WHATS ON YOUR MIND TODAY?

“IS IT TRUE” will be posted on this coming Wednesday.

Todays READERS POLL question is: Would you vote for Evan Bayh to the United States Senate in this coming November General election?

Please take time and read our newest feature articles entitled “HOT JOBS” and “LOCAL SPORTS” posted in our sections.

If you would like to advertise in the CCO please contact us City-County Observer@live.com.

Copyright 2015 City County Observer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistribute

The City-County Observer is greatly impressed with the turn-out and conduct of the remonstrance on Ordinance G-2016-21 at City Council last evening.

We saw the sun begin to shine on the future of Evansville in Room 310 of the Civic Center , because people came together to show how much they cared about our First Amendment rights.

The thing that we are most pleased about is the diversity of the group that showed up to claim their rights. The people were young and old, men and women, black and white, and hailed from all parts of the city.

Concerned citizens were greeted by Council President Mosby’s condescension and denial that the proposed ordinance was aimed at taking the voters’ voices. She vehemently denied that the ordinance was aimed at blocking public participation in public matters, and declared it to be aimed at greater transparency of Council actions.

Councilwoman Mercer chimed in to remind the citizens in attendance that according to State law, the Council is not obligated to hear public questions and comments, except in allocations of federal money. Ms. Mercer even saw fit to repeat that piece of “wisdom” a second time.

Councilwoman Anna Hargis asked numerous question, and then confessed that although she had the ordinance for a month, she really “didn’t understand it until tonight.”

In sharp contrast to certain Councilmen, many of the audience members came forward with well-reasoned and specific questions and positive suggestions. The crowd was very enthusiastic and frequently broke into applause, but Miss Mosby was apparently unnerved by the energy in the room. At one point, there were five peace officers in the room, two policemen, two deputies, and a Civic Center Security officer, although most of the time there were only four officers present.

Only Connie Robinson and Dr. Dan Adams appeared pleased to public input into the matter. Ms. Robinson verbalized what many were likely thinking when she asked what was wrong with them spending six hours a month for a $19,000 salary and medical benefits.

At one point, speaker Mandraki Rankin joked that Mrs. Robinson and Dr. Adams were”awesome” but warned the other Councilors had better watch out because “I am coming for your seat next election.” Councilman Weaver commented that Mr. Rankin’s comments were “politicking and bullying” of the sort the ordinance seeks to stop.

Bottom line, It looks like Ordinance G-2016-21 has awaken and united the  true freedom loving people of this community!

Evansville, IN (July 11, 2016) – In an ongoing commitment to give
players MORE, Tropicana Evansville will break ground on a new 75,000
square foot entertainment complex Tuesday, July 19, 2016. The new
development will dramatically transform the 21-year-old riverfront
casino property.

“Evansville is the entertainment hub of the entire Tri-State Area. This
extensive expansion project, along with Tropicana’s distinctive service
program, will provide guests with a new and vibrant hospitality
experience,” said John Chaszar, General Manager of Tropicana
Evansville.

The ground breaking event will be held at the construction site from 10
a.m. to 11 a.m. on July 19. Tropicana representatives will gather with
local and state officials and invited guests to officially launch the
construction phase of the land-based entertainment complex.

Joining Chaszar will be Tropicana Entertainment President & CEO, Tony
Rodio; Evansville Mayor, Lloyd Winnecke; and Executive Director of the
Indiana Gaming Commission, Sara Tait. Media representatives are invited
to attend the ground breaking event. Reserved parking will be provided
for media vehicles at the construction site entrance.

The expansion project includes 45,000 square feet of new gaming space,
a yet-to-be-named upscale restaurant and bar, a deli, and a combination
lounge/entertainment venue. The new facility is expected to open in
December of 2017. Visit the live Construction Cam feed at
www.tropevansville.com<http://www.tropevansville.com> to watch the
project take shape.

About Tropicana Evansville

Tropicana Evansville is a $110 million entertainment facility that
includes a 2,700 passenger riverboat casino, a 243 room hotel, a 96
room boutique
hotel<http://www.tropevansville.com/hotels/le-merigot-hotel/>, an
executive conference
center<http://www.tropevansville.com/groups-meetings/facilities-rental/>,
a 1,660 vehicle parking garage and Riverfront Pavilion housing
pre-boarding facilities, retail shops, restaurants and lounge area.

