President Wortman: We're going to open the meeting here, the Vanderburgh County Council, May the 5th, room 301 and so I'd like the secretary to please call the roll. Excuse me, have we got a Sheriff in attendance to open the meeting? Don't see anybody. So...let's go ahead. 

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, it's not required by law that the Sheriff open the meeting.

President Wortman: Okay, would the secretary please call the roll?
 

*Councilmember Sutton arrived shortly after roll call.

President Wortman: Would we please stand and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States.

(Pledge of Allegiance was given)
 

President Wortman: Okay, now I will ask for approval of the minutes from the April 7th meeting, 1999. Do I have a motion?

Councilmember Smith: So moved.

Councilmember Raben: Second.

President Wortman: Mrs. Smith, and I have a second. Any discussion on the minutes? All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six...Ed? Six, one's missing. Okay, six to zero.

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

President Wortman: We need to make an introduction here. First today, we have Megan Garrett is career shadowing Sandie and the County Council. Megan is a sophomore magna cum laude academic honor student and attends North High School. Would you stand up please? That's Sandie Deig's granddaughter. Thank you very much. Appreciate it for coming up here and seeing how government operates. Maybe a possible candidate someday, hopefully.
 

A) AUDITOR

President Wortman: We'll get right into the Appropriation Ordinance and the first on the agenda will be the County Auditor.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 1020-3530 Contractual Services in the amount of $1,800. 

Councilmember Hoy: Second.

President Wortman: Got a second from Mr. Hoy, thank you. Do I have any discussion on that? No discussion, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: 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.

AUDITOR REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

B) CORONER

President Wortman: Next is B, the Coroner, and the Coroner is out today. Nobody to fill in the shoes. They was also, he couldn't be here so I think everything else is pretty well explanatory last Wednesday, so Mr. Raben, would you proceed.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 1070-2720 in the amount of $4,000; account 1070-2410 in the amount of $4,000; let's move down to 1070-3520 in the amount of $2,567 and I make that in the form of a motion. 

President Wortman: Do I have a second?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Mrs. Smith seconded. Any discussion? If not, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

CORONER REQUESTED APPROVED
 

CORONER REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

C) PROSECUTOR IV-D

President Wortman: Moving right on to C, that will be Prosecutor IV-D, Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: I'll move approval of 1081-2700 in the amount of $1,452. 

President Wortman: Do I have a second?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Mrs. Smith. Any discussion? No discussion, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

PROSECUTOR IV-D REQUESTEDAPPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

D) ASSESSOR

President Wortman: Now the next on the agenda is the Assessor. 

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 1090-3390 in the amount of $2,000.

President Wortman: Do I have a second?

Councilmember Lloyd: 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.

ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

E) COMMISSIONERS

President Wortman: Next is the County Commissioners. Mr. Raben?

Councilmember Raben: I'll move approval of 1300-4328 in the amount of $1,000,500.

President Wortman: Got a second on that?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Mrs. Smith. Okay. Any discussion?

Councilmember Lloyd: It was $1,500,000.

President Wortman: $1,500,000, correct.

Councilmember Raben: $1,500,000, thank you.

President Wortman: That's better. Mr. Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Well, I am certain I am going to lose this vote, but that's a real optimistic view to take, but I am used to losing votes lately. I just can't see spending this kind of money on this road without attempting to do something about the intersection at 41 and also I think we should demand that developers install their own acceleration/deceleration lanes. I made that speech last week, I'll make it again this week. It's what is required of most developers and it should have been on this road. So I am going to vote no on this. 

President Wortman: Any other discussion? Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: The total cost, what did we come up with on the total cost for this project? I know, obviously, we've got a couple different funding sources to complete this project. Mr. Stoll, since you're sitting here, what is the total cost on that?

John Stoll: I didn't bring my estimate with me, but I believe it was 1.5 million dollars for the road and I think my estimate was for $175,000 or $200,000 for the bridge for the construction of both of those items. So roughly, 1.7 - 1.75 for construction.

Councilmember Sutton: I guess more for the record because trying to make sure we understood I guess the full cost, that this isn't the only cost --

John Stoll: Right. 

(Inaudible - Councilmember Sutton and John Stoll speaking at same time)

Councilmember Sutton: -- but that's really -- I had asked several questions last week related to this but I think the issues related to the intersection there at 41 and Mt. Pleasant is an issue, but the other question I had related to how the -- where the railroad track kind of goes over there and how that particular area will be handled in terms of grading that so the visual site -- so you can actually see over that and it doesn't pose the hazard that it poses right now. You guys are going to address that issue?

John Stoll: Right, like I said last week, we could definitely do some improvements as far as raising the grade on the west side of the tracks. On the east side of the tracks, given the location of the track relative to Highway 41, there may not be a whole lot we can do as far as changing that grade, but the west side could be improved. 

Councilmember Hoy: So in essence, Mr. Stoll, we can hope for no improvements at the 41 intersection except for perhaps a couple of turn lanes or something like that?

John Stoll: That's all that's in the works that I know of. There's no funding for any kind of interchange that I am aware of.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay, and when this road goes west beyond Old State Road, I don't see any possibility of ever making this any kind of east/west thoroughfare, do you? With all the turns in it.

John Stoll: Not really.

Councilmember Hoy: Unless you want to alienate half of the neighborhood out there? 

John Stoll: Given the fact that it currently stops at Darmstadt and, like you said, the curves in the road and everything, it doesn't seem to the be the most realistic route for a two or four lane arterial-type road across the county.

Councilmember Raben: You've got the other problem, too, there's the railroad track that is actually a deep valley that wraps around so you would be constructing a major bridge across the railroad tracks, so there's probably more feasible sites to look at.

Councilmember Hoy: Do you have any idea of how many homes this benefits? Any estimate on that?

John Stoll: I had a traffic count, but I don't remember what it was right off the top of my head.

Councilmember Hoy: Thank you.

President Wortman: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion?

Councilmember Sutton: I was just going to ask, I know there had been some discussion about improvements to some of the roads on the west side, do you kind of count this one in, Mr. Raben, kind of more north than west, but do you kind of count that in? One of the one's you're kind of looking at on your --

Councilmember Raben: I mean, that's another need or maybe even a greater need, but I don't think anybody really knows what the ramification of that new complex is going to be until it's up and running, but we do have money set aside to at least get a start on that project and, I mean, I agree with you, that's another story that needs to be told there, too. But this particular road, if you've traveled it very often, Mt. Pleasant, it has some serious concerns and that is if youre traveling east, there is a considerable drop off and a large lake and at that lake happens to be an entrance to, what is that, Copperfield?

John Stoll: That' Deerfield.

Councilmember Raben: Deerfield. I mean, it's not ideal for traveling. It's unsafe for the number of cars that travel that day in and day out, so there is a great need for this. I support it.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, the dollars are going pretty fast. I thought maybe you might want to -- and I didn't see you on the list -- very many things that maybe you might have had in mind.

Councilmember Raben: Well, it's --

Councilmember Sutton: I don't know priority wise in light of the developments that are taking place on the west side.

Councilmember Raben: There's probably not going to be any rapid changes made out there because the state -- I mean, you've got a four-lane highway. It's much like the 41 intersection. You're kind of stuck with doing what you can with other portions of the roads when you deal with state intersections and whatnot. So that will probably be something that's another year or two down the road yet because the state doesn't really act on anything very fast, do they?

John Stoll: No, and really, the only thing we've got going on out on the west side is the right-of-way engineering for the first two miles of the Eickhoff/Koressel project, so if we can get all that underway and get right-of-way acquisition underway, then that will help things out on the west side, but like you said, that's stuff on --

President Wortman: On the north side of Mt. Pleasant, Area Plan zoned 300 lots there, see, plus Copperfield, plus the other area there, see. So it's going to be heavily traveled. 

Councilmember Raben: Now Rosenburg is part of the EUTS five year plan, isn't it? Aren't they addressing Rosenburg right now on the west side?

John Stoll: I am not sure right off the top of my head.

Councilmember Raben: I know it's been a big topic of their discussions in the last three or four years.

Councilmember Sutton: I guess in a roundabout sort of way I guess I was saying if you've got some projects in mind, I guess you've got to get them lined up here. That's what I am really trying to say.

