The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 7^th day of July, 2010 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 8:33 a.m. by County Council President Russell Lloyd, Jr.

President Lloyd: I’d like to open the Vanderburgh County Council July 7^th, 2010 meeting and call the meeting to order. Attendance roll call please.

COUNCILMEMBER	PRESENT	ABSENT
Councilmember Terry	X
Councilmember Bassemier	X
Councilmember Shetler	X
Councilmember Goebel	X
Councilmember Raben		X
Councilmember Kiefer		X*
President Lloyd	X

President Lloyd: And for the Pledge of Allegiance, I’d like Councilman Shetler to lead us in that.

President Lloyd: Okay, we have item four, approval of the minutes from June 2^nd, 2010. Anybody see any changes? I’ll ask for a motion to approve.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Goebel. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.

President Lloyd: We’ll move on to item five, appropriation ordinance, and I’ll turn that over to the Finance Chair, Mr. Shetler.

Councilmember Shetler: I’ll make a motion for passage of the Commissioners request of $108,000 coming out of the general fund. That will be replaced later on with a transfer from one fund to another. Oh, we’re going to put that in at zero, and that’s going to come out of a different fund as we talked about last week. So I recommend that we move that line item to zero and we’ll see that same amount come out of a different fund.

President Lloyd: Okay, so motion for Commissioners, $108,500 be set in at zero. On page two there is a transfer that would accomplish that same goal. Is there a second for that?

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Kiefer. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Shetler: Next, I make a motion to approve the request for Burdette Park on the part-time employees to the tune of $53,825.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Bassemier. Any discussion? And we had Steve Craig in here last week to kind of go over that for us. If not, roll call vote please.

Councilmember Shetler: Unless there is an objection, perhaps we could take these all at one time. First is the County Highway transfer request of $16,300 from Gas & Oil account to Tires & Tubes and Drainage & Assessment. The second request is from the Reassessment/Assessor, from the Maintenance Contract of $2,000 and Contractual Services of $3,000 to Travel/Mileage $2,000, Office Supplies $3,000. Next is a request from the Assessor’s office from Reassessment/PTABOA from PTABOA Member $3,500 to Office Supplies $3,000 and Travel/Mileage $500. And we have a couple of late transfer requests, from Riverboat, Economic Development $108,500, that’s the request earlier by the Commissioners to Reorganization-Finance of $38,500, Reorganization-Legal $60,000, Reorganization-Other $10,000. Cumulative Bridge account from Baseline Road project of $20,000 to Maryland Street Bridge $20,000. I put that in the form of a motion to grant all of those transfers.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Kiefer. We’ve got a motion to approve all the transfers as submitted. Just a point of order, I talked to the Commissioners on the Riverboat funding for the reorganization committee and they explained that pretty well last week. I told them there was no need to come this week for that. And the other things, they’ve been explained. Is there any questions of Councilmembers? If not, roll call vote please.

President Lloyd: Okay, we’ll move on to item number seven on our agenda, repeals, there are no items.

President Lloyd: Number eight, old business, A, confirming resolution confirming the declaration of an economic revitalization area for real property and acquisition of manufacturing equipment located at Airport Industrial Park Subdivision Lot 6, and part of Lot 5, Enviroplas, Inc. and Terra Firma Properties, LLC. And this is the third and final reading on this tax abatement request. We’d already seen that at a prior meeting. And we have Ms. Martin from Evansville GAGE.

Pam Martin: Good morning. We’re here today as the president explained to act on the confirming resolution and to conduct an advertised public hearing related to the property tax phase-in request submitted by Enviroplas and Terra Firma Properties for their property at 10100 Hedden Road. As you recall, the company proposes to do an expansion and expand their manufacturing capability at their facility. They propose to spend $940,000 on this project, it will create five new jobs at the end of the project, and 13 new jobs after five years. I correct myself, it will create eight new jobs immediately. Using the county’s established review guidelines, we determined that they would qualify for an eight-year phase-in on real property, and a seven year phase-in on the manufacturing equipment. Council approved the preliminary resolution on June 2^nd and we’re here for the confirming.

President Lloyd: Any questions from Councilmembers? We’ve kind of gone over this pretty well.

Pam Martin: Company representatives are here today in case there are more questions also.

President Lloyd: If there’s no questions, then I’d ask for a motion to approve.

President Lloyd: Okay, the motion and the second to approve the confirming resolution and the recommendation, what were the number of years of those abatements?

Pam Martin: For real property eight years and for personal property or manufacturing equipment seven years.

President Lloyd: Yes. That is approved six to zero. Great. Thank you and congratulations. Look forward to working with you.

President Lloyd: Item B, 2010 property tax phase-in compliance report, second and final installment. You should have a document from June 18^th – a letter from GAGE, which shows all the property tax phase-ins for Vanderburgh County that have been approved by this Council, and any of those that are in non-compliance for whatever reason have been highlighted. And I guess we’ll ask Ms. Martin if she has anything to add before we go to Council questions.

Pam Martin: The only thing I need to explain is, this is balance of the compliance review and report for 2010. As you recall, the granting or authorizing body is required to review compliance, review each active phase-in for compliance within 45 days of the May 15^th deadline. This completes your work for the year. You have supporting documentation for any company that, following analysis, was found to be less than 100% in compliance. If there are any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them.

President Lloyd: On the spreadsheet that we have, the first section would be real estate, and the second section is personal property.

President Lloyd: And I think in prior years what we’ve done on this, if we had specific questions for a company that Ms. Martin couldn’t answer, then we would ask her to ask that company to come in at a later time. So is there any Council questions on the tax phase-in compliance? You’ve got, at the very right, there’s a compliance percentage, so if the actual employment has come up short, it will show you less than 100%, and you’ve also got some that have been over 100%: AmeriQual Foods, Berry Plastics, over 200%, so, I mean, those are successful projects, but you’ve got some more due to the economy more than anything else that are under 100%. Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Just a question about Indiana Tube. Are they solidly remaining in this area, do you know?

Pam Martin: I have no information related to their future plans. I’d be glad to inquire of them if you request.

Councilmember Goebel: I don’t think that’s necessary. Their phase-ins are pretty well up anyway right now, so...

Pam Martin: Each one of them undergoes an analysis for both investment and job creation.

President Lloyd: One of the issues with them is, obviously, Whirlpool leaving town, so one of their largest suppliers. Any other questions from Council? We don’t have to do a motion on this? Oh, we do. Okay, I would entertain, we would take a motion to approve all these reports as submitted if there’s no other questions.

President Lloyd: Oh, I’m sorry. Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Bassemier. I didn’t hear that for some reason.

President Lloyd: Well, and I think some of this is just related to the economy, you’ve got some that are just slightly under 100%, those are economic conditions. Hopefully, next year we’ll see a better report on some of this.

Pam Martin: I think the companies did, if I could make an editorial comment, I think they did a pretty good job of explaining in the written documentation what caused their situation this year.

President Lloyd: Item number nine, new business, we had the SMG update last week at the Personnel & Finance, item A, so item B, Convention & Visitors Bureau, proposed baseball/softball complex, and I believe there’s representatives here. We’re going to let the presentation go first before we have public comment.

