President Wortman: The Vanderburgh County Council is now in session here this August the 4th at a few minutes past 3:30. So I'll open the meeting and we'll have the secretary call the roll please.

(Attendance called by Teri Lukeman)
 

President Wortman: If we all would stand and pledge allegiance to the flag please.

(Pledge of Allegiance was given)
 

President Wortman: Number four on our agenda is approval of the minutes from July 7, 1999 Council minutes. Would I have a motion from the --

Councilmember Lloyd: Motion to approve.

Councilmember Raben: Second.

President Wortman: Motion Mr. Lloyd and then Mr. Raben second. Any discussion on that? No discussion? Raise your right hand, all in favor. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Smith: Are you going to have the Sheriff to open the meeting or did you forget?

President Wortman: Yeah, it wouldn't hurt.

(Meeting was opened by Sheriff Brad Ellsworth)

President Wortman: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Betty.
 

President Wortman: Okay, now we'll go in to number five, the Appropriation Ordinance and the first on the agenda is the County Treasurer.

A) TREASURER

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of in the amount of $5,000.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion? No discussion, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

TREASURER REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

B) RECORDER

President Wortman: Next on the agenda, Mr. Raben, Recorder.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of the Recorder 1040-1160-1040, 1040-1170-1040, 1040-1990, 1040-1900, and 1040-1910 in the amount of $3,868.

Councilmember Hoy: Second.

President Wortman: Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? No discussion? Call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

RECORDER REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

C) JAIL

President Wortman: Go to the next, Mr. Raben, the Jail.

Councilmember Raben: I move approval of 1051-2200 in the amount of $30,000.

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion? Call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes. 

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

JAIL REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

D) PROSECUTOR

President Wortman: Now we go to Prosecutor, Return of Fugitive.

Councilmember Raben: I move approval in the amount of $10,000.

President Wortman: Do I have a second?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Second, Mrs. Smith. Any discussion? Call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

PROSECUTOR REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

E) COUNTY ASSESSOR

President Wortman: Next is County Assessor.

Councilmember Raben: I move approval of 1090-2600 and 1090-3310 in the amount of $2,500.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion? Call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

COUNTY ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

F) AREA PLAN COMMISSION

President Wortman: Next is Area Plan, Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval in the amount of $20,000.

President Wortman: Got a second?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Mrs. Smith seconded. Any discussion? I might add, while we are going through this fast, we had a little preliminary last week and that's why we kind of rehearsed this here. So you might say, well how come were going and not studying it. But we did study it, hopefully. Okay, now we'll have a vote. Call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

AREA PLAN COMMISSION REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

G) COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

President Wortman: Next is County Commissioners.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 1300-3210 Emergency Management in the amount of $16,721.

President Wortman: Do I have a second?

Councilmember Hoy: Second.

President Wortman: Got a second, Mr. Hoy. Any discussion? No discussion, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: This project is very important, he's been working on this for quite some time and it's good to see that we're finally getting this vehicle. It's very important for the safety of our community. Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: I second Councilman Sutton's speech and vote yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

H) CIRCUIT COURT

President Wortman: Next is the Circuit Court. Now that one item there is 1971 Termination Pay, will be set in at zero, Mr. Chairman. I spoke with them on that.

Councilmember Raben: Okay. Mr. President, I will make a motion to approve 1360-1620-1360 in the amount $3,775; 1360-1900 in the amount of $427; 1360-1910 in the amount of $335; 1360-1971 be set in at zero; 1360-3260 in the amount of $6,000, and I make that in the form of a motion.

President Wortman: Have I got a second?

Councilmember Hoy: Second.

President Wortman: Any discussion on that? Call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, actually we kind of moved through the question pretty quick, but during the Job Study recommendation committee's last meeting, we had mentioned that these positions be inserted in our budgets for the year 2000 and they've kind of jumped the gun and brought them before us today. I would certainly support it during our budget sessions this month, but today I am going to vote no.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: No.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

CIRCUIT COURT REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion carried 5-2/Councilmembers Raben and Lloyd opposed)

I) SUPERIOR COURT

President Wortman: Next is Superior Court. Now the first two items, Clerical Assistant withdrawn and the Small Claims Secretary withdrawn. Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: So will the others. The other requests would be withdrawn. Yeah, the entire request.

Rosemary Norbury: Not the Other Insurance.

Councilmember Raben: Excuse me. Yes, that's right.

Rosemary Norbury: I'm Rosemary, I am representing Superior Court, Rosemary Norbury. Judge Dietsch couldn't be here.

President Wortman: Say your name.

Rosemary Norbury: Rosemary Norbury, I am the Administrative Assistant for Superior Court. We would like to keep the request on the agenda for the Other Insurance, that's that judicial liability insurance.

Councilmember Raben: Right. Rosemary, I'll correct that. I overlooked that item. 

Rosemary Norbury. Okay, we will repeal that if we don't need it, but right now we don't know. We're waiting for the insurance company for the county to give us an answer whether or not we need it. 

Councilmember Raben: Okay, let me clarify my motion: 1370-1770-1370 down through 1370-1910 be set in at zero and 1370-3010 Other Insurance $2,825.

President Wortman: Do I have a second?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Second Mrs. Smith. Any discussion on that? No discussion, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

SUPERIOR COURT REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Wortman: Okay, Local Roads & Streets. John Stoll is not going to be here today. He called, but I didn't think there was going to be any problem. We hashed that last week, so you go ahead, Mr. Raben. 

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, and I am certainly not trying to pick on Circuit Court today, but before we move out of the appropriations, there was one item that we briefly hit on and zeroed out the Termination Pay. But I just wanted everyone on this Council to be advised that that request does not coincide with our county personnel policy and that's something that may want to address at some point, but that is strictly their policy and not the county's personnel policy, so...

President Wortman: That's right, Mr. Raben. Yeah. Circuit Court has got their own personnel policy and the county has got theirs and by law the Circuit Court judge can have his own personnel policy and that's why we request the Termination Pay be paid out of a User Fee or something, as Mrs. Angermeier there stated, see. So that's fine. Thank you, Mr. Raben. Now we move right on.

Councilmember Smith: Superior Court is with the county personnel policy, but Circuit hasn't been with the policy for years and years.

J) LOCAL ROADS & STREETS

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Local Roads & Streets. I move approval of 2160-3930 in the amount of $300,000.

Councilmember Lloyd: And a second.

President Wortman: Second Mr. Lloyd. Any discussion? No discussion, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

LOCAL ROADS & STREETS REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

K) CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU

President Wortman: Now we'll go to Convention & Visitors Bureau. Mr. Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 3600-4062 in the amount of $1,500,000. 

Councilmember Hoy: Second.

President Wortman: Got a second from Mr. Hoy. Any discussion on that? We discussed that before. Call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: I am going to vote for this even though I don't think it's right, but we're stuck with a problem or two at the Auditorium and we have to correct it. But I don't feel that they really did a very good job at estimating what the cost has been when they have to come back and ask for 1.5 million dollars.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: This is a rather large project and 1.5 million dollars is quite a bit of money, but I am definitely appreciative of the Convention & Visitors Bureau being cooperative with us in this effort and I am voting yes, but I probably have already made enough comments on how I feel about this. So, yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: I guess since we're making speeches, I am in support of this. It's really only a four percent cost overrun. I remember that Roberts Stadium was to be six million and it was eighteen million. We're not anywhere near that. The other thing I want to correct on here, it says furnishings, these are not furniture. These are for walls, for the conference rooms, part of it goes to escalators, the Building Authority has a whole list of about a dozen things that must be completed now. So I vote yes. 

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes. Motion passes.

CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

President Wortman: Now then, we'll go to the Transfers. Mr. Raben?

Councilmember Raben: First, Mr. President, we have a repeal request in the amount of $3,500 under account 1090-1180-1090 and I make that in the form of a motion.

President Wortman: That's $3,500, correct?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Councilmember Lloyd: Second.

President Wortman: Got a second on it. Any discussion on this? No discussion, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes. 

COUNTY ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, does anyone care if I lump all the transfers as one motion? 

President Wortman: Just a minute. Excuse me, Mr. Ahlers.

Jeff Ahlers: The only thing I'd point out is whether or not you want to leave the Sheriff's separate. That's a late transfer because I was thinking that you may want to consider taking under New Business the salary agreement first before we approve the transfer to fund those salaries. So with the exception of that one and then maybe take the agreement and then the late transfer.

Councilmember Raben: Okay. Mr. President, I'll move approval of four transfer requests: Pigeon Township Assessor, Union Township, the Highway and CCD/County Commissioners. I'll move that we accept all four transfers. 

President Wortman: As listed. Fine, got a second to that?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Mrs. Smith got the second. Any discussion? Call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

PIGEON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
 

UNION TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
 

HIGHWAY REQUESTED APPROVED
 

CCD/COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED APPROVED
 

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

SALARY AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY SHERIFF RE: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAM AND LATE TRANSFER REQUEST

President Wortman: Now we'll bring that salary agreement up to there on the new business with Brad Ellsworth on that.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, are you wanting a motion on the contract as written? Does everyone have that? Just to get it on the floor, Mr. President, I'll move that we accept this contract.

President Wortman: Okay, and I got a second?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Second Mrs. Smith. Now discussion. Now Mr. Brad Ellsworth and the County Attorney is available if you want to ask any questions on this contract. This is in reference to the SAFE House. Everything should be copacetic, I'd say.

Councilmember Smith: I just have a statement to make because I think that Sheriff Brad Ellsworth will do a good job. I have all the confidence in the world in him and I think this is one of the ways we should go. 

President Wortman: I think you're right. He's tough as a box of nails. He's good. Okay, Mr. Lloyd.

Councilmember Lloyd: And I agree. The SAFE House has been a problem area for county government and so I am looking forward to him taking it over. I just wondered, the two Chief Deputies, were they going to be rotating like the oversight of that facility or roughly, how were you going to have their responsibilities?

Brad Ellsworth: At this point, it will probably, because it is a pretty huge undertaking that hasn't been under the Sheriff's Department since its inception, I really envision myself and the two Chiefs spending full time over there just about for several months and that would get them in line and in a position with the Executive Director's salary where they could go in with my authority and like I said, its more than a one-man job. And so that was the reason we brought that to that number. I, again, if I could make a quick comment -- if that didn't answer your question, I'll go back to it -- but I appreciate the Commission's confidence in this, the Council has been fully supportive and I am going to try to live up to what people are saying. Mr. Hoy came in yesterday and spoke on our behalf and Mrs. Smith, and we appreciate -- we're going to try to give you your money's worth and lift this dark cloud that's been hanging over that for a while. I think you can see, we had a two and a half hour meeting today with the Circuit Court Judge and the staff at the SAFE House and it was already a very productive meeting and I think we can look for really good things out there. 

President Wortman: Thank you, Sheriff.

Brad Ellsworth: Mr. Lloyd, did that answer your question on that? I think we'll be spending a lot of time out there, all three of us.

President Wortman: Anybody else got any discussion? If not, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I would like to make a motion that we approve the late transfer for the Sheriff's Department as listed.

