Nobel Prize for Economics - Congrats ! and Say What ?

Perused the Star's piece on the award of the Nobel Prize for Economics to IU's Elinor Ostrom. She's the first woman to receive this particular honor. So, congratulations on the win and the first. As she said in an interview, she won't be the last. Amen to that.

What causes me to scribble a few lines here, though was the brief description of one of the studies she did that earned her the Prize. Here is how the Star described it:

» Studied theories of police management in urban police departments, a 15-year look at policies put forth in Indianapolis, Chicago, St. Louis and about 80 other cities in the 1970s and 1980s.

» Finding: Citizens in smaller communities with smaller forces received as good, if not better, police services at significantly less cost, compared with large, metropolitan forces.

Well, there you have it folks. Need I say more?

Dramatic Week for 450 E. Market Street (Bad) Deal

No doubt the Mayor's Office was celebrating its victory over common sense this week.

The abatement and horrible deal surrounding it passed a Council vote and a vote in the Metropolitan Development Commission. Now all that awaits is inking down the deal, which even after much ado made about how a delay would cripple the financing, may not happen until late December.

The deal is for the City, and its taxpayers, to assume repayment of a loan for $19.5 million that is being arranged by TM Miller Enterprises with Regions Bank to buy the whole city block at 450 E. Market Street and the parking garage just north of it. TM Miller Enterprises will take ownership of the block for free while the City, and its taxpayers, take ownership of the garage for the full price of $19.5 million.

To abide by state law, the City had two appraisals done for the garage. Unfortunately for the taxpayers, current value appraisals weren't going to get the high numbers Mayor Ballard needed, so he authorized future values; clearly twisting state law and circumventing the intent of the law to prevent overpaying on taxpayer purchases - whether the intention be good or the intention be nefarious. The last sale of the garage in 2004 was for $10.5 million, which matches its assessed value for tax purposes. The $9 million disparity between actual value and purchase price was a problem for many who cast votes against the deal this week.

The deal is very complex in construction, but it all adds up to the fact that the City will take all the risks and TM Miller Enterprises will get a city block for free. In fact, he also gets to buy one third of the garage back from the City for $2 million -- when the City just paid $7 million for that same third, for an immediate loss to the taxpayers of $5 million.

The taxpayers also take a hit with the closing of the two gravel parking lots on the old MSA site that provide the CIB with about $790,000 a year in profits. This is the CIB for which Mayor Ballard has spent the good part of 2009 trying to get more and more tax money. Someone tell me where the logic is here on Mayor Ballard's part? The only consistent logic I can see is if Mayor Ballard just assumes there is always more money that can be wrestled from our pockets.

The deal has been documented by the Star (Jeff Swiatek), WTHR (Mary Milz), FOX59 (Derrick Wilkerson), the Indianapolis Business Journal (Scott Olsen), and an editorial in today's Star. You can view Monday night's Council hearing, which technically was on the zoning for the parcels, and Wednesday afternoon's MDC hearing, which was on the abatement at the core of the deal, on Channel 16's archives. For the Council - click HERE - then on 'video' for October 5, 2009. For the MDC - click HERE - then on 'video' for October 7, 2009.

The reason I am logging all these citations is because I have this huge nagging feeling that there are shoes waiting to drop. Whether it is in the list of names of future investors in this project, until now firmly held secret, or the word that the City's projections for paying off the garage loan are not coming to fruition, or something else entirely.

While I have disappointments in the obvious politics that took place in the 13-12 Council vote to support the zoning and in the 7-2 vote by the MDC to approve the abatement, I must say that I am rather more encouraged than disappointed. The risk will play itself out and what happens will happen. Mayor Greg Ballard will have to shoulder any shortfall for the CIB budget in 2011 and somehow explain to the taxpayers why we should bail them out yet again when Ballard himself saw no problem in undercutting their ability to raise revenue on their own hook.

Those Councillors who voted against the deal were Republicans Lutz and Hunter and Libertarian Coleman, who joined Democrats Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, B. Mahern, D. Mahern, Mansfield and Oliver. Those who voted for the deal were Democrats Nytes and Moriarty-Adams, who joined Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Plowman, Scales, Smith, and Speedy. Councillors absent were Sanders, Malone, Vaughn, and Minton-McNeill. Councillors who wish to cling to the idea that they were voting merely on a zoning matter, either authentically so or just for public cover, surely knew that killing the zoning would kill the deal.

