COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM
107 W. LOCUST STREET
WARRICK
The Warrick County Council
met in regular session in the Warrick County Courthouse, Commissioners
Meeting Room, 107 W. Locust Street,
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lead by David Hachmeister.
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS:
Cheyenne Phillips: Gary Meyer, here; Robert Addington,
present; Raymond Bracher, here; David Hachmeister, here; Ray McIntyre, present;
Joe Schitter, here; Greg Richmond, here.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
David Hachmeister: I have one small typo on page three. Toward the
bottom of the page, myself speaking, it states ‘if we would
compensation’, it should be ‘if we would compensate’.
Joe Schitter: I have one on page four, about the middle of the
page, Greg Granger, it says ‘as long as it is compensation’, I
think is should say ‘as long as it is not compensation’. Then
I had one on page nine, myself speaking, top of the page, ‘I continue’
it should be ‘I will continue’.
Gary Meyer: Any others?
MOTION: David Hachmeister
made the motion to approve the Minutes as corrected.
SECOND: Raymond Bracher
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Gary Meyer: We are going to deviate from the agenda just for a
second. I have been requested to move an item, the Department of Economic
Development , Epworth Road Improvement . An additional appropriation of
$72,400.00. We have been asked to move that to the
front. While you are coming up, I have a couple of things I
would like to say about this. It has been brought to my attention.
The Council did not understand or know and no one was there that would tell us
what this was for at the last meeting so this is the reason it was not
approved. Since the last meeting, there has been a lot of statements made
that the Council is not in favor of Economic Development because this was not
approved. By the public and by elected officials and I would like to say
as a Council member and President of the Council that I hope this Council
continues to ask, if you don’t know something is for, that we ask for an
explanation of what the money is going to be for. Those of you that were
here, knew that we were not questioning the amount of money, only what the
money was going to be used for and no body was able to give us that
answer. I don’t think that this in any way reflects a negative
connotation from the Council as far as Economic Development.
We just wanted to know what that money was going to be used for and no body
gave us that answer. The people that were here said this would not effect
the project as far as delaying the project at all. We were
accused of that. So I just wanted to make that statement before you went
ahead.
Rick Martin: Thank you
Gary Meyer: It is my understanding that the, from what I read in
that report, the $72,400 is a little bit inflated to cover any additional
expenses that you may have.
Brian Litherland: That cost is the maximum that would be
incurred potentially with the services purchase of property. Depends on
how much property is being purchased off each individual. That effects
different type of processes to be instigated to do this process. So it is
hard to say before the project starts which processes will have to be done to
purchase property off of the various parcels out there. So the number
that is there is the maximum number that would be incurred if all of them would
happen to go what we call the worse case scenario. Depending on how some
of the parcels are impacted or purchased if there happens to be some
donations or something like that. Other processes would be utilized that
are much cheaper.
Gary Meyer: Basically these are the expenses due to purchasing
the right of way
Brian Litherland: Correct. Appraisal fees, transfer documents,
exactly, a few appraisals, if needed. This property is being purchased
under the assumption that if mutual agreements aren’t there, then other
processes will be taken to acquire the property so that instigates certain
procedures rather than other procedures.
Bob Addington: We will only be billed for the amount of monies that
are actually spent on this?
Brian Litherland: That is correct. The same even goes for the right
of way engineering agreement that you all have already approved. There
are some processes even within that, that should even lower the amount that you
already approved for the engineering agreement as well. But again, just
to make sure that it is there and you guys are aware of what the total possible
cost is that you are approving, the worst case scenario was assumed for each of
the parcels, as you found out, it is on a per parcel basis that these cost are
developed.
Gary Meyer: That explains a lot to me, thank you. Anybody
else?
MOTION: Joe Schitter made the
motion to approve $72,400.00.
SECOND: Ray McIntyre
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Gary Meyer: Okay we will go back to the front of the agenda.
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
REPORT:
Area Plan:
Larry Willis: Vice President of
Sherri Phillips: Executive Director. I do want to give you a new
letter and I apologize the first letter, it was misunderstood, I wanted to be
placed on the Personnel Committee Agenda, and not this agenda. Also, I
was directed by the Area Planning Commission Board to submit the request.
I didn’t realize that I should have the Board members submit it. So
that is why you are getting the new letter. So that is why you are
getting the new letter and we would like for this to be tabled until we do meet
with the Personnel Committee first. If you have any idea of when that
would be, I would like to know.
Gary Meyer: They pretty much meet on call so Greg is
the Chairman so he can probably set that up tonight.
MOTION: Raymond Bracher made
the motion to table.
SECOND: Ray McIntyre
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Gary Meyer: Get with Greg and he can set that up.
TOWN OF NEWBURGH Infrastructure of Newburgh Sewer Department - Mae
Mason:
Gary Meyer: It says Mae Mason but I believe it is Sherry Sherman
presenting it.
Sherry Sherman: Thank you, my name is Sherry Sherman, I am on the
Newburgh Town Council and I am also the Sewer Commissioner for the Town.
I am here to talk to you tonight, to give you some information and kind of a
‘heads up’ of where we are with the Newburgh Sewer Department and
what directions we are headed as we look at continued growth in the Newburgh
area and Warrick County in general. So I did bring a slide presentation.
We are going to roll on through this here. We have the existing collector
system which consists of three sub systems. One of them is the Cypress
Creek interceptor which is the Southern most route. We also have the Northeast
interceptor which is the middle East and some of you that have been on the
Council will remember that is the Pecka Ditch Project. Then we also have
victoria which is the North and the East route. Newburgh has experienced
linear growth in the last decade or more and in 1990 we had 4,799 customers by
2000 we had 7,007 customers, 2003 we reached 7,470 customers and we expect to
reach 9,041 by the year 2010. So it is growing. In 1990 we sold 138
taps, 1995 we sold 261, 2002 we were up to 358, and for planning purposes we are
averaging 224 annual tap ins and those are considered residential taps.
Flows in the system, in 1990 we had an average flow of 1.652 million gallons,
in 1995 we were up to 1.96 million gallons, and 2000we had risen to 2.243
million gallons. By 2010 we are expected to reach 4.121 million gallons
per day. Our current loading effect on the system, green is listed
as adequate, yellow is marginal. This is what our map looks like right
now. As you are looking at it, the green to the far right is
the Victoria, the cypress Creek is along the southern route and you will notice
we have some marginal going into green and then going back into yellow which
again is marginal. As we are looking at that, the center one is our
Northeast interceptor. And we see going from green to marginal, back to
green and then back to marginal. So this is what our current system looks
like right now. Now the effect if we do nothing, this is what is going to
happen. Red is over capacity, yellow is marginal and green is adequate
and this is the direction we are heading looking at the 2010 projection.
We still have plenty of growth and capacity on the Victoria side but as you are
looking at everything else, it goes just about completely red. If you
look at the very southern part where you see that green, while it is green it
goes into red so in essence it is for all practical purposes it is over
capacity. So we are looking at that now. We have a flow modeling
study which Newburgh undertook a computerized flow study in 2001 and this
modeling is updated and added to the new commercial growth since 2001.
What this system does is project our growth and future and immediate growth is
occurring both the Cypress Creek interceptor and the Northeast interceptor
basins. And both of those are on the West side of Warrick
county in Ohio Township, they both are effectively West of
Newburgh. Both basins reflect marginal collector system capacity at
this particular time. We looked at solutions. The existing system
improvement with improvements with a single waste water treatment plant, we
looked at a new master lift station with improvements to a single waste water
treatment plant and we also looked at construction of a second waste water
treatment plant west of Newburgh and the connections to that.
Option two was selected as the least cost and the quickest to build.
Option two can be done in stages while Option one and three would have to be
done in unstaged projects. And just to refresh, Option Two is the Single
Waste Water Treatment Plant with a Master Lift Station and force main to the
plant. Neither option one or three can be completed in less than five to
seven years. Stage one of Option Two can be done within two years.
Stage one of Option Two is the construction of some gravity sewers.
Redirection of some existing lift stations and the force main and construction
of a new master lift station force main North and West of Newburgh to the
existing plant which is North and East of Newburgh. We can finish that
within two years to meet the needs of the County. When we are looking at
this we are looking at the expected growth along 66 as it grows, when the
construction is completed there you are looking at a lot of property along
North of 66 that is available. Also this takes into consideration along
the Epworth Project that is expected to be completed by December of 2005.
The added benefit of this is that it unloads the Pecka Ditch interceptor and it
increased the life capacity for redevelopment along 261, along the north corridor.
We are seeing a lot more growth there as more business is continuing to look at
the road between Newburgh and Boonville. This is the project that we
looked at and this is for informational purposes only. We have not gone into
a stage where we are actually looking at land but what this does, this is for
informational purposes only, shows what the master lift and force main would
effectively do immediately is turn all the lines to green and allow extra
capacity in every single line along the way. Cost. We use Umbaugh
for our financial advisor and Commonwealth Engineer is our engineer on this
project. Phase 1 of Option 2 is projected to cost 6.4 million dollars in
construction cost and added for the debt service reserve that we are required
to pay, bond sales, real estate acquisitions and other cost will likely push
the price close to 7.4 million. Phase 2 of Option 2 includes improvements
to the waste water treatment plant those will be needed by 2010. They are
projected to cost ten million dollars and would increase the capacity of the
current system to 4.6 to 6.5 million gallons a day, dry weather flow.
Each option was studied for cost, functionality and time. When they are
compared to the total net cost basis, Option 1 cost out at $20,694,000.
Option 1 was the upgrade to the single system and upgrading all the lines along
the way. Option 2 is $20,383,000 and Option 3 which was a new plant
on the West side of town, came in at $22,332,000. Impact on Rates.
If we have no County participation, the rate increase for Phase 1 Option would
be a 14% outside and 3% inside the town. We are looking at the average
5000 gallon a day user would be paying $37.58 outside and $27.55 inside.
The added work to have the plant upgraded is also going to impact the
rates. Any contribution by the County can decrease the rates outside the
town. An example is if the County participates at $500,000 a year, for 20
years, the rate increase effectively would be 3% across the board. Direct
cash grants by the County would decrease the rate increase by reducing the
amount borrowed and also the debt service reserve that we are required to
pay. For each million dollars we do not have to borrow, the rate increase
goes down. Three million dollars required the same increase as $300,000
per year for 20 years which would effectively be 9% outside and 3%
inside. So that is our presentation. This is mainly as an
F.Y.I. information to give you as a ‘heads up’ because we are
talking to a number of groups. We are going to the EDAC next week to do
this very same presentation to try to get everybody in sync with what is
happening, a ‘heads up’ because we are looking at how we can
collectively fund this and how we can make this thing happen for, actually for
the whole County. This is an added benefit to the entire County. We
have a number of things that are happening along 66 along Epworth Road and when
the roads are done, with this system, we will be able to have the sewers ready
to go and be able to take the County forward as it goes. I will
open it up and ask if you have any questions.
Gary Meyer: Does anybody have any questions?
Ray McIntyre: On the one map where you talk about the
spotted red line, I take it that was the new forced main?
Sherry Sherman: Yes. That would be the new forced main and that
is just, you had to put a dot on the map, and put a dot there, that does not
indicate any particular route, we have not we have not sited any particular
spot.
Ray McIntyre: And that turns all that yellow and red into green
without changing them at all?
Sherry Sherman: Absolutely. If we did the one system is
upgraded all the other lines which is option 1 we would have to do a lot more
construction along the way, so to disrupt the fewest number of people we are
looking, and also for the cost, we are looking at that would be the most
economical way to go and the fastest because we can do that. We
anticipate about nine months in the planning stage, and to acquire land, and we
are looking at about a year to build. We are moving forward but we need
to know how we can get this paid for.
Bob Addington: On the East side, was the Victoria? That
main...
Sherry Sherman: Victoria has plenty of capacity at this time because
there is not as much growth along the very East side of the collector
system. If anyone wants to build along that we have plenty of
capacity. The other areas, there are some areas that are marginal, and we
have to look at it on a case by case right now. But we are looking
at how can we balance this. That area has been growing by leaps and
bounds and grows faster than we can anticipate and we are just trying to stay
ahead of the game and we as of now, as you saw, we are looking at the way
things are. We are almost to a cross road, especially in some of the
collection systems along the way where it is getting very tight. It does
make a difference.
Bob Addington: The West side is then the critical spot.
Sherry Sherman: The West side is the critical, that is where the
most growth is. We are seeing more and more growth, when 66 is complete I
am sure the Economic Development hopes that there is going to be a lot of
businesses that want to go in there. We certainly hope so we would like
to have the sewers in place and ready to go we thing that would be an added
incentive for economic development in that area. Have a new road along
Epworth and 66 but they are going to ask where are the sewers. We are
going to be asking for EDIT on along term basis to help fund this. The
EDIT monies coming in from the additional growth will offset the money that is
going to be required to pay it back. We are looking at a way that
it can be a win, win situation for everyone.
Bob Addington: The Deaconess Hospital, you say you are able to take
care of that?
Sherry Sherman: We can handle Deaconess right now. That is
anticipated to be on line in December of next year. Three months ago we
did not know about the two 80,000 square foot office buildings that were
attached to that. Deaconess in that area is going to be about the
breaking point but that is not the one thing, if you look at, we have a
developer along the Southern part of Epworth Road and they are putting in 500
homes. While there is not 500 homes there right now, we have already
reserved those 500 home capacity in our planning process because we don’t
know when those are going to come. But that is 500 households that have
already been reserved. It is really a juggling act so that we can maintain
that capacity but at some point, all the balls are going to be up in the air
and they will fall if we don’t get something going. So that
is where we are looking at. We are also looking at the expected growth
along the Epworth Road North, when that goes.
Ray McIntyre: Did I understand that if you built a new plant by the
time it was done, that was 20 million something? A new plant on the West
side.
Sherry Sherman: That is not in our plans at this time. What we
are looking at by 2010 we have the capacity at the present plant to upgrade
that and that is what we are looking at for 2010.
Ray McIntyre: Nothing is for a new plant?
Sherry Sherman: A new plant? No. At this point the
master lift station and the force main to the plant can take that capacity and
then by 2010, we will need to upgrade the current plant to take the additional
capacity. Where it goes from there. The balancing act is the
Federal government doesn’t let us build bigger than we need so we have to
build what we anticipate and we can’t over build. So this is where
we are looking at to make sure.
But at this time we are not
looking to build a new plant on the West side. This will get us past 2010
with the current system, lift station , force main and 2010 additional upgrade to
the system.
Gary Meyer: Any other questions? Thank you very
much. You are going to EDAC?
Sherry Sherman: We are going to EDAC next week and I will be
back. We will have exact numbers and ready to talk.
TAX ABATEMENTS:
American Cold
Storage-North America, L.P. - CF-1:
Sue Gibbens: Glenda Gorges from American Cold Storage called me
today and she is ill and can not be here tonight. She did tell me that
everything is the same as last year on their CF-1 form, no changes.
MOTION: Greg Richmond made
the motion to continue the abatement.
SECOND: David Hachmeister
Bob addington: Is this in the last year or the next to the last
year?
Ray McIntyre: It was ten years, looks like three years are left.
Gary Meyer: Any further discussion on the motion?
VOTE:
6 Ayes 1 Nay (Gary Meyer)
Rine Enterprises, LLC -
CF-1:
Jim Rine: I submitted this form and you will notice the
benefits are lower than we originally estimated and basically what happened is
we said last year, about the time we borrowed and spent all this money to build
the building the economy went in the tank. We are coming back, we have
actually had to hire some people recently, so we are starting to see some
improvement. I shouldn’t say that should I?
