VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL

MINUTES

DECEMBER 1, 2004

The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 1st day of December, 2004 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 3:34 p.m. by County Council President Ed Bassemier.

President Bassemier: I’d like to welcome everybody to the December 1st, 2004 County Council meeting. Attendance roll call please.

President Bassemier: Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

(Pledge of Allegiance was given)

President Bassemier: Okay, I need a motion for approval of the minutes from November 3rd, 2004, special meeting.

Councilmember Wortman: So moved.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Bassemier: Got a motion and a second. Roll call vote please, we’ll take them separately.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Bassemier: Okay, I’d like to have a motion for approval of the minutes of November 3rd, 2004 regular meeting.

Councilmember Wortman: I make a motion to approve.

President Bassemier: We have a motion, have we got a second?

Councilmember Tornatta: Second.

President Bassemier: Second on Troy, okay, thank you. Roll call vote on that one, too, please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

SUPERIOR COURT

President Bassemier: Now we’re going to get into our appropriation ordinance and I’m going to turn that over to our finance chairman, Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you, Mr. President. First on the agenda today is Superior Court, account 1370-3941 and 1370-3994 for a total request of $6,692, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Bassemier: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

SUPERIOR COURT                                               REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Cum Bridge, 2030-4250 Miscellaneous Equipment in the amount of $40,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Bassemier: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE                                         REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REASSESSMENT/TREASURER

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, next under County Treasurer, account 2490-1030-4220 Office Machines, last week I had asked that the Treasurer go to the Commission and request that through the Contractual Computer account. And she has, in fact, done that and the Commissioners granted that approval Monday night, so I’ll move that this be set in at zero.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Bassemier: I have a motion and a second. Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

TREASURER                                                         REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Bassemier: Jim, before you go any farther I just wanted to say that was a good move on your part last week to suggest that, so –

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, he beat me to it and thanks to Z Tuley, the Treasurer, for following through on that. That worked out well.

President Bassemier: Yeah, she followed up right away. She was over there right after the meeting, so I just want to commend you guys. Thank you.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you very much.

CONVENTION CENTRE OPERATING FUND

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Convention Centre Operating, 3650-3203 Utilities and Electrical. If you recall, there was some discussion on this, that $50,000 represented bills that won’t be payable until January of the new year, so Mr. President, at this time I’m going to move that that be set in at $25,000.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Bassemier: I’ve got a motion and a second to set it in at $25,000. Any discussion on that? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

CONVENTION CENTRE OPERATING                 REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

SUPERIOR COURT

Councilmember Raben: Okay, under – that’s it for the appropriations. We have a repeal for Superior Court in the amount of $6,719. I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Bassemier: Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

SUPERIOR COURT                                               REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

CENTER ASSESSOR                        ELECTION OFFICE

AREA PLAN COMMISSION              SUPT OF COUNTY BUILDINGS

CIRCUIT COURT                               COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

SUPERIOR COURT                           COUNTY COUNCIL

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE                     FAMILY & CHILDREN

LOCAL ROADS & STREETS            REASSESSMENT/GERMAN

REASSESSMENT/KNIGHT               REASSESSMENT/PERRY

CIRCUIT COURT SUPP. ADULT      CONVENTION CENTRE OPERATING

SHERIFF (LATE)                               ELECTION OFFICE (LATE)

Councilmember Raben: Okay, last Mr. President, you will see that there is quite a few transfers. If it’s okay with the other Councilmembers I’ll move that we take all the transfers as listed with one correction. Under Sheriff, this falls under a late transfer, I’ll give everyone time to locate that, its on page 5. The very first line under Sheriff 1050-1130-0035, the correct amount should be $3,742. Just below that, 1050-1210 College Incentive, the correct figure should be $3,700. And then all other transfers as they are listed –

President Bassemier: Has anybody got a problem taking all of these?

Councilmember Tornatta: I just had one question maybe – I know I am picking on the Election Office, can I ask you a question?

Councilmember Raben: Before we – while you are waiting for her to come up let me amend my motion. Councilman Wortman would like for me to exclude Riverboat from this motion. Has anyone seconded?

Councilmember Tornatta: Second.

President Bassemier: Okay, I have a motion and a second.

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, I had a quick question here. There was talk that if we went through a private audit, that there might have to be monies come out, are we not going to do that, go through an audit for legal services? I think this is why this was put over, transferred.

B.J. Farrell: The legal services that I’m asking the money to be transferred into, that was to pay Mr. Shively for his work on the lawsuit that was filed. Its my understanding that’s above and beyond what he would normally make as the Election Board attorney. Was that your question?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah.