David Dunn: Good morning, Mr. President and members of the Council. On behalf of the Destination Evansville committee and the board of directors from the Convention & Visitors Bureau, my name is David Dunn. I chair the Destination Evansville committee which is heading up this project and we appreciate the opportunity to do a follow-up presentation and bring you up to date on the progress that we have made with this project since we last introduced it to you in January of 2008. As part of the update, the items that we intend to cover today would be an overview of our project, addressing the known concerns that had been presented to us since the first presentation. We want to give you an outline of our financing plan. We also want to outline what our operations plan will be for this complex. We will address the maintenance and capital needs of this complex moving forward. We will talk about the leasing of this property from the city, the impact of tourism to the community with this project. We’ll talk about the presentations that we’ve made to date as well as the endorsements and approvals that we have received as well as are searching for. We’ll talk about the time line of this project and then at the end of the presentation we’ll entertain any questions from the Council. Before we get into the update, I’d like to briefly go through some of the projects that the Convention & Visitors Bureau has participated in in the past. Does anyone recognize this building? It actually is the first tourism capital development project that the CVB undertook shortly after establishing the tourism capital development account. It’s the Pagoda, it’s the offices of the CVB as well as the visitor’s center, it’s located right on the river and it’s easy to forget where that building was shortly ago before we got involved with it. But other projects that we participated in include the LST, the Goebel Soccer Complex, The Centre, the Reitz Home Museum, the BMX track, the O’Day Discovery Lodge, the Mesker Park Zoo and Botanic Gardens, the Pigeon Creek Greenway, the African American Museum, the EMTRAC Museum, and then finally the Museum of Arts History & Science. We’ve committed $750,000 to that renovation project. In total since the creation of the tourism capital development account, we have invested over 8.5 million dollars in brick and mortar projects similar to the ones that we’ve shown you. The current project that we’re working on is what we call the park. And I share with you those prior projects because it’s our estimation that the current project will generate more economic impact to the community than all of those prior projects combined. It will be the largest project that we will undertake to date. And when we talk about the park, we have to first understand that what we’re asking the community to do is to embrace the concept of creating a nature and recreation area that literally goes from Lincoln Avenue to Morgan Avenue. If we think about the elements that are going to be involved in the park, we start with the area that’s commonly known as the state hospital grounds, another area that is commonly referred to as the Lakeview Optimist Club fields, the Roberts Stadium campus, Wesselman Park, the Wesselman Nature Preserve as well as McDonald Golf Course. These are all of the areas that I’m referring to when we describe the park and the way that we hope to accomplish our vision and our master plan is through a series of connectors. The main connector, obviously, will be this pedestrian overpass over the Lloyd Expressway, but if you see, also on this illustration we have a series of trails and connectors that will allow us to connect all of the elements that will be associated in the park much better than what we have today. It’s important to note that, while the park is our vision of what we think can be developed into this world class nature and recreation area, the project specifically that I want to talk to you about this morning is the development of eight multi-purpose softball/baseball fields. When we first introduced this concept to you in January of 2008, there were a number of concerns that had been presented to us and we feel that in our new design we’ve addressed each of these concerns. I’d like to go through those with you so that you have an understanding of the difference between our original proposal versus our new design. Our original proposal called for the area which is known as the Par 3 Golf Course to be developed into five fields. Obviously, there was push back and opposition to the thought of losing the Par 3 Course, so this is one of the most significant changes in our new design. As you can see, we have rotated this set of pinwheel fields south and we have placed that on the Roberts Stadium campus. This dotted line here actually represents Roberts Stadium, it’s the location of where the stadium is now. And it gives you a perspective of the size of this development and the amount of space that’s necessary to complete the development. Another item that was noted to us of concern was traffic. Traffic was a concern for two primary reasons. There was a concern about the potential impact of traffic to Wesselman Park, and there was also concern about the potential impact to traffic to the residents along Boeke Avenue. In our original design the main entrance onto our complex would have been the entrance of Wesselman Park. Our original design called for a circular drive to go around our campus. There would have been ample parking to service it, however, we would have introduced vehicles into the park with our original design. With our new design, we have eliminated that concern. Our main entrance into our complex will be off of the Lloyd Expressway. This will be the main entrance into the complex and if you can see, I hope the people can see this, but with this area of parking, there is no direct vehicular access to the park. It’s not to say that cars couldn’t exit our campus, enter onto Boeke Avenue and then re-enter the park, but the point is that there is no direct vehicular access from our campus into Wesselman Park. Likewise, as we talk about the impact of traffic along Boeke Avenue, with the main entrance to our complex now coming off of the Lloyd Expressway, we anticipate to be far less activity along Boeke. Also, with this new design and the razing of Roberts Stadium, we’re essentially removing a facility that could accommodate over 12,000 people and all the cars that would be associated with that kind of activity with a complex that on its best day with a major national tournament, we could accommodate about 2,000 people. So just the sheer number of participants that would be on-site are going to be less than what we have today and we feel that that would be a positive change with regard to traffic. Another concern that was voiced in our previous design was the potential loss of existing facilities or existing amenities that are associated with Wesselman Park. Mainly those would include the basketball courts, the sand volleyball courts, the playground and the handball court. And it’s important to note that none of those existing facilities are going to be lost or eliminated. We are not in final design yet but we do anticipate affecting basketball, sand volleyball and handball. With our conceptual design, the playground is not affected, but once we get into final design, we may have to relocate and move the complex where it may, but what I want Council to understand is that all of those elements that are going to be affected are going to be relocated. They will be built new and the area that we are looking to do that in is going to be as close to the existing area as possible, and that’s going to be somewhere in this general area right here, is where we anticipate. Currently, there are sand volleyball courts today and what we would anticipate is consolidating the courts that are on the softball/baseball side into one central area. We’ve got ample room to relocate the basketball courts and the handball court. Again, the playground, we do not anticipate affecting. But if we do in final design, we are committed to rebuilding it as well. The fifth item that had been noted in the past that was of concern, was the potential impact to this nature preserve, 200 acre hardwood natural urban forest, and there was a lot of concern about the potential impact of our development to the nature preserve. Specifically, they were concerned about lights, they were concerned about water, surface water, runoff water, and they were concerned about noise. And again, I think that we have addressed those. With regard to lights, that’s really been the easiest of the issues to address. We have aligned ourselves with a company called Musco Lighting. They’re the premiere sports lighting company in the nation. And the technology that they have developed is really superior to anything that we’ve seen out there so far. They’ve been on-site on a number of occasions and taken light studies, and they have scientific data that can illustrate how their new technology is going to positively impact the current campus. And I use this illustration. This is the complex that is located in Newburgh. The Vann Avenue fields, they, too, are using Musco Lighting there. And what I’d like to point out is the fact that there is no light spill or what they call light pollution. Through directional lighting, what they’re able to do is adequately light up the playing surface, but if you look closely, just a few feet past the outfield fence, you can see how dark it gets and actually, if you look in between the playing surfaces in the center building you can see how little light is actually spilling out. And then, of course, if you look in the background and you see the wooded area behind their complex, similar to the nature preserve that we will be contiguous to, there’s just, there’s no light spill. There’s no light pollution. So without any doubt, we are confident that we are going to have a positive impact on lighting. And again, for two reasons. One is the elevation that they now install the lighting. They’re putting the heads of the lights at a higher elevation and so it’s more directional whereas the lights that are there now, they’re more of a horizontal spray. And we will have a positive impact on the residents on Boeke Avenue as well as the nature preserve. With regard to surface water, by design, all of these fields are going to be graded and sloped from infield to outfield and if you look closely, there’s this hint of blue at each of the outfields and what those are, are called bioswales, and they are designed specifically to accept any surface water that doesn’t absorb into the natural turf. They are designed with planting materials that allow the water to be filtered, so if there is any chemicals, topical chemicals that are applied to treat the lawns, those will be filtered through. And once they’re filtered through, they’re going to go into a holding tank and then we will reuse that water for irrigation. So we feel that, not only have we addressed the surface water issue, but we have also addressed any potential impact of chemicals to the wildlife or the preserve. With regard to noise, we think there’s three primary ways of us handling the concern of noise. And when we talk about noise, it’s not the noise of children playing on fields, it’s really the concern of a PA system or amplified noise, is what I think most are concerned about. It’s important to note that we are going to design in our complex a PA system. It’s primarily there because of life safety. We will have, as an example, lightning detection equipment on property so that we can be able to detect inclement weather as it’s coming in. We also have to have the ability to communicate messages to large numbers if we need to evacuate or make an announcement, and also, when we are hosting major tournaments, you know, there’s probably going to be times when we do use the PA system to announce the winner or announce the final teams or something like that. But the three things that we intend to do to address noise would be using technology, so we’re going to use directional sound similar to what Musco is going to do with lighting, we’re going to use direction sound so that we’re not spraying sound outward, but we’re directing it specifically to the audience. We’re going to increase the budget, the landscaping budget so that we can utilize natural barriers and natural foliage to help mitigate the noise, and then the third thing is going to be a management control issue. We will establish policies and procedures on how we’ll utilize the PA system and just like today, with the Parks Department league play, they’re not announcing every player, every strike, every pitch. You know, they’re not introducing music as batters come to the box, and we will also introduce policies and procedures on how to utilize the PA system. And we think that by focusing on those three areas that we will have a big impact on mitigating potential noise. When we presented this concept to you in 2008, the price range that we were estimating was in that 10 to 12 million dollar range to develop these eight multi-purpose fields. The price tag has gone up with the new design and I’d like to address those reasons why the price tag is going up. The first and most obvious reason is the impact of Roberts Stadium. In our original design we were planning on developing the fields on top of the Par 3 course. Now that it’s going on the Roberts Stadium campus, we’ve got a building to raze. And I’ll talk to you later in this presentation about our financial plan, this is a self-funded plan using the Innkeeper’s Tax, we have no assistance from the city or the county in any way, so as part of our budget, as part of our development budget now, we are budgeting the money necessary to raze this building.

Councilmember Kiefer: Do you mind if I interrupt just for a second, Dave? Has the city made any overtures to help with the tearing down of the stadium or is that out of the question? Any conversation with the city on assistance with the demolition? Or probably not?

David Dunn: There really hasn’t. We have, and I’ll talk to you a little bit later about why we like this site –

Councilmember Kiefer: Oh, no. I understand, the site is great, I just meant with the city, I didn’t know if the city, what the conversation was with the city.

David Dunn: No. There’s been really no conversation with the city with regard to them offering assistance with that part of the project.