Gary Meyer: Sometimes the least you say, the better. Any
body have any questions?
David Hachmeister: Although you are down on your commitment as far as
employees, I guess we would like for you to get as close to your commitment as
possible.
MOTION: David Hachmeister
made the motion to approve the continuation.
SECOND: Joe Schitter
VOTE:
4 Ayes 3 Nays (Gary Meyer, Ray McIntyre and Bob
Addington)
Jim Rine: A lady in the Auditors office gave me a copy for you
to sign on the back. Do you want me to give this to you.
Joe Schitter:
I think we have the original right here.
Jim Rine: Thank you.
Broadway Summit, LLC -
SB-1: (requires Preliminary Resolution # if passed):
Sue Gibbens: While Jim is passing out the information I would just
like to say that EDAC has reviewed this tax abatement request as presented to
you on this project and voted to make a favorable recommendation for the
allowable tax abatement by law for this project. So of the positive
things that were discussed about this project were that it is a 2.3 million
project in new construction, there will be 100 new jobs, and the average wage
of $12.00 per hour. I am sure Jim will cover a lot of this in his
presentation but 1.2 million in new wages, another million for annual spend for
local services. That they receive some of their other locations around
500,000 visitors each year which means tourism dollars to Warrick County.
It is a very big draw in the tourism arena. They are involved in a lot of
neighborhood and community activities. This would also increase the
property assessment on the ground for immediate tax revenue increase and about
40% of the employees will be involved in manufacturing. The buildings
will meet the code of the covenants and restrictions for development.
Jim, I will turn it over to you.
Jim Vincent: Thank you I appreciate you taking the time to
discuss the project. I want to make a comment. We have evaluated
several locations in Counties surrounding this area and we have had some of the
best cooperation with the people in this building, with your surveyor, your
building and codes, your streets and highway, I just want to applaud some of
the efforts they have put forth helping us understand our project in better
detail. The main thing I want to communicate is, this is a fairly well
know operation here in Indiana. This operation we are proposing for the
Warrick County area is a corporate headquarters people who are interested in
franchising this operation in several states around this area.
Specifically the St Louis area a branch in Missouri, Louisville, Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky. We believe as a corporation that we do not have the
capability to support some of those operations if we don’t successfully
develop our own model operation and we have chosen a couple of sights here in
the Southern Indiana corridor, Vanderburgh County and Warrick County, we have
narrowed it down to two sites. We will place all of our corporate
operations out of that location. And also our model operation for the
restaurant and also for the furniture. So this will not only be an
operating facility but also a production facility. I don’t know if
anybody has noticed this but we have rolled out our distributive products in
the Buehler locations on the West side of Evansville, First Avenue in
Evansville, Darmstadt and Morgan Avenue, and we will be in Boonville and the
Newburgh location in the next two weeks. These are our wholesale
products that we manufacture. I brought some examples with me tonight
that I can share with you tonight. In our operation that we propose for
Warrick County, not only will we manufacture these products but we will also
demonstrate the manufacturing for the public and also for people who are
intending to sell our products in other locations. We have about 130
different UPC codes or SKU’s of products we distribute or produce on site
and we have twelve stores also in the Marsh Stores in Indianapolis today that
we have already rolled out. Again, this is a fairly significant operation
from the standpoint that we will have about 10,000 square feet of the building
dedicated solely to corporate office activity. Another 15,000 square feet
is related to food production in the restaurant operation and another 12,000
square feet is related to the furniture operation, cabinet design. Things
of that nature. If I could I was going to take you quickly through this
handout that I gave you. I know you are pressed for time, But again A,
who we are, this is the headquarters for our operation and a training center
for our U.S. Franchise operations. This is headquarters for our wholesale
food operation, we are currently as I mentioned, in Buehler and Marsh. We
will end up in about 20 of the Buehler locations when we are complete with our
roll out which will be mid summer. Our manufacturing operations
physically on sight is baked goods and canned items. What we plan to
accomplish in 2004, we will put our wholesale food operation R&D operation
our corporate offices, our meeting rooms, our training facilities, will be in
operation. Our model restaurant, our food production operations will in
operation. That is line C, 15,000 square feet and line D, is model
furniture and cabinet design that is 12,000 square feet. We believe just
based on the activities that we have had in our original location in Washington
that there will be quite a bit of demand for other crafts and arts activities
that we plan to support in the surrounding area around our
operation. This is a very family oriented development, we
have a section devoted to history of the organization that we will replicate in
all the future suites. And we expect to have a park setting outdoors
which can support other activities. Not only related to the
restaurant but to the people we bring into Warrick County for training.
We certainly intend to house people who are going through our university so to
speak in Warrick County so we are hoping to see not only growth because of the
tourism activity but growth just because of our business activities and hotel
rooms and things of that nature. Just to break down some numbers, we
anticipate 100 new jobs that are broke down between management and retail
activities. There is about 1.5 million in new wages, a million
dollars for annual spend for local services in Warrick county. We have
active School to Work Programs and school fund raising that we do at our
original location today and we expect or anticipate about 400,000 visitors a
year. We know that we will have to work very closely in terms of working
with your existing tourism and also maybe developing some new tourism activity
for the county to communicate our presence here. But we think we
can accomplish based on the attitude and the willingness to work with us, that
the people have shown in your county. Number four, why we are asking for
the sliding ten year tax abatement. The bottom line is, it is a risky
move for us to go to a lower traffic corridor, 41 and 164 are the corridors
that our economic calculations point us toward. We like the site in
Warrick County we think it is possible to make it economically feasible.
We have a lot of people that work in the operation that also consider Warrick
County home. So we believe we can make the concept work here but it is going
to require some assistance we believe from the standpoint of making our revenue
numbers work. The land we are considering is vacant now, there is
infrastructure present, has been for several years and we believe on a very
fast track we can get an operation there. The current annual property tax
revenue is currently low, over time we think we can ramp up as we grow our
revenue numbers and not only be successful with our operation but contribute as
that sliding scale goes over the ten years and we contributed more and more tax
dollars each year. Another challenge that we anticipate is the
improvements that are planned for 261, they do have the potential to impact our
operation negatively while they are occurring, we think it will be positive
when they are complete. Equipment is another important part of our
operation, we have an extreme amount of equipment because of some of our
manufacturing operations and just the volume of activity that we do, we have
about $750,000 in equipment. At Sue’s request, I did a break down,
we submitted a detailed list of equipment for the abatement
application. We expect about $350,000 to be dedicated primarily to
what we call manufacturing and training operations and about $400,000 dedicated
primarily to retail operations. I would like to answer any questions, I
have some additional information with me.
Gary Meyer: Is retail operations your restaurant?
Ray McIntyre: Do you
manufacture furniture?
Jim Vincent: We do cabinets. But we custom design, it is
actually manufactured off site and distributed to the location but we do all
the technical design at this location. We do have some activities that
are demonstration related that are included but it is nominal. Not
significant portion of the equipment.
Bob Addington: The manufacture will not take place here?
Jim Vincent: On the furniture side. That is correct. All of
the manufacturing we will do today, we produce and can these
products. We have done a couple of things, we have selected a local
manufacturer in Evansville, Farm Boy to do our meat products, which require...
operations, which means they are cooked in the jar and they form a vacuum for
safety and seal. All of the non-meat products we actually produce within
our operation today. We have a candy store that is off site in Daviess
County and we intend to move it to this operation. And again demonstrate
our activities in addition to our actual production. These products are
also produced on site today in the operation and these will move directly to our
store. We have about 4,000 square feet that is dedicated to the
sale of our produced products, our baked items our pies, these type of jar
items we basically have 2,000 square feet just of jar items for sale within our
organization. That is a significant part of our business.
Joe Schitter: It sounds like this is not just like your restaurant
you have currently, this will be basically a sight where you can look into
franchising, bringing people here to see the operations. There is quite a
bit of acreage in the parcel that you are looking at so you would have the
ability to expand to other things related to that verses just a
restaurant.
Jim Vincent: I want to make sure, our building, our
primary building, over half of that is dedicated just to corporate
activities. Anyone who opens up one of these franchise operations will be
required to not only go through training activities at the site but to actually
work within the site for a period of time. So we have a partnership with
Vincennes University we are hoping we could extend that to the Universities
here locally here in Evansville as a feeder for our production
activities.
Joe Schitter: It looks like, just in pulling the
parcels off of the information you gave us, it looks like 12.38 acres.
But that includes the lake and everything. This is in Paradise
Park. That subdivision, just employing, asking for additional information
today, was started and developed in 2000. Right now only one lot has been
developed and that is Peoples Bank. So it has been sitting currently for
four years and in that neighborhood area the developers rate is $3600 per
lot. With it graduated as unusable. Undeveloped is $1000, unusable
undeveloped is $7500, secondary $15,.000 and primary $25,000.
David Hachmeister: You are asking for the equipment and the total
building which included the retail restaurant itself?
Jim Vincent: That is correct.
David Hachmeister: I don’t think we are allowed to give an
abatement on retail part of the restaurant.
Jim Vincent: I will make a comment. Our designer facility
which I have a small rendering of here, it consists of two levels. One
level is dedicated to corporate activity and a separate level is dedicated to
the retail activity. In my opinion there is segregation within the
facility and because of the size of the lot and pure economics we really do not
want to build two separate facilities if we can keep in the proximity of one
another. And from a training standpoint it makes it easier for people
to move from one level to another to participate in real activity verses
training.
Joe Schitter: There is a possibility on the restaurant part
or the retail part you would be using that as a training purpose also.
Jim Vincent: That is correct.
Joe Schitter: And as a model for franchising.
Greg Granger: Steve I think what you were alluding to is the statue
we discussed previously about, whether a facility is, the way the statue reads
is ‘any facility of primary purpose of which is retail food and beverage
services is not eligible for tax abatement.’ But from what I am
hearing tonight this is not just for a restaurant facility or even the primary
purpose, I guess if we were to add up the square footage or the acreage, or
whatever, if the primary purpose is not retail food and beverage they probably
could be eligible for abatement.
Jim Vincent: I will make a comment. We don’t
anticipate that our growth is going to allow us to do this within the first few
years, but organizations that we bench mark against normally have a pure
production facility which are dedicated to the projection of materials that
they can go to franchise operations. There is one in Tennessee that is
associated with the Golden Coral operation and again, it is a manufacturing
facility, it is completely dedicated as a feeder operation for soups and things
of that nature that get shipped to their operations. We intend at some
point in the future, to split those operations out but we don’t have any
idea when economically it is going to be feasible to do that. We would
like to, it is another reason why we see Warrick County as an attractive
location for us because it is central to the Southeast and the area that we are
operating today. It will be several years be believe, before we can
effectively split that operation out, although we do intend to support five
additional operations out of this facility with our production of
products. One company that we have used as a benchmark is the Cracker
Barrel operation, we certainly wouldn’t even pretend to think that we can
achieve that level of success. Today they have about 350 operating sites
and their headquarters in Lebanon, Tennessee which just by nature happens to be
where they started, but that facility contributes about 20 million per year in
both payroll and taxes to the location where they are. It has only been
about an 18 year story, that it has happened. I don’t think anybody
ever anticipated the potential economic impact. Again, we would hope to
even come close to a percentage of their success. That is the fundamental
principal behind the operation.
Gary Meyer: You state here in the application that you are
going to build two buildings?
Jim Vincent: Yes, the first building is two levels, the corporate and
the other is the furniture. That won’t be housed inside the
training operation.
Bob Addington: The $750,000 in equipment, that would be
in addition to the $350,000 that is primary to manufacturing?
Jim Vincent: That is the total number.
Bob Addington: But it is broken down into $350,000 primary for
manufacturing and $400,000 for the retail operation.
Jim Vincent: For the, certainly our desire would be to
incorporate all the equipment into the abatement program but to specifically
break it down, to what would be purely considered production manufacturing
operations verses what I call retail restaurant operations there is a split of
350 for production and 400 for retail. I will say this, we
will be open to itemizing these things to the auditor as they are
purchased. Because we will be submitting asset reports as the
acquisitions take place.
Joe Schitter: Greg, just as a, on the equipment and on the
split, understanding that some of the retail equipment is going to be used for
training purposes, and others. How does that fit in with only
manufacturing equipment being able to be used. Does that have any impact
at all on that, that you are aware of in the statute?
Greg Granger: The description I gave earlier, applied to real
property as far as the statue. For personal property for manufacturing
equipment, the statue reads, ‘manufacturing equipment,’ you need to
go to the definition of manufacturing and I think I gave you previously and I
don’t have it before me. But whether restaurant equipment falls
under the category of manufacturing equipment is the question.
Jim Vincent: I know some examples, I suspect we will qualify for a
utility tax abatement of sorts from the standpoint of the fact that our
consumption of utilities some of that is used to produce products which are
then done through distribution, not for resale to the public. Actually
today we operate in the Marsh and the Buehler locations all though sales of
course are non-taxed because they are sold directly into their distribution
channel and then they are sold to the public through their stores. So
that equipment I was breaking out is equipment that is utilized for the
production of the product that from a sales tax perspective is charged by
somebody else.
Greg Richmond: The procedure, first we need the Preliminary
Resolution and at that point, you can do two things, suspend the rules
unanimously to do so if we did it all in one night tonight.
Greg Granger: I am not so sure we can do that on abatement.
Greg Richmond: I am talking about the Preliminary Resolution.
Greg Granger: WE have to do a Preliminary Resolution establishing
an Economic Revitalization Area and there has to be a Confirming one. I
don’t think we can do both of those in one night.
Greg Richmond: After that, do we then establish the breakdown
according to the point system as to what the abatement would be or would that
come with the resolution?
Greg Granger: It comes with the resolution. You do the
number of years in your resolutions.
Joe Schitter: I do have that on new manufacturing equipment.
That qualifies machinery or equipment as defined in section six of this
rule. New manufacturing equipment includes new equipment that is, or used
equipment or brought from outside Indiana, special tooling, Production
manufacture, fabrication, assembly, extraction, mining processing, refining,
finishing, it is actually pretty wide open.
Gary Meyer: While we are looking at that, Mr. Springstun would
you like, Mr. Springstun is a part of REDAC and EDAC, would you like to address
the Board?
Philip Springstun: I am a member of REDAC and EDAC and when this
presentation was made to the EDAC Board we had a lot of questions and a lot of
discussion. When we first heard the words, manufacturing and processing,
it was like, what are you going to do. The gentlemen went into great
detail, Tony Aylsworth is also on that Board, who wrote the covenant and
restrictions for them, said they were very strict and everything they want to
do falls within the guidelines of restrictions and covenants they have in
place. Most of you know I am not a big fan of tax abatements. But I
think this is a golden opportunity for Warrick County, they are going to bring
in a corporate operation, you are going to bring in a restaurant facility, you
are going to bring in a retail business and all these people are going to come
in here, it will be good jobs and that encompasses almost that entire area
behind Peoples. They are going to use it all. And it is even though
it will be a phased in tax abatement, the revenue is going to far exceed what
it is now and there is no immediate infrastructure needs. I think this is
a great opportunity and these people are taking a large risk putting it in that
area verses a high traffic area like some of the places they have looked at and
I think we need to jump on this while we can before they decide to go somewhere
else.
Ray McIntyre: Is it possible to separate the manufacturing from the
retail store part?