President Wortman: Okay, got a second for that?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Any discussion? Call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

SHERIFF REQUESTED APPROVED
 

FROM:1050-1920	INSURANCE	24,322.00	24,322.00
TO: 1050-1110-1050	SHERIFF	14,404.00	14,404.00
1050-1130-0001	CHIEF DEPUTY	3,405.00	3,405.00
1050-1130-0114	ASST. CHIEF DEPUTY	3,405.00	3,405.00
1050-1900	FICA	1,623.00	1,623.00
1050-1911	SHERIFF RETIREMENT	1,485.00	1,485.00

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

President Wortman: Okay, now amendments to the salary ordinance.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, allow me just one moment here. We have a total of five today. First I would move approval of the County Recorder, move to amend the salary ordinance as previously adopted; the Circuit Court as previously adopted; the County Assessor as previously adopted; the County Highway as previously adopted; and the Sheriff's Department as previously adopted. And I make that in the form of a motion.

President Wortman: Okay, do I have a second?

Councilmember Smith: Second.

President Wortman: Mrs. Smith seconded. Any discussion on that? If not, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

President Wortman: Next on that Number 9 would be Old Business, which is a preliminary resolution for tax abatement for Mr. Spurling at Green River Road and he has quite a few people coming in, taking their time off from watching their soap operas. Maybe they're going to miss some of that maybe, I don't know. But otherwise, Mr. Robling.

Mike Robling: This is Michael Robling, Department of Metropolitan Development --

President Wortman: Excuse me. We want to change tapes, Mr. Robling.

Tape Change

Mike Robling: Warren Spurling is seeking tax abatement to construct a new apartment complex consisting of 300 affordable housing units for senior citizens. The entire project has a total budget of $10 million. The number of employees to be hired upon completion is three full-time and two part-time. Mr. Spurling has signed a commitment that at least 20 percent of the units will be made available for low and moderate income individuals. It is my recommendation that this economic revitalization area not be approved. This area...the area in which this apartment complex is located is in the Burkhardt Road Economic Development Area for which Tax Increment Financing Bonds have been issued by the county. The increase in tax revenues which are realized from new assessed value in this area are the only resources which the county has pledged to repay the bonds. No tax abatements have been allowed in the area since the designation of the economic development area and TIF district. I would like to point out that according to the tax abatement law even if this body does approve this tax abatement designation that the Vanderburgh County Redevelopment Commission who set up the TIF district has the opportunity to still take action to approve or disapprove the actual deduction, tax deduction, that would be required for this project. I will also remind you that Mr. Spurling's previous apartment project is included as a part of the subject matter of the next item on the agenda concerning a compliance hearing for the second year in a row.

Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman?

President Wortman: Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Smith: Mike, you mean to tell me an appointed board can overrule the elected board that's elected by the citizens of Vanderburgh County? You have an appointed board that can...if we vote for something they can turn it down?

Mike Robling: Your action is to approve the Statement of Benefits and designate the area. The law gives them the authority in the statute to approve or deny the actual tax deduction. Mr. Ahlers, I believe, can verify that. 

Councilmember Smith: Those are kind of bad rules when the elected body sits here, we go in front of the people and ask them to vote for us and we make a decision and an appointed board goes and turns it down. I don't know who made that law, but I think that should be changed and I think I'll talk to the legislators about changing it. 

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

Councilmember Hoy: Did you say this is a Tax Incentive Finance Zone already or not? 

Mike Robling: Yes, it is part of the Burkhardt Road Economic Development Area which is also a tax allocation or TIF area. 

Councilmember Hoy: So Mr. Spurling is receiving some benefits under TIF, is that correct?

Mike Robling: He is not receiving any benefits under TIF. His previous project was designated before the TIF district was put in place so therefore the TIF designation isn't retroactive to go back and take benefits like that away, but it does provide this other option in the case that after a TIF district is in place.

Councilmember Hoy: He could apply for TIF for this project then or not? I'm confused.

Mike Robling: No, the TIF that was done was done to provide financing for the Burkhardt Road project.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay.

Mike Robling: It is not specifically financing any specific development. It was put in place to make infrastructure available for the development of the Lloyd Crossing Shopping Center at Burkhardt and the Expressway, but none of the funds directly went to that project or its developers. In fact, the developers of that project, Gershman Brown of Indianapolis, had to make certain guarantees that the bond payments would be made in early years in the event there was not adequate TIF revenues to make those payments. 

Councilmember Hoy: Okay, I'm still confused. What connection does TIF have for this or does it have none? 

Mike Robling: If an abatement for this project were approved--

Councilmember Hoy: Okay.

Mike Robling: --you would be taking away...if it's not approved, we'll start there. If the abatement is not approved the increase in assessed value resulting from this project will create additional tax revenues that will go towards paying off the existing TIF bonds. If this project is approved those additional assessed values will be abated and therefore there will not be as high an increment of additional taxes to go towards those bond payments. 

Councilmember Hoy: Okay, and do this for me one more time. You are not recommending this project and give me those reasons again, please.

Mike Robling: My primary reason, the only stated reason is because it is in a TIF district and the only pledge the county has made to repay the bonds issued under this TIF district are the TIF revenues. There is no County Option Income Tax or any other stream of tax funds that have been set aside or pledged to make those bond payments. The Council has turned down two or three other projects that have applied for abatement in this TIF district since its creation and I have talked a lot of people out of applying and not putting themselves through this.

Councilmember Hoy: Thank you.

Councilmember Lloyd: Mr. President?

President Wortman: Mr. Robling, now years ago the Council approved this tax abatement for out there, how do you account for that?

Mike Robling: That was a different project. His earlier apartment project was in a different location, although it is in what is now the TIF district. At the time that abatement was approved the TIF district did not exist. 

President Wortman: Okay, Mr. Lloyd.

Councilmember Lloyd: I was just going to say they have an indirect benefit from the nice roads driving to get to their property. The one that was approved before, as you stated, the TIF district wasn't in existence because when...that was put into existence what, `96? 

Mike Robling: I think so.

Councilmember Lloyd: Or `97. 

Mike Robling: The earlier abatements were in `92 and `94.

Councilmember Lloyd: Right.

Councilmember Sutton: So, Mr.--

Councilmember Hoy: As I--

Councilmember Sutton: Go ahead.

Councilmember Hoy: Go ahead, Councilman.

Councilmember Sutton: So, Mr. Robling, as I understand it if you carve out a section of this TIF district and no longer have that available to apply towards your bond payments how do you make up that shortfall if something were to occur? Do you stretch out the payments? Obviously, I don't know if you--

Mike Robling: The bond holders are at total risk in the matter. I mean, it could delay the payments, could delay the payoff on the bonds. It could theoretically result in a default if things got really bad. This TIF district is doing quite well as I understand it, but there is always that potential.

Councilmember Sutton: I mean, when the TIF district was created primarily we just had farming and ag in that particular area. We didn't have very much commercial development in that area at that time.

Mike Robling: There was already a--

Councilmember Sutton: I mean, there was a beginning.

Mike Robling: K-mart, Builders Square, some of those places were already in place and a number of these other things were in line, specifically the Lloyd Crossing Development.

Councilmember Sutton: So I guess in terms of what these properties generate now obviously it's more than what was projected initially?

Mike Robling: Well, at the time the projections were done a number of these projects were known about and were considered in the potential TIF revenue stream. For instance, Lloyd Crossing was not in place at the time, but it was known to be under contract and the assessed values from Wal-Mart SuperCenter and Home Depot and all those things were considered as a part of the calculations that made the sale of those bonds possible. 

Councilmember Sutton: So if you were to give us kind of a general rough estimate of the size of the TIF district south of Morgan--

Mike Robling: The TIF district is bounded by the city limits on the west or Green River Road whichever is further west. The city limits do some strange things along Green River Road.

Councilmember Sutton: It's just east of Burkhardt, the city limits come along there?

Mike Robling: No, the city limits go in some places it's Green River Road and some places are west of Green River Road, but Green River Road is the western boundary.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay.

Mike Robling: Unless the city limits fall east of Green River Road. The city limits are basically the Lloyd Expressway, from that point north, and Hirsch Road is the northern boundary and I-64 is the eastern boundary. A large area was identified that had a lot of development potential so that there would be sufficient assessed value captured to repay the bonds on this or any future projects that might be required within the area. 

Councilmember Sutton: Is there any other, I guess in that area, residential development within that TIF district? 

Mike Robling: There is probably some in the area north of Morgan Avenue. It's not substantial I don't think.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay, thank you. 

President Wortman: The Auditor would like to say a word and then, Phil, you're next. 

Suzanne Crouch: Correct me if I am wrong, Mike, but this is kind of a very simple way to explain the impact of the TIF area on the property taxes as they relate to all other citizens or taxpayers within a township or a county. When a TIF area is established any additional tax revenues that are generated from that point forward end up going back into the TIF area. They do not go out there to benefit other taxpayers in the township and other taxpayers throughout the county, so TIF areas in a sense raise the tax rate to a certain extent for other taxpayers.

Mike Robling: Until such extent as the obligations are repaid.

Suzanne Crouch: That is correct or if another obligation isn't put in place.

Mike Robling: Right.

Suzanne Crouch: So an abatement then in turn also takes away the tax revenue that benefits other taxpayers within the township and within the rest of the county. Would that be a simple way to--

Mike Robling: That's correct.

Suzanne Crouch: Very simple.

President Wortman: Mr. Hoy.

Councilmember Hoy: Thank you, I appreciate that. When Mr. Spurling applied for the first project did your department recommend that or not? I thought you did not recommend that one.

Mike Robling: He has been before us before twice on that first project for different phases of it and both times I recommended against that abatement based on the fact that the North Green River Road corridor was not an area in need of revitalization assistance. 

Councilmember Hoy: My other comment is one that has been touched on and I know there are a lot of people here who look like they're supportive of this, but we're entrusted with county funds and we have spent a lot of money on the area with infrastructure. Tax money that could have been spent elsewhere. Roads cost a lot of money. Keeping the roads and so on, so it's not as if we've spent nothing in that area in my estimation.

Mike Robling: I would also like to comment that if this abatement is approved it will be very hard to turn down any other abatements that come in within the TIF area. 

President Wortman: Any other discussion? Okay, I'll call for Mr. Spurling to come forward, please. Thank you, Mr. Robling. 

