ways.

President Winnecke: Right.

President Winnecke: Okay, section five deals with offices other, elected other than the Mayor and the Common Council. 5.1 talks about the nine elected offices, commonly referred to as the Constitutional offices, all are required, the Assessor is not required under the Constitution, but under this proposal it would remain its own office. All those offices would retain their duties. The office of the City Clerk would be eliminated under the Plan, and under 5.3 it outlines which existing offices take the duties of that office. Any other, any discussion? It seems pretty straight forward. The term limit issue is outlined in the Constitution, so, those offices are term limited. We talked a little bit about that last week.

Councilman John: Some of them are, I don’t think the Prosecutor is.

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilman John: The Coroner isn’t.

President Winnecke: Those two are not. Nor is the Surveyor.

Commissioner Abell: Or the Assessor.

President Winnecke: Okay.

President Winnecke: Okay, article six, financial planning and the budget process. The position of the Controller is eliminated, replaced by a Director of Budget and Finance, appointed by the Mayor, serves at the pleasure of the Mayor, and essentially is the Chief Financial Officer of the Combined Government.

Commissioner Abell: I do have a question. If we’re going to get rid of the City Controller, who becomes Mayor if the Mayor dies?

President Winnecke: I think it is–

Commissioner Abell: Doesn’t the ordinance say that the City Controller does?

President Winnecke: It is outlined, succession plans, I can’t remember what section it’s in.

Commissioner Abell: Oh, back here further?

President Winnecke: Yeah.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

Councilmember Mosby: Yeah, it is outlined.

Commissioner Abell: I don’t plan on the Mayor dying, but you never know.

President Winnecke: I certainly hope not. The preparation of the budget is outlined. Any questions there?

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible) about this, you reminded me that there was the power within the budget already to take money away from a certain (Inaudible). Is it still in the Combined Plan that we can do that?

Councilman John: That’s in State statute.

Councilmember Adams: Okay. We don’t have to worry about putting it into the merger.

Councilman John: The Council has the authority, other than (Inaudible) it’s obligated, I mean, there’s already (Inaudible) contract (Inaudible).

John Hamilton: I think 6.3.4 addresses it (Inaudible). Near the end it says if eight members of the Common Council agree, and I think that was eight out of 11, the way this is reading. The Common Council may increase a line item in or at a line item (Inaudible). You’re asking about decreasing?

Councilmember Adams: Well, I just want to make sure we had, that there was (Inaudible) that somehow because we didn’t put it in the plan we were limiting it.

John Hamilton: I mean, if you change the members of the Plan, you may want to change it, if you want a super majority (Inaudible).

Councilmember Adams: Oh, I don’t mind the regular majority, I just want to be sure that we have the flexibility to add and subtract (Inaudible).

Councilmember Robinson: Now we can, we can’t add now, but with this proposal we can add.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, but can we subtract?

Councilmember Robinson: Yeah, we can subtract.

Commissioner Melcher: If you have a super majority you can add. It doesn’t take a super majority to take away though. It just takes a simple majority to take away. Does the Council still have control, I guess, that’s State though, over Public Safety?

Councilman John: Yes.

Commissioner Melcher: Even with this?

Councilman John: I’m pretty sure.

John Hamilton: (Inaudible) I think it needs to be addressed in here.

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, because right now it is. The Council controls Public Safety.

President Winnecke: So, what needs to be addressed, Steve?

Commissioner Melcher: Public Safety. Police and Fire. That’s where the City Council has the final control, except in–

Councilman John: They did change where we no longer (Inaudible) their salaries, like we used to.

Commissioner Melcher: Okay.

John Hamilton: I think it was two years ago, was it two years ago when that was (Inaudible)? Yeah, so–

Commissioner Melcher: That was after I had left then.

Councilman John: Yeah. That used to be that we had the authority to set the salaries whatever we wanted to. Now, that’s no longer (Inaudible).