Philip Springstun: We discussed that because you know
there has been earlier discussion, when the old K-Mart building, some of that
qualified and some of it didn’t. That is going to have to be legal
counsel that will have to determine that, and that is part of why he is
giving the break down, there could be some things, that is the risk they are
going to take if it doesn’t qualify for the abatement and you can’t
do things that don’t qualify so these, I don’t remember the time
table that was shared with us as far as you just mentioned what comes first,
their whole dream is to build that whole area and add those things as they
go. I think it is just a great opportunity and Joe ran the numbers on the
revenue that is generating now and the property taxes even with the amount of
estimate they are making it is not going to be to long that the revenue that
comes into the County will be greater than what it is now,
significantly. Not to mention the jobs and the opportunity. I
think they are taking a pretty big risk because that is not high traffic but
they feel like it is a good location and I think we ought to let them go for
it. At EDAC we had a lot of questions whether that was a good thing or
good area and what qualified and what didn’t and that is a legal issue
that Mr. Granger is going to have to determine.
Ray McIntyre: I went through the thing and I think it said
something about competing businesses and I think there were no points taken
away for competing businesses but in essence, 60% of it is restaurant, whether
the competing business be a McDonalds or, and I know that is not the same
thing, but ...
Philip Springstun: Are you talking about the point system?
Ray McIntyre: Yes the point system. I was a little
confused when I went through the points, Jim, you said 100 but I thought I saw
65 and I think I heard you say 100.
Jim Vincent: There is a breakdown that I provided in the
application that breaks down the number of full time and part time employees.
Ray McIntyre: So your 100 was a combination of both together?
Jim Vincent: That is to be the number from the point when we go
into operation. It is difficult for us to project what will happen over
time, to be honest with you, we do not know exactly what type of administrative
support is going to be required for the number of operations we intend to open
in the next five years. We have only compared other operations and we see
an inordinate number of people, we were worried about having the sales strength
to support the amount of people. Usually training facilities a lot of
corporate jurisdiction goes on, on the behavior and actions of these other
locations that are opened. So people travel to the location when the training
is done, continue to train and qualify whether the other operations are
performing at the standards that we require as part of their franchise
agreement. But at this point I just don’t know what that growth
number is going to be.
Joe Schitter: One thing too, I am not so clear on the retail
restaurant in being 60% of this so I don’t want to put that number out
there. When you look at what is going to be done throughout this facility
on every account it is open to interpretation, of course I am not an attorney,
but in what you read concerning either the manufacturing equipment and the
Indiana Code or qualifies as that or not, is a little bit of gray area.
It is open to a lot of interpretation and it sounds as though, and one thing to
speak to, I sat on EDAC also, I voted for this along with the rest of EDAC.
When we went through this looking at this, one of the reasons we
weren’t as concerned as a competing business is the possibility of this
being an attraction that is going to draw more people to this area so
therefore, the more people you draw, the more possibility that these people are
going to go either somewhere else if this is full, or spend the day..
Ray McIntyre: ...down the corner to the stop light. When a
Lone Star comes to the stoplight, does that qualify for tax abatement?
Joe Schitter: No. This is a very different situation than a
Lone Star Restaurant opening a restaurant.
Ray McIntyre: When a Cracker Barrel sits down at the corner, 66 and
261...
Joe Schitter: And yet again,...
Jim Vincent: I may be able to make a comment, I may be able to
answer that. One thing the organizations you are talking about those will
be the franchise locations or corporate retail restaurants. This is our
base of operations.
Ray McIntyre: But the corporate and the manufacturing, if you made
furniture, I don’t have any problem with the furniture, but the corporate
office I would be a little fuzzy on and the manufacturing packaging plant,
those are manufacturing, but retail is still retail and I am familiar with retail.
Jim Vincent: When you talk about 60% I don’t know what the
definition is, but if you look at percentage of sales, percentage of revenue, I
can tell you today our revenue is 100% distribution for this operation because
it is through the Marsh store and the Buehler stores. I don’t
anticipate that our retail sales will ever exceed 50% of what the revenue is
for this operation. I am not sure what the definition is, whether it is
employment dollars, or if it is sales dollars.
Ray McIntyre: I looked at the paperwork that I have here, you
mentioned a ten year abatement and I see that what I thought I was looking at,
was five years on equipment and real property three years. I thought that
is what EDAC sent to us.
Joe Schitter: What you are looking at is the scoring sheet that has
been used for years concerning tax abatements. We have a committee
presently that Council asked us in EDAC to do, to review our procedures, which
we are. We had no other mechanism during this tax abatement except to
send you the old form with the score. That form may well change as we
make these changes. What EDAC sent to you was a unanimous vote concerning
their favorable comment toward this for the maximum amount the state would
allow.
Ray McIntyre: Which was ten years?
Joe Schitter: Right, so what we have on our scoring sheet is
definitely the way that we have scored these in the past but we are currently
looking at those. I serve on that committee, as a matter of fact, I
recently looked at Evansville’s scoring sheet that scores a little
differently, Warrick County is not necessarily on the same playing field.
There is some different scoring where they tend to score a little higher.
Or would have scored a little higher on this situation.
Jerry Lewis: Warrick County resident. To explain all that
Phil was saying I think it is important to understand what REDAC and EDAC was
basically trying to accomplish. Right now we, there are two sites, one in
Vanderburgh County and one in Warrick County. We were asking them to take
out of place the factor of the tax abatement, we can do whatever Vanderburgh
County can do. By law they can only do so much and we can only do so much
so we should take that right out of the play. So REDAC wanted you to
basically give them the maximum allowable by law so we would be competitive
with Vanderburgh County. I don’t know if that is a factor but it
makes it very simple to me. When you vote you are voting to basically do
the what you can do and the best you can do for a tax abatement for these
people, for the sixty jobs and take that factor out of play.
Joe Schitter: I think one thing too, a lot of the times, I talk to
a lot of people, especially after being put on REDAC by this group, this year
about these abatements that they don’t quite understand. One, you
have to realize land is not included in this, so the land is going to go from
the lowest amounts that we can actually tax it on to at least primary,
secondary or usable undeveloped ground. Which immediately, that
first year, even though there is a tax abatement, we will see an increase
revenue coming in from those taxes being paid upon that land. Then just
the break down of ten, there is a percentage each year that we will be
gaining. So we have the opportunity to have this land lay vacant or
maybe it will be sold next year, maybe it won’t. This current
subdivision has been in place since December of 2000 as of right now, there is
one person located there and that is Peoples Bank. There is eight other lots.
Over those years we have been getting a minimum amount of tax dollars.
Even though in an abatement, we won’t get the full amount at least we
will be generating more tax dollars than we have in the past. I
supported this on EDAC and I support it now. I am still not sure within
the Indiana Code it says primary use as a restaurant, if there is other uses of
that it doesn’t exclude it and say well then, immediately eliminate that,
it is just saying you can’t grant it if it is a primary use. It is
not saying if there is a restaurant included, you can’t give them a tax
abatement. Look at Walt Disney World, do they have restaurants? Is
that their primary occupation. We have.... away with the primary usage of
this ground, what the primary use will be and for myself, I voted for it
favorably on EDAC and I still believe it is a good idea. I still believe
we should support it for the maximum ten years.
Motion: Greg Richmond made
the motion to approve the preliminary resolution declaring an economic
revitalization area for property tax abatement, I don’t know the number
yet. In section four, this designation the economic revitalization area
being in effect up to and including ten years. Section five also for a
period of ten years.
SECOND: Joe Schitter
Gary Meyer: Motion has been made by Greg and seconded by Joe to
grant a ten year abatement on the real property and the personal property, is
that correct?
Greg Richmond: Yes.
Gary Meyer: Any further discussion?
Joe Schitter: I think it is a good fit for the County, I think it
will be a benefit through the length of the abatement and afterwards.
Greg Richmond: I look at this being a good fit, non-polluting,
adding jobs, plus we are kind of looking for a opening for tourism to come in,
I know a lot of people have been wanting a hotel to go up down there and I
think there is a small one going up now. It will be beginning very
soon. This could bring in even more. Especially when
you get this many visitors to our area. I would like to see them spending
money here in Warrick County. Resolution number 2004-02.
Gary Meyer: Gentlemen, we have a motion by Greg and seconded by
Joe, any further discussion?
David Hachmeister: I like this other than the competition with the
retail business.
Jim Vincent: I will just make a comment, per Ray’s comments
which I understand, I don’t think you would ever see a Cracker
Barrel or any retail operation consider this location for a site. This is
really an appropriate location for office type activities that we think we can
stretch because of the proximity to two good highways that you are going to
have shortly, 66 and 62 to accommodate our operations. It is a
significant risk, if we go to Vanderburgh County, we will not be in a location
that a Cracker Barrel or a Lone Star or anyone else would locate. We will
be in a location that will be conducive to our corporate activities that would
also be in close proximity to high traffic corridor and we can support retail
activities. It is a good discussion, one I really didn’t think
about coming in, I would easily characterize our primary activities as the
growth of our franchise operations, that is our goal. We already have a
successful operation that we can showcase in Washington, we think this
operation probably will not exceed the sales of that operation from a retail
standpoint. But again, our focus is primarily on growth and this happens
to be where the majority of the management team is located that is involved.
It was a decision by everybody involved, including the people in Washington
that Evansville will be a good corridor. I appreciate the comments I do think,
for example if you look at Washington today, several retail restaurant
operations have opened because of the Black Buggy operation. An
Applebee’s is set to open there in the not to distant future. To us
the more the merrier. It gives a lot of people a reason to come to the
area and it is a kind of an anomaly in that particular industry that traffic is
good for everybody.
Bob Addington: I am sure you made surveys Jim, the type of customer
that would come into your establishment for a meal, that type of customer would
be different than those of fast food would they not?
Jim Vincent: That is correct. The demographics
of our customers primarily are family, or 50 plus in terms of age, and
demographics change some during the evening. We are hoping that, our
distribution activities through Marsh has been very well received in Indianapolis
market, which it appears to be a younger demographic as buying those products
and we are hoping we can drive them to some of our other locations because of
their interest in the products they are buying in the supermarkets.
Gary Meyer: Any further discussion? We have a motion by
Greg and seconded by Joe for a ten year tax abatement on real property and
equipment as a preliminary resolution, all those in favor?
VOTE:
3 Ayes 4 Nays (David Hachmeister, Gary Meyer, Ray McIntyre,
& Raymond Bracher)
Gary Meyer: Motion fails three to four.
Jim
Vincent: Thank you very much.
Ray
McIntyre: Would anybody be interested
in a motion for a lesser abatement more along the line of five years?
MOTION:
Joe Schitter made the motion for a five year tax abatement.
Gary Meyer: Motion made by Joe. Let me ask our
attorney something, would this be the same preliminary resolution? There
are some questions about the shorter tax abatement for this project and is my
understanding it would have to be made by one of the four no votes?
Greg Granger: This is a totally new motion it is not a motion to
reconsider, so I guess it could be made by anyone.
Gary Meyer: Would it be the same resolution number?
Greg Granger: It was defeated so, I don’t think we skip
resolution numbers, we catalog them as they are passed. So you can have
the same resolution number.
Gary Meyer: So it sounds like you can make the motion Joe if you
would like to. Although I would like to get David back here before we do
it. There has been some discussion regarding a shorter tax abatement than
ten years.
Philip Springstun: I just want to comment. I think every company
that has ever asked for an abatement will stand here and tell you if we
don’t get it, it plays a big part, how many times can we believe
that? I don’t know, but I truly believe that these people have an
opportunity to go some where else. These abatements are reviewed
annually, you do these annually by law and you can take it away at any
time. Why you would risk, a ten year verses a five year to see an
operation of this size go away I don’t understand. Just a while ago
you extended an abatement on a company that stated they didn’t meet what
they said they were going to do , and yet that was extended. I think this
is a larger opportunity than some that has been granted. I don’t
like tax abatements, I intend to speak on the one after this, but it is
something that is allowed by the state of Indiana and it is competition, and
you have to take that out of the equation because if nobody else can grant
something for these people that we can’t either under the law. To
turn these people away that has taken this kind of a risk and opportunity, I
just think it is a mistake.
Joe Schitter: I did make a motion.
Gary Meyer: Yes but it died for a lack of a second.
You can make it again.
Joe Schitter: I didn’t think we asked for a second.
Actually, I would like to withdraw that motion and make a motion.
MOTION: Joe Schitter made the
motion that we grant them a nine year tax abatement for both real property and
personal property.
SECOND: Greg Richmond
VOTE:
3 Ayes 4 Nays (David Hachmeister, Gary Meyer, Ray McIntyre and
Raymond Bracher)
Joe
Edwards (?) : If in fact as I
understand, we talk about the area, by a new bank on 261 and Oakgrove Road,
that we are talking about in addition to considering what has already been
brought up, a concern of mine would be what if this development doesn’t
go there, what will? We have to remember we have a Junior High School
adjacent. I would much rather see a corporate training quasi use mix like
this than I would a series of far less suitable retail shops. Who know,
pawn shop, fast food, retail. That would not be a good neighbor to the
bank or a good neighbor to Castle Junior High School. This seems to
be a perfect match. Especially if it precludes those other types of
businesses and fill this park up.
MOTION:
Joe Schitter made the motion to grant an eight year tax abatement.
Gary
Meyer: Is there a second to
Joe’s motion? Is there a second to Joe’s motion? Is
there a second for an eight year tax abatement? Motion dies for a
lack of a second.
MOTION:
Raymond Bracher made the motion for a five year tax abatement.
Jim
Vincent: The question I want to ask
is whether the actual property tax abatement can be separated from the, I am
not clear, is this a debate about equipment or is it about property or is it a
debate about retail or what?
Ray
McIntyre: Can I make a
statement? I can not vote for an abatement on retail. I can’t
do that. If it can de divided I can go for a ten year on the
manufacturing but not on the retail. Since I can’t do that, I would
support a division of half 60/40, 50/50, since I can see a problem of abating
it manufacturing verses retail, I could support a five year abatement which is
in essence of a ten year abatement.
Jim
Vincent: One of the challenges I see,
there is a high probability we are going to lease a significant amount of this
equipment so tax abatement doesn’t come into play. I really wish we
could talk about the numbers because the actual tax impact is
negligible. The tourism impact should be significant. I know
that the other party that is interested in locating in that area, I think a lot
of their thoughts are precluded on our participation and certainly it is an
interest to us with them being there, it would benefit our corporate operation,
but it is a challenge because we are kind of having a debate here but we
don’t know what the number is. It is apparently...significant to us
the first few years because we feel we are going to have to overcome some
challenges in order to become operational. We will not have sold a
franchise until at least one year from now. We will be in operation for
six months before we can allow it to happen.
Bob
Addington: Can you come before us and
separate the manufacturing and I would assume training center?
Ray
McIntyre: If we did a five year they
will get a larger impact the first year, it will just be over quicker. It
will be better for them although my formula may be a little unique, I
guess.
Greg
Richmond: If you looked at the
scoring and bumped it up one notch from our own scoring is, because they are
right at the break point if you use that scoring of 70. Five years
equipment and six years real property would be the next category. I
would be very open to that personally. In fact I will just make a motion
for that.
Gary
Meyer: I think Raymond has a motion
on the floor.
Raymond
Bracher: I made a motion for a five
year abatement on both.
SECOND:
Ray McIntyre
Gary
Meyer: We have a motion made by
Raymond and seconded by Ray to grant a five year tax abatement on real and
personal. I guess we are still looking at Resolution Number
2004-02. Any discussion on the motion?