B.J. Farrell: Okay.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, thanks.

President Bassemier: Everybody okay with that then? Troy? Everybody, to take them all together? Okay, do I have a motion and a second? Okay, roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

CENTER ASSESSOR                                            REQUESTED       APPROVED

ELECTION OFFICE                                               REQUESTED       APPROVED

AREA PLAN COMMISSION                                  REQUESTED       APPROVED

SUPERINTENDENT OF COUNTY BUILDINGS   REQUESTED       APPROVED

CIRCUIT COURT                                                   REQUESTED       APPROVED

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS                              REQUESTED       APPROVED

SUPERIOR COURT                                               REQUESTED       APPROVED

COUNTY COUNCIL                                               REQUESTED       APPROVED

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE                                         REQUESTED       APPROVED

FAMILY & CHILDREN                                           REQUESTED       APPROVED

LOCAL ROADS & STREETS                                REQUESTED       APPROVED

REASSESSMENT/GERMAN                                 REQUESTED       APPROVED

REASSESSMENT/KNIGHT                                   REQUESTED       APPROVED

REASSESSMENT/PERRY                                    REQUESTED       APPROVED

CIRCUIT COURT SUPPLEMENTAL ADULT       REQUESTED       APPROVED

CONVENTION CENTRE OPERATING FUND      REQUESTED       APPROVED

SHERIFF                                                                REQUESTED       APPROVED

ELECTION OFFICE                                               REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

RIVERBOAT

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I don’t think you heard me, you were working on something else. I excluded Riverboat from that motion, so I’ll now move that we accept the Riverboat transfer as listed.

Councilmember Winnecke: Second.

President Bassemier: Okay, I have a motion and a second. Thank you, Jim. Any discussion on that?

Councilmember Wortman: Yeah, the reason I have a problem with that, they have access or did have access to the Barrett law like everybody else, and I don’t know why the taxpayers should do this. Although Riverboat could be used for economic development or something of that nature as far as I’m concerned, we might need it. But originally, $230,000 was set aside for this. We could have used that money instead it spending it for a certain amount of people. To me, that’s not fair to the people that did the Barrett Law, they have access to it.

President Bassemier: Okay, anybody else?

Councilmember Sutton: Councilman Wortman, can you kind of explain what you were sharing there because maybe I am catching it in the middle of it, I know that there were – are you saying that there are some that did not participate in the Barrett Law, is that what you are saying?

Councilmember Wortman: No, anybody that had a problem went to the Commissioners and the Barrett Law, they pursued it, so they went through the Barrett Law to process that through there. They pay so much for so many years to get the sewer extended. These people here were just ten people. They had access but they didn’t use the Barrett Law, that’s my argument.

Councilmember Sutton: Now I understand.

President Bassemier: Okay. Roll call vote then.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: No.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

RIVERBOAT                                                          REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Wortman opposed)

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next we have Amendments to the Salary Ordinance and there is quite a few of them. First under Community Corrections, I move that we amend the following salary lines in the 2004 budget book and set in as follows: 1361-1260 Correction Officer in the amount of $29,683; 1361-1390 Correction Officer $30,817; 1361-1430 Correction Officer at $30,817; 1361-1460 Correction Officer at $33,327; and also amend salary line 1361-1530 Shift Differential as previously adopted. Under County Council salary line 1480-1971 Accrued Termination Pay as previously adopted, setting that line in at $60,000. Armstrong Assessor, amend the 2005 salary ordinance line 1100-1110 setting salary in at $3,571; German Assessor, same thing, amend salary ordinance line number 1120-1110 setting that salary at $10,780; Scott Assessor, amend salary, the 2005 salary ordinance line number 1160-1110 setting that salary at $10,780; Union Assessor, amend the 2005 Salary Ordinance line number 1170-1110 setting that salary at $3,571. And under Sheriff, move that we amend the following salary lines as previously adopted and the transfer that we just approved which is 1050-1130-051 at $39,344; 1050-1130-072 at $39,344; 1050-1130-096 at $39,344. And last, under Sheriff/Community Corrections, amend salary ordinance to allow the Sheriff in the Community Corrections department account 136Y-1990 to pay a maximum of four employees up to $8.50 an hour. That’s all I have and I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Bassemier: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Tornatta: I’ve got a question real quick. Were the additions to the Assessors an upgrade on the salary for the $500?

Councilmember Raben: If you recall during budgets, they weren’t actually given anything because $500 would be excessive for those amounts. So these bring it down – they are based at about 2½ to 3%.

Councilmember Tornatta: We went up that amount for them?