Councilmember Hoy: To follow up on Mr. Sutton's remarks and questions, if you're looking at volume of traffic, you're looking at far more volume on the west side and I don't know how in the world -- you're our engineer and you're asked to do projects -- I am not blaming you, John, you know that -- but I think, since I am not campaigning now, Mr. President -- it just seems that we have another absurd situation where we have allowed them to mow down all the trees, put in developments without any planning for Red Bank and the Lloyd Expressway. And if you go, I said this last week, but if you go north on Red Bank, how are you going to widen that road with those deep ravines without spending a ton of money and making a lot of people angry by taking their trees out, and if you go south you've got two right angle turns right on Red Bank. That's not your fault, John, but I point this out because again and again we complain about our traffic and then again and again we do this kind of planning that really isn't planning. Other cities have access roads, they have other ways to get to shopping centers or sixteen movie screens. Believe me, in every other city they get there without having butchered intersections like this and this is not a question, it's a speech, but I think Mr. Sutton has a point, if we're going to do anything out there, it's going to take more than one and a half million bucks and we're down to three point something and we can pretty much kiss the year goodbye, I imagine. If the Sheriff needs some new cars, he's sitting back there, I don't know what you need, Sheriff, but we'll eat up another hunk of this.

President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Did you say that the 41/Mt. Pleasant, is that on the schedule for upgrading turn lanes? Is that what you said?

John Stoll: That's what the CMAQ project is and I spoke with the state today about that. They said they had not done anything to pursue that project as of yet and I talked to them about the possibility of whether or not somehow this project and their CMAQ project could be linked to get those turn lanes built the same time that Mt. Pleasant would be widened out to Old State.

Councilmember Lloyd: Okay, that's something, we have a EUTS meeting tomorrow so I'll be sure and bring that up. I think if we could link those that sure would be helpful. You had mentioned that you're looking at possibly starting in September or something like that, October?

John Stoll: Construction --

(Inaudible - several speaking at once)

John Stoll: Probably just like usual. The railroad will dictate when we can get going. They typically end up delaying projects and if we can get the things run through their office and approved that will probably dictate when the schedule for construction comes about.

Councilmember Lloyd: Okay, but the other thing is, as Mr. Wortman had indicated, we've got a new subdivision going in out there so this is anticipating growth out there, at least getting the road, to try get this part of the road in shape for that growth.

John Stoll: Right.

President Wortman: Mrs. Smith?

Councilmember Smith: The current construction projects, the county's share is 1.6 million dollars and then this is $1,500,000. How much money will we have left over after we do all this because this is all the different projects and then this one is --

President Wortman: The Commissioners are supposed to have that all scheduled out so that --

Councilmember Smith: What?

President Wortman: The Commissioners. See, they're the ones that allocate this and spend it, see.

Councilmember Smith: That doesn't look like it's going to leave a whole lot of money if we come up with an emergency, though.

President Wortman: I think we should be alright, but they're careful, like I said.

Councilmember Raben: Betty, if you're asking in terms of General Fund, --

President Wortman: Yeah, that's what she's in reference to.

Councilmember Raben: You'll have probably just under $2,000,000.

John Stoll: That 1.6 million for the Fulton Bridge is coming out of the Cum Bridge Fund rather than the General Fund.

Councilmember Smith: My question, John, is how much money are we going to have left if we spend that and then the $1,500,000?

Councilmember Raben: Betty, in the General Fund we'll have just under $2,000,000.

Councilmember Hoy: Some of it comes out of Cumulative Bridge and some out of Roads & Streets, right?

John Stoll: I am not sure what the remaining balance would be in the Cum Bridge Fund but that $1.6 million for the Fulton Bridge is money that was already appropriated that was carried over from `98, so that really doesn't come off the General Fund.

President Wortman: Okay, any other discussion on this? John, excuse me, we've got a gentleman there that wants to say a few words. Come up to the podium please and state your name.

John Griffin: My name is Pat Griffin, John Griffin. I live at 8635 Greendale Drive which is in Copperfield One Subdivision. The first thing I have to say about the 41/Mt. Pleasant Road intersection, I go through there every night coming home from work and that is just wide enough for two cars to pass going straight and I am turning north, I am going north on 41 in the left hand turn lane and there's two truck lines on the east side of 41 on Baumgart Road, two or three truck lines, and there's always tractor trailers coming south and making lefthand turns. And if there's a tractor trailer coming south and we've both got the turn lane, somebody has got to stop. It's dangerous, very dangerous. It's not wide enough, the cut through. And the second thing I have to say, I have minutes from a June 5th, 1996 Area Plan Commission meeting. It says, based on APC's review and the EUTS report, the petitioner should be required to dedicate thirty feet of the right-of-way to the county along the 920 linear feet of frontage they control on the north side of Mt. Pleasant Road. It also says the developer should also participate in the cost at his proportionate share of widening Mt. Pleasant Road to a standard width. I mean, how much is he going to pay, the developer, if any?

Councilmember Raben: Which properties are you referring to there?

John Griffin: I live at 8635 Greendale, which is on the south side of Mt. Pleasant Road. My property borders, runs into the south side of Mt. Pleasant Road.

Councilmember Hoy: Which minutes are you reading from, Sir? I'd like to know.

John Griffin: June 5, 1996.

Councilmember Hoy: Thank you.

John Griffin: But I don't know how much --

Councilmember Raben: Are you talking about the developer that's developed your --

John Griffin: No, Sterchi. The Clear Creek Subdivision.

Councilmember Raben: Is that the one directly across Mt. Pleasant?

John Griffin: That's on the north side, the big one --

Councilmember Raben: He's got a deceleration lane in there now, right?

John Griffin: Well, there's one coming from the east, going west theres a right-hand turn lane going into that subdivision. And then if you'e heading east coming from the west from Old State Road, there's a right turn lane into Copperfield. 

Councilmember Raben: Right. And I think -- in terms of what their commitments were for those projects, I think what you're referring to was for those acceleration or deceleration lanes, isn't it?

John Griffin: From what I understand, I wasn't living in this subdivision at the time, but some other neighbors that I've talked to in the past couple nights, they said that was already done when this was proposed. That he was supposed to dedicate this much right-of-way and was supposed to pay this much, you know, have a responsibility to pay the..

Councilmember Raben: Has he dedicated the right-of-way?

John Stoll: Yes, on all the property that he controlled, he's dedicated a thirty foot right-of-way and I believe that the Plan Commission required him to contribute $25,000 towards the Mt. Pleasant widening. I am not positive on the exact amount, but I believe it was $25,000. 

President Wortman: See, the Area Plan is the sole direction of the zoning on subdivisions. And that's why it should come there first.

Councilmember Hoy: He was required $25,000 for widening?

John Stoll: Correct.

John Griffin: That's not a drop in the bucket, really.

Councilmember Hoy: That's what I was thinking. You can't build a parking lot for that for about fifteen cars.

John Griffin: Another thing, you say you have 1.5 million dollars you're going to allocate for this, I mean, there's always cost overruns because this was done two years or so, a year in advance, who is going to cover the -- where is the cost overruns coming from? And there's always, even if they do it tomorrow, there's more money needed to be spent after they get into it.

Councilmember Hoy: Sir, I hope you understand I am not against the safety on this road, but I am for developers paying their fair share.

John Griffin: That's what I am saying, exactly. I mean, he's getting something for nothing if he only has to pay $25,000. He's the one that caused all this. I mean, I am not saying what he did was bad, but him building the subdivision is the one's that has made all this necessary. So why shouldnt he have to pay more than $25,000?

Councilmember Raben: He did, and again, I didn't catch who the contractor was but I guess...he has lived up to probably what the original agreement was because he did install deceleration and acceleration lanes for the existing roads and he did (inaudible -- faulty microphone) he also granted 30 feet of right-of-way and I guess since he's already spent the money once on those turn lanes, I mean, the $25,000 in addition to that seems somewhat reasonable, but...

John Griffin: But you're spending one and a half million and he's only paying $25,000, that's...

Councilmember Raben: But again, he spent the money up front for the acceleration and deceleration lanes.

John Griffin: Okay, but it's going to need more work done and you wouldn't he doing this if that subdivision wouldn't be there, right?

Councilmember Raben: I am sure that's true.

Councilmember Hoy: You use that road everyday. Is this project going to help you? I want to make sure I understood you, in getting out onto Highway 41?

John Griffin: Getting out on 41 is not so bad. Coming home, somebody is going to get rear ended there, if nothing else, because you have to stop if a tractor trailer is coming south.

Councilmember Hoy: You don't perceive that this project is really going to help that safety issue?

