The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 10th day of September in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Council President Marsha Abell.

President Abell: I’d like to call to order the September 10^th, 2008 meeting of the Vanderburgh County Council. Roll call, please.

COUNCILMEMBER	PRESENT	ABSENT
Councilmember Sutton	X
Councilmember Leader	X
Councilmember Shetler	X
Councilmember Goebel	X
Councilmember Raben	X
Councilmember Winnecke	X
President Abell	X

President Abell: Mr. Goebel, would you like to lead us in the Pledge for the second time this morning?

President Abell: Well, you can never say the Pledge too many times, I guess. Yeah, we have the correct flag and it’s right side up and on the proper side of the room.

President Abell: I would accept a motion to approve the minutes of the August 6 meeting.

President Abell: I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the budget hearings of August 11, 12, 13 and 26.

President Abell: Appropriation Ordinance, I’ll turn the meeting over to the Finance Chairman, Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you, Madam President. First on the agenda is the County Clerk, 1010-3603 Record Storage in the amount of $20,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Raben: County Sheriff, 1050-1971 Accrued Payments in the amount of 32,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Raben: County Assessor, 1090-1972, 1090-1900, and 1090-1910 for a total of $576, I’ll move approval.

President Abell: We have no choice? Even though this individual is no longer working for us?

Councilmember Raben: Community Corrections, 1361-1850 Union Overtime in the amount of 20,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Raben: County Highway, 2010-1026-2010 and 2010-1037-2010 for a total of $2, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Raben: I might vote no just because I’ve never voted no on a $2 appropriation.

President Abell: Can I ask why the 50,000 was taken off? Its marked off on mine but it was on there. Was the 50,000 – on the appropriation, handwritten?

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Cum Bridge, 2030-4417 Baseline Road Bridge in the amount of $1,250,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Sutton: Yes, at our last meeting, our Personnel & Finance meeting when this project came up for Baseline Road, 1.25 million, one of the things that I had several questions, but one of the questions that I had was related to how this project fits in the whole scheme of county roads and what the plan is and I had several questions about just kind of how this project fits into that area, and I think we had really good discussion and explanation on the safety issues and future growth. And I think Mr. Stoll, I don’t know if you were going to speak to that issue concerning the projects and where this fits in because my concern is, you know, you guys come here for over a million dollars now, are we expecting something next month, six months from now, just trying to get a sense of just how the dollars are allocated, what’s funded, what’s outstanding, what things are on the horizon so that we can do the best job that we possibly can and making the resources go to the places where it’s most needed. So if you could talk about those priorities.

John Stoll: I’ve never put together a specific priority ranking for the projects, but over the past few years we’ve been working on six large projects and those were Cross Pointe Boulevard, the Green River Road project, Green River and Millersburg, University Parkway, Oak Hill and Bergdolt, and Baseline. And of those projects, Cross Pointe has already been awarded and its under construction. Oak Hill and Bergdolt, the contract has been awarded, although construction hasn’t started. Green River and Millersburg is on a November 19^th INDOT bid letting. Green River Road is out for bids right now, so that left just University Parkway and Baseline is the only two projects that are still pending. And based on current estimates, there is enough funding to take care of University Parkway, so out of the large projects, that really just left Baseline as the only one that was being worked on that hadn’t been fully funded at this point.

Councilmember Sutton: And what’s the – on University Parkway, what’s the total price tag on that and what’s kind of left?

John Stoll: I believe the last estimate was about 6.4 million, I’m not sure what it will be when they update it, whenever we’re actually ready to go to bid, but I believe it was 6.4 million.

John Stoll: University Parkway, assuming the federal funds come in as we currently estimate, the only section that looks like it could have some problems would be the last piece between New Harmony and Diamond. But the other two sections look pretty good at this point, assuming, like I said at the first budget hearing, we’ll need roughly $700,000 per year in Road & Streets for the next three years in order to provide the local match. Here again, that’s based on current estimates, subject to change, but assuming that, we should be in good shape on the local side. It’s the federal funding that could be a problem.

Councilmember Sutton: You know, one of the questions I asked with Mr. Stoll during the course of our two meetings here was, why not Boonville-New Harmony as opposed to this or one of the other roads, and he sent really good information on, just kind of why that is not as good of an option on Boonville-New Harmony, and I don’t know if you want to kind of elaborate on that, just based on the ease of access and the 4-H Center and the limitations that are placed upon having it at that site.

John Stoll: If you assume the same overall project length as what we’ve got currently designed at Baseline, placing this bridge at Boonville-New Harmony would cut off access to the current 4-H Center access point on Boonville-New Harmony, and it would also cut off access to the Buy-Low shopping center area. It looks like you could reroute a new access point in the 4-H Center to go out and around the bridge approach, but there’s really no viable point to relocating access points to the Buy-Low shopping center without going all the way south to Old State Road. Then you’d be putting traffic at Old State and 41, and with the skewed alignment of Old State at 41, I don’t think that’s really a good location to put more traffic. Likewise, you’d have a substantial additional expense to acquire the additional right-of-way and build the extra roads needed to get that traffic down to Boonville-New Harmony. So it really isn’t a viable location because of existing access points. And then Inglefield and Stacer, since they are continuous roadways, they really aren’t that good of an option, either. Baseline is the only other continuous road across the county, so that’s why really Baseline was looked at in conjunction with the comments that were received at the road hearings, as well.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, I just wanted to – just the last thing, I think this project is a good project that really looks toward the future growth of our county. It isn’t bustling with population and activity as we may normally think of it at this point in time, but it is an area for future growth. So I think it’s definitely worth moving forward with.

John Stoll: We did get some positive news, too, since the last Council meeting I’ve got a new cost estimate and the estimate actually went down. It’s at 3.4 million dollars and I had previously been using an estimate of 4.2, so we did see a substantial reduction now that we’ve gotten almost final plans.

President Abell: That’s always good news. Anyone else have any – Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: We’ve discussed this as well, Mr. Stoll, but from a safety standpoint, I think that’s a major concern. Is there along the corridor of 41 from Evansville to I-64, any type of overpass over CSX currently?

John Stoll: Probably the only other railroad bridge I can think of would be over on Old State Road between Mt. Pleasant and Hillsdale, but that’s not – that’s on a north/south road parallel to 41, not on an east/west road. So off the top of my head, I can’t think of any.

Councilmember Goebel: That’s the point I’m trying to make, we have no way of getting across the railroad especially with the increased usage by CSX, trains and that, it seems to me that this is, as was stated earlier, forward thinking. We’re building overpasses now around us that maybe could have been implemented earlier in this community, and I think it’s a good move to prepare for the future, schools, safety, just about every issue. And the cost will only go up if we wait. Is that correct?

Councilmember Goebel: I think that point was brought up, but I just think it’s a good – now is a good time. Thank you.

President Abell: Any other comments? Mr. Korb, you’re standing, did you wish to address the Council?

