The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 8^th day of September, 2010 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by County Council President Russell Lloyd.

President Lloyd: I’d like to open the meeting, Vanderburgh County Council final 2011 budget hearing, September 8, 2010. Attendance roll call please.

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

President Lloyd: Is there a motion for approval of the minutes, or we don’t have that, do we? Scratch that. Okay, this is the final budget hearing and our purpose is to complete this adoption of the county 2011 budget, establish the salaries and all employee benefits and also recommend to the state what would be the proposed tax rate for the county. Today, the chair will only recognize Councilmembers until after the finance chair has completed his duties. At this time I’m going to ask Councilman Tom Shetler, the finance chair to begin with the corrections, amendments, and additions to the 2011 budget. Councilman Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: First I make a motion that all eligible full-time county employees receive a one and a half percent raise for the year 2011 as listed in the 2011 salary ordinance for all salaries in accordance with the county salary ordinance. All Convention & Visitors Bureau employees receive a one and a half percent raise for the year 2011. Move that all salaries and rates as listed in the 2011 salary ordinance be approved and make the salary ordinance a part of the record. All FICA and PERF to be adjusted accordingly.

President Lloyd: Motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Raben. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Kiefer: Mr. President? I just wanted to say, I think it’s good and I’m glad that we’re able to give this one point five percent raise and I think it’s done because of the hard work of this Council cutting the budget and finding places to get that money to give that pay raise.

President Lloyd: Thank you, and I would echo that, that it was one of our goals this year to find a way to give the county employees a pay increase. This was a very difficult budget and it looks like the future budgets are not going to be any easier, but I’m glad we were able to do that in 2011. Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Bassemier: Again, I’d like to say, I’m not taking a salary increase and also I’d like to see all the county employees get a two percent raise instead of one and a half percent raise. I think they deserve the same amount as the city is getting, so I’m going to vote no. I think the county employees deserve a two percent. They deserve more, but I think asking for a half percent more is not out of the question. Thank you, and I vote no.

Councilmember Shetler: Okay, in the Salary Ordinance, move that Exhibits A through H be approved as listed in the 2011 Salary Ordinance. That would be towards the back of the book in the Salary Ordinance that you all received.

Councilmember Shetler: A through H. I’m moving that we approve the whole section.

Councilmember Shetler: Basically, let’s see, page number would be page 1, but it’s in that last section that says salary schedules. What we’re doing is adjusting all the salary schedules by one and a half percent, essentially.

President Lloyd: So in your Salary Ordinance, it’s, as he indicated, the salary schedule. Second Mr. Raben. Any discussion? So this is a one and a half percent increase on the salary schedules. If not, roll call vote please.

President Lloyd: We had a request from the County Recorder to speak to Council before we approve these budgets. I’d like to ask Z Tuley – is she here? There she is. Come forward please. Good morning.