VOTE:
6 Ayes 1 Nay (Gary Meyer)
WARRICK COUNTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NUMBER 2004-02
A PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION DECLARING AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PROPERTY
TAX ABATEMENT
WHEREAS, Broadway Summitt, LLC (the
‘Applicant’) has submitted a Statement of Benefits and made
application for Economic Revitalization Area designation pursuant to IC
6-1.1-12.1 et seq. and Warrick County Council Resolution No. 2004-02
(the ‘Tax Abatement Resolution’) for the real estate located at
7190, 7160, 7110 Parker Drive, Newburgh, Warrick County, Indiana and described
as:
Lots
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Paradise Park Subdivision. Subdivision of
the South half of the South East quarter, SE quarter Section 14, Township
6 South, Range 9 West, Ohio Township, Warrick County, Indiana
AND WHEREAS, said property meets the criteria for
designation as an Economic Revitalization Area pursuant to IC 6-1.1-2.1 et
seq;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Warrick County
council as follows:
Section 1. The
Warrick County Council has reviewed the Statement of Benefits and additional
information submitted pursuant to IC 6-1.1-12.1 et seq and the Tax Abatement
Resolution, and make the following findings:
a.
The estimate of
the value for both the redevelopment and or rehabilitation of property and
construction of structures to be used for rental and services is reasonable for
projects of that type, and
b.
The estimate for
the number of individuals who will be employed or whose employment will be
retained by this project can be reasonably expected to result form the proposed
redevelopment and/or rehabilitation, and construction of structures to be used
for rental or real estate and services; and
c.
The estimated of the annual salaries of those individuals who will be employed
or whose employment will be retained can reasonably be expected to result from
the proposed redevelopment and/or rehabilitation; and
d.
The totality of benefits likely to accrue from this project is sufficient to
justify a tax deduction; and
e.
The property know as Paradise Park.
Has
been found to meet the requirements of an Economic Revitalization Area pursuant
to IC 6-1.1-12.1
Section 2. Based on this
findings, the Warrick County Council has determined that the purposes of IC
6-1.1-12.1 are served by allowing the deduction and the property described in
Section 1.e above is hereby declared to be an Economic Revitalization Area.
Section 3. The designation of
this Economic Revitalization Area should apply to property tax deductions for
‘property’ as provided in IC 6-1.1-12.1-3 and ‘personal
property’ as described in IC 6-1.1-12.1-4.
Section 4. The designation of this
is Economic Revitalization Area should be in effect up to and including 12/31/2009
.
Section 5. Deductions for
redevelopment and/or rehabilitation which takes place with this Economic
Revitalization Area shall be allowed for a period of five (5)
years beginning with increases in assessed value which are first assessed on
March 1, 2004.
Section 6. The Warrick county
Auditor shall cause to be published notice of the adoption and substance of
this resolution in accordance with IC 5-3-1. Said notice shall be in
compliance with IC 6-1.1-12.1-2.5.
Section 7. This Resolution shall be
in full force and effect from and after its passage and action had confirming,
modifying and/or rescinding the same.
PASSED this 11th
day of March , 2004.
WARRICK COUNTY
COUNCIL
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
Gary Meyer,
President
Ray McIntyre, Vice President
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
Greg
Richmond
Raymond Bracher
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
David Hachmeister
Bob Addington
___________________________________________
Joe
Schitter
ATTEST:
_____________________________________________
Richard
I. Kixmiller, Auditor
Warrick
County
Gary
Meyer: Now the next step is we
entertain a confirming resolution. Do they present that or do you
make that?
Sue
Gibbens: The papers were all
submitted in the packets. You have the Preliminary and the Confirming, it
should be in there. Greg, we can’t do it all tonight?
Greg
Granger: I don’t think so, for
tax abatements it has to be two separate meetings.
Ray
McIntyre; We did that with the Apple
Center and it required a unanimous vote to declare and I voted against that
abatement also.
Greg
Granger: You did the Apple Center in
one night?
Gary
Meyer: We do have it in the packet,
we have the confirming resolution.
Greg
Granger: That is my opinion, I
don’t remember doing the Apple Center but you said we did. I know
we can except for rezoning ordinances you can suspend the rules and vote on the
ordinance on unanimous consent at the same meeting.
Ray
McIntyre: I don’t think we can
do it because it wasn’t unanimous, we had one vote against it.
Gary
Meyer: I don’t think it makes
any difference.
Gary
Meyer: What you are asking is, you
passed the preliminary resolution, now if you want to try and pass the
confirming tonight, you need everybody to agree first that yes we are going to
vote on it tonight, then you take the vote. But if everybody
doesn’t agree that you are going to vote on it tonight, you can’t
vote on it tonight. You don’t need a unanimous consent
to approve it, you need an unanimous consent to vote on it. To suspend
the rules.
MOTION:
Joe Schitter made the motion to suspend the rules.
SECOND:
Greg Richmond
VOTE: 7 Ayes 0 Nays
Gary
Meyer: Now we can vote on the
confirming resolution.
Greg
Granger: Let me add to that, your
confirming resolution does not have to be five years. You can
modify.
Gary
Meyer: Why did you say that?
Jim
Vincent: I did want to ask if again,
the property, just the property which is one of our biggest challenges, the
infrastructure is going to add to the value of that property, quite a bit
higher verses us being able to add some of that infrastructure at our own
basis, so we are inheriting some pretty expensive property. My question
again if we can do the property over ten years and the equipment at five
years.
MOTION;
Joe Schitter made the motion to grant ten years on improvement and five years
on equipment.
SECOND:
Greg Richmond
Gary
Meyer: Motion made by Joe and
seconded by Greg, this is the confirming resolution, for ten years abatement
for the real property and five years for the personal property. Is that
correct?
Joe
Schitter: That is correct.
Gary
Meyer: Any discussion on the motion?
Bob
Addington: So the equipment
manufacturing will have five years and real property will have ten.
Jim
Vincent: I will make a comment that
if we are successful, there is a good chance that we will have another
business someday down the road within that period of time where we will
be looking at a subsidiary operation focusing on manufacturing and it will be a
much simpler discussion.
Gary
Meyer: Don’t bet on that.
Bob
Addington: The manufacturing
equipment part will fluctuate but the real property will stay.
Jim
Vincent: Based on the way we are
structured today, we don’t intend to increase that. The capacity is
what we can produce just simply because it would disrupt the training
operation. It is going to be limited in terms of how much
production output we are going to allow that particular site to do, we just
don’t want the traffic, there is a lot of reasons why we would like to
minimize that. So we will limit it to the equipment we have in the
proposal.
Gary
Meyer: Any further
discussion? Just to repeat the motion so I understand what we are
voting on, motion made by Joe and seconded by Greg for a ten year abatement on
the real property and a five year abatement on the personal property.
Greg
Granger: Resolution 2004-03.
VOTE:
2 Ayes 5 Nays (Bob Addington, Gary Meyer, David Hachmeister,
Ray McIntyre, Raymond Bracher)
WARRICK COUNTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2004-03
A
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE DECLARATION OF AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR
PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT
WHEREAS, Broadway Summitt, LLC has made application
for Economic Revitalization Area designation pursuant to IC 6-1.2-12.1 et
seq, and Warrick County Council Resolution 2004-02 (The
‘Tax Abatement Resolution’) for the property located at 7190, 7160,
7110 Parker Drive, Newburgh, Warrick County, Indiana and described as:
Lots
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Paradise Park Subdivision. Subdivision of
the South half of the South East quarter, SE quarter Section 14, Township
6 South, Range 9 West, Ohio Township, Warrick County, Indiana
WHEREAS, heretofore on the 11th day of
March, 2004, under provision or Resolution 2004-02 , the Warrick County
Council found the above-described property to meet the requirements of an
Economic Revitalization Area pursuant to IC 6-1.1-12.1 et seq and
declare said property to be an Economic Revitalization Area; and
WHEREAS, notice of the adoption and substance of the
above mentioned resolution has been published in accordance with IC 5-3-1 and
the Warrick County Council has conducted a public hearing an economic
revitalization area have been met;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Warrick County
Council as follows:
Section 1. The property which
is located at 7190, 7160, 7110 Parker Drive, Newburgh, Indiana and more
particularly described in the attached Exhibit ‘A’ which is made a
part hereof.
Section 2. Resolution 2004-02
which was adopted by the County Council on the 11th
day of March , 2004 is modified as follows: The
designation of the Economic Revitalization Area should apply to property tax
deductions.
Section 3. This resolution shall be in
full force and effect from and after its passage and execution by the county
Council for ‘property’ as provided in IC 6-1.1-12.1-3 for five (5)
years and ‘personal property’ as described in IC 6-1.1-12.1-4 for
ten (10) years beginning with increases in assessed value which are first
assessed on March 1, 2004.
Passed this 11th day
of March , 2004.
WARRICK COUNTY
COUNCIL
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
Gary Meyer,
President
Ray McIntyre, Vice President
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
Greg
Richmond
Raymond Bracher
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
David
Hachmeister
Bob Addington
___________________________________________
Joe
Schitter
ATTEST:
_____________________________________________
Richard
I. Kixmiller, Auditor
Warrick
County
MOTION:
Ray McIntyre made the motion to approve five years on real and ten years on
equipment.
SECOND:
Greg Richmond
Gary
Meyer: Any
discussion? So we are voting for confirming resolution 2004-03 a five
year abatement on real property and a ten year abatement on personal
property. All those in favor of the motion?
VOTE:
5 Ayes 2 Nays (David Hachmeister & Gary Meyer)
Sue
Gibbens: Thank you very much.
IOP
Properties, LLC - SB-1: (requires Preliminary Resolution # if passed):
Sue
Gibbens: I would like to say a few
words before they start. EDAC has reviewed the tax abatement request as
presented to you on this project and voted to make a favorable recommendation
for the maximum allowable tax abatement by law for this project. We
talked about this project in depth too, just like the did the previous
one. New jobs for Warrick County, $60,000 to $65,000 per year wages, no
infrastructure is needed, they will be getting the water and sewer from
Evansville. Environmental friendly company and property that they intend
to locate on has set idle and we are very much in favor of this project and we
do have a representative here from the company to answer questions, Jim
Morley.
Jim
Morley: I would like to thank you for
your time tonight. Jim Morley, Jr. with Morley & Associates. We
will be the leasing tenant for this building if it gets passed. We are
interested in going into Interstate Office Park which is right on the
Vanderburgh Warrick County line. It is tucked between I-164 and the
Vanderburgh line. We are at a point at our office building where we had
to put a freeze on hiring because we don’t have any desks to put people
at. We need to hire more people but have no place for them to sit.
So it is important for us to build a new facility this year and the nature of
the work we do, is surveying, engineering, architecture and construction
management. WE have done about every office park on the East side of
Evansville and several projects inside of Warrick county. Therefore, the
decision of where we go is pretty tough, because wherever we go, we will make a
client mad. We are looking at this site here and a couple there in
Vanderburgh County. We would like to come into Warrick County.
People of Warrick County have been good to us. What we are
seeking tonight is a ten year tax abatement. The reason for that, the
only true office park that Warrick County has, being where only offices will be
located in this area is Interstate Office Park. However, Interstate
Office Park has been platted for four years and in four years time, they have
only sold one lot. The developer has located four buildings in there in
hopes to jump start that community and if we move in there, we will be the
first of the jump start I guess. However, the other options
we have considered are in areas that are growing at a much faster rate and so I
guess we come before you tonight to seek tax abatement to help level that
playing field of our different options. We current employ 45
people, this would be our home office. We currently employ 45 people out
of our home office and we have picked a site of ample size to allow us to
expand if our growth follows the projects we have now we will roughly double
our size in 20 years. We have been growing at a consistent rate since we
started in 1976. We manufacture ideas and designs. We
turn out designs for projects in about ten to twelve different states, mainly
in the mid-west and south-east United States. The majority of those come
out of our home office. We try to hire local people and we want to use
local contractors including contractors from Warrick County when we build our
projects. We pay high wages, salaries, roughly double what the County
average would be and currently we have 45 people, expect to be at 55 people in
five years. We probably will pick up an instant four as soon
as we open the doors because we will finally have a desk to put those people
that we already need at.
Gary
Meyer: I have one question. On
your application you say that you are going to hire four new employees?
Jim
Morley: We would hire them already
but we have no place to put them.
Gary
Meyer: Our scoring sheet, we have you
hiring 25 to 49 new employees.
Jim
Morley: I think that is based off of
how many new employees will be in Warrick County. We are currently
located in Vanderburgh County.
Sue
Gibbens: That’s right.
These employees would be for Warrick County.
Joe
Schitter: You are looking at three
and a half lots here, as you said before to reiterate, May 2000 was when this
was actually platted. So we are looking at a four year old
subdivision. Lots are currently assessed at $3,600. An
increase in that area, primary grounds per acre is $45,000, $27,000 for secondary
acre, Usable undeveloped is $13,000 and the base rate per front foot is $22.25
per front foot which would be a great increase over the $3,600 that it is
currently assessed at. I again, serve on EDAC, again I voted for
this one which may not vote well for you gentlemen but again I believe this is
a low impact situation, non-polluter, very little extra increase traffic, we
had some concerns with this, one concern which was mention was the
infrastructure we just talked about Newburgh and the possible problem with the
sewer. I do believe that this is actually Evansville sewer and water that
comes into this park so that wouldn’t be a problem. The roads are
in place. As he said, one lot has been sold in that four years. Three
of them I think have been developed by the actual owner of the park attempting
to get business in.
Greg
Richmond: I am impressed with your
benefits page.
Jim
Morley: We like to think that we have
a good benefit package. Steven Foltz with Harding & Shymanski
has come along with me tonight to help out on some of the numbers and stuff
like that.
Steven
Foltz (?): Just to expand on
Joe’s assessed values, I know everybody loves when they talk about taxes,
assessed values and true tax values. I got on the Warrick County Treasurers
web page and each one of those lots Joe, and you can correct me if I am wrong,
I believe they are $52.00 you get each year. That is the actual
tax. Over a ten year period that will be about $2100. It is four
full lots at $52.00, over ten years you would get about $2100 in tax.
Over the same period, if the ten year tax abatement was granted, we are talking
taxes paid of well over $116,000. So it is a difference of $116,000, if
the lots stay as they are, verses if they are being developed, even with
a full ten year tax abatement they would still generate a $116,000 in
tax. Joe can verify those numbers.
Joe
Schitter: Yes, this is
ten years on real property only and not asking for any equipment.
Jim
Morley: There is $450,000 in
estimated equipment that is currently on the personal property tax return,
which is not being asked for as tax abatement.
Gary
Meyer: Is this property in our
proposed T.I.F. District?
Joe
Schitter: Yes it is and
it is located in that area. That was one of the things we discussed
during REDAC and EDAC and that was definitely one of the, and I want to clear
up the comment because I did make it, I want to explain it a little bit.
I did say that I would look very hard at the Councilmen on anything that would
be going into one of these T.I.F. Districts. But, it is not a T.I.F.
District right now. There is a resolution passed concerning the T.I.F.
District to set up the boundaries but it is not. So we have to figure out
if we want to treat them as if they are in something that doesn’t
officially exist. WE still have public hearings, probably have three more
steps, to go or the Commissioners do. The other is, and
during our meeting, I think Phil brought up a good point, the infrastructure is
in this park. The developer put it in. The roads are there, the
sewer is there, the water is there. So, we have to look as to whether we
are going to look at someone moving in and giving them tax benefit even if it
is in a T.I.F. District, and we give an abatement, we still have money coming
in if there are T.I.F. funds issued on that. That is a lot of
‘ifs’. But if we don’t give abatements within the
T.I.F. Districts or we say we are not going to give abatements in these T.I.F.