Jeff Korb: Good morning, everyone. Jeff Korb, County Commissioner President. At the last meeting that I was at, Councilman Sutton asked a great question, what is our priority list? And going back and talking to John Stoll about that, honestly, as John has described this to me, this is his perfect storm. He’s had some of the largest projects we’ve had in Vanderburgh County come to fruition the past six months. In the next two or three months, we’re going to know whether any of those things are going to be able to get off the ground. Cross Pointe Boulevard is already started. My desire to come up before you all today is, this is what we’re here for is to work together. What do we want our priorities to be in the next five, ten, fifteen years, and would ask for your input in terms of projects. Where do you see us needing to be? Because truly, when you look at the traffic counts, Commissioner Tornatta is correct, the numbers are not there. But as we build this bridge, we expect development to come, which will increase our inflow of property taxes both from corporate citizens as well as residential people. So I’m coming to you today to sort of try to answer Councilman Sutton’s question, we don’t know because we’ve not sat down and looked at where our community needs to be. So at this point in time, I would like to encourage each of you to get a hold of John at your convenience, let’s get together and meet, where do we want to be? What type of infrastructure investments, because that’s what this is going to be, going forward do we need to be. And I think at that point in time, Royce, we’ll be able to have a really good idea what our new prioritized list is because, really, our current prioritized list is almost all underway and taken care of. So begin thinking where you live, what should we be doing? How do we get there? That’s how planning needs to be done in our county and I think that this group fits that.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, if I could interject, I think, if as much as possible, we really need to think about aligning what we can with the I-69 corridor.

Councilmember Sutton: And whatever road improvements that can be enhanced to make that as much of an opportunity for this community as possible, is what we need to be thinking about.

Jeff Korb: Because, really, at the end of the day, our goal is to grow. And if we continue to think the way that we’re thinking, that growth will come. And that’s why, when you have input, and that’s the nice thing about this group, and include the Commissioners, and even with the city government, we’re thinking as a unit, as a team. We’re not thinking as democrats and republicans. And that’s very important. And that’s a great point, Royce, is that our focus now maybe needs to be I-69. Where is that going to hit, how will that impact our community? But again, my challenge to you as well as to the Commissioners, as well as to the mayor has been, let’s come up with a new prioritized list. Where do we need to be? Where to be want to be? And how are we going to pay for it? That’s a real big deal.

Councilmember Winnecke: I just had a question for John again, if he...assuming this passes today, what is the time line for bid letting, construction, etcetera?

John Stoll: We’re still trying to get some issues resolved with CSX and some other right-of-way issues, but assuming the best case, it could be out for bid as early as next week, which would result in a bid opening of October 7^th. That’s going to be something I’ll have to discuss with the Commissioners on how to proceed relative to all the pending final approvals. But theoretically, the approvals could run concurrent with the bidding process. So, right now, the earliest day I could say would be October the 7^th. Beyond that, I’m not really sure.

John Stoll: Roughly a year if, what I’ve been talking to the consultant about was completion by the end of 2009 assuming that it’s under construction by the end of this year.

Councilmember Shetler: And the road will remain open during that period or closed?

Councilmember Shetler: And are we working out some kind of alternative plan there with the railroads so that they’ll not park and block Stacer and whatever the other road, Volkman, down the way so that there will be some emergency access? Because that’s what we’re doing this for anyway, and during the twelve months, there could be a...

John Stoll: We can try. I haven’t talked to anybody with CSX about that as of yet. But not knowing the specifics as far as their train lengths and all that, I’m not sure how that would all work out but, like I say, we can contact them and ask them.

Councilmember Shetler: Do we have a certain amount of, like enforcement powers, though, when they do park and block intersections for a prolonged period of time? Maybe this is a question for the Sheriff? I don’t know, but...

John Stoll: The only statute I’ve seen – I’m not a lawyer, Jeff could probably elaborate more on this than I could, if he’s ever dealt with it. But the only statute I’ve seen basically says they can’t block a crossing for, I believe the time frame is ten or fifteen – more than ten or fifteen minutes, but you read a couple of statutes on down and it says that there’s really no penalty if they do fail to comply with that. So I don’t know what could be done.

President Abell: Yes. And I’d just like to say, Mr. Sutton, I agree with you that’s there’s not a lot of hustle and bustle out there but I can remember when there wasn’t any on Green River Road, too. So we’re showing everybody we are thinking ahead.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Local Roads & Streets, 2160-2210 Gas & Oil in the amount of $50,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Goebel: I did have a question, James and I have been discussing this in the past, I don’t know if Mike can talk on this or –

Mike Duckworth: Mike Duckworth, Superintendent of County Highway. I thought I was going to get off on that $2 deal.

Councilmember Goebel: Well, sorry about that. Thanks for coming up, anyway. As far as the, we all know the tremendous increase in Gas & Oil in all departments, and we’ve discussed with you already about conservation methods used by your department. Do you have any kind of guidelines or any kind of print or does the county in general have any type of restriction on use of county vehicles for maybe unnecessary trips or lunch trips, things like that?

Mike Duckworth: Well, as you well know, we just went to the four day work week, ten hour shifts. And one of the policies that I implemented was that there would be no driving from the work site to restaurants or whatever, that they were to bring their lunch in to minimize the usage of those county vehicles as well as I’ve implemented a plan and a directive to all the supervisors that have take home vehicles in regards to their usage of their vehicles. We have, normally, just one on call, but supervisors oversee different projects so they do have the need sometimes to go out on a particular project if there’s a piece of equipment out there or if there is a problem after hours. So, to and from work, basically, is our rule of thumb and, again, we’re researching how much we’re saving on this four day work week eliminating one whole day. We estimated that we were using in excess of $900 and some odd dollars worth of fuel on Fridays, and so we think that we’ll save a large portion of that as well as utility costs for shutting down for the one day. So we’ll have that report back to you I’d say sometime the first part of October.

Mike Duckworth: Well, I put $50,000 in because I knew that that would definitely get us through the year and I really didn’t want to come back. Its not that I don’t like seeing you all, but I knew that that would get us through, but I don’t anticipate that we will use all of it and we’re going to do everything we can to minimize our use.

Councilmember Goebel: Mike, as far as take home and that, do the employees have any type of charge for using the vehicles for personal use?

Councilmember Raben: You know, Madam President, this whole issue is much bigger than just the County Highway, with the exception, and I do want to quantify this, the Sheriff’s Office, I think take-home cars are necessary. You know, I think it adds to the safety in a neighborhood or community when they see the presence, but we’ve got a lot of other county vehicles throughout the county that I would really challenge the County Commissioners to implement some sort of policy that lays down guidelines for, you know, that a county vehicle is to be driven, you know, where they do have to be driven home, they stay home until they go to work the next day. You know, I don’t think we need to have them going back and forth to the grocery store or something like that. So, again, that’s – I’m simply asking the County Commissioners, with your blessing, that they look into this, because I don’t think this gas situation is going to go away by any means. So they need to look into this and write a policy that everybody can live with.

President Abell: I agree. I’m sure they will read our minutes or are watching this on television and they’ll get notice of our request. Any other questions from Mr. Duckworth? Thank you. Any other questions?

President Abell: And who seconded Mr. Raben’s motion? Donna, Ms. Leader, would you like to – oh, Mr. Goebel did? You didn’t?

President Abell: Oh, you’re seconding this one. Who seconded the first one? Ms. Leader? Donna, will you withdraw your second?

President Abell: Okay, so the motion is on the floor for the request for Oil & Gas in Local Roads & Streets, of $40,000. Roll call vote, please.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next, Madam President, under Auditor/Reassessment, 2490-1020-3530 Contractual Services, and we had some discussion on this last week along with a letter and some other information that was requested. This is for the new tax billing system in the amount of $900,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Leader: Mr. Fluty, looking at this, I’m relatively good at reading charts, it appears to be that none of these people qualified as the vendor. What does that mean?

Bill Fluty: They have qualified. I just, we haven’t finalized that chart on actually –

Bill Fluty: It’s all zero. But we had all three vendors in last week for demonstrations. We met and we went through some of that information, the Treasurer’s Office and our office being the group that’s studying this, on Monday. And on Tuesday, we met for two and a half hours just to put this information together and then kind of go back with some questions of each vendor and gathered the three contracts from each vendor. So we’re moving forward. We haven’t filled that in and made a decision at this point.

