|
PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING OPERATION OF A PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING SATELLITE FACILITY MAY 3, 2000
The Vanderburgh County Council held a special meeting on the 3rd day of May, 2000 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex for the final reading of a proposed ordinance regarding operation of a pari-mutuel wagering satellite facility. The meeting was called to order at 2:35 p.m. by County Council President Curt Wortman. The Vanderburgh County Council is
now in session for a special meeting concerning the ordinance of the pari-mutuel
satellite facility. This is the second and final reading so we'll open
the meeting and we'll have the attendance roll call please? Madam, would
you call the roll?
President Wortman: Now would we all pledge allegiance to the flag please. (Pledge of Allegiance was given) President Wortman: Before we go on we're going to let the County Attorney read the ordinance for the final reading but first I would like for the people in the audience to raise their hands that's going to speak for or against it. Got one. Okay, anybody else? Okay, so we know the gentleman there, the Council does, so the County Attorney, would you please read the ordinance for the second and final reading? Jeff Ahlers: "WHEREAS, pursuant to I.C. 4-31-1, pari-mutuel wagering on horse races is permitted in the state of Indiana; and WHEREAS, pursuant to I.C. 4-31, the Indiana Horse Racing Commission may permit pari-mutuel wagering on horse races at a Satellite Facility, which is a location other than a horse racetrack; and WHEREAS, a person, as defined in I.C. 4-31-2-15, may be granted a license to operate a Satellite Facility, as defined in I.C. 4-31-2-20.5, in an Indiana County, such as Vanderburgh; and WHEREAS, pursuant to I.C. 4-31-4-2.5(a), the fiscal body of Vanderburgh County may adopt an ordinance permitting the filing of applications under I.C. 4-31-5.5 for the operation of a Satellite Facility in Vanderburgh County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to I.C. 4-31-4-2.5(b), the fiscal body of Vanderburgh County may require the voters of Vanderburgh County to approve the operation of a Satellite Facility in Vanderburgh County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Vanderburgh County Council as follows: SECTION 1. Pari-mutuel wagering on horse races is permitted in the state of Indiana; SECTION 2. Pari-mutuel wagering on horse races may be conducted at Satellite Facilities; SECTION 3. A person, as defined in I.C. 4-31-2-15, may operate a Satellite Facility in Vanderburgh County. SECTION 4. The voters of Vanderburgh County are not required to approve the operation of a Satellite Facility in Vanderburgh County. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after the date that it is adopted by a majority vote of the Vanderburgh County Council." And then the proposed ordinance has passage dates and signature lines for the County Councilmembers, the Auditor and Council Attorney. That's it. President Wortman: Thank you, Mr. Ahlers. Now the first thing we'll do is ask for anyone to speak in favor of this ordinance. Okay, we heard it last Wednesday, I mean, the last Council meeting so now then we'll ask for the person or persons to speak against it. Would they please step forward please? Richard Mourdock: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the Council. I'd like to begin by stating what is hope is obvious but may not be and that is that for all of you who have to vote on this, I have great respect and - President Wortman: Excuse me a minute. Would you say your name? Richard Mourdock: I'm sorry, Curt. Richard Mourdock. I have great respect for all of you. I know we at times agree, we at times disagree and the reason I bring that up is because every time this issue or a related issue of any kind of gaming or gambling comes up, there are those in the public who think those of us who are elected officials are somehow being given special treatment or there is something going on under table and that your minds are made up long before you get to these meetings and I know that's not true. I know you're doing this job with what you feel is the best interest, the best long-term interest for this community and I respect you all for that. I also want to ask this question: why do we need off-track pari-mutuel betting in Vanderburgh County? Why? In 1993, some of you might remind me we had a referendum about gambling in Vanderburgh County and it passed. It passed 51% to 49%. Councilman Hoy and perhaps some of the rest of you, but I am sure Phil was on the same group I was on appointed by the mayor to review the different companies that came forward to be reviewed for licenses. The key point about that 1993 vote was that that vote was to authorize what we were sold, if you will, those of us in the community were presented the image of a cruising riverboat and one of the things that sanitized it for a lot of people was the fact that the boat was going to be cruising up and down the river and there was going to be extremely limited access to the boat. The other thing that was happening in 1993 and it's very true, the issue was about jobs in Vanderburgh County and jobs in Evansville. It was a very divisive issue back then and I remember very specifically at one moment when at that time the secretary for the Republican Central Committee, Taylor Payne, was on the other side of the table from me and I was also on the Central Committee and we were on Channel 9 having this debate about whether or not this was a good thing for Evansville. The telephone lines were opened up and a lady called in arguing with my point of view saying this shouldn't be happening and she said to me, "Mr. Mourdock, how can you be against this? Don't you understand, we don't have any chance for jobs. We're not going to get big plants. We're never going to get an automotive factory in this area. We've got to get jobs any way we can get them." That was just seven years ago. If there is an issue about jobs in Vanderburgh County right now it's not about creating them, it's finding people to