John Griffin: Not there because like you say, that's state. But that does need to be looked at. My question is, the money that the developer is paying isn't very much for one thing, another thing, the money doesn't seem like, like I said, there's always cost overruns and where that's coming from. Like you said, you don't have much money left to begin with. Plus, another thing, how can you allocate money for something if you don't know what the plans are? You don't have any blue prints or anything.

President Wortman: Well, I am sure the Engineer has worked it out, but I think the whole thing in a nutshell, they've got to do something out there regardless. Otherwise, you let it go dormant, then we're really going to have a mess, see. This happened on the east side, see. We're trying to keep up because these developers, everything is getting zoned so fast in Area Plan, it's hard to keep up because theres not much money to go around. So you'e got to put it where it' going to count.

John Griffin: Well, I understand that has to be done. But I just think the developer should have to pay more, personally.

President Wortman: Well, and I think you should appear before the Area Plan and make you'e point on that. That would be the first Wednesday of every month. I appreciate you coming up there and making that point because I am on Area Plan, okay?

Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman, if he made a commitment that he would pay that money, then we shouldn't go ahead with it until he puts that money up front because this is what happens: if they make a commitment and then we go ahead and do it and they don't have to come up with their commitment, then that's where we're wrong. 

President Wortman: Well, the commitment they already made, didn't they?

John Griffin: It said he should put the money up. Well, I have another one here, too. This is from the Vanderburgh County Engineering Department. It was received by the Area Plan Commission I guess on June 5 also, 1996. And it said based upon a meeting with the developer on 6/4/96 he has agreed to contribute $25,000 toward widening Mt. Pleasant Road if the county initiates such a project.

President Wortman: Well, --

John Griffin: And he hasn't paid yet.

Councilmember Smith: Thats my point, he agreed to it.

President Wortman: Well, the attorney from the Area Plan needs to follow up on that and make sure that money is put in escrow or get paid, see.

John Griffin: And then some, hopefully.

Councilmember Bassemier: Curt, I was just going to throw this out. Do you think we ought to defer this until it' all checked out, that all the developers have paid their part? I' hate to come back and find out we gave 1.5 and they owe -- John, do you know this? Do you know if all the developers --

(Inaudible -- several speaking at once)

John Stoll: Like Joe Harrison was just saying, unless we've got a commitment to do the road, why would the developer be kicking in the money?

Councilmember Bassemier: I didn't know before they started developing this if they made a commitment to do this and now --

John Stoll: I believe it was a condition of their approval through Plan Commission that he had to provide the 30 feet of right-of-way along the road frontage that he controlled, he had to contribute the $25,000, he had to get the decel lane constructed and he had to construct a left turn lane, southbound left turn lane into his site when he built his entrance out on to Old State Road and he's not gotten to that phase in the subdivision as of yet, but he has dedicated the right-of-way and he has built the decel lane, so some of those commitments hes already lived up to. As far as the $25,000, since there was no project, I know I haven't pursued it and I dont know if anyone has regarding the $25,000. There' no impact fee ordinance or anything like that, that we can actually go out and assess individual developers for their traffic impact to the road, so while I am not saying it's going to cover the cost of the construction of the road, it's more than weve gotten out of Copperfield, Deerfield and any other subdivision that feeds into Mt. Pleasant Road.

Councilmember Sutton: Who is the developer on this, Mr. Stoll? Do you know?

John Stoll: On Clear Creek?

Councilmember Sutton: On Deerfield, I guess, is what we\'re talking about here.

John Griffin: Sterchi.

John Stoll: Yeah, Brad Sterchi.

President Wortman: Okay, any other questions? Mr. Raben, and then we\'ve got to move on here because weve got a long agenda.

Councilmember Raben: My last point: those three subdivisions right there are not the only ones to blame for the traffic problem. If you go out Old State, north of Mt. Pleasant and Old State, there are several new large subdivisions and those people are coming out of Old State on to Mt. Pleasant, so it's the traffic flow -- the majority of this traffic is coming from north of Mt. Pleasant. I mean, again, it's not just his area or those three subdivisions that have created this massive flow of traffic. It's actually coming from north of this road. 

Councilmember Sutton: Councilman Raben, I don't know if we can -- I don't think he's probably trying to assign any blame necessarily on any one developer or any one development, but I think more so, our duty as far as the finances are concerned for the county is to make sure that we carry out our responsibilities and do it to benefit the taxpayers and if there were commitments made there, that doesn't necessarily preclude us from acting today on this. But at the same time, I think we still do need to make sure and follow up that if this developer and other developers have made financial commitments to the county, which they have done, then those commitments needs to be made good. So I would imagine our County Attorney would be involved with that process, Area Plan yes, but the County Attorney would proceed forward with following up with those developers and just like anyone else who makes a commitment and doesn't follow up on that commitment, there's a course of action that's followed to follow up on that, so I think the commitment is still good if it's according to those minutes there and we need to proceed forward with that. And it's not necessarily assigning blame, we've got traffic problems, we're trying to address that, the county is living up to its end, the developer recognized that there were going to be some issues and they are their issues, now they need to make good on their end.

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, who is our liaison to Area Plan?

President Wortman: Sir?

Councilmember Hoy: Are you our liaison to Area Plan?

President Wortman: Uh-huh.

Councilmember Hoy: I am just sitting here thinking, Mr. Sutton, maybe we all should attend Area Plan Commission meetings so we know what's going to be coming across our desks in a few years because we're just seeing massive development and absolutely no traffic plans and I am not against development although I am very concerned about how much farmland we're eating up and all of that. I am probably one of the few people around who is, but maybe I like to eat more than other people. But nonetheless, we just run into this time and time again where all of the sudden here's this traffic problem and no plan.

President Wortman: Okay, anybody else? Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: I think he does raise some good points and I think I'd be supportive of the motion to continue on with what we have here on the floor but make that, if we could add something to that motion that the developers, if their commitment is there, that they, as well, be required to meet their commitments. If they would add that to the motion, I'd be willing to support that. But just the county alone stepping up to that, I don't know if I could be supportive of that. 

John Griffin: One more quick question: when is this Area Plan Commission meeting?

President Wortman: The first Wednesday of every month at 6:00 in this room.

John Griffin: Will this be brought up? This situation will be brought up?

President Wortman: I doubt it. You just said 1986, but you could come up and rehash it and have the attorney go down there.

John Griffin: Yeah, I could bring it up at this next meeting?

President Wortman: Yeah, or why don't you go down to the Area Plan Office and go over it so you're prepared when you come up here.

John Griffin: Okay, and are there any plans drawn up for this project available?

John Stoll: No.

John Griffin: When will that be?

Councilmember Hoy: All we have in front of us here, Sir, is the cost estimate and that's all we're looking at and that's it.

John Stoll: Our next step would have to be to hire a consultant who would draw the plans, so until we get a consultant hired to do that work, we won't have plans and really don't have a timetable on that as of yet.

John Griffin: Okay.

President Wortman: Okay, thank you for your time. Thank you, John. Alright, we've got a motion on the floor and got a second. If no more discussion, call the roll please.

Councilmember Sutton: Before you call the roll, I was asking on the developers if we could add that as an addendum to the motion if the maker would be willing to accept that to the motion. Who made that motion?

Councilmember Raben: I can do that. I guess the problem with that is going to be, once we make this appropriation and they hire an engineer to do the engineer work, they'll need these funds in place to accept bids and if there is the carrot dangling out there that says only as long as this developer puts in $25,000, they'll never be able to award contracts or probably take a bid. 

Councilmember Sutton: I guess maybe where I am going is we put in our money that will enable us to contract out this project, but at the same time pursue the developers on this as well, recognizing that we can't -- we can always go back and spend less but we can't spend more, so we can do that.

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, how about if we do that. Mr. President, I will amend my motion to say that we grant 1300-4328 Mt. Pleasant Road in the amount of $1,500,000 and also ask that the Area Plan Commission pursue the agreement with the developer from June 15th, 1996, that he would contribute $25,000 toward this project. 

Councilmember Hoy: Or any other developer.

Councilmember Raben: Or any other developer that might have an agreement on file with the Area Plan Commission.

President Wortman: Okay, now who had the second? Mrs. Smith, would you amend --

Councilmember Smith: I'll amend my second with the understanding that they're going to pursue the $25,000 and that's what you said.

President Wortman: Okay, --

(Inaudible -- comments made away from microphone)

Councilmember Raben: Excuse me, June 5th, 1996.

President Wortman: Okay, we've got a motion on the floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

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: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes. Okay, motion passes six to one.