Bill Spurling: Hi, my name is Bill Spurling. I own and manage Lakeside Manor, the apartment community that we are talking of. In 1992 I came before this body and asked for and received tax abatement and I want to thank you and the folks that were here before you for being patient in allowing us to phase in our taxes because without that help Lakeside Manor would not exist today. I would like to give you a little rundown of what is out there right now and what weve done and provided so that you know what you got for your patience. There are 302 apartments, a real nice community center where the residents meet and have parties and gather. There is a two acre park where we built a bandstand. It kind of looks like something you would see from the 1930's. We spent $7.6 million on the project. We estimated $7.2 so we were over on that. We have been brought down here in the past because of employee/job creation and I'll deal with that later. Right now we have 19 full-time and 22 part-time employees. We've had a waiting list ever since the day we opened. We rarely ever have anyone move out for other than health reasons. When we went out there there was no sewer in this area. Spring Valley Road was not there. We put in a lift station, we brought sewage service to not only our 45 acres, but to the 35 acres to the south and the 110 to the north. We extended Spring Valley Road. We paid for the widening of Green River Road for a deceleration lane across the entire property. Since the sewer and roads were in place from the apartments being built we built two office complexes, The Park 1 and 2, which there is 75,000 square feet of office space that is leased. It's paying taxes. It would not be there today if it weren't for this tax abatement. Those two office complexes pay this year $52,000. We have 385 residents that enjoy living at Lakeside and this year as we've been phasing in our taxes. The county will collect over $100,000 in property tax from us this year. So there is 150,000 bucks that's coming to the county right now that would not have been there if it was still laying there in farmland because farmland doesn't pay anything to speak of. (Inaudible comments made away from mike.) I might add that I am very proud of Lakeside and what we've been able to do and the fact that we received tax abatement was the only help that we received on this project and that we have all these folks living out there that are living independently without being on any type of government subsidy which today I think that's commendable. This notice was in the paper about a month and a half ago and the City of Evansville and United Way and some other organizations conducted a community needs survey and it identified the top need that is needed in our community is independent living for disabled and elderly people. That's the very top need that they just determined through this survey. The reason this was in the paper was because there is some funding available for people to provide this type of facility and it's the Department of Metropolitan Development who you contact for this. So we're not asking for any funding. The only thing that we're asking for is to phase our taxes in so that we can keep our rentals low for our people. I was quite surprised that DMD would recommend against this again in light of the fact that they'll advertise that they need this type of facility and then recommend a very inexpensive way of getting it. This abatement, this project, will cost in the neighborhood of $10 million and will provide 300 more apartments for the elderly. The rent will be in the range of $380 to $400 a unit. Without abatement we're talking $450 to 470 which I don't think that's in the market. Again, we will be providing an extension of the sewer to the 45 acres to the north of us. We'll be extending Spring Valley Road and all that stuff will be at our expense and it will be dedicated to the county, you know, be a public road and public sewer. Along with this, and I think this is really important because this kind of answers some of the questions that Mr. Robling brought up about, you know, we're not going to do anything to help. We're taking money away from the county by getting an abatement, well that's simply not so because if we wouldn't have built the first apartments then we wouldn't have the two office complexes, we would have an assisted living place that is going up next door to us because they wanted to be there because there wouldn't have been any sewer for them to tap in to. That church out there, I don't know what they would have done for a sewer because they had to get into our sewer. Bethel United Church of Christ got into our sewer out there. They wouldn't have sewer service because their sewer went down Green River Road across to The Timbers somehow. So, I mean, all these things hinge on somebody doing something. When somebody does something then somebody else does something else and along with this apartment expansion we have 30 acres of commercial development ground in front of this. Well, we're going to develop that, so all that stuff is going to be generating tax dollars. You may wait a little while to get your taxes out of the apartments, but it's going to come back to you big time in the rest of the stuff that will be out there. You'll have 800 people living out there. There will be a lot of stuff go up out there. I think one thing that would really help our area out there is if we could get Lynch Road tied into I-164. I think that would really be a big help for that area. This property that I'm talking about here is bringing you guys 350 bucks a year. That's what the taxes are on this 29 acres that is back off the road where we're going to be building these apartments. True, if we can't get abatement then we may end up not building apartments. We may end up building town homes or something and it will take us longer to do it and you probably still won't get the money any quicker anyway, but if we can go ahead and fulfill this need that the community needs for more apartments for independent living for the elderly then it's a win/win deal for everybody. It doesn't cost the county anything. I mean, my residents are of no impact on schools. They're not going to impact the roads. Now the roads that you spoke of that have been built out there were built out there in `92. They widened Green River Road. There is really nothing else built out there. This TIF district...let's get back to this TIF district. Actually, this TIF district took our property in and we did not know about it. We were not notified of it or anything and, you know, why does the TIF district take dollars, tax dollars, from our area to build a road over on Burkhardt? We're a mile from Burkhardt. We don't use Burkhardt. Burkhardt is a parallel road for us. What they actually did was take our tax dollars and give them to our competition, Gershman Brown, so they could widen their road over there. I mean, that's kind of the long and short of it. Our area out there has had very little built other than what we've built out there. Like I said, that wouldn't of happened without the tax abatement. We built the apartments, we built the offices and because of them this assisted living business is going in next door on Earl Harp's land. Earl participated in getting sewer to his land through our sewer system, so it's kind of like, you know, everybody helping everybody else to make things happen. This won't cost you guys anything. What I am asking you to do if you will, please, is grant an abatement so that we can phase in the tax on this new apartment community expansion.

President Wortman: Okay, does anybody have any questions for Mr. Spurling? Mrs. Smith.

Councilmember Smith: I don't have any questions, I just have some statements. It's one of the nicest apartment complexes in the city of Evansville. Royce and I went out there the other day and we went through the apartments and I tell you it would be a pleasure to live there. I think the elderly people do not need a lot of little children running around. That's their own private domain out there and I think we need more of them. I would like to ask this Council to vote for this to give us 300 more apartments for elderly people. I'm getting that age and so is some of the rest of you here that we may need them.

President Wortman: Don't you look at me.

Councilmember Smith: And if I do I'll probably call Bill and say I need an apartment. But anyway, I think this is needed and I don't think it's any cost to anybody and without it we may not have those apartments and I think it's well worth the project to do it and let's get with it and get it done. 

Councilman Bassemier: I've got a question.

President Wortman: Okay, go ahead.

Councilman Bassemier: Counselor? Question for counselor. Now what I just heard that if we do approve it we can be overridden by the TIF Board?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, what actually happens is...I've got that statute here handy. Under Indiana Code right now what the resolution is for right now is to approve this as an economic revitalization area, okay, but in order for them to get the actual tax deduction there has to be an application for a tax deduction which I believe goes to the Auditor's Office. Before it goes there it can be approved for the taxes to go into effect and the Economic Development Commission has to approve the application for property tax deduction, so essentially what you're saying is correct. If it is approved here today if it is also not approved by the Commission the effect is they would not get the tax deduction. 

Councilman Bassemier: That's kind of why I deferred it last week. I don't think Mr. Spurling knew about it last month and I talked with Mr. Spurling. Do you think we should defer this and see what they're going to vote on first? Is that what we're...I mean, are we wasting our time here voting now if our final approval...I mean, if this approval don't mean anything why are we having it now because it sounds like to me they're going to vote against it. Why would they vote in favor of this?

Bill Spurling: Well, can I address that? What I would like to do is get your preliminary approval today and then I'll appear before the Vanderburgh County Redevelopment Commission and if they turn it down well then I'm sunk, but if they don't I could come back here for final hearing next month and we would still be able to get started this year before winter sets in. I don't think that this is a waste of time at all. 

Councilmember Hoy: I have a question of Mr. Robling. On this procedure, Mr. Robling, if we deny this abatement then is the issue dead here or will it go to the Redevelopment Commission anyway?

Mike Robling: If you deny it today the issue is dead. I will point out that it has twice been on the agenda of the Redevelopment Commission.

Councilmember Hoy: I'm sorry?

Mike Robling: We have scheduled it twice before the Redevelopment Commission. They had a meeting scheduled after Mr. Spurling's application came in. We had it on the agenda for that meeting because it was already scheduled. He said he couldn't be there so we took it off. After your request at last month's meeting we scheduled a special Commission meeting for last week. Mr. Spurling again called and said he couldn't make that meeting so it was canceled as well. There is another meeting of the Commission scheduled, we just happen to have activity right now, for the 25th and it could be on the agenda for that meeting at that time. If you approve it today and it goes to them it will still have to be advertised as a public hearing and come back to you for a confirming resolution. 

Councilmember Hoy: I have a couple more questions of you, Mr. Robling. This body can say no and that's the end of it?

Mike Robling: That's the end of it.

Councilmember Hoy: So in one sense the major decision is on our backs and we are the ones who are to look at the tax situation in our county, is that right?

Mike Robling: Well, yeah. You have the chance to approve it or deny it today. If you deny it today it's a dead issue.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay.

Mike Robling: If you approve it today it will go forward to the Redevelopment Commission.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay, I want to go back to this public notice and this study because I had dealt with your department and with the CAC and I believe that the monies you're looking for here under DBG and ESG and so on, are those not funds for lower income persons? I mean, housing for lower income persons?

Mike Robling: That's true, but those needs were identified through a community rights survey.

Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, and the three needs are not one, two and three, but they're on par with each other, I believe.

Mike Robling: Well, they are somewhat ranked, but they represent a number of things that relate to that subject matter. They sort of meshed and mashed things together. I will also point out that this survey was done about the same time that the Visiting Nurse Association appeared to be in great jeopardy which I think had reason to cause that priority to be on top.

Councilmember Hoy: I filled out one of these surveys and it is subject to a lot of variables. 

Mike Robling: There is nothing scientific about it.

Councilmember Hoy: Nothing scientific about the survey. In fact, I may as well go on record and say that at my agency we may get three or four copies of this same survey, you know, that several of us can fill out so it can be skewed very easily and I would not use it as a scientific tool. I think Mr. Spurling knows my feelings on this. I frankly think that your company has done very well. I think that you're in a position to offer good rent to older persons without our abatement. You've demonstrated recently that you have money to give away, I think, to other causes and the other thing that bothers me is the denigration of the farmland because we are eating up our farmland so rapidly that we're going to miss it. It is economic development. Whether it brings in fewer taxes is not the point. It brings in $16 billion from Japan alone because they can't grow anything there and there is a lot of land within the city that could be developed into very fine apartments. I would be much more inclined to be for it if you were using some of the older land where some of us choose to live. I'm old enough to qualify for your apartments and I live in one of those older areas in the city and I don't see much development taking place there and I live in a very safe neighborhood. I just have lots of problems with this. I wanted to ask you about your employees. You're promising three full-time and two part-time and the salary range is $8 to $12. Your benefits are personal days, vacation days, holidays, but you give no health insurance and no retirement to your employees, is that correct?

Bill Spurling: That's correct.

Councilmember Hoy: And you do not have to have an affirmative action plan in a staff that small and you do not have a plan as I understand it.

Bill Spurling: That is true.

Councilmember Sutton: I have a couple--

President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd.

Councilmember Lloyd: Currently now Lakeside Manor did you say that was 300 units?

Bill Spurling: Yes.

Councilmember Lloyd: And that's the one that this Council approved abatement in what, 1992?

Bill Spurling: That's right. 

Councilmember Lloyd: So this resolution is on your planned expansion which would be basically another 300 units very similar in size to what you have?

Bill Spurling: That is correct.

President Wortman: Mr. Bassemier.

Councilman Bassemier: Mr. Spurling, now these are all from addresses that we helped out last time, right? 

Bill Spurling: Those folks live right there at Lakeside Manor. We asked them if they would help us because this is important to them. Mr. Hoy, in response to some of your remarks, I guess you are talking about my political contributions to someone other than yourself and that really has nothing to do with this. It has nothing to do with these folks. I can't absorb several hundred thousand dollars of property tax. I have already in this project that is already completed the only rent increases that we've had in the six years that I have owned that is just enough to pay for the property tax phase in. I haven't taken one doggone cent of an increase myself. I have commercial property that I make my money on. I don't make money on those apartments. They'll make money some day, but they don't now.

Councilmember Hoy: Well, I'm not going to argue your business with you, Mr. Spurling, but I grew up in business and most of us go into business to earn money and I think you do, too. I don't think there is anything wrong with that whatsoever, that's what you go into business for. The other thing is as you phase these taxes in you have just admitted that as the taxes phase in then the folks that rent from you are going to pay those taxes anyhow.

Bill Spurling: How can I not do that?

Councilmember Hoy: That's my point and so you're really only granting them a reduction that phases in and that's all.

Bill Spurling: For the six years or ten years or whatever it takes, you know, it's gradual.

Councilmember Hoy: It's gradual.

Bill Spurling: Without the abatement then the rents start out at $450 or $470. With the abatement the rent starts out at $380 or $400. You all just approved a tax abatement for an apartment complex on the west side and their rents are $515 for a one bedroom and $615 for a two bedroom.

Councilmember Hoy: I know and I voted against that abatement.

Bill Spurling: I know you did.