fill the slots. In our office right now, private sector office, we've got eight good paying jobs that we can't find people to fill. We've advertised nationally and can't get them filled. To have pari-mutuel betting as any reason to create jobs is flat out inaccurate. What this issue is about obviously is a lot of money. The Indiana Horse Racing Commission as mentioned by Mr. Ahlers, since the first person walked on that boat, has been getting 65 cents for every time someone goes on board. They had to work hard for that money. They had to go all the way to the bank to open an account to stuff the money in it. That's all they've had to do. Now they want to go beyond that to have greater revenues and I know part of the pitch is that the county again will get some more revenues and that will help ease your burden as Councilmen to fund things in the county. But as a member of county government as well, I know the answer to the old question of how much money does it take to run Vanderburgh County government. The answer is, just a little bit more. We're never going to have enough money to run the government the way we would totally like to. So bringing in more revenues in this manner I don't think is truly going to help us. Some have argued this is an issue about whether or not the money that might be spent in Evansville is otherwise going across the river to Kentucky. Well, I suppose you can take that argument, but if we're going to get that divisive in an area where we keep saying regionalism is important, why don't we stop letting people from Kentucky get on our riverboat. If we want to make sure the money stays where it starts, why not set up some barriers? Or if you want to take the inverse of that argument, why don't we have our own horse racing track in Vanderburgh County? Why do we need to do something just to get more money coming in to this area under the name of the logic that we need more money for county government? I don't understand it. Seven years ago there was, and I suspect there still is, some talk about what gambling does to a community as far as individuals. Let me also say that to my knowledge, to my knowledge, Aztar has kept every single promise they made to this community. As a member of the mayor's board, we put a bunch of things in front of them we wanted them to sign off that they would do, and to my knowledge they've kept all those promises except one and I will come back to that in a minute. And by the way, I don't fault them for not fulfilling the one promise. One thing that was talked about during those committee hearings in 1994 was how people's individual lives would be affected by gambling, by gaming, by having that riverboat. And there were some people who were concerned about people who would become addicted to gambling and throw away their lives and their fortunes and all that stuff. Just the other day I was explaining to a friend of mine, I know personally three people who have left more than a hundred thousand dollars down on that boat before they finally got the kind of help they needed. Two of them have had divorces because of it, one of them is suffering through a really tough time. Now in making that comment to a friend of mine, he quickly came back and said, "Yeah, Mourdock, but you know hundreds of people. What percentage of people is that? It's pretty small." But I'll also tell you I don't measure people by percentage points. In 1993 when the gambling issue was in front of us all along with the jobs, we were told there another great promise that it offered and that was it was going to revitalize Main Street. Aztar stood at this platform and made the guarantee that they were going to give a car away a day in May and they were going to do all these various things to make sure there was plenty of traffic up and down this walkway. Honestly, and I said it at that time, I didn't expect them to fulfill that promise. I didn't see how they could because it's not in their best interest to have their customers leaving that boat, leaving their restaurants to walk up and down Main Street. So I don't fault them for not keeping that promise. But if a pari-mutuel track is going to solve a problem like that, if that promise is being made, it isn't going to happen. I think the most difficult time, I know the most difficult time I have as an elected official is not when I get to stand up and give a speech when there is a majority of people who are endorsing what I say, who are supportive. The times I hate the job, and all of you can relate to this, is when you have to cast a vote that's on the minority side but you know it's the right thing to do. Today I would tell you that, I think, is what you have in front of you. There is an old saying that character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. In 1993 and 1994 this room would be full. It was jam-packed, we had speakers out here in the hallway because everybody was interested in the issue and you may take the point of view right now, Mourdock, you're the only person here to speak against this, you're the only one who raised your hand, nobody cares. Well, on the other side, is there anyone in this room who is here to speak for it who doesn't have a financial interest? The community is not demanding that you do this. This community has changed since 1993. It really has. And I think most of the changes have been positive, but I would say those changes have not been because of the riverboat, they've been in spite of it. In 1992 how many pawn shops were there in Evansville? In 1992 how many quick check money places were there that charged 40 and 60 percent interest? I know the answer. In 1992 there were zero quick money places. Zero. There were four pawn shops. I looked in the phone book this morning, there are now 14 pawn shops and 29 easy money at 60 percent check cashing stores. Do you think those are in the best interest of Evansville? I said at the outset I have great respect for all of you here. I will regardless of how you vote. The thing that makes this community different, I think, and certainly this country different as a whole, is that we're based on the principle