The two Commissioners who voted against the deal were President Randy Snyder (Council appointee) and VP Jim Curtis (County Commissioners appointee). Voting for the deal were Mayoral appointees Diana Hamilton, Tom Morales, Dorothy Jones, and Lisa Kobe, Council appointees Tim Ping and Jason Gaines, and County Commissioner appointee Scott Keller. Commissioners who wish to cling to the idea that they were merely voting on an abatement, either authentically so or just for public consumption, surely knew that killing the abatement would kill the deal.

The reason I am more encouraged than discouraged is the effort Councillors Brian Mahern and Joanne Sanders put into trying to get a review of this bad deal before the Council. Mahern in particular did a yeoman's job of getting on top of this complex deal very fast. His summary of reasons to vote against it would have won the day, had party politics not been in play. Furthermore, I see real energy now to try to convince the State Legislature to give the Council the ability to review abatement decisions of the MDC, in the same manner they now review any zoning decisions of the MDC. We desperately need that legal capability for checks and balances on any Mayor of Indianapolis. And, we need for the public to be able to raise concerns that will be heard by an elected official. Right now we get little to no notice of pending abatements. Even the MDC got 48 hours notice of this one. We, the public, are denied documents simply to keep us in the dark as long as possible while the abatements are rammed through the MDC as fast as possible. In addition, there is energy to try to get State law changed so that these appraisals are not shielded from public review. I would further like to see energy behind changing State law so that future value cannot be used in appraisals, solidifying the protection of taxpayers from this scheme in the years to come.

So, a long, frenetic week capping a bad deal proposed by Mayor Ballard's office back in early June. Its good to be Tadd Miller. Its bad to be a taxpayer in Indianapolis.

What Would You Waste $290,000 On ? -- Part 6 of Series

There is only one way that the $290,000 budgeted to the Council for redistricting could be anything but a waste of taxpayer money, and that is if the Council leadership puts it in an interest bearing account and doesn't actually spend it.

Redistricting is called for whenever data from a new Census is available and the timing of that redistricting does not interfere with an ongoing election. The 2010 Census data will not be available until April, 2011, according to the Indianapolis Star. Filing to run for a Council seat ends in February, 2011; to file, one must prove residency within one's chosen district. The Primary and General election for Council will follow that same year. Clearly, the new Census data cannot be used to form new Council districts in time for the next Council election. We don't even have to consider the possibility of any court action to decide it cannot happen. Its as secure a conclusion as the fact that gravity will still take hold on the Earth come 2011.

The only other way the Council leadership can spend that money is to use Census estimates of population block by block. If they were to do so, the folks they hire might be happy about it, but few others would be. The districts likely would be challenged in Court - the same Courts that drew the current districts in 2003. And, the districts would have to be redrawn after the 2010 Census data was available anyway. Another conclusion as dependable as gravity : Redistricting before 2012 is just thowing money away.

It was stated during the budget hearings that the Council leadership wanted to budget the $290,000 for 2010 and an equal amount for 2011. Even pretending that redistricting is a good idea before 2011, one must ask why Todd Rokita, Secretary of State, can redistrict 9 Congressional districts, 50 State Senate districts, and 100 State House districts for the low low price of $50,000 - while the Council leadership can't redraw 22 districts for anything less than $580,000.

I will say it again - the pork tent is open.

Backroom Budgeteering for Telecom & Video Services Agency -- Part 5 of Series

The actions surrounding the budget for the Telecom & Video Services Agency (TVSA) are actually far more important than the budget numbers themselves.


TVSA is the agency that is responsible for the two government channels, educational TV, and auditing the Cable TV providers' numbers to be sure they actually send the full amount of franchise fees owed to the City. The franchise fees are at the core of the real issues surrounding TVSA's budget. For 2010 they are expecting these fees to bring $8.25M to the City-County coffers. Some think we should be getting tens of millions more.

TVSA's budget weighs in at only $472,373 for 2010; decreased by $154,000 from 2009, which results in cutting the executive director and his assistant's jobs. The explanation offered was that state law changed a few years ago, pulling much of the responsibility of Cable TV provider oversight to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, even though that organization has no real oversight duties assigned to it. In effect, the State Legislature replaced excellent local oversight with basically no State oversight of the Cable TV industry. Guess the lobbyists' stories were too compelling to ignore. But, the reduction in duties here in Indy's TVSA were what was said to result in the decision to cut the Executive Director position in 2010.

