VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JULY 7, 1999
|
|
| The Vanderburgh County Council met
in session the 7th day of July, 1999 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex.
The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by County Council President
Curt Wortman
President Wortman: The Vanderburgh County Council is now in session this July the 7th. We'll stand if you will please...no, first let's have the opening of the meeting and have a roll call first, please. We can have a sheriff open the meeting, that would be fine. (Meeting opened by Sheriff Brad Ellsworth) President Wortman: Okay, now would
you call the roll, please?
President Wortman: Okay, now would we stand, all of us, and pledge allegiance to the flag, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was given)
President Wortman: Now then, I'll entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes from the June 2nd regular Council meeting. Councilmember Raben: So moved. Councilmember Lloyd: Second. President Wortman: Mr. Raben, then got a second. Any discussion on that? If not, all those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
A) SHERIFF President Wortman: Okay, we'll get right on in to the appropriation ordinance. Number five, the Sheriff will be the first one. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 1050-1510-1050 in the amount of $12,000. President Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Bassemier: Second. President Wortman: Second from Mr. Bassemier. Any discussion? Call the roll, please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. Okay, seven to nothing. SHERIFF REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) B) COUNTY COMMISSIONERS President Wortman: Next on the agenda will be the County Commissioners. That will be the Patient/Inmate, $500,000. Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: I'll move approval of 1300-3050, Patient/Inmate, in the amount of $500,000. President Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Wortman: Second, Mr. Hoy. Okay, any discussion? No discussion, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED
APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) C) SUPERIOR COURT President Wortman: Now then it'll be the Superior Court. Councilmember Raben: I'll move approval of 1370-3790 in the amount of $5,000, 1370-3903 in the amount of $40,000, 1370-3944 in the amount of $10,000 for a total of $55,000. President Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Smith: Second. President Wortman: Second, Ms. Smith. Any discussion on that? No discussion, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. SUPERIOR COURT REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) D) COUNTY COUNCIL President Wortman: Next on the agenda County Council, Office Machines. Councilmember Raben: Move approval on 1480-4220, Office Machines, in the amount of $2,250. Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Wortman: We got a second. Any discussion? No discussion, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. COUNTY COUNCIL REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) E) CUMULATIVE BRIDGE President Wortman: Next on the agenda will be the Cumulative Bridge, $80,000. Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: I'll move approval of 2030-3930 in the amount of $80,000. President Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Sutton: Second. President Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion on this? No discussion, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. CUMULATIVE BRIDGE REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) F) COUNTY ASSESSOR / REASSESSMENT President Wortman: Okay, now then the next one would be the County Assessor's Reassessment. Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move approval of 2492-1090-3530 in the amount of $400,000 and 2492-1090-3370, Computers, in the amount of $100,000 for a total of $500,000. Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion on this? Mrs. Smith? Councilmember Smith: I have a problem with taking this out for... I just don't feel like this is reassessment. If you look at your bottom page, Curt and I went over this, for the first phase it comes to $3,209,994. President Wortman: Okay, now if you remember I think unappropriated balance there's over $2,000,000 right now. And the budgets that the eight assessors submitted for the County Assessor is one million something. If we take $500,000 out of that, that's going to leave $590,000 left if there's additional money needed for the reassessment. So, I'll just say that, throw that out. And then the first of the year there would be more money put in the Reassessment Fund. So, hopefully this will be alright. I would say, I have been going over this a little bit, I think the city should kick in, I had this down...my suggestion is the county 25%, the city possibly 35% to 40%, and the private sector should kick in maybe 35% to 40% too. And that way... of course forcing anybody to do it. But to start off, you're going to have all the utilities that are going to benefit from this. I'm talking about in the city the water and the sewer, the safety, the Fire Department, the Police Department. In the county you're going to have the reassessment, but that's going to be down the road, probably two or three years. Then the private sector, you've got the Realtors, you've got SIGECO, you've got the telephone, you've got cable TV and any other utility. It's all going to help, but it's going to take time to work this thing together. The other money is committed the way I understand, so we can't take it out of the General Fund because we've got quite a bit coming up there, computerization and all of this. So, anybody else have anything to say? Mrs. Smith? Councilmember Smith: You said next year we'll get more money in the Reassessment Fund. What assurance do you have that we'll get more money? President Wortman: I think that's automatic, or not? Suzanne Crouch: No, there will be no more money coming in to the >99 Reassessment Fund. There will be monies going into the 2003 Reassessment account. But there will be more money for reassessment in the year 2003. President Wortman: Okay, I'm sorry. I stand to be corrected. Councilmember Smith: I have no problem with the project, I just have a problem of taking it out of the Reassessment Fund. I think there should be another way to fund it. President Wortman: The only thing is if we don't fund it now, it's like everything else, we wait too long and it's going to be too late. Then it's another five years and everybody is going to be ahead and then it's going to cost double and triple to catch up. Now, that's my opinion, but everybody's entitled to his opinion. Mr. Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: I agree that we should go ahead and approve this money. In fact, it's my opinion that we're behind even at this point, Mr. President. As I understand it also, should we run shy in the Reassessment account, that money can virtually be mandated for the reassessment if that happens. I agree with you, I dont agree to reduce this amount, but I agree with you that the city eventually should bear more of the cost because the city is going to benefit more. They also have more money than we do. It remains to be seen whether we can get the private sector, you know, to put some money in, but that's not a bad idea either. I've been to a lot of meetings discussing GIS. I'm a supervisor with the Soil and Water Conservation District, and we have been wanting this for a number of years. There are so many issues that it will help us to address. One of my pet concerns, as you know, is urban sprawl and it will help us do even better planning of our land use and all of that. President Wortman: Thank you. The only thing here is we divide this up. Right away the utilities are going to benefit from it, we know that. This lady here, Liv Watson, she's putting this package together. She's not making any decisions, she's putting this together for the officeholders to make a decision. It's just that simple. She was hired, she's done a good job. She has a proven record from San Diego to Philadelphia to Indianapolis. So, I mean, she's not guessing at it, that's another thing. So, hopefully we can do this. Now, how we force the private sector into it, I don't know. I think we have to use that. But the city...and also, I'm trying to get a meeting with the eight assessors, the County Assessor, three Council members, Liv Watson, and possibly one or two City Councilmen. Hopefully shoot for 15th of this month at 1:00, were trying to get a room here. We're going to iron this thing out. We're going to sit down and try to work it out so we can get on with it. And that way maybe we can work something. That will give Mrs. Watson a chance to talk to the city and the private sectors, and if we can work this out then we'll get the show on the road. Does that make sense to everybody? Councilmember Sutton: Well Mr. President, if I could? President Wortman: Go ahead. Councilmember Sutton: I think there's no question that the merits of the project are there. I mean, it's a very good project that will benefit the city and the county in a lot of different ways. There's been some excellent presentations about how it does benefit it. But I guess the thing that really comes before us that we have to address is how you fund it. We do have the motion on the floor that we are considering now, but the motion that we have on the floor only addresses part of the cost on the funding. I've got a couple of questions that I'd like to ask Mrs. Musgrave and whoever that might be able to answer, maybe it's you Curt, related to that. That is, number one, where do we stand, well first, where do we stand with the city in terms of their position in stepping up to adding the funding that is going to be needed? Because what we're doing here, if we take it from the Reassessment or General Fund, whatever, Local Roads and Streets, it's still not going to be enough to complete this project as we're looking at least at this particular stage. Where do we stand with the city? President Wortman: Would you state your name please and then explain that to Mr. Sutton? Good question. Liv Watson: Liv Watson, the City/County Coordinator, GIS Coordinator. Thank you Council for having me. I can address that issue. I just came from speaking with the city and they are committed to funding the project. They will, within the next week, have their budget balanced and they will come forward to say exactly. We have asked them for $400,000. They have not committed to that, but they are...I just came from Becky Dixon's office and she is balancing. So, they are committed to providing funds, but have not said the exact number of funds. We will know that within the next ten days, she said, to the exact commitment. Councilmember Sutton: Mrs. Watson, who's making that commitment on behalf of the city? Liv Watson: I spoke with Becky Dixon, but obviously this is the Mayor's issue and not a Becky Dixon issue. But she's balancing the budget and giving the recommendation. Councilmember Sutton: Okay, with that said, we don't have an assurance with the city making a commitment. It sounds like there's been discussions, sounds like it may be making some progress. If the city, for some reason or another, decides they don't want to fund it even to this level or even at all, where does that leave the project? Liv Watson: The project as far as creating a base map to start utilizing GIS would still capable of doing so because of aerial photography. But