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 will see this is an automotive Toyota supplier, the first one in Vanderburgh County, I think, will really take notice. It will help us to continue to sell, not only this county, but also southwest Indiana as a good place to live, work and do business. Thank you.

Matt Meadors: My name is Matt Meadors, I’m the president and CEO of the Metropolitan Evansville Chamber of Commerce, and not to belabor this issue, but there is one more important point that I think we need to point out and that is this advanced manufacturer is also a manufacturer that’s going to have very negligible or virtually no impact on our environment. And that’s a significant issue that I think the Council also has to take into consideration. Advanced manufacturer, world class manufacturer, desirable, high quality, high paying jobs, and a negligible impact on our environment. Thank you.

Councilmember Sutton: I was just going to make a just brief statement. I think any time we have a tax abatement request that comes before this Council we try to do our best to look through and see what the net gain, the benefit, what its going to mean to this area, and we don’t approve every tax abatement request that comes through here. And it’s a good thing because I don’t believe tax abatement should be given in every situation. I happen to think that this is an excellent opportunity here with Tenneco to show that we are truly a community that’s competitive, that we’re progressive and that its an industry that will enhance our community. And I think when we are thinking about companies like this and what they can potentially do, I’d like to see more suppliers for Toyota and others here in Vanderburgh County. We have not been fortunate up to this point until now, to get the suppliers that we probably thought we were going to get. But any time that we are thinking about tax phase ins, tax abatements, we have to realize that if we decide that we’re going to take ourselves out of the competitive environment, take ourselves out of the race and no longer offer tax abatement, that doesn’t mean other communities are going to stop doing that. And we essentially are in competition with other communities, other states, for companies like Tenneco. It would be nice if we could attract companies here without inducements, but that’s just not reality that we live in right now. And so recognizing where we are and what we have to do, I think we need to provide the types of incentives for the right companies when they come along. And Tenneco, I think, is one of those.

President Winnecke: Thank you, Mr. Sutton. We have a motion on the floor for a preliminary resolution to support Tenneco for a ten-year tax phase in by Mr. Raben and a second by Ms. Abell. Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Abell: I’m going to vote yes and I’d like to point out that employees that take jobs with Vanderburgh County start out making only $10.34 an hour, and our benefit package is very similar to Tenneco. I think it’s a great project. I vote yes.

President Winnecke: Very good. Its passes six to one and we’ll see you next month for the confirming resolution. Thank you for your time.

President Winnecke: At this point, I’d like to bring up the guidelines that Mr. Tornatta, just to stay with the theme of tax phase in, if you will, the guidelines that Mr. Tornatta presented to us last week. I’m assuming everyone has done their homework and read it page by page. Mr. Raben, do you have a –

President Winnecke: Any questions or comments regarding this? I have a couple and I have already expressed them to Councilman Tornatta but I want to give other folks a chance to get their thoughts on the floor. Mr. Geobel?

Councilmember Goebel: I commend Councilman Tornatta for making the proposal and I do think that there should be some guidelines in print for us to follow considering tax phase ins and I think its not just good for this body but for future bodies. I think the model certainly has merit.

Councilmember Raben: I’d simply like to echo Councilman Goebel’s comments that we do need guidelines for which we follow and this is a good start. I’d like to have a little more opportunity to review it but again, I appreciate the efforts and I think it definitely gets us started for sure.

President Winnecke: My comments really have, just to mirror what we talked about privately, really have to do, beginning on page seven, I’d like to see us kind of chat about the requirements of some of these issues. I think laying out the definition of what the common construction wage is and diversity and drug testing, I think laying out the legal definitions or a definition that everyone can agree upon is fine. I guess once you get beyond that, I’m not quite as comfortable laying out in writing how we want a company to get from point A to point B. We assume that they’re going to get to point B to offer all the benefits to their employees in the community that they outline before us, but I don’t know that its incumbent upon this body to oversee it at that level. And the other comment I would just make is I don’t think, although the discussion, and maybe if its not today, if you want to think about it some more, is the whole scoring process. The way that Councilman Tornatta has proposed, and he has indicated he is certainly willing to listen to other options. If you look at page one of the scoring sheet just on personal property as a matter of example, all that is very objective information, the amount of the investment, the number of employees, etcetera, so theoretically, the Department of Metropolitan Development would score that. If you look to the second page, questions five through ten, these are a little more subjective. Everyone is going to weigh these a little differently than another. One of the ideas that Councilman Tornatta has proposed is that DMD would also score this page but each of us would score it privately as well. If I start to misstate here, correct me. And then we would take, for instance, if I scored page two, we would take my score from page two and DMD’s page two score and get a real page two score, is that –

