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

(Pledge of Allegiance was given)

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll begin. I would like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes from our regular meeting of May 4th.

Councilmember Wortman: So moved.

Councilmember Tornatta: Second.

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 I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes from our special meeting on April 27th.

Councilmember Wortman: So moved.

Councilmember Tornatta: Second.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Roll call 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. Thank you.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Winnecke: Before I turn it over to our Finance Chair, Mr. Raben, I would just remind folks in the audience and folks watching at home that this body heard discussion on these requests last week, and we’ll be actually taking the vote today. So, with that caveat, I turn it over to Mr. Raben.

TREASURER

Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you, Mr. President. First on the agenda today is County Treasurer, account 1030-3410, Printing, in the amount of $5,805. I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: There’s a motion and second. Are there 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.

TREASURER                                                         REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

SHERIFF

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next, under Sheriff, 1050-1301, Civilian Overtime, in the amount of $15,000. I’ll move approval.

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.

SHERIFF                                                                REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

JAIL

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, next under Jail, 1051-1850, and 1051-1301, in the amount of $26,500. I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: Motion and second. Questions or discussion?

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President?

President Winnecke: Yes, sir.

Councilmember Raben: Last week I had asked Chief Deputy Eric Williams to look at what we’re going to need in this account for the balance of the year. If you recall he had stated that since the most recent union agreement allows for comp time or paid overtime, the trend is now going towards paid overtime. The balance needed for the balance of the year is roughly $49,000 in addition to this. So, that information was obtained and passed on.

President Winnecke: You said $49,000 in addition to this?

Councilmember Raben: In addition to this.

President Winnecke: Okay. More discussion or questions? Mr. Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Is there any chance that the Commissary Fund could be used for any of this overtime in reference to the jail?

Eric Williams: Eric Williams, Chief Deputy Sheriff, on behalf of Sheriff Ellsworth, I can’t speak for him on that specific matter, but I would say that the Commissary is being used very heavily right now. As you remember, we gave a half a million dollars that we had accrued in that account to help fund the capital costs of the new jail. In addition, a lot of the line items that were traditionally in our budget this year were zeroed out by the Council during budget hearings, which we’re now picking up those costs. So, the Commissary is running pretty tight. What I did mention to Councilman Raben earlier was that with the open line items that we’re using, that we’re filling with overtime because of the turnover, there’s roughly about $40,000 in those accounts right now that we would be willing to repeal or transfer, whatever suits the Council to help make up that difference. It’s money that’s not being spent because it’s tied up in a personnel line item. Which would negate a lot of that overtime cost.

Councilmember Wortman: Could you give us a total of what the Commissary money count stands as the balance? Also the User Fee in the correction center, please?

Eric Williams: Off hand I can’t. I don’t have those numbers with me. I would be happy to. I think I’ve submitted, you know, the Sheriff has submitted our monthly statements to, I believe we sent them to Councilman Winnecke for the Commissary balances, and that would have been at the end of the last quarter, whatever that balance was. I would be happy to get you the numbers. I don’t know off hand.

Councilmember Wortman: I would appreciate it.

Eric Williams: The User Fees, the Auditor’s office has those balances. Those are all maintained by the Auditor, so.

President Winnecke: Other questions? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember 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.

JAIL                                                                       REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

PIGEON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next, Mr. President, Pigeon Township Assessor, 1150-1972, Level II Certification, the correct figure is $356. That’s $356. 1150-1900, FICA, $28, for a total request of $384. I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Councilmember Sutton: Jim, can you do that one more time? It was $356 on the certification, and on the $28, as listed?

Councilmember Raben: As listed, $28. So, $384.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay.

President Winnecke: 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.

PIGEON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR                        REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

VOTER REGISTRATION

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next, Voters Registration, 1220-3550, Repairs to Building and Grounds, and 1220-3371, Computer Hardware, for a total of $4,855. I’ll move approval.

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.

VOTER REGISTRATION                                       REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

COMMISSIONERS

Councilmember Raben: County Commissioners, 1300-1930, Unemployment, for $30,000. I’ll move approval.

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.

COMMISSIONERS                                                REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

Councilmember Raben: Okay, under Community Corrections, account, this will be the third one down, 1361-1340-1361, was listed as $1,383, the correct figure is $1,384. Skip down to the 1361-1410-1361, the correct figure is $1,826. 1361-1420-1361, the correct figure is $1,605, and 1361-1450-1361, $720. All other accounts as they are listed, for a total of $7,251. I’ll make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Are there 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.

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS                              REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, that’s it for the General Fund requests.

REASSESSMENT/COUNTY ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Under Reassessment/County Assessor, Contractual Services, 2490-1090-3530, in the amount of $127,900. I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: No.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: No.

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.

REASSESSMENT/COUNTY ASSESSOR            REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion approved 5-2/Councilmembers Tornatta and Sutton opposed.)

REASSESSMENT/CENTER ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Center Township Reassessment, 2490-1110-1990 through 2490-1110-3410, for a total of $3,815. I make that in the form of a motion.

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.