Commissioner Melcher: What about the block grant money? Is that, that used to be Council controlled. Is that still controlled in here?

Councilman John: Oh, I don’t know.

Commissioner Melcher: I didn’t see it.

Councilmember Robinson: I didn’t see it in here.

Commissioner Melcher: I didn’t see it in there neither.

Councilmember Robinson: Unless it was–

Commissioner Abell: Maybe as a Combined Government we don’t get block grants.

Commissioner Melcher: Well, you’re not going to get as much. You’re not going to get as much, because when we, if it combines they’re going to take the salaries of the county and put it with the city and it will give us a smaller portion. So, if we, if it does consolidate, we’ll get less government money in block grants, because it will raise our minimum salary. That’s what happened to METS, when we actually grew and became a bigger MPO here, we lost about, the city lost about a million dollars because we were bigger. It’s like being a big fish in a lake and we’re thrown into the ocean. Now, we’re the same size fish but we get less money because they think we can operate.

President Winnecke: But, Steve, isn’t there a population component?

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, there’s a population, but there’s a total, but once you get to higher salaries, that’s what it comes down to. That’s how they figure it now. It’s the population of Evansville, and that’s how HUD does the minimum requirements. They know what the poverty rate is, and that’s what they take. When you throw the county in there, with their numbers, there’s going to be a decrease somehow. So, there will be less money, because it’s going to shrink, the dollars are going to shrink.

Councilmember Friend: Per capita.

Commissioner Melcher: Per capita, right.

Councilmember Friend: Per capita income.

Commissioner Abell: But, the county people (Inaudible) by ourselves.

Commissioner Melcher: (Inaudible).

Commissioner Abell: I think there’s (Inaudible).

Commissioner Melcher: That’s reality.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, that’s a fair statement.

Councilmember Robinson: Well, what are we going to do about the (Inaudible) that we find (Inaudible)?

Commissioner Melcher: They’ll, like everything else, you know, we’re getting less and less (Inaudible) money anyway, and that’s going to happen too.

President Winnecke: Any other discussion on section six, article six, rather?

Commissioner Abell: I guess we’ll deal with the eight if we deal with the–

President Winnecke: The number of–

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, that’s–

President Winnecke: –Council seats.

Commissioner Melcher: – I think their idea there was a super majority. That way, no matter what their politics were, you had to have a super majority.

President Winnecke: Okay, article seven gets to the question that Dr. Adams raised at the beginning of the session, tax rates and service districts. Budgets and tax rates for the Combined Government shall be established by the Common Council in accordance with the budget process. Any increases or decreases phased in over a three year period, beginning with the first year of the operation of the Combined Government. Rates correspond with the service districts, that would be the General Service District that’s proposed and the Urban Service District. It calls for the equalization of sewer rates over a three year period, beginning with the first year of the operation of the Combined Government. It gets into the description of the two service districts, the General Service District, which is generally speaking the county as we know it today. There are maps in the back of that section.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible).

President Winnecke: That’s what I’m assuming, I’m just kind of trying to help the discussion along. Feel free to jump in with any comments or questions.

Councilmember Adams: I have to agree with that concept.

Commissioner Abell: Well, we don’t have any figures to put to it.

Councilmember Mosby: Yeah, it’s kind of hard.

Commissioner Abell: We’re just doing a theory at this point.

Commissioner Melcher: But, the sewer rates are higher in the county. What is it, 20 percent?

Councilmember John: 30 percent.

Commissioner Melcher: 30? Yeah, 30 percent, so, does that mean it’s going to come down? I guess, they could do ten percent each year.

Councilman John: There again, it would be nice to know those numbers, because people in the city (Inaudible) paying more.

Councilmember Mosby: Absolutely.

Councilmember John: (Inaudible) property tax (Inaudible) goes up (Inaudible) percent, how much is coming out of my (Inaudible)?

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, what’s the net increase or decrease, sure.