Districts then we run the risk of them not being developed and not having any
money to balance.
Gary
Meyer: My point about that Joe is, if
we give abatements in our T.I.F. District how are we going to pay the T.I.F.
bonds off?
Joe
Schitter: If we
don’t give abatements, and we don’t have anybody move in, how are
we going to pay the T.I.F. bond?
Gary
Meyer: It is the same thing, I
agree.
Joe
Schitter: At least we are gaining
some amount of money verses nothing. Immediately the first year we will
see an increase in the assessed value due to land going to primary or
secondary. After that, it is a graduated scale up.
Jim
Morley: One thing to make a comment
on your T.I.F. District, also doing stuff in Vanderburgh County, if you look at
every T.I.F. District in Vanderburgh County, the properties that are in a
T.I.F. District that are in Vanderburgh County all have tax
abatements.
Gary
Meyer: How do they pay their bonds
off?
Jim
Morley: First immediate is land
increase. That is a huge impact right off there. You take
something from a developers lot of agriculture land, then to primary or
secondary land that jumps your rates almost ten times as soon as the name
changes from that developer to a private owner, that increase the land value
ten times. That is at the low end, fifteen times on the high end.
So your Aztec, your Grand packages, your Vectren building that is just being
put downtown, all those T.I.F. Districts are from what I understand working
with the auditors office also just fine. Because your T.I.F. District is
only as good as the people that are in it. If you don’t have
anybody in it, your bonds are, I mean this is kind of a poster child if even a
t.i.f. District was passed, prior to us, and that is kind of what we thought so
would happen at last meeting at EDAC, Mike Schopmeyer got up there and was
talking about having us there in a T.I.F. District and I also understand the
concerns about granting that. The one thing, they are in a posted child
because, one, you are getting revenue right off of the bat without having to
use any of your bonds to get them here. You don’t have to do any
infrastructure, and Warrick County never had to do any infrastructure because
it was done by a private development. Even the utilities are going into
Vanderburgh. It is unique, any body in that park is unique. By
putting that park in a T.I.F. District, it also kind of hinders the
developer. But as an incentive, I think people talk bad about T.I.F.
Districts, I think they are a great thing. I think it is a great
way to fund things if it is done properly but this is a poster
child. As far as, you are getting revenue without doing
anything. No money comes out of the County’s pockets. I
don’t know what a better situation is.
Philip
Springstun: Member of
EDAC and REDAC. I made the original motion to grant this abatement for
I.O.P. Properties, and made the statement that even though this falls in the
proposed and I do agree with Joe, this is a proposed T.I.F. District, that
process has only taken the first step. That is the resolution
declaring that area. It has a lot of steps to go through. So at
this point, it is only a proposed T.I.F. District. But even if it was a
T.I.F. District, the purpose of a T.I.F. District is to get the revenue, take
the T.I.F. money for infrastructure and needed improvements. This
property doesn’t require any. It is all there. The other
thing is, these people have outgrown their facility three times since they
became a business. Their purchase of 2.7 acres which allows them room for
more growth. In other words they don’t plan on going anywhere
else. They plan on growing right there. They have enough property,
they don’t have to move, they are coming out of Vanderburgh County, they
are coming into Warrick County. And they have assured us there are no
improvements necessary. This is just, and there again, we are in
competition. I want to make this comment to Joe, in case I forget to make
it next week Joe, as a member of the committee of the council of the EDAC,
REDAC to study how these T.I.F. Districts work, and the input that EDAC is
going to have, there are eight members present at this meeting and it was eight
to zero to support this. Although the one that didn’t go all
the way, previous to this, had the full support of the EDAC board and I think
there needs to be some true guidance black and white. We are spending
more time with the gentlemen that was up here earlier than we did here tonight
at our meeting. Going through questions and quizzing him and all that stuff
and we make our recommendation, why ask for our recommendation if you
don’t want to take it. Our recommendation for this was eight to
zero because there was eight people present at this meeting. To me this
is a no brainer but.
MOTION:
Joe Schitter made the motion to accept preliminary resolution ten year tax
abatement for real property for I.O.P. Properties LLC.
SECOND:
Greg Richmond
Gary
Meyer: We have a motion made by Joe
and seconded by Greg to grant a ten year abatement for I.O.P. Properties LLC,
it will be resolution number 2004-04, any discussion?
Bob
Addington: In the information we
received, this abatement scored at 65 points. 65 points gives a
three year tax abatement.
Sue
Gibbens: I am going to go
back to the previous project in what Joe said about the score sheet, we need to
revise that score sheet.
Joe
Schitter: We are looking to do that
now Bob. There is a committee set up, I have been looking just personally
as one of those members of the committee at other score sheets around the area
so we can be competitive at least with surrounding areas. This is what we
had to give you but I go back to the recommendation of EDAC that we grant
maximum amount of tax abatement.
Bob
Addington: This score sheet, Steve,
is 70 points.
Steve
Foltz: There is some on
the back. That is what Vanderburgh County when they filled, they take the
exact same things from what was given to Warrick County, that is what their
scoring recommendation is. 95 points, I believe, 91 points is what the
cut off amount is for a ten year tax abatement. I know you probably
don’t care what Vanderburgh County does but as far as, here is what other
counties are doing. So I just kind of compared apples to
apples. I have talked to Joe, I think you also have Gibsons, yours
and Vanderburghs and some how a combination of all three take the best parts of
all three of them and come up with what would be suitable for the Council.
Bob
Addington: What we have before us
though is what..
Gary
Meyer: Motion has been made and
seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Karan
Barnhill: I am the County
Surveyor. I just want to make the statement that this engineering firm
offers more to the County than just tax dollars and that type of stuff.
They are very knowledgeable they help us, they are on AD HOC committees, Jim
Jr. Is very knowledgeable he helps not only the developers and people coming
into the County, he helps us as County officials. Their firm is very
knowledgeable, they know their stuff and I would hate to see that we loose good
engineering reputable firms because of little small issues. So I am
supporting them.
Gary
Meyer: Anyone else? Before we
vote, I am going to make a statement that is going to sound very negative and I
apologize for that up front. I have a real problem with this when a
vendor comes to us for a tax abatement. Mr. Morley is our Engineer for
the North Warrick Industrial Park and the taxpayers of this County have paid
him a lot of money to develop that park so far. It really bothers me that
now we are asking the tax payers to subsidize an abatement for ten
years. Or phase in an abatement. I have a real problem with
that and I don’t know how to make that sound any more positive because it
is a very negative statement. But that is really bothersome to
me. Than any vendor, unfortunately you are here, that any vendor that the
tax payers have paid money to, how far does the tax payer pay for this?
That is my problem. With that I won’t say any more. I’ll
call for the vote.
VOTE:
2 Ayes 5 Nays (Bob Addington, David Hachmeister, Ray McIntyre,
Raymond Bracher & Gary Meyer)
Gary
Meyer: Motion fails two to five.
Jim
Morley: Thank you.
Unknown
Speaker: Just as a
representative of multiple taxpayers coming into Vanderburgh , Warrick and
Gibson, just for knowledge purposes, what is the definition of a perfect tax
abatement application?
Gary
Meyer: Are you asking me
personally? There is no such thing.
Unknown
Speaker: Not just you personally
because I know you are just one of seven. Just as an example for future
reference, what would the...
Gary
Meyer: I think one thing is
confusing, we are kind of, and you got played into this and so did the previous
one, maybe we haven’t gotten our ducks in a row yet as far as our criteria
because we are seeing in our criteria a three year, five year abatement and
they are asking REDAC and EDAC for the ten year. It is a little bit
confusing to us because right now our system doesn’t call for a ten
year. We are in the process of revising our system and maybe that is our
fault that we don’t have it in place yet. As far as what is the
perfect application, I don’t know.
Joe
Schitter: Gary that is why I made the
comment, because our system is not scoring comparable to others but it is all
we have. That is why I think EDAC decided to vote.
Greg
Richmond: I was on the committee that
established this system and it was the first in the area. We had nothing
to compare it to and it took many months putting this together and it was
basically a preliminary one that needed to be revised.
Jim
Morley, Jr. Is there a
different abatement that anyone would feel would be palatable to help even the
playing fields?
Ray
McIntyre: I may be a little confused
on what abatements are based on but I always thought they largely were
concerned with manufacturing but this is a leased building to an engineering
firm as I understand it therefore it is rental property. And is rental
property in itself abatable? We did that with the Apple Center but
I didn’t vote for it. I have been asked if I would abate a carpet
shop, very recently. Why would I do that, that is retail merchandising,
that is an office building they have their offices there. I am confused
about abating everything that comes down the pipe. You are a
non-pollutant, that is good, you are not currently here and you are going to
come here, that is good. Maybe my problem is, where, as close to anything
along these lines that I have voted for myself was the soccer field inside, as
close, that didn’t work out. They asked for ten and they got three
and it pass for three by a four to three vote. I can see some merit to
this, non-pollutant, you are going to pay your own way, but maybe I need, and I
have asked for this enlightenment from the EDAC board before when I was on the
board to bring us new guidelines in.
Steven
Foltz:(?) I know one thing, in
looking at your previous application, how you had it set up, the way you have
it currently set up, the way you have it currently set up your personal
property is eligible for six and ten for three six and ten and then real estate
is six and ten. Those are kind of old guidelines. The statutes have
changed and you can get zero to ten.
Ray
McIntyre: Is there any problems with
doing office buildings that are rental?
Steven
Foltz: (?) The rental, it is
only rental in the form of protection, it is a liability projection.
Gary
Meyer: You are going to build it own
and rent it to yourself.
Greg
Granger I think where you are getting
confused is with the term manufacturing, that is only used in the equipment
description.
Ray
McIntyre: Is rental property or
office property, motels are not abatable are they?
Greg
Granger: No.
Ray
McIntyre: So is this property
actually primary?
Joe
Schitter: Primary use is within that
list. Those are the only exclusions, and engineering and office building
is not listed in that. They are only asking for real property again, not
any personal property concerning any equipment.
Greg
Richmond: I would like to add it is a
misconception in the public that tax abatement is giving away tax dollars to
people. It is not giving away tax dollars. It is taking something
that we already have right now and making it better because over a period of
years with the improvement there is more income coming in. Which in turn,
could reflect the rates downward. That is the way its
intended purpose was to be but there is more and more services demanded
of County government, State government, it just never seems to do that but it
does not, I am not taking out of my billfold as a homeowner and paying Morley
& Associates to come into Warrick County.
Steve
Foltz; It is actually costing the tax
payers more by not giving it because that $52.00 is what is driving the tax
rate which applied to the assessment so there is no subsidy. To
your point, it cost the tax payers money by not bringing it. Because
there is nothing there now. The dollar today is worth more than
hopefully getting a dollar five years form now. I agree, because it is
only helping the tax payer because the more assessed value that is put into the
kitty, it lowers your tax rate. Keeping that tax rate the same or not
putting anything into it is going to raise your tax rate which will put the
burden on the tax payer so that is a great point.
MOTION:
Ray McIntyre made the motion to allow a three year tax abatement.
SECOND:
David Hachmeister
Bob
Addington: We are voting for three
years? And you are not asking for equipment?
Jim
Morley, Jr.: No we are not.
Gary
Meyer: Any further discussion on the
motion?
VOTE:
6 Ayes 1 Nay (Gary Meyer)
WARRICK COUNTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2004-04
A PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION DECLARING AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR
PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT
WHEREAS, IOP Properties, LLC, (the
‘Applicant’) has submitted a Statement of Benefits and made application
for Economic Revitalization Area designation pursuant to IC 6-1.1-12.1 et seq.
and Warrick County Council Resolution No. 2004-04 (the ‘Tax
Abatement Resolution’) for the real estate located at 4760, 4790, 4820,
and part of 4840 Rosebud Lane, Newburgh, Warrick County, Indiana and described
as:
Lots
14, 13, 12 and part of 11 in Interstate Office Park as recorded in 2000R-004425
in the Warrick county Recorders Office, said lots being in the SW 1/4, of Sec.
29, T6S, R9W.
AND WHEREAS, said property meets the criteria for
designation as an Economic Revitalization Area pursuant to IC 6-1.1-2.1 et
seq;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Warrick County
Council as follows:
Section 1. The Warrick County
council has reviewed the Statement of Benefits and additional information
submitted pursuant to IC 6-1.1-12.1 et seq and the Tax Abatement Resolution,
and make the following findings:
a.
The estimate of the value for both the redevelopment and or rehabilitation of
property and construction of structures to be used for rental and services is
reasonable for projects of that type, and
b.
The estimate for the number of individuals who will be employed or whose
employment will be retained by this project can be reasonably expected to
result from the proposed redevelopment and/or rehabilitation, and construction
of structures to be used for rental or real estate and services; and
c.
The estimated of the annual salaries of those individuals who will be employed
or whose employment will be retained can reasonably be expected to result from
the proposed redevelopment and/or rehabilitation; and
d.
The totality of benefits likely to accrue from this project is sufficient to
justify a tax deduction; and
e.
The property known as 4760, 4790, 4820, and part of 4840 Rosebud Lane.
Has
been found to meet the requirements of an Economic Revitalization Area pursuant
to IC 6-1.1-12.1
Section 2. Based on this findings,
the Warrick county Council has determined that the purposes of IC 6-1.1-12.1
are served aby allowing the deduction and the property described in Section 1.e
above is hereby declared to be an Economic Revitalization Area.
Section 3. The designation of this
Economic Revitalization Area should apply to property tax deductions for
‘property’ as provide in IC 6-1.1-12.1-3 and ‘personal
property’ as described in IC 6-1.1-12.1-4.
Section 4. The designation of this is
Economic Revitalization Area should be in effect up to and including 12/31/07.
Section 5. Deductions for redevelopment
and/or rehabilitation which takes place with this Economic Revitalization area
shall be allowed for a period of three (3) years beginning with increases in
assessed value which are first assessed on March 1, 2004.
Section 6. The Warrick County Auditor
shall cause to be published notice of the adoption and substance of this
resolution in accordance with IC 5-3-1. Said notice shall be in
compliance with IC 6-1.1-12.1-2.5.
Section 7. This Resolution shall be in
full force and effect from and after its passage and action had confirming,
modifying and/or rescinding the same.
PASSED this 11th Day
of March , 2004.
WARRICK COUNTY
COUNCIL
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
Gary Meyer,
President
Ray McIntyre, Vice President
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
Greg
Richmond
Raymond Bracher
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
David
Hachmeister
Bob Addington
___________________________________________
Joe
Schitter
ATTEST:
_____________________________________________
Richard
I. Kixmiller, Auditor
Warrick
County
MOTION:
Joe Schitter made the motion to suspend the rules.
SECOND:
Ray McIntyre
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Gary
Meyer: Okay, you are looking at a
confirming resolution which would be 2004-05.
MOTION:
Joe Schitter made the motion to accept EDAC’s recommendation for the full
ten year tax abatement on real property.
SECOND:
Greg Richmond
VOTE:
2 Ayes 5 Nays ( Ray McIntyre, Bob Addington, David Hachmeister,
Raymond Bracher & Gary Meyer)
MOTION:
Greg Richmond made the motion to approve a five year tax abatement.
SECOND:
Joe Schitter
Gary
Meyer: Any discussion on this motion?