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, I mean, again, if we would have given a $500 pay increase to those salaries it would have been –

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, some of them showed that they got nothing, so this shows they get something.

Councilmember Raben: This corrects that.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, thank you.

President Bassemier: Okay, I’ve got a motion and a second. Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Bassemier: Okay, moving into Old Business, and before we go any farther, I just want to apologize, I’m a little late in the game here but I want to welcome our new Councilman Goebel there. Welcome to our staff here, our Council, and I know you’ll do well. So I apologize, I didn’t introduce you the first go around. Anything you want to say or –

Councilmember Goebel: Well, Ed, thank you. Is this thing on?

President Bassemier: Just flip it.

Councilmember Goebel: Thank you, and it certainly is down to business right away and I appreciate that. I do feel honored to be here, be part of this County Council and to represent the people of Vanderburgh County. I think it’s a privilege to work with the people on this board, to work with Vanderburgh County. I know we have challenging times ahead and I really feel that we’re going to overcome those. I feel very optimistic about the future of our county not just for us but for our children and I want to thank everyone for making me feel so welcome and for being accessible. I hope to do my very best to represent the people of Vanderburgh County just like you. So back to business, Ed.

President Bassemier: Thank you, sir, very much.

Councilmember Tornatta: And he knows that’s only for the first couple of meetings.

President Bassemier: Okay, anything under Old Business? Okay, under New Business, every year we do this, Evansville-Vanderburgh County Building Authority Board of Trustees appointment, and I’d like to, as President, make a recommendation of Pam Gallagher. I’d like to have a motion and a second on that.

Councilmember Wortman: I’d like to make a motion we approve her.

Councilmember Raben: And I’ll second.

President Bassemier: I know she’s served on it this year and I understand she wants to serve on it again, so I have a motion and a second. Let’s take a roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier?

President Bassemier: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Bassemier: Okay, under New Business again, for the filing date, January 5, 2005 County Council meeting filing date will be December the 2nd, 2004. Sandie, would you send a letter?

Sandie Deig: We already have.

President Bassemier: Okay, you did? Okay, that’s done.

President Bassemier: Rob Schaefer from DMD, tax abatements for the compliances. I know we’ve got one problem but...

Rob Schaefer: Rob Schaefer, DMD. Annually, the Council has to sign off on the compliance forms for tax abatement and I have them here in my hand and I prepared a spreadsheet for you. I think that you’ve got it. And the only one that is below the 90% in job creation is Graham Packaging. They’re at 75%. You talked to them last year and you requested that they send a letter and kind of update you on the progress. And the letter that I received, they are up to 42 employees and then I called them on November 11th, and they were up to 46. He said that they would probably would get up to 48 employees by the end of the year so if you’d like to not sign that one and ask them to come in and speak to you, you could or we could sign that one and basically say they’re in compliance. It just depends on how you want to handle it.

President Bassemier: Royce?

Councilmember Sutton: Rob, I know in the past we have brought companies in and for the most part, we’ve got relatively strong compliance across the board, but I know I’d be interested in hearing Graham Packaging come in. I know they still are very young in the infancy stage and getting ramped up, but you know we have made a pretty significant investment as far as Vanderburgh County is concerned. And if they can update us on their progress that would be extremely helpful. Now they have been, they are in compliance related to the equipment investment, so they’re okay there. I also wanted to add, Indiana Tube, you know, they are at 97% on the job creation side, so pretty good there, but on the equipment investment, they were below 70% there. So if there were some unusual circumstances that arose, some different things, I know I’d like to at least hear that since they’re below compliance in two areas on this particular, on the worksheet.

Rob Schaefer: Okay.

Councilmember Tornatta: Mr. President?

President Bassemier: I’m sorry. Troy?

Councilmember Tornatta: I would like to hear about the equipment on Indiana Tube as well. However, I do have an explanation for Graham Packaging for some of their issues. Of course, they are working strongly with Bristol-Myers, one of the reasons they came in town. I talked to a contact over there at Bristol-Myers who has the development for the project that they’re working with. He said that they were supposed to do a larger bottle; that larger bottle is not going to be in any of the future plans and was not supposed to be set up at that time which took out a line; therefore, we’re kind of – are we banging Graham Packaging at this point or are we banging Bristol-Myers, and so as far as I’m concerned, they are trying to ramp up numbers doing other things and bringing other business to this community and not necessarily relying on what Bristol-Myers brought to them. So that’s kind of why some of those numbers have slacked, but even so they still tell me that they’re going to bring some of those numbers up. So I think that’s what they’re going to tell you at this point and that was my last conversation.

Councilmember Winnecke: So are you saying that Bristol-Myers is saying they’re never going to be at that number?

