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

(Pledge of Allegiance was given)

President Winnecke: At this time I would consider a motion to approve the minutes from our June 1st meeting.

Councilmember Sutton: So moved.

President Winnecke: There is a motion. Do I hear a second?

Councilmember Raben: So moved.

President Winnecke: 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 Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Winnecke: At this time, just as a reminder to those viewing at home and to those who are joining us in the audience who might not regularly attend our meetings, this is the second meeting of this month for this body. A lot of the questions that Councilmembers had on these issues were asked last week, so if you don’t hear questions today, that is why. Having said that, we’ll proceed. And actually, I will begin with the Election Office. We’ll come back to the Sheriff’s request so we can get through some of the briefer items off the top to help out some of the other officeholders. So, Mr. Raben, how about we start with the Election Office?

ELECTION OFFICE

Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you, Mr. President. Let me locate them. Oh, it’s under Clerk, okay. Mr. President, I’ll move 1210-3610 Legal Services in the amount of $1,302.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: There’s a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

ELECTION OFFICE                                               REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

SHERIFF

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next, Mr. President, under Sheriff 1050-2210, 1050-1300 for a total appropriation of $126,000, I’ll move approval.

President Winnecke: There is a motion. Is there a second?

Councilmember Goebel: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

SHERIFF                                                                REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Jail, –

President Winnecke: Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind, let’s come back to the Jail since some people might have questions on that. That one might take a little more discussion than some of these others.

AREA PLAN

Councilmember Raben: Okay, we’ll move to Area Plan, 1240-3550 Repairs to Buildings and Grounds in the amount of $20,000. I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Councilmember Sutton: One of the questions that was asked last week, or one of the discussions I think maybe a little bit after, Brad, if you could come forward maybe you can help us out a little bit. This $20,000 request for the changes to your office area to kind of make it a more efficient work area so you don’t have to walk up and down the hallways as often because of the way things are configured now with your joint offices coming together, the questions was asked about how much of this amount, is this the total amount that the move will cost, and if it is not, how much the city is also contributing to this since this is a joint city/county agency?

Brad Mills: It is the total amount that’s projected for the move and as I spoke to Mr. Raben, I believe he said he was going to ask Mr. Fluty, and I don’t know if you had a chance to talk to him about we were repealing $30,000 of salary and thought that that 15% might be able to come with that money that was repealed. Did you have a chance to speak to him?

Councilmember Raben: Well, salary lines stay in –

Brad Mills: I understand, that’s a separate item. That was my thought. I don’t know, it would be my assumption that it would come out of –

Councilmember Raben: A salary repeal, I mean, are you asking –

(Inaudible – both speaking at once)

Brad Mills: – back into the General Fund, their 15% was in there as well. So I’m asking for that, if that’s at all possible.

Bill Fluty: Have you made that repeal?

Brad Mills: Yes, that was a part of the packet.

Councilmember Sutton: It’s on the agenda for today?

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, it’s later on.

Bill Fluty: They would still have to ask for the appropriation. We usually don’t co-mingle salary line items and –

Brad Mills: And I understood that, too, yes.

Councilmember Sutton: One more time, in terms of how you, I guess what you’re proposing is a portion that may have gone back to the city would come to the county?

Brad Mills: That’s what I was asking for, yes.

Councilmember Sutton: So, Bill, I mean, what’s your thoughts on that?

Bill Fluty: In the past, salary line items we’ve kept separate, and you may change that today, but, they’ve looked at it as separate and stayed as salary.

Councilmember Raben: Brad, are you, maybe I’m confused. Is the question, of that $15,000 repeal, will a portion of that go back to the city?

Brad Mills: That was my assumption. That $30,000 was what I was repealing, $30,500. And I’m assuming that the city paid 15% of that as well, because that was the total budget for my account. And I was asking at that same time, if that 15% that they are receiving back of that item, if they could appropriate, and I know we don’t co-mingle salaries with other line items, so that was a request at that time. If that wasn’t made clear, I’m sorry.

Councilmember Sutton: So what he is essentially saying is, rather than, since they aren’t picking up any of the cost, the city isn’t picking up any of the cost on the move, that rather than all the money from the salary line item going – a portion of it going from the salary line item going to the city, that it would all come to the county side to make up for what they aren’t doing on the move.

Councilmember Raben: And I don’t know that that’s a problem unless they request that.

Bill Fluty: I’ll just have to check into that. I’m not sure how that’s going to work.

Brad Mills: Okay, so we’re talking what, $3,000 then of that 15%?

Councilmember Sutton: Yeah. Well, I guess, maybe if you can bring something back to us maybe next month, I mean, so we don’t just continue to kind of lay this, I mean, this probably has no effect on what we’re going to do here, but if you could bring something back to us, give us some information on what can or cannot be done with that 15% of that salary portion that’s to be repealed today.

Bill Fluty: I can do that.

Councilmember Abell: If we were to approve this $20,000 and that’s the total amount, then we could bill the city 15%? If we give them back the 15% from the 30,000?

Bill Fluty: I don’t know what they have agreed to pay for. Have they agreed to pay for half of this cost?

Councilmember Abell: Are they going to pay their 15% of this?

Brad Mills: I haven’t specifically approached them on that matter, so I cannot speak for the city. I’d love to be able to do that, but I can’t.

Councilmember Goebel: Can we motion to pay our portion right now that we know we’re going to have to pay and table the remainder until we work it out with the city?

President Winnecke: I think something even more prudent is to defer it until next month until we get all the questions answered. I’d be far more comfortable with that than trying to guess what the city may or may not be willing to do.

Councilmember Tornatta: What is the time element on this? Like right now?