About Tropicana Entertainment
Tropicana Entertainment Inc. (OTCQB: TPCA) is a publicly traded
company that, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates eight casinos
and resorts in Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Missouri, New
Jersey and Aruba. Tropicana properties collectively have approximately
5,526 hotel rooms, 8,075 slot positions and 277 table games. The
company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada and is a majority –owned
subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises, L.P. (NASDAQ: IEP).

Alison Nicholson I Advertising Administrator

Tropicana Evansville

421 NW Riverside Drive

Evansville, IN 47708

www.TropEvansville.com<http://www.TropicanaEvansville.com>

o: 812.433.4055 I f: 812.433.4063

[cid:image001.png@01CE35F5.EF9F3090]

Join the FUN at TropWorld Social
Casino<http://app.adjust.io/t8z151_tcmrod?fallback=http://tropworld.com>

This communication and any files transmitted are PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. The information contained in this
communication is the property of Tropicana Entertainment Inc. and its
subsidiaries and affiliates. The information contained in this
communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, and
may constitute inside information. If you are not the name

CPLI Report Highlights ‘Crisis’ Caused By School Discipline Practices

Marilyn Odendahl for Indiana Lawyer

Describing the current disciplinary practices in Indiana school as creating “a crisis” that is disproportionately impacting African-American students, a new report is offering a framework for involving parents, educators, law enforcement and legislators to improve learning and reduce suspensions and expulsions in classrooms across the state.

The report, “Leaders Collaborating to Advance Positive School Discipline in Indiana Summit Report and Recommendation,” is a summation of ideas and solutions developed during a daylong meeting hosted by the Children’s Policy and Law Initiative of Indiana in October 2015. Professionals from a cross-section of education, government and legal sectors gathered in Indianapolis to discuss and brainstorm ways to prevent students from being kicked out of class.

“We’re very happy with the report,” said attorney and CPLI president JauNae Hanger. “I think it fairly reflects what was discussed by the different teams.”

The 16-page document contains nine recommendations aimed at fostering a learning environment in schools that will help more students to be successful. Noting that 22 percent of Hoosiers between the ages of 18 to 24 do not have a high school diploma or high school equivalency, the report asserts the state’s economic future is being impaired.

“Zero-tolerance practices are creating young adults who are uneducated and unemployable and feeding the school-to-prison pipeline at an alarming rate,” the report contends.

It cited stats showing 87,000 Indiana students lost 751,366 instructional days after being subjected to exclusionary discipline practices which included suspensions and expulsions. African-American students were disproportionately suspended or expelled at a rate of more than one in every five students compared to the overall rate of almost one in 10 Hoosier school children.

“High rates of exclusion result in poor learning environments, lost instructional time, student disengagement, academic failure, and increased risk of delinquency and juvenile justice involvement,” the report states. “This data coincides with a growing concern across the nation about how educational disciplinary practices are increasing the criminalization of children and contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline.”

The report emphasizes that bringing change will require a systemic approach rather than just two or three actions. As Hanger explained, the onus cannot be on a single group to do the work. A broad array of stakeholders from the home to school and in the Statehouse will have to take part.

“There is not one solution,” she said.

Likewise, the corresponding recommendations call for engaging the student and family along with collecting and analyzing disaggregated data from all school districts to expose practices that need to be changed and ensure transparency as well as accountability.

Also, the recommendations advocate using evidence-based best practices to create positive learning environments and providing regular training and professional development opportunities for school staff, faculty and administrators.

Vital to that training is state support. The final recommendation appeals for the state and the Legislature to provide resources and funding to support school discipline reform efforts. Hanger said the goal is to prevent youngsters and teenagers from going into the juvenile justice system, but schools need resources to help the teachers and law enforcement utilize alternative methods of discipline.

The report has been released to CPLI members and those who attended the summit. It will be sent to state legislators on education committee in both the Indiana House of Representatives and Senate as well as to the Indiana Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative and the Indiana Commission on Improving the Status of Children. It will also be given to professional associations, nonprofits, and child advocates.