you will not have a full blown GIS unless you create the parcel lines, the parcel maps, the roads, the streams and then eventually query databases to these maps. Now, yes, you could create for $500,000 the aerial photography and work on partials of this county, but that would benefit very little unless you have a full blown map of this county. It would serve very little purpose. So, yes, that would be, in my opinion, not the right way to go unless this project is fully funded. Councilmember Sutton: I guess what I'm maybe edging toward is until we have the commitments there, you know, we wouldn't begin spending the county's money, I'm assuming, until we have the dollars in place. You know, I've heard private dollars even discussed here and we're discussing city dollars, but we wouldn't begin to spend the county's money on this project without it being fully completed. At least, that would be concerns that I would have and I would hope that we wouldn't move in that fashion if we didn't have all of our ducks in a row, so to speak. Cheryl Musgrave: If I might address you. Cheryl Musgrave, County Assessor. The $500,000 in the Reassessment Fund that I'm asking for today would fund the parcel line layer, which by itself is perfectly useful. It is enhanced immeasurably by the addition of the aerial photos which we are asking the city to fund. However, it is still very useful by itself. So money spend digitizing the parcel lines is by no means wasted without the city's contribution. It is simply not as useful as it would be with it. Councilmember Sutton: The other thing related to this, still that concerns me. The other concern related to this is this is not the only cost related to this, we've got some costs that will be going forward with this, staffing, programming updates, software. Where are those dollars coming from? And I know we've been talking about trying to keep the tax rate low and things like that and what were talking about is spending some more dollars here. Cheryl Musgrave: As we've spoken to this point a couple of times, the map that we are going to create has a long process in its creation. I didn't want to ask you for any funds today to maintain a map that wouldn't be in our hands to maintain for a year to 18 months to 24 months. When that map comes back is when we need to begin to address the maintenance cost for it. So it was premature for me to ask you those costs. But Mrs. Watson has given you a document, which she can more fully explain, with the figures for map maintenance in it. And I'll let her take it from there. Councilmember Sutton: I'll let you go ahead and address it, but we've got budget coming up here very shortly. We may as well prepare to plug in some figure on this. What we're doing here today is not the only cost associated with this. And I don't think she's ever presented it in that fashion. So, I don't know what thoughts we may have here on where that money is going to be drawn from? How much that's going to be? We need to really give that some real concern, some thought there. What estimates are you coming up here with, kind of the annual maintenance cost associated with this? Liv Watson: Well you are talking about a few different issues here. You're talking about a professional staff to maintain these maps when they come back. And in the budget, it is kind of difficult to budget until you hire somebody and sign a contract, for the figures that are in the budget. When the maps come back they have to be updated or these maps will not be current. They will already...the day something is sold. The ongoing cost that was given by MSE in a study that the county and city funded a few years ago says that the cost is $191,280 per year. Now, I am speaking under MSE's numbers here and have not had time to actually within the time period that I had been requested to put this proposal together to say exactly what those numbers are. I think it is one issue to consider here is that even computers that we buy today are half the price of what they were five years ago. So, if these numbers are accurate or not, I don't know. I would need more time. But you do have in your possession, the county and the city, from a study from the MSE report and in the handout that I gave you here today some figures about what the cost would be per year. But I want to address an issue here that this almost becomes per department issue. The more innovative and the more a department realizes that they can utilize GIS, it becomes a department issue of how much can they afford per year. So I assume that each year they're going to come and say that I want this for my GIS. You can then issue that per department as to what their needs and concerns are. You have the salaries which is included in this $191,000. Then you come to issues of upgrades of computer systems which will be addressed on a regular basis. I know that most, in the private industry, would reinvest in computers every three to five years. Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, I guess my question, I guess, in terms of what thoughts we may have with our ongoing cost with this since this is not the end of the...this is not the only bill associated with this. President Wortman: No, I think you're going to have ongoing cost, but I think it could be accounted and put in place. But what I'm thinking, the main thing is somebody has got to get the bull, in plain words, bull by the horns and get this started and then I think down the road because there should be some way to do it. Councilmember Sutton: I guess the question also is, you know, until we get those other commitments, if we're talking about private commitments and the city commitments, do we really want to go and begin to spend the county's money knowing that it's not going to be enough to complete what needs to be done? President Wortman: Well, I think we've got to be the first ones to do it. Councilmember Sutton: Well, I mean, we could put the money up, but I'm saying before any money is spent. President Wortman: Spent, I see. Yeah, and that's a good question. Any other Councilman want to answer or talk to Mr. Sutton, address his point? Councilmember Raben: A couple things, Royce, you had raised a question as far as what do we have to look forward to in upcoming budgets. I think the time frame of getting this information together and the maps drawn, like Cheryl had said, we're talking a year and a half to two years. We're probably not looking at anything over the next twelve months outside of this. But secondly, we do need this from the standpoint of reassessment. The information that our half million dollars will buy today will be beneficial in the year 2003 for reassessment. The only shot that we've got at having this material in place for that is to act on this as soon as possible. And secondly, or thirdly, as far as fronting our money now, I think that's the only way to really get the city to act anyway. They see that the county has appropriated their money, their funds are in place, you know...if we back out of it today when they discuss this as a council they're going to say well what happened to the county? How come they haven't put their money up front? So, I think that this will make them act quicker as well. Councilmember Sutton: And I guess that's really what I'm saying though, Councilman, that is we can put our money up, but don't start incurring costs until you've got all your money. Use our money to encourage the others to get on board, but if we begin to spend and then the money doesn't come in place then there we are with less than what we really need. Councilmember Raben: Well, but the maps that...our funds that we're putting in place today, I mean, it won't be money down the tubes. I mean, this is money that we'll use in the year 2003. Councilmember Sutton: Well, who do you think is going to pay for the rest of this if the city does not decide to pay for it? Councilmember Raben: Well, exactly, the other departments aren't going to realize the information that our assessors are going to realize. I mean, it's going to be good for them, but not good for everybody else. So, you know, the city, that's a decision the city is going to have to make. I think there's enough people out here in audience pressuring the city that they'll probably go through with it. President Wortman: Mr. Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes, my reading of the way the city operates is that if the Mayor has Mrs. Dixon studying this and looking for money, he's probably already made his decision. That's typically the way the Mayor responds, and I'm not knocking the Mayor. I just think it's a statement of fact. I think the money will be forthcoming. I also think it's a good chance for us to take the lead as a council on something that's overdue. Every time I go to a AIC meeting and go to the booths, I find, you know, rural counties with a whole lot less money than we have and they already have this up and running. They've found it extremely useful. I'm a little tired of hearing about the new millennium and all that jazz, it's just another year for me. Well, I'm a theologian, he was born in 6 B.C. anyway so figure that. At any rate, it does prepare us for the new age of computerization and what these marvelous instruments can do for us. I think its time to go with it. President Wortman: Okay, Mr. Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: The proposal, at least the recommendations from MSE calls for joint city/county, or at least the sharing of this software and hardware. It calls for, you know, a GIS coordinator and two technicians. I share Mr. Sutton's concern about the city. The project will move along a lot faster if they would put up the $400,000 to do the aerial mapping, and Im hoping that they would. I mean, this is a place where the government can really get things rolling and provide a great service for ourselves in a number of different ways and also for the private sector too. So, I think it's a worthwhile project. Councilmember Sutton: I dont want to give you the impression that I'm putting a wet blanket on it, I just want to make sure we have our eyes open related to this. I think it's an excellent project, and I stated that last week. I think it is a good project, but weve had so many surprises, I just don't want this to be another of those surprises. Weve got a beautiful building across the street that's going up and the surprise hasn't fully unfolded on that yet, so I just want to make sure that this isn't another one of those surprises. President Wortman: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Sutton, and they're well taken I think. Okay, no other discussion? I'm going to have the secretary to call the roll please, to approve the motion. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: I'm going to vote for this, but I feel bad because I still think it should be coming from some other form of money rather than the Reassessment Fund. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: I asked that they speak with all of the assessors last week, they did do that, spoke with everyone. I appreciate your efforts on that. I think it is a very good project and I vote yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. Seven to nothing, it passes. COUNTY ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Councilmember Hoy: It looks like the choir just left. President Wortman: Now, I hope all those city slickers remind us when it comes to this money now, chipping in. Councilmember Hoy: We'll go down and
picket the bleachers on the riverfront if it doesn't come through.