Brad Mills: I’d like to get it done. As you can – speaking with Ms. Matlock, who had agreed to make the move, she was eager to go ahead and get that done. We’d like to go ahead and get it approved today if we could. I mean, I know we’re talking $3,000, but we repealed $30,000, which was well over that amount that we’re asking for only 20. So, I mean, –

Councilmember Tornatta: Can we, we can go $3,000 on this number right here if that’s what we need.

President Winnecke: I’m not sure what you mean by that, but...

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, we can’t go higher than 20, but we can go less than 20, so if the second allows it, then we can go to $3,000 under Repair of Buildings and Grounds to make it –

President Winnecke: Make it $17,000 rather than 20?

Councilmember Tornatta: Right. Is that what – or you’re talking $3,000.

Brad Mills: What I’m saying is, the 15% of what we’re asking for, the $20,000, for the city would be $3,000, that would be their share. What I’m saying is, we’ve repealed $30,000, 15% of that is, you know, going to be well over, I mean, the 30 – 85% is going to be well over the $20,000 that I’m requesting, so, I mean, so there’s –

Councilmember Tornatta: And what they’re saying is, unfortunately, we’re going to have two separate pools of money that we have to draw from and you know about it, but in that case, it’s going to be difficult to tap into one to fund another.

Brad Mills: I understand that.

Councilmember Tornatta: But the question is, to satisfy what that number would be, if we took $3,000 off, and what, $17,000, would we feel more comfortable at that point and then we could give them $3,000 more next month if that’s the case.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, Councilman Tornatta, the only issue that arises is, when you do that, you commit a obligation and I guess the bids on this were at $20,000. You can’t begin the work unless you have the total amount of the money already in place.

Councilmember Tornatta: Right. That was my initial question.

Brad Mills: And I don’t know that that’s a fact. The Building Authority is the one that was going to go ahead and pay for this work and then we were going to reimburse them out of this money.

Councilmember Tornatta: So their money is in place.

Councilmember Abell: Well, they can wait a month.

Councilmember Raben: I mean, we’re only apart on a thousand dollars here, really.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah.

Councilmember Tornatta: I mean, –

President Winnecke: $3,000.

Councilmember Raben: Well, no, we’re not because the city, technically, although I don’t know that they’ve agreed to pay 15% of the 20, but, you know, and then the second question is, are they entitled to 15% of the 30? So, we’re a thousand dollars apart here, so –

President Winnecke: I still think –

Councilmember Raben: I think in an effort to keep the move going, you know, we make the appropriation request as it is today and then allow the Auditor to work out of the repeal and the appropriation with the city.

President Winnecke: There is a motion and a second for $20,000. Any further questions or discussion?

Councilmember Sutton: You had suggested that we defer this to next month. I mean, I know we want to get the work started and we don’t want to keep dragging this thing out, but I mean, just to make sure we’re really dotting our i’s and crossing our t’s here, so that both parties are sharing in this, wouldn’t that be the more appropriate thing for us to do?

President Winnecke: I would feel more comfortable with that.

Councilmember Raben: Deferring the matter?

President Winnecke: Yes, with all due respect, I mean, it’s –

Brad Mills: Whatever you –

President Winnecke: Government is not going to come to a grinding halt if we delay this four weeks.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I’ll move to amend my motion to defer 1240-3550.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: Okay, there is a motion and a second to defer this motion until next month. Further questions or discussion? Roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

AREA PLAN                                                          REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

COMMISSIONERS

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under County Commissioners, 1300-3760, the correct amount is $7,500, 1300-4433 has been withdrawn, for a total appropriation request of $7,500. I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: There’s a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

COMMISSIONERS                                                REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

BURDETTE PARK

Councilmember Raben: Burdette Park, Gas & Oil 1450-2210 $8,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: There’s a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

BURDETTE PARK                                                 REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Cumulative Bridge, 2030-1930 Unemployment $4,500, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE                                         REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REASSESSMENT/CENTER TWP. ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Center Township Assessor, 2490-1110-1990 2490-1110-1900, for a total request of $14,533, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

CENTER TWP. ASSESSOR                                  REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REASSESSMENT/KNIGHT TWP. ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Knight Township Assessor, 2490-1130-1910 and 2490-1130-1930 Unemployment, for a total of $1,372, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

KNIGHT TWP. ASSESSOR                                   REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REASSESSMENT/SCOTT TWP. ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Scott Township Assessor, 2490-1160-1900 FICA $765, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

SCOTT TWP. ASSESSOR                                    REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

BURDETTE PARK

CIRCUIT COURT SUPPLEMENTAL ADULT PROBATION

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE (LATE)

Councilmember Raben: Under Transfers, if it’s okay with the Council, –

Councilmember Wortman: Area Plan repeal?

President Winnecke: We should probably defer that.

Councilmember Raben: I’ll pick that up here in a minute. I’ll move to accept all transfers as submitted.

Councilmember Raben: I’ll move to accept all transfers as submitted.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: There’s a motion and second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

BURDETTE PARK                                                 REQUESTED       APPROVED

CIRCUIT COURT SUPP. ADULT PROBATION   REQUESTED       APPROVED

CUMULATIVE BRIDGE                                         REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

AREA PLAN

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I’ll move, under Area Plan, 1240-1110-1240 repeal in the amount of $30,500 be deferred.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

AREA PLAN                                                          REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

JAIL

Councilmember Raben: Under Jail, first, Mr. President, that you’ll skip down to account 1051-1130-0403 under Nurse, the correct figure should be $14,453. And all other accounts as they are listed and I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Tornatta: What is the total, please?

