March 3, 1999 County Council Meeting

Vanderburgh County

Council

March 3, 1999

The Vanderburgh County Council met in session the 3rd day of March in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 3:37 p.m. by County Council President Curt Wortman.
President Wortman: The Vanderburgh County Council is now in session this March the 3rd and we’ll start off with the roll call please. Madam Secretary, call the roll.

COUNCILMEMBER PRESENT ABSENT

Councilmember Smith X

Councilmember Sutton X

Councilmember Bassemier X

Councilmember Hoy X

Councilmember Raben X

Councilmember Lloyd X

President Wortman X

President Wortman: Would you please stand and pledge allegiance?
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, do you want the Sheriff to open the meeting?
President Wortman: We’ll have a little change on the agenda. Would the Sheriff open the meeting please?
(Meeting was opened by Sheriff Brad Ellsworth)
President Wortman: Okay, now we’ll pledge allegiance. Thank you.
(Pledge of Allegiance was given)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
FEBRUARY 3, 1999

President Wortman: We’ll move on to approval of the minutes from the February meeting and I’ll entertain a motion to that effect.
Councilman Lloyd: So moved.
Councilmember Smith: Second.
President Wortman: Any discussion? All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

RESOLUTION FOR GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DESIGNATE PAYMENT OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUNDS TO A FUND FOR THE OPERATION OF THE EVANSVILLE AUDITORIUM AND CONVENTION CENTRE