Councilmember Tornatta: Right. There’s two trains of thought here. One is, the entire Council, seven members would score this and there would be a mean and seven members. DMD would score it and then we’d have a mean of the two scores, because DMD has scored this solely the whole time. The other train of thought would be, it’d be like eight Councilmen, where the seven Councilmen would – Councilmembers, sorry – would score it. DMD would score it, we’d combine every score together to come up with one mean number. And then that number would be added to the first page for our total number. And the only reason I want to do this, and its merely to get everybody involved, so everybody has a say in the tax abatement. And the median score is strictly, because somebody might be real high on it, like judging in the Olympics, somebody is real high, somebody is real low. Essentially those would wash out and we’d get a truer score.

President Winnecke: Personally, I find that a little convoluted but, I mean, I do think it’s a starting point. But again, I’m open for more discussion. Councilman Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: I think that we’ve got an excellent start here with this, Councilman Tornatta, with the work you’ve done with DMD, I think, is a really good opportunity for us to take a look at this in an objective fashion to make a decision that’s really important for the future of this county. Maybe something we should consider doing, because this is, you know, very new to us, this whole approach, and perhaps maybe we can take some time and walk through this, you know, item by item or area by area and kind of discuss it because, you know, just kind of taking the whole thing, I don’t know if we give it the time that it needs so that we can go in if we need to make some adjustments to keep them just as they are, but also open it up for public comment. You know, since we just presented it last week, obviously, no one from the public has had an opportunity to view it or talk about it, but it would be a good opportunity for the public to see this and talk about it and get their feedback since, obviously we do get some response. There are some people interested in what we do when it comes to tax abatements.

President Winnecke: Good point. If you will hold that thought, we’re going to change the tape.

Councilmember Sutton: I’d like to see us maybe open this up and I’m thinking over the next maybe sixty days, maybe have two or three different meetings or sessions, maybe thirty minutes before our Council meetings and kind of open this up and kind of talk about it, and walk through, because there is an awful lot, an awful lot. And it would give us an opportunity to strike some things and add things as we see fit.

President Winnecke: Mr. Geobel, and then we’ll work our way back around this, come back to the front.

Councilmember Goebel: I think it would be interesting if this Council scored the abatement we just granted and turn that in along with the DMD scoring and see exactly how close we were with what we did grant today. That would be a starting point, too. At least we’d have a trial run.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, using the recommendation of Councilman Sutton in regards to the 60 day time line, I might recommend that you establish a committee, maybe you could have three volunteers that would work over the next thirty days to comprise their list or let them work from the start that Councilman Tornatta has provided and let them revise it and come back to us then in, let’s see, that would be our June 1st meeting.

Councilmember Abell: I wouldn’t want to speak for Mr. Goebel but I’m brand new on here and I’d like to hear the discussion because I’d like to hear what those of you who’ve been on here for several years say so that I can get a better perspective as to – I mean, this, of course, looks good to me because I haven’t seen anything else. But it would be nice from a beginner’s standpoint to sit here and just listen to you senior members give us some of your comments.

Councilmember Tornatta: I think that, I have no problem and I’m not in any hurry to push any resolution through the Council and that’s by no means why I wanted to vote on this today, but I think this is something that we clearly need to act on expeditiously and not put it – Councilman Sutton, I think sixty days might be a little bit long for what we’re doing but I believe that, you know, I would be okay with giving it thirty days. I’d be okay with meeting with anybody who wanted to address any issues and it might be better if there were me and another senior member of the Council so you get two versions of the story, but I think that would be a great idea. But I’d like to see this acted on next month or at least have something well on its way to being acted on.

President Winnecke: I think at this point, if its alright with everyone, I would appoint Councilman Tornatta, myself and Councilwoman Abell to serve on a committee. Maybe the three of us can meet privately over this and then at our next meeting have a, maybe have a special meeting as Councilman Sutton suggested, to get some public input. I’m sure Mr. Coker and his group might have some comments. They should get a copy of the document and we should – let’s see what happens after that meeting, maybe we pass it at the following month or the following meeting. But maybe that’s the route to go.

Councilmember Sutton: Can we put a copy of this on our website so the public can have an opportunity to view this, too, while we’re looking at it?

President Winnecke: I believe we can, yes. I was waiting for Mr. Schaefer to – Mr. Schaefer, did you have anything to add to this discussion?