Councilmember Raben: Uh, the total would be – hold on just a moment, $392,678. No, excuse me, $394,678.

President Winnecke: Okay, there’s a motion to accept the appropriation request for the Jail, total appropriation of $394,678. Do I hear a second?

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes, I don’t know if Sheriff Ellsworth might respond...

Brad Ellsworth: Good afternoon, Sheriff Brad Ellsworth.

Councilmember Goebel: Sheriff, when do you plan on hiring these individuals?

Brad Ellsworth: We’ll do it probably in three increments, with the majority of those coming in 30 days prior to a hard date of when they plan to open the facility.

Councilmember Goebel: Okay, so you will hold until this is a firm 30 days prior to?

Brad Ellsworth: Absolutely.

Councilmember Goebel: Thank you.

President Winnecke: Mrs. Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Sheriff, I think we discussed that you are going to wait until after the – would you like to make that known to the entire Council about waiting until after budget hearings?

Brad Ellsworth: That’s correct. What we originally said we were going to bring them on like in increments of six, six and then twelve for the hiring and we’ll do that. All of those will be after the budget hearings, before we bring them on.

President Winnecke: Other questions or comments for the Sheriff? Thank you, sir. Roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

JAIL                                                                       REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Wortman opposed)

Councilmember Sutton: Jim, you might want to, on that last request that we had, we might want to check our numbers on that. I think I’ve got $394,478 rather than 394,678 for the total.

Councilmember Raben: That is correct, that’s 478. That’s where my first error was of –

President Winnecke: Okay. The correct figure, $394,478.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, do we need to make that a new motion or –

Councilmember Sutton: We allocated more than what we need, so we’re okay, but I guess probably for procedure-wise we probably do need to go and –

Councilmember Raben: Let me –

President Winnecke: I’ll entertain a motion to –

Councilmember Raben: Reopen –

President Winnecke: – just show a new figure. We can do that, can’t we?

Councilmember Raben: Alright, then the correct figure under the Jail is $394,478. I’d like to make that amendment.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. I’ll take a hand vote please. All in favor, raise their right hand. Let the record reflect there were six yea’s and one nay.

(Councilmember Wortman opposed)

President Winnecke: Thank you, Mr. Raben.

President Winnecke: Let’s move on to New Business. First, the resolution of the County Council declaring an economic revitalization area for tax abatement purposes for Bowen Engineering.

Councilmember Tornatta: Mr. President?

President Winnecke: Yes sir?

Councilmember Tornatta: While we have our Commissioners here, I’d like to ask a question if you guys could wait just a second, if that doesn’t disturb too much the integrity of the meeting. Where are the –

President Winnecke: Is this about a tax phase-in?

Councilmember Tornatta: No.

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll come back.

Councilmember Tornatta: Just give me, I need a little bit of clarification. Back in the June 7th Commissioner’s meeting, Ted Ziemer, Jr., in the minutes prepared and submitted a service agreement between somebody that’s working in your office, and we’ll leave the name out, and the county on a service contract. A, I didn’t know that that was available to our offices and that we set a precedent to make that available, but anyway, it ran as follows: there is a service agreement between a person I believe is working in your office and the county. Essentially, it did not go through job study, did not come through the County Council and is not in the Commissioner’s budget, yet the budget of the Superintendent of County Buildings. Now if I look through the Superintendent of County Buildings’ contractual account which is where this money is being pulled from, I see professional consultants, pest controls, mobile shedding, trash disposal, and what have you, things that you normally find in there, and then all of the sudden, this year we find, and this is over the past couple of years, but this year we find that there’s an individual that is providing services to your office out of that office, and it’s a clerical position. Now I was unaware that a part-time would be considered a contractual situation. I just, is that the matter we’re going to have now in the county, that the offices can circumvent the County Council and/or ask you guys for monies to provide for extra help?

President Winnecke: If I may, I’ll just jump in, I think I know the answer to this, but it seems to me, if I remember correctly, this person is preparing work for a Sheriff’s sale which we have not had –

Suzanne Crouch: It’s actually a tax –

President Winnecke: A tax sale –

Suzanne Crouch: – certificate sale –

President Winnecke: Pardon me, which we’ve not had –

Suzanne Crouch: – the law required us to have last year, and it was conducted last year. And so we are conducting it in October and that individual is contracted to help us in preparation of that. We have over a hundred, about a hundred and thirty properties that have been through two tax sales and now we need to try to get them, the Commissioners need to try to get them back on the tax rolls. And, in fact, there are contracts entered into with individuals and the companies by any number of county offices. So it’s, certainly did not want to come to County Council for an additional appropriation. I felt you probably needed it for the Jail, but thought that if there is a need and we do have money that is available and that is a proper use of that line item then certainly that was prudent thing to do to try to do the work that would serve the taxpayer.

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, our Assessors do work to serve taxpayers, Burdette Park does work to service taxpayers. They all have clerical help, yet they have to go through job study to acquire that help and then they pay starting at $6 an hour, which this individual started at $8 an hour and that was not, that was not passed through any type of job study situation, which puts a carte blanche on how we are going to hire people now in the county by precedent. So if a county assessor or a township assessor wants to come, then they should have equal access to property service that this individual does and they should be able to circumvent not only the County Council, but the job study. I mean, is that what we’re setting up in Vanderburgh County?

Suzanne Crouch: Certainly that is not what the County Commissioners is setting up, and if you have a contractual services line item and money has been budgeted by the County Council, and you have an agreement or a contract that is legal and that has been approved, and gone through a public meeting, then that money is available to hire an individual or a firm. Certainly that is an appropriate use of that line item.