President Wortman: We’re going to change the agenda from the appropriations under five, we’re going to insert the resolution for the Hotel/Motel Tax. We’ll hear from different ones and then also, right after that we’ll hear the resolution on the PERF. Hopefully, they’ll be able to fax them both up to the House of Representatives.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, to get this on the floor I’d like to move approval.
Councilmember Hoy: Second.
President Wortman: Okay, got a second. Any discussion?
Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman, the resolution on the Hotel/Motel Tax?
President Wortman: Yeah.
Councilmember Smith: You know, I think we waited till the very last minute on this and I cannot believe that County Commissioner Rick Borries voted to spend thirty-five million dollars and didn’t have any plans for operation or maintenance. So we get this right at the last to try to cover. They should have done that when they made the plans. I would have never voted to spend thirty-five million dollars over there, but since it’s there, we have to maintain it. But I think from now on we should take a look at when people come and they want the Council to vote on something. We need to know what they have in mind further down the road. This was done in 1997 and in 1998, in February, I think it was, we appropriated another 1.5 million out of the Visitors Bureau’s money to put back in walls they took out to bring it under budget of thirty-five million dollars. I just think it’s terrible. We’re faced with a problem now that we’ve got to do something about.
President Wortman: Thank you, Mrs. Smith. Okay, we’ve got a motion on the floor and discussion. Now, anyone want to speak that’s here representing the Convention & Visitors Bureau? Would they come forward please?
David Dunn: Hi, my name is David Dunn and I’m the President of the Convention & Visitors Bureau.
President Wortman: Okay, that’s fine. Mr. Dunn is the President and we can ask him questions, we’d like to limit the time here if we can because we’ve got a long agenda today and we want to do this in a friendly manner. Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Dunn.
David Dunn: I’ve read the resolution that has been proposed from the Finance Committee and there has been work done to come up with an amendment to the current legislation that would allow for up to two/thirds of the three percent Tourism Capital Development money to be earmarked for a six year period that would allow for operating deficits to be addressed at The Centre and I’d like to see that included in the resolution.
President Wortman: Any comments now from the Councilmen?
Councilmember Smith: Isn’t that included in there, that it’s for a six year period to 2005? The bottom line, Mr. Dunn. Do you have a copy of this?
Councilmember Raben: There is a sunset.
Councilmember Smith: You’re welcome to see this one if you haven’t.
David Dunn: Okay, what I’m referring to would be language that needs to be changed with the current legislation at the state level. I’d like to see the language of that piece of legislation also to be included with the resolution that County Council is going to be reviewing today.
Jeff Ahlers: It’s attached, the second page. Does he have the most recent copy? If not, I’ve got an extra one right here.
David Dunn: Okay, yes.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, one of the concerns that the Bureau has shared with me is that they obtain copies of the Ogden financial reports for The Centre and after we vote on this I intend to make a motion that this Council request that they receive those reports when we do.
President Wortman: We’d possibly have to go through the Commissioners on that. They would submit them to them, I would say, and then they in turn would submit them to us.
Councilmember Raben: Okay, well, I’ll still after this go on record as making that statement.
President Wortman: Okay, I might add that this past Monday that Mr. Dunn, Mr. Vezzoso, Mrs. Payne and Dolli, Jim Raben, myself and the news was there and we discussed this and ironed it out in a friendly manner and I think that we really accomplished something, so I am pleased and the Council is. I’m hoping everybody has read it and understands it. Anybody that don’t understand it, ask questions now before we fax it up to the House of Representatives here right after the meeting.
David Dunn: Mr. President, I need to make sure that everyone understands my position in this. This has not been presented to our full commission as well. I’ve called a meeting to share that with them tomorrow so officially I’m not able to take action on this, but the committee that was formed to work out the compromise as you had mentioned and identified has, in fact, reviewed this, and are comfortable with it, and are intending to recommend to our full board that they support this unanimously.
President Wortman: And that will take place tomorrow?
David Dunn: Yes sir.
President Wortman: Anybody else got any questions before we call for a vote? Mr. Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Is it the assumption that by diverting this tax for the use of The Centre that The Centre, at that point, year 2005 will either make up that shortfall or in and of itself will be self-supporting with the revenue that it generates from various shows, conventions, etc?
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I can address that if you like. Councilman Sutton, that was, in fact, the determining factor in reaching a compromise and it is certainly the intent of both parties that were present that by that year it should be sufficient or borderline sufficient. If it’s not at that point, then we obviously have more problems than just funding it. Then we need to address, do we have the right party involved in managing the facility. I mean, there will be bigger decisions to make other than just this and at year 2005, we may have to come to another compromise with the Bureau. But this buys us six years to test the waters and hopefully by then we’ll know exactly what we’ve got.
Councilmember Sutton: Well, I think my question really goes further than that, beyond this six hundred some odd thousand that this will generate. My question reflects, okay, is it the intent of this, the period that we’re looking at, that it will just up this $600,000? Will it, in fact, because we’ve got other tax dollars that are going in to pay for the expenses on this as well, is it the intent that we will also make up that ground as well?
Councilmember Raben: If I understand you correctly, in this agreement it was always my intent that first the Innkeeper’s Tax would satisfy the deficit, okay? And the remainder would be made up by General Fund money. Is that what your question is?
Councilmember Sutton: Right because, I mean, too -- if the operation of The Centre is more than just Innkeeper’s Tax here.
Councilmember Raben: Right, exactly. And again, the Innkeeper’s Tax will always satisfy the debt before we use our own funds, okay? I mean, it’s used first. If the deficit is greater than what that two/thirds raises, yes, we have to make it up with General Fund monies.
Councilmember Sutton: Okay, because I guess the reason why I ask that is because a facility of this size, I am confident that we do have, we will have a strong management team pitching shows and things like that for this facility, but I guess it has been the history of these type of facilities, not just here but just really all across if you’ll look around and do a little research, that it’s really pretty odd that they are fully self-supporting based upon the revenue that they generate. Now it would be nice if we could get to that point where it could be self-supporting, but I guess when we look at where we might be, I don’t know what projections Ogden has put together for The Centre. I’d be very interested in seeing what those projections are in terms of what we may take in income-wise, but I am just hoping that we’re not of the assumption that when we get to the year 2005, that the revenue will exceed the expenses on this facility.