David Dunn: So, we’ve got that to budget. It’s approximately 1.25 million dollars is our estimate to raze that building, so that’s going to increase our overall budget by the 1.25. As I alluded to earlier, with regard to noise, we are going to increase the landscaping budget so that we can create natural barriers with berming and foliage so that we can help to mitigate noise. That’s going to increase our overall development budget some. You’ll hear later in my presentation that the convention bureau is going to continue to maintain this complex and so in order to do that, we are going to create and establish a long-term capital endowment, and so we’ve got to be able to fund that endowment, and so that’s also going to increase our development costs as we establish that long-term capital endowment. The fourth area that is really kind of new to us right now as far as consideration, which may or may not have an affect on our development, is the idea or the concept of using artificial turf on these playing fields. We’re just now starting to explore the thought of artificial turf but there are four primary reasons why we’re excited about at least looking into it. The first is the fact that it extends the playing time on these fields. Right now we anticipate utilizing the complex during the months of March through October. Those would be weather months that we feel that we could get on these fields. By using artificial turf, literally, we could play year round depending on the tolerance of the athletes. But the artificial turf can handle a significant amount of water and within ten minutes of a significant downpour, they can be actually on the fields, so it really extends the usage of this complex. With regard to rain, one of the biggest drawbacks to tournament play is getting the tournaments in and if we were to develop a complex like this with artificial turf, we could literally guarantee a sponsor or a host that they could get their tournament in over that weekend, because we’re not at risk of the fields being rained out or too wet. And generally, when play is stopped, it’s not because the outfields are too saturated, it’s because the infields are too wet and they can’t be prepped properly. Another reason why we’re looking seriously at turf is the long-term maintenance. We estimate that it could save us somewhere between three and four hundred thousand dollars annually on the maintenance. Once the turf is installed, there really is hardly any maintenance to it whatsoever. The fields are chalked or lined, the infield itself would actually be artificial turf so it would be colored. It looks like dirt. But you just get on it and play. And whereas the natural surface, we’ve got to be prepping it for every single game. The final reason why we’re looking seriously at turf is the impact to the nature preserve, and that is, by going to turf, we literally do eliminate any chemical whatsoever, we eliminate the use of heavy equipment that would have to be mowing all the time, so there’s less emissions, so we feel like there’s a positive advantage to looking at that. It does increase the cost of the project by about two to two and a half million dollars on the front end, so we’re not sure whether we’ve got it in our budget to do that, but we are going to take a look at it. We now estimate that we could spend up to 18 million dollars. And part of the reason why it can’t go beyond 18 million dollars, that is the outside limit of our ability to retire debt ourselves. We intend to bond this project and that is our bonding capacity. It’s not to say that it’s going to cost us 18 million dollars to develop eight multi-purpose fields, it’s, what we intend to do, once we get the final design and we have our true costs understood, if we have the capacity to assist other elements of Wesselman Park, we’d to be able to consider that but we just, we can’t yet until we know what our true and final costs are going to be. I’d like to segue into our financing plan. As I mentioned to you before, this is a fully funded project using the Innkeeper’s Tax. Our Innkeeper’s Tax is split two ways, we have an operations funds and a Tourism Capital Development fund. The Tourism Capital Development fund can only be used for brick and mortar projects to create and encourage tourism. This falls nicely into our charge. As I mentioned, we have bonding capacity up to 18 million. We’re targeting two specific bonds: the Build America Bond and the Recovery Zone Bond. Both offer a rebate up to 45 percent of the interest that we would pay on the life of the bond. And so if we’re successful here, it cold generate as much as six million dollars through the life of this project back to the bureau and those monies are what we are anticipating setting aside for ongoing operations of the complex. Another source for us will be naming rights. This is going to be such a high quality project, it’s going to be a family oriented project, the market that we’re going after is youth sports and we don’t have any doubt that there will be a number of corporations in our community that will recognize the value of being associated with this complex and we feel like there will be some value associated with the naming rights. With us today, we have representatives from our bond counsel and our accounting consultants, Karl Sturbaum and Bob Swintz are with us from Bose McKinney and Evans, with bond counsel, and the London Witte Group, which are our accounting consultants. They were selected primarily for the work that they have done recently with regard to the arena project, they were the lead on that project, they’re with us this morning and certainly available to answer technical questions about the bonding arrangements during our Q & A. With regards to the operation, the Convention & Visitors Bureau will essentially be responsible for this complex after its developed. We intend to operate it ourselves, we’ll maintain it ourselves, our intention is to hire a third party management company that specializes in sports complexes. And the areas that we’re going to focus on are primarily two areas and this is what makes this project such a win-win for this community. The primary user of this complex is going to be the community, the local community. Weekday play on the fields will comprise of the adult leagues from the Parks Department. It could easily be play from high school teams, and then on the weekends is when we anticipate pursuing the out of town tournaments, regional qualifiers all the way up to major nationals. And what’s nice about that concept is they don’t conflict with one another. One group is playing through the week, the other group is playing on the weekends. And it would only be during those times when we would be fortunate enough to host a major national which might be a ten-day tournament would we have to plan ahead with the parks department to reschedule league play, but we would know that a minimum of two years in advance, so it gives us ample time to work with Chris Rehn and his group with that. With regard to the complex itself, it’s a multi-purpose facility for both hardball and softball, but the complex, especially from the tournament side, it’s going to be designed for the youth. With hardball, whether it’s local play or tournament play, it will – by design and the distance with the outfields, it’s going to be designed for age groups up to around twelve to thirteen, maybe fourteen years of age. Softball at all ages is played essentially on the same dimensions and so we will pursue softball of all sizes and ages. But primarily what we’re looking for are youth sports and that’s what makes this complex so attractive is because the folks that we are going to be inviting in our community are going to be families. Families that are going to be bringing their children to participate in tournaments at this site. I really have already talked about capital, we are going to establish a long-term capital endowment and the reason for that is we want to ensure that we can maintain the quality of this complex not only from day one, but five years, ten years, twenty, thirty years from now, we want it to look just as good in the future as it does the day that we open. Likewise with the maintenance, we will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of this facility and we’re establishing an operating fund that allows us to do that as well as to ensure that if there is a shortfall in cash flow, that we’ve got that covered. We have no misgivings. This complex is not going to bring cash flow, it’s not going to be a profit center for us. We hope that we get it to the point where it will break even, where revenues will offset our expenses, but if it doesn’t, we will design the means to accommodate that. The property is city property and actually there’s two separate parcels that we will be negotiating a long-term lease with the city on. The dotted line is representing the two parcels, the first set of fields are actually on Wesselman Park. The second set of fields, and the majority of the supportive amenities are on the Roberts Stadium campus. And they are both controlled by the Parks Department, and so we will engage with the Parks Department into a long-term lease for both of those sites. I’d like to touch briefly on the impact of tourism. Tourism is big business, it’s really big business. Every other year we engage with a group called Certec, they conduct an economic impact study for us. As they look at the impact of tourism, the most recent study that was completed illustrates that the economic impact of tourism in Vanderburgh County is now approaching a half a billion dollars a year. The actual direct spend is 351 million dollars. When that money is reinvested in the community, it exceeds 483 million dollars annually and it’s growing every year. You can see the impact of taxes. We’re paying 146 million dollars annually in taxes. We are estimating that this complex will have a direct economic spend of over ten million dollars annually, so we’re going to inject another ten million dollars of new money into our community with this particular project. We also estimate that during the time of construction that there will be 125 jobs that will be created. Currently there are over 6,000 jobs that are associated with tourism and we have an annual payroll that is approaching 100 million dollars a year. We’ve tried to be as transparent with our project and our plans as possible. We’ve made a number of presentations, we’ve gone before the arena project committee on two different public presentations. We’ve gone before the Wesselman Nature Society, we’ve presented to the Evansville Hotel Association, we’ve presented to the United Neighborhood of Evansville, and we’ve also presented to the Executive Board of the Chamber of Commerce. Likewise, we’re meeting with you this morning, we are presenting to the Parks Board this evening, so we continue to get this project out front in the community. These are the endorsements that we have received so far as well as the approvals that we are seeking: the Convention & Visitors, the arena project committee, the Evansville Hotel Association and the Chamber of Commerce all have supported our project unanimously. The groups that we are going to need authorization from in order for this project to come to fruition would be the County Council, we need your support and approval. We will also need the approval from the Parks and Recreation Department as well as the City Council, the Redevelopment Commission and the Area Plan Commission. It’s a very complex project that we’re doing. Normally, when CVB does a project, it’s a check and a balance between our board and this body but because city property is involved and because we’re bonding, there are a number of other agencies that we need to seek approvals from. This is the time line that we envision in order to get this project done. There is a sense of urgency as it relates to the bonds. The amount of rebate that exists today expires at the end of this year. The Recovery Zone Bond, which pays up to 45 percent rebate goes away completely at the end of this year. The Build America Bond reduces from 35 percent rebate to 28 percent after the first of the year, so there really is a sense of urgency on our part to get the approvals in place, get this project designed so that we can, in fact, sell the bonds and be able to take full advantage of the rebates to us. Again, it’s an integral part of the financing plan that allows us to be able to maintain and to operate from. But as you see from the time line, we’re going to have a busy summer. The agencies that I had alluded to, we’re going to make either our initial second or third presentations depending on what’s going to be required. But essentially, we need to be through final authorization by September in order for us to have enough time to complete the sale of the bonds by the end of the year. We anticipate groundbreaking on this now in the summer of 2011 and the project to be completed some time in the fall of 2012. That’s the update that we’re excited to bring to you this morning. We thank you for the opportunity to do so. I would certainly entertain any and all questions that Council may have.

President Lloyd: Thank you, Mr. Dunn. The way I’d like to do this, first I’ll allow Councilmembers questions and obviously, you’ve got Mr. Dunn as well as the attorneys and the financial consultant. Then when Councilmembers have finished their questions, then we’d ask the general public to come and make any statements that they have. So I’ll start with Councilmembers. Who wants to jump in there first? Questions, questions? Mr. Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: A couple questions regarding, basically, the financing. The revenue stream to pay for this is coming from the county tax on convention & visitors bureau tax that you have now and then does some of that come in from the food & beverage as well?

David Dunn: No. We get no subsidy from food & beverage. We get a flat amount of revenue from the casino, which is $212,000 a year, but that goes into our operations account, that doesn’t go into the Tourism Capital Development account. So the only source of income for the Tourism Capital Development would be that portion of the Innkeepers Tax.

Councilmember Shetler: And then how much, specifically, out of that 1.5 will you need?

David Dunn: Twenty-five to thirty years. The tax has been increasing somewhere between three and five percent annually, so any amount over and above debt service will be allowed for future capital development projects. But we do need to pledge the current revenue stream to offset debt.

Councilmember Shetler: The capital endowment or the perpetual fund or whatever, that will be funded through the bonding –

David Dunn: About two million dollars is what we see establishing the endowment at initially.

Councilmember Shetler: And then you’re going to invest that and use the proceeds from that investment to help offset the cost for maintaining?

David Dunn: No, that endowment is only going to be used for long-term capital needs, so really for about the first five to seven years we don’t anticipate spending any of that long-term capital at all. There will be another operating fund that we will establish that will be used for the maintenance and the operations. The source of that will come from naming rights and from the interest rebate off the bonds.

Councilmember Shetler: Now the interest rebate, that six million dollars, does that come at the tail end?

Councilmember Shetler: The maintenance that you’re talking about, how much do you project that to be on an annual basis?

David Dunn: Roughly a half million dollars a year. And that can be affected by as much as $400,000 a year if we go with artificial turf. The majority of the cost to maintain this is the field prep.

Councilmember Shetler: The maintenance, is that also including the management of the facility as well?

Councilmember Shetler: So management and maintenance, you’re projecting to be in that half million dollar range?

Councilmember Shetler: And once again, the revenue to offset that maintenance would be done by what method?

Councilmember Shetler: I guess what concerns me a little bit is that knowing that in most fairly secured investments today, I guess you’re not seeing a whole lot of revenue that you can derive off of that 3/4 percent, one percent, one and a quarter, people are here from the Treasurer’s office, they can probably tell us better, what they’re getting today, but not a whole lot of revenue is coming off of those. And so if we did get some big bucks coming off the naming rights, which I know many companies are a little bit reticent to do that today because of the things that have happened with the bigger ball parks and naming those and the costs, and that kind of has left a bad taste in people’s mouths, so a lot of companies are shying away from that. But it would take a lot of money to generate, you know, that kind of an income that we’re talking about here.

David Dunn: Again, that’s another reason why turf is attractive to us because it reduces the ongoing maintenance significantly.

Councilmember Shetler: I know that there were some obstacles on that Par 3. Do you have any idea how much activity you’re getting off – how much the city is doing on the Par 3 today?

David Dunn: I’m sorry, I don’t. We’ve tried to determine the level of play but we’ve been unsuccessful being able to zero in specifically on the Par 3 play.

Councilmember Shetler: I mean, again, you’re the messenger today, so I don’t mean to be shooting at – but, from my point of view, that Par 3 seems to be like some of our other parks today, not all that well maintained and I know that there are several of the lights out. I’m not even sure if it’s operable at night any longer because –

Councilmember Shetler: It seems to me that that original plan, I guess, I prefer it a little bit more so than I’m seeing here, that the Par 3 being relocated closer to McDonald’s because I think that property over there on Morgan Avenue was traded out a few years ago with the National Guard on some property they had over there, and I don’t know how much room it takes for a Par 3, and how much they have today. But it seems to me that they can consolidate their maintenance efforts and make it a whole lot more efficient combined with McDonald’s and a Par 3 adjacent, than it is where it is today. That, to me, I guess, perhaps is making too much sense on the whole process here. The perpetual fund, though, you guys are planning to control that or the capital endowment fund, and also control the maintenance?

David Dunn: Not at this time. It’s not being planned to be linked. The Parks Department controls the Goebel Soccer Complex. They’re responsible for that, so no, not at this time.

Councilmember Shetler: I would be interested if somehow that could be tied because I know the soccer facility has also been neglected on maintenance over the years and that’s something that is I think a real valuable asset to the tourism as well, bringing in the families. That was a project you guys were very interested in and I would like to see that somehow at least tied together at least on the maintenance if it’s at all possible, and management perhaps. It seems to me to make sense that we could coordinate that and also coordinate the efforts of not having a softball tournament and a soccer tournament here at the same time and be able to tie those together a little bit better. I think that’s all the questions I have right now. There’s a couple of other things I might get back to a little bit later.

Councilmember Goebel: I think of all the presentations we’ve had before this Council in my time, this is the most thorough and best explained, and I really appreciate that. I think the nature of it, you’ve done a worthy job for us. I have a couple questions to go along with Councilman Shetler’s idea. And I think it bears repeating right now, the funding of this will not at all come from property tax or local income tax, is that correct?

David Dunn: That’s correct. Not only is it not intended to come with regard to the development, but it will not come from property tax with the ongoing maintenance or the capital needs of this particular complex. It’s a fully funded project using Innkeeper taxes.

Councilmember Goebel: And basically the people who come from out of town to use the facility will be paying for the facility?

Councilmember Goebel: Thank you. As far as maintenance goes, the point that Mr. Shetler brought up as far as the Goebel Complex, have we lost some interest as far as national tournaments because of the maintenance of the Goebel Soccer Complex? I don’t know if you’re prepared to even comment on that today, but –

David Dunn: When you say lost interest, are you talking about from the Convention & Visitors Bureau losing interest?

Councilmember Goebel: No from national committees that might come here or state committees that might put on tournaments here. Have we lost any tournaments because of the field condition?