The alternate explanation is far more troubling and that is : Rick Maultra, the man who holds the soon to be cut Executive Director position, has been pushing for AT&T to fork over their share of cable franchise fees which he estimates could be in the $10s of millions of dollars at this point. Joe Loftus, who advises Mayor Ballard as his Counsel, is also a lobbyist for AT&T. Connecting the dots was going on for a full month with primarily Republican Councillors decrying the 'accusations going around' and the lone Libertarian and primarily Democrat Councillors decrying the role that politics was playing in the TVSA budget. None of them spoke directly on the matter while the cameras were rolling.

Paul Ogden has done a masterful job of laying it all out on his blog - see here and here. Let me just say that more important than the $154,000 cut from TVSA's budget is the question of whether Mayor Greg Ballard allowed anyone to work through his budget process to secure an advantage for a private company at the expense of the taxpayers of Indianapolis.

During the Administration & Finance Committee's review of the TVSA's budget, Joanne Sanders moved that the TVSA's budget be supplemented with an additional $154,000 to be taken from newly added money given to the City by the Water Company -- a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) amounting to $1,390,571 for 2009 amd $721,695 for 2010. The motion passed when Councillor Malone (R) joined Democrats Sanders, Nytes, and Batemen in voting aye. Nay votes came from Republicans Pfisterer, Vaughn, and Day.

At the full Council meeting, the TVSA budget was amended with a motion by Councillor Bob Lutz (R), to pull the $154,000 back out from the budget. It passed with a vote of 19-8. The 8 voting against the amendment were Cain (R), Coleman (L), Gray (D), Malone (R), Mansfield (D), Nytes (D), Oliver (D), and Sanders (D). Councillors Minton-McNeill and Smith were absent all night. The remainder of the Councillors voted in favor of the amendment -- thus removing Maultra from his job, letting AT&T provide cable TV without paying the fees other cable companies must pay, and letting additional right of way fees, perhaps amounting to tens of millions of dollars, to slide from Indy's grasp.

I think it important to reiterate the real problematic issue presented by the TVSA budget story. Did Mayor Greg Ballard allow his budget process and key Department heads to be used to secure a benefit for a private company to the detriment of the taxpayers of Indianapolis?

Health & Hospitals - 2nd Public Notice on the New Wishard Project

On Friday, September 25, the Health & Hospitals Corporation published two public notices in the Indianapolis Star. The first was required by law since they intend to issue bonds secured by property taxes. I mentioned that notice in my 'Um - What Happened to No Property Taxes for New Wishard Project' entry.

The second public notice may not be required by any law and may be H&H's attempt to link the price tag and the project description to the upcoming referendum. To say that the referendum question is poorly written is to be kind; rather it is decidedly propaganda without reference to any facts a discerning voter might want to consider, like price tag and project description.

I will cut and paste the 2nd notice below, so you can read it for yourself.

What I see is an English version of the shorter, first notice, with more detail that I hope the public does take the time to read. What I see as items of interest are briefly put:

1) new Wishard project is described as the acquisition of land, construction of and equipping of a medical complex (two or more buildings related to the dispensing of health care), construction of least one parking garage and/or parking lot, and construction of a power plant.

2) they will finance the project by entering into a lease with the Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority and BOTH entities will float bonds -- why is not explained. H&H will float General Obligation Bonds secured with property taxes. IMCBA will issue Revenue Bonds secured by the lease payments to be made by H&H. No indication is made as to why both bodies would issue bonds, or indeed, why the IMCBA need be involved at all in this project.

3) the total of all bonds issued by both bodies combined will not exceed $703,040,000 in principle, not exceed 30 years in payback time, not exceed 6.16% interest, and not exceed $830,478,858 in total interest paid over the 30 years. These numbers do not include the Build America Bonds issued by the federal government, estimated elsewhere to be about $120,000,000 in total interest to be paid by those bonds. So, the total payback could be as high as $1,653,518,858. These numbers also do not include any money, such as the $150,000,000 H&H has already saved in cash for this project. There is no indication in the notice of how much of the total bonds shall be issued by H&H and how much by IMCBA.