Bill Fluty: We have five members from the Treasurer’s Office, five members from the Auditor’s Office, and Matt Arvay with IT.

Councilmember Sutton: I was just going to say, this is a pretty large request, 900,000, and you don’t anticipate necessarily that you’ll spend 900,000, but for the sake of our, kind of our viewing audience and all, with a request like this and we’re talking about what I think is a pretty sweeping and a really bold move on our part. Some of it’s mandated, but definitely needed, but if you could talk about what this system is. I know you, and Z Tuley is here as well, but if you guys could talk about the limitations of what is going on with the existing system and why you’re making this proposal that, you know, I guess we’ve been really hearing, I guess, the Treasurer, Z Tuley has been talking about this the last couple of years. And now that its really bubbled up from some of the things, if you could talk about some of that. I don’t know if, Z, if you wanted to horn in on some of the discussion, but –

Bill Fluty: Well, I’ll start off. Then again, our system we’re currently on is an old COBOL system and there’s some programming challenges with that, and actually some information challenges that we can move out to the public and to our user group. So, and of course, some of this is being pushed by House Bill 1001 that actually changes the legislation that promotes us to do a lot of new programming at a pretty high dollar cost. So that led us to believe, should we program or should we get our current system certified with the DLGF as all systems have to be certified by December 31^st, or should we look at a new vendor? We weighed those two options and thought it would be more cost effective to move to a new vendor. There’s a lot of technical advantages to that. Matt and his group can give you those if you need those, but that’s how we came to this point. Then we went through the RFP process with the vendors, opening the bids, and we’re still going through that process right now. And I think that kind of gets you up to where we are right now. Z, you surely can’t get out of this conversation, so you need to come up. So this will move both of our offices, we both use this, I guess, pretty 50/50 and we’re just trying to get the best for Vanderburgh County. Our old system has served us well. We have always billed on time with the exception of this year and that was late, but we distributed on time, which gets your tax dollars where they need to be for county government to move on. We believe this is the prudent thing, so that will continue. So, Z, you’re next.

Z Tuley: I’m Z Tuley, I’m the Vanderburgh County Treasurer. I did serve on the board underneath two different DLGF directors and two different governors to establish a minimum standard for the tax and billing system. We found out in July of ‘06 that the tax and billing system that we have does not meet compliance. Starting with their minimum of the correct parcel number. Our system won’t hold it. There is no room to build it in and it wasn’t going to go there. And I did come before the Commissioners, I would have to look on the minutes to verify that I came before the Council, but it was in January of ‘07, and stated that we would not be compliant for starting in ‘08, and that is where we’re at. And we need a tax and billing system because, as Bill was saying, all the systems are supposed to be certified by the DLGF and we don’t qualify.

Councilmember Goebel: And to reiterate from the last meeting, this system will be adaptable for future changes from the state of Indiana?

Z Tuley: That’s what we’re targeting. That’s part of the exploration and that’s why its not real simple to just say this vendor, because we are intending to make whatever we purchase something that lasts. The current system that we’re on – gosh, we’ve been on it at least thirty years or right at thirty years. I don’t know that we’re ever going to find anything with the way technological changes come about, with, you know, like Microsoft and your T.V.’s and so everything is booming so fast. I don’t know that we’ll ever find anything that lasts another thirty years but we’ll do our best to make sure that it’s something that can be built on and something that can grow.

President Abell: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Weaver has something he wants to say.

Jonathan Weaver: Good morning, Jonathan Weaver, Vanderburgh County Assessor. I guess my question is, I agree they need a new billing system, does it have to come out of Reassessment?

Jonathan Weaver: Well, I mean, it doesn’t say anything about a tax billing system out of the Reassessment fund, what you can use that money for.

Councilmember Raben: It probably doesn’t specifically say tax billing system, but it would be deemed as an appropriate use of Reassessment funds –

Jonathan Weaver: Well, computerization of assessment records, payment to hearing officers and assessment officials, payments of salary to temporary staff or permanent staff for contractual services, updating soil maps, I mean, it’s pretty specific on what it can be spent for.

Councilmember Raben: We’ve used it for a lot of general expenditures over the years and, you know, at the end of the day, you’re reassessing properties to collect the tax, this is the system that bills for that tax, so it’s probably what I would perceive as the most appropriate use of these funds as we can come up with. So I’m comfortable with it. I don’t know about the rest of the Council.

Jonathan Weaver: Well, I guess I’d like to ask the Auditor, is he planning on – are you planning on paying back the Reassessment fund for the 10,000 used on Office Furniture this year?

Councilmember Raben: I don’t think we need to get into any internal turf wars here, that’s a question for another time.

Jonathan Weaver: Well, it’s fiscal responsibility. We need to watch what we’re spending.

Councilmember Raben: That’s what we do. That’s what this Council does every meeting is look at what we’re spending and watch. We’re the gatekeepers and watchdogs for the funds.

Councilmember Shetler: The alternative is to raise the taxes on the taxpayers almost a million dollars. So I think I opt to go the way you’re recommending.

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, because outside of that, that’s what it would be is an increase in property taxes.

Councilmember Raben: Okay next, Sheriff Misdemeanor Housing, 2780-1530 Shift Differential in the amount of $1,400, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Raben: Local Emergency Plan Commission in the amount of $4,200, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Madam President, if it’s okay with all the members of the Council, I’d like to move that all transfers be approved as listed.

President Abell: Anyone have a question on any of the transfers that we need to discuss independently? Roll call vote.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, we’ll move to the amendments to the Salary Ordinance. I would ask our Executive Assistant, has everybody been given a copy of this?

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Madam President, it’s quite lengthy today, I’m going to move that the amendments to the Salary Ordinance be made a part of the minutes.

President Abell: Any questions or discussion on the salary ordinance amendments? Roll call vote, please.

President Abell: Under Old Business, Mr. Sutton has requested a few minutes to discuss with us the collection of taxes and the moving of another office for the Treasurer. Would you like to address that, Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Thank you, President Abell. Yeah, if I could just have a few minutes here regarding a suggestion that I made to the – in response to some of the issues with the amount of traffic we get in at least two times a year during the two tax installment periods. I met with, established a team with the Treasurer, with the Sheriff, with the IT group with Matt Arvay, the Building Authority to discuss this issue and see what options were available to us. And my suggestion earlier was, you know, why not consider moving this for a period during those two heavy traffic periods over at the Centre. So we did get a chance to talk about that and look at it and we’ll come back before Council at the next Council meeting to present a real detailed proposal and request for this body, but just to kind of give you an idea of where we stand right now, in evaluating the two options between the Centre and actually even looking at some location here in this building, the better option appears to be doing it here in this building, using maybe one or two other locations here in this building. But in terms of the pricing difference between doing it there and doing it here, efficiency, the ease of the traffic flow and looking at security issues, felt like this might be the better option. If we were to do it over at the Centre, the total cost would be right at about, almost $19,000 to do it there. If we did it here, which those are two periods where we do, we’re performing our tax collection, so obviously, we want to make it a great opportunity for our taxpayers to come in, its going to be about $11,000 to do it here in this building. So I know we can’t act on it now, its not on our agenda, it hasn’t been advertised, but want to at least apprise you of that and at least kind of get, if we could kind of get a sense from this Council, if we could continue to move forward with it because what we need to do is bring this before the – the Building Authority needs to make some decisions as well on this, with the timing with their meetings. So if we can get a sense from this group here if that is something that is agreeable to you that we can do it. Roughly, we’re talking about on, during those two tax periods, traffic flow is right at -- let me make sure I get the number -- we’re talking about 14,000 people during that period of time, so just trying to make it as efficient as possible. So according to how we want to proceed, Madam President, I just want to request your –

Councilmember Goebel: I think it’s a very good idea that you thought of this plan B to keep it located here because, you know, a lot of people do like to pay their taxes, obviously, in person and many, by tradition or by habit, come to the Treasurer’s Office. And if it goes to the Centre, that might cause more difficulty than the system we have in place already. I think also if we could explore just somehow utilizing the facility we already have with additional security, patrol, like you’ve suggested, that’s the best way.