David Dunn: It’s my understanding that following the recent state cup preliminary tournament that Evansville hosted, that there was a series of comments made by those who participated in that event about the condition of the complex. That has prompted the Parks Department to take action and they sprigged many of the fields to address the condition of the complex, the playing surfaces of the complex, in anticipation of the single largest event that we host annually, which is the Veterans Tournament in November. The Veterans Tournament has now become the single largest economic impact event that the community hosts outside of the Jehovah Witness convention. It’s the largest single sporting event that we host and there was certainly some concern that the playing surface at Goebel would be in a quality condition that would allow that tournament to go on. And it would appear that the Parks Department is committed to making sure that that happens. But I understand your point and your comment and the Convention Bureau, we’ve got 1.6 million dollars of Innkeeper’s Tax invested in that complex, so it is very near and dear to us and it is a huge economic engine for us. It draws a tremendous amount of tourism into our community and we, too, are concerned and want to make sure that the quality of that complex certainly doesn’t deteriorate any further than what it is and can remain the premiere complex that it was when it was developed.

Councilmember Goebel: Thank you. As far as maintenance, I think that the key point that you hit also was the fact that you will maintain this and keep it, not in pristine condition, but in very near new condition for a twenty year period of time, is that correct?

David Dunn: From our perspective, forever. You know, when we did our due diligence on what project to pursue, we traveled the country looking at different sportsplexs and the one thing that we walked away from, having visited so many of these communities is the easy part of this is to find the money to develop. The hard part is to find the monies necessary to maintain these over the course of time. And so many of these complexes are set up just like the Goebel Complex is set up, where it’s reliant on the tax revenues from property tax and, you know, municipalities and communities are challenged across the country of making those tough decisions and when you’re an elected official and you have to decide between fire protection and police protection or improving the playing surface at a park, then that’s a relatively easy decision to make. And so often, we saw that community after community. And we were determined that that would not happen at this complex, that we wanted to make sure that it was as high quality tomorrow as it will be today.

Councilmember Goebel: I think youth sports really help any community. I think it would be a great thing to expand here, obviously. Anyone who has had children or grandchildren or anyone connected knows, going, traveling to another area for these tournaments, it’s not an inexpensive venture, but the community that hosts, certainly does benefit. And for us developing more youth entertainment, more family –

I think is the way to go and it certainly improves our quality of life and I think it makes Evansville and the community much more attractive. Thank you.

Councilmember Kiefer: Dave, did you say what the lease rate was to the city, what the annual payment is to the city for that leasing?

David Dunn: I did not because we are just now engaging in that dialogue with the city, so we don’t have any of the lease terms or specifics that I can present to you at this time.

Councilmember Kiefer: Well, I understand and that makes sense why they probably would not fund the demolition of the stadium if they’re giving you the use of the property. I do like the concept because, you know, I’m always fearful that that stadium, if it remains there, it’s going to become a severe eyesore to our community and I think that hurts us because it’s on the main corridor through our city. What did you say, could you repeat what you said the cost, if you did all turf fields was?

David Dunn: It’s going to add two to two and a half million dollars to the price of the development if we go to all turf.

Councilmember Kiefer: Yeah, okay, so it seems like almost a no-brainer that you should try to go to that all turf field if you can save $400,000 a year, I mean, obviously, it doesn’t take you seven-eight years down the road, boom, I mean, it’s paid for, so it just seems like if you can save that much money per year, you ought to pursue that with all interest and force. Okay, well, you know, and then looking at the project overall, really, all you – you already have softball fields if you look to the left, bottom left, you already have softball fields there, correct?

Councilmember Kiefer: Okay, now on the top left, I mean, you already have softball fields there, so you’re not really change – I mean, you’re obviously improving them and making them so much better, so really, the major effect is tearing down the stadium and putting in, you know, your complex there. So it really looks attractive to me.

David Dunn: At the Wesselman Park site, the fields that you were alluding to, currently there are five fields there today. There is the Babe Ruth hardball field and then there’s the softball fields. And really, we’re not introducing anything new as you indicated. All we’re doing is just redeveloping, reconfiguring –

Councilmember Kiefer: Actually, you’re reducing the amount of light that’s going to be there now because of this new lighting.

Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. Dunn, I know you put a lot of time and effort and others, into this project, and I can appreciate that. I tried to get a water park off the ground here a few years back and I do know the effort. Also, I’ve been on Council long enough that I’ve supported a lot of the projects in the past: the Pagoda, soccer complex and the Reitz Homes, the African-American Museum. Your numbers look real good, I think it’s a good concept, I don’t know if the location is good, but, to me, I think your timing is bad. I think, I’d like to see the stadium, the new stadium completed and up and running before we take on an eighteen million dollar, another eighteen million dollar debt. But I can appreciate what you all are doing. But that’s my feelings and, in the future, yes, but right now I think its timing is wrong. Thank you, sir.

Councilmember Terry: Actually, I think most of my questions have been answered, because my main concern was sustain ability and you’ve covered that. Just in thinking about the constituents that I serve, in terms of marketing youth sports, what type of outreach will you do for those that are less fortunate and wouldn’t have the opportunity to participate in something like this?

David Dunn: With it being at this location in the city, then what we like about this location is the fact that there is public transportation that is provided to the site to make it more convenient for them versus looking at a site that may be further out in the county. But we certainly want to make sure that all youth have access to the complex and are utilizing both hardball as well as softball.

Councilmember Terry: Uh-huh. And I also appreciate you including the numbers about job creation. That’s before the project is completed, but I definitely would be interested in also knowing once the project is completed, how many jobs would be available in our community as well. Thanks.

President Lloyd: Let me throw a few questions out. The Convention & Visitors Bureau board members all approved this, is that correct?

President Lloyd: I think we have some staff members, I see. So you’re the spear carrier.

President Lloyd: A couple of questions. I don’t know if you addressed the number of parking spaces that were going to be...

David Dunn: I didn’t, but it’s a great question, Mr. President. Currently, on the site of Roberts Stadium, there are currently 3,300 parking spaces that are supporting Roberts Stadium. The consultants that are helping us design this complex tell us that we need to develop approximately 70 parking spaces per field, it’s an eight field complex, so they’re suggesting that we need 560 spaces total.

David Dunn: Seventy per field. So we need, they’re suggesting that we need 560 parking spaces to accommodate the play on these fields. It was important to us that we design this complex adequately so that we were not encroaching into the residential area or that we were not adversely affecting any of the amenities that are currently there, specifically, Swonder and Hartke. And so by design, we’re at 750 parking spaces, with our concept design. And if we can get a few more in, we will. I don’t want it to – what we like about the new design is that we’re going from gray to green. We’re eliminating so much of the asphalt and turning it into green space but yet providing adequate parking on campus. So we’re going to stay cognizant of that and we want to make sure that we have adequate parking, but as much green space as possible, as well.

President Lloyd: So they have sufficient parking on their own. They don’t use the current stadium parking at all, or do you know?

David Dunn: I do not know that. I’ve made a point to go out there often just to see and I’ve yet to see – when I’m there, there’s adult league play going on, too, so there’s certainly cars parked in Roberts Stadium’s parking lot, but to me, it looks like it’s coming from softball rather than the ice arena.

President Lloyd: Okay, and this would be situated such that, like for Hartke Pool, could they use these parking spaces, as well?

President Lloyd: Okay. Do you – you’re going to bring in all this dirt or tear out the asphalt, are you going to raise the elevation or is that part of the cost or you’re going to try and keep it the same elevation?

David Dunn: The topography is going to change somewhat, but essentially, the elevation is going to be the same as what you see it there. You know, there’s a significant amount of grading that’s currently in place on that Roberts Stadium campus and so we’ll have to address that, but I don’t see the elevations changing dramatically.

President Lloyd: And then, on the maintenance, you had indicated, I guess if it was grass, approximately 500,000 a year.

David Dunn: Well, the overall budget, we were estimating to be about $500,000 a year, most of that is on field prep, yes.

President Lloyd: Okay, well, that would be announcers and concessions and all that stuff, you’d have some revenue coming from some of that.

David Dunn: Well, the revenue stream that we’re most excited about is on the tournament play. That’s why we need to be as aggressive as we can with pursuing these weekend events.

President Lloyd: You had a two million long-term endowment capital fund but then also for operations, you wanted to set up a fund as well. How much was that?

David Dunn: Well, we don’t have a number set up in that yet, the source that we’re going to utilize would be monies generated from naming rights, as well as the monies that would be coming back to us on the monthly rebate from the interest off the bonds.

President Lloyd: It’s, I mean, I guess to the average person, this is a little convoluted because you’ve got a county agency, which is the Convention & Visitors Bureau, you’re using Food & Beverage tax, which is a county-wide tax, --

President Lloyd: Oh, I’m sorry. I mean Innkeepers Tax, I’m sorry, which is a county-wide tax, and that is going to be used to fund bonds to take out a long-term lease on the parks district land, so I mean, they’re going to continue to own the land, but you’re going to have a lease, and I guess, the Convention & Visitors Bureau, as part of their bond, you would own all the improvements.

President Lloyd: And then the revenue from the Innkeepers Tax is going to make the bond payments. I see the urgency because of the bond provisions for the – let’s see here – the Build America as well as the Recovery Zone, what is the probability of being able to tap those if you get all your approvals done? I mean, the Build American, do they, is there a criteria set for those or do they just accept all comers?

David Dunn: They accept, there’s no cap on that. The Recovery Zone does have a cap – I’m told that it’s roughly $7,000,000, so it’s just a question of whether the county has any other projects that they had intended to also utilize with that Recovery Zone. I’m not aware of any to date, so we would try to pursue as much or all of that as we can. That’s the one that pays the 45 percent rebate back.

David Dunn: Or December 31^st. I’m told that it’s yet this year, so end of the year, yes sir.

President Lloyd: Okay, I mean, we hear debate in Washington about both of these but as of right now, they are available.

President Lloyd: Okay. But the financing, approximately 1.5 million would basically take all of the Innkeepers Tax. It would be a set amount of approximately 1.5 million per year for 25 or 30 years and so those funds would not be available for any other projects other than you’d start seeing, as it increases each year, the increase would be available for use by the Convention Bureau.

David Dunn: Correct. And we anticipate it increasing just due to the effect of the project. I mean, we’re going to bring more tourists into our community just because of this project.

President Lloyd: Using all that revenue, does that have an effect on the bonds, the interest rate or the rating or anything?

David Dunn: Not that I’m aware of. I would probably defer that to bond counsel –

Bob Swintz: Mr. President, members of Council, I’m Bob Swintz with the London Witte Group. Just to clarify, we looked at the current revenues of about 1.5 million dollars. And when we say we’re going to use all of that, we would pledge all of that to the payment of the bonds. The reality is, I think, that you were getting to, is that we would structure debt service at something less than that, maybe around a million dollars to provide an internal coverage amount so that it would make the bonds more marketable and it would help on the interest rate and the rating. As the years went by and revenues grew and we had that internal coverage amount, those would be available for other projects. They wouldn’t be held or tied up, we would fund debt service over a period of months and then excess revenues would be available for other projects.

President Lloyd: On the Innkeepers Tax though, I had not looked in prior years, but has there ever been a time where that declined from one year to the next, do you know of?