Z Tuley: Good morning, Z Tuley, Vanderburgh County Recorder. I have been asked by this Council to fund my own computer services support. I think that there are a few things that I would like to say. I think that funding my own computer support and looking to assist the county in its financial needs is a matter of perspective. My job is to record and preserve the records of this county. This is exactly what I’m doing with the Perpetuation Fund that was established to fund this goal. I won’t break this fund and become a financial burden to this Council. I am, and I will continue to spend out of the fund in a responsible pace that keeps up with the incoming revenue that I have coming in and the ability of my staff to keep up with the new recordings and the current customer service demands. This Council currently only supplies salary, insurance and PERF for my staff. The perpetuation fund supplies every pen, paper, toner cartridge, printer, copier and all of these items are burdensome for you to have to supply to all of the other offices. The Recorder’s office is a revenue generator for the county general fund. For every $18 deed, the County General Fund receives $8 of that. $5 stays in my office, and $5 goes to the County Surveyor. The Perpetuation Fund is not invested separately, and therefore does not have the interest flowing back into that fund. Rather, I still believe that it is invested as general monies on deposit and that interest, therefore, flows back into the County General Fund. I also consider the request to be a little unfair. There are other county offices and city/county shared departments that acquire user fees such as my office, the County Surveyor, as I mentioned before, is one of them. Are these offices receiving the same request from the Council to supply funding for their computer services with the contracted MRC Corporation? As far as I know, they’re not. However, I do realize that the same state that has lifted the financial burden of my office that you have to bear, has also put forward unfunded mandates and extreme cuts to every county. Finances were better yesterday than today, and they’re perhaps better today than they will be tomorrow. Last year at the AIC, I believe it was Tony Wolfe from Gibson County that was talking about the potential damage of county revenue from the tax caps. These financial woes are expected to continue until 2012 and after that, the full impact is still not known. Within the bounds of Indiana Code, I have been cooperative when the opportunity has presented itself. Last year, computer services and MRC expressed the need of a new server. I put forward $16,000 out of the Recorder’s Perpetuation Fund to secure my office a new server, which was then added to a farm so that my office as well as other offices in case of breakdown, would be backed up by another server continuing to run. Two weeks ago, I expressed to this Council that I was willing to pay for my own computer refresh program and today I will offer to pay my fair share of the 2011 MRC, that the Recorder’s Office bears. I recognize your financial difficulties, however, I did not create them. I did not, at any time, decline to comply with your request. This request was dropped on me a week ago yesterday and it takes time to retrieve State Board of Accounts opinions. I have read Indiana Code 36-2-7.10 many times, and I felt like your request may fall into a gray area. So, therefore, I asked the State Board of Accounts to give me their opinion. The County Recorder may use any money -- emphasis on the word, may, which means can – if it was a requirement as a must, it would read, shall – in this fund without appropriation – I’m trying not to read the whole thing, not to skip anything, but just for speed’s sake, computer service support for county’s Recorder system is an important part of the record keeping system and equipment. Therefore, during an audit of the county, we do not take exception to the use of the Recorder’s Perpetuation Fund for the computer support in the Recorder’s Office. However, we would expect that the Recorder would show us the documentation to support the amount paid. Since this contract covers computer support for more than just the Recorder’s Office, the contract alone will not be sufficient. The county will need to provide the documentation showing the calculation of the $97,000 is a reasonable calculation of the cost of services. They did not find the attached simple math of $97,000, the 5.36% to be adequate. So, therefore, I am going to request that documentation. I would like to review it and forward it to the State Board of Accounts for their approval as well, to make sure that they meant what they said and give them what they need. So given the current financial struggles of the county, as law allows, I will directly pay the MRC or Matt Arvay line or whatever, for computer support, once the supporting documentation has been submitted. I suspect, although, through the email, Russ, that you sent me, it states it was a one-time request, I believe that the Council will continue this practice and I believe that the Recorder’s Office will be expected to pay their share of computer services every year from now on. Therefore, I will be seeking bids for computer services as a responsible officeholder should do. I will be expected to pay these services, so then I expect to be able to have some say in the vendor. I also expect to have some say in the services rendered and how much those services cost. And perhaps I can save money with a separate vendor, and perhaps I can’t, but I’ll be looking into it.

Councilmember Kiefer: Z, I just want to say thank you. I appreciate your cooperation and help with this matter. And I do agree with you, that if you’re paying, I think it’s a good idea to check with vendors and it’s a sore spot, I think, for a lot of county officeholders as well as people in the city, on computer services. So I think that’s a good idea and thank you. Appreciate it.

President Lloyd: I guess one comment, the calculation was done by the number of devices divided by the total budget, but what we can do is provide that for each department, and then it’s possible that number could change.

President Lloyd: Well, it’s 28 devices, so I guess that would also be printers and whatever.

Z Tuley: Fourteen of the – I think I have 28 computers. Fourteen of those are view/print only. They are not functional in any other way.

President Lloyd: Those are available to the public to look at recorded deeds and –

Councilmember Raben: Will you, I think it would probably be good if the President of the Council sent computer services a memo stating or requesting all the requirements that Z has laid forth and make it as easy on her as possible to submit the approval to the state.

President Lloyd: Okay. I guess a question maybe for the County Auditor, we don’t, I guess we don’t necessarily have a figure to use at this time. How would you recommend proceeding? This is the final budget adoption.

