The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 2^nd day of June, 2004 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 3:31 p.m. by County Council President Ed Bassemier.

President Bassemier: I’d like to welcome everyone to the June 2^nd, 2004 County Council meeting. Attendance roll call please.

COUNCILMEMBER	PRESENT	ABSENT
Councilmember Tornatta	X
Councilmember Sutton	X
Councilmember Winnecke	X
Councilmember Hoy	X
Councilmember Raben	X
Councilmember Wortman	X
President Bassemier	X

President Bassemier: I need a motion for approval of the Council minutes from May 5^th, 2004. Do I have a motion?

President Bassemier: Okay, we’ll move into the appropriations and I’m going to now turn it over to the finance chairman. As mentioned last week, though, please raise your hand and we’ll go in an orderly fashion and I’ll call on you as I see your hands raised. Finance chairman, Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you, Mr. President. First on the agenda today under the County Clerk 1010-3603, I move that we set it in at $7,500; 1010-2600 Office Supplies at $2,500. I make that in the form of a motion.

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

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under County Auditor, 1020-3530 Contractual Services in the amount of $35,000. I move approval.

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

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under County Recorder, 1040-1990 Extra Help in the amount of $10,000. I’ll move approval.

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

Councilmember Raben: Under County Jail, Mr. President, I’m going to move that line 1051-1850 be set in at $30,000, all other lines set in at zero.

Councilmember Raben: 1051-1850 Union Overtime be set in at $30,000, all other accounts there listed at zero.

Councilmember Tornatta: Question. Did we decide it would be better to zero out or defer, or does it matter? What was the discussion on that?

Councilmember Raben: They both represent the same, so I think that’s what we gathered from our last discussion on this, is that not correct?

Jeff Ahlers: Right. What was your motion this time? Were you going to zero them?

Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, my advice would be is, I mean, if you’re deferring it one meeting may be one thing, but whether or not indefinitely, you’re probably just better off to zero it and then have it re-filed and ...

President Bassemier: Jim, on that, are you zeroing out that Teamster’s Educational Fund?

Councilmember Hoy: I’m assuming that the committee that you appointed is still going to meet, though, with the Sheriff?

Councilmember Raben: And along with that, you know, I think we, as a Council, along with the Sheriff’s office needs to come up with a definitive plan on when we are going to get these people put in place and begin this process. So again, Mr. President, as soon as we can all get together and prepare to start moving in that direction, I think we need to.

President Bassemier: Yeah, I’m sure the Sheriff knows that we’re not going to hang him out to dry. We’re going to give him some employees but we’re going to work some things out and find some financing. Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Well, and that’s precisely the question that I have is regarding, if we’re talking about making decisions today not to include the detention officers which is the motion that’s on the floor, that some discussions very rapidly be had in terms of what the timetable will be regarding when we will look at providing the positions that have been brought to our attention over the last couple of months. And then the report that was provided us back in February and materials provided back in October, they’re really at a point where they’re looking for some direction as well from us. They’re looking for some input on how many and when. And given the amount of time frame, we do have a little bit of a window of opportunity to really sit down and think and plan on what we can do based upon the resources that we have available. But we haven’t communicated that as yet. So I think that’s really what they’re looking for from us is some sense of direction. So is there some thought there on what will occur as a result of what action is being taken here today?

Councilmember Raben: I might, and I don’t mean to speak for the Sheriff nor his Chief Deputy, but its my understanding based on a prior conversation today that they’re working on a time line as to when they need to phase in who. And I think as soon as their work is completed, we need to, as a group, whoever the other members are that’s part of that committee, need to sit down and meet and come up with, again, a definitive plan as to how soon we can bring on the first people and at what point what we need to bring on the second.

Councilmember Sutton: I think their question to us is, okay, do we wait for you guys to tell us how much we have to spend or do we tell you how many we need, which somebody has already communicated that, you know, I think that’s kind of a chicken and egg thing of who goes first here. And I think they’ve tried to give at least the first salvo here and we’re responding back but we’re not giving the feedback behind whatever our response is here, at least that’s the impression I get. And I don’t know, Sheriff, if that’s what you guys, if you’re getting an understanding of what you are needing to do on your end in respect to what Council has to do.