Bob Swintz: We have the historical amounts. There may have been some years where there was some decreases. Generally, it has increased. Here in Vanderburgh County, as we just went through with all the arena financing, the Food & Beverage Tax, and your other taxes have been pretty stable, even over this last couple of years with the economic declines. So we have not assumed any growth but we would assume there would be growth going forward.

President Lloyd: I mean, to sell the bonds you just have to have, this is the amount, fixed amount, and then that’s what you use for the calculation.

President Lloyd: Does it have to go 25 to 30 years for that amount of principal?

President Lloyd: Does anybody else, Mr. Shetler, have a question for the bond counsel?

Councilmember Shetler: With regards to the bonds, would the bond holders have like a covenant over that surplus at all, that you can’t get below a certain amount or anything?

Bob Swintz: It would be our intent not to. If we needed a million dollars a year in debt service we would set up a mechanism to capture that first million dollars and then make the rest of it free. I’ve been involved in deals where if coverages fall below a certain level in future years, you have to capture more or do something, but we didn’t do that on the arena and I wouldn’t expect that we would start with that premise. A lot would depend on the bond market. If they dictated that, we may have to consider it but not initially.

Councilmember Shetler: I guess my two biggest concerns is it’s really, I don’t know if it’s really you or David on this point, and more editorializing than it is a question, I guess, but the price tag is concerning me and it, you know, fifteen - eighteen million dollar price tag, when I think back just a few, seems to me, short years ago, on those soccer fields and we spent whatever, three to five million dollars. And now we’re looking at something five or six times that amount. It seems a lot, to me. That part concerns me. The other thing is, is that we are pretty much exhausting, you know, your opening comments about all the things that have been done with the Convention & Visitors Bureau monies and stuff over the years and how much you’ve improved the quality of life for our county through those projects, be it the Reitz Home or the BMX track and all the other things that have gone on, I’d hate to see us exhaust all of it for one particular project and not have anything available for another Council or for another body in three to five, seven years, that would like to turn around and say, hey, I think this will be good for our community. We need some money, and there’s nothing available.

David Dunn: It’s a great comment and a great assessment. We, too, studied this long and hard and the reason why we are more comfortable with it is the fact that this project by itself has the ability to create more impact on the community than all of those projects combined. It can generate more activity for us than all of them combined and so that’s why we were more comfortable with it. But you’re right, by doing a project of this size and it being, and we’re the sole funding mechanism for it, it’s going to tie up the majority of our money for a significant period of time.

President Lloyd: I had one other question. Are there other Convention & Visitors Bureau or that type of agency doing bonds in the state of Indiana?

President Lloyd: Do you guys know if there is any other ones? Tourism bureaus or convention bureaus doing lease/bond type deals.

Bob Swintz: I’m not real sure. Obviously, in Marion County they have a capital improvement board, same up in Ft. Wayne.

Bob Swintz: Sorry. I’m not aware of any entities like this that are doing bond deals. Like I said, Marion County, up in Ft. Wayne, they have capital improvement boards, which kind of serve that same function and are doing bonds, obviously. Karl? I’m just not aware of any.

President Lloyd: And there wouldn’t be any other backup coverage besides the Innkeepers Tax that you know of or...

Bob Swintz: One thing that we did on the arena bonds, as you may know, we had three revenue sources that we were going to use, and we used the county option income tax as a back up for that. It was purely for marketing at that point. It just provided better access to the market. It may be something we’d want to explore with this, too. Again, that would provide better interest rates, better access to the bond market, and it’s fairly common. I think the county has actually done that on another deal.

President Lloyd: The county, yeah, they may have pledged COIT on some of their other, Burkhardt Road bond, or whatever.

Bob Swintz: But the idea is, as we talked about with the coverage, we would build in coverage so that there would have to be a drastic reduction of the Innkeepers Tax before you would even get close to that.

President Lloyd: So, I mean, it could be Food & Beverage or some other, but anyway, you would look at the possibility of backups, which you hope you never have to use.

David Dunn: Can I comment on that? I think it’s important that Council realize that Vanderburgh County has a unique piece of legislation that creates the Innkeepers Tax, so most of the other communities throughout the state fall under what’s called the uniform Innkeepers Tax, and so if there’s changes to the language of that tax, then it affects all of those counties. Vanderburgh County, however, has its own unique piece of legislation that establishes this tax and so changes that are made to the uniform would not have any affect on what we do here in Vanderburgh County.

Councilmember Terry: Final question. How many hotel rooms are within a five mile radius and then can you give me a rough estimate of the typical revenue that will be generated for a softball tournament?

David Dunn: Well, I’m not sure I can tell you within a five mile radius. There are over 4,000 hotel rooms in Vanderburgh County that are paying Innkeepers Tax. And our estimate of the impact of this project is that it would generate somewhere between 30 and 35,000 room nights annually just with the weekend tournaments that we would pursue.

Councilmember Kiefer: Dave, if it’s going to create 35,000 room nights per year, will that then spin off you think some new construction in hotels? Do you envision that there might be some new hotels sprouting up because of this?

David Dunn: I don’t know that just this complex being developed would encourage a developer to come to Evansville. There’s far more –

Councilmember Kiefer: I’m just curious, if it were on the fringe and this puts it over the top where like oh, this makes it attractive.

Councilmember Kiefer: And I don’t know if you know anything about the standing of the hotel that’s going next to the stadium, Browning, I don’t know.

Councilmember Kiefer: I’m just curious because I thought if this would create any spinoff jobs as far as new construction, that would be great or maybe restaurants, you know, I’m sure projects like this create demand for restaurants as well.

David Dunn: Well, when you bring that many more people into the community, they have to be serviced in some fashion, and if it causes a developer to see an opportunity, then obviously it could spin off into continued development growth.

Councilmember Kiefer: I’ve got to think Kiplee’s and maybe Turoni’s would like this project.

Councilmember Kiefer: One thing I just want to note, when I was at the stadium committee meeting where you made this presentation, a couple of guys that aren’t here today that were there, Jim Farney who is with Bernardin Lochmueller and Mike Shoulders, expressed that one of the problems we have right now with the current stadium situation is when it rains, you know, that water gets displaced and, you know, with this project they said we probably wouldn’t, you know, it’s less likely to have any flooding condition due to that displacement of water because this project has so much more green space, plus if you look, I think there is so much more parking, you’re spreading the parking out, too, I mean, even though you’ve got 70 per field, you’ve got four fields up toward the top.

David Dunn: You’re right. The initial report back from the civil engineers suggests that the changes that we are making to this site will have a positive impact on the flooding concerns that exist today. And it’s for those reasons. In addition to that, because we’re replacing so much asphalt with green space, that water is allowed to saturate versus running off into the storm lines. Also, the water that flows to the bioswales, we’re going to capture that water and not introduce it, we’re going to reuse that, we’re going to keep that in holding units and use that as part of our irrigation.

Jeff Ahlers: I just had a question for bond counsel. In terms of, what is it specifically, given the current financing plan that you would need from this Council and the time table? Is it, is there an ordinance, is there a resolution, is there, I mean, what specifically, would you anticipate would be needed from County Council?

Karl Sturbaum: We would be looking – sorry, I’m Karl Sturbaum with Bose McKinney and Evans. We would be looking for an ordinance appropriating the Innkeepers Tax. The CVB has the authority to allocate it, to transfer it to any other body, but we would need you to conduct the statutory procedures on appropriating the proceeds. We would also, you would be involved approving the park area as an economic development area, we would be establishing that, so that we could use the lease structure with the Redevelopment Commission and the Redevelopment Authority as the lessor. And then the last thing would be if there, well, your participation in the allocation of the recovery zone would be appropriate although I think that’s probably Commissioners, ultimately, you would want to back that one up. And then if it’s determined that there is a backup pledge of COIT, you would be involved in making that pledge to the Redevelopment Commission. So those are the four things that we would be looking for.

Jeff Ahlers: When you say backup pledge of COIT, are you suggesting that in order for this financing mechanism to work that it would require pledging or approving the pledging of funds beyond just the Innkeepers Tax?

Karl Sturbaum: We don’t know that. The coverages that we have been looking at are about 120% coverage from Innkeepers Tax. It’s a question of whether, it’s a tradeoff between what the interest rate on the bond is going to be and whether it makes more sense to pledge a backup of the county’s allocable share of COIT as a backup for the bonds.

Jeff Ahlers: When would you know that as part of the process in terms of, when would Council be advised as to whether or not a pledge of COIT would be required for the bond?

Karl Sturbaum: It would occur after all the preliminary approvals are done, so sometime probably in September or October.

Councilmember Goebel: It’s my understanding today, we just basically give an approval or not and is the 18 million dollars a set amount or will that be involved with the attorneys from both counsels or any other group? Or are we here to say yes or no totally to what’s been asked for?

President Lloyd: Well, we don’t have any kind of detailed financial plan. I guess the range was twelve to eighteen million.

Karl Sturbaum: I think what we’re looking for, Mr. President, is a non-binding approval that we can continue to go forward with the project and subject to further negotiations with Council.

President Lloyd: Okay, any other questions? If not, we’ll entertain the public comments on this. And thank you. What I’d like to mention here for the public, those of you that have gone before the Area Plan Commission, we’d kind of like to use those rules. I know Mr. Bassemier is our representative on that body now, and a number of us have sat on that. So state your name and address, and we’d like factual, brief remarks and don’t repeat what others have said, and then be courteous and respectful. So, public comments, please.