CPLI is hosting meetings in August and October, Hanger said, to explore ways to determine the next steps to take to build on the momentum of the report.

by Elaine S. Povich for Stateliness/Pew Trust

Missouri and St. Louis tried mightily to keep the NFL Rams from decamping for Los Angeles, offering $400 million in state and city money for a new stadium. To justify the public expense, officials argued that the team, which moved from Los Angeles to St. Louis two decades ago, was an economic engine for the region.

They offered to put up the money even though the Rams’ billionaire owner, Stan Kroenke, could afford to build a new stadium on his own. Ultimately, Kroenke opted to do just that, announcing in January that he would spend $1.9 billion of his own fortune to build a new stadium for the Rams in Inglewood, southwest of downtown Los Angeles.

Two other NFL teams, the San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders, also are eyeing a move to the nation’s second largest city. But Nevada is hoping to grab the Raiders for itself, by dangling a $1.4 billion stadium that would be paid for, at least in part, by the taxpayers. Meanwhile in Atlanta, construction is underway on a new $950 million stadium for the NFL Falcons, to be financed partly through bonds secured by extending a tax on hotel and motel rooms.

Amid all the jockeying, a decadeslong debate rages on: Does it make economic sense for cities and states to use public money to build sports facilities?

As soon as the Rams-Inglewood deal was announced, Moody’s Investment Service said the move would boost Inglewood’s sagging economy.

“The new stadium will likely inject thousands of jobs into the local economy during the construction phase, as well as many new jobs post-completion,” Moody’s said. Inglewood will gain $18.7 million to $28 million of new annual revenue over 16 years, according to Moody’s.

In Atlanta, where the city and Fulton County decided to direct proceeds from a 7 percent hotel-motel tax to pay the debt service on municipal bonds that are financing Mercedes-Benz Stadium, officials are predicting a similar impact. The NFL also selected the city and its future stadium to host the 2019 Super Bowl.

“Being honored with the [Super Bowl] is proof positive that public-private partnerships in the area of urban development can result in constructive outcomes,” Atlanta City Council President Ceasar Mitchell said in a statement in May, when the NFL selected the site. “I applaud the collaborative efforts of the leadership team that made this a reality and look forward to hosting Super Bowl 53 like only Atlanta can.”

But many economists maintain that states and cities that help pay for new stadiums and arenas rarely get their money’s worth. Teams tout new jobs created by the arenas but construction jobs are temporary, and ushers and concession workers work far less than 40 hours a week.

Furthermore, when local and state governments agree to pony up money for stadiums, taxpayers are on the hook for years — sometimes even after the team leaves town. St. Louis, for example, is still paying $6 million a year on debt from building the Edward Jones Dome, the old home of the Rams that opened in 1995, despite the team’s move to California. The debt is financed by a hotel tax and taxes on “game day” revenues like concessions and parking.

Jackson Brainerd, a research analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), said the teams often hold up cities and states for sweet financing deals by threatening to move.

“Clearly major league professional sports teams are all fully capable of paying for stadiums themselves,” he said, citing Los Angeles.

Tax-Free Bonds
Governmental entities have long used tax-free municipal bonds to finance infrastructure projects, including sports stadiums. Investors buy the bonds as a relatively risk-free vehicle to earn interest. Although the bonds generally pay lower interest rates to the buyer, they are attractive because of their tax-free status.

In his 2016 budget, President Barack Obama proposed getting rid of tax-free bonds to help finance stadiums, a practice that costs the U.S. Treasury $146 million a year, according to a 2012 Bloomberg analysis. Bloomberg calculated that the $17 billion in tax-exempt debt used to build stadiums since 1986 would cost taxpayers $4 billion. The idea, like most of Obama’s budget, failed to gain traction in the Republican-dominated Congress.

As far back as the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the government has tried to limit public financing of stadiums, arguing that the stadiums — unlike other publicly funded infrastructure like roads and bridges — only serve a small number of people and that rich team owners should foot the bill. The tax reform measure included a provision prohibiting direct stadium revenue — such as ticket sales or food concessions — from being used to secure more than 10 percent of the cost of the stadium.