Brad Ellsworth: Brad Ellsworth, Sheriff. Some of that’s true and that’s things we’re going to dictate our schedule by what the Council does. I don’t think, you know, I mean, we’re pretty steadfast on what we think we need but I think, like I said, due to prior conversations with the committee, and I’m not sure if that’s been appointed yet, which members of the Council, you know, there’s a lot of information over the last seven years. We’ve talked about prisoner projections out in ten years. I don’t know if that’s necessary. Certainly, any questions from the Council would be welcome; if you email me those questions that you want answers specifically, individually, I’d be glad to – sometimes that’s easier to answer a specific question than me try to predict what you want to know. But if we can get that committee meeting as soon as possible along with the – and I assume that’s one of these things the Council wants is a time line: we can take three here, six there, ten there, and what we’re going to be doing in those two years. And I know Councilman Tornatta and I talked about that also, but I think that meeting would be very beneficial to both the Council and our agency.

Councilmember Tornatta: I’ll work on a meeting in the next two weeks, try and get all the schedules together and then we’ll progress from there.

Brad Ellsworth: Do you know, and I’m not sure who else was on the committee – I’m not sure who...

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I might offer a suggestion because, again, there’s scheduling that has to be taken care of amongst the three of us, you know, maybe we need to set a deadline on the time for every one to submit questions either by, you said email, how about in writing, too, for those of us that don’t have email. Maybe we could set that deadline for June 15^th? I mean, is that...

Brad Ellsworth: That’s fine. You could do it on a yellow pad for all I care. We’ll answer them. It’s nice to have some direction that way.

Councilmember Wortman: Mr. President and Mr. Ellsworth, I think a lot of this is going to be based on the department heads when they submit their budgets at the end of this month. I think we’re going to have to watch and be careful here whether we’re going to have any money or not. I think that’s going to be based on that.

Bill Fluty: Well, that’s true. Right now, everybody has got their budget packet and are preparing that for 2005. Then again, the Sheriff’s office is finishing theirs. We will see all our needs that we will have to address for 2005 along with the staffing of the jail and the maintenance of that jail. Also, by the end of June, we’ll have property tax collections and we’ll have a better handle, and we’ll have six months of expenditures here. So I know the need is to move forward, but it will help us to see these budgets that were turned in to give us a better handle on what we can afford because with the Sheriff’s budget, we’ll have to fit that with the other 39 budgets.

Brad Ellsworth: And I apologize to the other officeholders and department heads, but I’m going on record as saying the Sheriff’s office didn’t create the problem for the need for jail beds. We put some of the people in there by good police work, but the Evansville Police Department does a great job, too, and there’s criminals in Evansville and Vanderburgh County, and we’re responsible. So I don’t want to say it’s the Sheriff’s department’s fault that we’re in a budget crunch here. I don’t think that’s our fault, just by the state constitution we have this job to do and I think we’re doing it pretty well with what we have.

President Bassemier: I agree. Sheriff, I’ve got a question to ask. Compared to other jails that’s opened in the past, Daviess County and maybe up in South Bend, what time span did they use to start training their employees, do you have an idea?

Brad Ellsworth: I can call some of those. I know that the one in Lexington started about two years out. Petrocelli, I think that’s his name, is the president of the American Corrections Association, recommends you have your teams in place about two years. That’s kind of the benchmark is two years out. I’m not sure on Daviess, I can call down to their jail and find out. Well, actually, I don’t think he’s living any more, but I can –

Brad Ellsworth: In sections, not all the employees, but the transition teams like we talked about, yeah they start putting those people into place and getting that preparation done. That’s kind of how we came up with that, start asking for them now, about a year and a half out from their projected date.