Sylvia Niemeier: My married address is 129 South Iroquois, and my family’s home is 516 North Boeke Road, right across from Wesselman Park there. And I have lived across from Wesselman Park almost all my life. I love that park. One of the degrees I got, a BS in biology is because of working in the nature center for almost a year as a volunteer, and I have seen a beautiful, beautiful park. And what is happening is, over time, everybody keeps taking a portion of the park and it keeps going smaller and smaller. Good Samaritan Home took some, National Guard took some, and a long, long, long time ago the city wanted to make a great big golf ball complex and the neighbors, my parents, and family neighbors got together and we got the state nature preserve in the back, otherwise, there would not be any trees there now. It would be a golf ball complex. Now what’s happening, in the front of the park is, they want to make it a baseball complex. And the neighbors and all, we got together two years ago and didn’t want this, and what all they’ve done is just changed it and modified this project just a little, bitty bit. And what’s happened is Par 3 Golf Course got a petition together so they would not take their Par 3 Golf Course because those were the people that were complaining two years ago. So now they got their golf thing so they’re not complaining. What Mr. Dunn doesn’t tell you is in moving where the baseball complex all and everything is, they have to put in the volleyball and the baseball, well, there’s a whole bunch of trees and a lot of animals that are living in there, there are four endangered species in that park. And I don’t believe there has been a study, an unbiased study on what affects are going to be for the animals. I’m all for the wildlife. You’ve got lots and lots of places you could put this ball complex, seven of them. And the mayor has even said three times he was going to put it in Goebel Soccer Field because he didn’t want to bother the nature or the residents. And I still feel this location should go somewhere else. Goebel Soccer Field, there’s six or seven other locations that would not bother nature or residents. And on his comments on just some of the things like, with the lights, I feel like they made the lights brighter over there, I live across there, I help my parents out, I’m over there all the time, I think after the May meeting they made them brighter so now they can put the little shades over them. Oh wow, it’s a little dimmer. And for the noise, I brought that up to the mayor in one of the town hall meetings, he said something about the speakers. But even if you have the speakers that are behind the stadium for the soccer, you can hear that going through the woods on the trails. And besides the ball complex, with the speakers, even if they limit like little Tommy Smith coming up to bat, even if they don’t say that, you’re still going to have speaker noise and where my family’s home is, even the windows rattle when you have the speakers going. And it’s just terrible. If you want to, you can come sit on the lawn or on the porch of Boeke Road, see how much traffic it is. Even putting this over into the other part where they come into the stadium and all of this, you’re still going to have lots and lots of traffic. And the other thing is just like putting grass where the stadium is, whoopty do, a few little lanes of grass is not going to help the animals out. You’re not going to have raccoons there and everything else because you’re going to be tearing down trees and more wildlife in the other spot. And yes, I have a hydrology degree, a climatology degree a science degree, and another science degree, so I’m well educated on this. And I know daggone well the runoff and pesticides are going to get into the water in the wetland. And I will take on anybody that wants to argue this point. And the other thing you’d better add to the budget, I don’t care if this ball complex goes to Goebel Soccer Field or somewhere else, but it does not need to be located in Wesselman Park. And I just want to read you one little thing and I’ll leave you alone. Property owners along Boeke Road and neighboring streets near Wesselman Park and Roberts Stadium, do you realize this proposed ball complex will affect the value of your home in a negative way? This proposed ball complex will operate five to six months a year day and night. The noise will be from loud speakers, concession stands, and approximately 700 cars with an expected 1,500 people. So you’re going to have way more traffic in there. And also they want to add seven more tennis courts. So don’t forget about that. That’s another project, seven more tennis courts and where are they people going to park? They are going to cut the trees down. Okay, and remember the noise will be outside for long periods of time, not like a short event in an enclosed Roberts Stadium. Calls to two real estate agents confirmed that homes on Boeke, Iowa, Virginia, Michigan and Franklin will all decrease in value. This area totals 203 homes. I’m just going a block out. With an average present value of $125,000 each, these impacted homes will total $25,375,000 in real dollars. Even a modest 10 percent decrease in value results in $2,537,500 loss and a 20 percent impact is more likely. When the question at the Evansville Convention Visitors Bureau meeting was raised about the negative affect to homeowners near Wesselman Park, Mr. Dunn answered, maybe we can compensate them somehow. Well, Mr. Dunn, how about you come up with $2,537,500 as a start. Because we have to live there and you can put this complex in, like I said, Goebel Soccer Field, somewhere else where it will not bother nature and it will not bother residents. If you would please go to Wesselman Park and see where they’re going to put these ball fields down, you will see there’s lots of oak trees, they may not be a hundred years old, but they’re like twenty-five years old, they’re beautiful oak trees. And then over in the other spot where they’re going to go to put the basketball and volleyball, there’s lots of other old trees and wildlife. And that will be destroyed. And then they’re going to put in more concrete for paving and parking lots. So, in a nutshell, if you want the project, please put it somewhere else. Don’t put it in Wesselman Park. You are very, very lucky to have a park like Wesselman Park in the city. I’ve traveled lots and lots of places, there’s hardly any cities that have a park like Wesselman Park. And I also talked to the mayor on Roberts Stadium and came up with some ideas of even keeping Roberts Stadium. Lots of big events could go into Roberts Stadium, you could turn it into even a public activity center, up at the top you could have bicycling, roller blading, all kinds of stuff like that. So I really think these things needs to be looked into more. I think a lot of projects are just kind of crammed down people’s throats and you just don’t see it. So if you get a chance, go to Wesselman Park, look at those pretty trees, watch those birds, look at the animals and see what all is going to be destroyed. Thank you.

Ron Denton: Ron Denton, 2339 East Franklin. I’ve lived across the street from the park for 30 years and at one time there was seven baseball diamonds in Wesselman Park. It’s down to five, they only play on three, the other two, they don’t use. So they need to look into why do they need eight fields when they can only use three out of the five or they’re eliminating. At one time there was 1,500 softball teams in Evansville. Now it’s down to 250. I’d like to know where the demand is for this park. You know, to put all this money into something that people aren’t backing any more. The companies, Bristol Myers and Whirlpool and them used to have their own leagues, they don’t sponsor them anymore. There’s no demand for it and Mr. Dunn said at the neighborhood association meeting that girls softball was booming across the country. I asked him how many teams we had here in Evansville. He didn’t know. I think some more research needs to be done. I know right now the park is open until 11:00 and as far as the noise, at times, you have to shut your windows if a baseball game is going on, you can hear them. And if they have these tournaments on the weekends, they would go from eight in the morning until 11:00 at night, and if these are outsourced to a third party, would they abide by the parks rules of 11:00 of closing, because some of these tournaments would go till 1 or 2 in the morning, you know, and we’d have to listen to it. Another thing is, they want to move these eight basketball courts, four volleyball courts and handball courts over next to Good Samaritan. Well, the back half of Good Samaritan is hospice, so would you want your parents or somebody to be there and guys yelling and screaming out there all night till 11:00 at night? I think some more studies needs to be done on the parking, too, because at times when they have tennis tournaments over there, they’re parked up and down the roads. You can’t find a parking place. If they’ve got volleyball tournaments, you need the parking, there’s no parking. I think Sylvia was right, they need to move these sports complexes outside the city, not in residential neighborhoods and take the parks away from the public. This is a neighborhood park. It’s not a sports complex for Mr. Dunn and them. I just appreciate your time. Thank you.

Jacob Pendleton: Jacob Pendleton, 772 South Lombard. I want to first thank you guys for letting me come and speak to you on this. I’m vice president of the Evansville Hotel Association. And on behalf of the association, I’m coming to you with support of this. The recommendation of this sports complex is not only a great addition to our community, but it also is an excellent return on our investment. This complex will be an asset to local baseball and softball because they will be able to use this complex during the week. Hotels in Evansville obviously pay the occupancy tax and the purpose for this tax is for capital project such as this. Thank you so much for allowing me to come speak to you today and we support this.

President Lloyd: Great. Thank you. Anyone else from the public to comment? Okay, got one more.

Pepper Mulherin: Pepper Mulherin, 2707 Malibu. My only question is, it’s touted as a multi-purpose field and I understand that for early youth, but it appears that there’s a void for the age over fourteen boys baseball, and there may not be a market for that area. But if age fourteen is the maximum space, is there any consideration to retro fit at least some of the fields to accommodate that market if that’s appropriate?

Pepper Mulherin: He did say high school but then he said the maximum age for baseball was fourteen, so that leaves it only as a singular purpose for the high school market unless I misunderstood.

David Dunn: At this time, due to space constraints, we don’t see us developing the complex to accommodate high school or college level hardball. When I referenced high school, I apologize, but what I meant was softball. Softball dimensions are played at essentially the same at all ages whereas hardball dimensions vary depending on age groups, so when we do say multi-purpose, we do mean hardball and softball. Softball at all ages, hardball up to approximately age fourteen at this time.

Pepper Mulherin: I would just be interested to see, I mean, it may be cost prohibitive to increase it to accommodate the high school for boys, but it might be (inaudible)

President Lloyd: I guess for baseball, send them to Bosse Field. Other comments from the public? Okay, thank you. Council, any recommendation or action from Council? Yes, Mr. Shetler.

Councilmember Shetler: I mean, I have some reservations, particularly about the covenants that could be placed upon some of our revenue streams, particularly the idea of COIT being restricted in any fashion. But by the same token, I do think the Innkeeper’s money is there for a purpose, it’s there to help grow their business, to grow the businesses of our restaurants and other facilities in Evansville. In today’s day and age, I think that this is really the best time perhaps to invest in our community and try to do what we can to grow with the local businesses, so I would be in favor of us pursing the activity with some caution on the restrictions on our other financial streams.

President Lloyd: So that’s a recommendation to move forward. And I would agree, I mean, I would like to see a more detailed financial plan. One thing, their completed financial plan, to issue a bond, it has to come back to this body for approval, so what we’re doing here, if it’s an affirmative vote, it would be to allow them to continue this process and moving forward. So I guess there’s a recommendation from Councilman Shetler. Is there a second to that?

President Lloyd: Second Mr. Goebel. Any further discussion? Roll call vote please. Oh, Mr. Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: If this is approved, I’d like to see it built somewhere else instead of on that property on Roberts Stadium. I agree with these folks here, it should be built somewhere else, (inaudible – microphone not turned on) out in the county. I supported the soccer complex out there. If we’re going to approve this, right now I’m against it because of the (inaudible).

President Lloyd: Okay, and this recommendation is for the plan that they brought forward which would be on the Roberts Stadium area. So, alright, roll call vote please. We need a yes or a no.

President Lloyd: As I indicated, I would like to see a detailed financial plan when we’re talking about that kind of money. We hear from taxpayers all the time about government wasting money at all levels and I don’t want us to be put in that situation. We’ll still have to do final approval on the financing plan but just to move the project forward at this stage, I’ll vote yes. It passes five to one. Thank you.

President Lloyd: We’ll move on to item C in our agenda, civil taxing units review. That is going to be set for September 29^th, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. And by civil taxing units, we mean the Evansville Vanderburgh Airport, the Evansville Vanderburgh Library, and the townships, so those are budgets that we review. They’ve already prepared their budgets and we make a recommendation to the state.

President Lloyd: Okay, we’ll go to item number four, Central Dispatch additional staff member. Anybody here from Central Dispatch? Okay, there’s Jo Anne. And we’d ask for the rest of this meeting, please keep your comments brief so we can get out of here before noon.

Jo Anne Smith: Good morning, Jo Anne Smith, director of Central Dispatch. You should have received a packet with information regarding the request to hire a part-time person at Central Dispatch to fill a telephone operator’s position. We have over the years had a police dispatcher who did not answer 911 calls at all, a county dispatcher who does answer 911 calls. This puts that dispatcher in a very precarious situation as it does the citizen and the deputy. The letter that I have sent to the Council is the recommendation from the Central Dispatch board to proceed with the hiring of a part-time person. This would take more than one person to fill a part-time job but it would be a part-time, no benefits position that would do nothing but answer 911 calls. We would have someone 24 hours a day. The information in the packet that you were given gives some information concerning the fact that the county dispatcher must answer 911 calls and can get in a situation where they are with a citizen that they cannot put on hold and they have a deputy who may have a traffic stop far out in the county with his closest backup ten minutes away, and that puts them in a very dangerous position as well. If we had this part-time telephone operator position, which possibly could be funded with 911 funds, I believe, we could, in fact, eliminate the need most of the time for the county dispatcher answering 911 calls.

President Lloyd: It looks like the information you gave us, your 911 calls are up in nine years approximately 25% or so.

President Lloyd: Okay, and I think you’ve made a pretty good case on this. Any questions from Council? Mr. Goebel?

President Lloyd: I wish Mr. Raben was here. I think we can. I mean, the county’s portion is, we do use 911 funds for this. And this is a city/county department and I believe our portion is 30 –

President Lloyd: But the county side, we do use 911 for the operation portion, so I would say yes to that. Mr. Kiefer?