President Winnecke: I would say, pardon me for interrupting, I would say this was an appropriate use of money that did not impact adversely the budget. This is money that was appropriated. It seems to me that they acted appropriately. I’m not really, I’m not sure that I really understand what the issue is. I think it’s a stretch, in my opinion, to say they have circumvented the hiring process.

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, the issue is, that the year before we put $10,000 in the account. The year before we spent $16,500. The year before that we spent $14,000 on the county courthouse. And we’re leaving our self in a tight spot. Year to date expenditures, 2005, shows to be $11,200. I think we just put $10,000 in the account. Now I’m just going off –

President Winnecke: As the Commissioner said, we’ve not had this sale in two – several years and this work needed to be done in order to get these properties back on the tax roles. I don’t think that’s an inappropriate use of that money.

Councilmember Tornatta: And this is a professional, this person does this for a living?

Suzanne Crouch: This person has the skills to do the work, correct. Since this particular sale has not been held, I’m not sure that there is anyone in Vanderburgh County that can do it for a living. There are firms that you can hire, but the cost is extremely exorbitant. And this particular contract is not to exceed $3,200, which is a very good investment if we can get some of these properties back on the tax roles.

Councilmember Tornatta: As a clerical role, though, this person is serving as a clerical person.

Suzanne Crouch: This person is assigned to do the tax certificate sale and then if there is time after that, which I doubt if there is because October 14th is that date, then that individual will prepare scanning of contracts so that they will be available in the –

Councilmember Tornatta: And then who picks up after this contract expires August 12, then who picks up for that person at that time?

Suzanne Crouch: That would be either absorbed by the current staff because most of the work will have been done. A lot of the meat and bones work or we would probably look to do another contract.

Councilmember Tornatta: And how many people do you have in your office on clerical staff at this time?

Suzanne Crouch: Well, we actually have one that’s clerical, and then we have the Superintendent of County Buildings and that’s for a $27,000,000 budget that the County Commissioners are responsible for and departments.

Councilmember Tornatta: And has that changed in past years?

Suzanne Crouch: I wouldn’t know without doing research.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, and it hasn’t, just to help you with your research. That hasn’t changed.

President Winnecke: Okay, we’re going to move on. Thank you.

Suzanne Crouch: Thank you very much.

President Winnecke: Now the folks from Bowen.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, before we move on, we need to –

President Winnecke: Amendments to the salary ordinance. One more false start, sorry.

Councilmember Raben: I think everyone was given a copy of the amendments. Rather than read all these lines aloud, I’m simply going to move that they be made part of the minutes.

Councilmember Tornatta: Second.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion on the amendments to the salary ordinance? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Wortman opposed)

President Winnecke: Now we’ll – before we change our minds. Mr. Shively?

Les Shively: Mr. President and members of the Council, my name is Les Shively. You heard from me on June 1st, you heard from me on June 30th regarding this request, and so I will – I think I’ve said enough. But I do have with me today Jeff Purdue who runs the Evansville operations for Bowen. And just briefly, if we might, I would like for Mr. Purdue to address certain aspects of the request, mainly, how it fits in with their fiscal plan and how that whole budget process was arrived at, very briefly. And then Mr. Purdue is available, as well as their CFO is with us as well to answer any questions you might have about this proposal and their plans for a permanent location here in Evansville.