President Bassemier: And we know you didn’t create the problem, but I know we’ve got to pay for it and that’s what Bill is going to find out, can we pay for these detention officers. Anybody else got any questions? Thank you, Sheriff, appreciate it.

Councilmember Tornatta: And I think we just need to come to terms that we’re going to open this jail up and its going to be on time, and so whatever its going to take, we’re going to do to make this jail open. I mean, I don’t think anybody refutes that. You know, money in or money out, we’re going to open up this jail. I mean, that’s agreeable, isn’t it?

Councilmember Tornatta: I’m going to think of the taxpayer’s security when there’s people outside running around that should be in jail.

President Bassemier: Well, so far we’re running on time, so anyway, anybody else?

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

Councilmember Sutton: I’m going to support this because I think that we’re making some very positive steps in working with the Sheriff’s department and walking together rather than them doing their thing and Council doing its own thing, and so I think we’re taking the right steps. I would like to see us moving along a little bit faster, but I think we’re doing okay. So I vote yes.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next we have two requests from the County Commissioners. I’m going to take these as one because they’re basically both for the same request and starting with 1300-

President Bassemier: I’d kind of like for you to take them separately. Has anybody got a problem with that? One is contractual and one is CCD.

Councilmember Raben: But they both are for the same project. Okay, but I’m comfortable with doing that. 1300-3530 Contractual Services, I move that it be set in at zero.

Councilmember Winnecke: I’ll start the discussion. I think it’s a great idea, a wonderful concept but in a time where we’re delaying hiring detention officers for the new jail, the Sheriff’s department and other county officeholders are really pinching pennies, I think this is a luxury, and it’s a luxury we’ve done without for a long time and I’m all for open government, but I don’t think we can afford it right now.

Councilmember Raben: And Mr. President, I would just kind of echo most of Councilman Winnecke’s remarks that, you know, in an ideal world, this is great. If the funds were available, I would be all over this one. I’m all for it, but at this time when there’s too many uncertainties about our financial situation, you know, $55,000 or a little more than $55,000 is a lot to spend at this point.

President Bassemier: Anybody from the Commission? I’m glad you asked that, Royce. Is anybody out here from the Commissioners office? Great, come on up please.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, I’d like to hear maybe what – on the proposal that we have here, I guess if there’s any insight that can be provided to us regarding just some of the funding on what’s being requested here and on this particular project. I guess there’s some interest being expressed that might pick up some of the cost, if I’m not mistaken, or if you could maybe give us some details on that.

David Dial: I’m David Dial with WNIN. And the Commissioners contacted me about a year ago and asked if WNIN would find a way to televise the County Commission meetings. So I spent quite a bit of time looking at systems around the country and how it was being handled and I can tell you that I found costs that began at about $60,000 and went up to about a half million dollars around the country. And, you know, I’m pretty understanding of how tight dollars are around here and I knew that we needed something that was cost efficient. And so what we did is we explored a system of putting in robotic cameras and controlling them from a remote location and so $45,000 of this request is for equipment. Its equipment that is expandable. Its equipment that will be owned by the county and there’s $10,500 for personnel costs to operate the system over a year. So its pretty cost efficient. The $45,000 is a one-time cost and then – well, I’m sorry, I misspoke. The $10,500 is for a half a year. It’s a $20,000 cost for the entire year to provide this service.

Councilmember Sutton: And would that be an annual cost that would be incurred by the county?

David Dial: That would be an annual cost that would be incurred by the county. And its also expandable. The system, if this body decided it wanted to televise its meetings for a little cost cameras could be installed and operated from this room as well, or other rooms in this building.

Councilmember Sutton: One of the things that I had mentioned last week was the request as we see it here, is just being borne by one body of government and there’s so many others that use this room, and spreading that cost among some of these other bodies of government, if there’s been some thought or discussions with, on the city side or some of the others to see if there is some interest on that end?

David Dial: That was not my job to do that. And my job, in fact, that’s not even the cost of wiring this chamber, that’s the cost for the cameras in the County Commission chambers. So if you want additional cameras in this chamber, they would cost probably $5,000, around $5,000 each.