REASSESSMENT/CENTER ASSESSOR             REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REASSESSMENT/KNIGHT TWP. ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Knight Township Reassessment, first, 2490-1130-1120, Office Coordinator, zero; 2490-1130-1900, FICA, should read $1,530; 2490-1130-1910, PERF, zero; 2490-1130-1920, Insurance, zero; all other accounts as they are listed, for a total of $31,530. I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Councilmember Abell: Yes, Mr. Raben, the Extra Help of $20,000, I thought we were going to do that at $15,000 on all of them every time. Am I incorrect?

Councilmember Raben: I’m sorry. Did you have that conversation with me? I’m sorry, I don’t –

Councilmember Abell: I thought that was what we....isn’t that what we decided the last time they were here and we gave them, or is this something different, the Extra Help?

Councilmember Raben: That may be something different.

Councilmember Abell: Okay.

President Winnecke: Other 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.

REASSESSMENT/KNIGHT TWP. ASSESSOR    REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REASSESSMENT/PERRY TWP. ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Perry Township Assessor, 2490-1140-1900 down through 2490-1140-3130, as listed; 2490-1140-3141, Communications, zero; 2490-1140-3410, Printing, $200; 2490-1140-4220, Office Machines, $1,700. I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: A motion and a second. Questions or discussion?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, just a real quick question. What was the Communications line?

Councilmember Raben: Zero.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay.

Councilmember Tornatta: Was that for something?

Councilmember Raben: It, I had spoke with the Perry Township Assessor, she’s in the audience if we would need her, but that was for something that really hasn’t came about yet, so.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay.

President Winnecke: The correct grand total is $27,430. $27,430. 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.

REASSESSMENT/PERRY TWP. ASSESSOR     REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REASSESSMENT/PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Pigeon Township Assessor, Mr. President, I’ll move that all accounts be approved as listed.

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.

REASSESSMENT/PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR    REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REASSESSMENT/SCOTT TWP. ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Scott Township Assessor, I’ll move that this be approved as listed in the amount of $11,000.

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.

REASSESSMENT/SCOTT TWP. ASSESSOR     REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

CORONER

AUDITOR (LATE)

Councilmember Raben: Okay, last, Mr. President, under transfers, if there’s no objections, I’ll move that both the transfer requests be approved as listed.

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.

CORONER                                                             REQUESTED       APPROVED

AUDITOR                                                               REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, we do not have any repeals today. Last would be the amendments to the Salary Ordinance that our Executive Assistant has passed around, a rather lengthy two pages of amendments. I would simply move that these be made part of our minutes. I would like to make that in the form of a motion.

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.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Winnecke: Okay, down to new business, last week I believe there was some discussion, and I apologize for my absence last week on a tax phase in request for QTR, Inc. There is a change in that company’s plans. They still plan to expand, in fact, their expansion now, and their investment will be greater than the information that was previously provided, but given the fact that the location will be slightly different, they have to reapply. But, Rod Jackson from QTR is here to provide a brief overview. We will not be voting on this today, but they will provide an overview, and we’ll consider this application when it’s modified at our next meeting. Mr. Jackson?

Rod Jackson: Good afternoon, I’m Rod Jackson from QTR. There has been a slight change. As the architecture work was being done, we found out that the Department of Natural Resources had redefined the floodway, and now our existing property is completely in the floodway, which makes it unsuitable for future construction. There is a lot available next door to us that is suitable for construction. It’s in a flood plain, but we can bring in enough fill to build a completely new building next door. So, instead of a $500,000 capital expansion, in building we’ll be looking at a two million dollar facility. We’ll maintain possession of the existing facility and lease that facility out. Mary Perigo, who is our CFO just passed out some information that we probably should have presented last week at the meeting. I apologize for that. I’m more familiar with the manufacturing processes than the government processes. It outlines, basically, some information on our company, what we do, some of the history of the company, why we would be looking at getting a tax phase in, and different options that we would be looking at, you know, when we made our decision to come to the Council for this tax phase in.

President Winnecke: I just have a brief question. Given the increase in investment, will the increase, will that equate into another increase in employment as well?

Rod Jackson: Employment, we’re promising 15 jobs. The last time we submitted for a tax phase in was 1994, that was prior to my ownership of QTR, and we promised ten and gave 20. I would expect similar, we’re promising 15, I expect over the next five years that we would double that. But, the building will not affect the number of employees. We were going to transfer all the employees from this building to that building. Now, what might come into the other building, you know, as a lessee, as a, you know, some company may come in to the building, which would mean, you know, what I’m trying to say is there may be other employment inside the existing building after we exit that building. But, we’re guaranteeing 15 jobs.

President Winnecke: Okay. Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Mr. Jackson, did you say two million dollars for the new construction?

Rod Jackson: Two million dollars in just the construction, and then another 1.1 in capital equipment that will go in the building. Now, that’s in addition to the existing equipment that we have. I think currently we’re paying $23,000 a year on the current equipment and building for our taxes.

President Winnecke: Any other questions? Again, they will be before us next month. Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Now, I just received the package here, so, obviously, I haven’t had a chance to take a look through it. Now, what does your company do?

Rod Jackson: We recycle plastic. So, we take scrap plastic from post industrial and post consumer aggregators and then we make a product, make it into a product that’s useable. For example, we make wheel trim that goes on Dodge Ram pick ups, Dodge Caravan hubcaps, if it’s plastic, then it’s our plastic. We recycle about ten million pounds a year.