Councilmember Hoy: I vote against most abatements, Mr. Spurling.

Bill Spurling: I understand that.

Councilmember Hoy: Because I do not believe--

Bill Spurling: I won't take it personally.

Councilmember Hoy: Please don't. I do not believe that abatements are fair to the general taxpayer. I don't single you out, but I think they just are unfair and they spread out, you know, over the rest of us. The bank just did that to me. I live in Pigeon Township, you know, and we pay the highest rate in the city. The highest per hundred in the city and we pick up a lot of tax abatement in our property taxes. It's not a personal thing.

Bill Spurling: I understand. 

President Wortman: Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, I've got so much to say and I'm going to try to condense it here, but in terms of paying taxes and who needs a break I consider my youth and I look out there and some of the members in the crowd and they're the people that have been paying the taxes. I mean, they've paid it a great number of years. I voted for the center prior and I voted for the one on the west side. As a matter of fact, I was somewhat promoting that project as well because I knew at the time Golden Towers was taken over by USI and there was a great number of elderly people on a fixed income that had no place to hang their hats anymore. There is a lot, you know, you can think tax abatement in terms of business and jobs or what you're doing on the flip side for what you're doing for elderly people. You look at what we spend in taxes for the school system. They're not cluttering our schools, our parks, our golf courses, very little on our streets. I mean, were paying for a lot of stuff that these people aren't costing us for. I mean, they're not causing us any grief. We're not spending more at Burdette Park because they're there. I mean, they get very little for the tax dollars that they pay or have paid in the past. You know, being on a fixed income if we can provide a break on their rent for five years I think it's worthwhile because, again, show me a sign of hands of the people out there that have condos in Florida. I mean, this isn't a second home for these people, I'm sure. This is their primary residence and, you know, where else do they go? I know the cost of nursing homes or Solarbron on the west side, it's gives them a break and I think it's a worthwhile project.

President Wortman: Mr. Bassemier or Mr. Lloyd.

Councilman Bassemier: I'll go after Russell.

Councilmember Sutton: And then I'll be after you.

Councilmember Lloyd: I am trying to finish this line of thought here. One thing now, this is on a new project adding 300 units. Everyone in the audience that lives at Lakeside Manor, this abatement that we're considering right now it would have no affect on them whatsoever. This is on a new project. The residents now in Lakeside Manor they've had abatement on that project since 1992 which was something that was voted by a prior elected Council. I respect what a prior elected Council does and that is something we're going to consider in our next item. 

President Wortman: Thank you, Mr. Lloyd. We'll change tapes, please.

Tape Change

Councilmember Lloyd: So, this abatement that we are considering now has no effect on these residents unless one of the residents wanted to move to the new building for some reason, the rents may be different, I don't know. Then finally, I just feel we've not granted tax abatements in the TIF area and that is something that the County Commissioners set up and we've had to wrestle with this as a Council, but the property taxes in the TIF area are going to road improvements and I just feel that we should be consistent with that. We've voted down good projects because they are in the TIF area and I think that we need to be consistent with that. We can look at the other units that have had prior abatements, I don't think that we should change the rules in the middle of the game. But on these new units to vote to abatement in the TIF areas I think is a bad idea. Thank you.

President Wortman: Thank you, Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Bassemier and then Mr. Sutton.

Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. Spurling, now if this is voted down would it affect any of these renters out here? Will their rent go up if this is voted down? This should not have any affect, am I correct?

Mr. Spurling: Well, it will not have an affect on these folks that are in the existing--

Councilmember Bassemier: Because I really think--

Mr. Spurling: Here is what will happen. I won't build the rest of them because how am I going to have these folks here that are paying $360 a month and tell a guy over here for the exact same thing that he is going to have to pay $450?

Councilmember Bassemier: I see.

Mr. Spurling: You know, I don't think that the bank would go for it anyway. You know, I mean and then we all lose because what will happen then is the sewer won't get extended and the road won't get extended and you know it is a snowballing thing like what I went through a while ago.

Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. Robling, I need to ask you a question. When is the next meeting for TIF? How is that set up? You said that we could be over, if we vote for-

Mike. Robling: The next meeting of the Vanderburgh County Redevelopment Commission is scheduled on the 25th of August.

Councilmember Bassemier: The 21st of August?

Mike. Robling: The 25th.

Councilmember Bassemier: The 25th. I hate to vote on this and then turn around and somebody else is going to vote it down. I am kind of thinking, I don't want to make a motion yet, but, I want to throw it to the other Councilmembers. Can we defer this until we find out? I think that it should have went before their board before it went to us. I would like to have the final say on it. I would like to throw that out. How do you all feel about that? Open meeting, defer this until he goes before the other board and they rule it out and it didn't come to us.

Councilmember Smith: Didn't Mr. Robling say, Ed, that then it would come back to us if they vote it down? Isn't that what you said?

Mike Robling: It will only come back to you if they approve it.

Councilmember Bassemier: And, see if we vote yes I think it is a good project and I am not against it. I just would like to have the final say on it. Because, if we say yes and they say no, then why are we here today? I would like to hear what they have to say. I tell you what, I am going to make a form of a motion to defer it (inaudible).

Councilmember Hoy: I will give you a second to get it on the floor.

Councilmember Bassemier: Thank you, sir.

President Wortman: I have a motion and a second from Mr. Hoy. Now, discussion.

Councilmember Smith: Bill, how do you feel about that? How about your opinion?

Bill Spurling: Well, if you defer this, it is going to push us back another month because we will have to come back here after that for preliminary, which we could accomplish today. And then I will have to wait a month and come back for a final and that will push us into October and we are going to end up losing, getting our foundations and stuff in where we can get going this year. You know--

Councilmember Sutton: Can we not have preliminary and final resolution on the same agenda after that or do they have to be two separate agendas?

Bill Spurling: Mr. Bassemier, what does it really matter if we go ahead and get the preliminary out of the way? Then on the 25th I will go before the Redevelopment Commission and hopefully get their approval and then I can come back to you the next week at your next meeting here and it will be finished. I mean--

Councilmember Bassemier: The only reason that I was thinking, I don't...I just don't think, I am trying to think in my mind. Why would they approve this? I would like to hear what they have to say. We have to wait until the 25th anyway so that's my way of feeling. Why I was feeling that way was because I would like to hear what they have to say about it. 

Bill Spurling: But, it is going to push us back another month, because then we will have to come back to you again and go through this preliminary again. I mean, you will still get a final, you know, okay, if they say yes and I believe they will. I believe this so firmly that this is a good project for the community, they are not getting anything out of that bean field now anyway. That is not helping them pay off their bonds. And without this, this thing will create commercial development in front of these apartments that will more than make up the difference. The money will start coming in on the apartments too.

Councilmember Smith: You already own the property, don't you?

Bill Spurling: Yes, I do.

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, are you--

President Wortman: Mr. Sutton--

Councilmember Hoy: We have a motion on the floor.

President Wortman: Mr. Sutton there might be next in line.

Councilmember Sutton: At last, I finally get my turn.

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, I would like to call for the question on this motion.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, I didn't get a chance.

Councilmember Hoy: I will withdraw that, Mr. Sutton.

Councilmember Sutton: I know that there is a problem with ministers behind the microphone and everything but allow the parishioners a chance to speak. A couple of things, I know I in the past and I don't know if, Councilmember Hoy, I might not be too far behind him in reputation as a tax abatement buster so to speak, but it's been something, it's been an issue for me quite some time. I am not opposed to tax abatement at all and maybe it is a little bit different than Councilman Hoy. I am not opposed to it, but I firmly believe that as an economic development tool, that we should use it wisely and we should think carefully before each and every abatement request and not just loosely provide abatement for every request that comes before us. And in light of the state statute that give us specific requirements of what meets tax abatement requirement, I want us to respect that, and at the same time I want to ensure that at the same time, that whatever the development is that it truly does provide economic stimulus for the community. When this request came before, well when the original request came before Council before `92 on the existing property I voted against it at that time and when it came back for approving resolution and I voted against it again and when the west side request came in I voted for that as well and my reasons were that I did not feel that the area was one, a depressed area. I didn't feel that the apartment units created economic development in that particular area. I think that it is always important that if you...if an issue is raised and you find yourself in error, and I think that in some ways I don't fault maybe the way I voted back then, I felt very comfortable with that, but you know I guess I have had a chance to take a look at the development and look at what's out there and I guess I question myself, what is economic development? Who am I to say that the only thing that has economic development has a smoke stack sitting on top of it and I look at the things that are taking place in and around my particular community. A lot of housing development things are occurring. Things are building and that is economic development in an area and it is not just hundreds and hundreds of jobs. You know, I am still very careful about abatement but it has made me reexamine what economic development really is. A top quality with the apartments, as Betty has indicated, and I like the area and who says that housing has to be clustered all in one area, industry has to be clustered all in one area, commercial has to be clustered all in one area. You know, this is an area that isn't hurting necessarily. Economically, it is an area that is developing but you do not have this type of housing at this type of price anywhere in our county and you just, the quality is definitely there and I get an opportunity to see affordable housing projects all over the four state area in fact and this is really a quality project. So, it has been somewhat a struggle for me to come to a decision on what is best for the county, not this project, but what is best for this county. One of the questions I posed when I came out to look at the project was how many people that live in this development would be considered low to moderate income persons?

Bill Spurling: I have that answer. Last year, as you will recall, Mr. Robling, we raised the rent last year to take care of some of our tax abatement and phase in of taxes. I was called down here by Mr. Robling too because he has been against me every step of the way since day one. But, anyway, he thought that maybe I wasn't falling in the 20% that is reserved to low or moderate income units. So, we went through our records and pulled the incomes out of every one of our residents and 82% of the one bedroom units and 74% of the two bedroom units, the residents that live those units fall within the low to moderate income level. Seventy-four percent and 82% of the one bedroom, so I mean that tells you right there that we have folks there that want to live there and they love the place and they are not living in some kind of public government high-rise somewhere and so on you know.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, the other issue I look at is the original abatement that you received is for ten years. What happens to the rent levels when that abatement is no longer applicable to this particular project, this first project?

Bill Spurling: What we have done, we have figured this out. We have had two rent increases in the six years that we have been open. The consumer price index has gone up about 16% and our rents have gone up about 12% and like I said before, every bit of that has been used to pay the increase in the property tax. We are not raising our rents and we will not...we will, I will have to keep raising them enough to offset the phase in of the property tax. The property tax is the biggest bill that we have. You know, it is by far the largest amount. 

Councilmember Sutton: We don't often get a lot of people to come to Council meetings so it is really good to see folks to come and to even just to hear us and see our faces. Maybe you read about us but you don't see us. How many of you are here in support of this project?

President Wortman: Yeah, I was going to have attendance there to stand up or raise your hand, that's good.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay, thank you. There is a motion on the floor and the motion is to defer--

President Wortman: Yeah, right. He called for a vote and Madam Secretary will you call the roll to defer.

Councilmember Smith: This is to delay?

Councilmember Lloyd: So, if you vote yes it is to delay, it is to defer.

Councilmember Bassemier: It is to--

President Wortman: Mr. Bassemier, would you fix your motion now so that everybody understands it.

Councilmember Bassemier: Yeah, I would like to make a motion to defer until (inaudible) has a chance to hear it and I would like to hear what they have to say about it.

President Wortman: Would that be for one month?

Councilmember Bassemier: For one month and they are going to meet on the 25th. Right, Mr. Robling?