Councilmember Sutton: And that was a strong argument for trying to look for something here. We’re also going to look at ways in which we can improve the parking situation during those two periods, which that’s something that we haven’t talked about because people come in to pay tax and they go back out and they’ve got a ticket hanging on their vehicle, that doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense there, but we’re looking at some ways to hit several different points to make it as efficient and as user friendly as possible, while still providing the opportunity for the Treasurer’s Office to be as efficient on what they do on their end. The main hangup that’s causing the cost is something that we just addressed earlier and that is the programming issues. That’s where the greater amount of the bulk of the costs that’s coming in with this. With the old COBOL programs, we’re talking about roughly $7,000 of the cost that I mentioned to you that’s built into that. Once the new tax billing system is put into place, that will totally go away with an express tax payment system like we’re talking about here.

Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, are we also exploring all the alternatives? I mean, I don’t know how they accept right now, but like ACH transfers and the possibility of credit cards and that whole business to cut down traffic totally.

Councilmember Sutton: The Treasurer’s Office will continue to emphasize the other options for payment. You know, we’ve got some people who just, from a traditional standpoint, want to come to the Treasurer’s Office and make that payment, get that bill right in their hand and not do it through a teller window or through an ATM or through the computer. Just, some people aren’t as comfortable with that, so we just have to accommodate that crowd.

President Abell: I think it sounds like a really good proposal. We had an issue and you came up with an answer and I applaud you for working on that. How does the Council feel? We’re not taking an official vote but could I just have a show of hands as to who thinks we should continue to go forward and explore this?

President Abell: I guess you’ve got it, Mr. Sutton. You can continue to work on this.

President Abell: New business. A preliminary resolution of the Vanderburgh County Council declaring an economic revitalization area for tax phase-in for redevelopment of property located at 12900 Warrick County Line Road, Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC.

President Abell: I’m sorry, okay. Do I have a second? Mr. Raben has moved for approval. Do I have a second so we can have discussion?

Julie Gorman: Good morning, my name is Julie Gorman, and I’m with the Growth Alliance for Greater Evansville. This is the preliminary resolution for Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC. Veolia is requesting a tax phase-in for real estate improvement for property located at 12900 Warrick County Line Road. The total cost of the project is 1.4 million and will employ an additional eight people within the next five years. This project scored 95 points equivalent to seven years, but at the time that we presented this, we did not have additional information on the bonus questions and I believe that you should have received that via email from Veolia, Mr. Elpers. Based on the information that he provided, I revisited the scoring sheet and came up with a different figure. I awarded, I looked at it and added an additional twenty-four bonus points, which would increase the total points to 119, which would change the number of years from seven to nine.

Councilmember Winnecke: I think my – theoretically, I’m not opposed to voting for a phase-in for this project. I guess I’m a little uncomfortable with the term of this recommendation based on a couple of things. One, the size, and I understand the size is the size, and it is what it is. We had discussed on the phone, the community involvement aspect of your company. Typically, and I’m just going from memory here, the organizations for which we give longer-term phase-ins usually have a greater involvement in the community. And I’m uncomfortable with nine years based on that alone. And I realize, and I’m not saying that to be critical, I realize every company can only do so much, but that’s my greatest hesitation in voting for a nine-year phase-in on this project.

Dan Elpers: When you mean community involvement, is it dollar and cents or is it services you can provide to folks that are needing, getting rid of their trash?

Councilmember Winnecke: Well, I would characterize that kind of thing as in-kind services, which, you know, is a great tool that you offer, but it’s also in terms of other community outreach beyond what you do, beyond the specialty of your business. Just one observation.

Councilmember Goebel: I think that is something we should consider as well. It is good that we’re bringing in more employees, but I personally have a problem with the seven, definitely, I’m not in favor of nine.

Dan Elpers: Well, I didn’t know and didn’t want to over commit myself, I don’t think anybody would want us to do that. We’re hoping for more. We’re building this building to do a lot more than just seven or eight, but I can’t predict the future. We just went in with a conservative number. You know, I know that’s being watched every year and we just wanted to be comfortable with that number. Something you have to keep in mind is these are decent salaries, too, not what we’re just wanting to hire the people that are there now. We are also located in Illinois, we’re in Pike County and we could very easily, we have ground there, too, that we can build a facility this size. But with the airport, the infrastructure, the workforce that we have in Vanderburgh County, we felt like it was best suited for this area. You know, I think we’re also, the I-69 corridor we’re going to start seeing people (inaudible) build out there, and that’s going to open up a lot of interest in other folks wanting to build out there. There is no sewer out there so we have to spend a lot of extra money to put a field bed system in to be able to handle our waste water needs out there cause there’s no sewer out there yet. But we still want to build out there. So maybe you’ll take a few of those things into consideration.

Councilmember Goebel: Well, we do and its nothing negative about the company, at all. Obviously, this is something we want, just based upon other similar type requests, it’s not strictly Veolia, but I think we have to be a little bit guarded in that regard.

Dan Elpers: I have Richard Steedman, he is also representing Veolia, and I’d like for him to speak, please.

Richard Steedman: Thank you. Richard Steedman, the counsel for Veolia. Mr. Goebel, this kind of reminds me of the prospectuses that we get on past performance is not a guarantee of future result. But I think if you look at the application, they’ve added over thirty employees, grown from eighteen to forty-nine employees in the past eight years. I counseled them to be conservative in their growth estimates for employees. And so I think that the number we’re presenting is a solid number. We anticipate being able to add more, but didn’t want to commit to that and mislead Council. It’s difficult to predict the future.

Councilmember Goebel: And you also are retaining those employees, so that’s a positive.

Richard Steedman: Absolutely. Yeah, and I think, you know, if the Council feels there is some adjustment, look at the point system. I think that’s the appropriate thing to do. If you think, instead of ten points, it’s only worth nine,

– that’s an appropriate way to make that adjustment, rather than looking at knocking years off of the application, because I think that gets away from where the Council needs to be going in terms of uniform application of the rules. Appreciate the opportunity.

Councilmember Winnecke: I did have one other question of Dan. Dan, you referenced the large investment for the wastewater treatment, is that included in the overall project cost, the 1.415?

Dan Elpers: Yeah, I can’t honestly tell you that, not right now. I can get that information.

Councilmember Winnecke: That’s alright. Okay. Mrs. Abell stepped out, so, Mr. Raben, did you have a question?

Councilmember Raben: Well, in light of the discussion here, my original motion would have been to accept the new recommendation, but in the spirit of compromise, I’m going to amend my motion to an eight year phase-in.

Councilmember Shetler: I will amend my second to go along with that eight years.

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay, the motion on the floor is for an eight year phase in. This is the preliminary resolution and reminding everyone in the audience and at home that we would confirm this at our next month meeting. Any additional questions or discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please.