Tammy McKinney: And, Councilman Sutton, as far as other departments or organizations using this and help with the funding, I’m not aware that there have been any negotiations with any other department.

Councilmember Tornatta: We’re also dealing, when we look at things that are going to be permanent fixtures, the Building Authority, and I know we’ve talked to them before about certain things but if they have fixtures in this building then there’s a possibility that they would pick up some type of cost.

David Dial: I know we’ve been working with the Building Authority to install it. They will handle all the installation and the cost of the installation, so there is no additional cost for that so far as I know.

David Dial: I’m not aware of that cost. They will handle putting the equipment out for bid and that’s not something that we’ve been involved with.

Councilmember Sutton: That annual cost, just one more question, what is the annual cost? I mean, what does that go toward?

David Dial: Annual cost is the cost of the personnel of making sure that it goes on in a proper fashion and the production costs every week.

Councilmember Winnecke: What does the, specifically, what equipment, how many cameras does that –

David Dial: There would be two cameras installed in the County Commission chambers as well as an operating system that operates through fiber optic lines that are currently being installed in this building. And the system is capable of controlling up to 16 different cameras, so you could add cameras if you so chose, as we went down the road. So this is a very cost efficient system and you won’t find anything probably any more cost efficient anywhere around.

Councilmember Hoy: So we’re looking at an annualized cost about $20,000 something a year and we would need to plan on including that in our budgets, our future budgets as well.

David Dial: From what I understand, it was put into the budget request for this coming year.

Councilmember Wortman: Would there be a maintenance fee, contract, or anything involved in this equipment?

Councilmember Wortman: The county would maintain it at our expense. See that’s more expense yet, too, see.

David Dial: Typically, this equipment works pretty well. I mean, its all very small format, goes on for quite a while from what I understand.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. Dial, I mean, it sounds like you’ve certainly gone through a lot to find an inexpensive route to do this and I, for one, appreciate it and its something that, you know, I would like to revisit at another time, but right now there’s so many what if’s to what the rest of this year brings for us that, you know, its not the appropriate time for us to spend that sum of money. But hopefully, your work won’t be at a loss, and we may be able to address this later on in the fall of this year or maybe for sure next year.

President Bassemier: Tammy, on this one, $10,500, is there another fund that you could take that monies out of instead of the general fund? Since it is for personnel, its not for our personnel, its for theirs. Is there something, can you take that out of CCD or I’m just using that as an example. Can you fund that out of another fund instead of the general fund since we’re –

Tammy McKinney: I would have to ask the board if they would consider that. And we could revisit that.

President Bassemier: Okay. Yeah, would you – okay. Anybody got any other questions? Roll call vote. I do have a motion and a second, right? Okay.

Councilmember Sutton: Ordinarily, I would be for something like this and the equipment, I don’t really have much of an issue with that but you can’t have the equipment without the bodies, so just given where we are right now, I would have to vote in favor of the motion as its presented. So yes.

President Bassemier: I’m going to vote yes also, but I want them to try to, I think this is a very good thing, I think, to have this, televise it. I’m hoping she’ll come back and try to find funds to pay it instead of in the general fund, so I’m going to vote yes, set it in at zero.

Councilmember Raben: Next under County Commissioners/CCD, account 2031-1300-4250 I also move that that be set in at zero.

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

President Bassemier: You got it set in at zero? I’m going to vote no. That’s coming out of the CCD fund, I think its very important and I think the taxpayers need to know where their tax dollars are being spent. Its coming out of CCD funds, they’re not out of the general fund, I’m going to vote no to that and I hope they can come back and that Contractual Services and find that 10.5 somewhere else instead of the general fund. So I wish them well on this new endeavor.

Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, you might want to give some thought to, I mean, I think we’re all to a certain degree in favor of it, you might want to give some thought to discussions about this room, too, because right now, the proposal is just for that room.