4) the maximum annual lease to be paid by H&H to IMCBA is $54,807,604 which is estimated would cause a maximum increase in property tax rates of $0.1494 per $100 of assessed value. Not mentioned is that this amount would be outside of the property tax caps now law in Indiana.

5) the current debt plus lease obligations currently held by H&H and repaid by property taxes is $41,730,000. The total of debt plus lease obligations currently held by all taxing units in Marion County combined and repaid by property taxes is $2,160,112,176, or 5.8878% of the total assessed value of Marion County.

Not said in the notice, but easily derived is that the new Wishard project would increase the total debt plus lease obligations currently held by all taxing units in Marion County combined and repaid by property taxes by a third.

6) the notice links the bonds to the approval of the referendum on November 3, 2009.

Following is the public notice itself.

THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA, TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND TO ENTER INTO A PROPOSED LEASE OR LEASES OF FACILITIES OPERATED OR TO BE OPERATED BY THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE WISHARD HOSPITAL PROJECT

Registered voters residing within Marion County, Indiana (the “County”), hereby are given notice that the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana (the “Health and Hospital Corporation”), preliminarily has determined, at its meeting held on September 22, 2009: (1) that a need exists for all or any portion of the construction and equipping of a replacement hospital and related facilities for Wishard Health Services currently located at 1001 West Tenth Street (the “Wishard Complex”), together with land acquisition and site development related thereto and all projects and activities related to any of the foregoing, including, but not limited to, all or any portion of the following: (a) acquisition of land and any improvements located thereon and any site development related thereto, (b) renovation and equipping of any such buildings, and the construction and equipping of one or more buildings which will replace the existing hospital and related facilities for the Wishard Complex and provide all or any portion of (i) inpatient services, (ii) diagnostic and treatment, (iii) clinical support, (iv) non-clinical support, (v) offices and education, and (vi) public and building functions, (c) construction and equipping of a new ambulatory care building, (d) construction and equipping of one or more related parking garages and/or surface lots, (e) construction and equipping of a central plant for all of the foregoing facilities, and (f) all projects related to any of the projects or facilities described in clauses (a) through and including (e) (clauses (a) through and including (f), collectively, the “Wishard Hospital project”); and (2) to the extent permitted by law to take all of the necessary steps to finance all or a portion of the costs of all, or as much as is possibly based on the facts and circumstances at the time, of the Wishard Hospital project by: (a) entering into a proposed lease or leases (collectively, the “Lease”) between the Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority (the “Building Authority”), as lessor, and the Health and Hospital Corporation, as lessee, relating to all or any portion of the Wishard Hospital project operated or to be operated by the Health and Hospital Corporation; and (b) issuing one or more series of general obligation bonds of the Health and Hospital Corporation (the “General Obligation Bonds”). The Building Authority will issue one or more series of revenue bonds, as lessor, secured by and payable from the lease payments under the Lease (the “Revenue Bonds”).

Each series of the General Obligation Bonds and the Revenue Bonds (collectively, the “Bonds”) will have a maximum term of 30 years. The Bonds will be issued in an original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $703,040,000, or such greater amount in the case of the issuance of any bonds, all or any portion of which will be used to refund all or any portion of the Bonds. The proposed term of any Lease entered into in connection with the Revenue Bonds will not exceed 30 years, beginning on the date each such Lease is executed by the Health and Hospital Corporation. Based on an estimated maximum interest rate that will be paid in connection with the Bonds of 6.16% per annum, the total interest cost associated therewith will not exceed $830,478,858 (which amount is net of any funds expected to be received by or on behalf of the Health and Hospital Corporation or the Building Authority from the United States of America as a result of any series of the Bonds being issued as Build America Bonds pursuant to Section 54AA of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), as Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds pursuant to Section 1400U-2 of the Code or as any other type of tax credit bond pursuant to the Code (collectively, the “Tax Credit Bonds”)), not taking into account any funds of the Health and Hospital Corporation or the Building Authority available for capitalized interest.