COMMISSIONERS REQUESTEDAPPROVED
 

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Hoy opposed)

F) SUPERIOR COURT (TWO REQUESTS)

President Wortman: We'll proceed with Superior Court. Mr. Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, let me ask Judge Tornatta, is it your wish to defer this at this time?

Robert Tornatta: Yes. My name is Robert Tornatta, for the record. Again, this is here for a non-profit corporation, HAALTS, Inc. I know it's on the agenda as Superior Court. And yes, I would request that you defer this.

Councilmember Raben: Okay. Mr. President, I'll move that 1370-3934 be deferred.

President Wortman: Do I have a second to that?

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman, when this was in the paper I had calls from some neighbors and they had wanted to come and speak to this from the -- they went to the Area Plan Commission or one of them and they hadn't been talked to so they'd like to speak in front of the Council.

President Wortman: I have three names here, Mrs. Smith, and I am going to call them up and the first --

(Inaudible -- comments made away from microphone)

President Wortman: Yeah, you come on up and I'll allow just a few minutes to each one and there's three of them and this here coming up now is Nancy Evans. And you state your name again, and then we'll go to Mary Kixmiller at Taylor, and then Reverend Wayne Oldham, those three people, and if you'd limit and not rehash what somebody else said and you proceed with your name.

Nancy Evans: My name is Nancy Evans and I live just within the block. I live at the other end of the corner. The reason that we're here, I know that it's already been approved by the zoning board with some restrictions. We would like to make our (inaudible) as far as whether or not the money -- we don't want to have to pay for something that we absolutely don't want because of the safety of our neighborhood and the safety of our people. We have had several -- the issues were, the first way that we found out was that it was in the newspaper that they had actually gone to a neighborhood association and got no opposition. It was not anywhere in our neighborhood. They did not go to neighbors, they did not go across the street, they went into a different zip code. This is rehashing something, but you guys haven't heard it. I would appreciate, also the thing is that Mr. Essett, which is the preacher at that church had said if the neighborhood didn't want it, he wouldn't have it going on. He told this to myself and to the people at the meeting. Judge Tornatta could attest to that as well. We have over a hundred names here of people who signed and we turned this into the zoning board, of people who do not want it. The only person that was at that meeting that did want it was a business owner. Nobody that is on their board lives in the neighborhood, nobody that goes to the church is in our neighbor-hood, from people who live next door to people within blocks. We have not found anyone who's given support. Also the thing is, that the building is not owned by anybody who is on this board. The building is owned by the Nazarene people. The Nazarenes and Kevin Essett at the meeting that we had at the Nazarene Church, said no, it was not owned by Nazarene. But in this that comes from the Nazarene, at the bottom says that it is listed as a church in their mission and I can give that all to you as part of that. Part of the thing, it started out at the beginning, we were just not aware of what was going on, we felt that it was handled deceitfully. Judge Tornatta has been most up front with us, whenever we call him he would respond, but Kevin Essett, whenever we call him, he won't return our phone calls. We were told that if we had any problems with anything that would go on, they would handle it. We have not found that even in our questions that we're getting that it would be handled, let alone once it was after the fact and that we had these people. It would be that these people would be coming to, living in this building. Originally, it was told in the paper that it was for alcoholics and addicts and then with the rezoning, the zoning restricted it just to alcoholics. The thing is that it's people who are going to be required to go there court ordered. They've been in trouble in the court, they've already limited all their avenues to other help, which means that they are not following -- they can't follow guidelines to start with so who is to say that they are going do it in this building? But if they come back and they're not following, then they're going to be put out. Where are they going to be put out? They're going to be put out in our neighborhood. Kevin Essett brought up that there was already problems with somebody breaking in that was on drugs. There is evidence already, we've already had some arrests, big arrests in our neighborhood for drugs. If they are giving up alcohol, they are going to be picking up something else, is normally what happens. Also, the people who would be coming in to visit, we don't appreciate this coming into our neighborhood without any of our approval. The work was done on the parsonage, which is where they would be living, with county supplies. I am not sure that it was county or city, but we do know that the garage that was torn down was hauled away with city trucks. The work that was done in the parsonage, this was all before it was approved by the board, by the zoning board, so this has all just been shoved on us and dumped on us without any of our concern, without any questioning without anything. And we have been trying to go along with it as well as we could without any fighting. There's been a few that's gone through the publication, but I have really tried to work with them. I've been willing to go to meetings. They called me and asked me or let me know on my machine and I appreciate that, but they are at noon and I am not able to get off. I left work early, I have to go back on Saturday to make up the difference today. That's why I appreciate you listening to what we have to say today. This is an established older neighborhood. There's a lot of older people, older neighborhoods, and they're concerned with people coming out in the middle of the night looking for, wanting money, or wanting alcohol because they've had a hard day. It is a hard world out here and we have to face it and we want to come home and relax and not worry about these people coming into our neighborhood. And we all have them in our families so we know what it's like, and these people have already been put out by their families. Why should our families have to take them in when it's forced upon us?

President Wortman: I think one thing, if I understood right, they will be under direct supervision. They won't be allowed to run around, see.

Nancy Evans: Well, it's supposed to be that they are under the person that's paid to be there. That's another point that I would like to make. At the meeting that we had at the church, they had Mr. Rogers there from Princeton, which that home that he had in Princeton, and I brought up the fact that he does this out of his own heart. He's the one who lives with these people. He's the one who orders -- you know, he decides who comes and goes and who gets to stay. This is going to be court ordered who goes and stays and then these people are going to be funded, the person who's in there, living there, is going to be funded by our money that's supposed to be deciding what these people do or don't do.

President Wortman: Excuse me a minute, we're going to have to change tapes. You're probably about done anyway, aren't you?

Councilmember Lloyd: What is the name of the church?

Nancy Evans: The Shekina. At the meeting, it was brought up in the newspaper and that, that they're saying that it's a racial thing. It is not at all a racial thing because we appreciated when the church came into the area because Mr. Essett told us that originally no, it wasn't a Nazarene. He told them at the meeting it was a Nazarene. After the meeting, we had a meeting, my husband is also a preacher, we had a meeting with him afterwards talking with him. And he said well, that in Indiana they don't have any black Nazarene Churches so they are doing this one and funding him. So he's being very deceitful all the way along and he also said that if we didn't want it, he wouldn't have it and that he had the connections to pull this at any time. So even though we're approving of this on Judge Tornatta on his benefit and on the men that are on the staff, it's not just in their control.

Councilmember Hoy: I have a statement to make. She's quite right. This is listed under church type missions, but in the title, the word Nazarene is not to be found but it is an official mission of the Nazarene Church. And that's part of, I feel, the deception that's gone on here. Denominations aren't quite as popular as they used to be. In fact, I was at your regional Nazarene meeting to do a food collection --

Nancy Evans: I am not Nazarene.

Councilmember Hoy: No, but I was at the Nazarene meeting where they were discussing the decline in membership and the establishing of new missions and many of these new missions do not have the denominational label on them. On the west side, there's a place called Turning Point, that's United Methodist; there is a Church of God moving out to the north side without putting a Church of God label on it because people are rejecting labels. Thats exactly what's going on here. This was a planned mission by this denomination to reach this neighborhood and that's an important point because we were led to believe last week that this ministry just came down here out of the goodness of its heart to save this congregation. He did not --

Nancy Evans: And he's portraying to be the owner, and he's not the owner.

Councilmember Hoy: He is underwritten by the denomination --

Nancy Evans: And they're funding his pay, they are paying him to be there.

Councilmember Hoy: And they are paying him to be there, so whether or not we want to establish that, we need to get the facts on the table that this is not exactly a man just coming down here to save the world on his own. He is being subsidized. 

President Wortman: Mr. Bassemier has a question.

Councilmember Bassemier: Thank you, Mr. President. The judge is trying to do a humanitarian thing here and I think by all fairness, too, that if he wants to answer any of these questions right now on each one, give him, you know, --

Nancy Evans: Yes, I agree. And we said there's not a problem. We have had food pantries and ministries, we help people every day. And we agree that there's something, but we don't want it in our neighborhood, we want it in a neighborhood or in a place where it can not affect so many families. 

Councilmember Bassemier: Judge, would there be anything you'd like to say that she said that --

Robert Tornatta: Sure. 

Councilmember Bassemier: Is that okay with you, Mr. President?

President Wortman: Yes. Thank you, Judge.