Councilmember Sutton: And the majority of what you’re getting to recycle, is that coming from local plants? Or it just, where are you getting your material?

Rod Jackson: Oh, from all places, but some comes from, I can tell you that some comes from the Guardian plant, via a broker here in town. I would guess that the majority of it comes from out of state.

Councilmember Sutton: In terms of, you know, to do what you do to reshape, remold this plastic, in terms of environmental issues, how do you guys address that? Where do you stand as far as that is concerned?

Rod Jackson: I consider some of the greenest manufacturing you can get. We’re recycling, taking basically ten million pounds that would have gone into landfills, and we’re making that into a product that is then useable. We’ve won the Governor’s award for recycling. We’re working with the state, we were awarded a grant to find uses for PET bottles. We’re doing R&D to come up with some products that they could use. I think something in terms of 90 million tons of bottles are being land filled a year. They wanted to have some way to, you know, use that like we’re using for vehicle components now.

Councilmember Sutton: And the size of your workforce right now? Did you say?

Rod Jackson: 35.

Councilmember Sutton: 35? I guess, we’ll probably have several more questions for you when you guys come back next time around.

Rod Jackson: I would be glad to address them.

President Winnecke: Okay, thank you, Mr. Jackson, appreciate it.

Rod Jackson: Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thank you. Another piece of business that’s not on your agenda, but I want to bring before this body today, you might recall a couple of months ago we had a request for a tax phase in from Bowen Engineering. That did not get a, no one made a motion or a second. After lengthy discussions with their local counsel and with their Chief Financial Officer, I’m convinced that they did not have a clear understanding of the process, and so they are back before us today. I’ve invited them back, and we’re not going to vote on a tax phase in today, but I would like for us to consider a vote for us to reconsider their request at our next month’s meeting. So, with that as a set up, I would introduce Les Shively, who is their local counsel, to kind of tee this thing up.

Les Shively: Thank you, Mr. President, pardon me, members of the Council. Again, thank you for this opportunity. The good news this afternoon is you’re not going to hear very much from me. You’re going to hear from the folks at Bowen. Let me, we understand that this is just on the motion to reconsider, to take another look, shall we say. What we would like to do is take the time, however, to tell you a little bit about the company, tell you a little bit about the project, tell you about this company’s already strong involvement in this community, how that’s going to grow, and more importantly, the fiscal, positive fiscal impact on Vanderburgh County as a result of the tax abatement, if granted. I like the term that President Winnecke used, it’s a phase in. We’re going to talk more about that a little later, but we feel it’s important to give you full background information, so that you can properly make your determination whether to bring this back for consideration. At this time I’m going to introduce some of the principals of Bowen. First and foremost with us today is the founder and CEO of Bowen Engineering from Indianapolis, Mr. Bob Bowen. Also with us today is Mr. Dan Clark, he is the Chief Financial Officer for Bowen. And last but not least, the guy that sort of runs things here in Evansville, originally from Washington, Indiana, just up the road on 57, which one of these days, hopefully, will be a leg of I-69, is a guy who’s name I hate, you know, as a former IU grad and IU trustee, I always get a little nervous when I use this term, use his name, but Mr. Jeff Purdue. At this time, folks, I’m just going to turn it over to them, and then I’m going to wrap up here at the end and talk specifically about the nuts and bolts of the fiscal implications. Thank you.

Jeff Perdue: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, I am Jeff Perdue. I’m a 15 year employee with Bowen Engineering. I’m really pleased to be before you again this afternoon. I have managed Bowen Engineering’s Evansville division since we opened our office down here in Evansville in 1999. On behalf of Bowen I just want to thank you for this opportunity, and this forum to get before you and give you a little bit better feel for the history, Bowen’s core business, what’s unique about Bowen Engineering, what Bowen Engineering has to offer our employees, and what Bowen Engineering has to offer this community. Ultimately, convey to you Bowen’s sincere desire to build a corporate office in Evansville, in Vanderburgh County. Before we get into the hand out that you have before you, like Les indicated, I would like to offer my apology for the previous efforts when we were before the Council to request a tax phase in. I personally underestimated the requirements that the Council has, the legislative requirements to apply for and be granted tax abatement, and, quite honestly, I dropped the ball, and for that I apologize. But, I do appreciate, with that being said, the opportunity to be before you, and talk about Bowen’s merits, because we do feel like what our company has to offer in building an office in Vanderburgh County has tremendous merit and fits the program for tax abatement. If you would, before you, the hand out, the front page shows you the proposed building site. We purchased two parcels in the Daylight Industrial Park, which is on the north side of Evansville, it’s the Dan Buck development on North Green River Road, just south of Old Boonville-New Harmony Road. It’s the segment on the southwest quadrant there. That industrial park’s been there for about five years, and for those of you familiar with it you may know that there’s not been a lot of improvements there. The two lots that we have purchased are the two frontage parcels facing Green River Road, and as you can see from the architectural rendering, the 8,000 square foot office building that we have proposed to build in Vanderburgh County would make a very attractive addition to that area, and we think would be a great stimulus for growth for future development in that industrial park. I would like to have Bob Bowen come up for just a few minutes and talk a little bit about Bowen’s mission, our core values, and just a little bit of background about the company, if I could.