Bill Fluty: I guess with Z saying she may, but today, I guess you could raise the computer service line item by that $97,000 to account for it.

President Lloyd: Well, as of right now, we assume that it would not be done, and so we didn’t account for it.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, we need for today, we need to go ahead and reduce computer services line by 97,000.

President Lloyd: Okay, assuming that this would be approved by State Board of Accounts?

President Lloyd: Okay. And I know the Council Attorney had looked at the statute on the Recorder’s Perpetuation Fund. We wouldn’t have asked the request if we didn’t feel that it was a legal request. But it is, I mean, there is a possibility you’ll have different Council members next year. There may be some reason Council would not request this. I think that’s why, at least from my end, it was a one-time request and obviously, we would see how things are next year. You may have – the 800,000 in the Perpetuation Fund, you may have other plans, uses, needs for it and I don’t think it would be fair to ask for a multi-year agreement. I think it’s got to be done one year at a time, and we just happened to do it this year. So we appreciate your work on that.

Councilmember Goebel: I don’t have any real comment on Z’s situation. I think it was pretty clear and she’s done her homework. Just in general, we brought up some specific ideas about monitors, people having two computers and things like that. Are we going to look further into that or do we have any control once we pass this budget?

President Lloyd: I think we could send Jim Raben into the offices, he can rip out the computers.

Councilmember Raben: Possibly, maybe between now and next year, if we could ask computer services, Matt Arvay, to come before Council and just talk about some of these things in general, and we might need to give them what the pleasure of the Council is moving forward. Can we do that?

President Lloyd: I think because it’s become such a large line item, I think we spent more time in Council on the computer budget than we have in the past, but I think it’s been necessary to bring attention to it. So we could bring him here and discuss the computer budget at some future meeting.

Councilmember Raben: So, Mike’s point, you know, we need to establish guidelines that he uses going forward, you know, where we don’t have people with laptops and desktops, you know, reiterate our position on 27 inch monitors and things of that nature, so a little guidance from the Council certainly wouldn’t hurt.

Councilmember Goebel: I just think that’s a pretty large component of our budget and we should probably have a clearer idea of exactly how the funds are being spent.

Councilmember Shetler: And keep in mind, that’s why it is in our budget so that we do have control over that as it gets disbursed, so the point is well taken. And that’s precisely why it was done that way so that we will have control over that, so we have time.

Councilmember Shetler: We have time. And they’ll report to us as they start the refresh and the new computers and all that so we have a general idea, that would be great.

Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, okay, if you all will take note of the List A, you might double check the listings of the salaries and the position title changes in the budget book. And I would move that we approve List A and make it part of the record.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Kiefer. Any questions, discussion? Mr. Bassemier?

President Lloyd: It’s all salaries on List A. It’s Sheriff, Public Defender and Superior Court. There’s some technical corrections, I believe, to comply with state law.

Councilmember Shetler: These are all positions that are dictated by state law to be within a certain percentage of the Prosecutor’s salary and stuff, so that’s where that comes into play.

Councilmember Shetler: Okay, I think all of the Councilmembers have received a List B, which is some additional cuts or additions that have been made. I would like for you to make one further change based on the County Recorder’s comments a few moments ago, and that is to change the County Council’s line 1480-3860 Contractual Computer from $1,624,551 to $1,527,551. That reflects the $97,000. If there happens to be a discrepancy on the 5.6% or whatever that figure we were using, if there is a discrepancy on that, it will be a matter of change, a small amount of money there, so I don’t think that it will affect that greatly. I move that List B be made part of the record, and approved as such.

President Lloyd: Discussion? Do we want to bring up, let’s bring up the Convention & Visitors Bureau, since that’s on this budget. Krista Lockyear and Kristen Tucker. We were handed a memo by the Convention & Visitors Bureau about the Tourism Capital Improvement Fund request, Sports Complex.