Councilmember Bassemier: Because he deserves a chance, also.

Robert Tornatta: Thank you. I have spoken with Mrs. Evans before and I've been very impressed with her and she's been very forthright. First of all, we --

Councilmember Smith: Judge, will you speak into the mike? I can't hear you.

Robert Tornatta: Sure. We attempted to contact the neighborhood association. At one time it was a Crime Watch, not a neighborhood association in the neighborhood at this specific address and it disbanded. And I think that Mrs. Evans and her husband were instrumental in forming that and they told me that it disbanded for lack of interest. And people that I was working with said the closest neighborhood association is the Glenwood neighborhood association. I didn't know where the line for the zip code ended. She brings up this point about we went to a neighborhood association in a different zip code. The line, this is one block off of South Kentucky, Old 41, and that's where the zip code happens to change. We went to the Glenwood neighborhood association because it's the closest neighborhood. We've never tried to be deceitful or to be stealth or anything like that. In fact, I've called, personally called Mrs. Evans several times to invite her to our meetings and it is unfortunate that we can't do this at a time that it's convenient for everyone but it's just, quite frankly, not always convenient to do that. I and the people I am involved with told the neighbors that they are welcome to come to any our board meetings and we've tried to notify them and they haven't shown up. One thing, and I don't mean to disparage or cast anything on your credibility or what you said, but I was at the meeting she referred to that was at the church, and there were people there that supported it. In fact, there was one man who was tearful, I think you'll remember him he admitted he had been formerly --

Nancy Evans: He doesn't live in the neighborhood.

Robert Tornatta: But he -- and I have his name back in my office. But I do believe he lives in a close neighborhood like right across new 41, and he said that he wished that something like this had been available for him and his family was there. There were other neighbors and we had an attendance sheet that said they supported it. No one that was there, to my knowledge, said that they, there were people, the people that were there that were opposed said that they didn't want it in their neighborhood, but they thought it was a good project. Also, and I have to apologize for a number of things, and I apologize to the neighbors for not being more up front with them and then them finding out in the newspaper. And I'll accept responsibility for that. Also, our name and I don't know who I was associated with that suggested the name be Homeless Addicts and Alcoholics, but the point of the matter is that alcohol is a drug and an alcoholic by definition is an addict. Now, I know that that is something that strikes a lot of fear in a lot of people. There is a distinction and it's human nature to draw a difference between an alcoholic and an addict, but this was always intended, as I represented to you last week, to be for alcoholics, homeless, that were non-violent that were sent there through Misdemeanor Court. I also want to represent to you that there have been no county supplies or money that have gone into the parsonage to date. There has been work performed there and there have been a number of donated things and those were all coordinated by Charles Locke through the Corrections Complex. And I am on the SAFE House board, we told them up front before anything was done what we were doing and they said why don't you do this at the SAFE House? Why don't you do this at the Corrections Complex? The people I have worked with who are experts and deal with alcoholics every day said you don't want to put it at the Corrections Complex because people will think they're being punished and it's much better if you do it in a more residential area because, quite frankly, they have the space at the Corrections Complex and we looked into it and it's not what we're trying to do. But I would say in deference to her, I don't know if there was a city truck or a county truck or who was there because Mr. Locke coordinated it, but I wrote letters, thank you letters to people who donated thousands of dollars of material including Browning Ferris who waived dump fees, by every electrical and plumbing supply place in town. We told them up front what we were doing and they were gracious. In fact, some gentleman called me up and said come out and take whatever you need, it's a great cause and I want to support it. I cannot speak for Reverend Essett and I wish he was here, he is the oldest member of his family and his 40 year old mother passed away about two weeks ago. And I talked to the man, he's quite shaken by it. He's the oldest sibling and quite frankly he's very upset about it. I don't know if he is affiliated with the Nazarene Church or Baptist Church or who is affiliated with, all I know is what the man told me and he seems to be a very respectful, articulate man who has good intentions. He said that he considered putting in a day care center and looked out at his neighborhood, and felt that what we were trying to do is something that was needed more in the neighborhood, that there were other child care providers, but there wasn't anything like what we were trying to do, recognized that alcohol and drugs are a problem in that neighborhood. And Mrs. Evans is right, there are a number, there is a lady who runs a beauty shop and Harold Evans, who has the car lot across the street, told us they were very supportive and thanked us for trying to do something about the problems that they have in the neighborhood. Officer Danks, who would be their liaison officer with the Police Department was at the meeting at the church, he assured the neighbors that what we were trying to do would make their neighborhood safer, not more dangerous, and he had a number of reasons. One, he had a computer printout, which I still have, and in this neighborhood in a four by six block area, from January of last year until October 31st of last year, there were 287 reported crimes. The Sweetser Projects are near the neighborhood. I understand there's a trailer court in the neighborhood, and he said that the people that we're talking about putting there are not violent. He also said that the Police Department welcomes something like this because they are quite frustrated with the way that these chronic drunks are being just processed through the system now and essentially being sobered and put back out on the street. What we're doing now, obviously, isn't working for this particular population. Let's try something else. He said that they would have every shift stop in on the house to check on it. There would be increased patrols in the neighborhood. I thought he was very candid and made a good presentation. A lot of the neighbors were obviously upset by how the Police Department on response times and other things that weren\'t related to the shelter. Alan Rogers, the gentleman who started the homeless shelter or is attempting to in Princeton spoke, he assured the neighbors, he had opened a shelter in a church in Princeton. I went there for a Thanksgiving fund raiser in this organization they had, and it's more residential than the neighborhood than we're talking about which is zoned commercial. None of the neighbors up there objected to it. He had the shelter open at that time about six months, he had about fourteen individuals there. He has no experts involved with him. He does not have Southwestern Indiana Mental Health on his board, he does not probation officers, counselors at the Corrections Complex, people at the Mental Health Center who are willing to provide professional help to the people we're dealing with. And the only incident he had had is one of the gentlemen who was staying at his place had gone down to a local pantry and was panhandling. And that's the only problem that he had. Again, I can't speak for Reverend Essett except he's a very -- seems to be an honest, credible young man and he told us that he thought that this fit into his mission and I didn't know whether it was a mission that was sent down here from somewhere else. But he showed me that he is buying this church on contract from a Nazarene Church, I think they were in Bedford, Indiana, and that -- and I told him because the constitution would not allow us to court order people at this location and also order as part of their treatment to be ministered to. But he had a number of volunteers in this church that wanted to volunteer and I certainly saw no problem with that and any kind of treatment that I have seen that's been successful, a lot of the people rely on God. If you're familiar with the Twelve Step Program, it's fundamental. And I told him certainly, if the church is next door and if they wanted to be involved in that, I saw no problem with it. We just couldn't force them to do that. And he was fine with that. I think I've addressed all of Mrs. Evans concerns.

Councilmember Smith: I have a question.

Councilmember Hoy: I have a comment.

President Wortman: Judge a minute, Judge. Probably what we're going to do, Betty and Phil, ask your questions and then we're going to proceed with two other speakers out there, see, and then we'll address rebuttal. Betty Knight?

Councilmember Smith: Judge, we are supposed to add, I think, 25 beds to the SAFE House, isn't that what we got a project going? Who is on that committee?

Councilmember Raben: I don't know who is on the committee.

Councilmember Smith: And you said they didn't want to go but they are court ordered to go, what would be wrong with spending the money there and then at the SAFE House, because I think they have the room out there.

Robert Tornatta: They do have the room, that's correct, and certainly the folks we're talking about would be less likely to cause a problem than the people that I am sentencing to the SAFE House every day who are felons and --

Councilmember Smith: Because if they are chronic alcoholics, they're going to go back out and get in trouble again.

Robert Tornatta: I don't think there's any question about that. I --

Councilmember Smith: And if they are ordered out there, then why not put them at the SAFE House and make a separate area for them?

Robert Tornatta: I think it could be possible, I would want to be careful when the magistrate told them, you're sentenced to 180 days in jail, suspended so long as you completed this program at HAALTS, or whatever it's called, but then would be careful when they said by the way, this is at the Corrections Complex which quite frankly, is one step from prison. Again, I deal with this sort of problem every day but I do not have any degrees and I am not a counselor and I am not an expert with rehabing alcoholics. But the people I've spoken to says that when you have success at this, it's in a residential, more or less like they have at Stepping Stone. There is a Supreme Court case that I reviewed before I went before the Board of Zone Appeals called Oxford House and this exact thing happened where this entity called Oxford House, which has 140 homes that are somewhat similar to what we're trying to start here, and the Supreme Court said that you could not prevent it from going in the neighborhood and their point was it's proven successful when it's in a residential area, that type of setting. But when it's sort of akin to incarceration, there's no --

Councilmember Smith: How many bed --

Robert Tornatta: I suppose we could put the folks in jail. Now that's a whole other bag of worms. 