The thinking was that the provision would force cities and states to find other sources of public revenue, like higher property taxes, hotel taxes or sales taxes, to finance stadiums, and that proposed increases in those taxes would get nowhere because politicians would be unwilling to anger citizens. But the law did not take into account the fan loyalty and pride that made new taxes politically acceptable, according to Dennis Zimmerman, a former Congressional Budget Office and Congressional Research Service analyst who is an expert on stadium financing.

“Congress thought putting this 10 percent rule in would kill it,” Zimmerman said. “Nobody would expect taxpayers to hand over huge subsidies to these sports centers. But they did.”

Since 2000, more than 45 sports stadiums were either built or renovated, according to a 2010 NCSL study. The average cost to build or renovate a stadium during this time was $412 million. Since the early 1960s, 91 sports stadiums have been built with public funding, and 22 of them were fully paid for with public funds. Twenty-nine of the publicly financed stadiums were funded through a hotel tax, 27 were funded through general obligations, 24 were funded through sales taxes, 23 were funded through bonds and 4 were funded from lottery or gambling revenues, NCSL said.

In a paper published in February, Moody’s said both the growing popularity of professional soccer and the return of the NFL to Los Angeles County are “important drivers” of the increase in professional stadiums. After a lull in building from 2011 to 2015, stadium construction is on the upswing. Twice as many new stadiums, 12, are forecast to be completed over the next three years as were completed over the last five years, six, the report said. And most have at least some element of public financing.

New York Benefits

The value of bonds used to finance stadiums is influenced in part by how the team performs on the field. Better teams attract more fans, whose money is used to service the tax-free bonds.

One example is New York’s $850 million Citi Field, opened in 2009 with the help of $616 million in public subsidies, including New York state municipal bonds. The “Let’s go Mets!” cheers are louder at Citi Field lately, because fans are flocking to see a team that made a surprise run to the World Series last year.

The revenue from the healthy and growing number of fans led Moody’s Investors Service to upgrade the stadium’s bonds from a rating of Ba1, speculative and near “junk” status, to Baa3, a slightly higher rating that means the bonds are “investment grade.” They are therefore more attractive to investors in the resale market. If the state were to refinance the bonds, it would pay lower interest and the better investment grade would lure more buyers.

With the upgrade, the bonds crossed the bond market equivalent of baseball’s Mendoza Line, a derogatory term used for incompetent batters, usually those batting under .200.

Investors are more willing to buy highly rated bonds, just as baseball fans are more willing to support teams with better hitters.

“Ticket sales show performance today and performance in the future. If you make it to the World Series, every team but one in the last 14 years has experienced an increase in attendance of an average 10 percent,” said John Medina, vice president and senior analyst for Moody’s. (The exception was the San Francisco Giants in 2013, whose attendance dropped after winning the World Series in 2012.)

Across town, the new $2.3 billion Yankee Stadium, opened in 2009 with $1.2 billion in public money, also is considered a good investment (rated Baa2 by Moody’s). Because while the team has not played particularly well in the past few years, it is so solid and established that its fan base and ticket sales are reliable as a revenue source.

In most cases, fans’ spending on food, parking and luxury seat leases are included in bond rating criteria, but actual ticket sales are not.

But two IRS rulings specifically for the Yankees and the Mets made it possible for them to use ticket sales to secure bonds. (The Barclays Center in nearby Brooklyn, for example, home of the NBA Nets and NHL Islanders, can only use concessions, naming rights and premium seating to back up its bonds.) In addition, some stadiums have taxes on the tickets that are almost always used to finance public bonds for stadiums.

Richard Brodsky, a former New York state legislator who is now a senior fellow at New York University, said the fact that the Mets have a better team this year “is interesting in an academic way but it doesn’t get to the complaint that this is corporate welfare. The average citizen gets screwed.”

He bemoaned rising ticket prices, for example. MLB’s average ticket price rose 7.1 percent in 2016, according to a survey by Team Marketing Report, a sports sales and marketing company.

“Bond holders are happy, that’s fine; the people who are paying off the bonds are paying double what they used to pay for the same seats,” he said.