Krista Lockyear: Thank you. Krista Lockyear and Kristen Tucker on behalf of the Convention & Visitors Bureau. Members of Council, we understand you wanted a written rationale for the line item for the sports complex. The board of the bureau has voted to allocate all of the unrestricted capital tourism funds to development of the sports complex. We didn’t provide a written rationale previously because this was done last year as well. So I apologize for not having done that. But, again, the board just wants everybody to be aware that they don’t want those unrestricted funds to be available for any other projects other than the sports complex. As we all know, it’s still in the development and design phase, so I don’t have exact numbers for you and as those come forward, of course, you would be presented with those.

Councilmember Bassemier: Ma’am, a month or so ago, it was mentioned, the bonding company was here and they told us, naturally, the whole idea is to fund this with the Innkeepers Tax. Also the bonding company said that we would also probably back it up with the County Option Income Tax, is that true?

Krista Lockyear: That’s an option that the financing department is looking at or the group that the CVB has hired to look at funding. We’ve also received some indication that that may not be a preferred backup plan, so they are looking into options for bonds that would not require County Option as a backup as a debt service item.

Krista Lockyear: No, we don’t. It will depend on timing of the bond issue and what type of bonds we do ultimately pursue.

Councilmember Bassemier: But they’re going to want it backed up by more than just Innkeepers Tax?

Krista Lockyear: It’s possible, and again, the financing folks that we’ve hired are looking into the availability of backing it up only with Innkeepers but we just don’t know at this point. And again, some of that will depend on the final figures for the complex itself.

Councilmember Bassemier: But they won’t guarantee it’s only going to be with Innkeepers Tax?

Councilmember Shetler: I might point out to Council real quick that the very last item on the List B that you have, we were reducing that from $970,000 down to $200,000, and that was to make sure, we did give them tacit approval a few weeks or a month or so ago, to at least complete the footwork that they started some time ago, so that they could bring a solid program to the county and to the entire community on this. And we gave them the okay to proceed on that. This would allow them enough seed money to continue on with that and proceed as we had directed them a month or so ago. So it is not giving approval for this project in any way, shape or form, but merely to come up with the financial details, the architectural designs, the things that they’re going to need to come up with a good, solid plan for our community.

Councilmember Kiefer: Mr. President? Krista, I have a question. I know there’s a public hearing coming up, I read it in the newspaper. Is the location and obviously the costs are not finalized because you just said that they don’t know all the costs, but is the location pretty much, is that pretty much pinned down that it’s there at the Wesselman’s Park area or is there still some opportunity that there is consideration for another location?

Krista Lockyear: The Parks Department has and the Department of Natural Resources have both indicated that before they absolutely give the approval on that location, that we provide environmental impact studies, if you will, it’s not exactly that technical, but studies on the potential impact of noise, light, traffic, in the area on Wesselman Park. We’re in the process of doing that, have contracted with some engineers that are referred to in that memo that I provided you, to do those studies and we should have those available for the Parks meeting. I believe at the Parks Board meeting or shortly thereafter, the intent would be to finalize Wesselman Park as the location.

Councilmember Kiefer: I think some of the heartache, at least from constituents that I hear, are one, on the cost of the project. Again, a lot of complaints that, you know, hey, eighteen million, or whatever, is way too much money, so I don’t know if that’s something that’s being taken into consideration on the overall price tag, because there’s probably going to be a few people losing some elections because people are concerned about the price tag. And I don’t know if that’s been expressed to you or not.

Krista Lockyear: We have heard that and, again, as I indicated, that design has been somewhat of a moving target. If you recall a couple weeks ago, the board hosted a two day public input session where folks from the softball/baseball community and the general public were invited to come in and give their input on the design. There were a few developments that occurred as a result of that, there was a greater buffer provided close to Wesselman Woods, some practice areas, and some things that may change the final price tag on that project. Keep in mind, the Roberts Stadium site, as it stands now, has a continued cost versus bringing it down will eliminate some of that continued cost. So there’s some give and take in the price tag, at this point, and the Bureau has approved a not to exceed amount. There’s not been a set price tag or total cost determined at this point. And that’s still part of that design.