Councilmember John: You know, not (Inaudible) think about it, we may have to do what the EPA, under that consent decree (Inaudible) sign up on, this is going to be a–

Councilmember Adams: But, everybody will probably.

Councilmember John: Oh, yes, yes.

President Winnecke: I think, in my personal opinion, one of the issues that I would like to chat about is section 7.4.1, and that discusses the manner in which a new geographic area could be brought from the General Services District, could be brought into the Urban Service District. It provides two mechanisms for that to happen. One is a petition by a majority of the residents of that area to the government to ask to be brought in to that area, and, or I mean, rather, or, excuse me, or, a request by the government to bring that geographic area in. My personal, I would like to see that piece of it struck. I’m fine with having the residents petition the government to come in, but I would oppose the second element allowing the government to essentially go out and bring them in.

Councilmember Adams: So, that would eliminate the concept of annexation (Inaudible)?

President Winnecke: It would.

Commissioner Melcher: So, what we’re saying, I was going to bring up annexation, but since you said it, that means the city won’t be able to annex after this, even though that’s a State law?

President Winnecke: It means that if a neighborhood that’s in the General, in my mind, if a neighborhood in a General Service District wants to become part of the Urban Service District, it can petition the government to do so.

Commissioner Melcher: I understand.

President Winnecke: But, the government can’t go out and say, we’re pulling you in.

Commissioner Melcher: Okay, so that means it won’t be, the future Mayor won’t be able to go out and annex anymore of the county?

President Winnecke: That’s correct.

Councilmember Friend: That could have a strain.

Commissioner Melcher: Well, I’m just asking, because I don’t want to say that in here and then all of a sudden some attorney somewhere down the road says, well, they can’t be stronger than the State and the Mayor does have that power.

Councilman John: Does that also mean they won’t be able to extend the services that aren’t currently being provided there, since they aren’t going to be in the–

President Winnecke: (Inaudible) District.

Councilman John: Okay, you’re going to have your Urban Service District and some of them are going to be designated as such because of the services they receive, others won’t be paying as much because they don’t have those services. What those are, I’m going to specify, they may be street lights, sidewalks, some other, so they can’t bring other areas in to that district, does that mean you also will not supply those services like sidewalks and street lights?

President Winnecke: Well, I think the theory is that you only pay for the services that you receive.

Councilman John: What if you start receiving those services?

President Winnecke: Theoretically you shouldn’t start receiving them until the neighbors petition, until citizens petition to be brought in.

Commissioner Melcher: Well, we’ve just go to make sure the annexation stops, because this will (Inaudible), I mean, if the Mayor down the road wants to annex. Isn’t that right, John?

John Hamilton: Yeah, and you could also do some other things in here, like say a request by both the Mayor and Common Council of the Combined Government if you’re concerned about it being just one.

Councilmember Adams: I’m a little concerned about gaming the system. You know, you can call the system all the things (Inaudible), except maybe one that maybe doesn’t allow them to become an Urban District (Inaudible) like that (Inaudible). I would think there ought to be some way that, I mean, elected officials–

John Hamilton: I’m saying you’re really limiting their power right here.

Councilman John: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: I mean, I understand having the Mayor having that power all by himself, but maybe we could have a super majority here. Which would make it more difficult to have it, but it wouldn’t allow somebody to sit out there and get the services but not pay because they didn’t maybe (Inaudible) lights or something like that, a sidewalk.

Councilman Friend: It could have an extreme impact on the growth of the county and the city in years to come. You wouldn’t go out and expand outward to make life better, possibly. (Inaudible) from Massachusetts, you can’t even tell one county to the next county, they all run together over years.

Councilmember Adams: The cities and towns all touch.

Councilmember Friend: They all touch each other.

Commissioner Abell: What if somebody petitions to become part of the Urban and we don’t want them?

President Winnecke: I hadn’t thought about that.

Councilman John: The cost of the services you mean?

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, I mean, what if they’re just some little bitty area out here, and we’re just really not interested in–

Councilmember Adams: I would like (Inaudible) combine sorts of (Inaudible).