President Wortman: Do you accept that, Mr. Hoy? Okay, he seconds it. Okay, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: I am going to vote no then it gives him a better chance to get it. So this is something that they'll have on their record when it goes in front of them.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: We just need to act. We shouldn't depend on another body to really influence our decisions. It must be based upon our personal judgements as to what we feel is best for Vanderburgh County. So I vote no.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: I am voting yes because right now we do not have the final word.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: I seconded it but I vote no because I wanted to get the motion on the floor to see if it was going anywhere and obviously it isn't, Mr. Bassemier, so that is why I am voting no.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: No.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: No, so now we need another motion.

(Motion fails 6-1)

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, I have a question for Mr. Robling. I deal with the same figures that you deal with in your department on low/mod. What is low to moderate income per year, isn't that 80%?

Mike Robling: It is based on 80% of family income by households.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay. So--

Mike Robling: And it varies from year to year.

Councilmember Hoy: So what would that be for one person? I don't have my chart with me.

Mike Robling: I don't know specifically. It changes annually and I don't bother to remember it.

Councilmember Hoy: Yes, I know and I am not trying to put you on the spot. I don't--

Mike Robling: It is a fairly substantial number.

Councilmember Hoy: It's a...I think that council needs to know--

Mike Robling: We are not talking about poverty--

Councilmember Hoy: We are not talking poverty level here we are talking about 80% of the median family income. The median family income and the median family income in the county is in the $40,000 range.

Mike Robling: The mid-forties per family.

Councilmember Hoy: That is true.

Mike Robling: For a family of four.

Councilmember Hoy: That is for a household of four people. The median family income is $40,000 and that's in homes where people work two jobs. Median means half or above or half or below and that is what this chart is based on.

Unidentified: You need a new chart.

Councilmember Hoy: It is not mine it is the government's.

Unidentified: What is poverty level?

Mike Robling: Poverty level is 70% of the median income level I believe. Our department doesn't deal with poverty level as a criteria, so I am not aware of those numbers but they are substantially lower.

Councilmember Hoy: One person is about $9,000 something, isn't it Mike?

Mike Robling: I think that it is a lot higher than that.

Councilmember Hoy: Is it?

Mike Robling: Eighty percent or better.

Bill Spurling: (Inaudible.)

Mike Robling: One person at 80% was $23,000.

Councilmember Hoy: One person, is that last year's chart?

Mike Robling: This is the 1998 chart so it has gone up slightly from that.

Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, one person is $23,000 a year. That is 80% of what one person has.

Royce Sutton: Now, keep in mind when he says median income, if you have a lot of individuals that make a lot of money that pushes the average up a whole lot--

Councilmember Hoy: We are not talking average, we are talking median which means half make above and half make at or below. It is simply a guideline but it is a guideline that is used and it is one that we have to use at the Food Bank for food distribution. A lot of people think that the guideline is poverty level and it is not. That is my only point. 

President Wortman: Okay, I will entertain another motion.

Councilmember Knight: I make a motion that we approve.

President Wortman: Can I have a second?

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Wortman: We have a second. Okay, no discussion? I'll call the roll for approval of the motion.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilman Bassemier?

Councilman Bassemier: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: No.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

(Motion carried 4-3/Councilmembers Bassemier, Hoy and Lloyd opposed)

President Wortman: Motion passes four to one...two. Did you vote yes, Mr. Sutton? Motion passes four to three.

Mike Robling: I would like to make a clarifying statement for the record.

President Wortman: That's right.

Mike Robling: Mr. Spurling indicated that I called him before the council last year. I will note that except when Mr. Spurling or any other business taxpayer has applied for a new tax abatement that anytime we send a notice to that taxpayer requesting their presence at a meeting of this Council it is at the request and direction of the Council not my own prerogative.

President Wortman: Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Sutton: One more thing, Mr. Robling, I might ask when this TIF, when you guys meet--

Mike Robling: The Redevelopment Commission.

Councilmember Sutton: Redevelopment Commission and when they discuss the bonding and the TIF, I would like to get, if you could bring back for us, what the estimates were when the TIF district was created and if we look at what development is now, what the projects may be if--

Mike Robling: I am not aware, the projections would have been done last year when the second issue was done. The Auditor's Office would have current numbers or the current revenues generated by the TIF but I don't keep the county tax records and do not have those figures readily available.

Councilmember Sutton: Is that public information, though?

Mike Robling: It is public information held by the--

Councilmember Hoy: The Auditor's Office.

Mike Robling: The Auditor's Office.

Councilmember Hoy: The Auditor has that.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, Suzanne, is it possible that we could have some information like that? Okay, thank you.

President Wortman: Okay, thank you everybody. We are going to take a seven minute recess and get back in here because we have time problems here. We have to get out of here for when Area Plan comes. So, I think that completes that for all of the ladies and gentlemen that filed down here. We appreciate your attendance and come on down any other time. You have to come to the microphone.

Unidentified: I have a big mouth, but I'll come to the microphone anyway.

President Wortman: Yes, we will take a recess but this gentleman wants to say something but then we'll take a recess. A short pause for a good cause.

Joe Bradley, Sr.: I will try to speak fast. My name is Joe Bradley, Sr. and I am a retired construction worker or Boilermaker, 77 years old. I would like the record to show that I have been living at Lakeside Manor, it will be four years in December. Never in my lifetime have I lived in a more comfortable surrounding than I live right now. Nobody bothers us. Mr. Spurling does everything that he possibly can to make us comfortable in our environment out there. What bothers me is that I don't know what TIF is unless it is an acronym for something, but it has been kicked around here all day. My philosophy is that if it ain't broke don't fix it and nothing needs to be fixed out there and this man can be allowed to build another group of 300 apartments that will help people like us then by God let him do it. Thank you for your time.

President Wortman: Thank you for your time.

Councilmember Smith: Thank you, Joe.

President Wortman: Okay, we are going to have a seven minute recess and then come back because we have the compliance and everything else. So a short pause for a good cause. Thank you all for coming down.

Tape Change
 

President Wortman: We'll reconvene to our recess here. Next is compliance of statement of benefits for Azteca Milling, Warren Spurling, Temme Investments, Temme Mold and Engineering, Matrixx Corp and Rexam Closures. The Council Attorney will read a statement affecting this.

Jeff Ahlers: I'm going to outline here a good way, I think, to proceed and put notice on those present. As you probably know, at the July 7th meeting of the Vanderburgh County Council those six companies that Mr. Wortman named were sent notices from that meeting that there had been a motion made and unanimously approved to make a preliminary finding that your business was not in compliance with the statement of benefits due to the failure to meet the job creation goal stated on your statement of benefits which was approved by this Council at the time that your property was designated as an economic revitalization area and that said failure to comply was not caused by factors beyond the control of the property owner. A notice was sent to you of the Council's action on July 7th notifying you of the hearing today on August 4th to further review your compliance with the statement of benefits. Based upon the information presented at today's hearing by each business there will be a determination by this Council as to whether or not you substantially comply with your statement of benefits, or if you do not, whether or not that failure to comply is due to factors beyond your control. One of the things that I would suggest to each of the businesses in order to comply with the statute is I would suggest that when Mr. Wortman calls each of the businesses up that obviously the County Councilmembers will have some questions for you, but one thing that each business should do would be to address the following points. State what efforts your business has taken to substantially comply with the job creation goals included in your statement of benefits. State what factors beyond the control of your business, say for example such as declines in the demand for the business' products or services, that may have caused this failure to meet the job creation goals. Thirdly, if you have unfilled job openings at this time due to employee resignations or inability to attract qualified applicants to fill new positions, please identify what efforts you have taken to fill these positions. Also then identify any other extenuating circumstances that may have caused your failure to meet the job creation goals stated in your statement of benefits. Upon the conclusion of the Councilmembers asking questions and your presentation, what we will need to do is a Councilmember will need to make a motion stating something substantial. If they're going to find that you are in compliance or that the failure to comply was due to factors beyond your control, a Councilmember would need to make a motion something to the effect that I move the Vanderburgh County Council finds the business has made reasonable efforts to substantially comply with the statement of benefits and that any failure to substantially comply was caused by factors beyond the control of the business. If someone wants to make a motion to the negative or if that motion does not pass, then a Councilmember would need to make a motion that the business has not substantially complied, and state that the factors were not beyond the business' control. I don't know if Mr. Wortman, if you want to take them in alphabetical order or if you have some other order you'd like to take them in?

President Wortman: I'll take the first, but I might remind you now, the Area Plan...we've got to be out of here at 5:30, so we've got 20 minutes. So we don't want to talk excessively, but we want to make our decisions very quickly. I think, you know, the companies here represented are good quality companies. I think we've got to be careful here on that, and I think we'll go from there. So the first on the agenda that I will call forward will be Azteca Milling. Would the representative please step forward and state your name.