that not only do we honor the rights of the majority but we respect the rights of the minority. A 51 to 49 percent vote in 1993 was a very close vote. I suspect if that vote took place today it wouldn't be that close. The riverboat would win, I have no doubt, because most people don't see the kind of things I've just spoken of here. But the fact is there is still a minority in this community who recognizes that gambling and the facilities, the infrastructure that's created to support it are not in this community's long-term best interest. I have respect for you as you cast your votes and I would ask that you have respect for the minority's opinion and say no to this issue. President Wortman: Thank you, Mr. Mourdock. The next gentleman. State your name please. Richard Helzerman: My name is Richard Helzerman. I'm the pastor of the Seventh Adventist Church in Newburgh, Indiana. I would like to speak against the motion and I'd like to ask you to vote this down. I believe that gambling is immoral, wrong, evil, that you are putting in front of people temptations that they may not be able to handle and that's the main reason but there are some other reasons. I don't believe that it's in the interests of the county - gambling is only profitable if it's restricted and the profitability of the Aztar boat has been compromised because more and more gambling boats are open and you're looking at losing a lot of revenue. Now if you open up another competitor, another legal gambling in Vanderburgh County, you're going to draw away some of the gamblers who are going to the boat and they're going to go here. And so you will further compromise. It's much better if you keep most of the gambling legal and only one or two legal spots and in this case only one legal spot to protect its monopoly. Now when they made the investment in the community, they were under the assumption that gambling would be illegal most of the places and they would be the only game in town. Now you're switching. In seven years you're pulling the rug out from under them and giving them another whole big competitor that's not 200 miles down the river, but right here. The other thing is that we have horse racing already for the gamblers and I know up in Jasper, Indiana there are housewives there who drive down two or three times a week and gamble away all their husbands' hard earned money at the horse racing that's right here. Now, we've referred to this boat is supposed to be out there on the river but somehow after we all agreed that it should come here - I spoke against it then, I was here back then to speak against it - but once we all investigated it, we had committees to look at it, we all voted for it, 51 percent of us did, we found out that we don't even own the river, that Kentucky owns the river and Kentucky is mad because we have opened up a competitor to their gambling and they have said, it's my understanding, that if that boat strays out into Kentucky water, it's going to be impounded and taken away. And so the thing hardly ever goes on the river and if it does, it just does a little parallel thing forward and backward. And I think that we've got enough problem with the boat with Kentucky gambling and if you open up a pari-mutuel gambling outfit here, it's going to be a competitor to the horse racing that's already here. And if that goes down, you may lose a bunch of jobs and whatever elsewhere. So for those reasons, the primary reason, though, is it's wrong and the state, you should not accept a dime of money that's money off of illegal, immoral, wrong, people suffering. All the money that you get from the boat you ought to just bury it someplace or give it away to the poor people or whoever wants to come. Dish it out, it shouldn't go to build up something. Evil money is evil, it will corrupt. It will make people do wrong things and I don't think that you should do that. Thank you. President Wortman: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak for or against it, this ordinance, pari-mutuel betting parlor? Yes sir, would you step forward please? Mike Frierdich: My name is Mike Frierdich. I came down here just to hear what was going on. I don't have a financial interest in these people although I know Paul Estridge. I used to be president of Ellis Park a few years ago, back in the 90's and have had a real close involvement with the horse racing industry over many years. I look like I do because I got caught in the rain, so excuse me. I've been involved with horse racing probably for most of my life when I started practicing law. Had it not been for a broken down horse trainer who paid me with two race horses, I probably wouldn't have even started a law practice, but that got me into business and I really learned to like it. I enjoy it, it's a way of life for a lot of people. I've spent time, I've been on the board of directors of Breeder's Cup since its inception, since the first Breeder's Cup Race. I've been president of the Illinois Breeder's Organization for almost 15 years until I moved down here to Indiana when I took the job at Ellis Park. And so I have had a lifetime of involvement in the thoroughbred industry. One of the comments that was made was that there is no one here in favor of it. Well, I am an ex-horse racing executive, I am in favor of an off-track betting parlor being located in Evansville, Indiana. And a comment was made about the 65 cents. One thing we have to remember when we talk about horse racing is it's not just the race track or the betting parlor. Horse racing in Illinois, and I had these numbers but I've been out of it for years so I don't have them, but they are available. Like Indiana is in agri-business. It is one of the largest agricultural contributing businesses in your entire state. It's part of an agricultural industry. The 65 cents was not just there to give people who happen to walk on the riverboat to thicken someone' s pocket in the Indiana Horse Racing Commission. The 65 cents was there because in order to build an industry, a large horse racing industry in a state, you have to have purses at the race tracks that are large enough to attract