Councilmember Tornatta: I was just going to say, he might not like this too much, but Rob Schaefer is at the economic development office in the Department of Metro Development –

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, 436-7823 for anybody who’s interested in – and could this be put on the internet, because I know you don’t want to make copies of this for everybody that’s coming through.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, there we go. 436-7823, if you call that number, leave your name and an email address. This document can be emailed to you or if there is a better way, any paper expense, obviously, will be charged to the person that wants the document, but any electronic services should be free of charge. So Rob Schaefer will be happy to take care of you on that note.

President Winnecke: Stand by, I’m checking a date here When is our next meeting?.

President Winnecke: Okay, what I’d like to do then is reaffirm the committee of Councilman Tornatta, Councilwoman Abell and myself to meet prior to our Personnel & Finance committee meeting which is April 27th. I would like to call a special meeting at 2:45 that afternoon to have a discussion, public meeting, on the proposal whatever form it takes after our discussion, realizing that it may take another look after that.

President Winnecke: Yes, so is that clear? April 27th 2:45 in the afternoon for a special meeting.

President Winnecke: Okay, thank you. At this point I would like to announce a new appointment to the Burdette Park Advisory Board. Gene Koch is replacing Bob Swallows as the County Council appointment. And Mrs. Deig, if you will get a letter out to Mr. Koch notifying him of his appointment by me, that would be appreciated.

President Winnecke: And we need to advertise – permission to advertise the Homestead Tax, Teri.

President Winnecke: That’s the last piece of business I have but I believe there is another piece of business that someone on the Council would like to bring before this body. Ms. Abell?

Councilmember Abell: I have distributed to the Councilmembers a memorandum dated today that I typed up regarding a conversation that I had on April 4th, and there’s no reason for me to sit here and read this to you. I’ve made copies available for the media. Basically, I was quite concerned after last month’s, last week’s meeting about the LST project and the proposal of a boat dock being built in Vanderburgh County, that the three people that spoke never gave us a copy of the report from the Army Corps of Engineers that apparently said that we could only build this boat dock at Marina Pointe. With that thought in mind, I called Congressman John Hochstettler and asked him if he would please put me in contact with somebody from the Army Corps of Engineers and he did, in fact, do that and I spoke on Monday morning at some length – approximately 45 minutes, to be exact – with a Mr. Doug Shelton of the Army Corps of Engineers. And in my memorandum you can see that I’ve given you his phone number, he is in Louisville, Kentucky. I explained to Mr. Shelton what had been said to this body that caused us to or caused the rest of you to vote in favor of the dock, and as you will recall, I voted against it. Mr. Shelton advised me that that was not how this occurred. He said that when the dock needed to be built for a temporary mooring in 2003, that was a short term thing and they had to put it somewhere without much cost and it was put there down by Marina Pointe, which all of you are aware, at least I’m aware, I went there and saw that particular vessel. And for those of you who may think I’m against the LST, I was going to bring the picture of my father in World War II in his Navy uniform when he was stationed in the South Pacific. So I’m not against the LST nor the project. I am, however, concerned that we were told that there was no place where this could be except Marina Pointe when, in fact, that is an untrue statement. Mr. Shelton told me that many times they are called in – they being the Army Corps of Engineers, to do something they call “site the project,” which means they take a look at the entire area which would be involved and they make recommendations as to where would be a good place for this type facility, and where would be a good place if you had plenty of money. I mean, if you’ve got enough money, you can do just about anything you want to do. Mr. Shelton had told me that they were not asked to site the project, they were asked – not actually even asked, he said the statement was made to him, well, we suppose that putting it right downtown, and his comments to me indicated that he meant Dress Plaza, because we talked about how then that would take Dress Plaza away from the general public, so I know we were both thinking of the same area, would be impossible. And he said that would be nearly impossible due to river traffic. And then they said to him well, then the only other place we have available is Marina Pointe. From that time on, no other location was ever mentioned to him at all. I mentioned to him an area where Pigeon Creek opens up into the Ohio River and he said not only was that never mentioned, but he said, I think that would be a really good location, just, I haven’t been there in a year – which was another thing I found very interesting, that we’re looking at a 1.2 million dollar project and no one has been here in a year to look at it. I haven’t been there in a year but he said I think that that’s – you’ve got barges that come in there now. That’s a good place for river traffic that’s big enough and he said that sounds like an area we could certainly consider. One of the problems, of course, is that they’re looking at a time frame of 120 days. He said to me, I wouldn’t be too worried about the 120 days. The application is not complete. I have written the mayor a letter and told him the application was incomplete and we needed much more information. As of today, which was April 4th, he had not received a response from the mayor and he said it takes them approximately 120 days once they get accurate application and they did not have that by then, I can figure up 120 days, and I know that’s going to be well past July. We’re not going to be able to meet the July deadline that the LST committee wants for putting this dock in anyway. I think, to continue to spend money that I have certainly gotten many calls about because I have been so vocal about this, that the people don’t want. In fact, I had an opportunity Friday evening to be at a gathering of some people in town, whose names you would recognize, who said to me they were quite appalled that the issue came up and was voted on before they even had an opportunity to call any of us. They were surprised that we voted on this last week. They thought that we would vote on it this week and it would give them an opportunity to call us and tell us how they feel about it. At this point, I don’t know, I’d have to ask Mr. Ahlers what he thinks, but I would certainly like to ask the Convention & Visitors Bureau to hold off making any payments on this thing and let us take another look at this. I think we should call Mr. Shelton as a group and ask him to come to Evansville, and meet with us, and let us talk to him. If someone can convince me that there is no other place this thing can be and that Marina Pointe is a wonderful project for the citizens of Vanderburgh County, I will not only vote for it, but I would make a motion to approve it. But I have not yet been convinced of that nor am I even halfway convinced that this entire project was properly presented to this group. I think we voted on incorrect information and I will say that I do have one statement in here that I do want to read. This is a good project and deserves all consideration, but it has been handled so poorly that the people we represent are not supportive. I think everyone would be comfortable if this issue was discussed in an open forum where questions were answered honestly and other sites were at least discussed. The sentence right before that: When a project cannot stand on its own merits, and the only way to gain approval is by deceit and threats, then government is no longer an honest and fair government working for the people.