Bob Bowen: Thanks, Jeff. Like Jeff said, we’ve been here six years, and we have other offices, we have offices not only in Evansville, but in Crown Point and in Indianapolis, Indiana. We soon expect to have an office in Tennessee. The work here has been absolutely delightful. We’ve had other offices besides the one’s I mentioned, but no one has ever taken us into their family like the people in Evansville and Vanderburgh County. We’re very appreciative. We bank locally, we bank at Fifth Third Bank. We are members of the local construction association, we associate with the Deig Construction and Industrial Contractors and have very good relationships with them. Jeff is active in the bargaining, the union bargaining with the local trades, so, we’re playing a leadership role in our community. I had lunch today with the president of the University of Evansville. Our company is planning a major gift for the University of Evansville. We have nine employees who have either graduated or are currently in school at the University of Evansville. So, we are here to stay. We think Evansville is a wonderful university, and very, very pleased to be a partner with them. Jeff will serve on the board of advisors with the school of civil engineering, and I don’t know if he’s on the board yet, but that’s to take place within the next few months. We have received, when we’ve moved to other cities and other counties, we have received tax abatements for our offices. We thought, we didn’t realize the complexity involved, and, so, that’s why we’re here again today, but we would certainly appreciate your consideration. We, our costs to go to a new office will just about double over what we were paying. We rent an office on East Morgan, and our cost to buy, to build a new office, our annual costs will about double. The abatement is a huge, to double the cost is probably more than we can afford. So, with the abatement, it enables us to expand to a new facility, and it, obviously, eases the cost challenges associated with that. So, we’re very interested. It’s a financial, it’s very critical financially to us, and we’re going to go into some more detail with that later. But, I appreciate you letting us come down and talk to you today, and I’m going to turn it back over to Jeff.

Jeff Perdue: Thank you, Bob. Well, just a brief history of the history of Bowen Engineering. The company was founded in 1967 by Bob Bowen. We are a union contractor. Have an excellent safety record. What’s unique about Bowen is the fact that our use and hire of degreed civil and mechanical engineering professionals. We have over 65 degreed engineers working for us, even though we are a construction company. By virtue of that, like Bob alluded to, we’re hiring University of Evansville graduates, we’ve got scholarships at USI, and so that’s something that sets us apart. Which the impact to Vanderburgh County is a really attractive average salary. Our average salary for our employees is $56,000 a year. Ten licensed PE’s, the largest project that our company has constructed is $56 million. We have an annual revenue of about $130 million. In the Evansville office, we’re currently building about a $40 million project, a power plant project in Kentucky. We have tremendous commitment to the local vendors and subcontractors. When I came down here in 1999 that was one of my first charges, is the relationship building. That’s what built this company is relationships. So, my first charge was to develop relationships with the unions, with the local vendors and subs, with the clients, and I’m really proud of the efforts that we’ve done and the relationships we’ve built with this local community. The Evansville office has seen tremendous growth. When we started in 1999 we did about $18 million a year in annual revenue. In 2005, today, we will do about $40 million. This is very representative of the company as a whole. We typically see a minimum of ten percent annual growth a year, and with that growth, obviously, comes the need for more employees. We think that will follow suit. Since we’ve been down here in 1999, we’ve constructed over $150 million in construction projects in Evansville and the contingent states. Our office would serve markets in Kentucky, Illinois, Alabama, Tennessee, as well as the work in the tri-state. The work that Bowen does, we are primarily a power energy company. We do a lot of work in power plants, private, industrial, and utility water companies. We also do underground utility construction, and public works projects as well. One local project of note, we did, we’ve won many national awards, one of them was a project here in Evansville, which won a national award for the top utility contract in 1999. On page four of your handout you’ll see a list of the local suppliers and subcontractors, if we would be granted with a tax phase in, those are the local vendors and subs that we would utilize to build our project. Actually, the person building our project would be local general contractor, ARC Construction. You’ll see there at the bottom of page four that our average salary, like I alluded to was $56,000 a year. We have 32 employees who currently reside in Vanderburgh County. As a company, 30 percent of our profits are given back to the employees in terms of bonuses and pension programs. Like Bob alluded to, Bowen currently ranks number one for hiring University of Evansville engineering graduates, which we are very proud of. Page five lists some of the current projects we’re working on. We’re very heavy right now in the power market. We’re also doing some work here in Evansville locally for the Water and Sewer Utility. That picture at the bottom of page five gives you a snapshot of some of the large, high profile work we do at power plants. We do not compete locally with the ARC and the Empire’s or the Key Construction, that’s not our market. Our market is more the more higher dollar, heavy industrial type projects. We are not a commercial contractor, per se. Lastly, I would like to touch on our community involvement. We take being a corporate citizen very, very seriously. As a company we have a policy where we set aside nearly four percent of our net profit for not-for-profit organizations. Those are just a sampling of some of the local not-for-profits that we’ve committed both our time and finances to. We’ve been very involved in some of the one’s listed there. Obviously, the Chamber, the Christian Life Center, the local youth sports, Joshua Academy, Junior Achievement, and many other local endeavors. So, anyway, once again, we appreciate this opportunity to get before you. Sorry for taking up so much of your time, but we felt like it was important for you to get a little bit better flavor for Bowen Engineering and what we have to offer. So, thank you.