Unknown
Speaker: The reason we had
sought a longer tax abatement, we were just trying to even out the playing
field. Because we only do real property, the dollars in taxes are not as
large if we were doing real property and manufacturing and so on and so
forth. I just wanted to make that statement.
Gary
Meyer: Any further discussion.
The motion right now is for a five year abatement Confirming Resolution
2004-05.
VOTE:
2 Ayes 5 Nays (Ray McIntyre, Bob Addington, David Hachmeister,
Raymond bracher & Gary Meyer)
MOTION:
Ray McIntyre made the motion to approve a three year tax abatement Resolution
Number 2004-05.
SECOND:
Raymond Bracher
VOTE:
5 Ayes 2
Nays (Bob Addington & Gary Meyer)
TABLED ITEMS:
Spectronics,
Inc. (Increased benefits)
Daniel Beane: I am an accountant with Kruse, Dicus &
Associates, LLP, and I represent Spectronics. You probably remember from
last month that we got some correspondence from the State Department of Local
Government Finance about what they saw as some deficiencies in paperwork about
the property tax abatements going back two and three years. One of the
things that they said was that the amount we sought for a deduction was in
excess of the amount on the SB-1. The SB-1 that you file initially
telling what new manufacturing equipment you are going to place in service and
how much it is going to cost. You have to do that before you buy the
equipment. So that amount is basically an estimate. The amount that
was on the SB-1 was $319,000 and the grant total what we asked for a deduction
on over a two year period was $449,000. I am here to explain how the
$319,000 became $449,000 and the designating body in these property tax
abatements have the opportunity to say that they are going to limit the amount
of the benefit to the amount that is given in the SB-1. That wasn’t
done but nevertheless, the state Department of Local Government Finance wants
to make sure that nothing is being inappropriately added in there. This
was the equipment that was described and contemplated in the beginning and two
things happened. One is that, it is a manufacturing facility and they do
plating of small parts and so on and ....chemicals and all that. They have
to treat their waste water before it is discharged and the part of the
manufacturing equipment that treats the waste water turned out to be a lot more
expensive than was anticipated when the SB-1 was prepared. So the first
year, I think $90,000 additional was sought in deduction over and above the
amount in the SB-1 and 80 to 90% of that was on the waste water
treatment. Then the second year the second layer of investment in this
equipment that we sought a deduction in the amount of $40,000 was also part of
the same original project and part of the system, one of their vendors supply
didn’t work as advertised and had to be redone. The deal they ended
up making with the vendor was the vendor would supply all the labor to rework
it and get it working right but it was going to require them to use more
expensive materials and it was going to cost an additional $40,000 and my
client would have to pay for that, which they did. So that is
how the amount became what it ultimately was and because it is a project that
was contemplated at the beginning for which the deduction or abatement was
requested tonight we are asking you to sign a revised SB-1 with the new higher
amounts. The people at the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance
said that they don’t care it has todays date on it, they just want to
know that the designating body has had an opportunity to look at the numbers
and that we are not piling things on there inappropriately. So that is
the situation.
Gary Meyer: Question Mr. Granger, can we do this, can a company
come in after an abatement has been granted and increase their equipment cost
and then we go back and grant the abatement on the increase any time during the
abatement period?
Greg Granger: Yes. Dan, we discussed this last month.
This is the SB-1 that was not filed?
Dan Beane: It was filed, although it lacked a signature and we
remedied that last month.
Greg Granger: there is a procedure where the council can delay the
late filing and that is because of lack of procedure. The Local
Government Finance says yes you can do that and you can increase the amount as
long as the Council is in agreement with it, they can do that. I think
David had a question at last meeting whether it is effective at todays date or
if it goes back to the original date of application. According to local
Government Finance person, it is possible to go back to the original date of
application if the timing is right and you have complied with the late filing
procedure to file in.
Ray McIntyre: I looked at notes from last month and it
says there wouldn’t be a refund because I don’t think the tax has
been assessed and paid yet. What does that mean? Have they not paid
the taxes since the abatement was granted the original abatement?
Dan Beane: They haven’t gotten any abatement, the taxes
haven’t been paid, in fact we got the tax bills this week. Was all
tied up in the same procedural thing in Indianapolis but it turned out to be
the bill has been sent to the wrong address, and returned to the Treasurer, and
we didn’t realize that we didn’t have them until we were here last
month and Krystal Powless was asked to look into the status of the personal
property taxes and that is what we discovered.
Ray McIntyre: So they haven’t been paid?
Dan Beane: That is right.
Ray McIntyre: When was the original abatement granted?
Dan Beane: In 2000.
Ray McIntyre: This is 2004.
Dan Beane: Right, the 2001 pay 2002 and the 2002 pay 2003 taxes
are delinquent now. We just got the bills so they will be
paid.
Bob Addington: Taxes are usually one year behind?
Dan Beane: I am agreeing with you and saying that we are talking
two years of taxes.
Joe Schitter: Last month when we went over this, we discussed that
when you filed this you were in compliance with Warrick County. It was a
late date filing with the state that caused the problem, missing the year.
Dan Beane: We are looking into that because and I think that my
unsatisfactory vague answers to some of your questions about the late filing
didn’t work in our favor last month, naturally, but we are looking into
that because from what we can see from our records the thing was prepared on
time. And I finally found out, apparently the only party that actually
has copies of documents is a field lawyer from the Indiana Department of Local
Government Finance. It was very hard to track down. I have gotten
answers to questions from him via the people in Indianapolis, and I am actually
waiting to hear now whether he has a post mark date. Because he has a
file stamp that shows that the thing was filed on June the 22nd and
our records indicate our client signed it and mailed it on the 13th
and was due on the 14th an extended due date. That issue
may yet come back but at this point, you have declined to sign the letter
saying that the late filing is okay and now we are dealing with the
amount. Which like I said, it isn’t limited by the amount on the
SB-1 unless you say it is. So the Indianapolis people want to be sure you
have had a look at this.
Bob Addington: I am a little confused , you are talking about the
current date that the late filing was made or are you talking about the 2000
when the late filing occurred?
Dan Beane: The SB-1 determines the amount of benefit throughout
the period so that is what I am talking about.
Bob Addington: The original filing is what you are talking about?
Dan Beane: Yes.
Gary Meyer: Tell me the numbers again.
Dan Beane: $319,000 even on the original SB-1. Then
when we filed the 322 ERA, request for the deduction for 2001 pay 2002, we had
$409,598.00 invested int hat equipment that was subject to the deduction.
Then in the second year, an additional $40,056 was incurred to go back and
revise to make the thing work the way it was supposed to. So the
additional cost is for the same equipment.
Gary Meyer: To make this equipment work like it was supposed to
work, is this warranty work that they had to increase the cost to the equipment
to make the warranty good? I am trying to understand.
Jim Rine: What we did, we have chemicals, we do electroplating
and our contractor recommended a coated PVC type pipe. What
happened, our chemicals just basically ate the coating off of it. Just plain
didn’t work. So what we agreed as part of warranty, he said we
really need to replace this but the material we need to replace it with is more
expensive. So if you guys will pay the difference between the stuff that
didn’t work, and the good stuff that will work, they would put in all the
labor and installation. So it was partial warranty but the $40,000
is the part we paid. The rest was not in there.
Joe Schitter: And if you would have had those cost at
the time you filed this that would have been what you filed upon in the
original.
Gary Meyer: Does everybody understand what they are asking
for?
Discussion on the figures
followed.
Dan Beane: I don’t know if there is a way to just blend
that in, in mid stream.
Ray McIntyre: I think though, all the assessments that we
had taken and what the County set its rates at with the expected incomes and
all were based off 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. So even if it hasn’t
been paid yet, it has been allowed that the County would have received that income
based off those figures that you now want to take down, is that not
correct? So it would be a loss of income below the expected income
if we go back to back that out. I looked at it as a fairly big
difference. Maybe it should have been there in the first place because
your expenses ran higher but we can’t retrieve that money as a County any
place else. It is gone if we grant that. We can grant it now and it
may go some place else, but to go back, even if it hasn’t been paid it
has been expected to be paid , it was part of the tax levy and it will be an
income loss for the County. I would not be interested in doing that at
all.
Joe Schitter: One of the situations we were looking at and I think
you said you had just received the tax bills, there was some mix up
there. How much of that is that year that we did not sign off on, that we
did not allow, is that partial amount of what you have? They have been
granted the tax abatement and that would have been taken into account over that
length of time but due to their late filing with the state, they did not
receive one year.
Jim Rine: We basically didn’t realize that we
hadn’t been billed for these until we were at a meeting with our
accountant in January. We had been billed, we have the Rine Enterprises
which owns the building and Spectronics. We process them all
together and we have gotten and paid the bills for Rine Enterprises so there is
something showing up as property tax and we were going through our property tax
bill in January and said that we have never been billed. Dan started
making some inquiries and we now have the bill. So the bill to answer
your question, the bill for 2001 is $4,696.00. If you applied tax
abatement to that it would be $1267.00 after tax abatement. The bill for
2002, if you apply tax abatement would be $7681.00. The bill we received
is $13,866.00. I may have rounded that number.
Ray McIntyre: We did go back and say you could pick up
the $319,000 worth of abatement, we did approve that at our last meeting and
that was signed off on. What you are asking us for now is whatever
the percentage would be between the 319 and the 450. So that would be an
increase of $130,000 increase retroactive back to three years. And the
original abatement was for five or ten years?
Jim Rine: Ten.
Ray McIntyre: Since it would appear to me and I have been accused
of thinking a little different, I would make a motion that we take the third
year of the abatement where that point would be at the higher rate and go from
here on but I am not interested at all in going back and picking up the two
years.
Jim Rine: The third year would be 2003 pay 2004.
Joe
Schitter: Yes it would be 2003
payable 2004.
Ray
McIntyre: I think that I would be...
Joe
Schitter: It would be basically as of
this point.
MOTION:
Ray McIntyre made the motion to grant the additional $130,000 roughly effect
2003 payable 2004.
Ray
McIntyre: At the decreased rate it
would be. Only going to have seven years and start at the third year of
that.
SECOND:
Joe Schitter
Bob
Addington: 2003 taxes, starting
there, we are going to allow the additional amount to be abated ....
Gary
Meyer: On the third year of the
schedule.
Bob
Addington: That is where we are, you
have a ten year abatement and it was granted in 2001. Then we are going
to allow the abatement on the adjusted amount.
Ray
McIntyre: They only have it abated
for year one and two $319,000. It wasn’t until three, that moved to
the $440,000 but it is at the 70% level and not at the full shot. They
should have came back to us the first year and said we spent more money.
Jim
Rine: In our defense, we didn’t
wait two years to come ask about this by choice, we heard about this last month
from the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance. Although we did
request the deduction in the higher amount, I am with you there.
Ray
McIntyre: I would like to see, help
business if at all possible, but I.
Gary
Meyer: Is there any further
discussion on the motion?
VOTE:
6 Ayes 1 Nay
Dan
Beane: Thank you gentlemen.
Pre-Trial
Diversion (Additional Appropriation):
133-000-4364.00
Equipment
$25,000.00
Todd
Corne: I am not here for an
abatement.
Ray
McIntyre: That is good.
Todd
Corne: But I would really like for
Joe not to make a motion on my request.
Joe
Schitter: Sit down Todd.
Todd
Corne: I was here last month on this
request and asked you to table it. What I am wanting to do is buy a
scanner and the document management software that goes along with it, to
digitize ultimately, all of our files. We need to do that for a couple of
reasons. The first and most immediate need is to free up space in the
office for an additional personnel and additional needs that we have. We
have four twenty files cabinets that consume an enormous amount of space and
that continues to grow year by year and I am hoping that digitizing the files
will eliminate the need for those sort of things. The other issue would
be personnel being able to find and locate files. In digital format it is
easier, more quicker and efficient than trying to hunt and search around
through the office for the hard copies and so on. The $25,000
figure is what we got, what we understood that the system used by the Recorders
Office cost. I am looking right now at two different systems. I
have one in place that we are testing this week and they hope to have another
system brought in next week to test. That will hopefully be less than that
amount but I am asking for that amount, $25,000.
MOTION:
Ray McIntyre made the motion to approve.
SECOND:
Bob Addington
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Gary
Meyer: Don’t you have another
one?
Todd
Corne: I have two if I could I would
appreciate it. I have an additional appropriation and a transfer.
Pre-Trial Diversion:
133-000-4364.00
Equipment
$644.00
MOTION:
Bob Addington made the motion to approve.
SECOND:
Raymond Bracher
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Transfer:
Prosecutor
Transfer from
001-108-4112.00 Deputy Prosecutor
$1,414.00
Transfer
to
001-108-4364.00 Equipment
Todd
Corne: The final item is a transfer,
have sone some personnel changing in the office in terms of trying to eliminate
some part time positions and create an additional full time positions to better
serve the purposes we are trying to accomplish down there. That involves
in this one instance a change in the Deputy Prosecutor position and to pay some
of the salary out of pre-trial, some of it out of the general budget. It
was recommended that the Personnel Committee Meeting that instead of giving
specific dollar figure that we split that based on percentages, two thirds, one
third. So by doing that, that left $1,414.00 in that one line item
for the Deputy Prosecutor Salary as an excess, and I am just simply asking that
be transferred over to the equipment line item.
MOTION:
Ray McIntyre made the motion to approve.
SECOND:
Joe Schitter
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Todd
Corne: Thank you.
Surveyor
Section Corners (Additional Appropriation):
144-000-4000.10
Unappropriated Expense $ 6,038.17
Gary
Meyer: Before you start, I will tell
the Council that...
Karan
Barnhill: It is on the next
page. This was the one, let me give an explanation real quick
before you give an explanation. This one is on there was advertised for
the last meeting and I asked that it be continued.
Gary
Meyer: Okay, so this one is okay?
Karan
Barnhill: No, I want this one
denied because the next one is the one I want you to approve.
MOTION:
David Hachmeister made the motion to deny.
SECOND:
Bob Addington
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Gary
Meyer: Do you want to go ahead while
you are here?
Karan
Barnhill: I would love that, thank
you. Do you want to do the additional appropriation first on that same
page?
Surveyor
001-106-4365.00
Vehicle
$21,515.00
David
Hachmeister: Mr. President, I need to
excuse myself.
Gary
Meyer: That will be fine, we will
come and get you when we are done, maybe. This is for a vehicle,
$21,515.00.
Karan
Barnhill: Yes, the green truck that
we presently have that has been with the County for ten years is in very poor
shape. The transmission pops loud, it shimmies going down the road, it is
unsafe. I am not comfortable sending my staff out in the truck. I
am afraid it is going to break down so what I have done, is I have asked for an
additional appropriation out of County General to replace the truck that was
originally purchased out of County General out of Surveyor budget. That
way we can have a new truck and the people will be safe. I have gotten
bids for three people and the low bid came in at $21,515.00 and it is very much
needed. I wouldn’t be here asking for it if it wasn’t.
Gary
Meyer: This is out of
County General?
Karen
Barnhill: The reason I am asking, I
will give an explanation why I am doing it out of there, we have bought
equipment out of CUM Drain one thing right after another. That money has
set there for maintenance, construction of regulated drains, it is taken from
the tax payers and the people out there, the farmers who expect us to do ditch
work and I just don’t think it is appropriate to continually purchase
equipment when all the other County offices need equipment they come and get it
from County General. That money is not there for us to just purchase
everything that we can possibly purchase out of for that purpose. This
line item is in the budget, has been in the budget for, since 1994 and there
has just never been any money put in there. It is the truck that was bought
for the County Surveyor, not for the CUM Drain. It was bought for that
office to operate and I think it needs to come out of County General.