Marco DeLucio: Thank you Mr. Wortman, members of the County Council. My name is Marco DeLucio. I am an attorney on behalf of Azteca Milling Company. With me today is Jorge Trevino, the Corporate Plant Superintendent for Azteca's corporate offices in Edinburg, Texas, Ronnie Cantu who is the Plant Controller here in Evansville, and Mark Jennings who's the Director of Human Relations at Azteca. We're here to answer any questions that you may have. The first thing I'd like to note, Mr. President, is I delivered to each of the Council people a copy of a memorandum that basically outlines our presentation. I realize we're short on time. This contains everything that I would say had I had enough time to speak today. What I would like to point out, however, is just briefly run through a couple of the facts as Mr. Ahlers was indicating. The compliance form which was submitted in June on behalf of Azteca listed that they had 116 employees. That number was correct as of December 31, 1998. Today, and I think today is what we should be looking at, Azteca has 130 employees. It has capacity and has positions open for 145 employees, and I'll talk about what efforts we've made to attract people to those positions. I would submit to you that if we were able to fill those 145 positions we would be at 83% of our projected goal which was 175. We think that is substantial. I think factoring in on top of that is the salaries because it's really salaries that we're concerned about, I think here, because that's where the taxes are generated. The salaries that we projected back in 1994 were $3,900,000. The compliance form that we submitted in June showed that we paid wages of a little over $3,200,000 which is roughly, I think it's 87% of our goal. What I would point out to you is today, through July, we have paid wages of over $2,200,000 and the projected wages to be paid during calendar year 1999 is $3,845,000 which at 98% of our goal. That does not include, these are just wages, that does not include the package of benefits that are provided to the employees at Azteca including health insurance and a 401K plan. So, we have benefits on top of that. Tax abatement also is not just about employment goals, that's why we're here today, but it is also about the investment that Azteca has made into this community. Total improvements that we projected to make on our statement of benefits back in 1994 were $43,000,000, $32,000,000 was in equipment and $11,000,000 of that was for real estate improvements in that area. The records reflect that I submitted here today that Azteca has invested close to $42,000,000 or 98% of what it thought it would have invested back in 1994. Again, we believe that is in substantial compliance with our statement of benefits. One last thing that I would like to point out in trying to show you that I think we're in substantial compliance before I get into reasons why we haven't fully complied is we took a look at the county ordinance which would have made Azteca or any other business eligible for tax abatement if it would have come before you and estimated that it was going to spend $5,000,000 on improvements and equipment and employed 50 people. Azteca has spent eight times that amount in improvements and equipment and employees three times the number of people that were the minimum threshold requirements that this Council has set forth in its resolution. So maybe the mistake was that we over estimated, we should have come in and said it was going to be 50 people and $5,000,000 and we wouldn't be here today. But we tried to give you a good faith estimate back in 1994 as to what we were going to do. Now, we haven't fully complied with everything that we said, so what factors have caused that? Why are we below the projected 175 people? Foremost, and probably the most important factor or problem, I'm not sure it's a problem, I think it's a good thing, is the productivity of the local workforce. When Azteca came to town and made its projections, it knew how much flour it wanted to produce at its facility here in Vanderburgh County. It based the number of employees it would take based on historical numbers that it had at its other plants located in the southwest. It knew how many people it took to produce flour down there and assumed that it would be the same thing up here. What they found however, and on their productivity reports and we've looked at productivity reports for as early as the six months this year and compared it to their plant down in Edinburg, Texas which produces roughly the same product in the same quantities, is that the local workforce is approximately 28% more productive here. To produce 100,000,000 tons of corn flour in Edinburg it took 86,000 labor hours to produce that quantity in Edinburg. It only took 62,522 hours here in Vanderburgh County. So I'm very proud to say, I live here in Vanderburgh County, our workforce is much more productive than what they had been use to elsewhere. That probably led, I think, to a large extent to their over estimation of the number of jobs that would be created back then. I don't think they could have reasonably predicted that. They weren't from this area, they weren't familiar with the local workforce. I think they've been pleasantly surprised that the local workforce has been as productive as it has been. I hope that they're not penalized because the local workforce is that productive. As I indicated before we currently have 130 employees. We have positions available for 145. We've hired, I think, 36 people, Mark, so far this year. We are continuing to try to hire that. We have 15 positions which if qualified people would present themselves we'd have positions available for them today. The problem we've had is a turnover problem and also attracting new people. In the local economy there's 3.1% unemployment, that's probably the lowest level in recent memory. You talk to any employer in this town and they'll tell you their number one problem is finding workers, qualified workers to fill positions. We've gone a long way in the last four or five years from trying to find jobs for qualified people, now we're trying to find qualified people to fill these jobs that have been created. The Council, the local government has been very successful in creating jobs. Look at four years ago, five years ago when Azteca came here we didn't have a Toyota, we didn't have an A K Steel, we didn't have the GPC plant in Washington, Indiana. I mean, all of those have created a real strain on our labor market here which makes it difficult to keep positions filled and we're doing our best that we can. As Jeff indicated, he wanted to know what we had done to try to attract jobs. Well, we've run ads in newspapers both here and in Princeton. We've worked with and spoken with the Metropolitan Evansville Chamber of Commerce. They have workforce people who have counseled with us on that. We have an open order for employees at the local workforce development office here in Evansville and also in Vincennes. We're getting applications in, I'm not saying we're not getting applications in, but what we want to do is make sure that we hire qualified people only that are going to stay because we want to keep those people. We spend money on training them. We want them to stay when they come. Very briefly...just switching subjects for a moment, but another factor that caused a loss of jobs somewhat is at the time when we made the statement of benefits, or made the projections in the statement of benefits, the Mexican peso was trading at around three pesos per dollar, three and a half pesos per dollar. Immediately, they were getting ready to start construction of their facility in January of 1995, in December of 1994 there was an international monetary crisis in Mexico and the peso was devalued. Now the peso is trading at roughly nine...it takes nine pesos to buy a dollar. It made it extremely and significantly more expensive for Azteca to build its facility here. I think they did a great job in completing their facility here because it was substantially as they wanted to. They did eliminate a corn storage facility, they eliminated a railroad spur and a couple of other areas that costed them, in their estimates, around five to ten jobs because they weren't able to build the facility as they wanted to build when they projected to do it when the peso was around three and a half pesos per dollar. Finally, the other factor that I think was reasonably beyond our control, it comes to no surprise to anyone here that we've had trouble with our water treatment facility. Azteca hadn't developed a water treatment facility itself in this kind of climate up here, and it hired an entity which it thought had that experience, could build the facility and run the facility efficiently. Unfortunately, that did not work out. Last summer they terminated that company. Since then Azteca has spent a lot of money, not to mention the time and talents of their own people to jump in and try to make the necessary repairs, the necessary improvements to its water treatment facility, not the least of which was the $500,000 that they spent to put a cover on the anaerobic lagoon in order to attempt to eliminate the odor problem which was being experienced in the northern part of the county. We've come a long way in completing that. We are continuing trying to tweak that to make sure that we don't have a problem. One of the things that we have done and not been able to do as a result of the problem is to increase production to the full levels that are capable of being produced out there until we get this problem with the water treatment facility fully solved and we're satisfied that it is solved. So, once that gets done that's going to help us to increase production out there and keep employment at high levels. Two other things I'd like you to consider as you make your decision this evening is that Azteca has a significant local economic impact. It spends roughly $500,000 a year on purchasing local goods and services and since its opening it's purchased roughly $75,000,000 worth of corn from tri-state area farmers and producers. So it has a significant economic impact in this area and we hope and we believe that we have substantially complied with our statement of benefits, or if you feel that we haven't, that we've done everything and will continue to do everything that we can to meet, to live up to that with the possible exception I'm telling you today that probably the 175 number that we projected in 1994 is probably not a realistic number for us to reach. I think the realistic number which I'm communicating to you today is 145. We would ask the Council this evening to not take away the tax abatement which was a substantial economic incentive for Azteca to locate here. It's a substantial economic incentive for other companies. We think that it is very valuable to us and would ask that you keep that in place for Azteca. I'm here as is Mr. Trevino, Mr. Cantu and Mr. Jennings to answer any questions that you might have.

President Wortman: Okay, Councilmembers we've got to keep moving here. We've got to be quick.

Councilmember Sutton: A couple of questions real quick, I know we're running short on time. What is the pay level for an entry level person?

Marco DeLucio: The current average out there is $13.20 and hour. The entry level position starts at $8.50 an hour. We have increased that substantially and that's one of the other things, I'm glad you brought that up Mr. Sutton, that we have done to try to attract and retain our employees. We had a substantial wage increase in May across the board. So it's $8.50 and if they're there 90 days and get through their probationary period that goes up to $9.00.

Councilmember Sutton: Yeah, I met with Mr. Jennings last year and I know he was having some difficulties in being able to attract people at the wage that they had at that particular time. But yeah, this is definitely an increase over, at that time, it was just a little over $7.00, $7.13 I think, something like that is what it was.

Marco DeLucio: They've made a real effort because they've realized that they've got competitive pressures out there as well, and they know that's a key to attracting and retaining employees.

Councilmember Sutton: So that's a significant step. The other thing is, this is kind of for the productivity of our workers here locally, in light of the fact that they are producing more, how is their pay in relation to those down in Texas? If they're producing more shouldn't they be getting paid more?

Marco DeLucio: I think they are paid more. If you'll look at our projection on our statement of benefits which is included in the packet I've given you it was estimated at $9.60 would be the average wage and we're at $13.26. So, I think we've recognized their productivity by increasing their wages substantially.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay, and I've been one of the ones that have asked a lot of questions about all of the abatements and one important one I think we want to hear what the rationale is behind the shortfall in the numbers. Everything is not within your control, we recognize that, but unless there is some discussion about that, you know, we can only make assumptions. You've gone through really eloquently so I won't go through a litany of questions.

President Wortman: Anybody else? Mr. Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: A question on your, I'm looking at your health benefits.

Marco DeLucio: Yes, sir.

Councilmember Hoy: A single employee's health benefits, the company pays 76 cents an hour. If my calculator is right and I'm right, that's about $1,580 a year. What's the employee's share of health insurance, do you know?

Marco DeLucio: Mr. Jennings, you'll have to come to the microphone.

President Wortman: Yeah, you'll have to come to the microphone please. State your name please.

Mark Jennings: Mark Jennings. Single coverage is $4.62 a week. 

Councilmember Hoy: So what's that, annualized is...?

Mark Jennings: A little over $200 I'd guess.

Councilmember Hoy: That's what the employee pays?

Mark Jennings: Yes, sir.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay. The company pays $1,580 and the employee pays about $200. And that same percentage was obtained with a family as well?

Mark Jennings: Those numbers came from our corporate office so I would assume so.

Councilmember Hoy: Do you all pay anything into a retirement fund?

Mark Jennings: We have a 401K retirement fund which the employee does not have to contribute to. If they are on the payroll at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year with no break in service the company puts a contribution into a 401K account in the employee's name.

Councilmember Hoy: And that becomes theirs?

Mark Jennings: Yes, sir.

Councilmember Hoy: Which is one of the nice things about a 401K.

Mark Jennings: Right.

Councilmember Hoy: You're saying here that in your projection originally, because I was President of the Council when we arranged this, that you were going to have 175 employees in two years, that has not happened. In fact the original application said 175 to 190. Where do you think you're going to top out on employees? And when?

Marco DeLucio: What I'm telling you is I think that number is 145, Mr. Hoy.

Councilmember Hoy: And that's it?

Marco DeLucio: Yes, sir

Councilmember Hoy: We're not going to get 175?

Marco DeLucio: We hope we can top that tomorrow, but with people coming and going we don't know. But 145 is the number I believe.

Councilmember Hoy: Thank you.

President Wortman: Okay, Mr. Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: I would just like to state that I've had an opportunity to look through this, it's a very impressive document. I believe that the company is making substantial efforts to comply. So I'm going to go ahead and follow the format here. Mr. Ahlers, I was going to follow the format and go ahead and make a motion that--

Councilmember Bassemier: Second.

Councilmember Lloyd: Well, let me make the motion that the Vanderburgh County Council find that Azteca Milling Company LP has made reasonable effort to substantially comply with its statement of benefits and that any failure to substantially comply was caused by factors beyond the control of the business.

President Wortman: Very good and do I have a second?

Councilmember Bassemier: Second.

President Wortman: Mr. Bassemier second. Just a second, the County Attorney has some discussion.

Jeff Ahlers: The only thing I was going to say, Mr. DeLucio did you give a copy of this to the secretary and ask her to make it of record?

Marco DeLucio: I gave it to the County Auditor and I think opened my remarks by saying I'd like that to be made part of the record.

Jeff Ahlers: Okay that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that if you wanted to that this was placed in the record.

Marco DeLucio: Yes.

Jeff Ahlers: Okay.

President Wortman: I think Azteca has been very good, they've got the smell under control. I think they're a very good company. They're out in the promised land, out there in Scott Township. We welcome them out there and we'd like to keep them out there. So we've got a second, I call for the vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: One thing, I might ask that since this is going to continue to come up and since they are saying that they can't meet what is in their projections, is there a way to make a notation in their material some kind of way or another so that next year we don't again assume that they're short when they've already indicated that the 145 is the top figure?

President Wortman: I think, Mr. Sutton, what we need to do is Mr. Robling needs to go out and check on these people, these companies, and they'd be glad to give him some information and Mr. Robling can report back, you know. 

Councilmember Sutton: Well he's not here, so...

Councilmember Hoy: Yes he is.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay, I thought you were sitting over there.

President Wortman: No, he's kind of hiding from us. But I think that would be the thing, he could go out and do this. You know, sometimes you don't have to call them in if you've got information in front of you, see. It's good.

Marco DeLucio: Mr. Robling did that with us and he talked to us about that.

Councilmember Smith: I feel like that each one of these that they should go out and talk to them and it wouldn't take one day to do them all that we've got. And I think Mike should be the one to go out there because he knows all about it.

Councilmember Sutton: I may have gotten something started, we're doing a roll call vote here.

Mike Robling: I would like to note that--

Councilmember Sutton: Just a second here, we're doing a roll call vote. So, perhaps maybe after we get done with our vote. Yes.

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: And I vote yes.

