COUNCILMEMBER	PRESENT	ABSENT
Councilmember Tornatta	X
Councilmember Sutton	X
Councilmember Abell	X
Councilmember Goebel	X
Councilmember Raben	X
Councilmember Wortman	X
President Winnecke	X

President Winnecke: Would you please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

President Winnecke: At this time I would entertain a motion to approve minutes from our March 2nd meeting.

President Winnecke: Okay, for our appropriations, I now turn the meeting over to our Finance Chair, Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you, Mr. President. Before we start, first, I’d like to call to everyone’s attention, we have something before us that we’ve not seen yet this year and that’s a financial sheet. And according to this, it looks like our unappropriated balance is just slightly over 2.5 million, so while that may sound like a lot, with what we have before us, we’re going to have to really keep tight reins on our appropriation requests. So with that being said, I don’t know if anyone has any questions that – I guess we could entertain those first. None? Alright.

Councilmember Raben: First on the agenda, under the Sheriff’s department, Mr. President, I’ll move that this request be approved as listed.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Chief Deputy Eric Williams from the Sheriff’s department.

Eric Williams: Just, more for Sandie, and I think we talked back and forth. Why don’t you go on and take that Insurance request off because there is some confusion. I don’t think that’s correct. You can go on and strip that one out.

Councilmember Raben: Okay. Thank you. I’d like to amend my motion to exclude account 1050-1920 Insurance for $40,000. So the total appropriation request will be $101,224.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Jail, we have Lodging of Inmates in the amount of $500,000 and account 1051-2242 Medical $50,000, for a total of $550,000. I move approval.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, Councilman Raben, this is a – I don’t want to cheat the Sheriff’s office, but that is a yearly, that’s a yearly estimate? Or are we –

Councilmember Tornatta: Alright, so we’re catching up at this time? Is that where you came up with your number?

Councilmember Raben: This is a large enough sum to get them caught up and take them on into the –

Councilmember Raben: – next several months. I did, in fact, speak with him prior to and he was comfortable with this at the time with the understanding that it will probably be back.

Councilmember Sutton: Jim, how much of that are we allocating for – I mean, was it all Lodging of Inmates on that request there? Was it just Lodging –

President Winnecke: The top line 1051-3051 Lodging of Inmates is 500,000 and the other line is 50,000. Other discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under County Assessor, 1090-1972 Level II Certification, the correct figure is $347, FICA 27, PERF 20, for a total appropriation of $394. I’ll move approval.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Center Township Assessor, 1110-1972 500, FICA in the amount of 39, PERF in the amount of 30, for a total of $569. I move approval.

Councilmember Abell: I have a question. Is this a requirement of the state that we have this Level? What do they get for this Level? Do they –

Councilmember Raben: There’s been a lot of discussion about that amongst this body in the past. The state doesn’t really require – I think it requires that every township office have one. Is that correct?

Councilmember Raben: And the officeholder. But what’s happened over the course of years is others have gone on to get their Level II and we’ve been paying it.

Marsha Abell: Well, I guess I have a problem with it. We don’t pay any other office to have college graduates but yet we’ll pay an extra 500 for a Level II that’s not required by the state. I just think that’s a little – we’re not being too consistent when we don’t give college graduates any more than we give anyone else.

Councilmember Raben: And I agree. Again, we’ve had this conversation many times that – in fact, I’ve argued on your side that in the past, that it only requires us to have the officeholder and one more. So again, that’s the motion. I guess we can fix that now if that’s –

President Winnecke: I do have a question. Should that not be prorated the same as the County Assessor’s or not?

Councilmember Raben: No. This one was approved in January as part of the salary ordinance.

Councilmember Tornatta: I think that, just to add, I’ve been on your side as well, Marsha. This is definitely – somebody has lobbied and has gotten this through the legislature and, I mean, that’s why we’re sitting on it like we are. If, I guess, more people could go and if they had a strong enough body, could go get a legislator to work to give them some type of bonus as well so if somebody ran through and got a college education, they could get that done. So although I agree with you and, you know, maybe its something we want to address in the future because we are doling out a lot of $500 raises, so to speak, for continuing education. But that’s maybe something we could work on.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, something to give some thought to, though, is if you only had one certified person in your office and that person were to leave, get sick, or what have you, you’ve got at least, with having another person, you’ve got a backup in that type of situation, so we’re not left in a situation where we’re not in compliance.

President Winnecke: Other questions or discussion? The motion is for $500, the total appropriation of $569 and a second. Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Next, Voter Registration, 1220-3520 Equipment Repair in the amount of $100. I’ll move approval.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Legal Aid, 1460-1910 PERF in the amount of $803, I’ll move approval.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next, Mr. President, is Cumulative Bridge 2030-4738, the Oak Hill Road culvert in the amount of $575,000. I’ll move approval.