Gary
Meyer: So you didn’t approach
CUM Drain about it?
Karan
Barnhill: No sir. I just
don’t think it is appropriate to continually drag money out of
there.
Ray
McIntyre: We make the Prosecutor
continually take the money out of Pre-Trial.
Karan
Barnhill: In the statue it says, that
you are supposed to provide us with the equipment that is necessary to run the
office. I need a truck to run my office. Yes, supplies and
equipment. I need a truck. We bought one truck, we bought a four
wheeler out of there, I have bought equipment after equipment out fo CUM Drain
and to go and, State Board of Accounts, red flags would go up if they see
another truck coming out of there. I am not comfortable, I don’t
feel good about it, I don’t think you guys should feel good about
it. And I need a truck. That truck is not safe.
Ray
McIntyre: I will tell you the
Surveyor is going to have a whole lot more to do because I think operating
through the Commissioners, and I am not sure where this goes, when we establish
the water run off thing, that will be another vehicle we need for whoever does
those inspections and whatever. This is not anything when it comes to
water run off, that is not any thing the Surveyor is required to do. The
$7,000 or what we just did, the $7,495.00 is for doing corner marker work which
will be something that requires mobility and dependable transportation.
And the vehicle is old. Which would be brand new for me but most normal
people would think, how many miles are on it?
Karan
Barnhill: 135,000. It has been
a good old truck.
Ray
McIntyre: But we still have shortages
also, and we are not a rich County when it comes to General Fund. Last
month I made the motion to table some stuff because I was a bit confused about
where the Surveyor was going to go and what the Surveyor in the end was going
to need to get everything done that the office has undertaken to do,
particularly with the water run off problem. Part of that problem is, I
don’t know that the executive branch has done, I suspect it is working on
a plan, but I don’t know if they are working on that plan through the
Surveyor or not. I know the Surveyor has offered to assist to do
it. But I am not sure what the Commissioners, what their plans are.
The vehicle is in bad shape, it does have a lot of miles on it.
Karan
Barnhill: Just to reiterate what he
is saying the Storm Water stuff is going to be a big job, I don’t know
what the Commissioners are expecting either. I know that in discussions
with them they want me to I think handle the majority of it because it is Storm
Water. Most of the other counties in the state that have been designated
as urbanized areas, the Surveyor is undertaking that. I am willing
to do that, I am okay with that. But everybody needs to realize
that it is going to be a big job, it is going to be an expensive job and that I
am willing to do what I can with what I have now but the truck needs to be
replaced and then we can build from there, if we have to wait another year to
see where we are and what we are going to need I am okay with that.
We can build as we go and grow as we go. My staff if I have meetings that
I have to take my truck in, my staff can’t go out and do field work and
we have ditch work going out there like crazy. We have a lot of stuff
that needs to be done and they need to have a vehicle to drive. If we
have to share that for now to get the Storm Water stuff going, I am okay with
that. I will make do. But I have to have another truck, we have to
have two. They sit waiting for me to come back if I have to go
somewhere. That white truck is a two wheel drive and we have to pull it
out with the four wheelers sometimes. So it doesn’t go where we
need it to go a lot either.
Bob
Addington: Are you getting a four
wheel drive pick up?
Karan
Barnhill: It is an Explorer,
it’s a utility truck so that we have area to put our equipment in
without it getting in the weather and getting rained on. It is a Ford Explorer.
Joe
Schitter: I know the Bronco is in bad
shape and if we did have a lot of surplus funds you know this wouldn’t be
nearly so painful.
Karan
Barnhill: I understand that.
Joe
Schitter: Just getting the budget
sheet and looking at what we have in the General budget to work with, tonight,
gives me horrible flash backs from last year. I know you are going
to need, there is going to be something that is going to be needed and if you
take a direct role in MS-4, which you are a big part of it now, we are
going to have to have some way of doing it.
Ray
McIntyre: It wouldn’t be hard
for me to do other than the General Fund Karan.
Gary
Meyer: Can we ask you to go to the
CUM Drain Fund ask them and if you get turned down come back?
Karan
Barnhill: I will tell you this.
I had a discussion with two of them before and one said I drive a 19 whatever
that is red car that I make do in, it doesn’t have to go where we have to
go, he doesn’t understand. The other one is just totally I am not
talking about it you a new truck I am not going to get one. So I need two
votes, two votes have basically said ...
Gary
Meyer: Was that in a public meeting
that happened?
Karan
Barnhill: No it was off to the
side. I wasn’t going to embarrass myself in a public meeting.
The truck has to go off road, it has to go down ditches, it has to get muddy,
it has to go places. We drive a low ditch banks, and I need a
truck.
Gary
Meyer: I think you do need a truck.
The problem we have is where the money is going to come from.
Karan
Barnhill; I understand that, but I
haven’t come to you guys in the three years that I have held office and
asked for anything out of County General, it all came out of CUM
Drain. And this is something that needs to be done. You
know me, I don’t come here unless I need something and I need this truck
and this is my only hope of getting it. I hate to ask you as much as you
hate sitting here looking at me begging, but I am begging I need the truck.
Greg
Richmond: Is it possible that the
Council could come to a Commissioners meeting and plead our case about General
Fund monies because the Commissioners do want some things themselves and are
going to need some things out of this General Fund money that we can’t
get anyplace else. This is an opportunity for us to use some other fund
even though we don’t like to it is just, when you look at our bottom line
it is scaring me to death. I have been around for a while, Raymond has
been around for awhile. I have never seen anything like it in all the
years I have been on it. It is just scaring me to death. So I would
be glad to come, I know I am not in great favor with them but I would be glad
to argue our point that we don’t have any money in the General Fund and
we need to look for other sources. Unless they had that fund spoken for
somewhere.
Karan
Barnhill: I am okay with that but my
problem is that truck is popping every time it shifts gears, it is about ready
to break down, if I have to wait another month and readvertise and wait for you
guys to go to the Commissioners that is going to put me another month and a
half down and that truck is not going to make it that long. We are
pouring money into it as it is.
Ray
McIntyre: I look at the world
different because for $21,000 we can do a lot of repair work but the truck is
not dependable and down time is not dependable. I will make the motion.
MOTION:
Ray McIntyre made the motion to approve $21, 515.00 for a truck out of County
General. We have got to have our people driving safe trucks.
Gary
Meyer: We have a motion is there a
second? Is there a second? Is there a second?
SECOND:
Bob Addington
Gary
Meyer: Any discussion?
Joe
Schitter: Like I say, you realize
this is a touchy situation because it is coming out of General Fund. We
will have to be prepared making this as to what we are going to proceed through
this next year because we are going to have some really tough decisions to
make.
Several
speaking.
Greg
Richmond: We have a tremendous need
with EMS, I don’t know whether you all have studied that or not?
That is going to hit us next month too. We have to look at lots of things
and weigh lots of things here.
Ray
McIntyre: I don’t deny that a
bit. But we have a...
Greg
Richmond: I am sympathetic for the
truck but the General Fund is worrying me.
Ray
McIntyre: Four wheel drive stuff
isn’t much fit for anything past 100,000 miles. I hated them when
the Sheriffs Department bought them, I guess they are dependable. I
won’t drive one myself, because if it is required, it is required ,
and it is required but 130,000 miles on a four wheel drive something is like
200,000 on anything else.
Gary
Meyer: Any further discussion?
Karan
Barnhill: Can I add something before
you go any further? The section corner money on the next page, the
$10,000 I will not ask for that if I get the truck.
Laughter.
Discussion among several.
Greg Richmond: Can you not use some of that $19,000 in section
corner?
Gary Meyer: $19,306.83.
Karan Barnhill: When I called over there she told me there was only
like six thousand or something.
Greg Richmond: That is in the budgeted amount, there has been
miscellaneous revenue.
Gary Meyer: Let’s get back to our motion there. Any
further discussion on the motion?
VOTE:
3 Ayes 3 Nays (Gary Meyer, Joe Schitter & Greg Richmond)
Gary Meyer: Motion fails, three to three.
Joe Schitter: Sorry Karan but let’s find another way to get
the money.
Gary Meyer: If you want us to come to the Commissioners we will
be glad to do that.
Karan Barnhill: I will take any help I can get.
001-106-4366.00
Section Corner
Perpetuation
$10,000.00
Gary Meyer: Section Corner Perpetuation
$10,000?
Karan Barnhill: I withdraw what I said.
Gary Meyer: Is this really what you have $19,000?
Karan Barnhill: Wait, let’s bask up. The $10,000 that I
am asking for Section Corner Perpetuation is a line item in the Surveyor
Budget. Two years ago, gave me $35,000 to do Section Corner
Project. I contracted out to a firm to do my Section Corner and they did
36 sections in Ohio Township. So this $10,000 is coming out of County
General to fund another project. The other thing is the $7495.00 is
coming out of the Section Corner Fund that comes from the deeds when people
record their deeds. So that is two separate items.
Ray McIntyre: But a real quick question. If you have
$19,306.83...
Karan Barnhill: If I have $19,000...
Ray McIntyre: Then the ten could come out of there plus the $7500
for the equipment you need later. We can’t do the ten today because
it wasn’t advertised from there.
Karan Barnhill: What the heck, I am coming back next month anyway, I
can just advertise it.
Greg Richmond: What brings me, before you table this, what brings
me to this discussion, I am looking at the budgeted amount. If you
follow the budgeted amount over there, it is $7500 total beginning
appropriations. That is what we have in the Section Corner which is a 144
fund is what I recall.
Ray McIntyre: We need to go get David.
Greg Richmond: 144 is Section Corner Perpetuation, we budgeted in
there $7500. And that is what this shows is the budgeted amount.
That is what leads me to this discussion, in the line item that she is speaking
of, that she is requesting the $10,000 out of, our budget for 2003 was $6200.
And I don’t see the $6200 in this column here. It starts out
appropriation request and then it moves on down, property tax levy, it says
zero. Property tax levy. Then it comes on down to where it says
miscellaneous revenue and that would be the fees you are talking about that you
bring in. Then it has the cash balance as of January 1, total funds
available and then the request is subtracted from that we end up with the
$19,000.
Joe Schitter: $19,306.83.
Greg Richmond: That is what my question is about that, I just think
that there is more money available in Section Corner than the General.
Karan Barnhill: Wait a second because I think I have an explanation
for that. The quote that I got for, wait a second, okay budgeted, make
sure this is right, was $7500 is that what you said? That is what was
already budgeted, okay.
Greg Richmond: This column that has the $19,000 balance in it says
that is available in there and that would be with the revenue that has come in
that has been added to it. This is a revenue producer where the other is
a budgeted general fund item. I understand why you have the line item
also in the Surveyors also. That is just my question, perhaps this was
advertised in the wrong fund and it should be a 144 instead of 106.
Karan Barnhill: No, because whenever I advertised it I called and I
asked Sally and Krystal, who told me there was only $13,000 in there.
That is why, when you take the $7500 off it only left $6461 in there. But
it brings in about $1000 a month. So that was last month when I advertised
it.
Greg Richmond: The appropriation ....
Karan Barnhill: But I don’t have a problem with readvertising
and taking the section corner project out of that if there is enough money
there. I don’t have a problem with that.
Greg Richmond: Here is the appropriation request, it says here for
some reason, I don’t know why it says, $13,533.34 and that is probably
the figure you were read. Do you show her? Very top line is
appropriation request, go to surveyor section and that may be the figure she
read you. I just have some questions if we can get this again out of some
other fund besides general, I would prefer it to be that way.
Karan Barnhill: The $10,000 you are talking about...
Greg Richmond: Yes, and then you would get the seven out of there
too. Whatever it is you request the other one. I
don’t want to cause you any distress over this but it...
Karan Barnhill: That one doesn’t distress me at all, it is the
truck that distresses me.
Greg Richmond: Me too.
Bob Addington: ...motion to withdraw.
Gary Meyer: Withdraw or table? You can’t withdraw
because she has asked for it.
Bob Addington: I know it but I would rather withdraw because this is
coming out of general fund ...
Gary Meyer: I don’t think you can withdraw, you can table
it or you can deny it.
MOTION: Bob Addington made
the motion to deny.
SECOND: Raymond Bracher
Karan Barnhill: So actually I should go and check with
Krystal and make sure the money is right and try to get it out of..
Greg Richmond 144, if we could get it out of 144.
Bob Addington: I am not against you having the money, but we
don’t have it in General.
Karan Barnhill: That is alright, I understand.
Gary Meyer: Motion has been made and seconded to deny.
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Gary Meyer: Do you have one more?
SURVEYOR SECTION CORNER
144-000-4000.10
Unappropriated
Expense
$ 7,495.17
Karan Barnhill: Yes. Section Corner that is for the equipment
MOTION: Ray McIntyre made the
motion to approve.
SECOND: Greg Richmond
VOTE: 7
Ayes 0
Nays
Karan Barnhill: So you will what, get on the agenda to discuss it
with them or are you going to come to Drainage Board meeting?
Greg Richmond: It may take both, I would say we go to Drainage
Board first.
Karan Barnhill: So are you going to get on the agenda, or do I need
to place you on the agenda?
Greg Richmond: What time do they meet?
Karan Barnhill: 4 o’clock.
Greg Richmond: Do you know the next meeting date?
Karan Barnhill: Next Wednesday. Drainage Board
meets at three that day and the Commissioners meet at four.
Greg Richmond: I can make that if I need to. Yes, please place
us on.
Gary Meyer: As many Council members that can make it, it would be
good to make it. If you get turned down come back. We are trying to
help you out here but we know what is coming down the pike and.
Karan Barnhill: I understand.
Gary Meyer: Okay gentlemen, let’s go back to the middle of
page two, the next item will be Rainy Day Fund, additional appropriations.
Rainy Day Fund (Additional
Appropriation):
499-000-4100.00
Council Administrator
$32,000.00
Gary Meyer: I ask for a Personnel Committee Report on this.
Greg Richmond: The personnel committee met and interviewed seven
people for this position. We are very pleased at the response, very
qualified people I might add. Very difficult to process. As we went
through this we asked several questions that were appropriate, a lot of them
are general questions you would have in an interview and some others that apply
strictly to our own needs. Out of all these we basically ranked them from
1st to 7th and there wasn’t that many points
difference between them but we did come up with a definite one out of all of
them. At this time I would like to recommend that we hire Krystal Powless
as Administrative Assistant in a Special Exempt V classification, initial
hire rate of $30,800. Exempt but entitled to longevity. It is not
an appointed position. The job description is before most of you and you
have seen.
Gary Meyer: Is that a motion?
MOTION: Greg Richmond made
the motion to hire Krystal Powless for the position of Administrative Assistant
to the Council.
SECOND: David Hachmeister
Gary Meyer: Any discussion?
Ray McIntyre: I was on the personnel committee, I agree that, and I
did some of the interviewing, and I believe that she is qualified but I will
not vote for this because I still don’t think this is the best way to
handle our problem. We do need help the help and we do have a
problem.
Bob Addington: I will also vote against it because I think this is
not a necessary position in my estimation. I would much rather see Human
Resource Individual, we can’t hire him but I would much rather see a
human resource individual in the County with a combination of a risk
management, those people do exist and I think it would be for the County as a
whole, it would be better than just an Administrative Assistant. That is
my personal opinion.
