|
Vanderburgh County Council April 7, 1999
The Vanderburgh County Council met in session the 7th day of April, 1999 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 3:33 p.m. by County Council President Curt Wortman. President Wortman: The Vanderburgh County Council is now in session this Wednesday, April 7th and I'd like to have the Sheriff please open the meeting, please. (Meeting opened by Sheriff Brad Ellsworth) President Wortman: Thank you, Mr. Ellsworth.
Now then I'll have the secretary call the attendance roll call please.
President Wortman: Okay, if everybody would stand on the Council and in the audience and pledge allegiance to the flag, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was given)
President Wortman: Number four, I will entertain a motion, the approval of the minutes from the March 3, 1999 meeting. Councilmember Lloyd: Motion to approve. Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Wortman: Motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
A) TREASURER President Wortman: Okay, we'll move right into number five, Appropriation Ordinance and the first on the agenda will be the County Treasurer. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 1030-1990 in the amount of $2,000. Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Wortman: Motion and a second. Any discussion on that? If not, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Here, I mean, yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Okay. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. TREASURER REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) B) SHERIFF (Two requests) President Wortman: Okay, number B would be the Sheriff, he has two requests here please. Would they step forward or not necessary. Mr. Raben, do you want to...? Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 1050-1510 in the amount of $5,000. Councilmember Sutton: Second. President Wortman: Second from Mr. Sutton. Any discussion? Call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. SHERIFF REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) President Wortman: Move right on to the next Sheriff's, the computer, and Mr. Raben, will you proceed please? Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 1050-3370 Computer in the amount of $360,000, and I was not able to be here and I think there were a couple other Councilmembers that were not here last week, so we may have some questions we may want to ask. Councilmember Sutton: Second. President Wortman: Got a second, and now discussion. Councilmember Smith: I think Brad told us while ago that it may not cost that amount of money, but it's the closest figure you came to? Brad Ellsworth: Right, we received two bids after the bids were let out for two quite different amounts. We did have demonstrations from both companies this week. We plan to meet in two days to go over the strengths and weaknesses of each company and although there was a lot of similarities and not that many differences, so it's very possible that we could go with the company that charged the lesser amount so we should be able to come back and let you know that, but we would like to get that money in place so that hopefully we could surprise you with a lower number. President Wortman: Yeah, they're going to break it down and see which one is the best bid for the Sheriff's Department? Any other discussion? Councilmember Sutton: Did you get any general ideas of, when you say a good surprise, how much of a surprise might we look at? Brad Ellsworth: The other bid that we received was 180 -- 160... Eric Williams: Eric Williams, Sheriff's Office. The lower bid price was in the $150,000 range but in working with bids, you know there is some negotiation there as far as getting exactly what you want. So we're looking at, at least under $200,000 for the low approximately. President Wortman: Okay, any other discussion? Councilmember Sutton: And on the other end? Brad Ellsworth: $360,000. Eric Williams: The other one is $360,000. Councilmember Sutton: Okay. President Wortman: They had submitted the highest bid to be covered, see, to have the money in place before they award the contract so I think that's pretty -- any other discussion? If not, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Ellsworth. SHERIFF REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) C) SUPERIOR COURT President Wortman: Now we'll proceed to Superior Court, Special Reporter. Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 1370-3944 Special Reporter in the amount of $10,000. President Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Bassemier: Second. President Wortman: Any discussion? No discussion, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. SUPERIOR COURT REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
A) CUMULATIVE BRIDGE B) PROSECUTOR IV-D President Wortman: Now, Mr. Raben, would you continue with the transfers, please? Councilmember Raben: I will certainly do that. Mr. President, I will make a motion that we accept all transfers as submitted. President Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Wortman: Mr. Hoy seconded. Any discussion on transfers? Call the roll please. Excuse me, Mrs. Smith? Councilmember Smith: On that Old Petersburg Road, does that finish up that project? Will that finish that one up? President Wortman: I can't answer that right now, but I would assume it would. Councilmember Smith: I just wondered because they had been working on it for quite some time, so... President Wortman: Thank you for the question. Call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. CUMULATIVE BRIDGE REQUESTED APPROVED
PROSECUTOR IV-D REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Now we'll proceed to the amendments to the Salary Ordinance, that would be the Treasurer. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval as previously approved. President Wortman: Second, anybody got a second here? Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion? Call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Okay, number eight, I'm going to call on Sheriff Brad Ellsworth, he has two gentlemen he wants to introduce. Would they all step forward please? Matt Kimmell and Kurt Althoff. Brad Ellsworth: Thank you, President Wortman. I won't take but a moment of your time but I did want to introduce -- one of the things we pledged to do was I want our new employees to be familiar with county government and so our new employees were taken around to each office and letting them some time with each officeholder and I wanted to introduce them to the County Council. We've done so with the Commission. I'd like to introduce Kurt Althoff and Matt Kimmell, our new Deputy Sheriffs. We're rather proud of them because they beat out about 450 other applicants to become number one and number two on our eligibility list and have been hired. We stole Kurt from the Henderson, Kentucky Police Department to bring him back home. His father is a career Evansville Police Office. Matt comes to us by way of the Army Rangers, I believe. And so we are very proud of them and glad to have them aboard and want to introduce them to the County Council and county government, and how it works. President Wortman: Do you gentlemen want to give a speech while you're here? Listen, we appreciate you on board and I'm sure you'll do a good job, so our best wishes and good luck. Brad Ellsworth: Thank you, Sir.
A) RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ZONE ENTER- PRISE ZONE INVENTORY PROPERTY TAX CREDIT FOR SHOE CARNIVAL, INCORPORATED President Wortman: We'll proceed right down to new business and the Resolution Approving the Airport Development Zone Enterprise Zone Inventory Property Tax Credit for Shoe Carnival, Incorporated. Will they step forward, please? Mr. Robling. Mike Robling: I believe this is the second Airport Development Zone project to come before you, the first one having been Anchor Industries several months ago. The criteria for designation as Airport Development Zone are that a project have a cost representative estimate of at least two million dollars and create new jobs. One of the requirements of the designation process is the preparation of a tax impact analysis which you all received copies of. Looking at the impact of the loss of the inventory tax credit and how that may be offset by increases in property tax revenues from new building improvements and new equipment and County Option Income Tax revenues. Because you had declined tax abatement for this project last fall the tax impact analysis on this study turned out to be very positive not only overcoming the projected loss of inventory tax on this project but also -- that loss over the eleven year evaluation period would have been $569,360. The additional property taxes, real estate and personal property taxes overcome that loss as well as adding another $510,000 to county revenues over that period of time. When you add in the COIT tax that these at least fifteen new employees who would initially be hired for this project would add another $22,000, would bring the total tax gain up to $533,000 over the eleven year evaluation period. The Airport Authority Board held a public hearing on this project and gave its confirming approval to it last month and the resolution before you today is to actually approve the inventory tax credit which is the only incentive of the Airport Development Zone that is available. Kerry Jackson is here from Shoe Carnival if you have any questions of him. I have failed to point out that since this project came before you as a tax abatement proposal, the investment level has more than doubled with a substantially higher amount of investment in equipment than originally anticipated. President Wortman: Mr. Robling, is this the first reading? Mike Robling: This only requires that one time. President Wortman: Just one reading, okay. Any questions to ask Mr. Robling or the representative of the Shoe Carnival? Mr. Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: This deals with the inventory tax which I know our state legislature is talking about some kind of possible phase out or removal of that tax, but this deals with the here and now so this is an economic development tool for county government to promote businesses that have inventory within that three mile radius of the airport. Is that correct? Mike Robling: It could be a three square mile -- up to three square miles can be designated within the larger area, but each designation is an individual part of that three square miles. Councilmember Hoy: The area itself can be further away from the airport than three miles, correct? Mike Robling: Right, there's a larger area that is primarily around the airport that goes up Highway 57 quite a ways that from which the three square miles can be designated. At this point in time, there have been three designations made. Councilmember Hoy: It has to be within eleven miles, isn't it, or something like that? Mike Robling: Well, there's a -- you were given a map last fall that shows the area, but it's a strange little area. Councilmember Hoy: Yes, it is. Councilmember Lloyd: According to the report, the inventory value, is that approximately $600,000 or is that the tax? Mike Robling: That was the inventory value, I think. Councilmember Lloyd: Okay. I had the opportunity to go out and visit the Shoe Carnival and see the new building that's being built and that's quite a structure and there's quite a bit of inventory moving through there and a lot of it does come from overseas, so I think this type of tax abatement is really made for Shoe Carnival as far as to abate taxes on the inventory that's moving through that large warehouse. So I would be in favor of this and I believe it's a good economic development tool for the county. Mike Robling: They currently employ 235 people and projected to immediately create 15 new jobs and within five years 85 new jobs. President Wortman: Anybody else got any questions? Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, do we have a motion on the floor? President Wortman: Not yet. Councilmember Raben: I'll move approval. Councilmember Lloyd: Second. President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd. Any discussion? Don't hear none. Call the roll, please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yeah, I think this is a really good use of taxpayer dollars and a good investment to the community and hopefully we can see more investments like this. I think Shoe Carnival is doing a good job with this. Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. Motion passes six to one. Thank you Mr. Robling. (Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Hoy opposed) B) PATRICK ELTZROTH, INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS (PERSONNEL & FINANCE MEETING MARCH 31, 1999) C) MAY FILING DATE FOR JUNE COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING President Wortman: We go to C, the May filing date for the June County Council meeting will be May 14 and Sandie will send a memo to that effect. D) JUDGE TORNATTA - WITHDRAWN E) EVANSVILLE INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION President Wortman: Next on the agenda is E, Evansville Industrial Foundation. Would the speakers come forward please? Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, did you pass up item B? President Wortman: Sir? Councilmember Raben: Item B. President Wortman: That was handled last week, Jim. Councilmember Sutton: What about item D? President Wortman: Item D was withdrawn and he's going to speak with us later on that so that's why I've got that crossed out. Now then, gentlemen, state your names. These gentlemen were here last week and did a good job so we hope for a repeat performance. Rick Hall: I wasn't here last week, so I'll try to match their performance last week. My name is Rick Hall. I'm an attorney at Barnes & Thornburg and I'm bond counsel on their special counsel to the county on the development of the Phoenix or what was called the Phoenix Commerce Center. Also with me here today is Chris Johnston from Municipal Consultants and Ron Keeping on behalf of the Evansville Industrial Foundation. As was discussed at last week's meeting, the Foundation has made a proposal to the county to develop the park. They have an option to purchase the land and would develop the park as an industrial park. In order to support their efforts, they've requested that the county issue TIF bonds that would finance 1.6 million dollars in infrastructure improvements that would facilitate the development of the park. In order to make the TIF bonds marketable, we would have to have a pledge of the county's COIT tax as a backup source and the reason being is because there is no current development out there, any TIF revenues are speculative and investors would want some other secure revenue stream in order to purchase the bonds. The financial advisor, Chris Johnston has prepared some numbers that outline what the TIF projections are based on, the anticipated level of investment that the foundation has shared with us, and how the economics of the bond issue would work. So I would introduce Chris at this time. Chris Johnston: Good afternoon. My name is Chris Johnston and I'm with Municipal Consultants, which is a financial advisory firm, which is owned by Crowe Chizek which is a CPA firm headquartered actually in South Bend, but I'm out of the Indianapolis office. I'll give you a little background on Municipal Consultants: we've been in the financial advisory business for over 35 years and served cities, towns and counties primarily in Indiana, but Crowe Chizek also has offices in the surrounding states. What is being passed around is an example of how a financing can go. You are familiar with municipal bond financing until you get to market, until you actually discuss the cash flow, the revenue projections with the potential buyer. There is a lot of movement, a lot of moving parts with a financing. But what I'd like to do is kind of go through that handout. The first couple of pages are a summary of our assumptions that are included in the numbers. Where I'd really like to start is on page three, which is a landscaped page which is entitled Estimated Assessed Value and Tax Increment Revenues. The second column from the left is our projection of incremental assessed value out at the Phoenix Commerce Center. As Rick mentioned, there is nothing going on out there right now, so there are no -- at this point in time -- so there are no blue prints that I could get out and take the assessors manual and put an assessed value to some proposed structure that is out there. That is what you commonly find in TIF districts, that is why we are before you this afternoon seeking your consideration of pledging the County Option Income Tax to this transaction. But this revenue projection or the assessed value projection is based on an estimate of development under roof, what could be built out there by the Evansville Industrial Foundation. And we found this to actually be somewhat of a conservative number. When we looked at the concentration, when we were -- before when Phoenix Commerce Center was being considered a year and a half ago or two years ago, we actually looked at possibly a greater concentration of development out there so we think the 1.8 million square feet of development out in the commerce center is a reasonable and conservative approach. We've also made an assumption that of that million eight in square feet, sixty percent of it would be used for light manufacturing purposes and forty percent of that would be used for warehousing or distribution. We've also assumed that the build out would occur over a ten year period. Again, that's an assumption. It could happen faster, it could happen at a slower pace. We've applied the 1998 pay 1999 tax rate to that assessed value to come up with an estimated tax revenue and then the estimated debt service is really described more in the following two pages which we will get to in a moment. The next column is available revenues after paying debt service. As you'll see, I've got a column there that says revenues retained to fund a debt service reserve fund. We're proposing at this point in time to have as small a bond issue as possible and so we would only fund a debt service reserve fund not at its ten percent of the bond proceeds or maximum principal and interest. But we would do something smaller than that and retain excess TIF revenues to build up that reserve fund over time. And then finally, at the last column there is cumulative available revenues, that if this whole crystal ball pans out like it is on this piece of paper, that would be the available revenues over the fifteen year projection period. President Wortman: Has anybody got any questions concerning the financial analysis and reports? Was there ever any consideration taken for lighting in the infrastructure out there? Chris Johnston: For lighting? President Wortman: Any lighting, yeah. Chris Johnston: To be quite honest with you, Mr. Chairman, my target was to be able to raise a project fund of a million six dollars. I couldn't get into the details involved in construction permits. President Wortman: Okay, thank you. Mr. Lloyd? Ron Keeping: Mr. President, although we haven't specifically included that in the cost estimates, I'd certainly be proud to go talk to SIGECO and see if I could talk them into doing that. President Wortman: Yeah, I thought I'd bring it up beings I'm an electrician. Okay, Mr. Lloyd. Councilmember Lloyd: I was going to ask on that same page 3, the estimated real property values, how was that arrived at? Chris Johnston: By taking Reg 17 and looking at light manufacturing and assuming a typical sort of box type structure, and applying that square footage to that rate, coming up with a true tax value and dividing by three. Councilmember Lloyd: Well, and you also assumed what, sixty percent light manufacturing and -- Chris Johnston: Light manufacturing and forty percent distribution. Councilmember Lloyd: So that as the property develops then the more assessed value comes on board? Chris Johnston: Right, that's why you see the ascending level of assessed value. And again, this is just real property. This is not personal property. Councilmember Lloyd: The cumulative revenues, where would that go? What purpose does that have? Chris Johnston: Two things. I think it shows that to a potential purchaser that we're going to have excess TIF revenues and gives them a level of comfort, but also it is something that would be available to the Redevelopment Commission to either use once debt service is satisfied, use on a pay as you go basis for projects or to accumulate to retire bonds early. President Wortman: Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: A couple of questions. It looks like on year two, it's got a negative $26,000 available revenues, that would be paid out by what? Chris Johnston: County Option Income Tax. That kind of leads into the next two pages, but do you have another question, Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yeah, I did and I may be jumping the gun, but on the last page, the total debt service, is it 3.4 million dollars on the two million? Chris Johnston: Yes. Councilmember Raben: Okay. And the payout would be fifteen years? Chris Johnston: Fifteen year period. Councilmember Raben: Okay. Then how do we have an understanding on what is the cumulative total on recapped tax? I mean, what is the total -- here, I see it. It's seven million, is that correct? Chris Johnston: Right. Again, that's the estimate based on these assumptions of development over time. Councilmember Hoy: You may not be the person to answer this. I was not here last week, I had to be in Indianapolis for a meeting. Originally, we were looking at 1.6 million from the county and now we're looking for a guarantee of two million, is that correct? Chris Johnston: Well, because of having to fund some of the capitalized interest, because the tax increment revenues with the hopeful development, the projects are assessed in one year -- the taxes come in the following year, so you need to capitalize some of the interest and that's what we've got on this debt service schedule because bond holders are not patient people. They want to at least get their interest paid every six months and so we need to fund that some way, so that is in addition to the million six. Funding the reserve fund would also come out of the million six, as well as other costs of issuance. Councilmember Hoy: And if this doesn't work, then we need to be prepared to provide two million bucks. Chris Johnston: Well, to be quite honest with you, if it doesn't work you're going to have a greater value more along the 3.4 million dollars. If nothing ever happens out there, then COIT would have to step in for the TIF revenues to make debt service payments over time. Councilmember Hoy: So it would be more than. Chris Johnston: Right, if nothing is ever built out there. I mean, that's sort of the sky is falling. Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, right. Councilmember Raben: Raise another question. I see third from last column on the last page, the estimated tax increment revenues, that's what you're saying they project by year fifteen, that's the revenues in tax that it should have brought in, correct? Chris Johnston: Well, what I'm saying is that the first number in that column, the $94,000 would be essentially based on -- is the revenue from one building that first year of development and then it's really the development that occurs each year. It's a cumulative effect. So by the time the whole thing builds out, let's say it does build out according to this scenario, then the total build out of the million eight square feet times the township tax rate would generate the $940,000 a year. Councilmember Raben: Okay, is it possible that at some point in time, and it looks like it could happen maybe in year five or year six, where you could pay out the debt service in half the time? Chris Johnston: Right. Depending upon what is negotiated with a potential purchaser in terms of the first redemption date or call date. One option for the Redevelopment Commission to consider would be the accumulation of available excess TIF revenues so that as you reach a point, then you could use those TIF revenues to retire your outstanding bonds. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I guess this project has two key things going for it and one is it kind of -- Councilmember Smith: I can't hear you, Jim. Councilmember Raben: I said there's a couple points that make this project carry well with me and one would be that it kind of gives the east side some breathing space. We're taking the industrial growth and possibly moving it from the east side where we've already got a bigger problem than what we can handle and we're moving it to an area of town that has room to take on this extra, and two, the Industrial Foundation is really a group of strong horses from within our own county, so I think they'll see that they do everything possible to make this work and I think it's a worthwhile project. President Wortman: I think that you've got to look back at when it started and on through. They've got a proven track record and there's nothing more beneficial to the county than a proven track record. I think we've found this here. Mr. Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: As I was reading the paperwork that came with this, the history of the Industrial Foundation, this question may be for someone else, in earlier days, the Foundation looked at some older land which we now call brown fields. Is the Foundation, I'm wondering why you did not look at some of the available land in the city. There is a lot of -- Evansville is like a doughnut, there is a big hole in the center. Ron Keeping: Mr. Hoy, I don't know in the history what that exactly is referring to. I've been part of the attempt to identify developable land in Evansville proper. Frankly, there was one wonderful fifteen acre parcel in the heart of Evansville that we had hoped to reuse for industrial use and it got acquired by the Vanderburgh Humane Society of all people. Now there may be some brown fields laying that actually has a building on it and acquiring an old building, demolishing it, and reusing it hasn't been something that the Industrial Foundation has ever seriously looked at before. Councilmember Hoy: I noticed in the history that earlier you took over the old department complex that was built during World War II, Gateway Gardens. Ron Keeping: Oh, that's way before my time. Councilmember Hoy: I know that, but it's not before my time. And then in later years, which I don't think -- it may be before your time on the Industrial Foundation -- part of it would be the Garvin Complex out there, Hudson Trees, and I did have some questions about successes and failures since Hudson was not -- I don't want to pick on that because everybody is going to have failures along the way and that one was a short lived expedition into economic growth, to say the least, and the jobs. The other questions I have, we used river boat funds part of which we dedicated to economic development to run that trunk line out to Daylight, so the Council has done that. The next question, you all are not asking for abatement but rather for a TIF zone, and this may be a question for Mr. Robling or someone else, I don't know, they will be in the Airport Zone, so they will get a break on inventory? Is that true? Ron Keeping: They reasonably might be expected to seek that break. Councilmember Hoy: And what about abatements, Mr. Robling, would they also be eligible for abatement? Mike Robling: There are sort of two sides to that. They would theoretically be eligible for abatement unless the bond issue specifically forbid that, which is apparently a possibility. There is also another possibility of revenue that Chris didn't mention that if we were to get lucky and get a very large first tenant that had lots of personal property, you can capture the increment on personal property for a designated taxpayer, so that could help overcome some of that. Another thought about it is that without a designated taxpayer, all the personal property tax revenues from equipment and so forth are still collected for the -- still are distributed to the other taxing units, so you could theoretically grant an abatement on equipment but not on land. There are various approaches you could take to it from totally saying no at the front end to looking at it on a case by case basis or picking and choosing. Councilmember Hoy: So there is a possibility that other breaks could come their way. Mike Robling: Right. Councilmember Hoy: This probably is a question for you, Sir. The question that has been asked of me by a constituent, I don't know who has the answer to this, but Phoenix was a project out there and I've heard several reasons why it failed. Is there anyone who could explain why that did not fly? Mr. Keeping? Ron Keeping: Our understanding is, it was being developed by Fairview Land Company, a division of Ziegler Coal Company. Ziegler elected to put itself up for sale and as soon as they did, they decided to stop spending money on anything unrelated to their core of business. That's what we have been told is the reason why Ziegler pulled the plug on it. Councilmember Hoy: Is there any possible -- I don't think there is, but the question needs to be asked -- is there any possible conflict of interest between anybody connected with Ziegler and anybody connected with the Industrial Foundation or any other participants in this project that you know of? Ron Keeping: I can't think of any connection whatsoever. Councilmember Hoy: And my last question has to do with the kind of jobs, and this is the part that bothers me the most because when you and I talked we did talk about the fact that our area is so polluted that it's doubtful with the current industry we have that we're going to meet attainment, so we're looking at cleaner kinds of businesses and industries here and some of those will be distribution centers. I know this is all speculation, I am concerned about the kind of jobs and what they pay. Do you all have any figures on the average wages of distribution centers? Ron Keeping: Based on -- in my other life I am an economic developer and I hear from people who want to look at this area and then they'll tell me how much they pay, so that's the kind of source I'm coming from. I am going to speculate that a distribution company might pay between seven and ten dollars an hour. I am going to speculate that a manufacturer might pay between eight and fifteen dollars an hour. I can conceive of a situation where a distribution company would pay more than ten dollars an hour and I can even conceive of a situation where a manufacturer might try to pay less than that, but I don't think he'd be successful getting the kind of workers he needs. I can also conceive of a manufacturer locating in that park who pays very good wages and does not contribute to our air pollution problem, but for the existence of that park, wouldn't locate in Vanderburgh County. A stamping operation is the simple example. Lots of value added, lots equipment, they need to pay skilled people a lot of money and they need a big location like that. Councilmember Hoy: As you know, because we've talked, I have this horrible reputation of wondering about wages because we did an analysis at Tri-State Food Bank on an eight dollar an hour job, and considering minimal taxes and expenses, the person earning eight dollars an hour is going to end up with eighty-five bucks a week to cover food, medical care, insurance, child care, emergencies, home repairs and upkeep, lost wages, school supplies, fees, gifts, hobbies, vacation, entertainment, or any gifts they might want to give and this is why I continually have problems with projects where we put government money in to attract jobs that are that far away from public transportation and on this kind of wage, nobody can own a car that's serviceable and I have to be honest with you, I know you cannot stand there, and I don't expect you to, to tell me what you're going to attract, but I have to say that's the part that bothers me and that's why I'd like to see some of this development closer in where some of these old buildings are within the city limits so that people can get there without having to own a car. We house Auto-Mission at the Tri-State Food Bank, and they work very hard to make cars available to families like this, but currently on that lot there's one car. That's all the questions I have. Councilmember Sutton: I have a question for Mr. Johnston. I think we have 1.8 million square feet in developable space here -- Chris Johnston: Actually, it's probably -- if you look at 277 acres as the total area out there considered for the park , if you assume twenty percent of that ends up under roof, that comes out to about a million eight in square feet under roof. Councilmember Sutton: Okay, in our projections and assumptions here, based upon that amount of developable space, how do we make the determinations of what our revenues are going to be, given, I know all this is speculative in nature and we don't know who or what or when things are going to occur, how do we make a determination on those revenue projections based upon that square footage? Are you just dividing that out over that fifteen year period and just taking it like that or assuming -- Chris Johnston: Right. You're exactly right, Mr. Sutton, that out of that million eight, that sixty percent of that million eight, we come up with a portion of total square footage that we say could be light manufacturing. Out of that million eight, we take forty percent and say that much of it could be warehousing distribution facilities and applying the real property assessment manual put out by the state, you come up with a total assessed value that could occur over a ten year period and we just straight lined it. There is