Jeff Ahlers: I’d just state that the written motion that’s on your desk has seven years so everybody will need to make that correction if its eight years now, just so that you know that the written preliminary resolution says seven. So if the motion is eight, to modify accordingly.

Councilmember Sutton: I’ve had a chance to have some good discussion with this company and I think they are doing some good things here locally, that I think a lot of other companies here could emulate and excited about their growth and what they’re doing. And we get a lot of abatement requests, like we heard earlier, I just find it difficult with the number of employees, jobs that are going to be added to the community, I’d have to grade this down so low, from my grading system, that an abatement really would be of no value to the company, to a certain extent. But I want them to keep on growing, doing what they’re doing, and maybe they can come back when they’re continuing to expand. But at this level, I just don’t feel comfortable supporting an abatement request for seven or eight employees. So I vote no.

Councilmember Goebel: As I mentioned earlier, I would support a lower number of years, so I’m going to vote no, also.

Councilmember Winnecke: I’m really torn. I think – I’m going to vote no and it’s a tough no, but I wish it were a bigger project and I wish the level of community service was beyond the scope of just the business itself.

President Abell: Give me a moment. My vote actually means nothing. I was trying to figure out if we could modify it at the confirming and give us another week to work on it.

Councilmember Raben: One of us, I’ll be happy to make a new motion after this vote.

President Abell: Okay, I will vote no, and then you can make another motion. Oh, you voted yes. Okay, then its going to have to be somebody who voted no has to make a new motion. That’s right.

(Motion fails 2-5/Councilmembers Sutton, Leader, Goebel, Winnecke & Abell opposed)

Councilmember Raben: Well, I think at first, we have to make a motion to re-open for a new motion.

Jeff Ahlers: One of the things you can also do, okay, is you can pass a preliminary resolution, you can modify at the confirming resolution, the number of years. That doesn’t necessarily have to be set in now. But you can set it in now if that’s what you want to do. I mean, that’s completely up to you. But if it does not pass on the preliminary resolution stage today, it doesn’t move forward to a confirming resolution.

Jeff Ahlers: I don’t believe so, and I’d have to look, I think there is a waiting period, which I mean, I guess, once the project is done, I mean, that means it’s done. So yeah, you would need to, before this is completed, I guess, re-open your votes and modify it or it doesn’t move forward from this point.

President Abell: But it’s the pleasure of the majority voters, which were the no votes.

Councilmember Winnecke: Madam President, I would move that in a preliminary resolution, we offer a five year tax phase-in on this project.

President Abell: I don’t think you can, you voted yes. Does it have to be somebody who –

President Abell: Okay, then you can. And then we can have another vote. Then we can vote on this and we can still modify at the next meeting, at the confirming.

Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, that’s correct. The only thing I might ask that you might want to correct on the record is to make sure that it was understood that your first vote was just in terms of whether there would be a set-in at eight years, that it was not the intent of the vote to defeat a preliminary resolution for a revitalization area. I mean, because one way to do it is you can set it in as a revitalization area and then you can set in the number of years later, but you may need to clarify that for the record, so that it doesn’t show that the matter doesn’t move forward or to recast those votes, if that’s what you’re wanting to do.

President Abell: Okay. The record can so reflect that. Then let’s take a roll call vote on the re-opening of a five year.

Councilmember Winnecke: And just for clarification, to declare an economic revitalization area for the area outlined in the application and to create a phase-in period for five years.

President Abell: Correct. And then we will have the confirming resolution at the next meeting. Roll call vote?

Councilmember Sutton: I’m still, given the property tax environment that we’ve got right now, the changes have come down from the state and the impact ultimately that this county will suffer as well as many others, I just need to feel that it’s a project that’s going to have more impact from an economic development standpoint than this particular project here. I think what they’re doing is fantastic, but I still can’t support it, so I still vote no.

Councilmember Shetler: One question real quick, out of the approximately forty to fifty employees you have today, how many of those are living in Vanderburgh County? Do you have an idea?

Councilmember Shetler: So thirty to thirty-five of them? Okay, you know, because of the economic climate that we’re in today and that being companies laying off, I definitely want to feel good about somebody who is adding to. So that’s why I supported it originally, that’s why I continue to support it. So I vote yes.

Councilmember Goebel: I also have a question. Dan, is your present site, has there been any movement as far as someone taking that over?

Councilmember Goebel: That’s a good positive. With that in mind, I will vote yes.

Councilmember Raben: First I’d like to make a statement, you know, the reason this Council, this body spent a lot of time putting together the scoring system for revitalization projects such as this, was to make it equal for small or large, so I don’t think moving forward, that we want to penalize anyone because they’re not big enough. I mean, again, its an issue of fairness and I’ll take every business or business retention we can get in this community, be it forty jobs or be it a thousand jobs. I mean, they all add up and they all make a difference. And I’ll vote yes on the five.

President Abell: I’m going to vote yes but I’m going to give you my cell phone number. I’d like to sit down and meet with you personally, and go over some of this.

President Abell: We’ll see you here at the next meeting. Would you like to take this and give me a call? Maybe we could sit down and I have some questions, also. Thank you.

President Abell: Next on our agenda, a resolution of the Vanderburgh County Council granting a waiver of non-compliance for an economic revitalization area for Berry Plastics, OpCo, Inc., a subsidiary of Berry Plastics Corporation, 2415 Locust Creek Drive.

Julie Gorman: Sorry, Julie Gorman from GAGE, the Growth Alliance for Greater Evansville. If you recall at the August 6^th meeting, we had discussion, we had presented the preliminary resolution and you had asked us specifically to prepare the waiver of non-compliance to put a legal ad in the paper, which we have done that, and you had also asked for Berry to come back with answers regarding your question of why the project was started and seventy-five to eighty percent complete at the time of the application. So with me today is Kevin Pennington from BP Tooling, Jim Kratochvil, which is the Executive VP and CFO, Mark Miles, Executive VP and Controller, and David Berkman, the Tax and Accounting Manager for Berry Plastics, if you’d like to ask them any specific questions regarding the project.

Councilmember Winnecke: So is our first order of business to vote on the waiver of non-compliance?

President Abell: I guess we need to get our motion on the table and then we’ll discuss it and they can come up and talk to us.

Councilmember Winnecke: Madam President, I would move that we approve the waiver of non-compliance as presented.

President Abell: Now, discussion? Who would you like to talk to? Who do you want to have present? Anyone?

Councilmember Winnecke: I’m wondering first if we need to do – ask for public input on this before we – that might be the most appropriate – before we get discussion going.

Jeff Ahlers: Because that’s what we advertised for is a public hearing, correct?

President Abell: Yeah. Is there anyone, I just thought they might want to present their – while we’re looking at it and know that everybody in the public is aware, but if they are, then if somebody here wants to address it, please come forward. I don’t see anyone. Would someone from Berry Plastics just like to come up and explain this, what we’re here for? Thank you. Because our viewing audience may not have seen the August 6^th meeting and have no idea what we’re talking about.

Jim Kratochvil: Jim Kratochvil, I’m Chief Financial Officer for Berry Plastics.

Jim Kratochvil: Sure, its K as in Kenneth, R, A, T as in Tom, O, C, H, V as in Victor, I, L.