Councilmember Kiefer: I think, and I don’t want to speak for everybody on this Council, but I think the overall cost is probably going to be one of our biggest concerns.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, we’ve kind of gotten off on a conversation that’s for another day. I think we need to stick to budget matters and, again, just to say it once again, as Tom pointed out, in acting today is probably providing enough money for contracts that they may already be committed to and nothing beyond that. This is in no way a signal or an approval for the complex. So we might be letting you out of the trap on what you already have committed, but no further than that today.

President Lloyd: Well, the proposal on the memo is to take the request down to $200,000, and with the rationale, the Council could raise that in the future pending the project going forward if that would be approved. And I know, just real quickly, I know, Mr. Dunn, we had had conversations about lowering the cost of the project and I know he’s working on that and also, he was going to get us a schedule from the bond attorneys about, I think he’s working on that as well, so we wanted to look at those things, too. Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: And just to reiterate, this is not out of taxpayer dollars, this is out of hotel fees, the $200,000 we’re approving today, so it’s really, it’s cost neutral to the Vanderburgh County residents.

President Lloyd: Right. Any other questions? Okay, appreciate it. Thank you very much.

President Lloyd: Okay, we’ll go back to Mr. Shetler. We need a motion and a second on List B and we had the one change on the computer.

Councilmember Raben: I’ll second that motion. I don’t know if there was a second or not.

President Lloyd: Oh, okay, I’m sorry. Okay, motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Raben. Any other discussion? Roll call vote please.

President Lloyd: Yes. List B, motion passes seven/zero. Turn it back to Mr. Shetler.

Councilmember Shetler: I think everyone has received on their desks, the insurance budget for the year 2011. I would move that the County Council approve the 2011 insurance budget as listed. These figures represent the county’s share of the current health plans with the total employee contribution of eight percent. These figures are for full-time and county employees and it does not include insurance for Superior Court magistrates, make this as part of the record, if you would please. So that’s in the form of a motion.

President Lloyd: Okay, motion for the Insurance budget as listed. Is there a second?

President Lloyd: Motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Kiefer. Any discussion? This would be continuing the practice that we’ve had a long time for the total insurance, the employee portion. Okay, roll call vote please.

Councilmember Bassemier: As I mentioned earlier, I’m not going to take a salary increase. I’m also not going to take the health insurance from the county. But I’m going to vote yes for everything else. I’m not taking out the county health insurance.

Councilmember Shetler: I would move that all other 2000, 3000 and 4000 accounts for the 2011 budget be adopted as previously approved for the following: 911 Emergency Service, Area Plan Commission, Auditor, Auditor/Reassessment, Bond Issue, Burdette Park, Circuit Court, Circuit Court Supplemental Adult Probation, Convention & Visitors Commission, Convention Center Operating Fund, the Coroner, the County Treasurer, County Assessor, County Assessor/Reassessment, County Recorder, County Clerk, County Commissioners, County Commissioners/CCD Fund, County Council, County Highway, County Cooperative Extension, County Surveyor, Cumulative Bridge, Disclosure Fees, Drainage Board, Drug & Alcohol Deferral Services, Election Office, Health Department, Jail, Jail Bond, Legal Aid, Legal Aid/United Way, Local Drug Free Community, Local Emergency Planning Commission, Local Roads & Streets, Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals/Reassessment, Prosecutor, Prosecutor Fees-Check Recovery, Prosecutor Drug Law Enforcement Program, Prosecutor IV-D, Prosecutor Pretrial Diversion, Prosecutor Stop Domestic Violence, Prosecutor Victims/Witness Assistance Program, Prosecutors Forfeiture Fund, Public Defender Commission, Riverboat, Sheriff, Sheriff Community Corrections, Sheriff Misdemeanor Housing, Sheriff Vanderburgh County Community Corrections, Misdemeanor Offender, Sheriff Domestic Violence, Superintendent of County Buildings, Superior Court, Superior Drug Court, Superior Court Supplemental Adult Probation, Surveyor, Maps, Surveyor Corner Perpetuation Fund, The Centre, Tourism Capital Improvement, Veterans Administration, Voters Registration, Weights & Measures. And I hope I don’t need to repeat that.

Councilmember Raben: Just glad to hear somebody else have to read that this year. I’ll second.