President Winnecke: So, you could still petition, the citizens could still petition, or the government with the Mayor and a super majority of the Council–

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, I like the super majority.

Councilmember Mosby: I do as well.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Commissioner Abell: So, you would take out either, and it would be a request by the Mayor and the Common Council, is that what you’re saying? On number two?

President Winnecke: Yeah, I think it would be a request by the Mayor and a super majority of the Common Council.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

President Winnecke: What else in section seven? Do you want to go into article eight?

Councilmember Friend: Sure.

President Winnecke: Okay, this deals with appointed agencies of the Combined Government.

Commissioner Abell: Any part of our (Inaudible)?

President Winnecke: I would say wherever you would like to start.

Commissioner Abell: 8.3.

President Winnecke: 8.3,okay.

Commissioner Abell: With regard to any board, commission, agency, and authority created–

President Winnecke: Could you lean into the microphone?

Commissioner Abell: Oh, I’m sorry. It says, with regard to any board, commission, agency and authority created after the effective date by the Combined Government, a majority of all appointments thereto shall belong to the Mayor of the Common Government. All appointments thereto shall belong to the Mayor, the majority of all appointment, that means the majority on all...and I looked at the chart, and the majority of all of the appointments are with the Mayor. I would just like to strike that whole sentence.

President Winnecke: What do you propose?

Commissioner Abell: Well, I just don’t think there’s any reason to say that the majority of all appointments thereto shall belong to the Mayor of the Common, of the Combined Government. I just think that the appointments shall be as set forth in that exhibit D chart, and we’ll work on that when we get to it, and that will be part of this document.

Kathryn Schymik: Marsha, the, exhibit D is for any board, commission or agency that’s in existence prior to the date of the Combined Government. Then 8.3 addresses any board or commission that is created after the date. So, any existing boards and commissions will continue with the appointments and make ups as currently set forth, and then, so, there’s a difference. So, it’s drawing a distinction between any new boards that come into existence after Combined Government goes into effect.

Councilmember Adams: Marsha, aren’t you, in listening to you, are you looking for some balance in terms of that? So perhaps (Inaudible) Combined Government (Inaudible) the Council and the Mayor would work out the new (Inaudible).

Commissioner Abell: I just, whether it be here on a chart before or after, I just am not in favor of the Mayor having total control of all of the boards and commissions. That’s what this plan does, because I’ve been working on that chart at home, and, for instance, the Sewer and Water Department, which is a very, very important board, it spends a lot of money, it sets a lot of rates, does a lot of work toward our citizenry, has five appointments, and they’re all Mayoral appointments. That’s way too much power for anybody to have. Way too much power. That’s just not fair to the citizens of this community.

Councilmember Adams: The (Inaudible) point though is, outside of the existing commissions or committees they would have to do something to talk about future ones if something (Inaudible).

Commissioner Abell: Well, I wouldn’t care if they set up one that decorates the Civic Center, I don’t want any, the majority of all of those appointments to be with any one particular individual. I want it to be with the–

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible).

Commissioner Abell: –this large Council that is more diverse than one person.

Councilmember Adams: I understand what you’re saying.

Kathryn Schymik: Right, I mean, I think that you all can decide who makes the appointments and how many appointments are to be made. I just wanted to point out that any existing, you know, the Water and Sewer Utility Board, those type that are already in existence would continue with the appointments, you know, as it currently is. If that needs to be changed, that may be so. I’m just pointing out that 8.3 is just setting forth how appointments will be made for any new entities, or, you know, commissions that are created.

Councilmember Adams: What phraseology would you use to create balance? Because that’s, I think, what you’re looking for.

Kathryn Schymik: Right.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, I want, like I said, I don’t care what new board–

Kathryn Schymik: Right.

Commissioner Abell: –and there will be a new board, because we create boards all the time.

Kathryn Schymik: Sure.