Jeff Purdue: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Jeff Purdue with Bowen Engineering. A lot of what I’m going to be talking today is really a rehash of what I presented to you over a month ago. Before you, you have a handout which is the same handout you had a month ago. It just kind of outlines what we see as the benefits of Bowen Engineering’s request for tax phase in for what we hope to construct in Vanderburgh County, a new corporate office for our construction company, Bowen Engineering. Just a background, Bowen Engineering is a general contractor that was founded in 1967 in Indianapolis. We are a union general contractor who does a work mix of about 50% public municipal work, 50% private clients. Our work is targeted at general construction, mechanical construction, industrial earthwork and concrete. The markets that we target are the utility market in water, wastewater, underground utilities, also power and energy projects and industrial construction. Bowen is not a commercial constructor. We are a heavy industrial contractor. As a company, we do about $130,000,000 a year company wide. The Evansville office this year will contribute about $40,000,000 a year to that office revenue and we’ve been in the Evansville market since 1999. We currently lease property and have since `99 and we’re a very high growth company, employee owned. We offer a lot of exciting career opportunities for the people who work for us and it’s a really great company and we’re excited about this opportunity to become part of the fabric of the Evansville community. The current staff that we have in the Evansville office, we have 16 professionals that are key corporate people in the office. Most of those are degreed civil or mechanical engineers. Also out in the field we have an additional 25 key company salaried superintendents and foremen, for a total of about 41 key employees out of this office, 32 of which reside in Vanderburgh County as of a few months ago. Like I mentioned, Bowen is a very high growth company. We typically see 10% in growth a year and I think that speaks a lot about the company and the success that we’ve had and we expect this growth to continue. We would expect that within five years, if we’re successful with tax phase in, that we would be able to produce an additional ten more office hires, as in engineers and office administrative help and an additional 12 key field people, which would bring our office and field salary personnel from 41 up to 63 in a period of five years. We are a very high paying employer by virtue of the fact that we’re unique compared to most contractors in that we hire degreed professional engineers and our average salary is $56,000 a year. We’re also very generous in what we give back to our employees in that about 30% of our profits go back to the employees in the way of pension and bonus payments. We are the number one contractor locally as far as hiring interns so we really have a commitment in supporting the higher learning institutions here in Evansville and U E and USI. I want to make it clear also that what we’re seeking is, part of our business plan when we looked at this over a million dollar investment, to build a new corporate office here in Evansville was just to seek tax phase in just for the property and the improvements to that property, not for any equipment that we would have as part of that property, but just the equipment. We would still be paying taxes on the equipment for the property. I would like to highlight a little bit about Bowen’s community involvement. I think that any time you have a company like Bowen or any other company come before you seeking this, I think it’s important not only what we have to give our employees, our commitment to the local vendors and subs, but also what do we give back to the community, because we certainly benefit from the community in the work that we do. And I feel like we set a very high standard in our involvement in the community and I think we’ve exemplified that since we’ve been here in `99. We have a very, very strong commitment to local subs and suppliers. We made that commitment, that was my big charge when I came down here was to build relationships, that’s what our company is about, is relationships. And I’m very proud of the relationships that we’ve developed with the local supplier and subcontract pool here in Evansville. I’m also very proud of the relationship we’ve developed with the higher learning institutions and the University of Evansville, in particular. USI is just kind of getting off the ground and we are helping USI with an engineering scholarship, but more particularly, U of E, we’re in the early talks of a major endowment to the engineering department to help them make the personal education of their students a little more engaging, so that’s something that we’re in the early talks with U of E. We’re very excited, we play a very active role in their engineering department and it’s a very fine institution and we’ve got several of their graduates, both full time and as summer intern employees. We’re also proud of our role with the minority contractors. Company-wide we have a minority mentor protege program where we take in minority firms that do work in our business and help them make their business stronger, and we’re doing that here in Evansville. We have a firm that we’re working with to make their business stronger. We’re proud of that. We also have given to a lot of the non-profits here in Evansville. We have a company-wide planned capital contributions to non-profits, and that’s something that we’ve done as a history of our company, and we’ll continue to do so. When we looked at this investment, building a new office at a cost of in excess of a million dollars, we were planning on receiving tax abatement. At our other branch office up near Chicago, we were given ten year tax abatement and it was vital to helping us get that office off the ground. And when we planned this office and looked at this capital addition, that was critical to making this business model work. Our annual rent, if we go forward with this, could more than triple and this would help offset some of those costs as we become a little more stable in this economy. In summary, we feel like Bowen is an ideal candidate for tax abatement and we are seeking a ten year tax abatement for our property. We feel like that it’s not really a cost to the county, this is really an investment. It’s money that you’re not collecting now and it’s, I think it’s a good win-win for both Bowen certainly and also for Vanderburgh County. We think that the location, the Daylight Industrial Park, that we’ve bought the property, needs this improvement. We think that this will help spark future development in that area and we’re very proud of the facility that we would put in there. It’s a nice looking facility that would be built by Arc Construction, a local general contractor. And so overall, we just think it’s a win-win for both Vanderburgh and Bowen, and I do appreciate the opportunity for those of you who have met with me and the opportunity to get before you again here today. And at this time, if there’s any questions that I could field?

President Winnecke: I do have a question and then I’ll open it up to the other members of the Council. If this tax phase in is approved by the County, are we assured the project will stay in the county?

Jeff Purdue: If this tax phase in is approved, are you assured that it will stay within the county?

President Winnecke: Let me rephrase to be more specific. Are we assured that the project will remain outside the city limits of Evansville, but in the county of Vanderburgh?

Jeff Purdue: If it’s given the full abatement?

President Winnecke: At the recommended level?

Jeff Purdue: I can’t say at the recommended level, but I can say at what we anticipated barring anything that I know, yes. But, I mean, we anticipated a ten year abatement.

President Winnecke: So if this body passes a phase in at less than ten years, it is possible the project could be constructed perhaps within the city limits?

Jeff Purdue: I would say that’s a fair statement.

President Winnecke: Okay. Hold on one second, we’re going to change tapes.

(Tape changed)

President Winnecke: Okay, who wants to start?

Councilmember Tornatta: I’ll shoot. We’ve talked several times, obviously over this project. I’d just reiterate, we talked about the land, where it is, it’s a good setup for Vanderburgh County, in my opinion, where you’re moving. It’s going to dress up that area and I’m happy with that. It’s going to take that area from a thousand dollars a year to somewhere well beyond that amount of money and so I’m happy about that. It’s probably going to attract more business to that area. The thing that – some of the things that move me the most, it’s your ability to integrate yourself in the city and the county and get plugged into the universities. Engineering is very important to USI right now as well as U of E and that’s very important that you’re plugged in. You’re working on scholarship boards, you’re working with scholarships, you’re hiring locally. All these are things that I call bonuses in a tax phase in plan and I do appreciate a lot of those things. Coming in today, I noticed you mentioned that you weren’t going to do anything with the personal property. Here again, that is something we that we would not see otherwise if we gave that abatement. You threw it back in as a card and a very good gesture, I might say. So I really think that, I think that the phase in a little low on what we’re looking at right now. What, I think you said five, Rob, about five, I think this project offers a lot more than just the building. I think you’re using our contractors, that’s COIT money to Vanderburgh County. You’re using widgets and different materials from Vanderburgh County. I think that’s very positive. The companies are very respectable that you’re using and with all that you’re doing to give back, you’re making a grand statement and that means keep it up because if not, then we can always come back and talk to you in another year and ask you why these things aren’t happening. And then discuss what we could do after that. So if it is true and all these things are good, you know, I’m very much in tune with what you’re doing.

Jeff Purdue: Thank you.

President Winnecke: Mr. Sutton, did you have anything?