Jim Kratochvil: I wish I had a nickle for every time I did that. First of all I want to express my appreciation for the County Council considering this request. We have always had an excellent relationship with both the city and the county at Berry Plastics, and we have, over the years, I think, over delivered on what we have committed to both the city and the county in terms of our abatement and phase-in requests. Specifically, with this request, this was a little different for us. Usually, when we have an expansion project at Berry Plastics there is a lot of internal discussions and a lot of, let’s say, communication that goes on within our walls, and then there’s also a lot of communication with the various public entities that we deal with. This was a little different because what we were faced with here was a decision to, we knew we had to consolidate, we had two tooling facilities: one in Chicago Ridge, Illinois and one in Evansville, Indiana, the one that we’re talking about today. And the executives of the company felt like we needed to have a great amount of confidentiality around this because it was affecting the lives and people of two different locations. As we gave this consideration, we did not want to put at risk losing valuable employees at our Evansville tool facility because they had concern about the viability of the facility that we had going forward. The executives of the company as well as our investors are very supportive of Evansville and this is where our corporate headquarters resides and they do have significant alternatives here. We have, you know, close to seventy plants now throughout the world at Berry Plastics and this is our corporate office for all those. So the management here believed in the tool facility. We also saw a lot of tool maker positions leave as molds went overseas, so we saw a good availability of people within the community that fit the profile of what we needed and we made that decision. So what happened here is that internally we did not communicate because we did not want to have any leaks to the community or anywhere else about what we were contemplating until we made a final decision, so that took some time. So the people that ordinarily would know and have filed for this, were not in the know because of that specific reason. So we understand that we didn’t follow the process as it specifically is lined out, but we are asking for this waiver because we feel like we have met every other criteria that this program intends to fulfill. We are placing good compensation jobs within Evansville. Here we’ve already, at this point, hired eleven of the eighteen full-time and two part-time jobs that we’ve committed, even though we’re not even in service yet in the facility. And the part that we are specifically in, I would say, non-compliance over is not the equipment piece, that came in later, we have been moving that later, a combination of new equipment and equipment we’re relocating from our Chicago facility, but more specifically asking for the waiver on the building expansion piece. So that’s really what happened here. The people within the company that would ordinarily have filed weren’t able to do that because of the confidential nature of this project.

President Abell: Now that its been explained, is there anyone in the audience that wants to make a comment on this? Is there any Councilman that wants to ask a question or make a comment?

Councilmember Winnecke: Jim, it might be helpful if you could kind of, in rough form, kind of lay out the chronology of events from the spring until today just so – you’ve explained the situation well, but if you could just maybe give us a better chronology, it might be helpful.

Jim Kratochvil: Yeah, I thought that you would like that so I – I’ve attempted to do that. Some of this is working back in time and I’ve also, just so you know, I’ve also had conversations with Madam Abell relative to, you know, in the future, we had a conversation about a way, when we had a confidential project, to be able to bring it to the Council in advance and not mention the project specifically and say, hey, we have a project that we want to expand in Evansville, and let the Council know, so we don’t trip any of these dates. Basically, we’ve had discussions over the last couple of years of what we wanted to do. We acquired the Chicago tool room in, actually in 2003 when we made the Landis acquisition. We have had discussions over the years about what to do. We felt like having a consolidated tool room would be much more efficient here, so late last year, in the – and Kevin, you may want to come up here as well. Kevin Pennington, who is our Vice President of tooling, might help me with this. But basically, we had a lot of conversations late last year about what we wanted to do here. So we had conversations and they were really the CEO, myself and Kevin, there weren’t very many other people that were aware of what was going on at that time, but that’s basically where the discussion started. We made a decision to quietly go forward, so we obtained permits for this in March, started the construction in April, and none of this, by the way, was disclosed anywhere to the public; the Chicago facility was not made aware of this at that point in time. Let’s see, okay, we went through a few internal things and then when did we announce specifically to Chicago?

Jim Kratochvil: June 8^th, and then we came here June 16^th, okay, in terms of filing an application. So we didn’t waste much time after they were notified, put in our application and then we attended the meeting, we received the notice of how to proceed, attend the meeting where we made our preliminary request, and now this is where we are. And during this whole process, obviously, we’ve continued to complete this project and get it in as quickly as possible. You may want to, Kevin, talk about what it means to your people in the company.

Kevin Pennington: Alright. What we’re doing here, like I said, we’ve added eleven people here and, you know, so far, I mean, its been very gratifying. I mean, we’ve had about fifty people we brought in for interviews. People that are just down on their luck getting laid off, can’t find a job, you know, the mold business is being shipped overseas, and the people, you ought to see just the glare in their eye when they come in and we’re interviewing them, you know, offering these positions and everything. And like I said, we’ve got eleven people in place right now and once we get things full steam ahead with all of our equipment, we have intentions of adding six or seven people here within a year, a couple of part-time positions, but it’s a big boost for our economy here in Evansville. I mean, the tool trade definitely needs this boost. I mean, there’s a lot of shops here in town I deal with regularly. There’s four of them, I mean, they work anywhere from thirty-two to forty hours a week. They come in on Mondays and they’re told, well, we’re going to work twenty-four hours this week. We don’t have enough work to justify you guys working forty. So, as you all know, its hard to make a living week to week, and the stress in this day and age of, you know, trying to raise a family and, you know, get a better life for your kids. And its very tough. So, you know, I think with this addition that we’ve created here in Evansville, you know, it’s a good thing and I continue to see, you know, going forward, you know, a four or five year plan, you know, I could see us adding more people here. The prices that we’re doing stuff internally is a lot cheaper than the outside. You know, we’re focused on growth and for the customers. So this is a good thing going forward.

Councilmember Winnecke: And Kevin, so your five year plan is to onboard twenty-five new employees, is that correct?

Jim Kratochvil: We’ve committed to eighteen. Two part-time and we’re working up towards that number.

Councilmember Leader: Mr. Pennington, would you elaborate on, you talked about the local tool trade, shops you work with, can you elaborate on that relationship a little bit, how many people that affects, as well?

Kevin Pennington: In the Evansville area, I would say there’s probably, you know, with the four or five shops that we deal with and they’re the bigger shops here in town, they probably employ a hundred to a hundred and twenty people probably. And probably fifteen to twenty of those people came to our facility within the last month looking for work, you know, because they’re tired of the week to week, not knowing what they’re going to be working. And there’s two or three shops, I really feel, that within the next year, I mean, they could close their doors, just from the outside looking in, but I know the clientele they’re doing business with and a lot of those jobs went overseas. And we have an outstanding relationship with a couple shops: Evansville Tool & Die, which is next door to us and Dexterous Tool, that we do a lot of work with them. We outsource to those two shops to try to help out there. So we do feel we are keeping –

Jim Kratochvil: I want to make one additional comment here. It isn’t just the people in the jobs here, as well, a lot of these tools, you know, Kevin’s tool shop is not just

servicing Evansville. Its serving corporate needs across the country. So what happens here is a lot of the vendors that deal now with Evansville instead of dealing with Chicago, there’s a lot of things we’ve had to source out in the past. We’ve increased the amount of equipment capability that he has. So a lot of jobs that we would have to outsource to Canada or to other places around the country, now can come here. So it’s not just the jobs. You know, its all the vendors that provide to us and who we’re servicing, that were not here before. It’s not like we’re robbing from this shop in Evansville to bring in –

Councilmember Leader: And that’s really where I was going, to get a clear understanding of your vendor relationships.

Jim Kratochvil: No, this is supporting our closure business, which is really not located in Evansville, it’s supporting our thermo-forming business, which is now in Evansville and in Kansas, that tooling, this is supporting a lot of repair jobs and building stacks from various (inaudible) that we could not do before.