Councilmember Smith: How many bedrooms in that house?

Robert Tornatta: There -- that's another thing that I am glad you brought up because I would love at some time it is convenient to go out there and show you the house because Reverend Hoy last week said that he didn't think it was large enough. I really think it is large enough for eight --

Councilmember Smith: But it's probably three bedrooms?

Robert Tornatta: I don't know the square footage, but it's got a full basement and it has, the first floor has -- what we intended to do is have the person that lived there on the left side. There is a very large room and on the right side there is a large family room. There is a bathroom, a dining room, a kitchen, and then upstairs there is another bathroom and three large bedrooms. What we intended to do is in two of those rooms have three persons and in the other have two, and then use the downstairs area as like a family room, rec room, and quite frankly, I think it's plenty large enough. 

Councilmember Smith: From the outside it just doesn't look that big. I haven't been inside, but I did go.

Robert Tornatta: I really don't know, I saw the square footage when we had the plat, but I don't want to represent because it would just be a guess. But I'd love, anytime that you want to go out, we can...Mr. Locke has a key and we can get Reverend Essett, but I think you'll find that it's large enough. 

Councilmember Hoy: Judge, I am not -- we have not talked about this not fundamentally against the program itself. I have some concerns and I -- I have to interject this about the operation in Princeton, that operation is so poorly run. I can tell you this, I would never, never sign them up for food at Tri-State Food Bank. And when you talk about fourteen residents in Princeton, four, at least four to five of those residents are the family of the Minister of Music of that church and the other residents are the minister and his family. And when you start adding those numbers up and deducting them from fourteen, you don't have many people left who are really homeless in Princeton. Plus, you're talking about homeless people versus chronic alcoholics and homeless families and this is my area of expertise, and I can tell you that those two populations are distinctly different. The other thing that bothers me, that's why I was glad you deferred, is staffing. 

Robert Tornatta: And I agree. We talked. There is an entity called Work Able that has a lot to do with Welfare to Work, ideas and finding jobs and because of the economy, there simply just aren't enough people that want to work for the jobs that are available. There are a couple ladies that are involved with that named Kathy Daywalt and Angela McEllhiney. They were very excited and felt, as Mr. Bassemier said, this is a humanitarian, something that just really the community needs. And they sat down with us and said look, you need to be realistic. You're talking about paying your person about forty cents an hour and Councilman Hoy was right, you need to rethink this and I agree and I can't disagree with any of your criticisms last week. On the other hand, when you go to boards like this, it's a lot easier to ask for $10,000 than it is for $50,000, and I would welcome you to be on our board and bring your expertise to what we're trying to do. And I know when I spoke with you in the past that you were, I thought, quite excited about the whole concept and idea. 

Councilmember Hoy: I'm excited about the concept, I'm not sure about the location and the staffing. Those are my concerns --

Robert Tornatta: And I appreciate that and I truly want to apologize to anyone that I offended last week who has constituents in the fourth ward and I stand corrected. Where is the northern boundary of the fourth ward? My point is there are pockets where this problem exists in the city and the fourth ward is not immune to it and when I spoke to the residents in Princeton, and some of them I have seen repeatedly in Misdemeanor Court, and quite frankly had wondered why we hadn't seen some of them, and they were living up in Princeton. One of them was a former Henderson Police Officer who told us that he had not drawn a sober breath in like 29 years and had been sober with Reverend Rogers for like three or four months. But he said that he went to an area in and around, it was north of the Lloyd Expressway and I am not sure what district that is quite frankly, and he said that's where he was finding most of the people and actually got involved in it because some restaurants on North Main were tired of these folks congregating. They weren't really causing any -- there were patrons that had gone to restaurants on North Main for years said that they were just fearful and didn't want to cross these gentlemen who were begging for money and whatnot to go in. And I'm sorry, I think maybe my comments, I either misspoke or they were misconstrued and I do apologize for that. And I would submit to you that you're going to find the not in my backyard syndrome no matter where you try to put this. And I have no motive other than it's a population that Superior Court right now is failing. Something needs to be done about it, whether it's done at New York and Riverside, I don't particularly care other than I don't want to appear wishy-washy with Reverend Essett and I am open to your expertise and your suggestions and I really appreciate your input.

Councilmember Hoy: I assume when you went before Area Plan, too, there is a city ordinance that group homes, which this would be, the ordinance this would be under, this is far enough away from other group homes.

Robert Tornatta: We looked into that and they said there were like three categories that we could go under and I couldn't tell you the specific category.

Councilmember Hoy: Because we service a lot of those mental health center (inaudible) and I know they have to be so far from each other.

Robert Tornatta: And it was zoned properly but we needed a special use permit and there were restrictions on it: only eight beds, only alcoholics and we have to go back every year and I told them I didn't know when I would get it opened and they agreed that it would be up for renewal one year after it was opened.

Councilmember Hoy: You mentioned special use, was that the zoning they granted, special use rather than --

Robert Tornatta: The zoning, it was actually zoned C-4. And I think, with all due respect, it is a neighborhood, but it's not like this is a house with other houses on the other side.

Councilmember Hoy: No, I am familiar, but my question is, if let's say this program grows and has to move or...for any reason, things happen, and let's assume for some reason the program has to move, I'd like to know whether or not they zoned it just for this use or if they completely rezoned it?

Robert Tornatta: No, no, no, it was just for this use. Yes, sir. That was my understanding.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay.

Robert Tornatta: And quite frankly when we talked about this, this as exploratory for a long, long time and Sheriff Ellsworth was very interested in the whole notion at some point getting the jail out of the detoxification business which I think the county would be interested in that also. But that obviously cannot happen at that site. It would have to happen maybe at Welborn Hospital or someplace like that. 

Councilmember Hoy: And that's where they have the detox.

President Wortman: Okay, Judge, if you don't mind --

Robert Tornatta: I'm sorry for your time. I do appreciate --

President Wortman: Yeah, we're going to have to keep moving. I am going to call Reverend Wayne Oldham up, please and then right behind will be Mary Kixmiller.

Wayne Oldham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Council.

President Wortman: State your name please.

Wayne Oldham: My name is Calvin Wayne Oldham and I live at 1408 Covert Avenue. That's right at the corner of Covert and Lodge. I am pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church at 722 Waggoner Avenue, which is at the corner of Waggoner and South Evans, one block north of Riverside. I am very sympathetic with any ministry to help human beings better themselves and to find the Lord, but I have to rise in opposition to this particular ministry on three basic points. The first is location, location, location. When I was growing up at home with us seven kids, in order not for us to spoil our supper, our meals, the kitchen was out of bounds, and you're putting this home in an area where there are nearby taverns and liquor stores. The judge mentioned it should be a residential setting, I agree with him one hundred percent and this is not residential enough in my opinion. Secondly for location, our church just recently was burglarized. They didn't take a single bible or Sunday School quarterly, or church bulletin, or publication. Instead, they took everything that could be easily pawned and hocked to buy alcohol and drugs and I just regret that you're going to infiltrate our area with some unfortunate people with a problem and it's going to make the likelihood of us being burglarized again even greater and if we turn in too many insurance claims, it would be either difficult or impossible to get insurance or we will have to expend tremendous sums of money which we, as a very small inner-city congregation, do not have in order to install burglar alarms and fence gates and all these types of things, which we don't want our church to have to look like a prison but that's what I fear would happen if our area continues to be the Aideal spot@ to put these people in. The second point that I am in opposition to this is the fact that I am not at all convinced about the success of these type of ministries. Quite frankly, I didn't take time to look it up, I came straight from work here. I am a bi-vocational pastor, but I would assume there are an arm's length number of programs that are available for these people and probably most of them have been through them and none of them have helped them. I don't think a group home is going to be an answer either and I think this group home as shared is not adequate anyway because of its size limitations. My wife and I live in two bedrooms, a full basement and one bath and we fight each other constantly to get ready for work. You know, I don't know what these folks are going to do with only two bathrooms. But anyway, let me move on to my third and final and, as far as I am concerned, my most important point. I believe that it's one thing to have a non-profit or Christian group or religious group operate a ministry, but I think it is an entirely horse of a different color to begin to come and ask for public tax funds to support this ministry. This is a violation of church of state, separation of church and state. If I would stand up in my pulpit on any given Sunday morning and tell my congregation that they should go out and vote for Phil Hoy and not vote for his opponent, charges could be filed and this county would no doubt and rightfully so, re-vote our religious non-profit status and our tax abatement. I just think that, you know, when I was pastor in Kentucky at our expense, it wouldn't have cost of the state of Kentucky or the federal government a single dime, we offered to put up just a printed copy of the ten commandments in every school classroom in that state and everything was fine -- and this is where I learned this lesson, it burned it in my heart -- and we spent the money and you know what, those things are -- I don't know where they're at because the first one was put up and stayed up about ten seconds before a civil suit was filed and it went to the courts and thats a violation of separation of church and state. Well, I agree with that. I agree with that. I am not in favor of vouchers or anything else. In my own opinion, I think the school system should continue, the public school systems, should either reform themselves or continue to go down in flames just like they are and people who want their children educated should correctly either do it themselves like my daughter is doing with our two grandsons or the churches should sponsor and operate safe and good schools if that's what's required. But we shouldn't ask the government, Uncle Sam to pay for it or the taxpayers. So those are the three reasons that I am opposed to this particular ministry as its been presented. I will only add a final note that other than a couple of very poorly written and almost no real information articles in the newspaper, I was totally unaware of this until some folks who do attend my church asked me if I knew what was going on and how it was being done and so thats why I am here. And once I found out, I would have been at that zoning meeting had I known this was being considered. But now that they are coming and asking for public funds, for public tax monies, I for one, am adamantly opposed if for no other reason than the principal of separation of church and state. Thank you.