Councilmember Sutton: I did get a chance to meet with the Bowen officials since our last meeting and was able to ask them several questions and they responded back and some good information was shared that perhaps maybe you can’t capture fully on an application which I really appreciate getting that meeting set up and put together. And one of the questions that was asked when we talked was, there was some confusion if the abatement were, if the abatement was not granted, as presented today, what response would Bowen have? Does this kill the project, what will they do? And so previously there was one answer and then there was another answer, so for our – at least for the sake of this Council and then others who might be listening, could you kind of respond to any questions along that line?

Jeff Purdue: Absolutely, Mr. Sutton. The tax phase in is critical to us. It’s, like I say, it’s a huge capital increase that we’re looking at if we go forward and build this facility. It could triple, it would triple our rent, our principal and interest payments for the property compared to the rent we’re paying now and it’s necessary for us to move forward with this project. I know at a previous meeting that I was not present for, we had another gentleman here who, quite honestly, gave the wrong answer. He wasn’t prepared. I take responsibility for that and that’s not, no fault on him, but the truth of the matter is, if we don’t get this, it just does not make sense for us, financially, for us to move forward with this project.

Councilmember Sutton: Then there was a question that was asked, I think, last week that we probably didn’t get an answer on and that was, how many jobs would be lost as a result if this Council decided not to approve this abatement?

Jeff Purdue: Presently, at the Evansville office, we have 16 office staff, which the majority of those are engineers with a few administrative help, and we have also in addition to that, 25 key superintendents and foremen, so that’s a total of 41 employees that we view as key salaried employees for this office.

Councilmember Sutton: And then also in the material, I just want to make sure we’re very clear here, the first question says, how many will you hire upon completion of this project? Five. Is that the correct number?

Jeff Purdue: That’s a very conservative number. Like I say, based on our 10% growth a year, which that would really be in five years, at least 10 in the office and probably 12 more in the field, so for a total of 22 additional salaried people, which would take our total from 41 to 63.

Councilmember Sutton: So the second question was, over the five year period, you’re talking about how many?

Jeff Purdue: Ten additional in the office and twelve additional in the field. And when I say field, superintendents and foremen, union superintendents and union foremen for us.

Councilmember Sutton: Well again, our application, it’s a little bit different, so I just want to make sure we’re really clear here. And then the number of employees retained as a result of this project, the number that we have on the application is 12 but just based on what you said earlier, the number is a little bit different, so I just wanted to make sure we’re clear on that.

Jeff Purdue: Right.

Councilmember Sutton: And that number would be...?

Jeff Purdue: Forty-one present staff with office and field salaried personnel.

Councilmember Sutton: You know, one of the things I think we probably have maybe picked up out of this whole process is that, probably on the county side as we are looking at our whole abatement process, is that we do need to set up a set of guidelines, not just of what to score per se, but one of the really true needs we have is when a company comes in that requests abatement so they can understand the process of abatement and what persons are involved in that process. And, like I said, that’s a piece that we’re missing. So as we go through this whole thing of looking at the abatements and what process we may end up using or what scoring method we may use, we really need to find a way to get good information to requesting companies so that maybe the kind of situation we have here maybe isn’t repeated and they could have a good clear understanding of the exact steps that need to be taken to complete this process. Now I guess I did have a number of questions to you in person then in the meeting last week and my concern is, see, in the application, I’m trying to see the benefit that Vanderburgh County gains. And at five employees over the course of five years, which is what I was working with from the application, there doesn’t appear to me to be much of a gain for Vanderburgh County. One employee per year is far below the standard of what we have had with other requests and I guess the other area for me as I really evaluate it is, looking at the type of business that you’re in, the average wage, that is a strong wage, but for the type of skill sets that are required to work for your company, that would be pretty much in line with this particular market for that. And when we look at just the net benefit overall, that’s what I’m really trying to gain some comfort with on this application. And what you presented here does provide more strength but we’ve got some other firms here locally that are similar in size, I’m wondering if we get some others who want to build a building, will we have a similar request coming before us and we have to kind of, we’re going to have to balance that. And I know this isn’t necessarily something that you can answer per se, but those are just the kind of things that I’ve been working with and trying to get a good understanding on in making my decision on this application.

President Winnecke: I would just offer a comment to that and that is, I think the two issues that come to my mind as benefits to this project are, one, the county should realize an additional $100,000 in tax revenue over the course of the phase in that it does not enjoy now, and secondly, with a projected 22 additional staff members over the course of five years and an average salary, that is a nice number for additional payroll in this community. So I would think those would be two points strongly in this project’s favor.

Councilmember Tornatta: And remember that we have to grade them off their five and twenty number. I mean, if we’re doing this right, unless we’re recalculating that number. I mean, just to throw that out there. Because we want to evaluate them off this paper, is that correct? Off what they submitted?

Councilmember Sutton: What do you mean?

President Winnecke: I’m not sure I follow the question.

Councilmember Tornatta: I’m just saying, we’re evaluating them off the five and the twenty.

President Winnecke: I’m evaluating them off the fact that he said that he hopes to hire 22 people in five years

Councilmember Tornatta: I agree. That just brought me back to a point Royce made. He is looking at his paper and it says five jobs coming up and twenty jobs would be lost. And what we have, I guess, we’ll evaluate him off of that. If he gets abatement, we have to call them back, we’d be going off the five jobs? Is that what we’re saying or are we upping that?

Councilmember Sutton: Well, Troy, I think what we’re doing here is gathering the information that the company feels like represents what they are wanting to commit themselves to.

Councilmember Tornatta: Right.

Councilmember Sutton: And I know what we may have here in the sheets here, but you know, if this request is approved, the corrections would be made to this to reflect whatever commitments are made here. Because I would think if they’re coming back come next fall when we evaluate all the requests, I wouldn’t want to measure them based on what’s in here because its not accurate.