President Abell: Just a moment, we’re going over something. I’m sorry, Mr. Sutton, did you have –

President Abell: We did not vote on this preliminary, right? We haven’t voted on the preliminary? What we’re going to vote on today is granting them the waiver.

Jeff Ahlers: You could vote on it today, if you want, I don’t know if everybody brought it with them. I forgot to bring my copy –

Jeff Ahlers: It was in the packet like, a month ago, and I don’t know if the representative from GAGE, I remember I spoke to them a month and a half ago, did you go ahead and notice the preliminary for today, as well?

Julie Gorman: Excuse me. In the legal ad, we put notice in for waiver. You don’t have to put a notice in for the preliminary. We went ahead and put a notice in for the confirming and for the waiver, today.

Jeff Ahlers: Okay. So the preliminary can be done after the waiver, assuming the waiver is passed. Its just that I don’t know if everybody brought their copy with them. But if you remember what it says...

President Abell: Are we ready to vote on the waiver? Is everybody – Mr. Sutton, did you have a question?

President Abell: Let’s vote on the waiver and then I’ll find out your pleasure, whether you want to do the preliminary at this time. We have a motion and a second on the floor, we’ve had discussion, now roll call vote.

Councilmember Sutton: I was going to make just a brief comment before I vote. I know you guys wish, and I appreciate your explanation, you know, you wanted to try to meet the timeliness guidelines on this and it does place us in somewhat of an uncomfortable position as you’ve probably already heard, and we appreciate what this company has meant to our county and our city, and it is a vital part, but I’m going to go ahead and vote yes on this waiver.

President Abell: Have you found the preliminary? Did you look for the preliminary? We could vote on it now, I’m just wondering if anyone wants to see it, that’s why I wondered if you had a copy of it.

President Abell: Mr. Winnecke has a copy of the preliminary that we had last time. Some people didn’t –

President Abell: Does anyone want to look at it or do you remember what it said?

President Abell: Let’s ask GAGE to do that, to tell us what the recommendation is.

Julie Gorman: The project scored a hundred points and ten bonus points, that was equivalent to eight years and that was for the real property. The personal property scored a hundred and five points, with five bonus points and is equivalent to nine years.

Julie Gorman: For the real property it was a hundred and ten points, that included the bonus and the regular original points, and that was equivalent to eight years. The personal property scored a hundred and five points, plus five bonus points, that is equivalent to nine years.

Jeff Ahlers: The motion either needs to do one of two things, either you can, first of all, just declare it an economic revitalization area and then set in the years, or, if in the motion declaring it an economic revitalization area, set in the number of years, so I just want to make sure that we understand what your pleasure is, whoever makes the motion.

Jeff Ahlers: On the preliminary resolution, what you can do is, you can make a motion that the preliminary resolution be passed to declare it an economic revitalization area. Once that passes, you know, then another motion can be made to set in the years. Or, if you believe there’s a consensus on the number of years in your motion declaring it an economic revitalization area, you can also state that it would be for X number of years and pass it all at once. Now at the confirming resolution, you can modify the number of years next month, if there’s a change of heart. But, you know, I just wanted to make sure you understood that you can either do it in two parts or one part. So I don’t know if there is a recommendation and somebody wants to make a motion based on the recommendation or whether a Councilman has a different motion they want to make. So you can do it either way and I just wanted to clarify in light of on our last one, so that you understand that it can be done in pieces or it can all be done at once on the preliminary, however you chose to do it.

President Abell: It’s up to you, Mr. Goebel, it’s your motion. But remembering that we can still modify it at our next meeting.

Councilmember Goebel: Yes, I make a motion that we declare the area an economic revitalization, nine years as suggested on equipment and one year less on the score card as far as the actual – what’s the word? Real property. So seven years and nine years. Thank you.

Councilmember Shetler: I’ll second and keep this in mind, though. We can change this again next month if we decide to go to the nine and eight or eight and eight, whatever.

Jeff Ahlers: That’s correct. On the confirming resolution you can modify what is passed on the preliminary.

Councilmember Winnecke: Just a question. The move to get it to seven is based on the fact that, given the circumstances?

Councilmember Goebel: That’s correct. And I think Berry is aware of that and they definitely are a great industry to have in our community, so we want to keep them here. Thank you.

President Abell: Now you do realize that we will vote on this again? Okay, I just want everybody to be as clear as mud here.

President Abell: Thank you. All Councilmen need to sign this waiver of non-compliance which is being passed around right now.

President Abell: I thought they were just indicating they gave it to us. Did GAGE have a comment on the letter, the QTR?

Councilmember Sutton: I know I was one of the ones that made comments about the compliance issue. I’d like for, at least to have their letter read into the record. I mean, I think they give an explanation, but I think we need to at least have that read into the record, if you do have that. If you don’t, I have it.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay. This was written on August 8^th to Libbie Au, Growth Alliance for Greater Evansville, and it’s concerning their employment for tax phase-in that we questioned that they were below the levels that we had anticipated. So this is their response:

“In response to your letter regarding our tax phase-in compliance, I was very surprised and concerned that you would believe that we are not meeting our commitments for estimated employment. It was our understanding when we went through the tax phase-in application process that we were to include all jobs that will be generated over the next five years for the investment in the new facility and equipment. The application has no place to list the increase in employment by year, so the total increase for all years is shown as one number. We worked closely with Rob Schaefer (who was with DMD) to accurately complete the application. We also believe we presented to the County Council in detail that the job creation would occur over the next five years as we grew our business to fill the constructed facility.

As we moved into the new facility, we immediately increased our employment by seventeen jobs, from thirty-five to fifty-two jobs. Additional employment will be created as we fill the capacity of our facility with additional sales. We anticipate over the next two years we will expand our workforce by at least the additional thirteen positions needed to meet our target total employment of sixty-five jobs.

President Abell: Okay, I think we’re ready for Mr. Korb or Mr. Rector to talk to us about the demolition of the old jail.

Jeff Korb: Good morning, my name is Jeff Korb, County Commissioner President. Commissioner Nix is in Louisiana on business and I was asked to fill in for him. Commissioner Nix, it’s my understanding, and David Rector have met with each of you in the past several weeks regarding the old jail demolition and additional video arraignment for Circuit Court. It was decided that the Commissioners would request the Building Authority to solicit quotes for the project. Bids have been received and opened in the Building Authority board meeting on 8/26/08. We will be requesting the Council for appropriation of monies of $920,00 from the Jail set aside fund. This amount covers the cost of the low bid demolition quote and alternate for the old rec yard roof, Circuit Court video arraignment, contingency and engineering and architectural fees for the bidding specifications and the build out design of the second floor space. This request will be on your September 24^th agenda for action at your October 1^st meeting. Any questions?

Councilmember Winnecke: Of the $920,000, how much is demolition and how much is – is any of that rebuild?

Dave Rector: There is a little bit of – Dave Rector, Building Authority. There is some rebuild in there with the reuse of cellblocks, 21, -2 and -3, and relocating the central control unit for the deputies, so there is some build out in that, yes.

Councilmember Winnecke: So then, as we discuss moving the entire assessor function to this area, that will be an additional expense?

Councilmember Winnecke: Okay. And is there any idea, will the city take over any of this new space?

Dave Rector: The city – not on the second floor, no, they are not wanting any of that. There is some thought on the third floor, the city has expressed an need for some additional space for the Controller’s Office to combine Purchasing in there. I don’t know whether they’re going to pursue that or not. And they’ve also, I’m hesitating here, wondering if I’m supposed to say this or not, yet. They’re looking at another need on the third floor that may come about. I’m not trying to be coy. It was through the Personnel Department, if I ought to offer it up here.