horses. Horse racing is an expensive sport. People spend a lot of money to breed horses, raise horses and feed horses. That 65 cents was used to go to the Indiana Horse Racing Commission who used it for the development of purses and incentives to people who raised Indiana breds, Indiana bred horses is what I am referring to. So that money was the seed money that was absolutely essential to get anyone to come in and spend the tens of millions of dollars that it was going to take to build a race track in Indiana. Those tens of millions of dollars that were invested in infrastructure for race tracks and off-track betting facilities generated the demand for horses that caused people in the rural areas to have markets for hay, straw, grain, hundreds of people work on the back side of a race track, hundreds of people take care of these thoroughbreds throughout the state. So it's not just, we have to look beyond okay, Evansville, we want to put a parlor here. What is that going to do? That's going to allow more people the opportunity to wager on Indiana bred horses that are racing in Indianapolis or that are racing anywhere in the country and part of that money is going to go into the purses to encourage people to raise Indiana bred horses and help grow the agricultural economy. You don't look at - maybe riverboats, I am not that familiar with them, I haven't been on a riverboat but I've been in the horse racing industry all my life. But it's a different sort of industry. It is built around a whole agricultural base in your state. So it's important from that standpoint, it was very - in Illinois there was tremendous support for the racing industry because of the agricultural business it supported. So that 65 cents just doesn't go into people's pockets. That 65 cents was a catalyst developing multi-million dollar agricultural business in this state and without it there would not have been a race track. It's not just gambling. You know, you say well, it's going to take people from one gambling segment and then you move them to another. They're going to take them from the riverboat and move them to the race track. I can tell you from the years I've been involved in horse racing, it's pretty well two different types of people. There is some cross-over. Horse racing is more deliberate. It's a race every 22 minutes or longer. Now there is some simulcasting where there are more races going on, but we in the horse racing industry always like to think it's a little bit more cerebral than just throwing the dice or sticking some money down on a number. There is a lot of analysis that goes into it and we find that our patrons are generally older people. The demographics tend to be older people who thoroughly enjoy not only the wagering - you can go to a race track and in an entire afternoon you may wager 10, 15, 20 dollars. That may be it. It's difficult to do that in my opinion on a riverboat, but in horse racing we find that there is tremendous entertainment value particularly from older people who visit the race track. I've always felt it was a shame that we didn't have nice facility, a real nice first-class facility in Evansville that allowed people to wager on horse racing. So I guess the comment is there are people in this town who are interested in horse racing and wagering on horse racing here. It is an agricultural industry, there is more to it than just wagering your money and losing money and from the years that I've been involved in running race tracks, I did not experience the difficulties that have been alluded to as relates to gambling. And I do think it's to a large extent there are different patrons that attend the two and I think there would probably be a lot of people who would like to be able to wager on horse racing in Indiana where some of the benefits were going to go to the entire state, not just Evansville but the entire state. So that's really about all I have. I appreciate it, thanks for the time. President Wortman: Okay, is there any other comment? Mr. Mourdock, would you want to come to the microphone please? Richard Mourdock: I'll just clarify my comment about the 65 cents, if I may, and I say this respectfully, and I am sorry, sir, you're name was...? Mike Frierdich: Mike Frierdich. Richard Mourdock: Mr. Frierdich, okay. Mr. Frierdich made several good points, however, my comment about the 65 cents, I do not mean to imply it was going into a CD up there in Indianapolis. Clearly it is going to the development of additional horse tracks which begs the question, why is the government putting another industry in business? In my business, the government doesn't come in and subsidize what I want to do. If you want to open a tire store, an electric shop, or bank or anything else, the government is not coming in and giving you seed money to do that and that's part of the problem. Now I fully concur with Mr. Frierdich's comments that there are a lot of people in this community who would probably like to see this happen. Again, as I say, I am in the minority. There are people in this room who have been my supporters politically, may never be again after today, I don't know, but the point is the minority viewpoint here is important. I understand people like to gamble and I am not necessarily anti-gambling but I don't believe it's to the betterment to the community of Evansville and Vanderburgh County and I think the pawnshops, the quick money places, are quick evidence of that. President Wortman: How would you judge the word entertainment in the horse racing arena? Richard Mourdock: I suspect entertainment is like art. You know it when you see it. I don't know how to answer that, Mr. Wortman. I mean, certainly do some people find it entertaining? Yes. Are there senior citizens as Mr. Frierdich says that go there and sit there all day for fifteen bucks? That's probably true, there are. But there are also those, there are enough in this community that we've gone from having zero fast money, quick check places to 29 and from four pawnshops to 14. What does that say? President Wortman: I think what, I'll make a little comment here. I've been on here 22 years