Les Shively: Finally, Dan do we have this in a handout with them as well?

Dan Clark: Last page.

Les Shively: Last page, and I’m just going to hit this real briefly. I was never real good with numbers, so, I’ll try to hit the highlights as they’ve been explained to me. I want to thank the folks in the County Assessor’s office and Scott Township Assessor’s office. They’ve been most efficient and patient in explaining how this all works to me. But, bottom line, right now this property, in it’s unimproved condition, produces 21, actually it’s two lots, produces $2,100 a year in taxes. The first year of the phase in, the improvements do two things, they cause the land value assessment to double. It goes from $2,100 to $4,100, and we have the first part of the improvements going on line. So, what you have, just in land alone you have a 100 percent increase in the taxes generated from the land alone in the first year of the phase in. If you add to that the taxes, a tenth of the taxes that are attributable to the improvements, that’s about 200 percent in that first year of the phase in. Over the entire ten years, with the phase in in place, what you have is, if you let the property remain the way it is today, assuming no tax increases over that period of time, $21,000 in tax revenue versus $133,000 in tax revenue. Now, that’s a big, big difference. Again, this project will not go at this location, based upon the budget that they have developed, without this tax phase in. Mr. Bowen talked about the substantial overhead that they’re going to be assuming by going from a tenant to an owner. In order to be able to do that, they do, at this particular location, they need this incentive. This location is paramount for what they do, because as Jeff alluded to, they don’t just serve southwestern Indiana, they are all over Kentucky, southern Illinois, they’re working on a big project for the TVA down in Tennessee, and being close to I-164 is crucial to the type of work that they do. What they would ask from you today, and, again, we know a lot of this information is new to you. We wish it would have been presented to you April 6^th, but it wasn’t. This is a great opportunity for the community. What they would like for you to do today is, if you are so inclined, to give them another opportunity to even give you more details and answer your questions and put this on for action for your meeting on June 29^th. Finally, let me also talk about, we have two engineering programs here in the community. Most recently USI now has a full engineering program, and you’ve seen in your materials, and Jeff was talking about he’s involved with U of E, because that was a program that was in place when they started here in 1999. But, Bowen is hiring from the USI graduating class, and, in fact, underwrites a scholarship program for the engineering program, and they are one of the local businesses that’s helped get that program going, and see that we have fine engineering graduates that go to school here in Evansville, and stay in Evansville and work for Evansville based companies like Bowen. Again, we would respectfully ask for an affirmative vote to reconsider this at your June 29^th meeting. Again, I’m more than happy to answer any questions you might have at this time. Or, I’m sure the folks from Bowen would have more information for you.

President Winnecke: Mr. Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, real quick, Les, actually it would have to be July 6^th.

Les Shively: July 6^th?

Councilmember Raben: We would have to advertise and hold a special meeting on the 29^th.

Les Shively: That’s fine. Okay. Alright, July 6^th is the time for advertising?

Councilmember Raben: That’s our first Wednesday, right?

Les Shively: Okay.

President Winnecke: Other questions of either Mr. Shively or Mr. Bowen or Mr. Purdue?

Councilmember Tornatta: I’ll make a comment.

Les Shively: Yes, sir.

Councilmember Tornatta: I think, I would first like to maybe make a note or send a note to the office of Rob Schaefer, and maybe we need to kind of, with the packet, have something that demonstrates what we would like to see out of the offices, or the companies that come in. Maybe just give a generic listing of what we would like to see in the county, which might be a personal visit, or some type of contact with the Councilmen. That would not only help you out, but it would help others out. As we found out, just a little communication goes a long way. Once we communicated, not only your company, but QTR got on the stick and got the information that we needed, and was very insightful, and that’s what we like. I feel a little more comfortable about reviewing this abatement, or tax phase in, because the fact that we did not actually vote it down. When you don’t vote it down, I think, I don’t want to say we’re leaving the door open, but it does allow us to review, and I think that we did see that all the ducks were not in a row in this capacity. So, the second thing, I did have a nice meeting with Jeff Perdue, and really did allow you to show your company’s status. I do appreciate all the things that you’ve done in the community. What tax abatement that means is up for debate, and we’ll talk about that in the next month or so, but looking at everything here, and also looking at the land that you would acquire, to me that’s the type of properties that I like to see. It’s an area that is not utilized, very under utilized, whether it will be utilized further might be the spur of getting a good, quality company in to satisfy the needs of that area. So, I appreciate you coming back and doing your due diligence to come out and meet with us and make things happen. I’m very much in favor of reviewing this again.

Les Shively: I want to thank you, Councilman Tornatta, for making that scoring sheet available. If we are given the opportunity to come back on the 6th, we will be addressing the items on the score, I know it hasn’t been officially adopted, but it certainly is an excellent guidepost, to at least have some objective criteria to help you make this decision. So, we appreciate you sharing that with us, and Rob Schaefer has been very helpful in that regard as well.

President Winnecke: We need to change the tape.

(Tape Change)

President Winnecke: Any other questions or discussion? Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: When Bowen came before us last time, refresh my memory a little bit, I think when the item came before us they made a presentation in our finance meeting and came back in the regular meeting, and when there was an opportunity to make a motion to get that on the floor, what happened at that point?