Commissioner Abell: If there’s a new board created, you know, it could be a board that is, has no power, means nothing and we really might not care that the majority of the appointments belong to the Mayor, but it could be something really, really important, like setting tax rates or some silly thing that we would not want the majority of all of the appointments to belong to the Mayor, we would want this Council that’s going to represent all of the people to be, to have more voice than one person.

Councilmember Adams: How do you say that legally?

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible) majority.

President Winnecke: Well, I think you first have to decide, sort of philosophically, you know, how many do you say that there are, that the 57–

Commissioner Abell: Boards.

President Winnecke: –boards, 59 boards, existing boards, you know, philosophically are we saying half, you know, the Council should have the majority of appointments, and the Mayor should have the majority of the other half. I mean, I think we have to figure out philosophically what we would want first before we can ask them to determine the (Inaudible).

Commissioner Abell: I guess, philosophically I thought they did that in 1776. This is a representative form of government and it’s not a dictatorship, and I don’t like the Mayor having so much control that one person has that much power. You know, I just don’t like any comment of the majority of all appointments belonging to the Mayor. I just think that’s–

President Winnecke: So, in none of the 59, as an example, you would favor the Council having the majority in all of them?

Commissioner Abell: I would favor the Common Council having the majority of appointments to all of the boards. Yes, I would.

Councilman John: Many of these boards are set by the State and (Inaudible) who makes the appointments.

Commissioner Abell: Some of them are.

Councilman John: When you’re talking about the Redevelopment Commission, when you talk about, I would say probably more than half of them, you know, were established by an act of State legislation to make it a local board. That State legislation dictates here, and that’s, you guys may want to look into this and show us which ones are set by the State and everybody gets copied so that we know that if those (Inaudible) these are the ones we can change.

Councilmember Adams: If it’s a new board–

Councilman John: Well, if it’s under the State though, if it’s a State statute that establishes it, we’ve got to follow whatever it says.

Commissioner Abell: I think a new board is equally as important, you know, if the citizens of Vanderburgh County vote for a Mayor, and they vote for a Mayor who is very environmentally correct, and there’s a new board that’s now going to cover an environmental issue, it’s going to be important who’s going to have the appointments on that board.

Councilman John: But, also remember any money that’s spent, first of all, would have to be approved by the Council. Second of all, any legislation that was adopted would have to be approved by Council. So, it’s not like they’re going to be able to create their own budgets, spend their own money and create their own laws. (Inaudible) Council. You know, you’re electing a Mayor, he’s going to be the Chief Executive, and you’re going to expect him to run the day to day operations of the city. I don’t think you should try to tie his hands necessarily (Inaudible), somebody else is going to be in charge of your boards, we want you to do, as best you can, with what we’re letting you have, and, I’m not running for it, so. You kind of have to put a little trust in who’s in that office. You do have some control, you have controls over legislation and you have control over the money. That’s the purpose of the Council.

President Winnecke: I think Curt’s got a good idea. If the attorneys could get with us and figure out which of the 59 boards, the makeups are dictated by State statute and then we can grapple with that.

Councilmember Adams: But, still, that particular phrase, I think we need to come back to it and decide–

Commissioner Abell: I’ve circled it...I’m going to.

President Winnecke: She ain’t gonna forget it. Okay, what else in section eight?

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible) question (Inaudible) what (Inaudible) in section 8.4? Does that mean (Inaudible) only report to the Mayor and not also report to the Metro Council.

President Winnecke: I did not read–

Councilmember Adams: Am I reading that wrong?

President Winnecke: – it that way. I read it that the County Commission appointments roll out to be Mayoral appointments. Who else? Okay, I promised the Police Chief and the Sheriff, I didn’t think we were going to get to law enforcement, so–

Councilmember Mosby: I know I have people that want to come to that.

President Winnecke: –in deference to them, I think we should stop.

Councilmember Adams: No, I think we should keep going.

President Winnecke: Okay, well, you can tell them, but I think we should stop for the night. I think, unless, we could go to the transition. Do you want to go to the transition?