no -- if you looked at that first column, it just comes in in chunks, a million three or so a year evenly over that ten year period. It could occur more rapidly, it could be delayed in a year or two. Again, it's just an assumption. Councilmember Sutton: Okay, so we could conceivably move along much slower or much faster either way depending on who locates there, but just very speculative. Chris Johnston: Well, it's speculative, but I also think it's reasonable in that we worked on a TIF district for another business park that had a railroad spur, had a good transportation network, state highways, and also interstate highways close by and that business park has four 500,000 square foot facilities in it, and that happened over a four year period. So again, I think it's a reasonable presentation but you're right. Is it going to be a smooth line over ten years? No, its going to be up and down over that ten year period. President Wortman: Excuse me a minute, we're going to change tapes. Councilmember Sutton: The other question is, how long will it take to complete the whole site to make it developable? Obviously, it's not all prepared and ready to go, how long of a period of time are we talking to get the whole entire site prepared? Chris Johnston: I need to turn that over to Mr. Keeping. Ron Keeping: That's a very good question. We are dealing with an engineer on those questions. I believe that if we go forward with this action today that we can begin engineering immediately, hopefully for construction to start sometime late summer with construction completed sometime next spring, everything, the roads and everything. It's an extremely critical issue because -- forgive me for making promises -- but we have people who are anxious to know about when they can start building their buildings. But late summer to start, sometime late spring to be finished. Councilmember Sutton: I guess my concern or question, not necessarily concern, more centers around the county's investment into the project and if there are parts of this project that its going to take a lot longer to get going, then obviously, the issues are we're making an investment, but you still would have some areas of this project that are undeveloped and not ready to go and I think that's something that we want to try to make sure we get at least some clarity of where we will be and when we will be in terms of this whole project since we are looking at laying a lot of the systems into this project which would seem very reasonable. That's where I am going with this. Ron Keeping: Okay, to that point, the park with the investment we're talking about, the park will be completed with all infrastructure except for railroad by sometime next spring, I hope, barring a terrible winter. I'm not an engineer, though. President Wortman: Anybody else got any questions? Councilmember Bassemier: Yeah, I touched on this last week, this involves 227 acres and the Foundation, on this handout sheet, says it's going to take 164.4 acres to break even for the Foundation. Of course, the county will get theirs back through the local income tax, I know that. I was figuring there was like 62 acres left over and I know there is going to be some you need for, I don't if its railroad tracks or whatever, but were still talking about 62 acres. Just say we take even half of that 31 acres left over, I was just wondering where those monies are going, which is almost a total of a million dollars left over that you all paid off, there's a million dollars left over, where are those monies going to? Are you going to give it back to the county or is it going into the Foundation fund or where is it going to? Do you follow me? Chris Johnston: I do not. Is that from land sales? Ron Keeping: I understand what you're talking about and the 168 acres was a number that we derived -- actually, we did it this way: we found out how many sellable acres we had which was 168. We found out how much money we needed and then we divided how much money we needed by the acreage to come up with that sales price. Hard as it is to believe, there isn't any more sellable land but 168 acres out there. The first thing that comes out of sellable land is the roads themselves, and then the next things are very significant: drainage, retention structures, drainage structures which are needed to keep water from backing up on any of the neighbors, and then there's all this land behind the railroad track on the wrong side of the railroad track that we figure nobody would pay any money for because they cant get to it, so we aren't going to sell that. So 168 acres was what the engineers told us was sellable land, 226 to start, you take out the roads, you take out the drainage structure, and then there's also a right-of-way for the oil line that goes through it. The other question is, if the Foundation does make money, if we find somebody whose got a deal with us and we can get more money per acre, that money will go to pay interest on the money we, as the Foundation, are borrowing. If we continue to hopefully make money, it'll get kept by the Foundation and reinvested in this community. Councilmember Bassemier: Okay. I just wanted the record to reflect that. Thank you, Sir. Councilmember Sutton: Thats a good point you brought up if we do see an increased amount of interest in these properties. You have a baseline figure that you're looking at right now on the cost per acre. You're not locked into that figure, obviously. Ron Keeping: That is correct. We are not locked into that figure. Councilmember Sutton: How might we find out information as the project proceeds forward if we do exceed that baseline figure? Ron Keeping: You could call me or anybody else from the Foundation and we will tell you how well we're doing. Councilmember Sutton: I didn't know if there was going to be some reporting or things that will take place. Ron Keeping: Id be proud to come here and tell you how well we're doing especially if we're doing well. Councilmember Sutton: I think regardless of how it goes, we will want to know how it's going and it is our intent and hope that it will go extremely well, but those are just some of the key things that we would like to know because obviously, faster repayment on those bond payments, we're obviously looking at ways in which we can do that, too. I don't know how much an effect this has on the county's bond rating, have we taken a look at that, Mr. President? President Wortman: Not yet, but I think that's a good point on that, but a progress report yearly would be in order here, I think. Mr. Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: I know when Mr. Robinson from Vision 2000 was here last week, he's unable to be here, but he had indicated too that there are prospects that are ready to go now as soon as we can get this thing lined up. I had one other question on page three, the cumulative available revenues, that is assuming everything goes well, would that money be controlled by the bond issuer, is that right? Chris Johnston: The Redevelopment Commission. Every July, I think it's July 1st or July 15th, the Commission has to look at where all their TIF projects stand in relation to their debt service and they make a decision as to what is the use of those funds. And Mr. Sutton, I imagine you will get a progress report because Madam Auditor will have to make an appropriation out of County Option Income Tax if things are going well. Suzanne Crouch: I believe, if I am interpreting your information correctly, I guess it's the last page perhaps where you have the estimated County Option Income requirement, that is actually at this time, actual monies that the County Council will have to appropriate, is that correct? Chris Johnston: Right, that is what I wanted to touch on. Suzanne Crouch: And the Council has monies available in your COIT Windfall. You've set aside money and have budgeted money for the Daylight Sewer Project, you've also budgeted money for Azteca to pick up until their TIF has generated enough revenues and we need to probably look at those numbers, but there should be conservatively $300,000 available after you have enough money to pay for your Azteca and your Daylight Sewer has already had monies appropriated, so there should be ample monies to make those payments. Councilmember Hoy: Ms. Crouch, on this financial sheet you gave us, those figures are not reflected on here. Suzanne Crouch: No, they're not, but I'll be happy to -- Councilmember Hoy: That's okay, they're in addition to what we're seeing here, is my understanding. Suzanne Crouch: That is correct. Councilmember Hoy: A question I have is, you know, we all hope for this to work, but this is really a speculative venture for the county as well, a two million dollar speculative venture. Chris Johnston: Yes, it would be much nicer if we had ten prospects that we could go and put -- Councilmember Hoy: I understand. I just, before we vote I want us to know that we are voting on a speculative venture and we all hope it turns out well. Chris Johnston: One other point to address, something that Mr. Sutton had mentioned and that Mike had mentioned earlier, depending upon what projects come in and what the pace of development is, there is something that the Redevelopment Commission can consider and that is to designate a taxpayer in there. If you have a manufacturer that comes in and is going to have substantial personal property in the form of machinery and equipment, on a case by case basis the Redevelopment Commission could designate that taxpayer and also capture the incremental assessed value from that investment as well. Because we do not know who those taxpayers may be, we've just left our revenue projections solely on real property. Councilmember Hoy: This question was asked before, Mr. Raben asked it a while ago, this is, Mr. Robling, eligible for Airport Development Zone Enterprise, also? Mike Robling: (Inaudible -- did not come to microphone) Councilmember Hoy: It's within that large area. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Sutton: Mr. Robling, when I asked the question earlier about our bond rating, the county's bond rating, any insight you could provide there on any effects that we might see as a result of this particular project? Mike Robling: I'm not sure it would affect the bond rating because you're not pledging the regular personal property tax funds at all. A TIF bond gets rated basically by the security that's behind it which is the COIT pledge. This would be the third TIF bond that's been issued. Suzanne mentioned the Azteca one, which is also COIT backed and then the Burkhardt Road one which is a pure TIF that has no backing whatsoever and (inaudible) the most productive pure TIF in the state because of the rapid development that is taking place in that area. President Wortman: Okay. Jim? Councilmember Raben: I am still a little bit confused with the overall estimated tax revenues, okay, which they were being speculated to raise seven million dollars, the total debt service over fifteen years is three point two, that balance of roughly four million dollars, what body is in charge of that balance? Is it the Redevelopment Commission, or is it the Industrial Foundation, who... Chris Johnston: The Redevelopment Commission. Mike Robling: (Inaudible -- did not come to the microphone to speak) Chris Johnston: It depends on how the bond documents their structure, but again, the Redevelopment Commission, every summer will look at not only the revenues related to this project, but all other TIF revenues for other projects and they'll compare to their debt service requirements for those projects and then make a determination that if there's available TIF revenues, then they have a couple of options. The bond documents may say we want to accumulate all the excess TIF so we can call the bonds early and pay them off as soon as possible or if they don't, then the decision could be to still accumulate it or to spend the money on a pay as you go project. Maybe there's a related drainage problem or some sort of infrastructure project that wasn't done in `95 when they originally issued the bonds, let's say. So it's the Redevelopment Commission working along with the Auditor and the Trustee depending on how much of the money has to go to pay off bonds. So those three entities, but the driving force is really the governmental body of the Redevelopment Commission. Councilmember Raben: I guess why I am somewhat concerned with these projections is it's not like you're talking about two percent or three percent additional monies, I mean, we're talking almost fifty percent or greater, well, actually, a hundred percent, and Mike, I am still confused as far as the Redevelopment Commission, could those excess funds be used for other projects that do not pertain to this project? Can you use that extra money to pay down debt services on other -- Mike Robling: (Inaudible -- did not come to the microphone to speak) Rick Hall: Yeah, the excess TIF revenues could be used to pay off the bonds or they could be used for projects that are within the area or directly serve the area, meaning the park, so you could not take those monies and the Redevelopment Commission could not take those monies and use them elsewhere in the county. Councilmember Raben: Okay, to me, I would like some sort of language that would state that the excess funds be used for early retirement of the bonds. I mean, I would like to know that the Commission couldn't do other things with these funds until the debt was satisfied because that's what we're responsible for. I mean, that's where our signatures are on the line and I would like to see -- and again, to me, it looks like by year 2005 we could double up on payments if your projections are anywhere near close to being accurate. Rick Hall: That's certainly a term we could negotiate with the purchaser of the bonds to provide for the early repayment with the excess TIF. Councilmember Raben: Okay, and then, -- Mike Robling: (Inaudible -- did not come to the microphone to speak) Councilmember Hoy: Could we get this on record because she won't be able -- (Inaudible - several speaking at once) Mike Robling: I was asking Rick if the bonds couldn't be structured as such that any excess funds couldn't be utilized for any purpose other than debt reduction at least until the COIT -- there was no longer a need for COIT revenues. Councilmember Hoy: Should we vote yes on this today, Mr. Robling, how can we ensure that? I mean, we've voted on things before when we voted and then once we voted, we've lost control and we've lost leverage. Mike Robling: You still have to pass the ordinance. Councilmember Hoy: So we still have another opportunity? Okay, thank you. Rick Hall: Yeah, the reason you're being asked to adopt this resolution today is the Foundation has an option on the property, to acquire the property that expires at the end of the month and before they incurred their own debt, and expended their own money to acquire the site, they wanted some assurances from the County Council and the County Commissioners that you are supportive of the project, that you were willing to finance and build the one point six million dollars in infrastructure improvements that they feel is necessary in order to make it a viable park, so the resolution you adopt today is evidence of your support for the project, your willingness to pledge COIT to a two million dollar bond issue to finance infrastructure to support the park. Once the final terms of the bonds have been negotiated with the purchasers and the Redevelopment Commission has approved those terms of the bonds, we will come back to you and the Council will then have to make a formal pledge of the COIT to those bonds. So when you make that formal pledge through adoption of an ordinance, you'll know exactly what you're pledging the COIT to. Councilmember Hoy: We, as a Council, according to what I've read in the paperwork are not really a partner in this with you all. I mean, that's a statement I thought I read in the documentation. In other words, this is not a partnership venture, we are putting up money for infrastructure, period. Rick Hall: That's right. Councilmember Hoy: Have you all, and I read your history, but I confess I haven't memorized it, have you all ever asked a governing body to do this before or have you asked the developers or the businesses coming in to do their own infrastructure in your history? Councilmember Sutton: I think I've got somewhat of a feeling what he's probably going to say, but generally, when we're talking about attracting some of the more attractive businesses and industries to our area, they are looking for sites that are ready, buildable sites where they won't have to make those type of heavy investments in a site wherein they may not fully realize the benefit of that exclusively themselves, but others may also benefit from what they've invested in. I'll let you go ahead. President Wortman: I'll tell you what happened with the Dana Corporation was wanting to build out there and they went to Owensboro and nothing was ready out there. That was what was wrong in the first project. This here, when you build it, it's going to be ready. Councilmember Hoy: But to be honest with you, Mr. Wortman, the state of Kentucky, itself, offered a whole lot more incentives to Dana than the state of Indiana did. I mean, there were more carrots on the stick out there than just the industrial park. I mean, Kentucky was willing to pay a whole lot more for Scott Paper Company than we were as a state and that's the kind of competition we're up against all the time. And frankly, as you know, it's the kind of competition I deplore because I think it's not good economics. Ron Keeping: To speak to Mr. Hoy's questions, to my knowledge there has never been a case where the foundation has sought the kind of support from the government we're seeking today and, in fact, frequently the role of the Foundation has been to extend infrastructure in cases where the government was not able to extend infrastructure so I think that answers both of your questions, doesn't it? Councilmember Hoy: Yes, it does and this is really, as I understand it, part of the sort of the new wave of how things are done and were not done in the past, I mean, not just with you all but just in general? Ron Keeping: I believe that's right. President Wortman: Mrs. Smith? Councilmember Smith: A resolution is a resolution and it's not the ordinance, but if we approve the resolution -- this happened several years ago on Eastland Mall -- Joe Harrison, Sr. was the attorney in that case and when it went there, they approved it but when they come back the City Council turned it down, he went to Federal Court and won it because we gave the resolution as an approval. So really, after today we do lose control and this, I remember this very well, and that was Eastland Mall, so we did lose control at that time. Councilmember Hoy: Thank you, Mrs. Smith, for your wonderful memory. President Wortman: Mr. Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to say, Jim, just about. I like what you're saying, I like what Betty is saying, I think you ought to cover this motion so when they read in, when they draw this up, it's there that anything left over and above goes to pay this off. I think you've got a great idea there. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'd like to raise maybe one or two more questions, and I don't know if this needs to be directed to the County Attorney, Joe Harrison, Jr., or Mike, but the Vanderburgh County Redevelopment Commission, who is in charge of the Redevelopment Commission? Mike Robling: There are five members on the Commission and they're all appointed by the County Commissioners and serve at their pleasure. Councilmember Raben: Can you, and I'm very much in favor of this project, don't get me wrong, but I am also concerned about dragging out fifteen years of debt service if it's not in my control or maybe I don't like the people who has control over it. But the Redevelopment Commission will always have the say so on do we drag this out fifteen years or can we pay it out and -- Mike Robling: Legally, that's true but in reality the Auditor is probably in the driver's seat for the most part. Councilmember Raben: The Auditor. Mike Robling: You have the funds, you're the custodian of the funds. Councilmember Raben: Can you terminate a TIF? Mike Robling: Not while there are bonds outstanding, I don't think. Councilmember Raben: Okay. Councilmember Hoy: So in truth what Mrs. Smith said and what's being said here, -- Mike Robling: She was referring to a tax abatement. Councilmember Hoy: -- what we vote today really legally locks us in. I mean, we, as a Council, sometimes don't ask all the -- that's why we're asking all these questions because we've had situations where we voted something and it came back to haunt us more than once. And I don't want that to happen and I don't think any Councilman does. Councilmember Raben: I'm concerned with tying up funds that could go back to other taxing agents or the township for fifteen years and it sounds like it's up to the Redevelopment Commission whether they opt to do that or not and at some point in time, again, it's possible that in six or eight or ten years, we could retire the debt and retire the TIF and everything would be back to normal, but I don't know who -- I mean, again, we're trusting that non-elected body, an appointed body, to make that decision and that's a little uncomfortable for me. Rick Hall: We can build into the terms of the documents a requirement that the excess TIF goes into a fund and that fund only be used to retire the bonds, so you can constrain the use of that money. Councilmember Raben: Can you also build in that the TIF be retired at that time? Rick Hall: That the TIF district be repealed upon the retirement of the bonds? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Rick Hall: You could provide for that as well. Councilmember Raben: Okay, so that -- does everybody understand that? Councilmember Hoy: But we need to put that in today and not wait until later because of what you said, Mrs. Smith, about -- Councilmember Raben: Well, if it's stated on record... Rick Hall: Yeah, I think that the resolution that you have before you today is not the binding ordinance that pledges the COIT to the bonds, but any issues that you have or reservations or conditions, etc., without question should be flushed out in the open today because it's upon this resolution that the Foundation is going to take action to purchase this land, so they need to know within the boundaries that they're operating when they do that. Councilmember Raben: And again, I've got the greatest faith in the world in the Foundation themselves. Again, I think it's a strong group of individuals that if there's a way in hell it's going to work, they'll make it work. But I would like to take the authority at some point away from the Redevelopment Commission and be able to eliminate the TIF so those funds are back in the other agents where they belong and I think what these other individuals are afraid of is when we sign off today, we've waivered our chances of adding that verbiage. So is that true or... Rick Hall: It is not true. Councilmember Raben: Okay. (Inaudible -- microphone not turned on) Rick Hall: We can do that. President Wortman: Just a minute, our County Attorney might respond to this question. Jeff Ahlers: I would suggest that if everyone, I mean, if you all have that concern and you want this in here, that we can go ahead and put language in that all of the excess revenue shall be applied to the outstanding balance of the bonds until they are retired. And there was one other concern -- wasn't there another item you wanted in there? Councilmember Raben: At which time, and again, I don't know, again, I don't know whose call it is but the possibility of retiring the TIF. Is that the Commissioners' call then? Jeff Ahlers: I would just point out briefly, that again, this is a resolution. It is not the ordinance. The resolution specifically refers at the bottom of Section One that this resolution does not constitute a pledge of the COIT revenues and that the terms of the pledge shall be determined by an ordinance to be adopted by Council following the approval of the issuance of the bonds by the Commission. So therefore, subsequently, in an ordinance you can put in whatever terms you want. However, if it gives you some higher level of comfort, I would suggest, I don't see any problem unless Mr. Halls sees otherwise, I think we should just go ahead and we can just add in a sentence here on the excess revenues unless, of course, the Foundation sees any problems with that. Councilmember Sutton: Well, Counsel, on this resolution, given that it's not an ordinance, it is just a resolution, I'm not seeing that on the agenda for today anyway in terms of acting on that. We've got the Industrial Foundation's presentation on here but we don't have anything that says anything about a resolution. Now we have the resolution for the Airport Development Zone -- Councilmember Smith: We got it on our desks when we came in so we haven't seen it. Councilmember Sutton: I mean we have normally, I mean, we haven't taken action on anything in any of our meetings unless we have it on the agenda. I'm not wanting to delay or anything like that, but given the amount of discussion here and like I say, it doesn't appear on our agenda. How can we act on this anyway? Jeff Ahlers: Let me point out to you, first of all, this was addressed at the Personnel & Finance meeting -- Councilmember Sutton: Not a resolution. It was a discussion. Jeff Ahlers: Yes, -- Councilmember Sutton: No, I was here. A resolution was not presented. Jeff Ahlers: A resolution was not presented. It was discussed at that time that a resolution was required and that based upon that discussion we move forward to have a resolution prepared. Councilmember Sutton: I've got an amended agenda for today and on that amended agenda which would have reflected anything that we would have discussed last week, it does not indicate that. Now, I've got the agenda for last week and this week and it doesn't include that, so that's what I am trying to say here. We don't have that as an action item. Jeff Ahlers: Well, the agenda, obviously, is brief. This is a decision for you all to make what you want to vote on. The agenda is obviously a succinct abbreviation of what is occurring in an agenda and it has the Evansville Industrial Foundation on there. This is -- the resolution is the action that's being taken with regard to this. It was talked about last time, so there is no problem with the agenda. Now if someone has a motion they want to make and they're not wanting to consider this, that's obviously your prerogative, but I am saying it is legal, it is on here, and it was discussed. Councilmember Sutton: That's not really my point. If you are looking at it that way, we had a gentleman here from last week from Insight Communications who came and spoke and that even appears on the agenda for this week. That didn't -- there wasn't an action item necessarily to act on that and that's what we have here on the Industrial Foundation. Last week, clearly in the discussion I didn't hear anything where we would be acting on a resolution. Surely, I know they were looking for our support and I think we are supportive of that, I think, I am not hearing too much dissent and at least I am supportive of it, but I am just saying there isn't anything on here indicated where there was an action item to be taken unless I am reading something totally wrong here. Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, we don't have a motion on the floor yet, do we? I would like to make a motion, Mr. President, that we table this resolution and ask our attorney to write in to the resolution Mr. Raben's two concerns and that we then present it in a subsequent meeting of this body. That is a motion. President Wortman: Do I have a second to that motion? Councilmember Sutton: Second. President Wortman: Now discussion. Jeff Ahlers: If I could, first of all, I'd like to ask the Foundation, are we under any time constraints before we start...as I said, we could put these items in the resolution if it needs to be done today. If we're not under a time constraint that's fine, but before we -- I think all the Council ought to understand if there are any time constraints. Councilmember Smith: Mr. Jeffers, you don't answer to the public, you answer to the Council. The question, and he made the motion, he seconded it, so you ask them a question. You are supposed to answer to us and no one else. That is your job. Jeff Ahlers: I am trying to make sure that what this body is doing is an appropriate action and that you understand what you are voting on and the ramifications. Councilmember Smith: Then you talk to the Councilmembers, you don't talk to the public. You are not an elected official. Jeff Ahlers: I was recognized by the President and I am speaking and doing what I am supposed to do, Miss Knight. President Wortman: Okay, Mr. Lloyd. Councilmember Lloyd: I'd ask Mr. Keeping, are we under some time constraints for this project? Ron Keeping: Yes. Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, you have the ability and power to call any special meetings any time you choose to do so. President Wortman: I am aware of that. I was wanting the answer from Mr. Lloyd from Mr. -- the time element. Ron Keeping: The Foundation has an option that expires on April 30th, Sir. President Wortman: April 30th, this month. Okay. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, could I raise a question with our Counsel? Mr. Ahlers, let me make sure that legally we're in the clear. If we vote on this resolution today, at some point in time, we're going to have to sign off on the bonds, correct? Jeff Ahlers: Not the bonds. We're going to have an ordinance that will need to be passed by this body that sets forth the terms of our pledge of COIT revenues essentially to back up the bonds. Councilmember Raben: Okay, so at that time, is that when we can legally add the language that we would like to add? Jeff Ahlers: Yes. I mean, that talks about specific terms that would be put in that ordinance; however, what I am saying is, is I don't think there is a problem if you want to add that term today. That's not a problem. I mean, it's in this resolution. If it gives you some higher level of comfort to do that there is absolutely no problem to do that and I'd suggest -- Councilmember Raben: We can do that today. Jeff Ahlers: Sure. Councilmember Hoy: That's what my motion effects is that we -- I want this written in from the very start so that we face no legal problems later on where someone says well, you passed this resolution and in a courtroom then we're held to that resolution. And that's why I think we can do this today and our President can set a special meeting so that document is written up just like we want it and we can meet their deadline and I'll feel a lot more comfortable if it's done that way and I don't know how the rest of the Council feels, but there is a motion on the floor that we eventually will vote on which I would be happy to add to my motion and if the seconder is willing to accept it, that is that we add a special meeting -- change tape? President Wortman: Yes, excuse me. (Discussion continued during tape change) Jeff Ahlers: -- minutes as far as in handwriting, I suppose. If you want a nice clean copy, I mean, it can be done tomorrow. So that's not something that's time consuming as far as a resolution. Now the ordinance -- Councilmember Raben: Thinking in terms of how we can act on it today,... Councilmember Sutton: Well, if we're talking about adding language, I mean, wouldn't we rather really want to take a look at that language rather than just hastily throwing some things together, given that they do have some time constraints here and we want to be respectful of that, let's not get in such a hurry that we don't do our job. You've got some concerns, Councilman Raben, why not embed that language in here. If Mr. President has to call a special meeting, he can do that. President Wortman: Councilmen, I am going to suggest something, I can call the ten minute recess and have the attorney and those gentlemen process that and come back with you if you want to. Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, I'd like to add an amendment to my motion and see if Mr. Sutton will second it and that is that we call a special meeting a week from today or longer so that we meet this time frame. I just got this on my desk today and then I just got the accountant's figures on my desk today and I need more time to look at this stuff and we're talking about two million dollars here. It won't hurt us...that's what I want to add to my motion. I need a second if Mr. Sutton will accept it to say that we will meet, put a time frame on it of having a week or more and we stay within their time frame so that they can act and meet their deadline because I know Mr. Ahlers is a good attorney, I don't want something handwritten in front of me. I want a resolution that looks just as clean and good as this so I can read it. Do you accept that addition, Mr. Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Amen, Reverend. Councilmember Smith: I want it understood that I am certainly not against this project, but a resolution -- you're giving them the go-ahead, so we are committed to it even though it's a resolution. Joe Harrison, Sr., Joe is sitting back there, knows this happened and they took us to Federal Court and won it when we gave them the preliminary approval! And when we vote on this, we are giving them the approval. So it should be right. If you want to take a ten minute recess, do that, whatever. Let's just move on and get it over with, but let's have it right when we do it. Councilmember Sutton: One other thing, let's conduct this in such a way, I mean, when we get the resolution on our desks as we get here for the meeting, I mean, let's give ourselves some time to look at this. I mean, I think we feel comfortable overall for the most part with this but let's not put something -- we just don't handle things like that, with handwritten things, something hastily put together. The project is not going to be adversely affected by us taking action at a later time or something like that. I mean, we just need, and I am pretty sure they need to do some research before they add that language in there. I mean, they are not just going to write language and not do the research on it. Let's do the thing correctly. President Wortman: Okay, Mr. Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: I dont have any problem with Mr. Raben' suggestion about taking the monies and paying off the bonds early when there's an excess. Too, I don't think it's in our bounds to say abolish the Tax Increment district because that's the Commissioners' power, that's not Council's power. So I don't know that we can really do that. Councilmember Hoy: Well, it has to do with funding, and we are the funding body that makes funding decisions. They can always tell us we are out of bounds, but I think, again, we don't -- see, here we are again. We dont know where we stand legally on that issue as to whether or not we can do that. We need to know that before we meet and that is why I am pushing for this resolution. It' not going to mess up their time frame at all. If this project is as important as they say it is and we feel it is, then let's do it decently and in order and act like the deliberative body that we've been elected to be. This happens to us too many times where this stuff comes on the desk and there's always a deadline. There's always a close deadline and we can still meet this deadline by having a space of time for this to be written out, typed out, mailed to us, given to us, or whatever so we can look it over and know exactly what we're voting on and have it clear as crystal from the beginning because generally it' better to be in on the takeoff or else you want be in on the landing and I think -- Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman, are we supposed to meet on the 28th on a special meeting? Couldnt we vote on it at that time? He said he had until the 30th. Councilmember Hoy: That would give them two days. Ron Keeping: That is true. This resolution you are making has been set to give the Foundation the assurance that the Council is on board with this. That assurance, in turn, will be needed by the people to which we, the Foundation, will go seeking additional borrowing in the Foundation's name. They've got to be assured and waiting until the 28th wouldn't give the Foundation enough time to go to their banks to get the money. This is not one of those fifteen minute credit approval things you hear about on T.V. The sooner you can act, if it takes a special meeting, the better it will be for the Foundation. The Foundation, itself, meets in regular session next Monday. We, the Foundation, of course, will meet in special session ourselves to accommodate your schedule. Councilmember Hoy: With all due respect, I think on your board, I've read your board, you have the major banks represented on your board and I am sure they are interested in this because they are interested in the community. We have two of the largest banks around in this town and a third bank that's fairly large. I have a notion that they believe in this or they wouldn't be here and they wouldn't be on your board and I'm confident they can come up with the loan. One of those banks came up with a smaller loan, much smaller than two million dollars for me in twenty minutes. I admit that was less money, but it can be done and the preliminary work can be done with those banks before the date because I think your sense is that this body is going to approve this. We just want it in the form which -- I'd be happy to come to an earlier meeting, that's why I said let's give ourselves a week so legal counsel has the time and we can have a short meeting. But I would like to look at the resolution first. I just don't think that this is an unreasonable motion or request and it certainly will improve our image in this community as being a body who acts ahead of time. We've been accused of acting behind on The Centre and things like that. Let's conduct ourselves in a business-like way. Councilmember Sutton: There is a motion on the floor. President Wortman: Yeah, motion on the floor and second, is there any more discussion? Mr. Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Mr. President, just one other thing. The Commissioners created the TIF district. The Council, we don't have the power to do that. We don't have the power to abolish it, so I don't think that should be in the resolution, but I'd like to see us get this completed today. I think a recess -- we'll have a document in front of us and vote it up or down. Councilmember Hoy: And what I'm asking is our legal counsel check -- he can check the legality of that section and if it's not legal, leave it out. It's that simple. Jeff Ahlers: Which section are you referring to leave out? Councilmember Hoy: On paying -- what was it, Mr. Raben, paying the TIF off early. Jeff Ahlers: I don't think there's a problem with that but abolishing the TIF district. Councilmember Hoy: Abolishing the TIF district, that's it. Jeff Ahlers: And if that's an -- that's not in our bailiwick. Councilmember Raben: Then if Commissioners establish the TIF then Im sure it's their right to abolish the TIF, so that part of it may be out of line but taking care of debt service up front is very important and if that's something we can do in a matter of a few minutes and everybody take a few minutes' break, I mean... Councilmember Hoy: We have a motion and we have a span of time in the motion, at least a week and the motion gives us at least a week and I would rather keep the motion as is because Mr. Ahlers is a good attorney and he can come back and tell us no, that section doesn't fit, that's the Commissioners' call, I'll be happy to hear that, but I'd like that researched. I don't think that's too much to ask. President Wortman: Okay, would you please call the roll? Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: I am ready to vote on this today. I think we can add it to the motion. I am going to vote no on it. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: No. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: No. (Motion fails 3-4/Councilmembers Bassemier, Raben, Lloyd and Wortman opposed) Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, could I make a motion that, I see our County Attorney is present, that he possibly take a quick recess with our counsel and see if this can happen today and then come right back to us? President Wortman: Do I have a second to that effect? Councilmember Lloyd: Second. President Wortman: Any discussion? Councilmember Sutton: How many votes do you have to have on these matters? Councilmember Hoy: Four. It's not a new position. I move the question, Mr. Wortman. I think we know how we are going to vote and I'd just as soon not waste any more time and I've gone on record as asking that we be deliberate, responsible (inaudible - microphone not turned on) so let's just do the vote and get it over with. President Wortman: Do you want to make an amendment, Mr. Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: No, I just want to vote and I called for the question. President Wortman: Alright, we are going to vote on the motion for the recess, Mr. Raben. Councilmember Hoy: (Inaudible - microphone not turned on) President Wortman: Alright, that's fine. Any other discussion? Call the roll please. Jeff Ahlers: For a brief recess. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. (Motion carried 4-3/Councilmembers Smith, Sutton & Hoy opposed) President Wortman: Meeting adjourned for ten minutes. Recess, I said adjourned, I'm sorry. (Meeting recessed for fifteen minutes) President Wortman: The County Council now is in session after a having a long ten minute recess. We have a resolution with added -- everybody look it over and if there are any questions, why we'll proceed with that. The attorneys met and I'll entertain a motion to that effect. Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, before you entertain a motion, I'm still, I had a question in our other session before we recessed is, and the question was related to our agenda. Our agenda -- we have a resolution on here to approve the Airport Development Zone, we have some other things on our agenda, we don't have this on the agenda. Where does this lie on the agenda? I went back through the minutes of our last meeting and reviewed through those minutes and unless someone says something different, I don't see anything in the verbiage in those minutes that mentions a resolution coming before this body to this effect and I think the fact that it's set on our desks the moment we sit down here supports that. I think that what we're dealing with here is not necessarily an issue of this project. I mean, I think there is support for this project but I think more the issue is we're hurriedly throwing things together and putting things together and not really giving a lot of thought to these things. Last month it was the two percent tax issue. Now we've got this thrown before us at the last minute. I don't think it's fair to their project and what they are trying to do and the time that they've put into it that we get stuff thrown on our desks the moment of the meeting. I just -- and it isn't reflected even here on the agenda so where will we find this on the agenda to act on this and I think if we look at any of our open meeting laws and public meeting laws, we have to have an agenda that represents what it is that we're going to act on. And I don't see anything that shows that. President Wortman: Would the County Attorney respond to that please? Jeff Ahlers: At the last meeting, I think you'll see in your minutes, and it was when Mr. Keeping was speaking and apparently, because he did a presentation over here on the side with demonstrations and such, he left the microphone and you'll see in the Personnel & Finance Committee meetings, it says that the tape is inaudible. Mr. Keeping made it clear in his presentation that a resolution would be needed on the COIT funds and he discussed that. Councilmember Sutton: The inaudible portion of the minutes that's not recorded. Jeff Ahlers: If you look on page fifteen of your minutes, it says tape inaudible due to speakers not speaking into the microphone. A handout was given to all Councilmembers. I remember because I was here that he was doing a presentation over here and that may be why that occurred. We found out or I was advised on that same day earlier that they were going to need a COIT resolution. The Bond Counsel furnished us with one on Monday, we faxed it over here, I've gotten it together so it's one of those things where we were notified on Wednesday that that's what was needed but that was also done here at the Personnel & Finance Committee meeting. I think it was clear to everyone that we were going to need this resolution. As far as your question concerning the agenda, it's on there. There's no particular methodology as to how an item is put on the agenda. There is no problem with Open