Councilmember Hoy: I think your question is a good question and I think we need to be candid with the public. The revenue that comes in to any venue, whether it be this one or the stadium does not retire the indebtedness. The revenue from the stadium is not retiring the bonds there, the taxpayers are. We have to decide and we’ve decided that we want this kind of facility. If you go to see Garth Brooks, you’re subsidized; if you go to see Neil Diamond like I did, you’re subsidized. If you go to the Victory to see a concert or ballet or whatever, you’re subsidized. I think that goes with the territory and I think we are going to be facing using some General Funds for this just as we did in the past with the old auditorium; that’s my candid response to your question. I think we will be looking at budgeting it. By the time we reach 2005, we’ll be dealing with a larger budget and this subsidy will be a smaller percentage of that budget. I think that’s when we will have to deal with it.
Councilmember Sutton: I think maybe the other question that I would have or comment, I guess we could rephrase it, is when we look at this particular facility and its budget, we still really don’t have a budget that clearly gives us a clear idea of what the cost will be and I think we really need to have a good idea of what the expenses are going to be. Obviously, we’re not going to be able to staff the new Centre with the number of staff persons that we had at the old facility, so if we could get a better idea from the Commissioners on where we stand on expenses on this facility because it’s obviously going to be a very large expense and hopefully, we’ll be able to undertake all those expenses with what we’ve done here or what we might do here today. But just, I don’t want to hold this out much longer with the unknowns.
President Wortman: Let me, Mr. Sutton and the rest of the Councilmembers, let me at an April meeting, see if I can come up with something from the Commissioners, a projection on that. What the expenses could be and have them report here to the Council. Does that sounds alright? Okay, Mr. Dunn?
David Dunn: If I may be permitted to comment on some of Councilman Sutton’s remarks. Likewise, that was part of our issue as well when being asked to support this financially. Because there are no numbers, we weren’t very comfortable because there’s an estimate of up to two million dollars but there is nothing to substantiate that. But in good faith we have gone ahead and committed these funds. I think it’s important, also, to know that in order for us to have accomplished this because of the other financial obligations that we had made up to this point including the 1.5 million dollars, we’ve had to restructure some existing commitments that we made and it has literally tied up all the funds that we have including the additional one percent that we’re not talking about here. We had some reserve money that we were accumulating for future projects, that money is all going to have to go into the total financial plan that allows us to make this type of commitment, so essentially, what we’re doing is we’re tying up all of our money right now, the full three percent in some fashion or another, mainly with the 1.5 million that we have committed to The Centre as well as the two/thirds that’s going to go to the operations. I think it’s important that everyone understand that. The other thing, too, as we work through this compromise, clearly, it was our intent that if, in fact, the operational deficit does come below the committed two/thirds, then the amount of money that we would be expending would reduce during that period. So when we’re saying we’re committing up to two/thirds of that three percent, then if, in fact, Ogden is successful in quickly turning this thing around, then we would be able to realize some savings there and start to rebuild that fund for capital improvements for other projects.
Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, the other remark that I’d like to add to the one I made about subsidy, because that is such a dirty word in our society except that the street in front of my house is subsidized. I didn’t pay it, everybody paid for it. You know, it’s just the way we live in a civilization. That is, that this convention business is going to bring a great deal of money into the city, a lot more than we’ve been bringing in. This facility will bring in trade shows and entertainers and conventions that we haven’t been able to bring in before and we need to see the upside of it and that is the income that’s going to be brought in with this fine facility.
David Dunn: As we had reported to you before in the past, we have commissioned several studies over the years that show the impact that tourism has on Vanderburgh County. And our last study was conducted in 1996. At that time, the impact on tourism was $212,000,000 to Vanderburgh County. I mean, it’s a significant impact that it has on the entire county. Interestingly enough, and I know that this morning’s editorial indicated that the hoteliers received the lion’s share of that, but locally in Vanderburgh County only 18% of the expenditures go to the hoteliers. Clearly 82% of the dollars that are brought in for tourism go to all the other services that support tourism outside of the hotel business. It’s big business, the hoteliers are happy to participate and support this, but clearly the lion’s share of it doesn’t come back to us as previously indicated.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, could I interrupt? Before we carry this on much further, it’s five minutes ‘till five in Indianapolis, so could we --
President Wortman: Okay, the spokesman, you represent the Convention and nobody else wants to speak from your bureau now, I hope, possibly. Mrs. Payne, would you want to speak and then we’ve got another gentleman there, he wants to. So you go ahead, Mrs. Payne.
Joy Payne: Hi, I’m Joy Payne. I’m a member of the Visitors & Convention Bureau. I just real lightly want to touch on what Jim was saying earlier so we can clarify how the reporting of these monthly expenses is going to be provided to the Convention Bureau. As David said, we still have to discuss this with the rest of our board tomorrow and one of our members in particular is quite concerned about this. Then you mentioned something about that has to go through the County Commission, which this body would have no ruling over.
Councilmember Raben: Well, we’ll make it happen. I promise you, it’ll happen.
Joy Payne: Okay, so that’s in the minutes, we’re going to make it happen.
President Wortman: Okay, thank you, Mrs. Payne. Okay, Mr. Leonard, do you want to say a few words for a couple minutes here?
Geoff Leonard: I was told to make it fast.
President Wortman: State your name please.