Councilmember Raben: I guess, again, this is going to be the last time I apologize for being off on spring break last week, but I did have the opportunity the week prior or maybe even longer than the week prior to this meeting, to address this with several Councilmembers. And I, at certain points, had pleaded to delay any action last week just pending the lack of information. You know, basically, until Wednesday, were knew what the LST was and we heard cost figures thrown around but there still are a lot of unanswered questions. And to my knowledge, and consequently, I did prepare a letter which I had asked to be read last week but it was forgotten. But along with that letter, I’m not going to read it because its all past tense today, but along with that were several questions which should be considered before funding that project. One was, and I still don’t know that its been answered today. The ones that I think were maybe, maybe they were skirted around or danced around last week – I’m not going to bring those up, but who is responsible for maintenance and upkeep on the dock? Will this require any additional county employees? I don’t know that that’s been answered. Whose insurance is responsible in the event of someone getting hurt while on the docking facility? Is that the county’s insurance? Is that the city’s insurance? Has this even been addressed with our insurance carriers? Because it is on the river. I mean, the likelihood of something happening at some point is, I’m sure, great. What are the projected revenues? I saw in the presentation, they discuss – they go into depth on the temporary stay that it had here in regards to the 30 plus thousand people attending but – and the income based on that high number in that short period, but what are the real projected revenues over the next ten years? And what is the – is there still consideration for dry docking it at some point maybe five years down the line, ten years down the road? If so, what is that cost? Surely there is a cost estimate out there that we need to hear. Are we going to be expected to pick up that? And really important, has any local of private organizations offered to house this? Have they offered to work with the city in regards of housing? And then another thing is, will there be a fee charged to visit the boat? If so, is that fee, are those fees going to be receipted into the county general fund or the city’s? Or does it go back to the LST committee? None of this has been answered. And, you know, what’s really important is this, you know, this Convention & Visitors Bureau Innkeeper’s money has funded a lot of great projects, I’ll cite a few: some of them are maybe put on hold or they figured out another way of funding, but just an example, the Reitz Home, Goebel Soccer Field, the African-American Museum, the renovations to the Pagoda, the 4-H Center and all the asphalt work that we spent with that fund and numerous, countless other activities and fund raising events. And we’re closing the door on those for the next ten years. So you know, again, I think before we commit to this project anymore than we already have, we need to be darn sure that we’re doing it for the best interest of this county. And if there is a possibility that there is a better site, if there is a better site that’s accessible from downtown and visible from downtown, this project deserves that opportunity.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, I guess the questions I – Jim, you weren’t able to be here last week and there was a lot of information that was presented and I guess, Councilman Raben and Abell, I guess you guys have a lot of questions. I guess I wonder what you guys want to do next. I mean, we’ve already taken a vote on it and are you intending to meet with the mayor of his staff, further discussions with other parties like the LST committee to further your discussions relative to site and some of these other concerns? I mean, this body is obviously the one that heard the discussion last week and we took a vote. But the ones who are working actively on this project, what’s your next step?