President Lloyd: Okay, there’s a motion for all 2000, 3000 and 4000, Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Raben. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Shetler: Make a motion that the County Council set a county tax rate as deemed appropriate by the Indiana State Tax Commissioners following their review of our budget.

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

President Lloyd: Yes, and hopefully that rate will stay constant or be only a tiny amount of increase, but, I mean, all our hard work goes into that, and we’re trying to keep that property tax rate as low as possible.

Councilmember Shetler: Move to set in the Cum Bridge tax rate at three cents per one hundred dollars assessed valuation.

President Lloyd: Motion Mr. Shetler, second Mr. Raben. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Shetler: Motion to set in one million dollars from the COIT to Local Roads & Streets Fund.

President Lloyd: Okay, this is a long-standing practice of this Council that we would take a million dollars out of the COIT funds that we receive and put it in Local Roads & Streets, with the hope of funding additional road projects as well as supporting that department financially. We’re able to do that this year, we’ll just have to see how things look next year with the cut in the COIT. So, I mean, it’s difficult, I’m glad that we’re able to do that this year. Any other discussion on that? This has been going on for at least ten years, right, Jim? Ten years or so. And I think part of it was motor vehicle highway monies are reduced to some extent to counties, and the Council wanted to supplement it.

President Lloyd: I guess to try to close this up, I’d like to thank all the Councilmembers for their work on this budget. Difficult budget, and that’s why we’re looking at ways to alleviate the pressure on the General Fund and we know next year that General Fund balance is going to be going down. I’d like to thank our new finance chair, Tom Shetler, for his work on this budget and the staff that’s helped us, Sandie Deig, Sarah Nunn, and Teri Lukeman. And then I also wanted to mention Bill Fluty has had sixteen years in the Auditor’s Office, eight as Chief Deputy and eight as Auditor, and for Councilmembers, he’s been a very valuable resource and he knows where the funds are, the different funds, and when we have difficult financial questions, he’s very helpful to us in that regard. We appreciate all your help, Bill. And we know next year, you’re going to be somewhere else. You’re not going to be in the Auditor’s Office, but anyway, we look forward to seeing you and wish you the best. Any other members of the Council have any other closing thoughts on this budget? Mr. Shetler?

Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, I would like to thank, really, all the department heads and all the elected officeholders. You know, not only just putting this budget together, but I think throughout the whole year, we’ve seen fewer requests for additional appropriations this year than I think we have in a long time, and that’s to be commended, I think for each and every officeholder that’s out there, that they really have recognized the difficulty that we have before us with the state, as Z had mentioned earlier, setting some unfunded mandates on us and requirements. And not that I think that’s a bad thing, I think keeping the cost of county government down is a good thing, I just wish the federal government could take our example at heart and follow our lead of following with a balanced budget. But I do want to thank all of the elected officeholders and department heads for all that they’ve done not only for this budget, but throughout the whole year on holding down the line on the cost of government. So, thank you.

Councilmember Goebel: Just to add to that, I think the fact that we were able to balance the budget and offer a one point five percent increase this year and particularly to maintain benefits for the employees is a tremendous statement for the work that went through this Council. And I also would like to say, as Mr. Shetler mentioned, that department leaders and elected officials came through with basically flat lined requests and that made this work a lot easier. So, thank all of them.

President Lloyd: And I would echo that, too. Thank you, all the elected officeholders and department heads. We saw some budgets even decrease. I mean, there’s been a lot of hard work and we’ve just got a certain amount of revenue, property tax revenue, COIT and a few miscellaneous funds, and that’s what we have to deal with. We can’t manufacture money or make up new amounts of money, so it’s been difficult, we know it’s going to be difficult in the future. And if there’s not anything else, any member of the public want to comment on the budget before we wrap this up?

Councilmember Shetler: I might just point out real quickly, kind of going through some numbers here. Last year, we approved or had a budget set up of $63,570,000 and some change. This year, it looks like we’re at $63,404,000 and some change. So, job well done by all. Thank you.

President Lloyd: So actual dollars going to be decreasing $170,000 or so. That’s well done. Alright, is there a motion to adjourn the county budget hearings?

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 a.m.)