Councilmember Tornatta: Bristol-Myers told them that they will not handle one of the volume lines that they were supposed to come in here and provide. So they kind of told Graham to find some more business to put in that space. So we’re kind of giving tax abatement to Bristol-Myers, but Graham Packaging is the front man.

Councilmember Winnecke: Well, Bristol-Myers doesn’t own the property. And we’re not giving an abatement to Bristol-Myers.

Rob Schaefer: I think what he’s saying is –

Councilmember Winnecke: I understand where he’s coming from but I don’t think that its right that they are getting the abatement.

Rob Schaefer: No, Graham is getting the abatement. I think maybe you might have meant that Graham is so reliant on what Bristol-Myers is doing, they almost have their hands tied.

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, that was the reason for the location.

Rob Schaefer: Yeah. Right.

Councilmember Tornatta: And so I think that they know exactly what’s going on as far as – I think Bristol has a real good idea why they’re not at some of those numbers but in looking at what Graham has done, they’ve went and it forced them to bring in more business to this area and I think we might even see some other numbers coming down the pipe once some production starts to pick up.

Councilmember Winnecke: I would say, Mr. President, in light of – I mean, I think its great information to have, I mean, I think it would be interesting to hear from a representative of Bristol as well.

President Bassemier: Anybody got a problem with it?

Councilmember Tornatta: I can make that contact.

President Bassemier: Well, great.

Councilmember Raben: Other than, I guess –

President Bassemier: What’s everybody’s pleasure? You want to bring them in here are you saying next week – I’m sorry, the counselor needs to say something.

Jeff Ahlers: One of the things that I wanted to address just to make sure – to understand whether you’re just wanted to informally call them in or whether under statute we need to send them notice that this is a hearing, a show cause hearing if you want, because under the statute, you know, we’d need to take a vote that there’s been an initial finding that they’re not in substantial compliance with their statement of benefits and that therefore, they’re being called in on a hearing to show cause why, and then you know how we went through that procedure in the past. Or whether what you’re doing here is, you don’t want an official hearing so to speak because what we’ve done with some in the past, you’re just asking them to come in and speak with you. So just so that he knows what kind of notice to send and then like I said, if you’re wanting it to be an official hearing we probably need to have a motion indicating what the initial determination has been.

President Bassemier: Are you suggesting that they need to go ahead and have an official motion to get them in here? Is that your –

Jeff Ahlers: No, I’m not making any recommendation. I guess I’m just asking, I mean, I would make a recommendation after receiving the clarification as to what your intent is. I don’t know what the intent of this body is, whether we’re just saying we’re not really wanting a show cause hearing at this time, we’re just wanting to come in and you know, have them talk to us, or whether we’re actually going to have a show cause hearing. Because then by statute, we have to make a motion that there’s been an initial determination that they’re not in compliance with their statement of benefits and that they’re hereby notified that they must appear for a hearing on X date, whenever our next meeting is, to show cause why their abatement shouldn’t be terminated and then you question them then. I mean, we’ve done it both ways. I’m just wanting you to understand that if you’re wanting it to be an official hearing where you have the right to vote to terminate, you know, their abatement, we need to send them the appropriate notice and make the appropriate motion now. If that’s not your intent, we don’t.

Councilmember Tornatta: Is this document supposed to be signed this year or January? Can it be signed in January?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, actually, I don’t think we have to sign anything, technically. I mean, they continue to get the abatement until we revoke it, legally. Now maybe for your internal paperwork, I don’t know if you have something. But by statute, as far as I know, the only thing that’s ever been done is they get the abatement until we revoke it at one of these hearings, which I don’t know, we may have done that on one occasion or something. I mean, we’ve had the hearings and called a lot of them in, but I can only think of maybe one or two occasions over the past eight years that I’ve been your attorney that we’ve actually revoked it. So anyway, I just wanted to make sure that you remembered the protocol if that’s your intent.

Councilmember Raben: Rob, what’s the date on the initial abatement, where we granted the abatement?

Rob Schaefer: For Graham?

Councilmember Winnecke: 2001.

Rob Schaefer: 2001.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, is there a date on that outside of the year? Early 2001, late 2001?

Rob Schaefer: Yeah, I don’t know.

Councilmember Raben: Okay. And that would have – I mean...

Rob Schaefer: They applied...no, it doesn’t show it.

Councilmember Raben: That would have been probably prior to the start of construction. Well, in fact, it would have been, wouldn’t it?

Rob Schaefer: It should have been.