President Winnecke: There’s a motion and a second. Are there questions or discussion? Mr. Tornatta?

John Stoll: Yes, we took a look at two different options as far as providing temporary access throughout the duration of construction. One would cost, construction wise, probably $190,000, and that would be the construction of a temporary runaround along the east side of the road. The other would be putting temporary traffic signals at the north and south ends of the project, which that would run about $100,000. That one could be done without acquiring any additional right-of-way, but it would still delay the project in the sense that we would have to have the consultant go back and redesign to include the signal and try and come up with a way to make sure that all the motorists, all the residents between the two ends of the traffic signal could get in and out of driveways safely. So there is still some problems with that, but the other option, as far as providing a temporary runaround along the entire east side of the project, that would put us into next year, easily, because that would take a major redesign and that would also take additional right-of-way acquisition. And the $100,000 figure and the $190,000 figure both exclude any design costs.

Councilmember Sutton: What do you do with that? I mean, if you were to look at that kind of a detour on the east side, once you completed the project and you’ve already acquired that as a part of your right-of-way, does it remain as right-of-way? What happens to that land?

John Stoll: We would set it up as temporary right-of-way and then on completion of the reconstruction of Oak Hill, that pavement would all be removed and then the property would revert back to the property owners.

Councilmember Sutton: The stoplight option, can you give a little bit more clarification? It wasn’t quite clear what you meant.

John Stoll: Basically, they could put a temporary traffic signal at the north end and the south end of the project and then just run traffic along one lane. In order to do that, the existing pavement width is about 20 feet, so we would have to widen the road by about four feet in order to get a concrete barrier wall in plus one lane of traffic, that way we could separate the construction work from the through traffic, but the traffic signals on either end would allow northbound and southbound traffic to use a single lane. It just would have to be timed to let all the traffic clear before it could let the other direction go. The problem with that is, with all the traffic coming in from the side on all the residential driveways, presents a problem.

Councilmember Tornatta: What I hate to see is, I hate to see that we call this project a $575,000 project because its really not. What needs to be added in is this extra cost whichever way we go. Its not an add on, its what has to happen for that artery. I’ve had numerous calls from people that live up and down Oak Hill Road, churches, pastors, people in the area, who are very concerned with, not only traffic flow, but the inability to use that half of Evansville, so to speak, because without going, and we’ve talked about this, without going way out of their way, we’re cutting off a main artery. Not to mention, if we did a count, we know that Oak Hill Road is over exposed to traffic so I really think that it would be my recommendation that we do one of two things: at this point, scrap the project until we get some other mode of doing business for this road or we go ahead and look at doing the setup so that we can have traffic going both ways and acquiring that additional right-of-way.

President Winnecke: John, specifically on, could you give us an idea of what each alternative would mean in terms of lengthening the project, length of time?

John Stoll: No, I didn’t have an opportunity to really come up with a good figure on that. It would slow down the construction but to what extent, I’m not really sure. And I didn’t really try to come up with a cost estimate as far as what the lack of efficiency for the contractor would add to the contract as well. The 100,000 and the 190 both were just hard construction costs, the detours, it wasn’t anything to reflect how the contractor’s productivity would go down by doing just part of the project at a time.

President Winnecke: But generally, is it fair to assume that the installation of the temporary lights would be less of a hurdle than the other in terms of additional time?

John Stoll: Yes. Its, like I said, its still going to present problems as far as trying to find ways for people to get in and out of their driveways. We couldn’t run the concrete barrier wall continuous along the whole project because we’ve got driveways coming in from both sides and trying to make sure that all the through traffic on Oak Hill was clear in order to allow the people to get out of their driveways would probably be a challenge. I’m not a traffic signal person, so I don’t know how they would get that timing taken care of. But as far as design time-wise, yes, it would be quicker than going back and designing an entirely new temporary street on the east side of the project.

Councilmember Goebel: I was wondering, John, do you know how many vehicles on an average day travels on that main artery?

Councilmember Goebel: And they would be totally shut down under the present proposal?

Councilmember Wortman: John, what does the Commissioners got to say on something like this?

John Stoll: I sent them an email and I have not spoken to them as of yet in regard to any specifics. I got an email back from one of the Commissioners who was reluctant to spend, this is a substantial portion of the project cost if we pursue one of these options, so based on the percentage of the overall project cost, one of the Commissioners was reluctant to pursue this option. But I did not hear back from the other two. And the one Commissioner I heard from was saying we could add additional signs, we could go to the neighborhood groups trying to outline exactly how the maintenance traffic plan would proceed and things like that, just trying to get the public as informed as possible. But as far as going ahead with the extra money, she was reluctant at this point.

John Stoll: Right, if they chose to do it, then I guess that’s the direction we go.