Geoff Leonard: Oh, I’m sorry. Geoff Leonard. I am just here as a taxpayer, an involved one, which are few sometimes and far between. I want to preface by saying I would have lunch or dinner with any of you after the meeting, so it’s nothing personal but I think there are some views that need to be spoken before this happens. I’m here today, frankly, as a voice in the wilderness to implore you to please reconsider and vote down this proposal. We’ve been talking about what we get from it. We haven’t talked about what we lose. Raiding the capital improvement fund will be a bastardization of the express intent of its original creation. Countless projects to improve our county will be unable to further develop while many will not even be attempted because the opportunity to properly utilize this fund will cease to exist. We’re talking about projects like the Reitz Home, the Museum, the Learning Center, Mesker Zoo, Burdette Park. A lot of those things that tourists do when they’re not sitting in meetings in a convention center. It was suggested and apparently now is in black and white that Council only use this fund until 2005. I don’t think I really need to remind the county that the Food & Beverage Tax was instituted solely to build a new airport and then it’s gone. That’s the commitment. Well, we found a new use for that tax. We found a new use for that pot of money. Government is becoming a perverted adolescent breast-feeder, unable to wean itself from newly found pots of money. And it’s always at the expense of someone else. This proposed action is another example of our county government not taking responsibility, real responsibility for a county facility. We have the Coliseum nearby, the Old Court House, those have been dumped off on to not-for-profit groups to try and maintain and take care of, much like a child who gets a stack of new toys at Christmas and by New Year’s Day is bored with those and tosses them aside for someone else to take care of in favor of a new shinier toy. I thought it was ironic that just last night, two mayoral candidates pledged to provide an open and responsive city government which brings up several questions. Why have we not regularly, clearly disclosed the total cost of this project? We know it’s a thirty-five million dollar bond issue, we know that there is an additional million and a half from the very fund that’s now being eliminated effectively for six years, but there is also three quarters of a million dollars from Casino Aztar which was granted to that project as part of them getting a license. So we’re at 37 ¼ million dollars and I’ve yet to see that figure in the media. My other question is why not a referendum? If you can’t pay to run it, surely you knew that. Someone, Com-missioners, Council, should have known that two years ago or when the project first started. Why not last fall go during the election, have a referendum, and say we have a choice. We either have to raise property taxes -- a hush fell over the room -- or we have to sacrifice any further supported development at all of these public facilities that you all utilize and let the public tell you how they would prefer to pay for it. But we didn’t do that. I also wonder why we’re saying two percent instead of identifying a specific cap limit. Up to two percent gives some flexibility. There’s not nearly as much motivation to turn a profit if you know you’ve got more money to play with and the need should be decreasing over those six years as the amount of Hotel/Motel Taxes increase. So the two percent is going to get more, there is going to be more there to rely on instead of less. Then the question, if it’s an open government, is to why was this a last minute action? As a citizen, my first thought is well, by just proposing this one week before the deadline it avoids any bothersome involvement from the taxpayers. It avoids any bothersome involvement from organizations that will be affected for six years by this action. I also think it’s very ironic -- and this is why it didn’t happen sooner -- one year ago, the County went to the Convention & Visitors Bureau and said we have to have a million and a half dollars for two escalators and a movable wall and we need that money from the Capital Improvement Fund. They got their money and now they are slamming the door shut on any other organization to have the opportunity to even apply for that funding for up to six years. You say, well then how do we pay for it? Well, first of all, I would say fund it through the budget that exists. You say, well then we would have to cut something else out. That’s right. That’s what your county taxpayers do every day of their life. We have so much money to spend. We need a new roof, a new furnace, and could sure use a new car, but we can only afford two of those things. So we say well, we’ll put on a new roof and buy a new furnace to protect our investment. The old car don’t look too good, but she gets you where you need to go. And perhaps this county government should have looked at things and said well, we may have to put that on the back burner because we’re going to protect this investment within the budget that we have allotted to us at this time or God forbid, pass a small increase in property taxes. It was interesting that in the paper, there was a quote that it would be political suicide for there to be a sharp increase in property taxes. I have to wonder where the sharp increase comes from. The $657,000 being requested is nine/tenths of one percent of the county’s $71,000,000 annual budget. So to a taxpayer, it looks like well, if we raise property taxes one percent, we can cover a one percent increase in expenditures which means for a taxpayer, if I am paying $1,000 in property taxes, now I’ve got to pay $1,010 in property taxes to have that kind of a facility. To kind of put it in perspective, it was just in the paper this morning that Warrick County is considering a 43% increase in their Economic Development Tax and if we could have done this with a one percent increase, I think the public would have understood. My fear is that this is going to become a campaign tool and later in the year we’re going to hear people parading around town saying look, look, how I helped save you a million dollars in property taxes. But if you’re not saying it, there’s going to be at least one person saying it, saying yes, but look at what projects they denied the potential for funding for six years. There is an expense. And we wonder why is the public apathetic. Oh, the voters don’t care, you know, we just do it. I say first of all, past history, promises made about the Beverage and Food Tax didn’t come to fruition and now there is a promise for six years -- I am almost finished, I’m sorry. The media doesn’t always help. The article had a headline, "Hotel Tax Deal Okayed on Funding The Centre", so it looks to the public like it was a done deal and it wasn’t all ironed out yet. The nature of how this was done at the last minute and rushed through makes the public feel like, what’s the point? They’re going to do what they want to do anyway. I just can’t stand to see our system of government fall to that point so I had to come and voice an opinion from a taxpayer’s standpoint and from an opposing viewpoint and if by any chance you came into this whole discussion undecided, I am asking you to vote no and let’s take responsibility for the facility and make it work without being at the expense of other efforts.
President Wortman: Thank you, Mr. Leonard, for your comments. Anybody else want to speak to this issue? Don’t see anybody. We’re going to call for a vote and Madam Secretary, would you have a roll call vote please?
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: I’m going to vote yes but it’s one of the hardest things I’ve ever done.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Mr. Leonard, I appreciate the comments. I think they should be well taken in terms of, in light of the whole process and maybe the hurried fashion the way this was carried forth. I think we should take some pause maybe in future things and really expeditiously get to the point where we can get a good handle on what the cost will be on this very large, very expensive facility. As well, a very difficult vote as well, but I’m going to vote yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Mrs. Smith and I were not on Council when The Centre was approved and we looked at this as a possible solution to the funding problem. I’d also like to point out, I commend Councilman Raben and Councilman Wortman on their work and also the Convention & Visitors Bureau. I appreciate all the work you did and I’ll vote yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Okay, I appreciate the Convention & Visitors Bureau working with us. They are very cooperative and they bent over backwards to get this money, so I think they should be (inaudible) and I am going to vote yes.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