Councilmember Raben: I would suggest – I mean, there’s actually two things we can do. One, we can move to rescind the original vote and maybe make a new motion with the caveat that we fund the 1.2 million dollars contingent upon other site review. And along with that, I would also recommend that its contingent upon passage of our one cent extension or our additional one cent extension for The Centre. I understand its on the agenda today –

Councilmember Raben: It did pass today. Okay, well then that’s – but okay, so the motion would simply say that we move to rescind the old motion with a new motion that will simply have the caveat that contingent upon reviewing other sites. Or we could simply overture the Convention & Visitors Bureau, which is probably the most graceful way of doing it, simply asking them not to spend any funds towards this project until the Corps of Engineers has had an opportunity to get into Evansville and review other sites.

Councilmember Sutton: My question, though, Councilman Raben, was you’ve had some questions about the project, some concerns, are you going to take those questions to those individuals who could answer that or even the issues that Councilman Abell brought up. I mean, are you going to follow up on those? I mean, I understand what you’re saying here but my question is, you know, how do you follow up personally on the questions that you have to get the answers that you’re seeking?

Councilmember Raben: Again, I had hoped most of those answers would have – I wouldn’t have questions – I would have already received answers last Wednesday for most of those questions. But again, what I would like to see done is simply, again, overturing – I think its very simple to do to overture the Convention & Visitors Bureau not to spend from the funds that we’ve already granted for them to spend, to please not spend from those funds until the Corps of Engineers can address the many questions as to whether or not there are other sites available. That’s not asking for too much and that’s, again, –

President Winnecke: I would just offer one thing, I saw this for the first time at 3:10 this afternoon and I am not comfortable rescinding a vote and I don’t mean to question the integrity of the information that was provided, but I think it is – I think the prudent thing to do is digest this. I would think we should – I would ask Mrs. Deig to send a copy of this to the Convention & Visitors Bureau and ask for their response to this information at our next meeting. In my opinion, we took a vote last week that authorized the Convention & Visitors Bureau to spend up to 1.2 million dollars on that project and I think that’s what we need to do. We need to ask the CVB, the CVB came to this body seeking approval for those expenditures and I think we need to respond to them or give them the information that Mrs. Abell has provided us this afternoon. At this point, I know there’s at least one person, Mr. Davis and then Mr. Coker. Reverse alphabetical order there.

Steve Davis: Hi, my name is Steve Davis. I was here last week. Jim, you were in Florida. I hope you had a good trip. Last week I asked them to postpone this vote and I had the same questions and I spoke with Mr. Winnecke before the vote, before the meeting ever started and I told him there was other questions that I had, however, I wanted to test his integrity to see if he would push the vote through and he did. And there’s more questions to this that I will email you. I’m not going to get involved with it right here because I’ve not got any answers and I’ve been corresponding with numerous people and I really think that everybody up here jumped the gun and I feel bad for that because there’s not a brain drain in this community. This community loses its young people not because tax payments or jobs or this and that and the other, because like myself, who has a college degree and I have a magna cum laude high school girl at Reitz, and I have two kids on the honor roll in public schools, I’m ready to leave this county because of this right here. I came last week with these same issues and the vote happened before all the facts were on the table and it was wrong and I would love to see you guys rescind the vote, however, its not going to happen just like I knew the vote was going to happen last week. It’s a shame. You’re showing poor leadership. You’re teaching kids to make decisions on things without all the facts and its shame and it’s a disgrace and its dishonorable to our country, to our county and to myself. And I really hope that when I walk away from this podium, you guys do the right thing and talk about this and take the politics out and put the taxpayers first. Thank you very much.

David Coker: Oh, my name is David Coker, I’m president of the Vanderburgh County Taxpayers Association. A few years ago I remember participating in a meeting that took place at the old Vanderburgh Auditorium to discuss the new Vanderburgh Auditorium. And at that meeting convened were all the members of the County Commission, all the members of the County Council, all the members of the City Council, the Mayor’s office, and members of the general public that were interested in what was about to take place in the creation of the new Vanderburgh Auditorium that we have here. Before, as this gentleman said, before we go any further with this I think there needs to be a community meeting of all the elected officials that are involved in this. And by the way, as I understand it, this piece of property that the dock has been approved to be built adjacent to is the number one piece of property to be annexed into the city. Am I not correct, that its on the list of properties that are about to be annexed into the city?