Councilmember Sutton: John, in our unappropriated balance for Cum Bridge, with our new financial statement, we’re showing 4.7 million dollars in that fund. Obviously, you’ve got some other projects on the drawing board, can you give us an idea how much we’re probably talking about in terms of expenditures out of that fund for this year and if we were to add additional costs, what effect that might have?

John Stoll: As far as any big dollar projects, there aren’t really any this year. The one that will basically wipe out everything we have in the bridge fund will be Green River Road. That’s going to get designed here soon. Phase I of Green River is being worked on but Phase II is not under design as of yet, but the DNR permits are being pursued and according to DNR, we’re going to have to put in a 600 foot bridge over Pigeon Creek and we’ll have to put in six 50-foot overflow bridges as well, in order to raise the road by the five or six feet that we’re looking at, at this point. So that project will pretty much wipe out that balance because I think we’d be very unlikely to be getting an 80/20 split with 80% coming from the Feds. Ideally, it would be just the local match of 20%, but in that case, I don’t think there’s going to be enough federal money available for this area as a whole to get the 80%. So if we’re lucky, we’ll get a 50/50 split and that project is estimated to cost, between Hirsch and Heckel, at around fifteen million.

Councilmember Sutton: Bill, how much does this fund accumulate per year on average?

Councilmember Tornatta: And then that Green River Road project, that will be totally closed to anybody.

John Stoll: And that plays into this Oak Hill project as well, because Green River is going to be raised substantially so we can’t really build it half at a time, which requires it to be closed. And obviously, we can’t have Oak Hill and Green River both closed at the same time. So the intent was to get the St. George and Oak Hill project done first and then follow that up with the Green River project late this year or sometime early next year.

Councilmember Tornatta: And the one problem, back to the Oak Hill Road project, is if you do a stoplight, then you’re back to pretty long, substantial lines that we’d be talking, waiting on a traffic light to change what, north/south?

John Stoll: Correct. And we would still not really be able to provide access to St. George. That would have to be cut off.

John Stoll: They would still have access through Hitch and Peters or other ways to get from Oak Hill over to St. George, but they wouldn’t actually be able to use the St. George and Oak Hill intersection.

Councilmember Tornatta: And then any type of emergency vehicles – first off, something would have to be done in my estimation with the volunteer fire department because McCutchanville services a lot of that area and they wouldn’t be able to get down St. George Road.

Councilmember Wortman: John, wouldn’t we have to consider the future of Eickhoff-Koressel, some culverts and bridges out there coming down the pike?

John Stoll: The future phases of that project, one does have a significant bridge. I believe that’s in the piece between Marx and New Harmony Road, if I remember correctly, so that would be two phases from now. It wouldn’t be the next phase. I’d have to check and be sure, but I believe that’s two phases from now, so it might be all the same. They’d have a chance to start generating some other revenues to cover that bridge since that would be several years away yet.

Councilmember Abell: How crucial is Oak Hill Road, and could you flip flop these and do Green River Road first, and then do Oak Hill next summer? Give us a little time to try to work something else out or is that not possible?

John Stoll: We already have all the right-of-way on St. George and Oak Hill and we don’t have any of the right-of-way on Green River as of yet, so St. George and Oak Hill is quite a bit further along than Green River at this stage.

President Winnecke: Okay, on the floor we have a motion and a second. Any other questions or discussion before we vote?

Councilmember Tornatta: Would the offerer of this appropriation move to set this aside 30 days?

Councilmember Raben: I’m fine with it. I guess I have to lean on John. Can the project wait 30 days?

John Stoll: It could, but one of the reasons why we’re trying to get the project finalized at this point was to get the – if the road is going to be closed, to get the majority of the closure done during the summer time which would help the school traffic. It doesn’t help the day to day motorists, but it would help the school bus traffic. So if we postpone it another month, then it could delay our potential start on the project even further and then the road closure might not occur during summer time when the schools are closed.

President Winnecke: I assume you would urge the delay so you would have 30 days to lobby the Commission to increase the amount of this expenditure to –

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, that’s one way of looking at it or they have the opportunity to not do the project. Mr. Raben, I know you weren’t here last week, but the one thing that has been established is, this would at least run into October and so we’re cruising a good three months into school season anyway and that’s kids at a school that will obviously, they’d have to have different routes to get to that school the quickest way. In my opinion, there wouldn’t be a very quick way to get to that school if there was an emergency and that’s just one school of thought, not to mention the busses and the kids that have to adapt to a different bus schedule and bus drivers and everything else. So that was just one.

Councilmember Sutton: As an alternative, would we consider just approving what we have here? If there are some other options it might cost some additional dollars, then we can always come back and appropriate more whether its from Cum Bridge or whether its from another source, but then it keeps the project on pace and at the same time we maybe eliminate some of the down time that might or the delays that we might or inconveniences you might have with the school corporation. I mean, is that something to consider?