Joe Schitter: I believe it is something that we do need. Of
course you can look at it, try to weight the differences and everything and
sometime you have to look at what has happened over the last few years, at
least for me, only being here my second year. I can see a great need for
this. I stated before, this isn’t going to mean I am going to do
anything less, as a Councilman, it is just enable me to do more in my job with
some things being able to be taken care of through one office. As it
stands right now, we do not have a single phone number that you can contact the
County Council, you have to contact as many as you can get a hold of. We
have things coming up concerning these tax abatements and other things, I think
it would be really good to have an administrator working with Economic
Development, so that we have the best feel for what we are doing. So I am
in support of it.
Greg Richmond: It will not only benefit the public, it will also
benefit the office holders and department heads because they will have a point
of contact.
Greg Granger: I have a question. Are you voting on hiring
Krystal or are you voting on the appropriation from the Rainy Day Fund or all
in one?
Gary Meyer: I think it is all in one, is that possible?
Greg Granger: It is probably I guess cleaner to separate
them.
Greg Richmond: I want to withdraw my motion.
David Hachmeister: I withdraw my second.
MOTION: Greg Richmond made
the motion to hire Krystal Powless in the position of County Council
Administrator.
SECOND: David Hachmeister
VOTE:
5 Ayes 2 Nays (Ray McIntyre and Bob Addington)
MOTION: Greg Richmond made
the motion to do the additional appropriation from the Rainy Day Fund to pay
the initial hire rate Special Exempt V of $30,800.
SECOND: David Hachmeister
Gary Meyer: Any discussion?
Bob Addington: I know we are not taking it out of General but it is
hard for me to understand that we would spend $30,000 on a new position and we
can’t come up with $21,000 for a truck, I know it is coming out of two
different funds but it is hard for me to understand that we can find money for
this but we can’t find money for ....
Joe Schitter: Personally though, I disagree with that. The
request from the surveyors office was specifically for the General Fund, she
didn’t ask it out of the Rainy Day, she didn’t ask it of any other
fund so how could we give her the money. You are basically we are not
giving her the money for the truck but we are going to fund a position.
We chose not to give money out of the General.
Bob Addington: I know it is coming out of two different funds.
Joe Schitter: But she can come back and ask.
Gary Meyer: I think if she had asked out of the Rainy Day Fund
the Council would have been a little more receptive. But that was
not the request.
Joe Schitter; I think so too.
Gary Meyer: Any further discussion of the motion?
VOTE:
5 Ayes 2 Nays (Bob Addington & Ray McIntyre)
Gary Meyer: Do we need to decide here tonight when this person is
going to begin work or does it have to be under a motion?
Greg Granger: I don’t think it has to be in a motion.
You can decide.
Greg Richmond: I would be happy to authorize our President.
MOTION: Greg Richmond made
the motion to authorize the President as to the start up of this
position.
SECOND: Joe
Schitter
VOTE:
6 Ayes 1 Nay (?)
AMENDED SALARY
ORDINANCES:
Building Commission:
Office Manager COMOT
II
$28,155.00
MOTION: Joe Schitter made the
motion to approve
SECOND: Raymond Bracher
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Gary Meyer: Motion carried and Joe made the motion. That is
amazing. Do you have another one?
Peggy Smith: Yes. Out of Building Commission. This
goes into a general account. No this is not tax payer money.
Gary Meyer: Where are you?
Peggy Smith: On the third page, under Building
Commission. Under Additional Appropriations.
BUILDING COMMISSION
132-000-4115.50
Office
Manager
$ 2,384.00
MOTION: Raymond Bracher made
the motion to approve.
SECOND: Joe Schitter
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
132-000-4211.00
General
$ 2,500.00
Peggy Smith: This is also still under Building Commission Money.
MOTION: Ray McIntyre made the
motion to approve.
SECOND: Bob Addington
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Linda is going to love how we
jump all around.
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS: COUNTY GENERAL:
Jail
001-114-4311.00
Inmate
Medical
$18,042.54
MOTION: Ray McIntyre made the
motion to approve.
SECOND: Joe
Schitter
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Commissioners
001-116-4120.20
Employee Benefits/Sick
Days $
2,558.64
MOTION: Raymond Bracher made
the motion to approve.
SECOND: Joe Schitter
Gary Meyer: Any discussion?
Greg Richmond: Yes, what is this for?
Roger Emmons: Lawsuit settlement.
Ray McIntyre: Is this over sick days?
Gary Meyer: Is this the Sheriff employee?
Roger Emmons: Yes.
Gary Meyer: Any further discussion?
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Gary Meyer: Are you still up here for something?
EDIT CONSTRUCTION
185-000-4397.04
Paving Projects for ‘04
$ 40,642.29
MOTION: Ray McIntyre made the
motion to approve.
SECOND: Raymond Bracher
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Roger Emmons: Once we get the road list for this year on general
paving, we will probably be back in May, this is just to get it established as
stated in the letter.
185-000-4380.10
Lincoln
Avenue
$ 75,000.00
MOTION: Bob Addington made
the motion to approve.
SECOND: Raymond Bracher
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
Greg Richmond: This is all in the road side?
Gary Meyer: This is the road side of the EDIT. This next
one, Bob has asked to be excused since he has a conflict of interest.
185-000-4380.20
Telephone
Road
$ 653,150.00
MOTION: Ray McIntyre made the
motion to approve.
SECOND: Raymond Bracher
VOTE:
6 Ayes 0 Nays (Mr. Addington out of the room.)
185-000-4380.30
Epworth Road
$ 75,000.00
Gary Meyer: Is this the Millersburg, Epworth Road?
MOTION: Joe Schitter made the
motion to approve.
SECOND: Raymond Bracher
VOTE:
5 Ayes 0 Nays (Mr. Addington and Mr. McIntyre out
of the room)
185-000-4380.40
Lynch
Road
$ 424,580.00
MOTION: Raymond Bracher made
the motion to approve.
SECOND: Joe Schitter
VOTE:
6 Ayes 0 Nays (Mr. Addington out of the
room)
Roger Emmons: Can I get one more? I have a transfer.
Commissioners:
Transfer from 001-116-4315.00
Juvenile Detention
$24,773.00
Transfer to
001-116-4175.00
Workmen’s
Comp
Roger Emmons: This is what you asked me to do.
Ray McIntyre: Can we not find that money someplace else other than
where we know we will have to put it back, one of the other lines like
contractual services or telephone savings or something where we save
money? We know that we have to put that money right back.
Joe Schitter: I think because it is Juvenile Detention,
Workman’s comp we are going to have to put money in it anyways.
Ray McIntyre: This is almost just a waste of time, because you know
we have to put it back and last year we had to put it back, I really
don’t want to make this transfer, it needs to come from someplace where
there is actual money we don’t have to have.
MOTION: Joe Schitter made the
motion to transfer $24,773.00 from Juvenile Detention
SECOND: Raymond Bracher
VOTE:
6 Ayes 1 Nay (Ray McIntyre)
Roger Emmons: Thank you gentlemen.
VEHICLE INSPECTION FUND
305-000-4445.00
Equipment
$ 745.00
MOTION: Ray McIntyre made the
motion to approve.
SECOND: Joe Schitter
VOTE: 7 Ayes 0 Nays
CIRCUIT COURT ADULT
PROBATION
331-000-4189.20
Substitute Court
Person
$ 10,000.00
Greg Richmond: Fund 331, this is a user fee.
Bob Addington: This is a part time position as I got it from my
reading information.
Ray McIntyre: But it is user fees.
MOTION: David Hachmeister
SECOND: Bob Addington
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
331-000-4443.00
Office
Equipment
$
6,000.00
Bob Addington: That is out of the same fee isn’t it?
Gary Meyer: Yes.
MOTION: Bob Addington made
the motion to approve.
SECOND: Raymond Bracher
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
COUNTY COUNCIL
499-000-4112.20
2004 Employee
Compensation
$ 310,000.00
MOTION: Greg Richmond made
the motion to approve.
SECOND: Joe Schitter
Gary Meyer: Any discussion? This is out of the Rainy Day
Fund.
Greg Granger: Yes, why are we calling it compensation?
Gary Meyer: It is supposed to be a bonus, I don’t
know. What did we call it?
Joe Schitter: We didn’t call it compensation, we called it
something else.
Gary Meyer: We called it a bonus before.
Discussion among several.
Joe Schitter: This is just the employees not the office holders so
there isn’t a situation with the compensation is there? Just
because it says compensation it is a one time event. A one time check
that is going to be given out so do we really need to worry about using the
word compensation?
Greg Granger: From that distinction, but we never called it
compensation before. We wanted to avoid ...finding it as any increase in
salary.
Ray McIntyre: Can we just change the wording on our motion to say
bonus?
Greg Granger: I was just wondering why it was called compensation.
Gary Meyer: I don’t know, I bet it just came out that way
on the agenda. We never used that terminology. That was the
reason.
Greg Granger: The resolution was passed already, this is just
funding for it. I don’t think it is a big issue I was just
wondering.
Gary Meyer: Greg would you like to amend your motion to call it a
bonus instead?
Greg Richmond: Yes. I don’t like bonus but I will do it.
Joe Schitter: I will amend my second too.
Gary Meyer: Okay this will be 2004 employee bonus of
$310,000.00. Motion made by Greg and seconded by Joe. Any further
discussions?
Joe Edwards: I have question, I heard talking about publishing and
notify the public, does that mean you are restricted tonight to this $310,000
figure?
Gary Meyer: Yes. That is what we have advertised. Any
further discussion?
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 nays
TRANSFERS:
Council:
Transfer from
001-145-4314.00
Contractual
Services $2,000.00
Transfer
to
001-145-4211.00
Supplies
Gary Meyer: Last page.
MOTION: Joe Schitter made the
motion to approve
SECOND: David Hachmeister
Gary Meyer: Any discussion?
Bob Addington: Do we have a contractual services line item
now? I thought we had to dispense with that.
Gary Meyer: No it is real small, $5000 I think. We had a
larger one, you were right, we bought an ambulance out of it at one time, but
we can’t do that anymore.
VOTE:
5 Ayes 2 Nays (Bob Addington and Ray McIntyre)
SIGN IN SHEET:
Gary Meyer: Sherri Sherman, I think she has gone. Jim Rine,
Spectronics is gone, Joe Edwards.
Joe Edwards: I am still Joe Edwards, the same loyal County
employee who was here last month. When we talked last month I gave you my
appreciation for the $1000 compensation/bonus and I think in my excitement, it
escaped me and I am assuming possibly it did you gentlemen too. There is
another class of employees who did not get anything and I know before I over
extend myself that that was primarily meant to help us a little bit with the
health insurance. But there is another class of employees who I think
maybe deserves some consideration, part time employees were not . I have tried
to so some simple math, I don’t know how many part time employees the
County has, I am going to ask you for a whole lot less that two or three
hundred thousand dollars though. I know my wife works at Casey Road
disposal site, that is where most of my knowledge comes from on the hours ,
employees and that sort of thing, counting employees I know of part time,
including the land fill and other remote sites, I came up with 18 people.
There may be others in the county that I am not aware of. For math
purposes I rounded it up to 20. I made the assumption, which is not
correct that each of these people work half time which will be 1040 hours, most
of them do not. People at Casey Road work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday
work 15 hours per week, people that work Thursday, Friday and Saturday work 18
hours a week. Again, I am being conservative in what I am saying.
These people I believe most of them do a good job, they get no benefits, they
get no holiday pay, they are the cheapest employees the County has. In
fact, holidays cost them money. People that work at Casey Road over
Christmas lost one half their pay check for that Christmas period because it
was closed Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Every Monday holiday, people
that work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday have lost one third of their pay.
These people don’t ask a lot, and I know for an example they do meet the
public and I think generally give a good appearance of themselves as employees
of the County with most of the people that utilize these sites. I do know
for a fact at Casey Road right now, over this past winter, the only heat they
had in there was from an electric heater that belongs to one of the
employees. It was personal property they brought in to keep the chill off
the building. The air conditioner that was supplied by the County went
out, one of the other employees brought his own air condition from his house
and has not asked anything for it. Of course it wouldn’t fit in the
hole of the one that broke so he and one of the other fellows did the carpenter
work and got it mounted. I commonly go to the store and my wife gives me
a list. Last night in fact, I went to the store and one of the items on
the list was a sack of dumb dumb suckers, I don’t eat them and I have
never seen her with one and I questioned that, it is not Halloween, come to
find out after she has been there several years, she gives away candy to the
little kids that come through, with the permission of the parents of
course. I guess the point I am getting across is these people do a
lot that they don’t have to do and I think they represent the County in a
pretty good manner. I have done the math on twenty part time employees,
assuming twenty hours per week, if each of those people were given a 20 cent an
hour pay raise from the first of the year, that would cost the County $4,160
total. Seeing as how we are now better than two months into the year if
you ... the figures it would be $3,460 if it started March 1st.
That is a pretty small amount I think. As far as the reason I am here
tonight, nobody asked me to come, my wife didn’t know I was coming until
she got home from work and I told her. As far as I know none of these
employees other than her know that I am here, I just think it is the right
thing to do. It is not strictly a financial issue, I think it is more of
a moral builder and a pat on the back. If this were in effect from March
1st, my wife would recognize $173.00 in addition to what she is
going to get for the rest of this year. It is not a money issue, I think
it is a moral issue for these employees. I would like to ask the Council
to consider that from the Rainy Day Fund, I think it would be less than
$3500. Maybe considerable less if the hours are as conservative as I
thought. I think it will be $3500 well spent for people that represent
the County. Thank you.
Gary Meyer: Thank you Joe.
Joe Schitter: Thank you Joe.
Gary Meyer: That is all on the sign in sheet. Anybody else
from the public like to address the Council? Sheriff Heilman.
I’ll be disappointed if you didn’t.
Marvin Heilman: Sheriff Heilman, it is not that I need an answer for
this but the council brought this up I think last meeting about the public
official and I haven’t heard any answer about that. I don’t
have an opinion, public, about the bonus but it was brought up that it would be
discussed and I just wanted to know if a decision has been made.
Gary Meyer: Yes and no, the decision has been made by
the State Board of Accounts. We can not do it. We can not change an
elected officials salary once it has been set.
Marvin Heilman: Okay. As a bonus or compensation either one?
Gary Meyer: Right.
Marvin Heilman: I wasn’t asking for it, just wasn’t
brought up and you said it would be.
Gary Meyer: It was left off our agenda.
We did table it last time and we investigated it and found out we
couldn’t do it.
Marvin Heilman: I should echo what Joe said, I too have part
time employees and I know that was intentionally left off the bonus, if there
would be any reconsideration of that, some of the similar things Joe said, I
certainly have loyal part time people too. Similar sentiments that Joe
has they are loyal employees and any consideration that could be given them in
the future I would certainly echo what he said.
Gary Meyer: Thank you very much. Anybody
else? Any Council members? I would just like to publicly thank the
personnel committee that reviewed these applicants I know it is a tough job, it
is a new position we didn’t really know where we were going or what to
expect and I think they did a great job and I would like to publicly say thank
you. Any other Council member have anything?
Greg Richmond: The Personnel Committee needs to stick around so we
can pick a date to meet on the issue.
MOTION: David Hachmeister
made the motion to adjourn.
SECOND: Ray McIntyre
VOTE:
7 Ayes 0 Nays
WARRICK
COUNTY COUNCIL
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
Gary Meyer,
President
Ray McIntyre, Vice President
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
Greg
Richmond
Raymond Bracher
______________________________________________
___________________________________________
David Hachmeister
Bob Addington
___________________________________________
Joe
Schitter
ATTEST:
_____________________________________________
Richard I. Kixmiller, Auditor
Warrick County