Door Laws or anything like that. It's properly before the Council. Councilmember Sutton: Help me see that then, Counsel. Jeff Ahlers: It says Evansville Industrial Foundation down there under New Business. Councilmember Sutton: Okay, and on A, what does that say there? Read that to me. Jeff Ahlers: Well, I can read it. It's talking about a resolution for the Airport Development Zone. President Wortman: Let me interrupt one thing. Right above there we've got D, Judge Tornatta. It don't say a thing about him neither, so I think we've got the same situation there. Councilmember Sutton: So Judge Tornatta could have been coming to present a resolution, he could have been...I am not trying to be picky, I am just saying the point here ...if we're going to do something, let's do it at least the right way. I mean, we've got our other areas of business here and we've followed through on those. Why are we beginning to make exceptions and change things around and hurriedly putting things together? It really comes off as quite disorganized. That's really what it comes off as and I really -- I think we can do a better job. President Wortman: Mr. Sutton, let me ask you this, if that was Evansville Industrial Foundation resolution, what would that do to you? Councilmember Sutton: If, but it's not. I mean, if that were the case then we would be considering a resolution for the Evansville Industrial Foundation. Councilmember Hoy: And the other part of it is, we started at one point six, we're at two, and if this thing fails, we're at three point two million. We'll have to pay for the whole thing. I don't think we will, but that's the way it reads. Mr. President, I don't like coming in here and having a bundle of financial papers put on my desk and a resolution that I haven't seen before a meeting. That is not the way to conduct business. We're not talking about defeating this, we're talking about conducting business and as Mr. Sutton says, it was not on the agenda. We just voted a book full of rules that we were supposed to follow and I don't think this follows the rules we voted for. We're supposed to know ahead of time what we're facing in a meeting. And I've seen us haggle over two thousand dollars for a piece of equipment in somebody's office and we're talking about a couple of million here. Councilmember Lloyd: Mr. President, I would just recommend in the future when we do have a resolution type vote to just have that on the agenda, that language, or at least make an effort to have that. Councilmember Sutton: We've always had that on there, Councilman Lloyd. Anytime we've had anything where we're going to take an action on any type of thing, it's clearly stated on there. That's never been as issue whether we should or shouldn't. I am just saying that it isn't in this particular case and I think a lot of that has to do with, like I said, just the rush to hurriedly put things together without ample consideration for all of the things that we need to do from our standpoint. Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. President, I am going to say this real quick. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the girls, the ladies who prepare this, they do a wonderful job and just left out a word -- we knew what it was all about. The man made a presentation almost forty-five minutes last week. We knew what it was all about. I mean, everything is broken down to us, so I think we oughtn't nitpick, and I think we need to go ahead and vote on this. President Wortman: Okay, we've got till 5:30, Area Plan comes in here, so I am going to entertain a motion from the floor. Councilmember Lloyd: Motion to approve the amended resolution with the new language. President Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Raben: Second. President Wortman: Mr. Raben seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: I believe that we should have gotten it before. I do not want to hold up the project, but from here on, if we get it on the floor I will not vote for another thing so let's make sure if they are under a time limit, then they should get it to the Council beforehand because they know we're supposed to get it before we come on the floor. But I am going to go ahead and vote for it because I think the project is a good project. So I vote aye. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: I think you said it very well, Councilman Smith. That's exactly my sentiments. I'm fully supportive of this project and I think the time that they have put into this, I think we are -- we're duty bound to a certain extent on our end to put in the time that they have put into this project and so to hurriedly put together a resolution that has handwriting and arrows pointing and things put together at the last minute is not reflective of what this body should be all about and I think we can do a much better job. Last month we were hurriedly putting together information and things for the two percent tax last month and now this month we've got this hurriedly put together. Like I say, I'm supportive of the project, so I'll say yes, but I definitely say no to how we carry out our process. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yeah, I just want to thank the Foundation for meeting with me and taking time and they gave me a lot of answers and I appreciate that and I am going to vote yes for this. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: A couple of remarks. With all due respect to the Foundation, I'm looking at that roster of members and these are some of the best and brightest leaders in our city and I think they can produce things for us in a timely fashion and did not. Further, I have great problems with the kind of jobs that are going to be produced because over for-ty percent of the clients that come to the pantries that we service in thirty-three counties have full-time jobs that pay in the range that some of these jobs are going to pay. I just can't in good conscience put public money toward jobs that simply will not enable people to live. Sometimes in this community we have got to realize that people have to have a liveable wage and I don't think we are going to see a lot of those jobs and for that reason and because of the timing and the messy way its been presented, you have a no from me. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: My vote is yes and I think this is a great project. I look forward to seeing it take place and I think it is a victory for the taxpayers. We made an amendment today that serves them better and it certainly has my support. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: I'd like to also echo, thank the Foundation. I believe this will be a successful project for our county. It is something we don't have right now because the Airport Industrial Park has been filled up. I thought it was important that they've made the presentation, we have the information, we had the information last week other than we didn't have the exact resolution, so I think it was important to get this done today and send the message that the county does support this project, so I vote yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. Passes six to one. (Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Hoy opposed) Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, before we adjourn -- F) SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 28, 1999 FOR OLD STATE ROAD BARRETT LAW PROJECT President Wortman: No, I've got one more statement here to make, the special meeting April 28, that's going to be consideration of a bond ordinance for the Old State Road Barrett Law Project. The second reading will be May 5th but this will be the first reading on April 28th. So fifteen minutes before the scheduled Personnel & Finance. Mr. Hoy? G) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM BUILDING AUTHORITY & OGDEN REGARDING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CENTRE Councilmember Hoy: I have two questions, I asked these at least a month ago and we've not gotten the answer. I would like for you, Mr. President, to ask these. We asked the Building Authority what it is going to cost to run and maintain The Centre. We need to know that figure and we also need to know what Ogden is going to charge us because even with the two percent on the Innkeeper's Tax, we're still going to be taping General Funds to run this and as the financial arm of this county, I want to know what those figures are and I think it's overdue that we know those figures. I don't know why we can't have those. Would you please pursue that, Sir? President Wortman: Yes sir. Councilmember Hoy: By next meeting? President Wortman: Guarantee it, guarantee it. And this has got to be advertised, this special meeting, so I'll have the Auditor to make sure you get it advertised. Alright, Mr. Raben? H) ARMSTRONG RECREATION CENTER IMPROVEMENTS Councilmember Raben: One quick thing, I've been contacted by a gentleman by the name of Mark Fehrenbacher who heads up the Armstrong Recreation Center Board and he said that their board has filed for several grants and what they're doing is they need a new roof, they need some air conditioning repairs and they are making some general improvements out there. He had asked that I present this to the Council and asked that I prepare a letter on behalf of the Council in support of their grant applications. And again, they need like $40,000 in roof repairs and the bathrooms, I think they need to put in new plumbing. They've got about $100,000 worth of repairs or something like that and some new playground equipment that they filed for different grants and it would just be something coming from the Council that we're in support of their efforts and if it is okay by this body, I would like to state that we're behind them on that. President Wortman: Would you want to make a motion? Councilmember Raben: I don't know if I need a motion, but -- President Wortman: All those in favor of Jim's little speech there in reference to Armstrong Recreation Center raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Okay, thank you. Any other -- don't leave before you sign your life away. Just a minute, the County Attorney has got something to say. Jeff Ahlers: Our secretary wanted to get signatures on this. What I am going to do with your permission is I will have it cleaned up and the front page will be changed with those exact revisions and supplied to the Auditor's Office, but they want to go ahead and gather signatures since we won't be back again until the 28th. Thank you. President Wortman: Okay. And is there any other business to come before this Council? If not, I want to entertain a motion to adjourn. Councilmember Lloyd: Motion to adjourn. President Wortman: And a second? Councilmember Raben: Second. President Wortman: All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Meeting is adjourned. (Meeting adjourned at 5:38 p.m.)
VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL _____________________________ ___________________________ President Curt Wortman
Vice President Russell Lloyd, Jr.
____________________________ ____________________________ Councilmember James Raben
Councilmember Phil Hoy
____________________________ ____________________________ Councilmember Ed Bassemier
Councilmember Royce Sutton
______________________________ Councilmember Betty Knight-Smith
|