Councilmember Sutton: And they’re going to lay the cable and all that wiring and everything, it would be much more cost effective if they do both rooms at the same time rather than just one room.

President Bassemier: I know I’m just one vote and everybody went the other way but I think this is a starting point and I know you guys wish we had the money in the general fund. I think this is really a good project and I hope sometime in the future that – well, they could find it to make this happen.

Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, in addition to that, since both of these rooms are used by a number of groups, City Council uses this room, we might want to see if the city wants to participate. And that’s not a huge cost but its something we can do together. I don’t know how anybody is – I can’t find time to watch us, or anybody else like us but perhaps somebody can.

President Bassemier: And I know the Commissioners, that was bi-partisan over there. They all three supported this, too, I think, you know, I think they’ve done some research on it, too, so –

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, can I make a quick comment or I see Mr. Dial has left the room. Tammy is gone, right? I wish he had stayed here just for a – if I knew that the conversation was going to go to this next level, but that’s all well and good if their station is going to take on televising the City Council meetings, County Council meetings, you know, EUTS meetings, zoning meetings, stuff like that. So while it all sounds great, I don’t know that they’ve agreed to do that and obviously, if its $21,000 a year to televise just Commissioners meetings, that price tag is going to keep getting higher. So before we all get this assumption that, you know, Channel 9 is going to be, their airwaves are going to be filled with functions taking place in these two meetings, you’re probably going to find that that’s not going to be the case. And let me just real quick address CCD monies because too often we act like that’s free money and its really not. I mean, CCD money is just what it is. It’s a capital development fund that we use to buy computers for the courts, we use it to buy sheriff cars, we put roofs on courthouses, we do energy savings contracts, we pave roads. I mean, that money is not free money. $45,000, you know, its been a while since I’ve paved any roads, but that would probably pave a half mile stretch of road that somebody probably needs a lot worse than this.

President Bassemier: Well, I was kind of looking at it, too, and we all get it from our constituents that they get mad at us why we vote on some things, but if they could see it televised and see why and hear why we’re doing it, they might understand it more and it might take some heat off some of us, too. But I’ll agree with you, it can be spent like you said for roofs, and Sheriff’s cars and everything else, other things, but I’d really like to keep the open doors as much as I can. That’s why a lot of times, I’ll get some questions and answers from people out there. So anyway, I agree with you 100%. I hope sometime in the future that we can get this televised and let our taxpayers know how their money is being spent. So is that all? We can move on.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next is County Assessor/Reassessment Funds, 2490-1090-1900, 2490-1090-1900 – the first one is, the last four digits is 1990, and then the second request is 1900, for a total request of $3,232, I’ll move approval.

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

Councilmember Raben: Okay, we have two transfers under Knight Assessor and Cum Bridge. I’m going to move that both transfers be accepted as listed.

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

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I’ll move that we amend salary line 1040-1990 Extra Help as previously adopted. Under County Assessor/ Reassess-ment amend salary line 2490-1090-1990 Extra Help as previously adopted. One employee will be paid at the initiation rate of a COMOT VI $12.6154 per hour. Under Knight, I move that we amend salary line 1130-1160 Deputy Land Appraiser as previously approved in a transfer. The current employee is a COMOT VI/StepV with an annual salary of $33,542. Under Health Department there is a position title correction, and the title is for line 2130-1500, it is a Supervisor of Health Education. I make that in the form of a motion.

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

President Bassemier: Okay, moving into the old business, I need a motion to approve a confirming resolution confirming the declaration of an economic revitalization area for property located at 8200, 8300, 8301 N. Kentucky Avenue, known as Cinergy Communications. Do I have a motion to approve that?

President Bassemier: I have a second by Mr. Winnecke. Any discussion on that? Roll call vote please.

President Bassemier: Now I need a motion to approve a preliminary resolution by County Council declaring an economic revitalization area for tax abatement for redevelopment of property located at the southeast corner of Green River Road and Lynch Road/Broadway Summit L.L.C. And this one was deferred from the 5/05/04 meeting. Do I have a motion?