A) CLERK B) COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2) C) DADS D) CUMULATIVE BRIDGE Councilmember Raben: Are we ready to proceed? President Wortman: Yes sir. We're ready for the transfers, Mr. Raben. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'll move that all transfers are accepted as submitted. President Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Lloyd: Second. President Wortman: Got a second. Now, on the transfers listed, that would be the Clerk, the Commissioners, Commissioners, Drug and Alcohol and Cumulative Bridge. Is that correct? Okay, a motion and a second. Any discussion on those? We're taking it all at once. If not, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. CLERK REQUESTED APPROVED
COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED APPROVED
COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED APPROVED
DRUG & ALCOHOL DEFERRAL REQUESTED
APPROVED
CUMULATIVE BRIDGE REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Now we'll go into the amendments to the salary ordinance, Mr. Raben. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, we have three items today, Sheriff's, Clerk's and Recorder's office. I move that we amend the salary ordinance as previously approved for the Sheriff's Department. The Clerk's office, same motion. The Recorder, I move to approve a position job, job title name change for line 1040-1160 to Microfilm Technician. That's all we have today, and I make that in the form of a motion. President Wortman: Do I have a second to that motion? Councilmember Smith: Second. President Wortman: Mrs. Smith second. Any discussion on that? No discussion, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Okay, number eight, old business. Any old business to come before this council? Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, before we go any further, I know you set a meeting date for June 15th with the Assessors and Commissioners and Council and Liv, or for July 15th, I'm sorry I'm a month off. We've still got to deal with our reassessment that begins this year and prepare a budget that we would really need to appropriate the first week of August. If possible, I don't know that we can lump all that in on a July 15th meeting. I think there's going to be a lot of discussion on GIS and the City Council are going to be there. I don't think they're really concerned with how we plan to address reassessment for this year. I don't really feel like Liv is really going to be there for that either. If possible, if you would be willing, could we set up a committee of maybe myself, and one or two others, to have a separate meeting to address reassessment with the assessors? President Wortman: Would this be classed as a private meeting, would you say? Who would be invited, Jim? I guess that is the question. Councilmember Raben: I guess, you know, if one or two of us could meet jointly or individually with the County Assessor and the township assessors. We're going to need to work out how much money we need to put in place next month for them to begin reassessment for this year. President Wortman: Well that's what I intend to the 15th, see. They want money for six months and I thought we could work it out. After we work it out and get their input, what they think percentage wise and what have you, that way they could hire their people. Then, we could call a special meeting, wouldn't have to wait until after the 15th. The 15th, that will be the deadline to have to wait until the next month 15th. That way we could get things in motion. They could go. We could send a questionnaire, if that's what it is, to answer questions for the satisfaction of the council. Then we could go from there. Does that sound right? I mean, it's up to the council, I want input from all the Councilmen here. Councilmember Raben: This is the last meeting that we'll all be together before July 15th. I'm just concerned that July 15th the topic of discussion for that meeting is going to be GIS and not budgets for this year. President Wortman: No, I think GIS is pretty well settled, to me. Councilmember Sutton: Who's setting the agenda for the meeting? President Wortman: Do what? Councilmember Sutton: Who's setting the agenda for the meeting? Councilmember Raben: My point is exactly this, if the City Council is going to be there and several other department heads that don't necessarily pertain to reassessment, I just want everybody to be aware that the township offices are ready to start working towards reassessment today. Councilmember Sutton: Well, put that at the top of your agenda and then the other issues can follow. Take care of what you need to... Councilmember Raben: This body, next month, we're going to have to appropriate funds for them to start using in August. So, if you think we can work it all out on the 15th, that's great. But the first Wednesday of August we're going to have to have funds in place or ready to act upon it. President Wortman: I'd say we'll have it before then, see. If we have it the 15th, I'd say we give them a couple of days to digest that, what our meeting is. Then I think we go from there. Effective January 1st is when their really starting date, the state said they could do it. But they don't have any guidelines yet and the Manual is out. So there are a lot of things undecided, but we could get them started. They could get their data processing going and things like this, hire some people to get everything in motion. That's the idea, to get this thing rolling and give them some money for six months. Then the other takes effect after the first of the year. The state doesn't have any problems with that, you know, to get them to get started, you see. Now that's my opinion. Now, if anybody else has got anything different, let me know. Councilmember Raben: Well, let me clarify something with the County Assessor. I mean, we're right in assuming that as it stands now, or effective July 1st, we have to proceed with reassessment, correct? Cheryl Musgrave: That's the statutory start date. I had given to Mrs. Deig a copy of this document and if you turn it over to the very back page there is a time line listed there. If you'll not that the Manual, which is the third highlighted or third bold thing down, they propose to have a proposed version of the Manual out in August. That proposed version will maybe be modified a little, but they never get modified very much. That will tell the assessors exactly what they have to do in order to get working. The assessors, if they got in their cars and went out into the field today, might have an idea of what to do, but they don't know exactly what to do. So, while they've been statutorily mandated to begin on July 1st, we're really cooling our heels until August when the State Tax Board sends us the definitive word on what to do. Councilmember Raben: Means if we don't have some type of funds in place August, then we're looking at September before this body would appropriate monies again. Cheryl Musgrave: Right. Councilmember Raben: But if everybody is comfortable that we can hash all this out during the other meeting, July 15th, then that's fine. President Wortman: Are the Councilmen comfortable with that, ladies and gentlemen? Councilmember Smith: I don't see why it couldn't be hashed out if that's the only thing you're going to discuss the 15th. President Wortman: Get it out on the table-- Councilmember Smith: You've got all afternoon, I mean... Councilmember Raben: I was under the assumption when we were inviting City Council and Liv and the other departments that the meeting was primarily dealing with the GIS. I think if those bodies are here I dont think we're going to get this issue worked out, but we'll do it. I just want this body to understand that before we leave the room we need to hash this other issue out and not just the GIS. President Wortman: No, that will be on the agenda, getting this reassessment appropriation. Councilmember Hoy: What time is the meeting? President Wortman: At 1:00. Everybody will be informed on that. That way if we're not done at 5:00, we'll stay until we get it done. Does everybody agree with my suggestion? Mr. Sutton, Mrs. Smith, Ed, Mr. Hoy, Jim Raben and then Russ? Councilmember Lloyd: Suzanne's correct, we can only have three members, so. Councilmember Hoy: Aren't you going to appoint a committee? President Wortman: Yes, I'll just
appoint three. That way we won't get in any legal entanglements or nothing
like that. Okay, everybody agree? Let's move on so we can get going.
A) PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION - TAX ABATEMENT FOR WARREN SPURLING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3401 N GREEN RIVER ROAD President Wortman: Next is new business then. Preliminary resolution for tax abatement for Warren Spurling for property located at Green River Road. Mike Robling: Mike Robling, Department of Metropolitan Development. Mr. Spurling is seeking tax abatement to construct a new apartment complex consisting of 300 affordable housing units for senior citizens. The project has a total budget of $10,000,000. He proposes to hire three full time and two part time employees upon completion. He has signed a commitment that at least 20% of the units will be made available for low and moderate income individuals. It is the recommendation of the Department of Metropolitan Development that this economic revitalization not be approved because this is located within the Burkhardt Road economic development TIF area. You have previously denied three earlier applications in this area, one for Bernardin Lochmueller and two for Frank Richardson on two separate projects. The increase value from new developments in this area are the sole source of revenues to pay off the bonds that have been issued in this TIF area. President Wortman: How's he coming on the last tax abatement, Mr. Robling? Has progress been made on that, keeping up and everything? Mike Robling: I believe he has finished that. President Wortman: He did finish that. Jeff Ahlers: Has there been an approval by the allocating area, which I guess in this case you are saying is the Vanderburgh County Redevelopment Commission, have they approved this application? Mike Robling: No they have not. It was on their agenda for last week. They just happened to have a meeting on the Phoenix Industrial Park matter. Mr. Spurling indicated that he could not attend that meeting and ask that action there be postponed. Jeff Ahlers: Well, based upon my reading of the statute it would seem that this body can't act until he does that. In reading-- Mike Robling: I think it could happen either way because there is still another step in the process. It would still have to be confirmed. President Wortman: You are referring to a second reading. Mike Robling: Right. Jeff Ahlers: Well, but it says, I mean, the statute states that an application for the property tax deduction provided by this chapter may not be approved unless the commission that designated the allocation area adopts a resolution approving the application. I guess I read that to say that there needs to be an approval by them first. Mike Robling: What we're doing here is not approving the deduction application. What we are doing here is designating the economic revitalization area. The application for the tax deduction does not occur until the property has been reassessed. That's an application made to the Auditor's office after the project is finished. Jeff Ahlers: Well, even if it were to be interpreted that you could go either way first, the concern that I have is that if they don't approve it we're not getting anywhere anyway, right? So to a certain extent we may be exercising in futility until that is done. Mike Robling: Right. You could approve it and they could turn it down, in which case it wouldn't come back to be confirmed or it could happen the other way. The commission does not have another meeting scheduled at this time. Jeff Ahlers: That would be my only suggestion to the Councilmen is whether or not you want to wait to see if they...because if they don't approve it, according to the statute, I don't know that we get the opportunity to approve it. So it's a matter of whether or not you are.. Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman. President Wortman: Yes ma'am? Councilmember Smith: I'm under the impression that he thought it was going to be delayed because Bill isn't here. Who told him, somebody told him that it was going to be delayed. Mike Robling: His attorney contacted our office and asked that it be taken off the agenda for Redevelopment Commission and that was done. Councilmember Smith: So, he's under the impression that it is going to be delayed and I don't think we should even hear it unless he knows he's supposed to be here. President Wortman: How are long would we, talking about time element, getting that approved? Mike Robling: Well, we could call a special meeting of the Redevelopment Commission, but in the past we have come here first because... President Wortman: It might be in the best interest of Mr. Spurling, in fairness, to have a motion to defer it and go from there. Does that sound-- Councilmember Smith: I make the motion that we defer it until the next council meeting in August. President Wortman: Do I have a second? Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Wortman: Mr. Hoy, okay. Anymore discussion on that? Yes sir? Councilmember Lloyd: I understand what Mr. Ahlers was saying, although it's council that has the final authority. I mean, we could still grant that regardless of whether the Redevelopment Commission meets or not. Jeff Ahlers: Well, but if the Redevelopment Commission does not approve it, then I don't think we can. Councilmember Smith: We make the final decision on whether it's approved or not, that's just a recommendation coming from the commission. Jeff Ahlers: Well, but in this particular instance the statute indicates that it cannot be approved unless the commission that designated the allocated area adopts a resolution approving the application. Councilmember Smith: But the appointed board doesn't make the final decision, the elected board makes the final decision. President Wortman: We would make the final decision, but in there it has go through the proper channels before it gets to us. I guess that's what you are saying? Jeff Ahlers: Well, no. I mean, I'm saying that it says it has to be approved, adopts a resolution approving the application. Councilmember Bassemier: I think we play it safe and postpone it. President Wortman: We got a motion on the floor. Jeff Ahlers: I mean if they approve it, we can turn it down. So we have the final authority to the negative, but we don't, I don't think, have the final authority if they don't approve it because it's in a TIF zone. We have to have their approval first and then it comes here. Do you agree with that? Mike Robling: It's my interpretation that you could take action concerning the designation of the ERA. Their approval is not of the ERA but is of the tax deduction itself which can only take place after an ERA-- Jeff Ahlers: In other words they're not getting an abatement until that happens, right? Mike Robling: Well, it's my understanding that unless the Redevelopment Commission-- Councilmember Smith: Call to the question, there's a motion on the floor. President Wortman: There's a motion on the floor and a second to postpone it, and that way it will go through the proper channels. Mr. Robling? Mike Robling: I want to know what you're postponing it...you want the Redevelopment Commission to act on it before it comes back? Is that what you're postponing it for? President Wortman: I would say whatever procedure is necessary to get it to come before us with the right credentials. Councilmember Hoy: I would accept that statement as the seconder of the motion if Mrs. Smith would accept that, that it go through the Redevelopment Commission first. Councilmember Smith: I thought it already had, but I didn't know we had to wait for their approval because we make the final decision and he's saying that it hasn't been approved there. Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, but what I'm saying is that I'd like to see us set a deadline on this, and the deadline would be after it goes through the Redevelopment Commission. But I can't change your motion. Councilmember Smith: Then I will amend my motion to that. Councilmember Hoy: Thank you, and I'll second. President Wortman: Okay, and he seconded it. Everybody understands that? The secretary, when you get a chance, could slip over here and we'll have her call the roll please. Then, Mr. Robling, we'll see you next month, hopefully. Mike Robling: If the commission acts negatively on it, it will never get back to you. President Wortman: Okay, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: This is a motion to delay? President Wortman: Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) B) COMPLIANCE WITH STATEMENT OF BENEFITS - CF-1 FORMS President Wortman: Okay, next is compliance with the statement of benefits, CF-1 forms. Mike Robling: You've got a substantial packet of compliance forms and a summary sheet. Looking down the summary sheet there are a number of businesses that have met or surpassed their projections for investment and/or employment. Those businesses being AmeriQual Foods, Industrial Filter Manufacturing, Koester 41 Properties, Shoe Carnival, Perfection Hydraulics, E.H. Seaman III, Indiana Tube, TNT Holland Motor Express and QTR, Inc. I would think that you would find that all of those businesses have substantially complied with their statement of benefits. Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President? President Wortman: Yes sir? Councilmember Hoy: Some questions to ask Mr. Robling beginning with AmeriQual. Do you know if their employment figure includes full time jobs or are some of these temporary jobs? The reason I ask is that we've been hiring at our place and we've discovered that a number of people are working there as temporary employees under a temporary employment service. I'm wondering if that is something that your department checks out? Mike Robling: No, the form does not ask. It just says the current number of employees and salaries. Councilmember Hoy: I see because I called the employment service and the temp service and I'm quite concerned because a few years ago there might have been maybe four or five temporary services in this city and now there are 24. The largest employer in this country is Manpower. I'm not against them employing people, but when we hire temps at our place it's because somebody is on vacation. We pay $11 per hour and that temporary worker gets $6. I would be disturbed if I found out that we were approving something where they were hiring temporary employees rather than the full time employees since you can't make much of a living out of $6 per hour. Is there any way to get that information? Mike Robling: We can contact them. Councilmember Hoy: My second question has to do with Azteca Milling because they have hired 66% and looking over the records they were at 74% as of 1997. They had 130 employees and now they're down to 116. When we approved this abatement they promised a minimum of 175 new jobs and perhaps 190. From what I've read they're saying the Mexican peso has been devalued. I find that difficult to understand since when they registered with us they registered as a corporation located in Texas. The U.S. dollar is in rather excellent shape right now. Do they give any explanation for not having meet their goal? We've been giving them abatement. They said they would meet that in two years and we've been giving them an abatement since 1996. Mike Robling: When me met with them I think Frank Hererra came last year and spoke to the council and they were attempting to solve the odor problem. Their explanation at that time was that because of the odor problems they were having they were not in a position to complete the investment that they had anticipated. Because of that, some of that investment was made at plants elsewhere. Until they knew that the odor problem was resolved they would not make any additional investments here. That had caused, for some reason, their employment not to reach the total. We did contact them because their jobs were actually down from last year. Currently, they have 23 positions that are open and they are having difficulty hiring people. Several businesses on this list have their employment down somewhat from last year, and I suspect that's the reason because of the stable labor market. Councilmember Hoy: I did some figuring on what they are paying per hour and it's no wonder they have trouble hiring people because it's less than $8 an hour. I feel like that this company needs to make a stronger effort. We as a council gave them, this will sound like a pun, we gave them the farm to say the least. Mike Robling: That's right. Councilmember Hoy: Abatement, TIF and anything else we could find to give them and then they brought the hellacious stink to our area and we couldn't get that solved until we twisted their arm and they cried uncle. They're still polluting the stream out there. I'm not real happy with this outfit at all. I'm not happy with the wage level. I have problems approving that one. My question of Koester is that when they applied, or in their compliance form rather, the 1998 compliance review, they were still paying a beginning salary to some people of $6.50 an hour and then it goes up to $24 an hour. It averages out to about a whole lot less than I think it should. I think we need to know how many $6.50 an hour jobs that are there. They've gone way over their goal, but if you're not paying very much money it's fairly easy to do that. Then about Mr. Spurling, since we've already discussed him, the question I have about Spurling is how he's counting his employees because the last time he was before us he was counting the lawn care people with whom he had a contract. Is he still doing that? I mean, at the Food Bank I have a contract with Shekell and Action Pest Control and a lawn care outfit and two or three others and I don't count those as employees at Tri-State Food Bank. I don't think he should be allowed to count that as employees. Do we have any figures on how many people he's really hired? Mike Robling: No, the only figures we have are those that are on the form that we received-- Councilmember Hoy: There's no way to check those? Mike Robling: We can contact them, but unless there was some major deficiency shown toward their goal we did not contact them about the data that they submitted. Councilmember Hoy: I thought his admission last time of those deficiencies should have been adequate alarm enough to see how he counts his employees. I also had calls from his renters who said that he was not giving us the straight scoop on the rents, that he was charging a good deal more rent than he said he was charging. So, I'm not real happy with that one. The next one that I have questions about, this PROLAM because if you take their salaries and lump all of them together, and I'm sure some people make a whole lot more than this, their average is only $7.69 an hour. Let's see, my question about McCullough/Haller is where are they on their project. They have as yet hired no one. What's holding them up, do you know? Mike Robling: They only started construction earlier in the year so they have not gotten very far along. Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, they've only spent 2%, $123,000 out of a projected $5,771,000. Councilmember Raben: They don't even have the first phase of it under roof yet. Councilmember Hoy: They don't have a roof yet for a hundred and-- Councilmember Raben: No, they're about 30 days into that project is all they are. Councilmember Hoy: Okay, well I -- Mike Robling: And they submitted this report on April 30th. Councilmember Hoy: Okay. And then I have two more questions. I really don't expect a lot of answers, but I mention this for the council's benefit and that I'm just really concerned that we approve these things too easily. The Matrixx/Replas is at 12% and they spent 108% of their real estate investment and 112% of the new manufacturing equipment, but they're only showing a 12% hire. Mike Robling: There's an explanation at the bottom of their review form. They were delayed in moving in to the new facility, essentially. Councilmember Hoy: That sounds plausible. And then the last one is Rexam and they're showing 42 employees, in >97 they showed 34, and in >96 they showed 52. What's happened there? Mike Robling: They do state something about market conditions on there. We could ask them. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, could I ask a question of Mr. Robling? President Wortman: Yes sir. Councilmember Raben: Mike, you know these questions come up from this council quite frequently. I know I've asked time and time again what can we do to actually audit these businesses or at least have a better understanding of what we really are looking at in terms of full time and part time and average hourly rates. What would it take for your organization to, in terms of staffing, to be able to do that? I mean, what would this body have to do, or both city and county... Mike Robling: The State Board of Tax Commissioners prescribes the form that they report on. We would have to create a secondary form that asks them to break out information. This year we've had extreme difficulty getting people to answer questions because of the review that's been going on by the City Council. People have become very defensive. Even though we're asking the questions and attempting to answer your questions ahead of time, they've become very defensive in not wanting to supply this information. This is a fairly burdensome activity because all of these...part of these forms dribble in from January through April and then all the manufacturing are due on May 15th, unless you get an extension from your township assessor on your personal property and then they're due on June 15th. So, we have a very short window in which to deal with these things. I attempt to contact the ones where there are obvious discrepancies or where we remember there being problems from the past. There are a number of these such as Rexam which identifies that they currently are trying to fill 28 positions. That could explain the employment differences. Councilmember Raben: Let me increase your burden somewhat, and I'm sure I would have the blessing from the rest of this council, but what if we ask you to get back with us in the next 30 days, get back with us and let us know what your department needs to better audit the information that's given to you from businesses that are benefitting from tax abatement. I mean, if you need another person or two people-- Mike Robling: We can look into that, I'm not sure what...I can come back with some sort of an answer for you. Councilmember Raben: Okay, because I think that is important because we ask these same questions time and time again. I know you're kind of at their mercy that the information provided to you is accurate. You just stated that they're not very cordial to you when you ask that information. So, I think this body, and I'm sure the city would even entertain the idea of if it took an extra person or two or any ideas you have to, I like to use the term bird dog, these businesses or at least be able to audit the information that's given to you. So, is it okay with this council that we ask him to provide us, come back to us in 30 days and let us know what he thinks their department can do to better gather this information? Councilmember Sutton: Jim, I don't know if there's been a change in the past Jim that I use to know, but it sounds like Santa Claus is over there. We gave away $500,000 I guess earlier and then we're talking about him looking at positions. I understand the burden-- Councilmember Raben: You save your pennies and the dollars take care of themselves is what I was always told. We're talking about millions and millions of dollars here and I know Phil asks the question every time and I do too, you know, what do we do to insure that the information you're given is accurate? Councilmember Sutton: They're a city department. On the county we don't have-- Councilmember Raben: That's why I said both city and county, if we could split whatever it takes to give them the personnel or whatever is needed to insure that the information that they're being given is accurate. I mean as it is now, any business here fills out a form and he has to take it for granted that the information that they're providing is accurate. What Phil is asking and what I am asking is can we take it a step further? Can we actually do an audit to insure that information is correct? When they say they have five full time employees, do they in fact have five full time employees on their payroll? Would we have found out in the case where we had the lawn care company as part of the five or six employees, could we have found that out for ourselves? Had he not told us, would we know today that he only had two or three? Mike Robling: As a part of the review that the City Council is doing the issue of auditing has come up primarily for businesses that people think are cheating. They're not talking about potentially auditing everyone. As I see it there are only a few points that you really have the legitimacy to ask for an audit on. You could go to the forms that they file with the Social Security Administration quarterly or whatever on FICA and so forth, and