Councilmember Tornatta: Right, and that’s what I’m saying. Is that a possibility that we can amend what is on that sheet? Because at some point we’re going to have to come back and – evaluation and make sure that they’re on target with what they promised. That’s what we do. And if that’s the case, it’s a difference between the amount of jobs that you said, twenty-two jobs and five jobs over five years. Does that make sense?

Jeff Purdue: Absolutely.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay.

President Winnecke: I think Mr. Schaefer might have something on this point.

Rob Schaefer: I think we probably already said it, but –

President Winnecke: Rob, could you say your name for the record?

Rob Schaefer: Sure, Rob Schaefer, DMD. When it comes to compliance every year, what we’ll be going off of is the statement of benefits form that has the twelve and the five, not what’s said here today unless if somehow we change the statement of benefits that it currently is. When they came here, –

President Winnecke: And we certainly, pardon me for the interruption, but it would certainly be up to the discretion of each individual Councilmember at the time of the review to hold the company to the standard they presented orally, I would think.

Councilmember Tornatta: And its on record.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Councilmember Raben: So I’m clear, I guess the question is, should the application state retain 41 jobs and create 22 additional over the next five years?

Councilmember Tornatta: I mean, you can put it in the document or its on the record. So either way, I think we have something to go from and that’s kind of what I was trying to get from Mr. Purdue. Is that a fair statement that those are accurate and –

Jeff Purdue: Those are accurate numbers. The only thing I would indicate is, I’m not sure as far as employees within Vanderburgh County and out, I know the 41, 32 of those, their residence is in Vanderburgh County. So, but, I mean, 41 is an accurate statement of our present staff and my projections that I gave you are accurate.

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, although we’d like to keep everybody in Vanderburgh County working in Vanderburgh County, it would not be a situation where we want to penalize somebody for coming to Vanderburgh County to work. That’s a COIT dollar that comes into Vanderburgh County as it is, so we’d be happy to take that. I think its just a question of record, thanks.

President Winnecke: Yeah, to Mr. Raben’s point, I guess, after speaking with our Council, I mean, would you be amenable to amending the statement in here to reflect the numbers that you presented today?

Jeff Purdue: Yes.

Councilmember Tornatta: Does that need a vote?

Councilmember Sutton: I don’t think it needs a – we’ll vote on it when we vote on it. But, I mean, its only the right thing to do because –

(Inaudible – several speaking at once)

President Winnecke: That’s what I’m getting to here.

Councilmember Sutton: – memories fade and Councilmembers change, but the paperwork needs to reflect whatever commitments are made.

President Winnecke: Then maybe you could help walk us through on page two of your – do you have the –

Jeff Purdue: I do not.

Councilmember Abell: Your attorney should have.

Les Shively: Mr. President, you’re referring to the statement of benefits?

President Winnecke: Right. On page two, just so, and I certainly don’t want to put numbers on a paper for you but just so everyone, under part four, employment impact, question one, how many new employees do you plan to hire upon completion of this project? Here, you have five. Bottom third of the page.

Les Shively: Page four, employment impact, number one, how many full...

President Winnecke: Correct.

Les Shively: That number should be changed to – ?

Jeff Purdue: As far as employees that we plan to hire at the completion of the project, that would still be five. New employees we plan to hire over a five year period, that would basically be 22, so the number I gave you before in the application was 20, what I gave you this morning was 22. I had not seen this, I mean, today when I made my notes.

President Winnecke: And then on number three...?

Jeff Purdue: How many employees will be retained as a result of this project? Will be the difference...

Jeff Ahlers: That would the number of employees you have now, wouldn’t it?

Jeff Purdue: Yeah, presently it’s 41.

Les Shively: Which is office and the field.

Councilmember Tornatta: Right.

President Winnecke: Is everyone on board with the numbers that we’re considering? Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: I think that gives a much stronger picture on this application. Again, I think on our end, the county side, we probably could do some things to kind of help applicants through this process. Help them understand how to complete these properly because, yeah, I like the community involvement piece, that’s not necessarily the sole thing I feel like tips anything in anyone’s favor. I like the local hiring. I like the level of the wages and the benefits. A lot of strong things with the application, but its got to be able to show, at the end of the day when we brag about what we’ve done with tax abatements, the jobs I think have to clearly reflect that. You know, the buildings, yeah, that’s fine; equipment, that’s fine, but the jobs have to be there.

President Winnecke: Mr. Schaefer, did you have another comment?

Rob Schaefer: I’d like to suggest that you change it on the statement of benefits. That is more legal in my view than the application because that’s what we’ll take the numbers from when we do the compliance every year.

Les Shively: And specifically, that doesn’t change the real estate improvements, it does change section three, would have to be amended and we probably would want to file a new one to be consistent with how we just orally amended the application here on the floor.

Rob Schaefer: And I have a blank form and they can refill out the whole thing and sign it, and that would be fine.

Les Shively: By the way, Mr. Dan Clark, the chief financial officer for Bowen, who submitted the original application has been nodding his head in the background as we have gone through these numbers and he is here as well to attest to the fact that they run the numbers and that is the correct statement of benefits.

President Winnecke: Just for clarification, on that page to which Mr. Schaefer referred, statement of benefits, that middle section three, the salaries on that entire line would need to be –

Les Shively: Yes.

Rob Schaefer: Yeah, the entire section three.

President Winnecke: Right, okay.

Les Shively: Reflecting the new numbers of today. That’s right.

President Winnecke: Questions on this side of the room over here?

Councilmember Sutton: Make sure you go to that page four, too, and number three, I think that could be affected by kind of what we talked about here.