President Winnecke: There was no motion.

Councilmember Sutton: They didn’t receive any support, if I’m correct, right?

President Winnecke: There was no motion.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay.

President Winnecke: Other questions? Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: I was wondering if Rob could tell us your recommended number of years.

President Winnecke: Could you come to the microphone, Rob?

Rob Schaefer: Sure. I don’t have the folder in front of me. I believe it was five or six years.

President Winnecke: I think it was longer.

Rob Schaefer: They may ask for ten. I thought you asked what I, I think the scoring was five or six, or something like that.

President Winnecke: Well, maybe you can double check that and get back to us next month.

Rob Schaefer: I sure will.

Councilmember Goebel: Mr. President, I also had one other question. With the scoring proposal that Mr. Tornatta has come forward with, what is the progress, or is there any report on that? And could we consider maybe not granting phase in’s until we get that program in place?

President Winnecke: I would suspect that we’ll have that, we’ll vote on it at our July meeting. I guess, my personal opinion is to hold up, at this point, two phase in requests, until we get that in place could be detrimental to both firms, probably increased costs would be very possible, I would assume. I would like to see us consider both phase in’s as we normally would, and then we would consider Mr. Tornatta’s request, or his proposal for vote and consideration at the same meeting.

Councilmember Goebel: If we did ratify the proposal, it would be a 30 day wait, I don’t how detrimental that would be. We hate to lose a good company.

Les Shively: Again, these gentlemen can correct me, the 30 day plus now is about as far as they can go, and then, basically, this site would be removed from consideration, and it will change the whole dynamics of the cost.

President Winnecke: The confirming resolution actually would not come until August. So, that’s really where the delay–

Les Shively: Well, right.

President Winnecke: The preliminary resolution would be voted upon July 6^th.

Les Shively: So, if we wait 60, then we’ve got that on there, and that clearly–

President Winnecke: It gets it to August before we–

Les Shively: –this site no longer becomes, the for sale sign goes up. I mean, that’s just the fact of the matter.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, let me maybe be a little more clear in my question that I had earlier. Wasn’t this request denied by lack of support though? I mean, if that’s the case, if we’ve denied a request, and it’s coming back for reconsideration, I can’t recall when we’ve done that.

President Winnecke: Well, and that’s why we’re, we’ve asked them here today to, based on my conversations with them, and I think several other members of Council, there is a feel that a clear understanding, there was no clear understanding of the process, for whatever reason. You are correct, there was no motion made to get it to the floor, so, there was no vote. Given the discussions I’ve had and my understanding, I think it’s worthy of us to consider bringing it back to reconsider. Relative to the scoring, I would say you can always use the scoring system as your own guideposts, or a guideline in making a vote when it comes time for the actual vote on the phase in, assuming this passes today.

Councilmember Sutton: Have we done this before? I mean, brought it back to the (Inaudible).

President Winnecke: Not in my history, not on my time on the Council we’ve not. Legally there’s nothing stopping us.

Councilmember Sutton: I don’t know if there’s some procedures that we have in place when a matter comes back before us. Because this is new, it’s just we face the same situation quite often when we’ve dealt with it when you have someone that wants to continue to resubmit an appropriation request that we have denied, and we’ve been very clear once we do make a final action. That is maybe that we’ve denied something that there is a period of time before that matter can come back before us. Then that matter comes before us, of course, there has to be, I guess, I think it was like five votes before that matter could be reconsidered. So, I don’t know what we may do in this particular case, and how we may handle this. Counsel?

Jeff Ahlers: Mr. Sutton, I looked at this, this was brought to my attention a month or so ago, I guess, when this issue came up. And in looking at the rules that we have, first of all we probably need to relook at those rules, because we’ve got a lot of different Councilmen than what we had back then, but the rules, assuming that they were binding, just merely talk about that if a matter, a tax abatement matter is voted upon and fails to receive a majority vote, then there would be a waiting period of time. This particular case that we have is, I mean, there was just no vote. That, in other words, I guess, I kind of looked at this as being similar to, you know, if somebody comes in on a matter for an appropriation or something and they defer it to the next month or something, you know, I mean there was no action one way or the other here.

Councilmember Sutton: There was action taken.

Jeff Ahlers: There was no motion made.

Councilmember Sutton: The matter was presented on the floor, and it did not receive a motion. That is the equivalent of the motion being denied. So, there was action taken.

Jeff Ahlers: Well, there was no action taken, I mean, I don’t disagree with you, if you want to certainly, if you want to make that argument that not taking action is tantamount to a failure of vote, I’m just saying I don’t know that that’s the case. To me it’s more like a, you know, deferring something. The other thing is, we really don’t have to get into that exercise, because the same rules also say that you can suspend any rule with a majority vote. We can take it one step farther than that, and under Indiana statute all it requires for this Council to act on this matter is a majority vote period. So, regardless of debating the first issue as to whether or not, if no one ever makes a motion on something, and therefore a vote is not taken, you still get by with the fact that both pursuant to resolution that this board has passed before in the past with votes that would only take a majority vote to suspend, as well as Indiana statute just says that it takes a majority vote. So, I mean, technically, it was my opinion that it would be up to the President who controls the agenda to determine whether to put something on the agenda. The other way, of course, is pursuant to statute that a majority of Councilmembers, you know, can take that action. I think it was Mr. Winnecke’s determination that what he wanted to do was leave it up to the Council and put that vote, rather than just putting it on the agenda, that you would make that vote, and if there’s a majority vote (Inaudible).