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Hoy opposed)

President Wortman: Now you want to comment right quick?

Mike Robling: I would like to note that on a number of the compliance forms there were comments made at the bottom of the form indicating these kinds of answers that we did contact the companies and give you these answers. You did not appear to be looking at them next month when you selected six businesses. In response to Mr. Sutton's question a while ago, I think we could come back with a simple resolution to amend the statement of benefits for Azteca to reduce that number so that it would be lower and not come up as a compliance issue as long as they've met the 145 in the future.

President Wortman: I'm into these businesses and I'll tell you what they're very impressive. They've done a good job. Everybody, you ought to just go out and take a look. They would be glad to take you through. And that's Temme Mold, Azteca, Matrixx all of them, they've done a good job. Now we've got to keep going and the next one --

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes, sir.

Councilmember Hoy: Did you have a contract on this plant, electrical? Did you have an electrical contract on this plant?

President Wortman: On the water treatment plant out of Texas. I had nothing to do with Azteca.

Councilmember Hoy: But you did have a contract on the water treatment plant?

President Wortman: Right, and I fair bid it and everything.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay, thank you.

President Wortman: Yeah, good.
 

President Wortman: Now we are going on to the next on the agenda is Warren Spurling. Mr. Spurling please come forward.

Bill Spurling: My name is Bill Spurling. I've been here before you before concerning the number of jobs. I would like to start out by reading a comment from Mr. Robling in the September 7, 1994 meeting of this body. It was under new business and you were discussing a resolution on the Spurling housing development length of deduction. Mr. Robling stated that it is a housing project for the elderly which was basically the reason that it was approved. Job creation was really not the reason that you approved it to begin with. It was a provision of lower income housing for the elderly. I'd like to go through, I'll hurry here. You have a sheet here that's a summary sheet it says totals for the entire project. When I came and applied initially I had three full-time employees and two part-time on that first application which tax abatement form it says the original application. If you'll look on the second page I promised to hire seven full-time and six part-time employees for a total ten full and eight part-time. I made one mistake when I applied for that first abatement, I didn't allow myself enough time to finish the construction. I only gave myself two years. The bank, the lenders, insisted that we build it in phases because it was a new product and they wanted us to test the market. They didn't want to put all that money out and then find out that there wasn't a market there for what we do. Of course it was very successful and we continue to build, but my time period ran out. So, DMD had me refile the tax abatement for the remainder of the project. At that time I had ten employees full-time and eight part-time which we hit our target from the first one. Then if you'll look at the reapplication, 1994, on the second page, I had ten full and eight part and I promised to hire three full and three part-time additional which would have brought me to a grand total of 13 full-time and 11 part-time employees. What got confusing was that in the application it was very easy to keep them separate, but when it came time to fill out the statement of benefits form they overlapped and the numbers got added together. Instead of keeping those two applications separate they got added together. So, on the statement of benefits it looks like we were...like I say because there were two of them, you have the first one and the second one and it gets very confusing at that point. Anyway, the first application was for the entire project. I estimated that I would have ten full-time and eight part-time and it was passed. Through the reapplication was where things got confusing. Anyway, today we have 19 full-time employees and 22 part-time employees which puts us well over the...even with the mistake on the CF-1 Form we're still over the number of employees that are required.

President Wortman: Okay, anybody got any questions for Mr. Spurling?

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. Spurling, the last time you were before us there was some confusion on where some of your employees worked. I'm looking at this list here that you gave us. All of these folks that are listed as full-time, they work full-time at this complex, is that correct?

Bill Spurling: Not at just that complex.

Councilmember Hoy: They work other places as well?

Bill Spurling: Occasionally.

Councilmember Hoy: The last time that you were here...these are all your employees though? The last time you included contract employees. These are not contract employees right?

Bill Spurling: The part-time folks or the full-time people are all my employees.

Councilmember Hoy: The part-timers are contract?

Bill Spurling: Right. They would be like cleaning people, lawn people, techs like heating and air conditioning repair.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay, they work for other companies and you employ them to do certain tasks at your place?

Bill Spurling: Right.

Councilmember Hoy: That's, as you know, a problem I have with this. Because I would say to Council, I don't know where you all work, but where I work we contract with a number of companies to do pest control, refrigeration, fork lift contracts, etc. and we do not count them as our employees of Tri-State Food Bank. And I don't think most businesses do. Those are contracts rather than employees. Also, my comment is that even the full-time employees they do work at other projects and while I think this still will pass I think it's worthy of noting that this project did not in and of itself create all of these jobs. It helped create these jobs.

Bill Spurling: This project, and I never presented this project as being a big job producer.

Councilmember Hoy: No you didn't.

Bill Spurling: You know, it was for the establishment of senior housing, living--

Councilmember Hoy: No, I will grant you that. I just wanted to clarify the employees in question.

President Wortman: Okay, anything else? We've got to keep moving here. So, Mr. Lloyd do you want to make a motion since you did before?

Councilmember Lloyd: I'd like someone else to make a motion.

Councilmember Smith: I make a motion we approve.

Councilmember Bassemier: Second.

President Wortman: Okay, I've got a motion and a second. We're talking about Mr. Spurling on that and he's made reasonable efforts to comply with the statement on that. So, okay, call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes. Thank you Mr. Spurling, we appreciate it.

Bill Spurling: Thank you very much for your time.

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Hoy opposed)

Tape Change
 

President Wortman: Okay, we're going to skip for just a second here. We're going to go down to the Vanderburgh Industrial Park bond ordinance second and final reading. I would like to have a motion to that effect.

Councilmember Raben: So moved, Mr. President.

President Wortman: Mr. Raben. Do I have a second?

Councilman Bassemier: Second.

Councilmember Hoy: Question, Mr. President. Is this the Phoenix project? The old Phoenix project? 

Jeff Ahlers: VIP.

Councilmember Hoy: Huh? I know, but it was the Phoenix project originally?

Councilmember Raben: This is the same.

Councilmember Hoy: The same one? Okay, thank you.

President Wortman: Ed, you seconded it?

Councilman Bassemier: Yes.

President Wortman: Okay, call the roll please. This is for approval. Mrs. Smith, pay attention.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilman Bassemier?

Councilman Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Hoy opposed.)
 

President Wortman: Now we're going to move the filing date for September, 1999 will be August 13th. Sandie will send a memo out. 
 

President Wortman: Okay, now we've got an ordinance authorizing and approving the investment of public funds in money market mutual funds. I'll have a motion to entertain that from Councilmembers.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of that. 

President Wortman: Alright. Mr. Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: I'll give a second to that.

President Wortman: You'll give a second. Any discussion?

Councilmember Lloyd: Mr. President?

President Wortman: Yes, sir.

Councilmember Lloyd: I was going to say and maybe Mr. Sutton could help, but, I mean, I did read the ordinance and looks like...I mean, it's different types of investments than what our Treasurer is doing now, but it's AAA rated and it looks like the state would also recommend these vehicles so just looking at it I didn't see any problem with it. 

President Wortman: Alright, any other discussion? Call the roll please?

Councilmember Sutton: Whoa.

President Wortman: Mr. Sutton, I'm sorry.

Councilmember Sutton: Now, this particular item is something that has come up in other public bodies. Can we get them to quiet down just a little bit I guess. 

President Wortman: Can you be kind of quiet, please? Continue, Mr. Sutton.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay. The other public bodies have taken up and I don't know in terms of the extent of all the number of investments and I don't in any way present myself as any financial wizard or wonder when it relates to how public entities may invest their funds, but there is a certain level of risk involved with any investment. I guess when we look at something like this I don't know if the public has had an ample opportunity to really consider this issue. I mean, this is not something that you really want to take lightly per se. I think though we do have it on the agenda and we didn't really have any discussion last week in our other meeting when you talk about investing public funds in some instruments where there is volatility the public really needs to have an opportunity to really have some input on those types of things. You know, we've seen some issues out in California, this is probably about four or five years ago, where some cities went belly up and you really had some real issues there, so before proceeding forward in something like this I would really caution that we really take...I would rather go on the side of caution and take it slower rather than jump right in this. I mean, we're not going to miss out on necessarily a whole lot right now. The market is down a little bit anyway, but I guess my concern is that perhaps maybe we may give the public a better opportunity to respond on this issue.

President Wortman: This is the first reading. There will be a second reading also. This is just for a year, I think, Mr. Sutton, if I understand that right.

Councilmember Sutton: What was that?

President Wortman: It would be just for a year.

Councilmember Sutton: Now why would we only invest for a year? I mean, that wouldn't--

Jeff Ahlers: The ordinance itself just says that it expires one year from its adoption. As I read this and I looked at it, this all falls under a new law and all it is doing is modifying. Most of this stuff is money market mutual funds, you know what I am saying, so you would be bringing it in and out every day. There is going to be though you will have a second reading so you'll have a month to investigate. I'm not telling you...you guys can do whatever you want with it today, but to respond to you it will have to have a second reading and the ordinance itself expires in one year in terms of long-term--

Councilmember Sutton: I mean, whoever is going to be the principal over making these investments, I mean, I would like to hear something from that person or department, what have you.

Councilmember Lloyd: The County Treasurer.

Councilmember Sutton: The County Treasurer. I mean, I really would like to hear a presentation from that group before we would proceed forward in this so that we would have an opportunity to ask questions in addition to the public as well before we would really move forward on this.

President Wortman: Okay, we've got a motion on the floor and a second. Any other discussion?

Councilmember Raben: Other than the fact that I would certainly agree with Councilman Sutton. I made the motion to get it on the floor and then I realized she wasn't here. I had plenty of questions myself. I would like to withdraw my motion at this time. 

President Wortman: Who made the...you withdraw yours?

Councilmember Lloyd: I would be happy to withdraw my second. I would like the Treasurer to come in and talk to her about it.

President Wortman: Alright, you want to defer it one month?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yeah, I'll make a motion to defer the ordinance until the next Council meeting.

Councilmember Raben: I'll second that.

President Wortman: Mr. Raben seconded it. Any discussion? Okay, does that kind of blend in with you, Mr. Sutton? Okay, thank you. Call the roll please. 

Councilmember Smith: For a delay?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yeah, motion to defer to the next Council meeting.

Councilmember Smith: Okay.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilman Bassemier?

Councilman Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Wortman: Okay, now then we've got three more here. Temme Engineering, would they step forward, please.

Councilman Bassemier: Wait a minute, Mr. President. 

President Wortman: Excuse me just a minute.

Jeff Ahlers: First of all, back on this ordinance you'll need to give direction to the Secretary to advertise this ordinance.

President Wortman: Madam Secretary and Sandie, will you advertise?

Sandie Deig: Teri does that, but it was going to be advertised for the September 1 public hearing, am I not correct?

Teri Lukeman: Does it need to be advertised for the first reading or just as a second and final?

Jeff Ahlers: Alright, but that is now going to change, I think is the point. What would have been the second and final reading is now not going to.

Suzanne Crouch: But they can change it. It will be one month later.

President Wortman: We don't need a motion.
 

President Wortman: Okay now, Mr. Temme, would you step forward please. We've got to get out of here. We've only got ten minutes here so we've got to go and I've got to go eat supper yet.