Including interest costs, the maximum annual lease rental to be paid by the Health and Hospital Corporation under the Lease is $54,807,604 (which amount is net of any funds expected to be received by or on behalf of the Building Authority from the United States of America as a result of any series of the Bonds being issued as Tax Credit Bonds), and the maximum total lease rental over the term of the Lease is $1,478,711,254 (which amount is net of any funds expected to be received by or on behalf of the Building Authority from the United States of America as a result of any series of the Bonds being issued as Tax Credit Bonds), not taking into account any proceeds of the Bonds deposited in a debt service reserve fund for the Bonds. The Health and Hospital Corporation’s: (i) total debt service fund tax levy for 2007 pay 2008 (which is the most recent certified tax levy) is $3,714,897; and (ii) debt service fund tax rate for 2007 pay 2008 (which is the most recent certified tax rate) is $0.0085 per $100 of assessed value. The estimated maximum increase in the debt service fund tax levy for the Health and Hospital Corporation and the estimated maximum increase in the debt service fund tax rate for the Health and Hospital Corporation after the issuance of the Bonds are anticipated to occur in 2036 pay 2037 and will be $54,807,604 and $0.1494 per $100 of assessed value, respectively, as a result of the payment of the debt service on the General Obligation Bonds and the lease rentals under the Lease.

The net assessed value of taxable property within the County, which is coterminous with the jurisdiction of the Health and Hospital Corporation, as shown by the last, complete and final assessment for state and County taxes (which is for 2008 pay 2009), is in the amount of $36,686,229,690 (the “Net Assessed Value”). The aggregate amount of the Health and Hospital Corporation’s debt service payments on bonds and lease rental payments under leases secured by ad valorem property taxes in 2009 is $4,314,980. Such amount divided by the Net Assessed Value is equal to 0.0118%. The projected maximum aggregate amount of the Health and Hospital Corporation’s debt service payments on bonds currently outstanding, together with the General Obligation Bonds, and lease rental payments under leases currently in effect, together with the Lease, which are secured by ad valorem property taxes, is $54,807,604. Such amount divided by the Net Assessed Value is equal to 0.1494%.

The sum of the Health and Hospital Corporation’s currently outstanding long-term debt, together with any bonds secured by leases entered into by the Health and Hospital Corporation and currently in effect, all of which are secured by ad valorem property taxes, is $41,730,000. The sum of the outstanding long-term debt of all other taxing units in the County, as of September 2, 2009, together with any bonds secured by leases entered into by all other taxing units in the County and in effect as of September 2, 2009, all of which are secured by ad valorem property taxes, is estimated to be $2,118,272,176. The aggregate of such amounts is $2,160,002,176. Such amount divided by the Net Assessed Value is equal to 5.8878%.

The proposed payment of debt service on the General Obligation Bonds or lease payments under the Lease must be approved at the special election to be held in the County on November 3, 2009, on the following public question:

“Shall the Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana, issue bonds or enter into a lease to finance safe, efficient and functional facilities for the Wishard Hospital project:
1.to allow Wishard to provide access to care for all residents of Marion County, including people who are seniors, poor, uninsured or vulnerable regardless of their ability to pay; and

2.to allow Wishard to provide specialized care, including to victims suffering from traumatic injuries or severe burns; and

3.to allow Wishard to work with colleges and universities, including Indiana University School of Medicine, Ivy Tech Community College, and the Purdue School of Pharmacy, to teach future doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals in Indiana?”

Dated this 25th day of September, 2009. THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY By: Dan Sellers, Treasurer (S - 9/25/09 - 5543537) - 09/25

Prop. 303 Gets Hearing Tonight

Tonight's meeting of the City-County Council's Rules and Public Policy Committee will hold a public hearing on Proposal 303. This Proposal, authored by Councillor Coleman, would require all City or County Government contracts be posted online within 7 days of being signed.

This is a breath of sunshine in public access. With technology today, it is entirely feasible and the access is in the best public interest.

The meeting begins at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building. The committee is Chaired by Councillor Lutz who can be reached at rlutz@indygov.org

Um - What Happened to No Property Taxes for New Wishard Project?

Matt Gutwein has been absolutely everywhere these days, selling the community on the "New Wishard Project" that is the subject of a public referendum on November 3rd. Mailings - glossy and not - as well as phone calls polling opinion. Who knows how much money H&H is spending on this blitz.