Councilmember Kiefer: Jo Anne, is this typically a teamster position or a union position or is it non-union?

Jo Anne Smith: This would be a non-union part-time position. It would not take anything away from our dispatchers at this time because all this person would be doing is answering the phone. They would not be filling a dispatch position that would take away from the teamsters.

Jo Anne Smith: Yes. This part-time position is a stepping stone to where it’s going to have to go eventually. Eventually you’re going to have to have telephone operators. Our business only increases and over the years, I started out as a telephone operator thirty-two years ago. The police department had telephone operators at one time. And ideally, having telephone operators at the dispatch center gives you a pool to choose from when you have to hire new people and it also gives a place for your people that would like to retire but can’t afford to, to step down to. So it will fill a dual purpose.

Councilmember Kiefer: But it’s not displacing work that would normally be done through the union.

Jo Anne Smith: No. As a matter of fact, the union employees are very excited about the fact that they will not be put in that position where they’re dispatching county sheriff deputies and taking 911 calls at the same time.

President Lloyd: So we’re only voting on thirty-three percent of it, but, I mean, we need to take a vote one way or the other. Yeah, we can say subject to City Council. Okay, is there a motion to approve?

President Lloyd: Okay, item E, just a point of information, the city-county joint budget hearing where we’ll actually, will have the Central Dispatch budget among the other joint departments, will be July 28^th at 3:30 p.m. and that will be in this room.

President Lloyd: Okay, item number F, travel requests, I’ll turn that over to Mr. Shetler.

Councilmember Shetler: Okay, first we have a request for County Assessor for sending three up to a state convention, I believe it was. I guess my question is to the County Assessor, I notice that you’ve got three people going and mileage for all three. Are they going to be driving up in the same car? Do they get along? Do they like each other?

Jonathan Weaver: Good morning, Jonathan Weaver, your Vanderburgh County Assessor. Yeah, we all get along pretty well.

Councilmember Shetler: And then the other question that I have, which probably should have come first, but do we really need three people to go?

Councilmember Shetler: And could you elaborate on why we might need three people to go to a conference?

Jonathan Weaver: Yeah, two are looking to take a USPAP class: Uniform Standards of Appraisal course, and myself.

Councilmember Shetler: Okay, is that anything that’s offered locally, that class?

Councilmember Shetler: Ivy Tech doesn’t offer that or have anything that’s closely related or...

Jonathan Weaver: They’re working toward their Level III, so this is a course for the two staffers to earn their Level III.

Councilmember Shetler: How many people do we have that have Level III’s currently?

Councilmember Shetler: And I assume these people are in positions where that is not only just enhancing their education, but it will enhance the office, they’re in a management position so that it will be an asset to the office. Is that –

Councilmember Shetler: Well, that’s my main concern is that we cut the mileage down to one, instead of for three.

President Lloyd: Okay, I’m sitting here doing rough calculation here. There’s three of them at $800, it was $78 per diem. If we knock two of that off and just allow the mileage for one, that would be 800, 722 and 722, a total of 2,244. Is that what you want to do for your motion, then?

Councilmember Shetler: Let me ask one other question. Is this coming out of the general fund or is this coming out of Reassessment?

Councilmember Shetler: This is what we approved earlier, I assume, transferring the funds around and this was to allow for that.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion for, I guess $2,244, which subtracts mileage from two out of the three. Is there a second?

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Goebel. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Shetler: Health department has a request for three individuals and they’re going to a couple different places. As before, Health department has several different ongoing things that they need to be involved in as far as training and I think most of these all deal with that. One is going to Indianapolis, one to Petersburg and one to Jasper. So I don’t think anybody is here from the Health department to answer any specific questions.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Kiefer, second Mrs. Terry. All in favor signify by saying aye.

President Lloyd: Indiana Voter Registration Conference it looks like. Not state called, but each requesting $300 travel.

Councilmember Kiefer: I’m okay with it if they travel together. You know, I mean, they’re going to the same place, same location, same time.

President Lloyd: Okay, so we want to take the mileage off of one of them and then that total would be for, that would be 160 and 300.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Kiefer, second Mr. Shetler. One for 300, the other for 160. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

President Lloyd: 180, I’m sorry. 180. I don’t have my calculator. Alright, 180 and 300, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Shetler: I think that’s already taken place and we didn’t get any specific things, so.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Kiefer, second Mr. Shetler. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

President Lloyd: Item H, Judge Robert Pigman, we heard Judge Pigman last week on his request to fill a vacancy. There didn’t seem to be any problem with that. Is there a motion to approve that?

President Lloyd: Item I, County Clerk, request to fill vacancy, is there a motion to approve?

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Kiefer, second Mrs. Terry. Any questions? County Clerk, and I believe, I had a conversation with the County Clerk and I know she’s a little shorthanded. There was an employee that was terminated, so –

Councilmember Goebel: Did we not at the last meeting bring back an employee in the Clerk’s office? My thinking then was that because of the problems inside the Clerk’s office as far as people being there working and other issues, she had extenuating circumstances, that we would allow the new position to be filled, but I’m not so sure if we need to add another one this month.

President Lloyd: Okay, let’s have the County Clerk come forward, please. I believe she’s there in the back. Questions I can’t answer, I’m sorry.

Susan Kirk: The purpose the last time was to get my staff back up to par where we could handle the work, okay? So I thought that was the whole idea, that now we’re going to keep it this way. I did terminate one employee and I want to take the part-timer and put that person in the full-time and then replace the part-time, so that I can stay on that even keel. You know, you heard 911, Judge Pigman, it’s unfortunate, but our business is going up. And as I had told all of you before, believe me, if, hopefully, our business decreases enough, I will be the first one to come and tell you. And the first thing we’ll do is get rid of the part-time position. But right now, I really need the staff. I’m trying to make some changes to where I can accomplish that goal of maybe in the future, start with elimination of the part time. But right now, I need it. I need the staff.

Susan Kirk: Well, we were short – let’s see, you denied one and then there was a part-time, so we ran short that one, and had the part-timer. And it’s been, like I said, rather rocky. I did send out an email to all of you kind of explaining some of the situation that we still have. So if I can just keep my staff at this number until, hopefully, there is a change for the better and we don’t have as many cases filed. Tim VanCleave just ran a report just the other day and we’re already up, you know, the high numbers again and so nothing has changed. We are still having the high number of cases filed. So if you can just allow me to keep this number until things change, I would appreciate it.

President Lloyd: So this person, is this to replace the person that was terminated?

Susan Kirk: I don’t remember the exact name of it, but that position goes into the court, spends a lot of time in the courtroom during trials and stuff, plus does paperwork.

President Lloyd: It’s not someone that sits in the office all the time, it’s someone more that goes back and forth to the courts?

Councilmember Kiefer: Thank you. Just a comment. One reason why I support this is because I don’t want the department heads to be – have their hands tied in terminating employees, you know, if she thought that, well, I can’t replace an employee that I need to terminate, well, then, I’ll just keep that employee on.

Councilmember Kiefer: And I think the department heads need to have the ability to terminate somebody and not have their hands tied behind their backs. So that’s one reason why I support this.

Councilmember Goebel: I think what we noticed in the recent months, it’s almost been a deluge of requests and I don’t know if we – the question or statement has been given to me is, so the hiring freeze is over. And is that the case? Then you no longer have to come to us.

Susan Kirk: Mr. Goebel, this is what I understood the last time I was here when most all of you voted for the employee, to give me the employee back, the whole idea was to keep the number of employees what it is now, not to go back and take one away now and go back, backtracking. I thought the whole idea was for me to be able to keep the number of employees I have now until things changed. So now, to say no, then why did you vote to let me have an employee if now you’re going to take it away? I guess that’s –

Councilmember Goebel: Well, I understand what you’re saying and I know, Susie, you come here and you’re very well prepared and you make a great argument, but my thinking was that you were almost doing without, more... the one employee we didn’t grant because you had the extenuating circumstances. And that was the reason behind my granting –

Susan Kirk: We still have the extenuating circumstances, though. I can’t go into – I emailed all of you, but publically, it’s things that you –

Councilmember Goebel: It should stay that way. But maybe we can weather the storm, in my mind, anyway, a little bit longer, and see what happens if something else changes, then, maybe we can get by for a while longer because you do have a part-time, do you not?

Susan Kirk: So I came back to get the other employee back, keep the numbers the same. By denying this one, then there was no sense in even coming back before to ask to have the employee replaced. Nothing has changed in the last couple of months as far as, you know, --

Councilmember Goebel: I understand that. You also have a proposal with the courts as far as fees and things, creating perhaps funding for another part-timer?

Susan Kirk: Yes, we’re trying to do that. We’re looking into that. Porter County does it and I’ve been speaking with her, trying to come up with – well, the judges are going to have a meeting and decide if they will do that or not, implement the late fee charge. Also, we’re working on, we’re trying to get – we’re waiting on the state but once we can get JTAC to update some of our programs, like we’re going to start with misdemeanor and traffic, we’re going to have one of the companies, like we did with child support and came in for those who did not pay their – it used to be $20 – service fees. I mean, all we did was sit back and they would just give us a check. We ended up collecting 3 or $400,000. And if we can get, we’re waiting on the state and as soon as that starts, grant you, it’s a little bit more work for us, but it generates quite a bit of money. These collection agencies come in and just, I don’t know, it’s great. So we are trying to generate money the best that we can.

Councilmember Shetler: I guess basically my concern is, is I know how tight our general fund operating budget is becoming and I am fearful of what it’s going to be in the future. And that’s why each and every person that has come here today and before, I’ve asked, is there another alternative? Do you have another fund where this can come out of or another means that we can do this as opposed to taking it out of the general fund. With as many employees as there are in that office, I know it is a lot to ask, but everyone today –

– as well as in public in many areas are being asked to sacrifice and do what they have to do in order to keep the taxes down in order to, you know, keep our costs down to the bare minimum. This is coming directly out of the general fund, I don’t know that we have any other alternative but to look at this thing and to say that we really cannot afford and that we have to look at cuts. If we don’t, I think we’re going to be, I mean, we have to look at holding the line somewhere, otherwise, we’re going to have to make some significant cuts, reducing, mandatory going in and reducing the number of employees that you have in your office and or cutting salary levels and stuff, none of which I want to do, but I think, given the future of what we’re looking at with the state imposed guidelines, we may not have a choice but to do that in the next couple of years if we don’t start taking advantage of eliminating through attrition. So that’s where I’m coming from. It has nothing to do with you, it has nothing to do with your office and the function and I greatly appreciate all of what you all do down there. It’s just that I think we need to start looking for some ways to reduce the size of government and through attrition, I think is the less painful way on individuals to do that. So that’s where I’m coming from.

President Lloyd: Let me just state for Mr. Goebel, the hiring freeze is not over. I hope at the end of this year we would have less employees than we had at the beginning of the year. But obviously, we have to look at all these situations. Yeah, we won’t have more, I can tell you that. Okay, any other questions?