PAGODA RENTAL

President Wortman: Six on the agenda is the PERF, you have it in front of you here. A resolution, Senate Bill 651 --
David Dunn: Mr. President?
President Wortman: Excuse me, did you want to comment?
David Dunn: Council had requested that the Convention & Visitors Bureau revisit an issue regarding the Pagoda and I’d like to report back on that if I may interject at this point.
President Wortman: Real quickly. Thank you.
David Dunn: Our board last year had made a decision to discontinue rental of the Pagoda, had notified the Council of that decision. It was very unpopular and we were asked to revisit that issue. We have done so and I’ve got a copy for everyone that illustrates that having revisited the issue, our board continues to stand by its original decision to not utilize that facility as a banquet facility any longer.
President Wortman: Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, did you call for a motion on the PERF resolution?
President Wortman: Not yet. Mr. Dunn wanted to comment on this here. He reported back to the Council.
Councilmember Smith: I think we could go ahead and vote for that so they could send it off and then he could finish if he doesn’t mind to wait.
President Wortman: Okay, anything else, Mr. Dunn?
David Dunn: No.
(Discussion Continued after Perf Resolution Vote)

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HOUSE BILL 1888 & SENATE BILL 651
TO INCREASE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS IN THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND (PERF)

Councilmember Hoy: I call for the order of the day. You put it on the floor, let’s vote.
President Wortman: Okay, we’ve got a motion on the floor on the PERF.
Councilmember Raben: So moved.
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Alright, any discussion? Roll call vote please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes. Okay, that completes that.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Now we’re going to go, if there’s no other questions on anything, we’re going to proceed with the appropriation ordinance. Mr. Raben, would you proceed with A, the Sheriff/Jail, please?
Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman, I think maybe Mr. Dunn wasn’t finished. Were you not finished? We asked him to wait until we voted on that.
President Wortman: Was you finished, Mr. Dunn?
David Dunn: Just that, I make myself available to answer any questions --
President Wortman: Yeah, he just presented it like he said he would and come back. Does anybody want to ask Mr. Dunn anything in reference to the report he had on the rental of the Pagoda? Don’t see none. You’re excused.
Councilmember Hoy: I think they’ve already heard my disappointment with that decision and will probably hear it again and again because I think it’s the wrong decision.
Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman, I think it’s the wrong decision, too, and maybe they’ll look at the revenues that if they promote it they could bring in to the Visitors Bureau.
Councilmember Raben: I would certainly echo that as well. If I look at the $21,000 revenue on forty-two events and think the facility was never even promoted, never given a chance. It is a beautiful facility and it would sure be nice to share it with the entire community.
President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd?
Councilman Lloyd: I just had a question. By the policy that’s been adopted, if there was an industrial prospect, would that be available to have some kind of reception on the roof for them or does this mean we wouldn’t do that? That’s just a question I had.
David Dunn: An industrial prospect?
Councilman Lloyd: Yeah, like say a supplier to Toyota or someone along those lines.
David Dunn:Mainly, the issue was the first floor; that’s where the majority of all our recep-tions were always held. When the building was available for rental they could use the first floor as well as the open area at the top, but due to weather conditions it was only the first floor enclosed area that ever was utilized. People would go up on the upper deck at times but it was never sold separately or simultaneously with anything on the lower level. It’s a small area, we’ve got concerns about -- I mean, we’ve had damage already to that area. We’re experiencing leaks inside the building because of the tremendous foot traffic that we’ve received so far. We’re certainly not discouraging foot traffic up there because it is open to the public, but it wasn’t an area that was very popular for rentals. It was that lower level that was the issue.
(Inaudible -- Councilmember Hoy and Sutton simultaneously asked for the floor)
Councilmember Lloyd: Can I finish? I wasn’t finished. I was just going to mention it. Someone had asked me that and I wasn’t sure of the policy. I know you guys worked on a compromise and I appreciate that. I don’t think it’s the Council’s business to micro manage a facility, but I had hoped that some kind of an accommodation would be made, so anyway, that’s just my thoughts.
President Wortman: Now, Mr. Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy:First of all as I understand it, the first floor is still open for free public events. Is that correct or incorrect? For example, there was a young man that held an event there, I believe it was on a Sunday afternoon. The Visitors Center was still open, he had some bands come in and play. It was Community Unity Day, was the name of that. There was no charge because he was non-profit. It’s still open for that kind of event, is that correct?
David Dunn: We’re going to continue to keep the facility open on a public basis. As a matter of fact, next week we’ve got Doctor’s Day where there’s a number of exhibits that’s going to be set up. It’s an event that we’ve done in the past and we’re going to continue to utilize it in that fashion, yes.
Councilmember Hoy: I saw that and that’s one reason I asked the question and we’re doing an event. A bunch of the youth groups are doing an event called Stand For Children and we used the museum but may want to spill over into that area. It’s on a Sunday afternoon. I assume that it would be available for that sort of event also.
David Dunn: Not knowing what your total plans are, Mr. Hoy, we would certainly be receptive to talk to you.
Councilmember Hoy: We’re very similar to Doctor’s Day except we’re not doctors, that’s the only difference.
David Dunn: It would be an event that the public could participate in?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes, it is a public event. The other question I have, you mentioned damage and leaks. Is this damage on the upper floor?
David Dunn: On the roof’s portion of it.
Councilmember Hoy: Do we have any recourse with this architect with the construction firm?
David Dunn: We’re working through that right now.
Councilmember Hoy: It would seem to me...okay, I see several people shaking their heads yes. Good. After 1.5 million bucks, man, I expect a roof to hold and I’m sure you do, too.
David Dunn: So do we and we’re diligently working on that now.
President Wortman: Mrs. Smith.
Councilmember Smith: I want to thank Joy for all of her hard work. Curt and I sat down with her and she had it all documented. The woman worked hard at it, went back and made a proposal and I want to thank you.
President Wortman: Okay, anybody else got anything for Mr. Dunn? Thank you, I appreciate your time and effort.
David Dunn: Thank you.
President Wortman: Much obliged. We’re going to have a short pause here until some people get done organizing.
(Tape changed at 4:10 p.m.)

REQUEST CONCERNING MONTHLY REPORTS FROM OGDEN

President Wortman: Number five, Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, before I start the appropriations I’m going to go ahead and make a motion that this body express to the County Commissioners that any documentation in regards to revenues, monthly reports from Ogden be forwarded to the Convention & Visitors Bureau.
President Wortman: Do I have a second to that effect?
Councilmember Smith: Second.
President Wortman: Alright, any discussion on that? If not, all those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Motion passes. Thank you.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REQUEST FOR OPERATIONAL COSTS FROM
BUILDING AUTHORITY FOR THE CENTRE

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, I’d like to make a motion that we request from the Building Authority and the Commissioners a more definite idea of what the operational costs are going to be. Surely by this time -- that’s a motion, I shouldn’t comment. That’s just a motion that we request that. I’ll comment later.
President Wortman: Okay, can I have a second to that effect?
Councilmember Smith: Second.
President Wortman: Second, Mrs. Smith. Any discussion on that?
Councilmember Hoy: My comment is, is that surely by this time they ought to have some idea of what it is going to cost. I think we should know that and the public should know that. Thank you.
President Wortman: I think it would be good for everybody to know that, the public, everybody, and I think hopefully, by the April meeting we can have that and everybody can be happy. Okay, now then, are we --
Councilmember Hoy: (Inaudible)
President Wortman: We’ve got to vote. All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Now then, anything else?
Councilmember Raben: One thing for sure, you can bet they’ll have one for us by August.

APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE

A) JAIL
Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I’m going to move on to the Jail. I’m going to move approval of 1051-2200 Jail Expense in the amount of $30,000.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilmember Smith: Second.
President Wortman: Second Mrs. Smith. Any discussion? If not, roll call vote please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
JAIL REQUESTED APPROVED

1051-2200 JAIL EXPENSE
30,000.00

30,000.00

TOTAL
30,000.00

30,000.00

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
B) ARMSTRONG TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR
Councilmember Raben: Armstrong Township Assessor, I’ll move approval of 1100-3130 and 1100-3140 and I make that in the form of a motion. Do I have a second?
Councilmember Sutton: Second.
President Wortman: Any discussion? Call the roll call please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
ARMSTRONG TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED

1100-3130 TRAVEL
800.00

800.00

1100-3140 TELEPHONE
900.00

900.00

TOTAL
1,700.00

1,700.00

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
C) VOTERS REGISTRATION
President Wortman: Voters Registration, Mr. Raben.
Councilmember Raben: I’ll move approval of 1220-3700 in the amount of $80.
Councilmember Sutton: Second.
President Wortman: Second, Mr. Sutton. Any discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
VOTERS REGISTRATION REQUESTED APPROVED

1220-3700 DUES
80.00

80.00

TOTAL
80.00

80.00

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
D) COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
President Wortman: Proceed with Superior Court please.
Councilmember Raben: Uh, County Commissioners: 1300-3471 Abstracts in the amount of $9,150, and 1300-3021 Hillcrest-Washington Home $5,981, for a total of $15,131 and I make that in the form of a motion.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilmember Sutton: Second.
President Wortman: Any discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED APPROVED

1300-3471 ABSTRACTS
9,150.00

9,150.00

1300-3021 HILLCREST - WASHINGTON
5,981.00

5,981.00

TOTAL
15,131.00

15,131.00

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
E) SUPERIOR COURT
President Wortman: Superior Court, Mr. Raben.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I’ll move approval of 1370-1661-1370 Public Defender in the amount of $21,859; the next two items 1370-1770-1370 be set in at zero, 1370-1801-1370 also be set in at zero and they are going to take that before the Job Study; 1370-1900 FICA should read $1,673; 1370-1910 PERF should read $1,257, for a total of $24,789.
Councilmember Sutton: Second.
President Wortman: Second Mr. Sutton. Any discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
SUPERIOR COURT REQUESTED APPROVED

1370-1661-1370 PUBLIC DEFENDER
21,859.00

21,859.00

1370-1770-1370 CLERICAL ASST.
7,080.00

0.00

1370-1801-1370 SM. CLAIM SECRETARY
7,080.00

0.00

1370-1900 FICA
2,756.00

1,673.00

1370-1910 PERF
2,072.00

1,257.00

TOTAL
40,847.00

24,789.00

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
F) COUNTY COUNCIL
President Wortman: County Council, Mr. Raben.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I’ll move approval of 1480-1971, 1480-1900 and 1480-1910 for a grand total of $56,700.
Councilmember Sutton: Second.
President Wortman: Second Mr. Sutton. Any discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
COUNTY COUNCIL REQUESTED APPROVED

1480-1971 ACCRUED PAYMENTS
50,000.00

50,000.00

1480-1900 FICA
3,825.00

3,825.00

1480-1910 PERF
2,875.00

2,875.00

TOTAL
56,700.00

56,700.00

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
G) LOCAL ROADS & STREETS
President Wortman: Next, Local Roads & Streets Fund.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I’ll move approval of 2160-4364 in the amount of $1,231.
Councilmember Sutton: Second.
President Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
LOCAL ROADS & STREETS REQUESTED APPROVED

2160-4364 MT. PLEASANT RD. RRX
1,231.00

1,231.00

TOTAL
1,231.00

1,231.00

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

TRANSFER REQUESTS

A) TREASURER
B) CORONER
President Wortman: Now we’ve got two transfer requests, Mr. Raben.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I’ll move that we approve both transfer requests for both the Treasurer and the Coroner as submitted.
Councilmember Hoy: Second.
President Wortman: Second (Inaudible). Any discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
TREASURER REQUESTED APPROVED

FROM: 1030-2700 OTHER SUPPLIES
2,000.00

2,000.00

TO: 1030-4220 OFFICE MACHINES
2,000.00

2,000.00

CORONER REQUESTED APPROVED

FROM: 1070-2210 GAS & OIL
200.00

200.00

1070-3520 EQUIPMENT REPAIR
500.00

500.00

1070-3540 MAINT. CONTRACT
300.00

300.00

TO: 1070-2720 LAB SUPPLIES
1,000.00

1,000.00

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

AMENDMENT TO SALARY ORDINANCE

President Wortman: Okay, we’ll go down to the amendment to the Salary Ordinance.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, under item A, I move to amend the Salary Ordinance as approved which is account 1370-1661 Public Defender in the amount of $21,859 and I’ll also include under that County Council, I move to amend the Salary Ordinance as approved today.
President Wortman: Do I have a second to that?
Councilmember Hoy: Second.
President Wortman: Any discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Before we get into old business I’d like to have a little introduction here of new deputies, Kurt Althoff and Matt Kimmell. They might have left the room, I guess. So anyway, we’ll proceed on to old business.