Stan Temme: Okay, my name is Stan Temme and I am representing...what I would like to do is cover Temme Mold and Engineering and Temme Investments. Those are really two entities that make up the same abatement. They were acquired under Temme Mold and Engineering. It's a tool and die shop. We make injection molds. Temme Investments is the owners and caretakers of the building that Temme Mold and Engineering rents from. Three years ago we came to you for a tax abatement. Temme Investments built the building about $560,000 on the building. We've done that. Temme Mold and Engineering is the company that hires the employees to make injection molds. We had projected 20 people. Currently we are at 15. We've been in operation for two years. The jobs that we have created are very highly skilled jobs. I would say our entry level rate for apprentices is maybe $7 to $8 an hour. Our top lead men are making $23 an hour plus time and a half for overtime. We offer full medical and dental, a 401K plan with company matching funds, paid holidays and vacation. At this point, I guess, the reason for not reaching the 20 is really just under estimating or maybe over estimating what we though we could do. The tool market has been slow, particularly in Evansville. I would say about 75 percent of our customers and work comes from outside the Evansville area. Houston, Boulder, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, areas outside of Evansville. We plan to continue to grow. The facility that we have, we have 15 people all on first shift. We are trying to start a second shift. It is very difficult to do when you need skilled employees, people with 10 years or 15 year experience in the industry to get them to work the night shift. So we're probably going to have to go outside the Evansville area to get those people, to find those. We are advertising in the Evansville Courier to obtain those positions. Right now we have two to three position for night shift open. I am looking to hire another mold designer and after that a programmer, so that would eventually get us to 20. We submitted a paper after we were requested to come here, a letter, and I guess what we are requesting is that maybe we over estimated three years ago that we instead place the number of jobs at 15 initially with the attempt to try to grow to 20 over the term of the abatement. As far as our salaries go last year we predicted salaries of $1 million. Salaries last year were just under $800,000. This resulted in I would say our average salary is just over $50,000 per employee. This was all done just with $1.5 million of tax abatement so we feel like we've been making every effort we can to comply with the projections that we made three years ago.

President Wortman: And technology has entered into this picture, too, with the latest equipment, I am assuming, and all that.

Stan Temme: Yeah, as far as Azteca mentioned, as far as productivity that we probably finally invested in...we're currently around $980,000 in equipment that we have purchased. I think we estimated $1,060,000. We have kind of exceed our productivity. Not really based on the worker, but just based on the machinery that we've purchased.

President Wortman: I think all the Councilmen received a letter to that effect, too. Now, do any Councilmen got any questions?

Councilmember Hoy: I've got a question, sir.

President Wortman: Go ahead, Mr. Hoy.

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. Temme, I'm a little confused from the paperwork here. You have...there are two abatements here that we're looking at and there are 20 employees listed on each one. Are we talking about 40 employees or 20 total?

Stan Temme: No, we intended 20.

Councilmember Hoy: Twenty total?

Stan Temme: Yeah. Mr. Robling had us split up the applications because one was a company that had to do with real estate and the other was company that had to do with the hiring of employees, so we submitted them on two different forms, but we intended them to be together.

Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, in our minds then it would be helpful to us if we merged these two and saw them as one.

Stan Temme: Yeah, you can call it Temme Mold and Engineering. 

Councilmember Sutton: So the realistic figure that you're talking about rather than 20 is what?

Stan Temme: Well, right now we're at 15 and I guess if I had to put the number on a paper three years ago I would have said 15 with the effort to grow to 20. And that's our effort. I mean, we would like to get up to 20 employees with this current facility. 

Councilmember Sutton: I guess as you see it now, are you still seeing 20 or are you seeing 15?

Stan Temme: I would like to see 20, it's just next year if I'm at 17 am I going to be called back to try and explain why I don't have three additional employees, so for the record I would like to say 15 and growing to 20 over the terms of the abatement.

President Wortman: Okay, anybody else got any questions? If not I'll entertain a motion for approval. Mrs. Smith.

Councilmember Smith: So moved.

President Wortman: So moved. Anybody second it?

Councilmember Lloyd: Second.

President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd seconded it. Call the roll please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilman Bassemier?

Councilman Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: Normally I would vote no because I do feel that we were looking originally at 40 employees, but apparently there was some confusion there. I'll vote a qualified yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Temme.

Stan Temme: Thank you.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
 

President Wortman: Now, Matrixx representative, would they come forward, please.

Mike Robling: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure that the record reflects both.

President Wortman: Both divisions, right. 

Kirk Wright: I'm Kirk Wright, with the Matrixx Group. I think you all received a letter from me stating what our position is. Our major position is we made a few errors on our SB-1 and our CF-1. The bottom line is we just moved into our facility just about a week and a half ago with major problems not to our factory, mainly our material handling company, which we have fired, kind of left us high and dry and delayed us a total of 12 to 15 months. Our crew numbers are we've added 25 people since we were granted tax abatement and we've added over $1,100,000 in salaries. Unfortunately we lost out on our first year of tax abatement to being delayed, so the county kind of caught up and got one on us on that one. We feel that we'll still meet our projection. Within three years of completion of the facility we'll hire 67 people and we'll more than match and exceed the salaries that we mentioned. 

President Wortman: I think we might take note here, when they was in the enterprise zone here in town, in Evansville, they projected 22 employees and ended up with 98, is that correct?

Kirk Wright: We ended up with 90. We counted eight guys twice, so actually, you said 22 and we ended up with 90. So we have a track history.

President Wortman: They're moving right along. They're only two years old so we've got to give them credit. Mr. Sutton.

Councilmember Sutton: Yeah, I was in support of this request when it came before us before and I also was the one who made the motion to call Matrixx before us, not the Department of Metropolitan Development, so that is why you're here today.

Kirk Wright: I understand.

Councilmember Sutton: But I just want to bring to your attention I think all the Council may have had in their packet, I think as we are working with companies it is truly our effort to create a partnership and work with companies. I read through the letter that you submitted to Mr. Robling and frankly I was quite concerned about the content of the letter. If I might, for the record, point out just a few things that was indicated in the letter that you had written to Mr. Robling. It says:

Kirk Wright: Sure.

Councilmember Sutton: To write a letter of this strong content really does concern me. You guys are a quality company and you guys do an excellent job.

Kirk Wright: May I explain myself?

Councilmember Sutton: I would think that this letter is not reflective of the type of approach that this company has had in this community--

Kirk Wright: Sure, right.

Councilmember Sutton: --over this point in time and I don't think this body has ever received a letter written this strongly criticizing really the stance of the county's position in creating jobs. I think we're all interested in that and we're interested in your development as a company, but we have responsibilities as a Council. He has responsibilities as Executive Director, but like I say when I see letters like that it really makes me recoil rather strongly.

Kirk Wright: Sure, if you would allow me to explain. We had no notice whatsoever. We read an article in the paper and we assumed all along that Mr. Robling knew of our progress. And, you know, we see an article in the paper that is basically saying we are not in compliance and we said all along it would be a three year process and then we just assumed that everyone knew that we were delayed in the project, so for that to come out with us getting no background whatsoever. I have apologized to Mr. Robling, once I got the minutes and understood what the content of your meeting was, but no one explained to me what the content of the meeting was. We just got a letter saying, show up, you're not in compliance. We thought all along we had a good partnership going and everyone knew where we kind of stood on it. And then to read the minutes and Mr. Robling was trying to explain why we were not in compliance you guys even you cut him off in mid sentences, alright? So I apologized to Mr. Robling and I apologize personally to him now. I apologize for any of my comments that were misconstrued. Basically, we went through a very frustrating move and maybe some of that rubbed wrong in this letter and I apologize for it. My life has been pretty hectic since making this move, so I apologize if I have offended the Council in any way, it was not my intention to do so. I just want to make sure that everyone knows that we are very proud to be in Vanderburgh County. We're very proud to be putting this investment in it and being part of the economic growth in Vanderburgh County. We're very proud of the facility that we have built and welcome any of you to come out to take a look at it.

President Wortman: Okay.

Councilmember Hoy: Thank you, sir. You really said what I had hoped you would say about Mr. Robling because all Mr. Robling did was to bring--

Kirk Wright: Sure.

Councilmember Hoy: --the figures to us and I didn't blast you either, but I'm the guy who brought up about a dozen of these because I am Mr. Anti-Tax Abatement. 

Kirk Wright: Right, we had no idea. We were in the dark.

Councilmember Hoy: I appreciate what you've just said because Mr. Robling certainly was just doing his job and doing it fairly.

Kirk Wright: Sure, and like I said I apologized to him even before I stood up here.

Councilmember Hoy: I want you to know I appreciate you apologizing because a lot of people would never do what you've just done. I appreciate that.

Councilmember Smith: I make a motion for approval.

President Wortman: Have I got a second?

Councilmember Raben: Second.

President Wortman: Second, Mr. Raben. Any discussion? Call the roll please for approval.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilman Bassemier?

Councilman Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: I still will vote my no because I am patently against tax abatements, as you know, but not against your company. Thank you.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Hoy opposed)

President Wortman: Okay, thank you, Mr. Wright. 
 

President Wortman: Okay, now we've got one more. Rexam, would they come up, please. We've got to get out of here. The Area Plan wants this for zonings. 

Larry Drennan: Yes, thank you all for letting me address you. My name is Larry Drennan. I'm Vice President of Rexam Closures. In answer to your compliance issue we originally said we were going to spend $18 million in a two year period to retool the Evansville operation. We have done that. We spent over $18 million. On top of that we spent an additional $4 million for new tools and equipment each year since that point, since 1993. We also said at that point we were going to retain 292 jobs and create 100. We have not been successful in that. Right now we have 340 people on our payroll. We have 37 temporaries currently working in our workforce while we are attempting to recruit people. We have 44 openings at the present time on it. We probably will not reach the full 100 number for the end of this year on it, but we will come probably in an area of 385 at this point. Do you have any other further--

President Wortman: Yeah, could you state your name, please. 

Larry Drennan: Larry Drennan.

President Wortman: Okay, do we have any question for--

Councilmember Hoy: Excuse me, sir. We're trying to get ready for the next meeting and I didn't hear what you said. The last thing about how many employees you think?

Larry Drennan: We think we'll probably be someplace in the neighborhood of 380 by the end of the year. Right now we have 37 temps which are not in our numbers because we are employing those from temporary agencies. We've got 44 current openings at this point in time that we are currently recruiting.

Councilmember Hoy: May I ask what is the reason for using temporary employment versus--

Larry Drennan: To get qualified people. We've had problems, we had a real turnover. Toyota has hurt us very badly in the number of people they recruited from us. It's something like 20 people in the last eight months that they have taken of our workforce that we've had problems replacing qualified people.

Councilmember Hoy: But if you bring a temp in and you find a good person, then do you move that person over?

Larry Drennan: We do have temps that do go ahead and qualify after a period of time and we do put them on.

Councilmember Hoy: Okay, thank you.

President Wortman: Okay, any other questions? 

Councilmember Smith: Motion for approval.

President Wortman: Motion for approval. Do I have a second?

Councilmember Lloyd: Second.

President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd seconds. Any discussion? Call the roll please for approval.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?

Councilmember Smith: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilman Bassemier?

Councilman Bassemier: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?

Councilmember Hoy: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?

Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?

President Wortman: Yes.

(Motion carried 5-2/Councilmembers Hoy and Sutton opposed)

President Wortman: Okay, thank you. Motion for adjournment.

Councilmember Lloyd: Motion to adjourn. 

President Wortman: Okay, thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry for the delay.

Meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
 
 

_____________________________      ____________________________
President Curt Wortman                       Vice President Russell Lloyd, Jr.
 

____________________________        ____________________________
Councilmember James Raben               Councilmember Phil Hoy
 

____________________________        ____________________________
Councilmember Ed Bassemier               Councilmember Royce Sutton
 

_____________________________
Councilmember Betty Knight-Smith