David Coker: Well, I’ve heard that it is. And it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if it is. The public has a dog in this hunt. If that becomes the permanent site, we’re going to be looking at some more infrastructure costs. Waterworks Road where it goes across the levee right there is under water a lot. And you’re going to have to build a causeway there and that’s going to cost some bucks.

David Coker: Okay, its under water right now. I haven’t been down there for a while, but its –

David Coker: Yeah, and it happens frequently and so you’re going to have to build a causeway to make that thing accessible year round if that becomes the permanent docking site because of the elevation down there –

Councilmember Tornatta: Why do we need it year round? Why are we building another road? Why would we worry about building that road?

David Coker: Well, is the LST going to be accessible to the public 24/7 365 days a year or not?

Councilmember Tornatta: Is Veterans Memorial Parkway going to be closed? Did we decide that we couldn’t use alternative routes? Are we trying to – would I rather see people go downtown and then go to the LST, funneling them through the downtown area? To me, that’s a perfect setup and there are no issues with that road that at this time, talking to the County Engineer, that make that road – I mean, you could always make it, build it up. I don’t see us building that road up. I don’t see us doing anything to that road because that is an access road. You can get to other places through other ways.

David Coker: Then the boat is probably going to be inaccessible for several months out of the year in some years.

David Coker: I’m talking about Waterworks Road where it goes across the levee, right there by the entrance to Inland Marina.

Councilmember Raben: As soon as you go across the levee, that’s where the gates are at.

Councilmember Raben: Sure, the water closes – as soon as you cross the levee, before you get –

Councilmember Tornatta: Right, they’ve got access. They will have access to that higher road. That’s not an issue and –

David Coker: From the bridge maybe but not from Casino Aztar if you’re staying at the hotel.

Councilmember Tornatta: I’m not going to mention names of the people they would gain access to that road from, but that’s already been discussed. So the getting to the LST boat will not be an issue unless you have a catastrophic flood by which the downtown would be exposed.

Councilmember Raben: No, what Troy is saying is, I guess they’re negotiating something with the Marina? With Lloyd’s Marina to probably buy land or something or road through there?

Councilmember Raben: So they’re going to drive through the parking lot and access it through there?

Councilmember Tornatta: So, I mean, I understand and keep going. I just wanted to know –

David Coker: The point is that let’s have a general meeting of this entire community and all the elected officials involved and bring the Army Corps of Engineers in here, too, to discuss this publically, at a public meeting because there’s going to be a lot of money on the line before this thing is over with. My father was a World War II veteran. I want to see a nice facility built here eventually. I want it to be located in the right place. Maybe this is not the right place for it. I don’t know the answers to all these questions but the point is, the public has a stake in openly and publically discussing this issue at a meeting that engages all of the various parties on an equal playing field.

President Winnecke: Thank you. Mrs. Deig, if you will send a copy of this memo that Mrs. Abell has prepared to Marilee Fowler, the Convention & Visitors Bureau, and invite her to our next meeting to discuss this issue and I would encourage anyone with other issues or questions to direct them to the appropriate people.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, is there not merit to asking them to simply not spend any money from this fund until the issue with other site reviews along with some of the questions that I’ve presented and that many others have?

President Winnecke: I don’t know that they’re going to have the opportunity in the time frame between now and then.

Councilmember Raben: But again, don’t you think that we need the security of asking them, simply asking them not to spend from that account, to spend from that fund until we have some answers?

Councilmember Raben: That’s what I’m saying. I would simply like to overture them to ask them not to appropriate funds towards this project until we get answers.

Councilmember Tornatta: I would say through the – would it not be done through the Commissioners?

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, I don’t see that, after the vote, I don’t think we have say in that body either.

Councilmember Raben: No, we don’t but again, politely, we can ask them to please don’t spend from that fund until we get more information. And particularly allow the Corps of Engineers the opportunity to answer.

President Winnecke: I think the appropriate thing is for Ms. Fowler to come before this body at our next meeting.

President Winnecke: One last piece of business I did overlook. Last week we discussed briefly an ordinance concerning the Central Dispatch board. You’ll remember that this is the resolution that allows, I am your representative or this body’s representative to that board. If I am unable to attend a meeting, to appoint a person to go in my stead. Other members of the City Council have this, the Mayor and the County Commissioners do, so I would entertain a motion to pass that ordinance.

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

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 5:19 p.m.)

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