John Stoll: Another thing we were looking at in regard to that was, I was going to get with the consultant and find out whether or not we can squeeze down the road closure times even further to try and minimize the entire road closure periods and that might require them working longer shifts or weekends or whatever, but at least that way we could try and squeeze that down as much as possible. And we would potentially see some increased costs associated with that but I was going to get with the consultant to try and figure out that.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, I think that road closed presents a big problem and I agree. I wouldn’t have a problem giving money if I knew that there was something on the horizon but I would never be in favor of A, closing this road totally down or B, putting it in the hands that it would continue. I mean, I would not support this if it would continue in this same pace, which would be shutting the road down or doing something that would cause a lot more traffic on that road.

Councilmember Raben: John, that – I’m glad you brought that point up because I was going to raise that question. In terms of working around the clock, you know, particularly when you’re talking about a major artery, you know, within the county, how much would that add to the overall cost of the project? I’m not so sure it adds more.

John Stoll: I’m not sure dollar-wise what it would add. The problem in this situation would be since its in a residential area, just the noise and the lights, things like that.

Councilmember Raben: I would say if you probably polled those residents and they were faced with not having that thoroughfare for an extra month or two months in lieu of maybe some – a little bit of noise at night, I think they would probably go for working around the clock to get the project done at a much faster time line.

John Stoll: Another issue, I haven’t dealt with it personally, but in talking to the contractors and some INDOT people, another issue can always end up being suppliers being available to get the project continuing around the clock. And here again, we haven’t really addressed that issue but you have to have the asphalt plants and concrete plants open during the time frames that the contractors need for the various supplies. So that potentially could be worked out but that’s just another aspect of the around the clock working that I’ve been told about that can interfere with that.

Councilmember Raben: Well, if you could possibly look into that, I know there’s other concerns that you’re going to work on addressing. Mr. President, I’m fine with amending my motion to defer this matter.

President Winnecke: Mr. Wortman, would you – you do not want to amend your – okay, then the original motion stands for $575,000 as presented. Roll call vote.

Councilmember Sutton: Marsha and I were kind of chatting here and she’s got some good suggestions I think maybe we can consider with this. I think Councilman Tornatta brings up some excellent concerns about this. I’m going to vote yes because I really want to see this project moving.

Councilmember Abell: I’m also going to vote yes but I would like to have a meeting in the Oak Hill area with the residents and also invite all the school people and lets find out what they would rather us do. You know, its easy for us to sit here and say lets shorten it up by working longer hours, but I used to work for Amax Coal Company that worked around the clock and I can tell you the thing that made the neighbors the maddest was us working all night long with lights and noise. So I think what we need to do is say to the citizens, this has to be done, would you rather us work around the clock and get out of your way, or would you rather us lengthen it out and find out what their comments are. I’ll vote yes for it but I’m also interested in adding more money to this to make an accommodation for the schools. Its just too much of a major for the way that it is.

Councilmember Goebel: I’m a bit confused as to what we’re really voting on now because if we’re voting for this amount of money, are we going to add monies to this later?

President Winnecke: The motion is to proceed with the original request and I would just offer as a caveat that, you know, you might overture the Commissioners for an additional amount. It seems like there might be enough support here for one of the two alternatives that you discussed. But to answer your question, the motion is for the original $575,000 as requested.

Councilmember Goebel: I know nothing probably is more bothersome to people when they’re driving than to have to make detours or actually get into a situation where you have to wait, and that seems like it happens quite a bit here. I think it’s a necessary evil but certainly I would hope that we could come up with the funding or a plan that we could extend at least the right for those people to drive in their own neighborhoods. I vote – I follow on the idea if we can get with the Commissioners and perhaps increase the money and at least allow access, so I vote yes.

Councilmember Raben: I, too, will vote yes. Marsha, I really appreciate the idea of actually taking it to the residents. I think that’s a refreshing way of really getting the right feel for what’s the right thing to do. I vote yes.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Reassessment/Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, we have a request for PERF in the amount of $18. I move approval.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Legal Aid/United Way, 4290-3130 for $1,000; 4290-3700 for $500; 4290-3990 Miscellaneous for $8,790; 4290-2600 Office Supplies for $750, for a total request of $11,040. I will move approval.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Voter Registration, we have a repeal. Account 1220-1180-1220 under Deputy in the amount of $21,327. Mr. President, I’d like to move approval and would like to encourage the Democrat County Chairman to follow suit when the opportunity arises, whether someone should leave or retire. This is certainly a department that has possibly room for cutting staff and it is somewhat seasonal. There are off years in elections and if need be, they can find temporary help for those busy periods, but again, would certainly encourage them to follow the same suit.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, and last, Mr. President, under Circuit Court Supplemental Adult Probation we have a transfer from Miscellaneous Equipment in the amount of $1,000 to Office Furniture, I’ll move approval.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Amendments to the Salary Ordinance, Mr. President, our Executive Assistant was so kind as to prepare this once again, typed out. I would simply move that this be made part of the minutes.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

President Winnecke: At this point we’ll consider a confirming resolution on the economic revitalization area for property at 530 and 600 Cross Pointe Boulevard and 7323 East Columbia Street. This is for the S Corporation. We’ve heard about this in previous meetings and we have previously passed this and this would be the final vote on this tax phase in request. Roll call vote please. Oh, I’m sorry, I would entertain a motion for the confirming resolution.