now and when I came on we didn't have all these taxes we have now: County Option Income Tax, Food & Beverage Tax, Wheel Tax, almost had to just get by with what we had and then we wouldn't have all these things until they was enacted. Now then, and then the governor put a five percent freeze on property tax which kind of held the property tax. I think the general public is looking for a little relief such as this type, maybe might help them out on their property. Now I am hearing that, see. Now whether that's good or bad, who knows. People are going to gamble the way I understand it, here, there, what have you. Some of them like it, some don't. And of course, nobody is forcing them to gamble. If it's there, they're going to gamble. I know they go over to Ellis Park and they gamble. And if this here parlor here, if it's here, they'll probably bet, see. But how do you keep people, how do you keep them away from it, see? And if we're going to sit and just keep our taxes going up and we do get relief from the riverboat and the horse betting, is that appropriate or from the entertainment standpoint? That's a judgement call, I guess. Richard Mourdock: It is and I understand that argument, but I would come back with two points. Are we ready to build a horse track right here in Vanderburgh County? I mean, if you want some of the benefits, why not go for the big banana? Think of the taxes we could get off that horse track? But when that vote comes up, I hope you're sitting in the County Commission chair instead of me, Curt. Because I don't want to be there for that vote. The other part of that is, yeah, people are going to do it anyway. I suppose that could be argued of drugs and prostitution and all kinds of stuff that some feel are not desirable in a community. Now I know that's a stretch to say that and again, I can sense people shriveling behind me even as I use those analogies, but the point is there is a lot of things that people don't like in a community and the question is, should government endorse them and sponsor them? And I strongly feel no. President Wortman: Thank you, Mr. Mourdock, for your comments. Okay, anybody else want to comment? Councilmember Hoy: President Wortman, I am unclear about something that I wish somebody would clarify for me. I am not aware - and then I have a couple of comments to make if you will allow that - I am not aware that we are going to directly benefit from this in the same way we do from the boat anyhow. I don't think that's an issue here. Am I right or wrong? I mean, like from the boat? Can anybody answer that for me? What is the local benefit? I think we need to get that on the floor. President Wortman: Could you state your name please? Gil Short: Gil Short, I am the Vice President and General Manager of Indianapolis Downs and you are correct. You are going to benefit in the way of Food & Beverage sales tax and employment. We are not under the same statutes as what the riverboats are. Councilmember Hoy: Thank you, and my point is that I would not want people reading these minutes to believe for a minute that this is going to relieve property tax because it's not. In fact, if anybody, and if nobody else on this Council will toot our horn, I will because this Council, I've been on it eight years, has kept property tax very, very low. We've had almost no increase so - and we almost never get credit for that - but we're not talking about a trade-off here at all between property tax and income. So I appreciate your answer. My comment is because I probably feel some compulsion, Mr. President, to make a statement since I am an ordained minister and to explain my forthcoming vote and I want to thank Mr. Mourdock for being here. Richard and I have stood alone quite a few times and frankly when the riverboat came along I opposed the riverboat and I am as dismayed as you are with the increase in the check cashing places which to me are worse than usurious and with the increase in pawn shops it's just unbelievable and I know what's happening and I know people, too, who have lost money. My reason - and I am not a gambler, I have been on one boat and that was in Metropolis and I spent ten dollars and got bored. I went up on the top deck and you may as well cruise 800 feet because the river there is so ugly at Metropolis, it's not worth looking at anyway. It's much prettier here but they only go 800 feet. I mean, there is just so much craziness about this whole issue but I am going to vote for this because I have checked into the background of some of the folks who represent this company and I don't believe that they wear pinstripe suits and have little buttons that start their cars from a distance or that they are Sicilian and if I haven't made that point by now then I will explain it after the meeting. But I think we have a pluralistic society and the only thing that's rung my phone off the wall since I've been running my latest campaign has been people who have supported me on my stands on making the SAFE House better. That's where I am getting the calls. But we have church bingos everywhere, we have the Hoosier Lottery, we have Ellis Park which is in Kentucky, but on our side of the river. We have all kinds of competition and I don't know that this competition is going to make matters any worse than they already are. I am at the point where - I still am not going to gamble any money at your place, you all know that - but I think competition is welcome in this instance. I agree with Mr. Mourdock about the downtown, of course, I have heard that about everything we've done to the downtown on revitalization and that almost becomes a - it is a community joke, it really is with a lot of people. So that's where I am coming from, I just don't see an enormous additional harm to us and I think the mind-set of our community is that this is something that they seem to want and I can't oppose somebody coming in and competing with others along those lines. But I don't want to be misunderstood as one who supports gambling. I don't do it except a dollar on the Super Bowl and I do confess to that and that's about it. Again though, my appreciation