PUBLIC HEARING FOR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA DESIGNATION
CONFIRMING RESOLUTION
MICHAEL C. JARVIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11751 OLD STATE ROAD

President Wortman: Resolution for Michael Jarvis property located at 11751 Old State Road. It passed the first time, so Mr. Robling, will you address that issue please?
Mike Robling: Yes. Today has been advertised as the public hearing on the economic revitalization area designation for the Jarvis property at 11751 Old State Road. You approved the preliminary resolution last month. At that time I had not made a recommendation on the property primarily because I had not seen the property and was not familiar with its conditions, the site conditions before the development occurred. I think that after Mrs. Lockyear and Mr. Jarvis explained the status of that site before he started working on it, that it comes most closely to meeting the statutory definition of most sites that have come before you, the City or County Council, for tax abatement in recent years. And I think that it does very well qualify under the legal definition. I think Ms. Lockyear would like to remind you of what those conditions were today also.
Krista Lockyear: Krista Lockyear. I am here representing Mike Jarvis and thanks to Mike Robling for that recommendation. I just want to reiterate that Mr. Jarvis acquired this property thinking that it was buildable land and then FEMA came in and subsequently changed the floodway maps and told him he couldn’t build on the property before he elevated it three feet. In addition, he constructed a ditch along Old State Road that is in the county right-of-way consisting of about $35,000, a six foot diameter concrete ditch that was an open ditch. And this improvement did, it is my understanding, improve drainage at the 4-H Center as well as all the other surrounding properties. The code that allows for these tax abatements directly addresses property that has become undesirable or impossible for normal development which is exactly what this property was and Mr. Jarvis has invested approximately $65,000 on the property that will benefit both himself and the county and the citizens of the county for years to come. I’d like to remind you all that this has been an investment that is already done and unlike a lot of property tax abatement requests that you see, it’s not just a prospective promise of benefits to the county. It already has benefited the county and we hope that there will be additional jobs and additional tax base to come from these improvements. And for those reasons, we do ask that you approve this tax abatement. Mr. Jarvis is also here if you have any questions for him.
President Wortman: Anybody got any questions in reference to tax abatement for Mr. Jarvis? Now remember, that’s out in the promised land! (Inaudible - microphone not turned on).
Councilmember Bassemier: (Inaudible -- microphone not turned on)
Councilmember Sutton: Mike, that’s out of our jurisdiction, actually, the Promised Land.
Councilmember Hoy: Does that mean you have to be dead to go there?
President Wortman: Yeah! Okay, if no questions, I’ll call for a roll call vote. Madam Secretary?
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: I have a problem with just getting one employee out of this, but since it’s only for around $8,000 I am going to go ahead and vote yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: When we had the preliminary resolution, I voted yes for this and I just really have problems with my vote that I gave. I just -- with my past stance on tax abatements I feel like I’ve been rather firm on tax abatements in terms of what I feel like they can do in terms of being a true economic development tool for our county. I think Mr. Jarvis has made a significant investment, has really done a good job with -- given the circumstances. But I guess in light of the fact that there is just one employee and there’s not going to be maybe some significant as I might -- as we see before us -- as we see of maybe some of our other tax abatement requests. I just have found it difficult to maybe even justify the -- maybe my vote that I had last time. So I am going to vote no on this particular resolution.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: I just want to apologize. Today, when I got a phone call, I cut someone off. They were telling me a little bit about this and in the meantime I kind of cut her off short. Now I apologize, I didn’t mean to. I got a run in the meantime and so I just wanted to apologize to that person and I’ll have to echo what Royce -- I’m a small businessman, too, and I know this would help but this is only one employee so I’m sorry. I am going to have to vote no on it, sir. I am very sorry. And the neighborhood, I wish you would bring it back down here where we really need it. I apologize, but I have to vote no.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: No.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: No.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes. The vote fails on that on a four to three basis.
(Motion fails 4-3/Councilmembers Sutton, Bassemier, Hoy and Lloyd opposed)

SHERIFF’S MERIT COMMISSION CORRESPONDENCE

President Wortman: You got a letter on old business, Sheriff’s Merit Commission --
Councilmember Sutton: Excuse me, Mr. President?
President Wortman: Yes, sir?
Councilmember Raben: Eddie voted yes --
Councilmember Sutton: I think that was approved.
Councilmember Raben: You voted no --
Councilmember Hoy: You got four no’s.
Councilmember Sutton: I voted no.
Councilmember Bassemier: No.
Councilmember Hoy: No, and Mr. Lloyd no.
Councilmember Sutton: Okay.
Councilmember Raben: But mine counts as two! Oh, it doesn’t?
President Wortman: We’ll move on to old business here, Merit Commission correspondence. You have a letter to that effect.