Councilmember Goebel: I just think this body has done everything it can to preserve the jobs of employees that are here, but through attrition, we’ve not replaced some, and I think that is the most prudent way and the least painful way for everyone involved. And –

Susan Kirk: Well, like I said, it just doesn’t make any sense for me to come back the time before and you grant me the employee so that I can get my numbers back up so that we can run the office. Then I terminate an employee and come back and now you’re going to take one away again. I don’t – that doesn’t make –

Councilmember Goebel: My logic was that you were having people who were not able to do the job, and you were in an emergency situation. That’s why we replaced the one that left. And now, since you have that person, maybe we can –

Councilmember Kiefer: Yeah, I just, that’s how I’m justifying this. I just don’t want a department head not to be able to terminate somebody if – I mean, I’d rather have a termination and replacement than an employee that’s not doing the job continue on, because you’d rather have them at fifty percent than zero percent.

Susan Kirk: Well, I tell you, you know, like I’ve told you before, I am very conservative. I want you to go find another officeholder or anyone in the building, basically, that came down here and took a wall down to save the county $2,000. I did it. I asked, you know, how much is it going to be to take it down, the Building Authority said $2,000. I said, are you kidding me, $2,000 to take a wall down? Yeah. I said, forget it, I’ll do it myself. So I came down and I took it down myself. Of course, I would like to get those bids now. I’ll take the walls down for a thousand dollars a section, great money there. So I do try to save money in a lot of ways. If I thought I could, believe me, I would, but I think it is a mistake now to go backwards again and not allow me to fill this position. You’re backing the truck up again. There was more than one problem that we had. We still have some problems and it’s, you can’t go in and just start firing people like that. It doesn’t work that way. Not here it doesn’t.

President Lloyd: Well, unfortunately, we can, but we don’t really want to do that.

President Lloyd: Right, we also want to serve the taxpayers like we’re supposed to.

Susan Kirk: That’s true. So, I mean, like I said, I want to save money but, whatever.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Kiefer, second Mr. Bassemier. Roll call vote please.

President Lloyd: I skipped item G, Veterans Services, request to fill vacancy. I think Mr. Shetler had an idea on this one. Why don’t you come forward please. Veterans Services, request to fill vacancy. Please introduce yourself.

Jay Ball: Oh, I thought you had gotten a letter to fill the secretarial job. The letter was sent to the office.

President Lloyd: Okay, so I guess we’ve got a little bit of movement between positions here. You’re the new director and this request was to fill the assistant director?

Jay Ball: Well, down the agenda there, I believe you’ll see, there is a salary request. That was for my salary and Tammy Cassidy-Fehn, who is the secretary, and was going to take my position. So then we would be hiring a secretarial position with a starting salary of $21,000, what they come in at. So that puts our salaries for us three at $14,000 less than what it was last year.

President Lloyd: Okay. I believe the Council has to approve putting the person into the Assistant Director and then, there’s two things here, we would also have to approve hiring a secretary, isn’t that right?

President Lloyd: Right, but the secretary is not on the agenda, so we’re not going to deal with that. What we’re dealing with here is the request to fill vacancy of Assistant Director. Mr. Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: You know, actually, at this time, Mr. Deisher has been doing a study throughout the county on personnel. I think this might be a good opportunity for him, it’s a small office and I don’t know if he’s already done this office or what, but I think this would be a good opportunity to really consult with Mr. Deisher and refer this to the Personnel Committee for review and looking at just to see if we need two chiefs and one person in there as the clerical to be supporting that. I’m not sure what that arrangement should be today in that office and I think we need to look at the workload and just see right where we are on that before we go further.

Jay Ball: I believe you’re correct in saying, I don’t believe any of you know what the arrangement is in our office because we’ve never been visited by anybody from the Council or the Commissioners. There’s roughly 13 - 14,000 veterans in Vanderburgh County. Last year, the federal government paid 48,000,000 in expenditures to Vanderburgh County alone for those veterans; 24,000,000 of it went for disability claims, compensation, pension claims, and our office is directly involved in filing those claims. And believe me, with this war going on, our National Guard, men and women have served at least three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and it looks like it’s going to continue that way. And we work directly with them.

Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, I still stand, I guess, on my point and that is, I really think since we’re going through this county-wide study on each department that we ought to leave it up to the professionals or the experts to look at it. Perhaps they may come up with the realization that we need one director and two clericals and maybe not a director and an assistant director and a clerical. They may come up with an idea that maybe we need a director and one clerical. I have no idea and I’m not trying to say that I do know and trying to anticipate or speculate on what they might come up with. But I think with those guys being out there trying to do the study, that would be the appropriate place and then take it up through the Personnel Committee.

President Lloyd: So what you’re saying in your motion would be to refer this to the Salary Administration Committee, which Mr. Kiefer is the chair on it and they would determine, I guess, the other possibility is, you would just have two people there, one secretarial and one director, or three people, but you said maybe two secretarial.

Councilmember Shetler: That’s a possibility. I mean, there’s a lot of ways this could be thought out, particularly if we’re talking about as much administration as what you’re describing, I think. I mean, they may look at it that way. Again, I’m not speculating on what the outcome would be, I’m just suggesting that we are going through this study and I’m not so sure that we should try to interrupt that or interfere with that at this point in time and we ought to let that process take its course, and then refer it to the job study.

Councilmember Kiefer: Just, Tom, did Tim Deisher say how long it might take for a small department like this? I mean, is that something that you think they could get done pretty quickly?

Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, I think so. I don’t think that would be any problem at all.

Councilmember Shetler: It may have already been done. I’ll have to talk with Tim to find out.

Councilmember Kiefer: Yeah, worst case scenario, we just postpone this and we could have it appear before the committee to review them.

President Lloyd: I think the motion is to not do this at this time and refer it to the Job Study Salary Administration to –

Councilmember Terry: And not being compensated. She’s still at the salary of 28–

Jay Ball: And I’m not being compensated yet either for moving up to the director position.

Councilmember Terry: Tammy is still the secretary now, doing the work of the assistant officer.

Councilmember Goebel: You requested – maybe I’m unclear, but your request is to move you up and Tammy up, is that correct?

Jay Ball: Well, the way I’ve understood it, and it’s not been very, I’ve not gotten very much follow back from the Commissioners, I have been appointed the director, just not getting compensated. I think that’s on the list here for salary increases down at the bottom. So there’s three issues, I guess.

Councilmember Goebel: And do you think you could survive a little longer on two while we have this study taken care of?

President Lloyd: I guess I would urge Mr. Kiefer, if he can set a date in July, that would certainly be helpful, before budget maybe, and just get that knocked out.

Councilmember Kiefer: I mean, I’m going to be out from the 10^th through the 17^th, but any time after the 17^th, we could have that.

President Lloyd: According to Mrs. Deig, I guess the increase for you as the Director has gone through the Commissioners, so, I mean, that’s going to take effect. So you’re going to be taken care of. But the other two is what we’re kind of trying to address here.

Councilmember Goebel: The turnaround on this replacement or two new titles could happen within a month’s time, is that correct?

President Lloyd: Yes. But I think, and I guess maybe we need some information from you, if your workload has increased, take a look at those job descriptions. We need to see what changes have gone on in that office. I suspect these positions haven’t been looked at for a long time.

Jay Ball: Oh, I think it’s probably been two or three years ago, they were looked at. We had to do a whole new job description for each position, for the Commissioners.

President Lloyd: Okay, well, we’ve got a motion and a second on the floor we’ve got to vote on and that would be to take the request for the assistant director and I guess do a study of those two positions, determine what the job description would be, what the duties, what the rating would be by the Job Study before we act on a request to change that title. Move that person. So is there any other discussion from Council? Roll call vote please.

President Lloyd: Yes. Okay, six-zero. So that goes to Job Study and we want to see them have a meeting in July and I hope Mr. Kiefer can work that into his schedule.

Jay Ball: Excuse me. Is there any need for me to be here for this amendment to the salary ordinance coming up later then?

President Lloyd: No, that’s just the Council is going to write that into the Salary Ordinance and we’ll just take that. Thank you.

President Lloyd: Okay, item J, Sheriff request to fill Community Corrections grant employee.

Eric Williams: Good morning, Vanderburgh County Sheriff Eric Williams. I’m not sure I want to be here right now with this request and the last line of questioning. I would tell you that this is a grant position, I’m not asking to add hours, I’m just asking to divide the hours up a little bit further for more people for scheduling purposes.

President Lloyd: Part-time position within an existing grant. Any questions for the Sheriff? Is there a motion to approve?

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Kiefer, second Mr. Goebel. Roll call vote please.

Eric Williams: Thank you. I would make one comment because I don’t want this to drag on, but I think Councilman Kiefer’s point was well taken, there is a fear amongst officeholders out there that you might be better off not firing somebody and just keeping them at fifty percent as opposed to taking a chance of not getting them replaced into your line item. And I think that’s – for the officeholders to hear you say that, I think that will go a long way because that fear does exist.

President Lloyd: I think, I mean, the county, we don’t want to be carrying bad employees if we don’t have to. So, I mean, --

Eric Williams: But sometimes that’s difficult to carry that message to this body when you’re looking to replace a person without going into great detail as to why you’re missing that person now. And sometimes this may not be the forum for that conversation.

President Lloyd: Item K, Prosecutor request to fill vacancy. The last shall be first.

President Lloyd: The letter you sent, or I guess Mr. Levco sent, full-time receptionist in Child Support with part-time help, is that correct?

President Lloyd: Okay, and part-time is paid out of incentive funds, so it’s not the county general fund.

President Lloyd: Item L is board appointments. I believe this is a formality of having Stephanie Terry take the place of Royce Sutton on these boards. Have you been given that list?

President Lloyd: Okay. Is there any that we need to vote on? Okay, alright, so that will be, every Councilmember should get that new board list.

President Lloyd: we’ve made it to item 10, Amendments to Salary Ordinance, I’ll turn that over to Mr. Shetler.

Councilmember Shetler: I think everybody received a copy of the Salary Ordinance Amendments dated today, July 7^th: Burdette Park, Superior Court, County Clerk, Community Corrections, and Prosecutor, all of which we voted on earlier today. The only one that’s not on there is the Veterans Services because we put that off. Any questions? I move that we pass the Salary Ordinance amendments.

President Lloyd: Okay, Salary Ordinance Amendments, July 7^th as submitted. Is there a second?

Is there any member from the public that wants to comment to County Council? Okay, item number twelve, adjournment. Is there a motion to adjourn?

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:06 a.m.)

1300-3331	Reorganization/Finance	38,500.00
1300-3332	Reorganization/Legal	60,000.00
1300-3333	Reorganization/Other	10,000.00
Total		108,500.00

1450-1180-1450	Other Employees	50,000.00	50,000.00
1450-1900	FICA	3,825.00	3,825.00
Total		53,825.00	53,825.00

From: 2490-1090-3540	Maintenance Contract	2,000.00	2,000.00
2490-1090-3530	Contractual Services	3,000.00	3,000.00
To: 2490-1090-3130	Travel/Mileage	2,000.00	2,000.00
2490-1090-2600	Office Supplies	3,000.00	3,000.00

From: 1490-3110	Economic Development	108,500.00	108,500.00
To: 1490-3331	Reorg-Finance	38,500.00	38,500.00
1490-3332	Reorg-Legal	60,000.00	60,000.00
1490-3333	Reorg-Other	10,000.00	10,000.00