Councilmember Sutton: Well, unless we decide to go back and revisit our rules, which we have the option of doing that, then we still operate under the rules that we do have. We’re not operating under strict Roberts Rules of Order necessarily, but we do have some procedures, if any matter comes before us. It does not receive any motion or second, if you even look back at the minutes of that meeting when this was considered, it said that the request was denied. So, though no vote, per se, was taken, the matter did not even receive a motion to even get a chance to be considered for a vote. So, you know, what you’re talking about is unless we decide to go back in and change something different....what do, right now, what is the length of time that we have when a matter can be reconsidered? What do we say in our guidelines now?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, if something is voted on and does not receive a majority of the vote, the standard is one year. But, like I said, without debating the issue that maybe you and I, obviously, in the end, my opinion doesn’t necessarily matter, it’s what the seven of you decide. So, you know, what you want to do with this matter. But, regardless, what I’m saying is, if you go to the next rule, regardless of how you interpret this particular rule, both Indiana statute and those same local rules state that a majority vote, meaning four, so, I mean, four votes period, it doesn’t matter if there’s five of you present, it still takes four, so, a majority of Council and not a majority of the quorum can take whatever action you want to take on this. So, you’re still back to a majority of those sitting here can determine the outcome of what you want to do with this matter. That’s my opinion. Now, as counsel, ultimately, I don’t make the decisions. So, that’s for you to make.

Councilmember Sutton: I just want to be very clear in what our rules say presently. If we want to make the rules as we go, that’s what it sounds like you’re saying to me, that’s a different matter. But, you know, I just want to know what the opinion is of what we have in place right now.

Jeff Ahlers: We’re not making the rules as we go. I mean, that’s what the rule is. I mean, the majority of Council vote by state statute, and the local rules can take whatever action you want on this. Okay? The only issue that may be, in my opinion, because we’ve never had it before, I don’t know that it’s make it as we go, we’ve never had this, I guess, I’ve been here almost eight and a half years, and I don’t know that we’ve ever had a situation where a vote was not taken. I mean, in any other case that I can ever think of, you’ll either get an up or down vote, and it’s pretty clear cut. Here no vote was taken, I suppose any of you, you’re free to interpret it a different way than I do, or anyone else, ultimately, it’s not my decision, it’s yours. But, I’m just saying I don’t think anybody’s changing any rules, that’s just the way it is. That’s the way I see it. You guys ultimately can determine the fate of what happens here regardless.

President Winnecke: Mr. Tornatta? Then we’ll move around back this way.

Councilmember Tornatta: My point, and I appreciate you bringing up that issue on guidelines. I suggest you use the guidelines as they set up and try to use it as a tool, if you want. I talked to President Winnecke and he said that he would like to address this at a more appropriate time. We’ve had plenty of things on the agenda today, and I was okay with that. I’m sure that he would like to make some type of comment to some of the people who are interested in serving on an ad hoc committee. So, as far as I’m concerned, that’s fine. I will use that document as some type of gauge on how I will judge on where we think we’ll be on a tax abatement. But, I’m fine with that point. Also, I will say that as sour grapes as that might be, the President does have the opportunity to bring anything to the table, and if he so chooses, and we have the vote to either deny or allow access, or allow this assessment or review of a tax phase in to happen, then that’s understandable as well.

President Winnecke: Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Well, I think the presentation today was much better thought out and presented very well. I do feel uneasy about, I think, like Councilman Sutton said, no vote is no support from the last time we had the meeting, but I really feel strongly that if we had the criteria in front of us that we go by with the abatement program that we’re going to follow in the future, I would just feel a lot more comfortable making a vote based on the program that’s going to be in place. If it costs 30 more days, it may cost 30 more days, I don’t know. But, I feel very strongly about that, that’s a personal feeling. Because from now on, every phase in that comes before us will be subjected to that program, and it will be an objective program. I know this takes a lot of time and preparation to come up with a final, once we get to discussion and get it in. I just think an objective program like we’re going to have will be much better suited.

President Winnecke: I would just offer, relative to that point, and then we’ll move on to Mr. Raben, I don’t recall anything in the document that Mr. Tornatta prepared that really addresses the specific issue that we’re considering today, and that’s to waive our rules and bring this back for a vote.

Councilmember Goebel: I was going to say, you have no denials from June of 2004 to present. So, I think this is the only consideration we could possibly have in this regard anyway, with a one year plan if you’re denied you can come back within a year. Is that correct? So, Bowen would be the only consideration regardless.

President Winnecke: True.

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, Mr. President, first, I guess, I have a question, the committee that was assigned to reviewing the new proposal, have you had an opportunity to meet?

President Winnecke: We’ve chatted on the phone, but, frankly, because of my travels, I’ve been precluded from getting everyone together.

Councilmember Raben: Okay.

President Winnecke: That is getting better.

Councilmember Raben: I guess, you know, that’s something that we can look forward to is having established guidelines at some point. But, I guess, I would have to turn to Rob and ask besides Bowen and QTR, are there any other proposals that we’ll be faced with in July?