STAN LEVCO, PROSECUTOR
APPROVAL TO HIRE PART-TIME DEPUTY FROM DISCRETIONARY FUND

President Wortman: Now then, we’ll proceed to number nine, new business: Stan Levco, Prosecutor. If Mr. Brown would step forward please. This is not going to cost the county anything.
Doug Brown: My name is Doug Brown with the Prosecutor’s Office. I’m here for Mr. Levco. We’re wishing to hire a part-time deputy out of discretionary funds. This will cost the county nothing. In the past, as a courtesy, Mr. Levco has always asked for a vote of approval from the Council and that’s what we’re doing today. Should the funding run out, that’s our problem but right now we have the funds, we have a person in mind who has a lot of trial experience, we’d like to bring him on board.
President Wortman: I think this is more as a courtesy call, is what it amounts to.
Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, just real quick before we finish on this. Now, did we say yes or no to the gentleman on the last --
President Wortman: I think he’s just appearing, you can say yes or no, but if we want to give him our blessing to go ahead, we can do that.
Councilmember Sutton: I’m talking about the tax abatement. I’m sorry, did you say yes?
President Wortman: It was four to three against.
Councilmember Sutton: Okay, for some reason I thought you said --
Councilmember Smith: I thought you said it was approved.
Councilmember Sutton: Yeah, I thought you said it was --
President Wortman: I said disapproved.
Councilmember Sutton: Okay, I’m sorry.
President Wortman: Because Mrs. Smith, Raben and I voted yes, and you and Ed, and Mr. Hoy and Mr. Lloyd voted no.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, could I raise a question here? Doug, who pays unemployment and...I drew a blank...Workman’s Comp on these individuals?
Doug Brown: That has never come up. I guess that might come out of -- I don’t know. That’s a good question. I can’t answer that.
Councilmember Raben: Also, I know it’s been asked by this Council before, but are these people under the understanding when they’re brought in that if your well dries up, that their --
Doug Brown: Absolutely. This has only happened once before. In recent times, we had Charlie Berger under this circumstance last year for a while before a part time position actually that was funded came open and then we moved him into that. We paid for his salary prior to that. So everybody up front knows what’s going on .
Councilmember Raben: Okay, one quick question, too. When someone -- this just kind of struck me, too. When you are paid out of a separate fund, I guess, do these individuals still qualify for PERF and whatnot?
Councilmember Hoy: Is that for Mrs. Deig?
Councilmember Raben: Are they a county employee? They are a county employee, correct?
Doug Brown: I believe.
Councilmember Raben: So they have to contribute to PERF.
Councilmember Smith: If they are paid out of the incentive fund and that’s what they are going to pay, do they -- they pay the PERF and everything out of their incentive fund?
Doug Brown: Yes.
Councilmember Smith: I didn’t know how that worked either because I never did hire anybody full time out of it.
Doug Brown: This is a part time position.
President Wortman: Like I said, he didn’t have to appear before us. As just a courtesy I had him come up here. You know, they try to let us know what is going on down there and I think that’s very good.
Councilmember Raben: You know, it might be a good idea at some point, maybe there needs to be a form that they fill out that states that they understand that they are being paid by a separate fund and something that they sign too that is an agreement to keep the county from getting into any legal trouble that when that fund dries up that they are no longer a county employee.
Doug Brown: We could do that.
Councilmember Raben: Because by law I think we could really get into trouble terminating somebody in the event of that taking place. I don’t...
Suzanne Crouch: I believe, I’ll have to double check, but I believe that when an employee is hired on a grant, when they are indoctrinated in the Auditor’s Office they do sign a form where they say that they realize they are paid through the grant and that if that grant money should for some reason end in the future, they realize that their employment would end and then also on the pink slips that the Commissioners put through, the officeholder acknowledges that it is grant money. So I think that’s already being addressed.
President Wortman: Mrs. Deig?
Sandie Deig: All expenses for payroll are deducted from the grant. It doesn’t come from us. That’s why this is a courtesy to the Council.
Councilmember Hoy: I’m sorry, would you repeat that, Mrs. Deig?
Sandie Deig: All payroll expenses are deducted from the grant. That’s why this is just a courtesy appearance. They really don’t need Council approval to hire this person.
President Wortman: Mr. Brown is just informing us. Now if you want, somebody entertain a motion and a second and approve it, we can do that, or just --
Councilmember Sutton: We don’t really --
President Wortman: He don’t need it, no, really. But I didn’t know. So, listen, you can -- I thank you and you can be excused, Mr. Brown.
Doug Brown: Thank you.
Councilmember Hoy: If you’d like an affirming motion --
President Wortman: Wait a minute, now. They said we ought to vote legal, so I’m going to entertain a motion.
Councilmember Hoy: So moved.
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Second Mr. Lloyd.
Councilmember Smith: And I think it’s Chris Lenn. Isn’t that who’s coming back and he’s been with the Prosecutor’s Office before, so I’m pretty sure he understands how it works.
President Wortman: Any discussion? No discussion? All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Thank you. Now you’re excused.
Doug Brown: Thank you very much.
Councilman Lloyd: We appreciate you coming forward.

APPOINTMENTS TO:
EVANSVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
PROPERTY TAX BOARD OF APPEALS
MUSEUM BOARD

President Wortman: Okay, we’ll get in -- we’ve had B and C, and now we go to D, E, F, G. I’d like to make the following appointments in the Evansville Economic Development Commission, Joe Harrison, Sr. The Personnel Administration Committee, Job Study, Judge Wayne Trockman, newly appointed judge, and Sheriff’s Captain Steve Woodall, POLE position. Property Tax Board of Appeals appointment, Harold Elliott, Democrat appointment; Peggy Pfister, Republican appointment. Harold, remember, served on the County Council. A very good man. Museum board appointment, Nancy Drake. So I’ll entertain a motion for approval of all those positions.
Councilman Lloyd: So moved.
Councilmember Sutton: Second.
President Wortman: All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Now then, that’s it. Anything else that we’ve missed along the line? If not, I’m going to take a motion for adjournment.
Councilmember Raben: So moved.
President Wortman: Have we got a second?
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Thank you.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
(Meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.)