Councilmember Winnecke: That’s alright. But this $920,000 is only second floor demolition –

Dave Rector: Second floor demolition. Also the engineering, architectural fees to design the build out for what that may become, and also then for an alternate one, which is the demolition of the old rec yard roof area to get those problems corrected.

Councilmember Winnecke: And of the $920,000, how much is dedicated for the Circuit Court video arraignment?

Dave Rector: A hundred and twenty-five thousand. That was for both Circuit Courts also, the main large one and the micro circuit.

Councilmember Sutton: And what kind of timetable are you guys – if this is approved at our meeting next month, what kind of timetable are you looking at? You’ve already got –

Dave Rector: I’d better, and perhaps Council Attorney Ahlers can answer this, we could request the quotes before funding is in place, we can’t award the bid until funding is in place. We meet on the 30^th. You guys then meet on the 1^st, I don’t know if our board can award it contingent to your vote or not. If we can’t, then we’re going to have to try to call a special meeting, but the contractor is ready to start immediately on us awarding the project. But could you address that?

Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, I would suggest on something like this that you make sure that, I mean, I would go ahead and take an abundance of caution. If that means having a special meeting to do so. Obviously, the final call as to what you do, I mean, Mr. Ziemer would have to make that call, so if he feels it appropriate, you can do that. But yeah, you can do like RFP’s, you know, request for proposals, but in terms of if you are making a request for binding bids, I think you need to have your money in place unless, you know, Mr. Ziemer thinks otherwise, since he would be the one that would advise you on that.

Dave Rector: And Joe and I have traded calls, but we’ll certainly – I’ll let Joe know what your thoughts were.

Councilmember Sutton: When is our next Personnel & Finance meeting? What is the date on that?

Councilmember Sutton: So is that a possibility to, at that meeting, as opposed to calling a special meeting, you meet on the 30^th, right?

Dave Rector: Yeah, on the 30^th, I’ll request them, say, hey guys, can you come back the day after tomorrow? All we need is, you know, a quorum to do it. I just didn’t have the answer to this yet as to how we’re going to have to address it.

Councilmember Sutton: The other thing, at what point will we kind of see the – we’ve had some preliminary drawings, when will we see the layout of this new space and what will go in there?

Dave Rector: Once everybody agrees. We have probably twenty-four different scenarios that could happen over there. I think we have finally settled on the one at this time, is where we all talked with Commissioner Nix about moving the Assessor’s group down there, because they are so large now. I think that’s where the Commissioners and the Council are at this time. But no official vote or decision, I don’t think has been made to say yes, that’s what we’re going to design around.

Councilmember Sutton: One other issue as we’re kind of talking about, is there any thoughts or consideration about security in that area? Is that something that might need to be factored in here as we kind of rolled in discussions really with all parts of this building?

Dave Rector: We have, the Mayor, Commissioner Korb, the Sheriff, Chief of Police, and Councilwoman Abell met about two or three weeks ago to address building security and we left that meeting with identifying there is a more prominent need and we’re working towards that.

Dave Rector: And I’ll let Councilwoman Abell or Commissioner Korb say anything more if they’d like at this time.

Jeff Korb: I’ve learned that saying less is more, is better for me, so I won’t say much on that other than the fact that we’ve left it with the Sheriff to come up with a plan and the city Police Chief, Mr. Hill, and they’ll come back with their recommendation. Also, I’m going to ask Dave to elaborate for just a moment about the additional holding areas, that these fees also contain. Sally port.

Dave Rector: This has nothing to do with a sally port at this time. We’re going to address the holding needs for the Sheriff in cellblocks 21, -2 and -3. We all thought that with the video arraignment in Circuit, it may further reduce the number of prisoners coming back and could dramatically affect the size of this proposed sally port.

Jeff Korb: Which means maybe not even have to have it because we had talked about over a million dollars for putting one in. And by incorporating these changes now, we feel like we’re going to be able to greatly reduce that.

Councilmember Sutton: Mr. Fluty, I don’t have a – for some reason, I didn’t get a copy of our balances on our various accounts with this request that would come before us from the Jail set aside fund. What would be the balance in that account if this proposal moves forward?

Bill Fluty: Right now, you have $2,914,342, and I believe they’re asking for 920,000, so you’ll just be a little under $2,000,000, if it’s granted.

Jeff Ahlers: Something I wanted to point out, Ms. Deig reminded me that there is a delay in terms of when Council approves and appropriates the money, that I guess it can take the state a few weeks before they approve it. So you may want to have Mr. Harrison call me or get with me, because one of the questions may be that we may not be – it could be a little more problematic than just a one or two day delay, that if it’s an issue to get the money in place, it needs to be approved by the state, we may have a three week gap here. So you know, if you guys think you need special meetings or something like that, you probably ought to get with us right away or whether – you know.

Dave Rector: Like I said, Joe and I have been trading calls. Hopefully, we’ll connect today.

President Abell: Any other questions or comments? Well, I just have a comment, but you probably neither one can do anything about it at this point, but we’re paying to –

President Abell: Well, because we’re paying to tear this area – to demolition this area, we’re going to pay to fix this area up to put the Assessors in, then we’re going to pay rent to have the Assessor in there. I don’t know any other business where we pay to do all the renovations and then we also have to pay rent on it.

President Abell: Bad vision. That rent should go back to replenish the $900,000 we’re going to loan you to fix it up. Just a comment on the contract.

President Abell: Any other questions or comments for them? You think you know what you’ve got to do? Okay, thank you.

President Abell: Is there anything else that we haven’t possibly covered this morning to come before this Council? Then we stand adjourned until September 24^th.

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:04 a.m.)

1010-3603	Record Storage	20,000.00	20,000.00
Total		20,000.00	20,000.00

1050-1971	Accrued Payments	32,000.00	32,000.00
Total		32,000.00	32,000.00

1090-1972	Level II Certification	500.00	500.00
1090-1900	FICA	39.00	39.00
1090-1910	PERF	37.00	37.00
Total		576.00	576.00

1361-1850	Union Overtime	20,000.00	20,000.00
Total		20,000.00	20,000.00

2010-1026-2010	Truck Driver	1.00	1.00
2010-1037-2010	Equipment Operator	1.00	1.00
Total		2.00	2.00

2030-4417	Baseline Road Bridge	1,250,000.00	1,250,000.00
Total		1,250,000.00	1,250,000.00

2490-1020-3530	Contractual Services	900,000.00	900,000.00
Total		900,000.00	900,000.00

2780-1530	Shift Differential	1,400.00	1,400.00
Total		1,400.00	1,400.00

2861-3130	Travel/Mileage	700.00	700.00
2861-3310	Training	1,000.00	1,000.00
2861-3313	Education & Public Access	2,500.00	2,500.00
Total		4,200.00	4,200.00

From: 1050-1130-0088	Deputy	55.00	55.00
1050-1130-0064	Deputy	275.00	275.00
To: 1050-1130-0057	Deputy	55.00	55.00
1050-1130-0028	Deputy	275.00	275.00

From: 1361-1360-1361	Confinement Officer	326.00	326.00
To: 1361-1200-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1210-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1220-1361	Confinement Officer	293.00	293.00
1361-1250-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1260-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1310-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1320-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1330-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1340-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1370-1361	Confinement Officer	20.00	20.00
1361-1380-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1390-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1410-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1440-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00
1361-1450-1361	Confinement Officer	1.00	1.00

2160-2210	Gas & Oil	50,000.00	40,000.00
Total		50,000.00	40,000.00