Since blogger Paul Ogden first broke the wimpy wording of the referendum question itself, others, including Advance Indiana's Gary Welsh, have questioned the use of property taxes to repay the bonds on the project. There remains the key, outstanding question, also, as to whether or not the referendum question legally binds the Health & Hospital Corporation (H&H) to any particular project for any particular sum of money. To me the wording can be boiled down to: "We do good works. Shall we continue?". When I brought that up at last Saturday's McANA meeting, Matt Gutwein said that the Board would be meeting on Tuesday (now two days ago) and the wording they adopt for the project's bonds would legally tie down the referendum question. I'll leave it to the legal scholars among us to decided if the two acts - board action on some bonds and a public referendum are legally linked in any way.

Over and over and over again Gutwein tells us how there will be no property taxes used to repay the bonds floated to pay for this project.

So, imagine my surprise when I saw the legal notice of the H&H Board's decision at it's Tuesday meeting to float bonds for the New Wishard Project. The notice is reprinted below, along with a link to the IndyStar's publication of same -- I don't know if the link will give tomorrow's public notice, so please use it today if you wish.

What I learned from the notice:
1) The bonds cannot be for any more than $703,040,000, and must be repaid within 30 years.
2) The Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority will actually float the bonds and lease the facilities back to H&H.
3) "All or any portion" of the bonds may be repaid from "property taxes collected by the Health and Hospital Corporation on all taxable property within the geographical boundaries of Marion County, Indiana".

I have changed the typeface to bold for the property tax statement within the public notice and put it in the paragraph form found in the print version of the Star.

http://www2.indystar.com/webcat/classified/classlist?category=Public+Notices&page=12

THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY DECISION BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA, TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND TO ENTER INTO A PROPOSED LEASE OR LEASES OF FACILITIES OPERATED OR TO BE OPERATED BY THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE WISHARD HOSPITAL PROJECT

Notice is hereby given that on September 22, 2009, the Board of Trustees of The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana (the “Health and Hospital Corporation”), did adopt a resolution making a preliminary decision: (1) that a need exists for all or any portion of the construction and equipping of a replacement hospital and related facilities for Wishard Health Services currently located at 1001 West Tenth Street (the “Wishard Complex”), together with land acquisition and site development related thereto and all projects and activities related to any of the foregoing, including, but not limited to, all or any portion of the following: (a) acquisition of land and any improvements located thereon and any site development related thereto, (b) renovation and equipping of any such buildings, and the construction and equipping of one or more buildings which will replace the existing hospital and related facilities for the Wishard Complex and provide all or any portion of (i) inpatient services, (ii) diagnostic and treatment, (iii) clinical support, (iv) non-clinical support, (v) offices and education, and (vi) public and building functions (c) construction and equipping of a new ambulatory care building, (d) construction and equipping of one or more related parking garages and/or surface lots, (e) construction and equipping of a central plant for all of the foregoing facilities, and (f) all projects related to any of the projects or facilities described in clauses (a) through and including (e) (clauses (a) through and including (f), collectively, the “Wishard Hospital project”); and (2) to the extent permitted by law, to take all of the necessary steps to finance all or a portion of the costs of all, or as much as is possibly based on the facts and circumstances at the time, of the Wishard Hospital project by: (a) entering into a proposed lease or leases (collectively, the “Lease”) between the Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority (the “Building Authority”), as lessor, and the Health and Hospital Corporation, as lessee, relating to all or any portion of the Wishard Hospital project operated or to be operated by the Health and Hospital Corporation; and (b) issuing one or more series of general obligation bonds of the Health and Hospital Corporation (the “General Obligation Bonds”). The Building Authority will issue one or more series of revenue bonds, as lessor, secured by and payable from the lease payments under the Lease (the “Revenue Bonds”).

All or any portion of the Health and Hospital Corporation’s payments of principal of and interest on the General Obligation Bonds and/or rental payments under the Lease may be payable from ad valorem property taxes collected by the Health and Hospital Corporation on all taxable property within the geographical boundaries of Marion County, Indiana. The proposed General Obligation Bonds and Revenue Bonds (collectively, the “Bonds”) shall be issued in an original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $703,040,000. The maximum term of each series of the Bonds will be 30 years, and the Bonds will bear interest at a rate or rates estimated not to exceed 6.16% per annum. Dated this 25th day of September, 2009.THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY By: Dan Sellers, Treasurer (S - 9/25/09, 10/2/09 - 5543528) - 09/25