President Wortman: Thank you, appreciate your time. Mary Kixmiller, 904 Taylor, would you step forward please? Thank you. And state your name.

Mary Kixmiller: My name is Mary Kixmiller, I live at 904 Taylor. Our neighborhood is not part of this program but what happens in one neighborhood spills into another. Really and truly, I am sorry this is on your docket, and it's on your docket because others did not do their homework. In our world anymore, we're not asked what we need, we are told what we need. And we're becoming second class citizens because we're not smart enough to know what we need. I came here to tell you that we are opposed to this and they've said they have good backers and I bet anything none of these backers live in our neighborhood. We question whether this could not be part of the state hospital program. This money should come from the state, not from us. You start giving this year, what are you going to give next year? Where is it going to stop? This is our money and we should have the right to say how we want it spent. And I thought it was fortunate that the judge said that Officer Danks was going to have a patrol car stop every shift and check. He's very lucky, because sometimes there's not a patrol car in each beat. Are you aware of that? We know. The beat that this is in covers from 41 -- no I'll take that back -- from Kentucky to Weinbach over to I believe it's Bellemeade. This takes care of the University and all in between. Isn't he fortunate that he's going to get a patrol to stop on each shift. I am not naive to alcoholics. My grandfather was an alcoholic. He loved whiskey. It was something to see him come home at night. He rode his bicycle to the tavern, but by the time he'd come home in the evening, this man almost seven foot tall was carrying his bicycle because he couldn't ride it. We lived in another city. We moved in a neighborhood that a couple had started the AA. It wasn't long we lived in that neighborhood that they adopted our children as grandchildren and they were having AA meetings in their home, but it wasn't long they called and they said, Mary, on account of your poor kids, we're not having meetings in our home anymore especially for the girls. So I hope that you consider what you're doing this evening to the people. Thank you.

President Wortman: Thank you for your comments, Miss Kixmiller. Okay, we'll move right on and --

Councilmember Hoy: There was a motion to defer.

President Wortman: We've got a motion on the floor to defer. Do I have a second from anybody? 

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Wortman: Second from Mr. Royce Sutton. Okay. Any more discussion? No discussion, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Are we voting on to defer it? Is that what we're voting on?

President Wortman: Yes.

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: I would say this, this is in your motion to defer one month?

Councilmember Hoy: Who made the motion?

Councilmember Raben: I made the motion.

President Wortman: Oh, you did, Jim. I am sorry, I thought it was Mr. Hoy. I'm sorry.

Councilmember Hoy: It was Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, I don't think it really matters that I state for how long.

President Wortman: Okay, good enough. Is that alright with you, Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Councilmember Bassemier: Can I ask a question? I'd like to ask the judge something. I've talked with the judge over this and hes wanting to -- he's wanting some time and whatever. Judge, do you know -- do you want to talk to some more people? How much time do --

Robert Tornatta: Defer at your convenience, whatever works for you, I'll work with you.

Councilmember Smith: I think the people ought to know, the people that have taken the time to come up here, how long this is going to be deferred so they know if it comes back to a vote.

President Wortman: Well, I've got their names here and I think we would possibly notify --

Councilmember Smith: Notify them?

President Wortman: Yes ma'am, if that's alright.

Councilmember Smith: Because if we defer it, then they may want to come back, so how long are we deferring it for? Did you say?

Councilmember Bassemier: Judge, will next month be okay?

Robert Tornatta: That's fine.

Councilmember Bassemier: Is that okay with you?

Councilmember Raben: That's fine with me.

President Wortman: Alright. I haven't voted yet but I am the last one. Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd.

Councilmember Lloyd: I was going to say, so it will come back again next month?

President Wortman: Yeah, is that agreeable with everybody now before I --

Councilmember Smith: Next month? Come back next month?

Councilmember Bassemier: You can tell them right now.

President Wortman: Okay. I am voting yes to defer.

SUPERIOR COURT REQUESTEDAPPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Smith: They should be told the first Wednesday at 2:30 of the month, I mean 3:30, I'm sorry. The first Wednesday of next month.

President Wortman: Did everybody understand that, to come back next month? That will be in the month of June, the first Wednesday at 3:30 and you can all come up and then we'll go.

Councilmember Lloyd: Thats June 2nd.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, this is an appropriation, so we'l actually hear this the last Wednesday of this month and --

(Inaudible -- microphone not turned on)

Councilmember Raben: But from a standpoint of discussion, it may be a better meeting to have them attend because it is a --

President Wortman: That might be a good point because --

Councilmember Raben: -- a lighter schedule and we could allow for more time.

President Wortman: Well, that's right, for discussions, because we do run through the appropriations with no vote. That might be the most appropriate time to go with the last Wednesday of this month to get ready and then we can vote or do what have you at the first Wednesday of the next month. 

Councilmember Lloyd: May 26 is that date and June 2nd would be the official meeting.

President Wortman: That way we divide the time up because see, we've got to get going. If we don't, why the Area Plan gets here pretty soon. We're going to change tapes here.

(Tape changed)

President Wortman: May 26th of this month, if they would come up and we'll have our discussion, pro and con, and Judge Tornatta come up and that way we'll spare the time and have a little more time because the regular meeting, just like this, we';ve got quite a few things on the agenda. So if everybody on the Council agrees more or less, give me a little hand raising if everybody agrees to that effect.

Councilmember Sutton: We were just waiting on your vote, Mr. President. We've already voted. We're waiting on you.

President Wortman: No, I've voted too, but I just wanted -- if that's agreeable with all the people so we can get this clear now, May the 26th of this month you all come back and then we'll have a little more discussion. Okay? Thank you very much for all your time and everything. You too, Judge, appreciate it. Everybody can get back to work now. Okay, we'll get on with the next thing and we've got one more for the Judge, Garage & Motor. Mr. Raben, will you proceed?

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 1370-2230 Garage & Motor in the amount of $1,500. 

Councilmember Hoy: Second.

President Wortman: Second from Mr. Hoy. Any discussion? If not, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

SUPERIOR COURT REQUESTEDAPPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

G) CONVENTION & VISITOR'S BUREAU (TWO REQUESTS)

President Wortman: Okay, Mr. Raben, Convention & Visitors Bureau.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, let's take both of these at one time, 3570-3994 Matching Grants in the amount of $15,000, 3570-3994 Matching Grants in the amount of $10,000, and I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Lloyd: Second.

President Wortman: Second Mr. Lloyd. Any discussion? Call the roll please.

Councilmember Sutton: Just real quick, is there anybody here from the Race for the Cure? No, no one here? Okay. Go ahead.