President Winnecke: Under new business, resolution denying COIT distribution to Solid Waste Districts in 2006. I would entertain a motion to that effect.

President Winnecke: In our packets is a copy of an interlocal agreement for the construction of the Lynch Road extension. I believe this is pretty self-explanatory but, Mr. Stoll, if you would come forward and just explain this in brief.

John Stoll: When the Lynch Road project was initiated, INDOT said that they’d basically just want to deal with one county. Since Warrick and Vanderburgh both are involved they didn’t want to have double billing with all the different invoices and they wanted one county to be the lead agency over the project. Vanderburgh County is basically the lead agency as a result of that agreement. And the agreement outlines the funding splits between Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties. And the bids were taken on the project already so the final percentage split between Vanderburgh and Warrick ends up being 63% for Vanderburgh and 37% for Warrick. The remainder of the agreement just outlines how change orders will be dealt with and utilities and things like that. But basically, its just to establish Vanderburgh County as the lead agency that deals with INDOT.

President Winnecke: Any questions for Mr. Stoll on this issue? If not, I would entertain a motion to pass this interlocal agreement.

President Winnecke: And a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

President Winnecke: Okay next, we’ll get back to our tax phase in. First we have the Bowen Engineering Corporation. Mr. Schaefer and I believe we have a new representative from Bowen here today.

Rob Schaefer: I already described the project last week so if you have any questions there is someone here from the company.

Tim Barnett: Yes, I’m Tim Barnett with Bowen Engineering. And likewise, I believe Mr. Clark was here representing us last week and covered much of our request with you.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President? What is the Department of Metropolitan Development’s recommendation?

Councilmember Tornatta: Real quickly, specify if you could, what your company does.

Tim Barnett: Yes, we’re a contractor. We build wastewater treatment plants, water treatment plants. In recent years we have expanded our market into private, industrial and power plant work. We located to Evansville from our headquarters in Indianapolis about six years ago. And during that time we have enjoyed steady and solid growth and obviously, continue to reside in Vanderburgh County and the Evansville area.

Councilmember Tornatta: And then how many like competitors do you have in the region?

Tim Barnett: In the immediate area, we have three or four competitors covering, you know, the different markets. I would say three or four solid competitors in the immediate area.

President Winnecke: If you could hold on, we’re going to change the audio tape and then we’ll continue.

Councilmember Raben: Again, I’m sorry, I was out on spring break last week so I was not present to hear. Probably some of these questions may seem redundant from last week but you’re pretty much an engineering and design firm, is that correct?

Tim Barnett: No sir. We’re a construction firm. We employ numerous engineers, mostly civil engineers and hence the engineering in our name. But we are primarily builders, we’re a construction company.

Councilmember Raben: What percentage of your local labor force or outside or subcontractor work is local people?

Tim Barnett: If we are working in the immediate area, our labor force comes from the immediate area. We’re a union contractor so we hire out of the local union halls for our labor. We have a very strong partnership with numerous subcontractors who reside right here in Evansville, a few in more outlying areas, but one thing we pride ourselves on is the spirit of cooperation and partnership that we have established with many subcontractors to us here in Evansville. As far as our engineering staff and our management staff goes, almost all of us – I’ll try to make sure that I’m telling the truth here – I think all of us are southern Indiana natives and now we have located into Vanderburgh County and Evansville now to work to grow this office and to raise our families.

President Winnecke: Just to clarify the employment picture, I can’t tell from my notes last week...how many people are employed now?

Tim Barnett: Currently, engineering and management, we have approximately 20. You can add another eight to ten field staff that we have in the positions of superintendents and foremen.

President Winnecke: And then this project would create an additional five full-time jobs, is that correct?

Tim Barnett: That is correct. As a matter of fact, I just came from a meeting with our CEO and president and vice-president, who runs our Evansville office, and we’re projecting solid growth over the next five to ten years that will require the addition of at least five in the immediate future and as many as 20 to 30 over the next ten years.

President Winnecke: Your company has identified the Daylight park industrial site, is it going to go there regardless of the vote on this abatement?

