^{Bruce Kunze is the Daviess County Commissioner, Central Division. He   retired from the Daviess County Public schools in June 2004 after twenty-eight years as a teacher and counselor.  Bruce attended the University of Kentucky where he received a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts Degrees in Education. He also received his counseling certification from Western Kentucky University. Bruce is currently a board member of the Neblett Center, the Goodfellow's Club, and the Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce.}

^{Bruce and his wife Susie live near Utica and have two children, Nathan and Erin.}

^{He can be reached at 270-685-8424 or 270-733-4175 or e-mail.}

^{_________________________________________________}

The following is the full text of the prepared statement Daviess County Commissioner Bruce Kunze read at Thursday's Fiscal Court meeting:

While it is apparent that the editorial board of the Messenger-Inquirer has supported the proposed Gateway Commons TIF from the outset, it is regrettable that their support has turned vindictive in light of Daviess Fiscal Court's unwillingness to publicly support this project. An important part of leadership and public discourse is the ability to remain civil in the face of controversy. It is disappointing that the M-I editorial board has forgotten that fact. I will make every effort to do so while being open and honest about my concerns for this project.

Fiscal Court expressed reservations from the beginning about the TIF proposal, a proposal that was initiated without any request for our input or support; a proposal that was accepted after a one-week window for developers to submit RFP's; a proposal that the city leadership knew would generate only one response, that of Gulfstream; a proposal that was accepted in part because there had been no downtown plan submitted to date.

In fact, the city/county appointed Downtown Development Corporation had already submitted a conceptual plan. Instead the explanation was offered that we couldn't decide what to do downtown, so the city government should proceed with the Gulfstream project. No serious efforts were initiated to analyze the feasibility of the downtown plan, much less to look at financing options, other than a cursory determination that a downtown TIF alone, could not pay for an arena and convention center.

In direct contrast to this approach, it is interesting to note the comparison to Bowling Green's TIF project, since the M-I is quick to compare us to Bowling Green. In that community, the city of Bowling Green and Warren County Fiscal Court worked together on their downtown TIF from the beginning. They determined what public projects were needed and developed a sound public/private partnership that included a multi-faceted financial plan for the proposal. The same could have been done here. Instead, a majority of the City Commission chose to move ahead quickly in approving the project. The developer was given free rein to dictate the public components of the project. Gulfstream made it clear that the project would not succeed without the exact components that they demanded. It is interesting to note that since that time the financial projections for the project call into question whether all components of the plan can be constructed.

We have also asked for information concerning the TIF. I attended two City Commission meetings concerning the TIF. The first was a meeting convened to allow Gulfstream to address questions from the City Commission. At the second meeting, I asked the city to consider what would happen if the project could not support all of the public components, stressed the importance of protecting the city's interest through a sound development agreement with Gulfstream, and offered the county's support in ensuring that the downtown not be ignored if this project moved forward.

Additionally, I met with Commissioner (Cathy) Armour, attorney Roger Peterson, city staff and other concerned citizens to ask questions and learn more about the specifics of the proposal including the TIF process and the financial requirements. I also questioned how the city would bear the operational costs of a convention center and arena. Interestingly enough, those efforts were met with resistance and condemnation by some members of the City Commission, who conveyed that this was their project and that we should basically stay out of it. My questions about what would happen if the revenue generated by the project could not sustain the financial obligations were answered by saying the city wouldn't approve a development agreement with Gulfstream if it was not in the best interest of the city. Unfortunately, the history of this project does not support that conclusion.

For the past two months, Fiscal Court has tried to maintain a hands-off approach and let the project proceed, and succeed or fail, on its own merits. It was not until the mayor approached Fiscal Court asking for our public support, and we were contacted by the Messenger-Inquirer, that the commissioners offered our positions and reasons supporting those positions. The mayor did not ask what it would take to get that support. I assure this community, that if I thought this was a good project, I would be looking for ways to ensure its success.

It has been stated that Fiscal Court support is not forthcoming because of an unwillingness to accept risk or because of "hurt feelings." I would define "risk" as what could be lost in the attempt to make this project succeed. The risk for Fiscal Court, should this project fail in some way certainly includes a loss of credibility for endorsing a project for which we have grave reservations. The risk also involves a perceived financial responsibility for operational expenses or debt service should the project become insolvent. Once we as a governmental body formally support this project, our responsibility begins, not ends. This in itself is not bad, except for the fact that we have not been able to help shape the project in any way or to build in any safeguards. Hurt feelings have nothing do with this issue. Due diligence does.

In the final analysis I suppose the only thing left to say is this. It is a project poorly conceived, poorly explained and poorly executed, especially in terms of garnering community support. In fact, so there is no confusion, remember that this project was not supported by two city commissioners and over 90 percent of the citizens that attended city commission meetings, as well as others with whom I have subsequently discussed this issue.

I will not offer my support simply because the M-I editorial board says we should "overcome a vague set of reservations for a project with tremendous potential."

I have no vague reservations, based on a failure to get my questions answered, when in fact they have been answered. But the answers we have received do not generate confidence in this project. It is unfortunate, and a bit disconcerting, that we are condemned by the M-I for exhibiting a perceived lack of leadership when in fact we are demonstrating reasoned resolve in opposing this questionable project.