Commissioner Abell: What time did you want to–

President Winnecke: 6:30 ish, 6:45.

Commissioner Abell: You might see if anybody here, if we’re going to have several comments, you might want to quit.

Councilmember Mosby: The transition, that’s a large (Inaudible). It seems very long.

President Winnecke: Yeah, it is long.

President Winnecke: Anyone from the audience that would like to make any comments?

Emmons Patzer: Do you want for me to do it here?

President Winnecke: No, I would like for you to come to the microphone and state your name and your address.

Emmons Patzer: Sure. My name is Emmons Patzer, 510 West Mt. Pleasant Road, Evansville, Indiana. That is in the county, outside the city limits. I will have five comments specific to things you guys were just talking about. The first one, on the pro forma tax rates, first of all, the concept of having that done is a good idea. But, let’s peel back the onion a little bit, because if you look carefully at some of the future articles, you actually have more than two districts. So, when you’re talking about doing pro formas, you’re going to have to run those pro formas on multiple alignments. The example I’ll use is you have retrospective obligations to the old boundaries for things like pension funds, right? So, that’s going to, in fact, mean that instead of having two districts to run pro formas on, to figure out tax rates, you’re going to have two plus whatever additional ones are listed, there’s at least two more, possibly three, depending on how you interpret it, and there could be an interaction between those, meaning you don’t have mutually exclusive relationships to your geographic boundaries. They could overlay on top of one another, creating multiple district relationships to run your pro formas on. Having done the alignments for 4,000 sales people for Bristol Myers Pharmaceutical, I know that that’s a bit challenging. So, I would give you one piece of advice with that, first, what I would suggest is go to the budget people that you are talking about here, and ask them about your current technical capacity to handle multiple alignments, because you could be facing a big dollar item to do nothing but implement this tax structure on all of these alignments. I can tell you that I have spent literally multiple million dollars building systems to handle alignments structures on your pro formas like this, and, in fact, I’ve already taken and merged a pro forma for the city and the county based on the budgets that you have published, and you can use that from a line item standpoint to make adjustments, but there’s no way that you can, in essence, take that down to any level of alignment. The second thing that I would suggest is that when you ask them to make those kinds of runs on a pro forma, you probably also need to be relatively specific with them on some time tables, because there’s a number of things that have roll in provisions. I mean, if you think, for example, when you have bonding, right, you have bond obligations that are stuck in old geographic alignments, those bond portfolios are going to roll, right? So, I mean, at some point you’re going to refresh those bonds, and the minute that you refresh those bonds, that obligation now falls into a new alignment structure. So, somehow when you give them the request to run an estimate of the tax implications, you have to give them a transition to say is that going to be a one year horizon, is it going to be a 20 year horizon, I mean, give me some sort of ball park. Make sense?

Councilmember Adams: What would you recommend?

Emmons Patzer: In terms of the time horizon on them? Well, I mean, most bonds, I would recommend relatively long. I mean, look at the bond portfolio, its, so, I would tend to run them long, but on the other hand, if you look at the size of the bonds, the bond costs, carrying costs right now, the low interest rates, the first question I would ask is what the capability of your current technical system is and the cost of running that system, because if you could roll them short term now and don’t have the complexity of building a new architecture and save a couple million dollars, it may be a wash in the interest rate. So, that’s the kind of thing that I would ask up front.

Councilman John: Well, Doc, (Inaudible) because the interest rates are so low, they have less chance of what you call a call options. If they were sitting at a high, they would be (Inaudible).