President Winnecke: Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes, once again, I’d like to reiterate what I’ve said in the past, the presence of Bowen here is a positive, there’s no doubt about that. Your ties with both local universities is excellent, your commitment to the community with the building and that, also very good. The uneasiness, I feel, as going over the rating that was given to us, its nothing against Bowen, but I think it’s the general precedent and perhaps if we, if and when our abatement procedures are passed, this will be a lot more objective instead of subjective. But I’m a little bit ill at ease as far as the job creation and the numbers. Some things just don’t quite, Mr. Purdue, add up totally. But if what you promised comes to play, then it seems like it could be a win-win also. I still have difficulty myself in going over the recommended abatement by Metropolitan Development. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Mr. Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Just one quick comment, Mr. President. With these new revised numbers, just to make everyone feel somewhat more comfortable about this request, we had a recent project about a year ago, Graham Packaging, that was, you know, one that was kind of our star for the year and these numbers, with the job retention and new jobs, have already exceeded the number for which Graham Packaging was, and I’m sure the pay is substantially higher. I don’t have the old pay rate on Graham, but I know this is substantially higher.

President Winnecke: Mr. Ahlers makes a good point. This is the preliminary resolution, so we do have time to get the correct, the amended paperwork before the confirming resolution in a month. Mrs. Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Rob, could you come to the microphone? How much of an abatement had you recommended?

Rob Schaefer: Five to six years.

Councilmember Abell: Would that change any with anything that’s come up here today?

Rob Schaefer: It would raise it up to right between five and six. Right on the line between five and six. It was really five and six because there was one question that I can’t answer from the county application, but then with the additional jobs, it would raise it up to, I think it was 60 points and that’s right between five and six.

Councilmember Abell: So we’re still between five and six.

Rob Schaefer: Yeah, it doesn’t change it substantially.

Councilmember Abell: Okay, thank you. Mr. Purdue, could I ask you a couple of questions?

Jeff Purdue: Absolutely.

Councilmember Abell: I don’t see this in what I’m looking at right now, but somewhere in the back of my mind I think, did you indicate at one point that 60% of your business was private and 40% was government?

Jeff Purdue: Its about 50/50. It changes from year to year. We’ve had years where its 100% private to zero public and years its 100% public, but what we strive for is a 50/50 work mix for between public projects and private projects.

Councilmember Abell: Can I ask you, do you consider EMC private or public?

Jeff Purdue: I consider that public.

Councilmember Abell: Okay.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President?

President Winnecke: Mr. Raben?

Councilmember Raben: I’m going to, I’d say its probably time to get a motion out there. I’m going to move that this abatement request or tax deferral or whatever we’re calling it these days be set in at six years with the correct amendments to the statement of benefits to read the 41 jobs retained and 22 new jobs. I make that in the form of a motion.

President Winnecke: There is a motion for a tax phase in proposal for six years for Bowen Engineering. Do I hear a second? At this time the chair would recognize another motion.

Councilmember Tornatta: I would say that if one isn’t comfortable with a ten year abatement, I would want to go no less than eight years on this. I make that in the form of a motion.

President Winnecke: There is a motion for an eight year phase in for Bowen Engineering. Do I hear a second?

Councilmember Raben: I’ll second that motion.

President Winnecke: There is a motion and a second for an eight year tax phase in for Bowen Engineering. Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: No.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion fails 3-4/Councilmembers Sutton, Abell, Goebel and Wortman opposed)

President Winnecke: That fails 4-3. I would entertain –

Councilmember Raben: Is that – I guess this is a question for our legal counsel, is that it or can I make another motion?

Jeff Ahlers: You can make another motion. Probably what we ought to do, I mean, most of the time everybody is in agreement on what the years of the abatement is, but I guess one thing, in the future, they could vote on whether to grant the abatement and then have a motion to set in the years because it seems to me that what we’re doing here, the consensus would seem to be that, you know, for doing some sort of an abatement, but apparently there is some wrangling over the term on it.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I’ll, Mr. President, first I’ll move that we reopen the preliminary resolution for Bowen Engineering.

Councilmember Abell: I’ll second that.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second to reopen. Everyone in favor say aye.

(All Councilmembers except Councilmember Wortman voted in favor to reopen 6-1)

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I would like to make a motion to set the term of abatement in at five years with the correction stated in my earlier motion.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Winnecke: There is a motion and second for a tax phase in for Bowen Engineering for five years. Roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: 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 Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes. Motion passes six to one.

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Wortman opposed)

Jeff Purdue: Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thank you for your time and we’ll see you next month for the confirming resolution.

Jeff Purdue: Thank you very much.

President Winnecke: QTR.

Councilmember Raben: Are you sure you really want to come up here?

Councilmember Sutton: There might be some ice cubes down there and a glass a water in case you might need it.

President Winnecke: Good afternoon, Mr. Jackson. Would you state your name for the record?

Rod Jackson: Rod Jackson, QTR.

President Winnecke: Questions for Mr. Jackson and the tax phase in request for QTR?

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, I’ll start again.

President Winnecke: Mr. Tornatta.

Councilmember Tornatta: No, here again, moving to, I want to call it a semi-distressed area, the good thing I like about your company is that you’re taking recyclables and you’re bringing how many tons?

Rod Jackson: We expect to do something in terms of ten million pounds.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, ten million pounds, so whatever that –

Rod Jackson: The new project, that should double.

Councilmember Tornatta: Right, so twenty million pounds of recyclable plastics, is that pretty close?

Rod Jackson: That’s correct.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, and the thing I like, obviously, one of the things in our tax phase in is, we want to see recyclables, we want to see environmentally friendly companies coming to town, and we talked about the emittance at next to nothing?