Rob Schaefer: Rob Schaefer, DMD. After you approve it or if you do approve it, then we have to put in the preliminary resolution how many years you want to approve the abatement for, so I have a little blank in there –

Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, another question I have, have you submitted to the Councilmen an amended preliminary resolution with the new property description?

Jeff Ahlers: Okay, I thought what they were doing was parceling off – did that not change?

Jeff Ahlers: I just want to make sure everybody knows what they’re voting on here because I understood there was some change in terms of how much ground this is going to apply to.

Jim Vincent: We modified the application for approval the first meeting before we went to redevelopment and changed it to a four acre parcel within the 18 ½ acre parcel.

Jeff Ahlers: What I’m getting at is, though, did your resolution, was it changed?

President Bassemier: I’m sorry. Mr. Vincent, would you give your name for the record and your title, please.

President Bassemier: Thank you, sir. I’m sorry, I should have had you do that. Okay, Counselor.

Jeff Ahlers: Well, my only question, was the preliminary resolution that was submitted by your office, has that also been changed to reflect that?

Jim Vincent: No, because all the preliminary resolution did was identify the tax code and the legal description of the entire property, and there is no different tax code or new property description of only the four acres. The entire area is that one tax code, that one parcel.

Councilmember Winnecke: How do we know, though, I guess, then how would we know that the abatement is being granted for only four acres and not 18?

Rob Schaefer: That’s just the way its set up. Its not parcelized yet so there’s nothing I could do to the resolution to say that.

Councilmember Winnecke: Because the land is not that way, is that what you’re saying?

Jim Vincent: Its unimproved farmland today and we have had preliminary site review with APC and its my understanding what we’re going to do is parcelize that piece off that we identified in the application. And you could make this contingent upon that.

Jeff Ahlers: Well, I mean, I guess what I’m saying is I think we need to have, you know, I don’t mean to slow down the works but I’m afraid that we need to have the proper description in there, otherwise, technically, you know, you’re granting an economic revitalization to the entire description that’s in this document. Now the question would be is whether or not you want to, you know, do a preliminary and then make a modification for the confirming. I suppose, technically, you can do that, but it would be unclear as to what you’re voting on today, I mean, in terms of, technically, today you’re voting on what’s written in this document without modification.

Rob Schaefer: How would I modify it in the confirming? What would I – how would I change the description or...that’s kind of my concern.

Jeff Ahlers: Well, that’s what I’m saying, best case scenario, what we really need to do is make sure we’re corrected in here.

President Bassemier: Hold it, everybody. Everybody hold this thought here. We better change tapes.

Jeff Ahlers: – unless there is an overriding reason that the next 30 days is going to make a huge difference, I guess I would suggest that, I mean, ultimately, it’s the Councilmen’s decision as to what they do, but it would be best to get it right the first time and just, you know, change the description. I don’t know what’s involved, have you got surveyors or any – I mean, primarily what you’re going to do is you’re just going to survey that off and then you’re going to have a surveyor and legal counsel, I guess, draft a new description which, I assume, can be done in fairly quick order. And I guess I just assumed and nobody talked to me about it, but I guess I gathered that’s what you were doing and that’s why I was just wanting to make sure, and I’m glad I asked the question now as to whether or not the documents had changed to reflect what you were doing.

Jim Vincent: The property has been surveyed. Of course, we’re not the owners of the property at this point. The owners of the property, we have discussed with them, because we have to have a legal description for parcelization which we’ll define through the survey process, that they will allow that to be identified separately. In fact, there is a person here today that could address that issue, but the way we put the application together was we identified the parcel and then identified the size as four acres.

Jeff Ahlers: Could we not, I mean, does it have to be, I mean, can we identify the parcel that we’re seeking abatement, or you’re saying if legally the warranty deed hadn’t been changed to make it a separate tract, its granted for the whole tract?

Councilmember Raben: Could we in our motion state that the abatement or that the preliminary resolution be approved for up to four acres? If that’s what the attempt is in parcelization is to plot out this four acre piece, would that work?