Emmons Patzer: This is just a comment of something that I heard that I liked, and that was for people to vote on this to have a clear bracketing of the Transition Committee’s authority. I think that’s perfect. A comment on the relationship to the judiciary. I have a little bit of a concern with the commentary that going to preserve the status quo is an effective language. Because, quite frankly, the whole process of consolidation itself is a change. It is not status quo. So, using that language, status quo, is meaningless. In fact, reporting to a strong Mayor versus a County Council or Commission, I would ask the question of what liabilities are there being created by a Mayor who gets in a nasty relationship with the judiciary in terms of a budget relationship and has no arbitration, no review process by a Council that’s overseeing it. I mean, somebody’s going to have to break through that relationship, because you can already see it in the language that you received from the judge. You know it’s going to happen. The question is how are you going to deal with it. Deal with it now. Set it up that way. I agree with Ms. Abell with respect to the question of majority of appointments belongs to the Mayor. Without oversight that’s a disaster. I’m going to walk carefully on this comment. I have a relationship in the private world with a publicly appointed enterprise that has a board, that board may have an oversight from you guys in terms of financial, right, that they can’t create financial obligations, but they can create interesting relationships with private enterprises that lead to less than favorable political imagery. I can’t say it is political graff, but it gets down in a direction that at least it raises a public image question along that line. I would strongly say let the Mayor appoint whoever they want, but at least in a sub set of those that are pretty strong public things, not planting flowers, but there’s got to be some sort of a conformation process or something like that by a Council.

Councilman John: Oversight.

Emmons Patzer: Yeah, exactly. I am still disturbed by point 8.5. In the public hearing portion of this I was told that it was my misinterpretation, it still may be, but I’m still concerned with it, because I still read it that 8.5 says all current appointments, in fact expire. If that’s the case, all board appointments become new, and therefore all fall under the 8.3 point. Finally, just one comment, there was a question by somebody, and Mr. Winnecke answered it, I read it this way. Cool, the thing I would make very pointed is if somebody asks a question and somebody read it one way and somebody else read it the other way, you have a document that the public is going to read in more than one way, and courts are going to read in more than one way. You’re setting yourself up for a problem. Solve it so which way you mean is explicitly clear. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thanks.

Alberta Matlock: Sir, could I have your full name please?

Emmons Patzer: It’s Emmons Patzer.

Alberta Matlock: Will you spell that for me?

Emmons Patzer: P-a-t-z-e-r.

Alberta Matlock: Thank you.

President Winnecke: Any other audience members that would like to speak tonight?

Roberta Heiman: Roberta Heiman. I apologize, this really didn’t come up tonight, but it’s my only chance that I’m going to have to address this issue. The proposal as it exists gives, I think, too brief attention to the Parks Board, and I would ask that, it’s one of the most, our parks determine, to a large extent, the quality of life in this community. They’re a large measure of it, and they’re in serious need of more attention than this proposal gives to this four member board. I wonder if the board is big enough, I wonder, I don’t know, but there’s not a lot of attention paid to it in the plan. I would ask that that be given more attention.

Councilmember Adams: What are you talking about attention? Do you want somebody to (Inaudible) expertise in agriculture? Or landscape architecture? What more attention other than numbers would you be (Inaudible)?

Roberta Heiman: Oh, I don’t know, where, like the biggest park that we’re, new park that’s being created now is the Pigeon Creek Greenway. There’s no greenway representative on the board, or that kind of thing. I don’t know if, I’m not sure. I think, is this all Mayoral? I think there’s a county appointment to the board, isn’t there?

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible) large, more vibrant board (Inaudible).

Roberta Heiman: You know, well, what I’m saying is, you know, we have a board now and the parks are falling apart. This plan doesn’t really pay much attention to that. This is an opportunity for some help. That’s just my request. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Anyone else? Okay, hearing none, we’ll pick up at the same time next week and we’ll start with section nine.

(The workshop ended at 6:30 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Lloyd Winnecke                        Marsha Abell                            Stephen Melcher

John Friend                              H. Dan Adams                          Curt John

Connie Robinson                      Missy Mosby                             John Hamilton

Kathryn Schymik                      Alberta Matlock                         Emmons Patzer

Roberta Heiman                       Others Unidentified                   Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Lloyd Winnecke, President

Marsha Abell, Vice President

Stephen Melcher, Member

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