President Winnecke: Okay. Other questions or points of discussion? I would entertain a motion to pass the tax phase in at the six year level as recommended by the Department of Metropolitan Development. Hearing no motion, I’m sorry, but your abatement is not granted.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, we talked before and I kind of want to get this right out of the gate, the one thing we talked about was the salary level and I have had some comments about the salary level, but you kind of enlightened me on a few points and I think it would be very good to go through that.

Dan St. Germain: Let me go through that for you. I can only say this is how the other plant in Indiana works and similarly, this is how this is probably going to go off as well. We normally bring in our people at around 10.50 an hour, within two years they’ll be at 12.50 and then they go up from there. The plant that I’m at, which is approximately 281 hourly people, the lowest hourly rate there at that plant is $14.62, so in regards to, I think you was looking at the lower level and, of course, we’re going to have some maintenance people starting out at 16 and some engineering techs at 24. And of the 35, we were looking only at two from the outside, the other 33 would be within the area.

Councilmember Tornatta: And then, of course, when you listed this on the abatement and when this was on our sheets, we showed an average salary of, I think, 10.50 an hour which, obviously, that’s a little skewed and that is the lowest salary that would be –

Councilmember Tornatta: Exactly, and he is erring on a different side than we’ve seen so I appreciate you clarifying that, and that does bring light to that whole project. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Other questions for Mr. St. Germain? I would ask the same question I asked Mr. Barnett. Just to clarify the employment issue, the employment numbers, initially, it would be 35, is that correct?

Dan St. Germain: Right, we feel we have a good opportunity to expand the business at this location at least just looking down the road with relationship with Toyota to be able to increase those numbers.

Councilmember Tornatta: I’ve got one other question. If it did not work out with Toyota, what measures do you make, do you stay in the area or do you dissolve that building?

Dan St. Germain: This would be incremental business that we were talking about. We would still be there at least – we’re counting on ten years.

President Winnecke: And I would ask the same question I asked Mr. Barnett, too, if this body said no to this, would Tenneco still be looking to come to this area?

Dan St. Germain: It depends. Certainly, we may look at Gibson County, like all the other suppliers in the area that’s doing business with Toyota. We would certainly take a second look whether we would want to go ahead with it and then maybe not expand down the road or maybe we would even do less business there and push it back to our Smithville plant, which is the main plant that’s going to produce a lot of these parts that’s going to come here at this facility to put to them together. So yes, it does have a bearing on how we’re going to do business in Vanderburgh County.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I was simply going to move, I don’t believe we have a motion on the floor, do we?

Councilmember Wortman: Have you pursued any information from Gibson County at all? Pursued any tax abatement up there?

Dan St. Germain: No, I haven’t looked at abatements. We have looked at both counties. We felt comfortable that we would probably get an abatement here and proceeded on as such.

Councilmember Raben: Let me make this – well, I can make this statement before I make the motion. What I gather, and a few months back I actually spoke with someone from Gibson County in regards to abatements and its my understanding that Gibson County really is not entertaining any abatements. It would have to be something very large, much larger than this. It would have to be, you know, several hundred jobs on the line before they would even consider abatements today. And I think they’re waging their bet on their horse, which is Toyota, is going to bring them in anyway, which its working well for us, too. But, Mr. President, I’m going to move that we approve the resolution declaring tax abatement for Tenneco Automotive.

President Winnecke: Other questions or discussion? I’ll recognize someone from the audience and then we will call for the vote.