to you, Richard, for coming here because I have always admired your courage on speaking up on issues and I appreciate you coming. Thank you, sir. President Wortman: Mr. Winnecke, you had your hand up there. Councilmember Winnecke: Yeah, just to clarify the clarification, I was looking for the statute but I thought the city and county would split 50 percent of a two cent admission tax if the facility were to be in the city. Isn't that correct? I mean, my point is, there is revenue to benefit. Gil Short: Yes, there is. If there is a county imposed admission tax there, it is a split between the county and the city. Yes. Different counties are - there are three existing off-track wagering facilities in the state now and only one gets an admission tax but that's the county that established the admission tax. Councilmember Hoy: But we do have to impose that tax as - we do have to impose it, do we not? Gil Short: That's correct. It's up to the individual. Councilmember Hoy: And my only point is we're not, Councilman Winnecke, is that if you look at what comes in - I am looking at the figures here from the riverboat and from other sources, these taxes, it's nice to have that money. This is not what funds this county basically. What funds this county is property tax, County Option Income Tax and other taxes that we levy and I don't want to go on record as being one who thinks that this is going to be just a great windfall, and I am not expecting it either. Councilmember Winnecke: I have two quick points. That is, in my mind, there is an issue of jobs here, there is a potential issue of revenue for this county, but I think it's also, I think there's an issue of lifestyle and cultural opportunity, like it or not, and I think it gives the residents of our community another option, another "entertainment" option. And entertainment, obviously would be in quotations. What it is to you would be different to me and different to everyone on the Council. Secondly, I think it would be - I shudder to think what our economy would be like if we tried to stifle competition and I think we would be stifling an element of competition if we voted no. And on the issue of the pawn shops and quick cash, I don't think that's necessarily indicative of the riverboat's presence in our community. If you pick up just about any franchise or business magazine at Barnes & Noble and look for franchise opportunities, you can open a pawn shop or a quick cash facility. I don't think that's really necessarily a result of the riverboat. That's all I have to say. President Wortman: Mr. Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: I think Mrs. Smith was next in line. I'll get behind Mrs. Smith in line. Councilmember Smith: Well, I think we've set here for years and we've seen Illinois, Ohio and Kentucky lobby with our legislature to keep horse racing out of the state of Indiana and they laugh all the way to the bank. I think it's time that Indiana get some of that revenue and especially Evansville. We're talking about 40 to 50 jobs. Nobody makes anybody gamble. I'm not a gambler, but if you want to go I think that's your own right and the riverboat was voted on by 51% of the taxpayers in Vanderburgh County and that was their choice and it has helped Evansville and I think the County Commissioners, the County Council and all have spent that money because it has helped Evansville survive and to expand. I feel that this could be an asset to Evansville and yes, I am going to vote for it. Councilmember Sutton: I was going to wait, I guess, a little bit before I spoke but I think it is probably most appropriate that I go ahead and speak now on this before Richard gets back up. I think he'll be up there a while. I guess I really want to speak to this issue. I was out of town and didn't get a chance to speak to the issue when we had our first reading on this and when we went through kind of the process back in - President Wortman: Excuse me, Mr. Sutton, we've got to change the tape. (Tape changed) Councilmember Sutton: Okay, I think when we went through this process back in `92, `93, `94 in looking at riverboat gaming and whether gambling was good for the community, and the community ultimately voted in favor of riverboat gaming here in the community. I think that the community was speaking because of the economy of the area. I think they were speaking because of, I think to a certain degree there was some curiosity about a new type of what they considered an opportunity at that time to be provided, that could potentially provide additional jobs. And I think that when we look at this particular request that we have here today, I think when we look at our community now as opposed to what we had back then, the community that we have right now, we're prospering. I think this community is doing extremely well. We've benefitted from a variety of good things. We have good industry, solid industry, we've weathered some storms here with some of our major industries but on the whole when you look at our unemployment, it's very low and very envious for a number of other communities. Really, overall, every community isn't necessarily doing well, but for the most part the nation is doing rather well in terms of prospering. And sometimes when you're doing very well, when you're prospering, sometimes your thoughts, your actions are not as what I think that they should be from a prudent standpoint. I think in this particular situation as we look at this particular request that is before us today, the question I have to ask myself in really evaluating this proposal is, what is the value that is added to this community by this request? What is going to be added to this community and I think that this request in and of itself, I am really struggling to see the value that is added here. I am really struggling to see how we will be that much better if this particular request is granted. And that is, we already have tons of bingo if it is going on. We've got the lottery, we've got riverboat gaming, and now we've got this request. How much is enough? I really think we've already reached that point where enough is