Rob Schaefer: (Inaudible).

Councilmember Raben: Right now? Okay. Third, Mr. President, I guess, there may still be, you know, once we, it may be a little longer road than 30 days, you know, coming to an agreement on the guidelines by which we follow. Because there may be issues that, you know, we as a group don’t agree on that come out of their committee. So, I would hate to, you know, put either project in jeopardy based upon what we may or may not ratify between now and the first reading for these folks or QTR. Then, another question, Mr. President, in a question of time, it is possible, I’m not saying that we need to do this, but is it not possible to have a first and second reading on the same meeting?

President Winnecke: I think it has to be a unanimous vote whenever you present that resolution.

Jeff Ahlers: Well, those really need to be, I think, in two separate meetings. I mean, like on an ordinance you can do that, but because you’re passing two separate resolutions, I would think you would need, you could do it in two consecutive meetings, like we’ve done before where you call the special meeting, you know, at the end of the month, and then the following week have the confirming resolution. I mean, I can check into it if you want to try to do it all in one meeting, but, in the past we’ve always done them at two separate meetings, even if it’s just the one week apart.

Councilmember Raben: Then, lastly, Mr. Sutton, our former Councilman Phil Hoy would have been proud of you today bringing up the Roberts Rules of Order, that was one of his pet peeves that we never did formally adopt Roberts Rules. So, again, he can’t go away.

Councilmember Sutton: I know all of us in some form or capacity serve on other boards, we’re involved in other organizations, and those organizations function, those boards function as a result of certain set guidelines that those bodies may have put together that they stick with. I think it’s just very important that if we decide that we’re going to act in a particular course of action, whatever that may be, to stay with that course of action. That’s merely what I’m saying. So, not necessarily that I’m just a big stickler on Roberts Rules, I think there’s very few people that actually study them and know them well.

Councilmember Raben: I just had to give him that accolade though, because, again, yeah.

President Winnecke: Okay, at this point, I would entertain a motion to allow Bowen Engineering to resubmit it’s application for a tax phase in before the Vanderburgh County Council at our July 6^th meeting.

Councilmember Abell: I’ll move to let them reconsider. I would like to say that with that motion that I’m concerned that if we wait for our tax abatement guidelines that we’re working on, I have numerous e-mails from both sides on that tax abatement ordinance guideline, and I don’t think it’s going to be something that’s going to be ready quickly. There’s strong feelings on both sides of that. So, I move that we do reconsider Bowen Engineering.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I’ll second.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Is there further discussion or more questions? Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Do we first have to suspend your rules to be able to consider them?

President Winnecke: I think our vote does that, doesn’t it?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, I mean, I think the easiest way to do it is just move to allow them to be placed on the agenda, and then if it gets the majority vote they are on the agenda next time to have the matter considered de novo, and if it’s not, then they’re not. I mean, you’re going to end up in the same place no matter what you do. I mean, it’s a majority vote.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, I guess, I’m thinking just from procedure here, you suspend your rules, that’s approved, and then you actually–

President Winnecke: But, the vote does that.

Jeff Ahlers: The only thing I’m saying, Mr. Sutton, I guess, the question is whether we really need to suspend our rules. That’s where we’re getting into the, and I’m not taking a position one way or the other, okay? I’m just telling you that my reading of the rule, I mean, whether this gets passed or not, that’s for you guys to decide, not me. I’m not arguing the substantive issue of it. What I’m saying is that’s the very debate, I suppose, as to whether the rule even precludes it from coming back where it was never given a vote. Clearly we know what would occur if a motion was made and seconded and voted down, we would have to, you know, engage in this exercise. That’s what makes it, you know, to debate it. So, I guess, one of the questions is, I think, I gathered from the discussion that there’s a disagreement between whether or not it was actually ever considered to begin with. So, it just seems to me, regardless of how you phrase your motion, four votes allows it to come back for a vote. So, you know, whoever made the motion can make it however they want, but the easiest way would be, I think, to just the majority of, you know, make a motion that the matter can be brought back on to the agenda de novo at the next meeting, and then either it receives the majority vote or it does not.

Councilmember Sutton: I know we don’t want to keep stretching this out, and I’m not one to continue to debate and argue, but it was considered. I mean, it’s plain and simple. It was considered. But, we just need to move beyond that, and let’s consider what we’re talking about here.

President Winnecke: Mr. Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Mr. Chairman, was there ever a motion here on the floor for Bowen Construction?

President Winnecke: No, sir, there was not.

Councilmember Wortman: That answers my question.

Councilmember Sutton: The President asked for a motion.

President Winnecke: I asked for a motion, and there was none. The motion on the floor before us today is to allow Bowen to resubmit it’s tax phase in application before this body for our consideration at our next meeting. Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: At our July 6^th meeting.

President Winnecke: I’m sorry, at our July 6^th meeting.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: No.

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 approved 6-1/Councilmember Sutton opposed.)

President Winnecke: So, I would ask that you get with Mr. Schaefer, if you don’t mind, and make sure that everything in the application that was previously submitted is correct and up to date. We’ll go from there.

Les Shively: Thank you for your time and consideration.

President Winnecke: Thank you.