David Coker: My name is David Coker and I’m the president of the Vanderburgh County Taxpayer’s Association. And I know you’re probably tired of hearing from me but I have something here that I want to talk about with regard to this tax abatement and any future tax abatements. This morning I looked up on the internet, the current exchange rate of dollars to Euros. Two years ago, in June of 2002, I had the occasion to go to Italy and I had to buy a bunch of Euros before I went over there so I’d have money to spend when I got there. And at that time, the dollar/Euro exchange rate, I gave them a dollar and I got a dollar-nine Euros in return. Today, this very day, the dollar to Euro exchange rate was one dollar to .778 Euros. That means that the US currency has lost virtually 30% of its value versus the entire European common market. Similar loses have occurred regarding other currencies throughout the world and if this is the glide path that we’re on, and I don’t see anything changing the situation right away, these ten dollar an hour jobs two years from now aren’t going to be ten dollar an hour jobs anymore. They’re going to be devalued by an additional 30%. And everybody is talking about how Toyota is the goose that’s laying the golden egg around here right now. Well, as I recall, last week the stock market cratered on a Goldman Sachs recommendation that oil could reach a hundred and two dollars a barrel during the next calendar year. I submit that if that is, in fact, going to happen, that some of the products that Toyota is currently producing will not be sold because people simply won’t be able to afford to operate them, specifically the Tundras and the Sequoias, which get bad gas mileage compared to the fleet. And the other thing that – we had a board meeting last week of our members and this was one of the two things that we discussed at length, were our philosophical and ethical opposition to tax abatement, and what can be done about it. And I don’t know how to exactly address this but a couple of weeks ago I was down in Atlanta. I had the occasion to take some furniture down there for a family member and I was absolutely amazed at what I saw when I got down there. I saw gated communities where the houses start in the low 550's. I saw a Bentley dealership with Aston Martins on the parking lot, I saw Porsche SUV’s all over the place, BMW’s. And I was driving back to southern Indiana, I was wondering to myself, what is it that they are so much different than us that they can have all that wealth and all that affluence and all that buying power in the Atlanta area that we don’t have. And I wonder, is there something about our tax structure that’s retarding the level of economic development that we’re experiencing around here vis-a-vis other parts of the country. I have to sometimes wonder about our local economic development recruiting efforts. I don’t know, there’s so many different ways you approach this. Obviously, we’ve got amenities out the wazoo in this community. We’ve got two universities, we’ve got a vocational/technical center, we’ve got cultural amenities, we’ve got a philharmonic orchestra that holds an opera every year, we’ve got cultural amenities out the wazoo around here, and education. And yet, recruiting new jobs and new economic opportunities always seems to boil down to tax abatements and what kind of deal can we cut with these people. And I don’t know that that’s necessarily where we ought to be. You all know that in the past year, in the General Assembly, Luke Kenley, who is the Senator in charge of the finance committee in the Senate up there, has sent up a trial balloon, looking at income based taxes to provide whatever kind of property tax relief we’re eventually going to generate. And to be quite honest with you, when I look at the financial condition of our local school district and state government, I don’t see that we’re going to get any property tax relief in the near future. But where the thinking in the General Assembly seems to be is on the income side of the equation as opposed to property taxes, and that’s probably where it rightfully ought to be. And if that is the case, the ten dollar an hour jobs aren’t going to get it. These people that are going to take these jobs are not going to be property owners, they’re not going to be buying houses at that wage rate. If they were kicked up to 15 to 20 dollars an hour, perhaps they’d be able to afford property. But they’re not the kinds of jobs that we’re going to need to be developing in this community to be able to change the demographic numbers regarding the number of retirees versus the number of young people that are retained by this community, that are being graduated by our universities and all the rest of it. These numbers just don’t work for us right now and I can’t emphasize enough that we’re not, we’re philosophically opposed to tax abatements because we don’t think its right for one person to get a tax break in lieu of another small business person that doesn’t get the same kind of breaks simply because he doesn’t employ as many people. I would venture to say that there are small businessmen in this community that have payrolls upwards of 35 people, that get no tax relief. And we don’t hear from them. As I’ve said before, we don’t hear from them because its easier for them to write a check than it is for them to come down here and say anything. But they’re there. I hear from them occasionally and I would just hope that you would take these remarks under advisement as you make this decision, because it may not be such a great deal.

President Winnecke: Thank you, Mr. Coker. I would just offer one comment and then I’m sure Mr. Robinson would like to say something in retort. But I would just offer that I think the reason they come down to, a tax abatement is always at the issue is because the state of Indiana it seems has fewer economic development recruitment tools than other states. And its incumbent upon local communities to put its best deal forward before the state will come through and that’s why we’re at this juncture as we are frequently during the course of the year. Mr. Robinson, I’m sure, could address that in more detail. But thank you.

President Winnecke: Just one second. Let Mr. Robinson come up and then we’ll come back to you, please. I’ll get you next, Troy.