see how many employees they report they have and what the salary levels are that they report. I think that you could do something like that. Councilmember Raben: I think it's important on the hourly rate. I could pay myself a quarter of a million dollars and have five employees and have an average hourly rate of $25 per hour and the other guys are making minimum wage. Mike Robling: I think getting into that kind of detail would be very expensive and I'm not sure we would have the legal right to do that because of confidentiality concerns. To determine actual pay rates you'd almost have to get into their payroll records which I'm not sure that's possible. Councilmember Raben: That's what I'm asking you. Why don't you find out what you can do? Councilmember Hoy: I know that's confidential, but they've somewhat opened the door by asking us for tax abatement. The other thing, I did pass this out to the council because I am crusading about this issue and everybody knows that. What I passed out, Mr. President, are the 1999 HUD income guidelines, not for New York City, not for San Francisco, not for Chicago, not for St. Louis, but for Evansville. If you're paying $7.88 an hour that equals 50% of the median income, $16,400 a year, which HUD concludes in this community is a low income person. Now, a family of four at low income would have $23,450 which is $11.27 an hour. A low to moderate...by the way these are the guidelines we use at Tri-State Food Bank. We can serve families low mod and below and qualify to serve them. One person would have to make $26,250, just a one person family. That's $12.62 an hour and they still qualify to go to a food pantry according to the feds for this area. Four persons, a person would have to earn $37,500 or $18.03 an hour. I'm having problems giving abatement when there's anything less than $8 an hour plus benefits. I mean, that's a struggle. If you make $8 an hour and you have all your benefits paid, you have $83 a week left for groceries, gasoline, clothing, medical costs and everything else. I think that's an absurd financial picture. I doubt that anyone sitting around this table lives at that level. I don't and I'm not as highly paid as some heads of charities are. My figure is public anyway, somebody asked the newspaper. But it bothers me that we have no way of checking on them. You're looking at companies way out on 41. You've got to have a car to drive there and a lot of jobs pay $6.50 an hour. You can't afford an automobile. Councilmember Smith: I have a problem when they say it's confidentiality. Back in the >70's we had a lot of bonds at that time when I was on the City Council and we asked if they did a check back and see if they kept their word on employees and whatever and they said no they didn't do that. Well, you know, you could come up here and tell us anything, but if there's no way to check back on it, and I don't believe that it's confidential when you ask the taxpayers to give you a tax break. I think then it ceases to be confidential. Mike Robling: The confidentiality is having a public employee get into a private company's records. Councilmember Smith: But that public employee is the one that helped to issue that tax abatement to start with. So it's not the same as me going out here and checking into yours when I'm not asking you for anything. Mike Robling: Council does have the right to determine the business is not in compliance and call them in for a hearing. That's where you can get them is when you call them back for a hearing. Councilmember Sutton: I will say that the burden of proof of that is on the employer to show that they are or are not in compliance. I mean, if based upon what they show us, which is what we're depending on, it appears that someone is outside of what they had committed themselves to do then they are not living up to their obligation which is what they signed off on when they requested tax abatement be it a year ago or four years ago. So therefore it places them in a different light. I mean, there are certain standards and certain things that your office requests of them. How much of an investment are they going to make in the community? How many employees are they going to hire? Are they going to have an affirmative action plan? A number of things that in the normal course of business they wouldn't have to disclose that information. But they open themselves up in requesting tax abatement to requirements and reporting that they ordinarily would not have to make. So really the ball is back in their court. You want tax abatement, you want to continue tax abatement, you want to show you are in compliance, we need information to support that. President Wortman: Excuse me, we have to have a tape change here please. Discussion continues during tape change Councilmember Raben: ...different incentives from both state and federal government, that's when they were allowed to step in and drop the hammer on all the problems that had existed forever there. You're exactly right. Once you receive an abatement or a tax break or grants or what have you, you do open your doors to any type of audit or anything like that to insure that you are in compliance. Councilmember Sutton: How fair is it to the taxpayer, if you want to look at it that way? We give you the money, but then there are no responsibilities. Councilmember Raben: See like with Big Rivers, there was nothing illegal until they received assistance from the state and federal government. There was nothing illegal whatsoever, but once they accepted that federal money and state money and assistance, that's when everything that had taken place was unlawful. Councilmember Sutton: As I go down through that list, and I think Councilman Hoy has done an excellent job in kind of highlighting many of the ones that I had highlighted myself, I think that there are some that do stand out that would be...I'd really be interested to hear some additional explanation and bring them in like we have done in past years from those that are outside of compliance for whatever reason that is outside of what we may consider things outside of their control. I think Azteca is a primary example of that. Spurling, Temme Investments, Inc., McCullough/Haller, though they are relatively new, I think it would serve them well to come in and visit with us. You know, Temme shows up actually on the list two times but under Temme Mold and Engineering the second time. Matrixx Group/Replas they're new, but again I think the message is still needed there. And then the last one, Rexam, we've got some repeat companies on here from last year that we called in and asked them to come in and talk about some things. I know I met with some of these and talked with some of them and they shared some things with me in terms of why they were where they were and things they were going to do try to improve it, but they're back on the list, in some cases. I think it would serve us well, the public well and those who have received abatements that they need to be responsible for what has been given them. If it's in order, I would make a motion that those companies that I have mentioned, that we do call them in for a...what's the formal wording that we use? Mike Robling: Preliminarily found them to be in noncompliance. Councilmember Sutton: Prelim..prelim...what Mike said. Mike Robling: Preliminarily found them to be in noncompliance. Councilmember Sutton: And ask that they appear before this body. Mike Robling: Can you name those businesses for me again? Councilmember Sutton: Azteca Milling, Warren Spurling, Temme Investments, Inc. and Temme Mold and Engineering, McCullough/Haller, the Matrixx Group/Replas and Rexam Closure. I don't know if I missed any. Councilmember Raben: On Matrixx, that's still a new company as well. They're really just now in operation, is that correct? Mike Robling: Well it's not a new company, Replas has-- Councilmember Sutton: Yeah they've been around, with this new investment-- Councilmember Raben: The new investment, that's...they're fairly new and up and running. Mike Robling: They were late in moving into their new plant is why they haven't expanded their job force yet. Councilmember Sutton: And more so because they are new, I guess three years down the road I'd hate to bring them before us and they'd say well how come you didn't call us in before. Granted, I know they do have some issues that are different, maybe, than some of the others, but I still think it's important that we send the message that we are interested in this and we want them to be equally as interested. That's my motion. President Wortman: Okay, I've got a motion on the floor from Mr. Sutton. Do I have a second? Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Wortman: Mr. Hoy. Discussion? Mr. Ahlers would like to address the issue. Jeff Ahlers: In referring to the Indiana Code on what we're to do today in terms of whether there's compliance or noncompliance with statement of benefits, the statute provides that within 45 days after the receipt of the information, which I think most of these are stamped in June so we are within the 45 days, this body can either find that they are in substantial compliance with their statement of benefits, that's easy enough. If you want to find that they are not then you must do a little bit more. You must state that, it says that if the designating body determines that the property owner has not substantially complied with the statement of benefits and that the failure to substantially comply was not caused by factors beyond the control of the property owner, such as decline in demand for the property owners products or services, the designating body shall mail a written notice to the property owner. We have to set another hearing within 30 days. In your notice you have to set forth the reasons explaining this body's determination. So what I'm getting at is that if you don't find them in substantial compliance and if you're going to make a motion, you're going to have to, I think, go a little bit further to state that they are not substantially in compliance with the statement of benefits and that you find that it's not due to factors caused beyond their control, and then we have to set another hearing date and then notices will have to be sent out. So, I just wanted to make sure that you all understood that it's a little bit more than just making a motion if you go to the negative that they are entitled to know what the determination is. Mike Robling: I think those reasons have probably been stated. President