ST. JOSEPH COUNTY — Debate over a controversial tax abatement plan is back on after the measure was vetoed Tuesday by St. Joseph County Commissioners. The question now: will anyone cross party lines again to stop it?

After nearly six months of work to draft the proposal, St. Joseph County Councilmen voted 5 to 3 last week to approve the tax abatement plan. The vote came along party-lines after almost four hours of public comment.

Six days later, the measure went before County Commissioners, and after a brief discussion, Commissioner Bob Kovach (D) crossed party lines to join Commissioner Andy Kostielney (R) in voting against the measure. Commissioner Dave Thomas (D) was the lone vote in favor.

"This ordinance is well-intended," Kovach told the South Bend Tribune. "I agree with many of its goals. We do want well-paying jobs, jobs that are sensitive to the environment, and we want to utilize local businesses and contractors."

"But my experience with economic development tells me this type of approach does not work. Site selectors will view it as a detriment and we should not put our community at a disadvantage," he continued.

Kovach is the former director of Indiana's Department of Commerce.

The tax abatement ordinance now goes back to the County Council for an "override" vote, where a 2/3 majority, or six votes, will be needed to overturn the commissioners' veto.

This time, there will be a wild card.

Councilman Kevin Kubsch (D) was absent from the last vote because his flight into down was delayed due to weather. The fate of six months of debate now rests on his shoulders.

"I could feel the pressure then," he said with a laugh. "I feel the pressure really hard right now!"

There's a good reason why.

By Tuesday night, every single Democratic County Council member confirmed to WSBT that they have no plans to change their votes.

GOP Councilman Dennis Schafer said he didn't believe any of the council's three Republicans would change their votes either.

That leaves Kubsch as the deciding vote.

"I'm not going to say where my vote is right now, but there are people that I need to speak with. I would say my mind has not been made up either way," he said.

Under the current version of the tax abatement plan, companies asking for at least three years of tax breaks would be required to do several things.

1) Pay a "poverty wage" to all employees working on the project. Currently, that wage is $8.80/hour.

2) File an affirmative action plan that includes affirmative action commitments from all sub-contractors used.

3) If the abatement request is for more than three years, or the project encompasses more than $750,000 in value, the company seeking the abatement would also have to pay what's known as a "common construction wage."

Last year, that wage happened to also be a union scale wage.

But County Councilman Mike Kruk (D) who is also the Financial Secretary and Business Organizer for Carpenters Local 413 says that doesn't always hold true.

"It's done by a private company hired by the state. They survey all types of contractors in an area, and the results are what they are. And I don't know why people have such heartburn [over the common wage] if that's what an independent survey determines," Kruk said.

Kruk and other supporters argue that the measures help ensure fair wages for workers and also set a solid "guideline" for growth.

"This ordinance basically gives us a guideline on how to evaluate each abatement, based on what they're bringing to the taxpayers of St. Joseph County. There's no system in place for us to do that right now," he said.

But opponents argue the measure as written now would actually restrict growth by turning "potential" businesses away.

"It's too complex. It contains too many provisions in it that [businesses] find objectionable. And, rather than come to St. Joe County, they'll just eliminate us right out of the gate," said St. Joseph County Chamber of Commerce President Mark Dobson, also a former President of the County's Board of Commissioners (R).

"I agree with Commissioner Kovach. Some of the provisions in this are well intended. The problem is, from a perspective of a site selection company looking to locate a business, this is a site elimination ordinance. We took the plan to site selectors and said 'give us your perspective. A couple said it would put us at a competitive disadvantage. One said, it's an elimination ordinance. They would write us off right away," Dobson continued.

Thus far, that debate has been "split" down party lines, with Democrats for and Republicans against.

Kovach broke that split, and now Kubsch says he'll be using a similar "fact finding" approach before casting his vote.

"I want to find the best solution. I'm not going to say it's a party line thing," he said.

"I think some [County leaders] have taken a look at the economic climate and said, boy, let's not put up obstacles. Let's promote our community. I think that's because they're taking a hard look at the economy," Dobson said.

But there's even debate over that.

"The truth is, we could be doing this in the best of times, and I think the same opposition would be there," said Kruk.

The only thing that seems certain now is that Kubsch has a tough decision ahead.

"I will be weighing this hard," he said. "I know you're not going to make everybody happy."

Dobson says the Chamber isn't giving up on that possibility.

"The way this ordinance is crafted, it's very restrictive and difficult for businesses. But we're not opposed [to having an ordinance] at all. We think there ought to be something," he said.

If the veto stands, Dobson says they'll ask supporters of the bill to sit down again and craft a plan they can both support.

"We would immediately invite the construction trades in specific back to the table and say, let's craft something on a collaborative basis that we could all live with," he said.

"I find that a little puzzling," responded Kruk. "The position that the Chamber and Project Future had is that they didn't want any ordinance. We already sat down at the table. If they didn't get everything presented that they waned, it wasn't because we didn't give them a chance."

The County Council is scheduled to take the override vote on April 14.