Jeff Ahlers: I mean it would not be precise so I don’t know. I mean, technically what we need in here, I mean, with the way that we’ve got these preliminary resolutions drawn up is we need whatever the description is as to whatever we’re granting the abatement for.

Councilmember Raben: But the preliminary resolution really is not binding by either party, really, is it?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, that’s true. I mean, you can vote it down next time. I’m just pointing out that I guess there’s some risk that if you pass this one as is, the next meeting, if the amendments aren’t made as you may envision, this is what you may well be stuck with.

Councilmember Raben: That would be our option at that time to either vote in support of confirming the resolution or deny it, right? So –

Jim Vincent: What I do know we could provide by the next meeting would be the documents that were filed with the Area Plan Commission which identifies that parcel because, like I said, we have to identify the parcel in order for them to do the parcelization process. I don’t, I just want to make a comment, within 30 days, probably within 60 days, it won’t have its own legal description from the county’s perspective as it goes through that APC process, but when we go through parcelization, we’ll identify the parcel that’s being set aside.

President Bassemier: – have something to add to this, Mr. Hoy, that might help us out here?

Councilmember Hoy: I don’t know that I have anything to add but my strong opinion and I’m the person that votes no on tax abatements anyway, and I would vote no on this one, I will be honest with you, because I think it’s a bad precedent. But I think that for many other reasons, this legally needs to be as clean and clear as possible from the start and not cleaned up later. I think cleaning up later will cause us a lot of problems.

Councilmember Tornatta: Real quick, I think that something else that – they’re kind of behind the eight ball in getting the thing built and trying to hit their season, which in this case is going to be Thanksgiving and Christmas, what have you, but maybe if we did defer it today, could we decide that we could, if we were going to approve this the next time, we could run everything through that day? First, second and third reading?

Councilmember Sutton: Have the preliminary and confirming resolution all in one.

Councilmember Tornatta: I mean, if it passes, if we do it, we can have all three –

Jeff Ahlers: I’d have to check to make sure it wouldn’t require unanimous approval, but certainly what you could do is that we may be able to vote on the preliminary, we’d just have to advertise a special meeting ten minutes before our Personnel and Finance committee meeting and vote on it at that time, and then vote on the confirming at the regular meeting. I’ll just have to check the statute and make sure it doesn’t require there be 30 days in between. As long as there’s not – is there a requirement on that?

Jeff Ahlers: As long as there’s not a 30 day requirement, we could certainly do that and then that would not require unanimous approval.

Councilmember Tornatta: I think there’s a couple things I’d like to see cleaned up or at least worked out with this situation and we’ve discussed some of those, so I would be in favor of deferring it.

Councilmember Wortman: Wouldn’t that be subject to survey, and then the deed would be from the property owner to you, and then you’d be assigned a tax code, see, that’s the way it should work. We could put that in –

Jim Vincent: Which would occur when the closing process takes place on the property, which part of putting this project together and the spirit of what tax phase in is all about, is –

Councilmember Wortman: And then you’d run an abstract on it, too, to make sure its clear, taxes and all.

Councilmember Raben: I’m fine with that. I’m fine with that. Mr. President, I’ll move that – let me withdraw my original motion.

President Bassemier: You’re not going to lose any time here, Mr. Vincent, we’re just going to do it all in one day and I think that’s the motion he’s getting ready to make.

Jeff Ahlers: We’ll need to – well, I guess, two things. Mr. Schaefer, if you can get with me, I mean, we need to get a different preliminary resolution drawn up, its going to have to be re-noticed and advertised so I don’t know if the president wants to direct that, if that’s what we’re going to do once we receive it, but –

Jeff Ahlers: I mean, if you’re wanting to do it as a special meeting, that’s going to have to be noticed. I mean, regardless, either way, it has to be re-noticed. Additionally, if we’re going to call a special meeting, the Auditor needs to be directed to do that, the time and the place and to prepare a notice for that.