Wortman: I am going to refer to Azteca, as Mr. Hoy did. I met with Mr. Hererra from Texas last year. Two things, if they don't comply that effects their debt service, of course that's all companies, you know, it does that. The second one he mentioned, they come in and thought, I think, the employment would be about 175. He said well we just made a projected guess based on our other companies in other locations. Okay, what happened is the workers in this area are more productive and then we cut back. I said, well that don't help our debt service. We have to make up that slack there, see. So, that's what maybe has happened to some of these people. The workers are good, maybe they find new technology, I don't know. I'm just throwing this out, but that's what Mr. Hererra told me out at Azteca. Councilmember Sutton: I'd be interested to hear what they have to say, you know. Councilmember Raben: Jeff, let me make sure I understand you. You say we have 45 days from June 15th to vote on whether or not these are in compliance? Jeff Ahlers: Well, actually it's from the date that they receive them. I just happened to look and it looks like Azteca was received on June 15th. Mike Robling: They do come in at various dates. Jeff Ahlers: But they've all come in on various dates. On some of them that the 45 days has passed that could be an issue. Councilmember Raben: Okay, so do we need to vote on some of these? Jeff Ahlers: Well, what needs to happen is one of two things. I guess someone could make a motion to find them all in substantial compliance, or you can take them one by one or someone can make a motion finding them...if you're going to make a motion to the negative then it needs to be a little more detailed. If you're going to find that they're not in substantial compliance with the statement of benefits you need to also state that the failure to comply was not caused by factors beyond the control of the owner. We just need to have some issues, I mean record as to why we're-- President Wortman: Mr. Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Well I guess my motion, maybe I didn't go into it to the full extent, but I guess what the intent was to bring them before us so that we could actually hear what issues may have arisen. But the ones that I named off, I named those off...maybe I could make it a part of my motion that those are the companies that I find that are not substantially complying with their statement of benefits as they had indicated when they applied for tax abatement. So that's what my motion was. The reasoning behind that, if we want to go one by one to amend my motion, if we could do that? Do I need to give a reason for each one? Jeff Ahlers: Well I'd suggest, I mean it doesn't have to go into great detail, but I suggest that some reason be stated. And I think as Mr. Raben brought up, you know, on some of these I don't know if some of these that you pointed out whether or not 45 days have passed and whether or not that creates an issue. I mean, the statutes says that it needs to be done within 45 days. Councilmember Sutton: Well, but it's the first time that it's been brought before us for discussion. Councilmember Raben: I mean, there's certain ones that look like they're well within compliance that we need to vote on today. Mike Robling: The ones that were in Mr. Sutton's resolution all are below their employment goal, so that would be a-- Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, do you want to take them one at a time? President Wortman: It's up to Mr. Sutton. He's got a motion on the floor. Councilmember Sutton: My motion, all the ones that I named were below their employment on the statement of benefits. President Wortman: And then you seconded it? Mr. Hoy is that agreeable with you? Councilmember Hoy: I'll accept that motion. President Wortman: Okay, now is that agreeable with all the other councilmen? Mr. Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Don't you think there ought to be a point when you call these people back, you know, looking over here at the percent? Or do we go 50% for not in compliance, and call them back, or is it 75%? I kind of remember, I'm just going to point one out that Mr. Sutton...Warren Spurling, I believe when he got up here he proved us wrong. He was below that but his projection was over 100%. You remember that Betty? So don't you think we ought to have a cut off point to call these people back? I'm seeing 75% with compliance, 83%. Shouldn't there be a... Councilmember Raben: That's what his motion is, you're asking that we-- Councilmember Bassemier: No he named of four-- Councilmember Sutton: Well Mr. Spurling has had abatement since 1994 and I can only go with what the figures we have here. If he has some other figures that we wants to present to us...I'm not aware of anything besides what we have before us. Councilmember Bassemier: Well I'm just pointing out that you've named off four, and I'm seeing 83% here, 75% on one of them you named off. I don't know. I'm just saying, do we have a cut off point when we call them back? Or do we call them all back when they don't meet it? Councilmember Raben: Mr. Sutton's motion is to ask them to come in before we vote on theirs. Do you understand? Councilmember Bassemier: The four he named. Councilmember Raben: Just the ones he named. I was going to mention to you, I had mentioned the McCullough/Haller one prior, I drive by that everyday. They couldn't have an employee yet. I mean there's wood stud walls up. I mean they haven't even set windows in the first two or three buildings. When it rains it's raining inside, there's not even roofs on those structures yet. So there's nowhere to work. So we can call him in if you'd like, but we may be jumping the gun on bringing him in. Councilmember Sutton: Well, he is still relatively new. I mean he just received-- Councilmember Raben: Like I said there are stud walls on two or three buildings. They're nowhere close to hiring people. Councilmember Hoy: If the motion may-- Councilmember Sutton: Are you requesting that I amend my motion to exclude McCullough/Haller? Councilmember Raben: Well, yeah. I mean, calling those people in and asking them why their employment why their employment still looks low may be asking them to come in for no reason at all. Because like I said, an employee doesn't have a place to go to work yet. Councilmember Sutton: Yeah, I will accept that amendment to the motion. Councilmember Hoy: I'll accept as seconder. Mr. Robling, we will get to review them again next year will we not? Mike Robling: You'll be reviewing them for three, six or ten years. Councilmember Hoy: Okay, I'll accept that, yeah. Councilmember Raben: Reread the motion. President Wortman: Mr. Sutton would you read off those companies please, again. Councilmember Sutton: Azteca Milling L.P., Warren W. Spurling, Temme Investments Inc., Temme Mold and Engineering, the Matrixx Group/Replas and Rexam Closures. President Wortman: That's eight, is that correct? Six, okay. Now is that agreeable with you, Mr. Hoy? Okay, agreed with the councilmen? Okay, any other discussion? Councilmember Bassemier: All I'm saying is I just want to be consistent. Next year from now we call other companies in and if we're going to question them on 83%, we call them in. If it's 75%, we call them in. Councilmember Sutton: My motion is those that are below 100%. Councilmember Bassemier: Well we are...it's a dream world there. President Wortman: Any other discussion on that? If not, please call the roll. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: I will agree with Bassemier that there should be a limit because there's a lot of times when there's a variation. But to call those people in I'll go ahead and vote with Royce, but I think we need to set a limit. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: I would say that's good, but I'm a little like Mrs. Smith. The only problem is, you can call them in, we just want to ask them a few things. I'd say not get too rough on them, but they could explain their situation to us. So with that, I vote yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) President Wortman: Mr. Robling, would you plan to please send a note to these companies? Mike Robling: Set the hearing for the next regular Council meeting? President Wortman: That would be fine. Councilmember Hoy: I'd just like to make a comment about this. What bothers me is I receive a little in excess of $30,000 from the State of Illinois for a contract we have and they come in and do a two day audit on us every year. The State of Indiana gives us a grant on commodities, they come in and do a two day audit. The State of Kentucky does. My national is coming in next week to do a two day audit. We get audited eight times. I'm not knocking your department, Mr. Robling, so don't misunderstand me because I know you've got a tough job. But when I submit a grant to DMD as a private charity, I have to list the wages of all of my employees on that grant, every last one of them. That's a requirement. Our assumption as a charity is since we're asking for federal dollars then they have a right to ask for what we're paying. And I don't see a great deal of difference between doing that and private companies because were all asking for the same tax dollars. Thank you. President Wortman: I think we need a motion on the floor now for the rest of the companies. Councilmember Sutton: Yeah, Mr. President, I was going to offer a motion on the rest of the companies-- Councilmember Raben: And I'll second that motion. President Wortman: Mr. Raben seconded. Everybody understand that? Call the roll please. Councilmember Sutton: To approve that they are in substantial compliance. Let me go ahead and name them just to be on the safe side. AmeriQual Foods, Evansville Tool and Die Inc., Industrial Filter Manufacturing, Koester 41 Properties, Shoe Carnival, Wabash Plastics, Perfection Hydraulics, PROLAM Products Inc., E.H. Seaman III, Indiana Tube Corporation, McCullough/Haller, TNT Holland Motor Express and QTR, Inc. That's in the form of a motion. Councilmember Raben: And I second that motion. President Wortman: Okay, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: That was everyone that he named off is over 100% compliance, is that right? Councilmember Sutton: Right. Mike Robling: Except for McCullough/Haller. Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. (Motion approved unanimously 7-0) C) JOB STUDY CONSULTANT CONTRACT President Wortman: Okay, that completes that. We go down to C, the Job Study Consultant Contract. This is the same contract as it was last year, no increase in fees. I'll entertain a motion to that effect. Councilmember Hoy: I move approval, sir. Councilmember Lloyd: Second. President Wortman: Mr. Hoy approved it and Lloyd seconded it. Any discussion? Call the roll please. Councilmember Sutton: Do recognize this is the same contract that we had last year, but we're not an extremely wealthy county. We've been doing pretty good, but do we need to have someone here everyday of our budget hearings? I mean, that's costing us $800 per day. Do we need to have somebody here every day on those budget hearings? President Wortman: I think on the final week...how did we do that last year, Sandie? Sandie Deig: Mr. Deisher was here at all budget hearings. Councilmember Smith: The whole time, and I don't think that's necessary. Councilmember Sutton: That's $3,200 and I don't know, most of his work is done prior to our budget hearings. I think if there's questions that come up I know that it's pretty easy to usually get a hold of him. But, you know, that's $3,200 that...well, that's a pretty hefty amount. President Wortman: Mr. Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: One question might be important. If he's not here we'd have to call him, so I think we need him. Just like we need an attorney everyday, you know. I say we do because we don't know what questions are going to be asked. President Wortman: Anybody else got anything to comment on this? Councilmember Sutton: Well, if then we feel like we need him everyday then? I mean, maybe the second week since we're actually taking action on the budgets in the second week, or even maybe on the first week since we're actually considering the different ones. I don't think both weeks would necessarily need to incur $800 per day. President Wortman: Go ahead Mr. Bassemier. Councilmember Bassemier: What are the game rules this time, the second half nobody's going to be able to ask any questions of anybody? We're just going to vote? President Wortman: I think within reason. Councilmember Bassemier: There would be maybe one question that we could ask if were not clear of. I say we need him. Councilmember Lloyd: We have questions the first week and then they answer them the second week a lot of times. President Wortman: We run into a lot of legal things especially these job descriptions and all of that, that's the only thing. Councilmember Smith: That's legal, we've got an attorney. President Wortman: But he don't do job descriptions. Councilmember Smith: Yeah, but $800 a day is a lot of money. President Wortman: Oh yeah. Councilmember Smith: And I don't think that we need him for eight days because if you've got four budget hearings and then go through the next week of the same thing, I don't think we need him then. President Wortman: Yeah, okay. It's up to the council. Like I said, it's the same as last year. It's up to the council. I'll entertain a motion to the same or if you want to make adjustments. Councilmember Lloyd: We already had a motion to approve it as submitted. Councilmember Sutton: There's already a motion on the floor. President Wortman: Okay, did I have a second? I think you seconded, okay. Anymore discussion on it? If not, call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: I'm going to vote yes because it isn't going to do any good, but $800 a day is too much money. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: I vote yes. I wish I was an accountant. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. (Motion approved 6-1; Councilmember Sutton opposed) D) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION CONCERNING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE VANDERBURGH COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGARDING EXPENDITURES OF TAX INCREMENT FOR VANDERBURGH INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT. President Wortman: Okay, now D, consideration of resolution concerning agreement between the Vanderburgh County Council and the Vanderburgh County Redevelopment Commission regarding expenditures of tax increment for Vanderburgh County Industrial Park project. I'll entertain a motion to that effect for the floor. Councilmember Lloyd: Motion to approve. President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd, do I have a second? Councilmember Bassemier: Second. President Wortman: Second, Mr. Bassemier. Is there any discussion on this? Mr. Ahlers? Jeff Ahlers: I had spoken with attorney Rick Hall who's the bond counsel for the county just to make to sure to address the council's earlier concerns with regard to making sure that the bond could be repaid earlier. I think Mr. Hall can answer the question that he's doing by agreement, which is referenced in the resolution, but that it is his opinion that there would be no provision in the bond that would prevent the early repayment that's required by the agreement, is that true? Rick Hall: That's right. The Redevelopment Commission-- President Wortman: Could you state your name please. Rick Hall: My name is Rick Hall, I'm with Barnes and Thornburg. The bonds would be prepayable no later than ten days after their date of issuance. This agreement would require that the excess TIF revenues be used to prepay the bonds. The final terms of redemption will be determined at the time the bonds are sold. President Wortman: Okay, anybody got any questions? Thank you. Would you please call the roll, we've got a motion and a second on the floor. Councilmember Raben: You have a motion...now, I move approval. Councilmember Smith: Second. President Wortman: We've got a second. Any discussion? Call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. (Motion approved 6-1; Councilmember Hoy opposed) E) CONSIDERATION OF BOND ORDINANCE RE: VANDERBURGH INDUSTRIAL PARK President Wortman: Okay, we go to the next then, consideration of the bond ordinance for the Vanderburgh County Industrial Park. I'll entertain a motion to that effect. Councilmember Sutton: So moved. President Wortman: So moved, Mr. Sutton. Do I have a second? Mr. Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Second. President Wortman: Got a second. Any discussion? Call the roll please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith? Councilmember Smith: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd? Councilmember Lloyd: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Wortman? President Wortman: Yes. (Motion approved 6-1; Councilmember Hoy opposed) F) SHERMAN GREER RE: PRESENT INFORMATION FOR THE PHASE II FUNDING OF THE MOBILE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (MEOC) President Wortman: Okay, that completes that. Now, last on the list is Sherman Greer. He wants to make a presentation on the phase II of the funding of the Mobile Emergency Operations Center. Would you step forward please? Sherman Greer: My name is Sherman Greer. I'm the Emergency Management Director for Evansville and Vanderburgh County. I'm here today to ask you about appropriating some funds to finish the Mobile Emergency Operations Center that we have for the city and the county. The Mobile Emergency Operations Center will serve as a backup system for the 911 system that we have now, Central Dispatch. It also will help out in any type of emergency or disastrous situation that we may have. It's also used for special functions around town. Like this weekend we used it down for the Thunder on the Ohio and other functions that it is requested to come to. President Wortman: Okay, could I have your attention here to Mr. Greer. Does anybody have any question here for him on this emergency management situation? Looks like they understand everything. Sherman Greer: That's good. Will they explain it to me now? Councilmember Lloyd: Now, is this going to be presented at the joint meeting, the joint City/County Council meeting? Sherman Greer: We were hoping to be able to appropriate this for this year so that we could get this project at least functional and up to where that in case there was any problems at the end of the year from this infamous Y2K thing that we would have something to back up our systems around the city and the county. Councilmember Raben: You say that you were hoping that we would appropriate it this year? Sherman Greer: Yes. Councilmember Raben: Okay. During a regular meeting, okay. Sherman Greer: Yes sir. Councilmember Lloyd: And it would be half of what he's requesting. Sherman Greer: It would be half of the $34,000 that we're requesting, or $33,400. Councilmember Lloyd: Has the city indicated that they seem willing to approve that? Have you talked to them? Sherman Greer: Yes, we met with Mr. Jackson. He told us to come to City Council and when City Council approved it then they would-- President Wortman: That will be brought up at the joint City/County Council meeting too. Councilmember Lloyd: That's for next year's budget. Sherman Greer: That's for next year's budget. We're talking about doing it this year so that we can get the radios and getting everything in it and get it finished by the end of the year. Our hope is to get it operational by the end of the year. Councilmember Lloyd: So we need a request before this body to approve that amount, right? I mean, that should be brought up for our next meeting. President Wortman: Yeah, we'll submit that for the next meeting then. Sherman Greer: Okay. President Wortman: That will be ample time so that we can...anybody got any questions for Mr. Greer? Okay, thank you Mr. Greer. We appreciate your time and effort and long wait. Sherman Greer: This one problem you were talking about with the abatements, guys, GIS would help out with that. President Wortman: Okay, no other business to come before this council on July 7th, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Councilmember Sutton: So moved. Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Wortman: Okay, thank you everybody for your time and effort. MEETING ADJOURNED VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL
_____________________________ ____________________________ President Curt Wortman
Vice President Russell Lloyd, Jr.
____________________________ ____________________________ Councilmember James Raben
Councilmember Phil Hoy
_____________________________ ____________________________ Councilmember Ed Bassemier
Councilmember Royce Sutton
________________________________ Councilmember Betty Knight-Smith
Recorded by Teri Lukeman. Transcribed
by Todd Hochstetler
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|