Councilmember Hoy: The only thing I wanted to say was, as I said last week, and to get it on the record, I am for the Race for the Cure. I do think we need to look at each one of these fund raising efforts because we need to be careful that we're not voting a lot of money just for fund raising and not for tourism. I am certainly not against the event, cancer has visited my family more than once but that is the only warning I would issue to Council is that we need to look at each one. I am a little dubious that this is going to bring that many tourists in and that much money, but maybe it will. 

Councilmember Sutton: Well, I guess my question I was going to ask, really the people who do a lot of running, I am not a heavy runner but I do some running, they travel around to all the events in the Tri-State area, I mean, you get people come around, they just like to run. They go to all the events, so if you get a big event, popular event, people are going to come around, but generally is the case, you come and you run your race, you get a bottle of water, get something to eat and you go home. You don't stay around, you usually don't get a hotel or anything like that, so tourism-wise, you probably don't get a lot of spinoff in that direction and I guess my concern is what the number of races, I mean, there is a race every weekend here in this area even in the winter months, how many other events are they going to be able to fund or how many requests are they going to get and how you make a determination of who is actually bringing in people who are staying overnight, so that's probably the concern that I have and they need to be attentive to that.

President Wortman: I think they'll have a report for us, possibly, Royce. If you request that, to report how effective it was, see.

Councilmember Sutton: Because that other race, the Arts Fest Run, they probably do get some overnight stays there, but you aren't necessarily getting a lot of overnight stay, but that's probably the other major race that we have here, so we just want to be conscious of that issue.

Councilmember Raben: I might add one thing for Councilman Sutton: twenty percent of their funds that they use to allocate for events has to be used on one-day events, so one hundred percent of it isn't allotted for heads in beds. Eighty percent goes for two or more day events, twenty percent are for one day only events. So they are going to have periodically one day events that they fund.

Councilmember Sutton: I understand, I am just saying that it could become an issue as they get a number of people with these type of events and how you make that decision is going to be a tough call for them and you can't fund them all, obviously.

President Wortman: Okay, any other discussion? If not, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAUREQUESTED APPROVED
 

CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAUREQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

A) AUDITOR

B) TREASURER

C) COMMISSIONERS

D) COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

E) LEGAL AID SOCIETY

F) COUNTY HIGHWAY

G) COMMISSIONERS (LATE TRANSFER)

President Wortman: Now the Transfers, Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of the Auditor's transfer -- is anyone opposed if I take all the transfers at one time?

President Wortman: Any Councilmember opposed to take them all at once? No comment.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I'll move that all transfers are approved as submitted.

President Wortman: Do I have a second?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Mrs. Smith seconded. 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.

AUDITOR REQUESTED APPROVED
 

TREASURER REQUESTED APPROVED
 

COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED APPROVED
 

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REQUESTEDAPPROVED
 

LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF EVANSVILLE REQUESTED APPROVED
 

COUNTY HIGHWAY REQUESTED APPROVED
 

COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

A) ASSESSOR

President Wortman: Now we'll have the General Fund repeal from the County Assessor.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, we will gladly accept the repeal, Im sure, and I'l move approval of 1090-1160-1090 in the amount of $3,000. 

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: Money back for the taxpayer, yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

President Wortman: Okay, old business? No old business, go to new business.
 

President Wortman: Number ten, John Schroder, we excuse him. No use coming back up, so we cross that off.
 

President Wortman: Now we've got the resolution denying the County Option Income Tax Distribution to the Solid Waste District. I'll entertain a motion.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I need to go over the Salary Ordinance first. Item number eight, I would move that for the Commissioners Temporary Replacement, which would be 1300-1970 be set in as previously approved with the starting salary to be $8.00 per hour; Community Corrections, Temporary Replacement 1361-1970 be set in as previously approved with the initiation salary at $10.3189 per hour, and benefits are not paid to Temporary Replacement personnel; County Highway, we have union overtime which is 2010-1850 be set in as previously approved; County Assessor, should read Business/Personal Property Deputy which is account 1090-1160, account line be accepted as previously approved. 

President Wortman: Okay, do I have a second to that effect? 

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: We had no old business. Now new business, and we're going down to B, the Resolution Denying County Option Income Tax Distribution to the Solid Waste District. I'll entertain a motion to that effect.

Councilmember Raben: So moved.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Wortman: Any discussion? If not, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

President Wortman: Go to C, Ordinance Authorizing Issuance of Barrett Law Bonds and the Consideration of an Additional Appropriation to Provide Funds for the Old State Road Sanitary Sewer Barrett Law Project, second reading. Do I have a motion?

Councilmember Lloyd: Motion to approve.

Councilmember Raben: I'll 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: Now we go to D, Resolution Proposing an Ordinance of the Vanderburgh County Income Tax Council Establishing the Percentage Credit Allowed for Homesteads for 2000. Ill entertain a motion.

Councilmember Raben: I'll move approval, Mr. President.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Wortman: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: This credit for the Homestead is money back for the taxpayer. Yes. 

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

President Wortman: Now E, the ordinance and Mike Robling, would you step forward please on this last one? 

Councilmember Sutton: How many times have they been before us? We've seen these guys so many times. At least twice.

President Wortman: Hold on just a second, the County Attorney says we've got to make a --

Jeff Ahlers: I'd go ahead and just so it's clear, you just passed the resolution proposing an ordinance. I would suggest that you go ahead now and move to pass to cast your votes on that ordinance.

President Wortman: On the ordinance and then...Mr. Raben?

Councilmember Hoy: I move we approve this ordinance.

Councilmember Raben: I'll second.

President Wortman: Any discussion on this? Everybody understand it? Call the roll please.

(Unidentified - microphone not turned on): Homestead, right?

Jeff Ahlers: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

President Wortman: Okay, now we go to the -- Mr. Robling or the gentleman there want to appear before the microphone, on the bond?

Rick Hall: Hello, my name is Rick Hall. I'm from the law firm Barnes & Thornburg and we're serving as bond counsel on the financing before you for the diocese of Evansville. I also have with me today Tim Hubert who is the general counsel to the diocese. As you may recall, last fall the diocese came to the county and asked for their assistance in providing some tax exempt financing for two renovation projects for Mater Dei and Reitz Memorial High School, two high schools in Evansville. At that time last fall, the Council and the Economic Development Commission approved the issuance of $5,000,000 in bonds for these projects. The bonds are payable solely from revenues of the diocese and no tax dollars are at stake. At the time of the original approval, it was indicated that the total of $5,000,000 would take place in two separate issues. Last fall you approved the first issue which was closed in October for 1.75 million dollars. Now the diocese would like approval for the remainder of the financing, $3,250,000 and that's what the purpose of this ordinance is. The Economic Development Commission last Thursday approved the terms of the bonds that are before you now, the $3,250,000 in bonds and by statute the Council needs to approve that as well before they can go forward.

Councilmember Smith: I make a motion we approve this. We approved the first one and I don't think there's anything against it, that anybody has anything against it. 

Councilmember Raben: I'll second that motion.

President Wortman: Mrs. Smith made a motion, Jim Raben seconded it.

Jeff Ahlers: The only thing I wanted to point out was, and I spoke with Mr. Hall, but in Section Twelve of the ordinance it says copies of financing agreements are on file in the Office of the Auditor and I am advised that they are not.

Suzanne Crouch: They just brought them down.

Jeff Ahlers: Okay, so that's taken care of. And if you could, Mr. Hall, we had talked about also, as far as any sort of notice or publication. It's your opinion that this ordinance does not require any prior publication before this passage today. Is that correct?

Rick Hall: No, that's right. The Council and the Economic Development Commission, on behalf of the Council held a public hearing required by statute last fall and they don't need to do so again at this time.

President Wortman: Alright, any other discussion? If not, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: I want to explain my vote. As the Baptist minister explained earlier, I was raised in that denomination and I am a staunch supporter of separation of church and state and for that reason, I vote no.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Hoy opposed)

President Wortman: Okay, thank you gentlemen, appreciate your time. You too, Mr. Robling, for your attendance. Okay, if no other business to come before the Council, I want a motion to adjourn.

Councilmember Smith: So moved.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Wortman: Everybody has got something to sign before you go, so the meeting is adjourned.

(Meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m.)
 
 

_____________________________ ____________________________
President Curt Wortman Vice          President Russell Lloyd, Jr.
 

_____________________________ ____________________________
Councilmember James Raben         Councilmember Phil Hoy
 

_____________________________ ____________________________
Councilmember Ed Bassemier        Councilmember Royce Sutton
 

_____________________________
Councilmember Betty Knight-Smith
 
 
 

Recorded and transcribed by Teri Lukeman