Ken Robinson: My name is Ken Robinson, Executive Director of Vision-e. I’m not an expert on the Euro but I am an expert on economic development, and this is a good deal. I have not run into a company that pays 62% fringe benefits in a long time. And if you really drill into the wages, they’re more than ten dollar an hour jobs. They’re good jobs, they support a major employer in this community and we have to really strive to pull these deals off because we are in a very, very competitive environment. I respect Mr. Coker and the comments because I think that we should debate public policy when it comes to economic development as well as anything else, but the reality and the facts are, we have a very good company before us that is really not asking for everything it could ask for. They’re asking for a fair deal and I think a ten year tax abatement for the kind of jobs they’re creating and the potential that they’re bringing to Vanderburgh County is going to send a clear signal to other companies and to other site location consultants that Vision-e has worked with over many years in an aggressive way to bring economic development opportunities to this community. And so I would strongly urge you to read the facts in the proposal and make your decision based on those facts. And I asked some other people to be here today to help us or to support this and I have Matt Meadors from the Evansville Chamber of Commerce. And in the audience as well is Connie Fowler, with the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, the old IDC. And one thing that’s really important that the state looks at is how strong is the local package, because we really need them to come in as well to be partners so that we can put a total package together for these for this company or any other company, so that we can win our share of the deals. So I really ask you for your help in sending that clear message to other companies and other consultants that Vanderburgh County is open for business. Thank you.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, one of the clarifications I think that needs to be made is this is a tax abatement on personal property and not on property taxes and although they had the option to take both, this was a concession that Tenneco made to do its best to be a – if we gave them a fair offer, they’re going to give us a fair offer as well. And it was for that, that I’m appreciative that at least they’re in the ball game and we’re playing. The other thing is, economic development has, since I’ve been on the Council has brought in over 40 million dollars worth of economic development and that’s a low number, that’s conservative. And to the tune of millions of dollars, and I believe its almost 40 million dollars annually, that we see in this area because of some of the tax abatements that we’ve given. There is a give and take but as we call it a phase in, that phase in starts in most instances in two years, we start seeing tax dollars roll into Vanderburgh County. So although you make a great point that Atlanta, New York, Chicago, L.A., they might be a destination place where people will want to gravitate. They have pro stadiums, they have other things that we don’t offer necessarily here in Vanderburgh County, so we have to go through other measures to acquire people to reside here and to work here and to think this is a great place. And one of the ways, if we can get one entity in, then maybe they invite somebody back in and then the domino effect starts and we start to see that we are that location that is built up to the point to where we want to be.

President Winnecke: Real quickly I’ll offer Mr. Meadors and Ms. Fowler a chance, if they’d like, to come forward. If not, we’ll go ahead and...

Councilmember Raben: Troy, I wish you would have not said that. We promised them that we had a pro stadium here. Is the deal still on?

Connie Fowler: Well, thank you for the opportunity. I never want to miss a chance to –

Connie Fowler: Yes, I’m sorry. I’m Connie Fowler, and I am director of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation Southwest Regional Office. And with that, we cover 16 counties here in southwest Indiana. And again, I never want to miss the opportunity to give support to a new corporate citizen. And Ken is absolutely correct, without our competitive package and working together with our partners, Vision-e, I don’t believe we would be able to recruit this strong company to southwest Indiana. They have other opportunities, they could have gone to northern Kentucky, they could have gone to Missouri, and we are absolutely in a very, very competitive global economy. So when we have a good corporate citizen that is taking a very, very strong look at taking an available industrial building – its my understanding this building has been on the market for at least three years. They are going to put considerable investment, several hundred thousand dollars into this building, they’re going to create new jobs, 35 at the start, and even though we’ve heard quite a bit about this ten dollar plus, by 2008 its going to be up to 14.50 an hour, 62% is really an unheard of fringe package. We were all just very, very impressed with that particular number. Our edge package is $300,000. It is a ten year tax credit. We do require the company to stay 20 years to get that ten year tax credit. We’re also supplying 24,500 of skills enhancement funds. Again, this is the type of company that we need to attract. Its advanced manufacturing, its robotics. And again, the other companies that

1050-1130-0068	Deputy Sheriff	23,854.00	23,854.00
1050-1130-0091	Deputy Sheriff	23,854.00	23,854.00
1050-1130-0104	Deputy Sheriff	23,854.00	23,854.00
1050-1130-0230	Court Screener	16,947.00	16,947.00
1050-1130-1900	FICA	6,772.00	6,772.00
1050-1910	PERF	933.00	933.00
1050-1911	Sheriff Retirement	5,010.00	5,010.00
1050-1920	Insurance	40,000.00	0.00
Total		141,224.00	101,224.00

1051-3051	Lodging of Inmates	700,000.00	500,000.00
1051-2242	Medical-Other Counties	50,000.00	50,000.00
Total		750,000.00	550,000.00

1090-1972	Level II Certification	500.00	347.00
1090-1900	FICA	39.00	27.00
1090-1910	PERF	29.00	20.00
Total		568.00	394.00

1110-1972	Level II Certification	500.00	500.00
1110-1900	FICA	39.00	39.00
1110-1910	PERF	30.00	30.00
Total		569.00	569.00

1220-3520	Equipment Repair	100.00	100.00
Total		100.00	100.00

2030-4738	Oak Hill Rd. Culvert #364	575,000.00	575,000.00
Total		575,000.00	575,000.00

4290-3130	Travel/Mileage	1,000.00	1,000.00
4290-3700	Dues & Subscriptions	500.00	500.00
4290-3990	Miscellaneous	8,790.00	8,790.00
4290-2600	Office Supplies	750.00	750.00
Total		11,040.00	11,040.00

1220-1180-1220	Deputy	21,327.00	21,327.00
Total		21,327.00	21,327.00

1460-1910	PERF	803.00	803.00
Total		803.00	803.00

2490-1091-1910	PERF	18.00	18.00
Total		18.00	18.00