Councilmember Sutton: Now, I think what I heard a little earlier is some concern about whether the information that we’re wanting to delay, whether that will be actually ready at the end of this month. I mean, Area Plan typically, with their agenda, you’re talking about maybe 60 days before you can actually get that process completed, so it wouldn’t be ready for our next meeting.

Jim Vincent: I actually believe parcelization, that we can have it ready by then. I don’t know that, I can confer with Rob in between now and the next meeting to confirm that and then decide whether to even be here, you know, at the next meeting, accordingly. I won’t, you know, waste any of your time with this if we don’t feel like we’re prepared. But if the parcel has to be identified legally as a separate parcel, we’re going to have to work our way through that process.

President Bassemier: You think it will be 60 days then, so we should probably bring this back in August?

Jim Vincent: The bottom line is I know that we will have a separate parcel identified by the next meeting. Had we filed two weeks ago on a Wednesday morning before noon, we would have had that by Monday, the following week. So that’s the parcelization process. I didn’t realize that was going to be critical because I know that what we’re working on here is the improvements that go on the property.

Councilmember Winnecke: But you realize our position if we don’t make it specific, technically and legally, we’re granting an abatement on all 18 acres which is what, 30 days ago, we discussed not doing.

Jim Vincent: I’ll be honest with you, the tax generation of this farmland today compared to when its going to be – if we can get this project underway, this will generate a lot of revenue for the county that, you know, frankly, could be happening sooner rather than later if we could get through this process.

Councilmember Winnecke: Are you suggesting we not do it this way then? I’m not clear on what you’re saying?

Jim Vincent: What I’m asking is what Mr. Raben suggested in the beginning, that we identify the four acres and at the confirming resolution, that we provide information supporting the parcel. I absolutely don’t want you to approve something that’s for that entire parcel. The parcel is not in our ownership today so we can’t change the legal identity until the property closes. And kind of in the spirit of this process, we’re taking completely unimproved land and having to work with some of the problems that come along with that to make it viable for commercial development. We are going to go through all of those processes and we’re even kind of postponing the subdivision of the land in order to get this parcelization done so we can get this project underway. That’s what’s critical to us.

President Bassemier: I guess the question we’re asking you, can you have it all done by next month?

Councilmember Raben: I’ve already made a motion and in fact, I think my co-maker moved to defer the matter, so the motion now states to defer.

Jim Vincent: I guess what I’m asking is, I would appreciate it if we’d have the opportunity to vote on this knowing that we will have that parcel identified, otherwise, there will be no confirming resolution next

1010-3603	Record Storage	15,000.00	7,500.00
1010-2600	Office Supplies	5,000.00	2,500.00
Total		20,000.00	10,000.00

1020-3530	Contractual Services	35,000.00	35,000.00
Total		35,000.00	35,000.00

1040-1990	Extra Help	10,000.00	10,000.00
Total		10,000.00	10,000.00

1051-1130-0339	Detention Officer	14,703.00
1051-1130-0340	Detention Officer	14,703.00
1051-1130-0341	Detention Officer	14,703.00
1051-1130-0342	Detention Officer	14,703.00
1051-1130-0343	Detention Officer	14,703.00
1051-1130-0344	Detention Officer	14,703.00
1051-1130-0345	Nurse	19,677.00

1051-1130-0346	Nurse	19,677.00	0.00
1051-1900	FICA	9,759.00	0.00
1051-1910	PERF	7,016.00	0.00
1051-1950-1051	Teamsters Ed. Fund	156.00	0.00
1051-1850	Union Overtime	30,000.00	30,000.00
Total		174,503.00	30,000.00

1300-3530	Contractual Services	10,500.00	0.00
Total		10,500.00	0.00

2031-1300-4250	Misc. Equipment	45,000.00	0.00
Total		45,000.00	0.00

2490-1090-1990	Extra Help	3,000.00	3,000.00
2490-1090-1900	FICA	232.00	232.00
Total		3,232.00	3,232.00