Councilmember Raben: I guess my question is, what is our real intent here? They’ve probably, after the construction, you know, allowing for the construction, they probably have been in operation for I would say less then two years. You know, they made a substantial investment in good faith based on what Bristol’s or the information that Bristol-Myers had supplied to them. I don’t think that they’re probably not doing everything they possibly can to develop new clients, new business to make up for that not only for the sake of the abatement that’s been granted, but for their own well being, so I don’t know that maybe we may be a little premature here in calling them in at this point but I’m one of seven here. I think we may need to allow themselves more time to work on, you know, replacing this business.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, given that this is generally the time period when we look at this, I don’t think we should view this process as a call on the carpet type of situation. I think, if anything, that because they came before a public body and they requested support and that public body provided that support. In those documents they ask for certain things and there are certain things that they are going to do. And if there are some problems that have come up along the way in between being able to carry those out, this would be an opportunity for them to respond. We just got this sheet here, you know, that kind of lays out where they are and it may not tell the whole story. And I think since they are in a situation where their business has really been put in a public light, they need to publically respond to any challenges or opportunities that may – so I don’t think we should look at it as a negative, in other words, is what I’m trying to say.

Councilmember Raben: I understand your point and I think its reasonable.

Councilmember Winnecke: I guess I have mixed feelings. I’d have to go back and look at the minutes from when we discussed this a year ago, but I’m fairly confident that we heard a lot of the same points although at that point I don’t think Bristol had told them that the line would not be – they would not need what they initially contracted them to do. I think at that point it was, the project was going to be delayed and Graham came before our body and told us we are looking for other means of revenue. So I guess my question would be, you know, they may have the best of intentions, I don’t doubt that, but how long will we give them to keep finding new means of business? I agree with Councilman Sutton, I mean, they did come before our body seeking public assistance and I think its only right that they come back and answer in a public fashion.

Councilmember Tornatta: And one other comment. I’m worried right now about if a company does not allocate all of the equipment that they said they were going to, because obviously, without equipment, it might be hard to put jobs in place so I mean, that’s really one of my concerns at this point to make sure that at least they get the equipment that they say – at least get the level of equipment that they promised us.

President Bassemier: Counselor?

Jeff Ahlers: The only thing is, if it would be your intent to hold a hearing to determine whether to revoke the abatement, if you’re wanting to do it for the next tax year, I’d have to look at the statute, but that does have to be done like in the first 45 days or something of the year because that’s when the determination is made. And I don’t know, Bill, if you know what that date is, otherwise I can look in the statute, but if you want to take official action, then again, you don’t have to decide that until you hear what they have to say, but if you want it to be an official hearing it would need to be done shortly after the first of the year at some point, I think its within 45 or 60 days because shortly thereafter, I think, is the deadline to determine your tax rate for that property. Is that right?

Bill Fluty: Well, we’re preparing for the 2005 billing and this is just part of the process, whether they do or don’t get an abatement will determine their bill. So that’s what we’re after right now.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I think its your call. I mean, –

President Bassemier: Well, I was just kind of thinking we maybe just ought to call them in and hear them out. Ask them some questions just on the record before we vote on – anybody can make a motion.

Councilmember Tornatta: I second that.

President Bassemier: Everybody okay with that?

Councilmember Wortman: Just for information, I think –

(Inaudible – several speaking at once)

Councilmember Wortman: I wanted to ask another question. There was another building that was built out there last year, it was from St. Louis, and we haven’t heard nothing on them. Is that Precision Plastics?

Rob Schaefer: Are you talking about out at VIP? Vanderburgh Industrial Park?

Councilmember Wortman: Yeah, how they’re doing. That building was setting there for a long time.

Rob Schaefer: I don’t know. Its still empty, isn’t it?

Councilmember Tornatta: They did not come.

Councilmember Wortman: Woodward –

Rob Schaefer: Oh, I know who you are talking about. That plastics – what was – I can’t remember the name right now. Yeah, they go – I think they’re in Warrick County.

Jeff Ahlers: Perfect Choice?

(Inaudible – several speaking at once)

Councilmember Wortman: No, they built a building out there. Woodward courted her. This lady come in here.

Rob Schaefer: Perfect Choice didn’t build it, though, Woodward –

Councilmember Sutton: They didn’t come.

Councilmember Tornatta: There was a building built out there but it was a spec building so nobody is in that at this point.

Councilmember Wortman: All I remember is they were going to move their business from St. Louis over here. And the building has been sitting there and that’s the reason – okay, thank you.

Rob Schaefer: So what are we going to do? Is it informal or formal?

President Bassemier: Well, I think we’ve got informal.

Rob Schaefer: Because if its formal we’re going to have to –

Jeff Ahlers: You know w