enough related to what they call the gaming industry. Call it what is it. It's gambling and I think as we look at, like I said, this prosperity issue of our community we still want to believe that there is something more. I'd like to see today, I'd like to see a request standing there at the podium for a new company or a new factory that's here requesting tax abatement and you guys know how I feel about tax abatement. I'd be more prone to support that type of industry generating something positive in this community: jobs, economic development in this community rather than this particular request today because we already in my opinion, I believe that we already have enough. I think as well, when we think of what is the greater good for this community I am struggling to see whether this request provides a greater good to this community and I am not saying that other communities who have chosen to do this whether they are morally wrong or they are totally devoid of any type of thought of what is going on, but I think for our community, which none of the individuals except for one that is sitting here will live with this decision here in Evansville, Indiana and that is what I think each and every one of us needs to look at and that is we're the ones that's going to live with the choice that is made here. So whether it's someone that's addicted to gambling or whether it's someone who decides to spend more on gambling than they spend on their family, that's maybe not the issue. It's how this community will be affected in the long run and I think our prosperity has spoiled us, has spoiled us to the extent where we think that there's something better, that there's something else that we're not getting, that we're missing out on something by having this request and approving this request, and I don't think we're missing out on anything. I think we're missing out when we're not getting more industries that are coming up here and making requests, like I said, what I'd like to see here. And then I think also when we look at this, when we look back at riverboat gaming there was a process that took place and when we look at what is being proposed to us today, why is it that they are coming to us and wanting us to approve this and to abandon the process that went through with riverboat gaming? I think there's a reason for that and the reason is I think that the voters here and the constituents here in this community would probably resoundingly say no to this request. So now they are asking us to short circuit that particular process and with the hopes that this can pass through a lot quicker and I just don't think that's the way. I think the ones who approved riverboat gaming should again. If it's the pleasure and if it's the feeling of this community that they want this particular request, then I think the community should state that. I think yes we do represent this community when we sit up here and we cast votes, but I think this is a greater issue than maybe seven people making that decision. There are a number of other people who would like to speak to this and if they had some thought and opportunity to think about it. And I think this issue really kind of became galvanized for me yesterday. I was out in my yard planting some hostas and my six year old daughter was out there playing while I was planting hostas and she found two lottery tickets laying on the ground. And she came up and asked me, what are these? And I kind of struggled, at six years old how do you explain what a lottery ticket is? And I said well basically, that is a ticket that people buy because they think they are going to win something. She says well, do you buy them? I said no, I don't buy them. Well, don't you want more? I was like, no, I think we have enough. I think we're okay. We don't need the lottery tickets. Well, why do people buy it? Well, I said because they don't really think that what they have been blessed with is enough and I think we're at the point where enough is enough. We have enough gambling, have enough gaming, and I think as far as our community is concerned, I'd rather say enough is not enough when I've got industries and companies coming up here wanting requests for tax abatement here in our community. So for me I think the vote is very clear and I know, Richard, you struggled, but for me I don't, it's not a struggle for me when though there might be other Councilmen - I probably will be the only one that votes against this and when I stepped in this room I felt like I was going to be the only one but I felt confident that in the greater interest and the greater good of this community I felt like that by voting no on this would be the right thing to do. So I want to live with this choice, I want to live with this vote. So that's how I feel and I just wanted to express that. President Wortman: Thank you, Mr. Sutton. Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: First I'd like to thank Phil for bringing that out because I was concerned, too, by some of the prior conversations that when somebody read these minutes that are now available through the Internet that they would interpret that this is going to offer tax relief on their property taxes which is not the case. So thank you on that. A couple of things: as far as a location, have you picked a site yet for this facility? Gil Short: I have personally toured the city on one occasion and saw several sites. It's going to take - picking a site is something that takes quite a bit of time. Of course, ingress and egress is very important and you've really got to investigate the town but I saw seven or eight very good sites. Three or four of them were what I considered distressed sites that I personally like to deal with because we go in and basically get a manilla box and do the build out on it so we don't need a fancy building. We make it fancy ourselves and parking is of utmost importance when you're looking at three or four hundred parking spots. It limits your selection down considerably. Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you. And this may ease some people's minds but I would certainly ask, you know, Richard Mourdock brought it up earlier that we look at the downtown area something in and around the walkway area. Again, that's a mission that the local community has fought for 20 years and we can't seem to get that traffic flow back downtown and this may certainly help do that. But I want to speak on just horse track betting in itself. It's not like we're inventing a new game for this community to bet on. Horse racing has been part of this community and has been available for longer than I've been alive at Ellis Park and again, we're offering a choice. We're giving them another location to go. We're giving them a location where they may not have to cross an already too busy interstate or highway to enter into the parking lot and walk a half mile through rocks and dust to get to so I don't really see as if we're opening up doors for more betting. There's people who know the racing business, read the forms, follow it, it's always been here and at worst, we're probably going to take away a small percentage of their customers, people that are already betting horses and I don't think we're breeding new gamblers ourselves. It's kind of like playing cards. There's some of us that grew up playing clabber, some of us that grew up playing hearts or rook. I mean, there's always going to be rook game, there's always going to be a clabber game. Again, we've always had horse racing and it's been in the back and the front rooms of the taverns for years and years. We may affect their business somewhat, too. But we're not introducing anything new here. President Wortman: Thank you, Mr. Raben. Okay, it always looked like that bingo, you know, just how many grandmas kept off the street when you think of bingo. Mr. Mourdock? We've got five minutes here yet and then we've got to clear out. Richard Mourdock: I just very quickly wanted to respond to Mr. Winnecke's comments regarding the pawnshops and also the easy check places. You're right, those are growth industries but when you look at Evansville, Indiana versus other communities I honestly disagree because we do have much faster growth of those industries in this area. Regarding whether or not the county directly receives benefits, and I admit here some information has been clarified in my mind, but I have to tell you I am mystified when this group isn't really sure what it is. Now I am not going to embarrass all of you nor am I going to whet Mr. Short's appetite by saying well, gee, are you all saying that you're never going to impose that tax? Because I think I know what the answer to that is because as I said before, I know how much money it takes to run county government: just a little bit more. The 65 cents, you know, if we're going to do this then I would hope the Indiana Horse Racing Commission would say we don't need that 65 cents off the riverboat anymore. We're in our own business and, in fact, we want that 65 cents to go right here. You think they're going to do that? We'll wait and see. And lastly, I had forgotten earlier, Mr. Sutton's comments reminded me, you were on that board as well when the mayor's selection committee took place and I do appreciate your comments. You know, this isn't about as, Mr. Raben, you were saying, having something that's been here for years because let's go back to 1988. There were those of us then who said if you have a state lottery it will lead to other things. Oh, no, no, no. It's about a lottery. Well, then we went to a lottery, then we went to the riverboat, and now it's going from the riverboat to dockside gambling, and now it's going from the lottery to the riverboat, to the dockside gambling, to pari-mutuel betting and you know the next thing it's going to be is to have land-based casinos. It's just the evolution. And lastly, Curt, you're on Area Plan with me and I look forward to sitting there that night when we have to change the zoning code to allow this facility in any Evansville neighborhood because it's not zoned right now and then this room will be full. President Wortman: Okay, thank you. We've got one minute yet and then we've got to be done exactly. Go ahead, then. Richard Helzerman: I'd just like to say I would not oppose if you want to say gambling, all kinds of gambling, anybody can gamble anywhere, any place, stop the state police raids on the back rooms of the bars. I'll support you 100 percent. I believe in freedom, but you are saying this particular gambling has our stamp of approval and I do not think you should do that and every 100,000 that gets lost is on your conscience. President Wortman: Thank you. Okay, I am going to call for a vote and a motion. Councilmember Smith: Motion to approve. President Wortman: Now I need a second. Councilmember Winnecke: Second. President Wortman: Second from Mr. Winnecke. Now, any more discussion? No discussion, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: I know I am going to lose this but I think you guys need to - just as we had certain expectations of those who were seeking the riverboat license here, I think there should be expectations of this particular site here. What are they going to do for this community? What promises are they going to have to keep? I think that we need to get something like that in writing if it's going to move through this particular body and be approved. So if we go through this without asking any questions or asking for anything, then we're basically saying it doesn't make any difference. No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. The vote is six to one for approval. (Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Sutton opposed) President Wortman: I am going to ask for a motion to adjourn. Councilmember Winnecke: So moved. Councilmember Smith: Second. President Wortman: All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six...Jim and Mr. Hoy?...seven. Meeting is adjourned. (Meeting adjourned at 3:29 p.m.) Recorded and transcribed by Teri Lukeman.
VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL _____________________________
____________________________
_____________________________
____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
 |