PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002

The regular meeting of the Porter County Board of Commissioners convened at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 in the Commissioners' Chambers of the Administration Center.

Those present: Commissioners David Burrus, Larry Sheets, John Evans and Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger.

President David Burrus called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF PAYROLL

Com Sheets moved to approve the payroll of March 11, 2002, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Com. Evans moved to approve the minutes for March 5, 2002, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

AWARD BIDS FOR NEW FURNITURE PACKAGE FOR NEW PORTER COUNTY JAIL
Maj. Doug Snider, Porter County Sheriff's Police
Kathy Todoran, Schenkel Shultz

Maj. Snider, "I am going to introduce Kathy Todoran, she is our contract design expert with furniture and she has offered a recommendation for a low bid and she is going to list the other bids so we know what the prices are."

Ms. Todoran, "Okay, this is the list of bidders in alphabetical order:

HGW:$249,252.00
Infusion:$192,686.00
Kramer Leonard:$194,443.00
Lincoln:$201,263.00
PBI:$175,717.00
Wings:$180.436.00

In all cases, we got two addendums and in all cases, all addendums were received and all required documents were contained. Our recommendation is PBI as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder."

Maj. Snider, "This package takes care of all our needs and it takes some of our equipment that is feasible that we can take with us. It is a combined package of taking existing furniture and getting new additional furniture."

Com. Evans, "Subsequent to receiving the bids, we received a letter from Greg Fox from Kramer & Leonard and Kathy, you were given a copy of that and I would like you to address that point by point if you would."

Ms. Todoran, "In the Kramer & Leonard letter, it is says that the project architect, Schenkel Shultz, was a former owner of our low bidder, PBI; that is not the case. They were never owned by Schenkel Shultz. There is another company in Fort Wayne called Infusion, which was one of our bidders that was once a part of Schenkel Shultz but they no longer are and PBI was never owned by them. It also states that Schenkel Shultz employed me, which was never the case. I am a sub contractor for them on occasion for projects but not as an employee. It also states that I previously worked for our apparent low bidder, PBI, which is also not the case. I don't know if there is some confusion there, but my maiden name, which I haven't had for 13 years, was Kathy Peppler, and there is a Kathy Peppler that was employed there, but we are not the same person. The bid should have specified only open lines. We did specify open lines, there was an exception to this one product and when we discovered it was not an open line, we opened it up to another manufacturer via the first addendum and allowed people to bid on that as well. They had a choice between the two and it states that PBI was the only one able to buy the first one they in fact, they bid the one we opened it up to. Kramer & Leonard and PBI actually bid on the same product. So they did not have exclusive pricing on the initial one, they chose to bid the other one that we put out on the addendum. The design itself was flawed in several ways. There were two cases of panels perpendicular to windows in the detective's area. That was an error in drafting. It did not affect the price of the bid, therefore it didn't warrant sending out an addendum. When asked about it, my response was we will make that adjustment because they are not wall mounted panels, they are free standing, meaning we can shift those in the field. I wasn't just tossing that off as not being important, I said we would adjust that in the field. So as far as design flaws, that was it, the two panels. The issue about 24/7, the products that we specified are an appropriate quality for this project. The vast majority other than four control areas, we are not using them 24/7. They are working environments for who ever works their hours per week, but there isn't somebody in the office 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and that is the vast majority of the product we are using. I believe what we put in there is appropriate for the usage of this building. It is mostly office space, even though it is in conjunction with the jail. We are not doing jail equipment as part of this bid that gets constant use. The local dealer issue, legally this is an open bid. Anybody that is qualified and can meet the bonding insurance requirements is able to legally bid on this project. While it is a very competitive market right now, business has been low and I think the prices have reflected that but that is really to the County's gain. PBI has submitted a letter to Gwenn that addresses the issue of the fact that they do a lot of out of town work and they have been in business over 20 years and will be there to service your needs. That is what they do for a living. There is one more thing about a tape recorded conversation. Mr. Fox made us aware that he had a recording from the rep from one of the companies stating that one of the bidders, and at that point, he said it was Infusion, was getting a slightly better price on one of the products and that is because they are part of a national buying program called Office Furniture USA and they have a predetermined discount. Now in his letter, he is saying the tape recorded conversation was in regards to PBI, so I am a little confused about this tape recording and who it actually applies to. Initially, we were told it was Infusion and they are not even the low bidder. Normally, I don't inquire about pricing because it is none of my business what the reps' relationship is with these suppliers, but I did ask because the issue was raised and the rep from that company assured me that PBI and Kramer & Leonard were given the exact same discount on this product."

Com. Evans, "I also have copies of a letter from Schenkel Shultz and PBI in regard to the letter and they all refute the same points you do in much the same manner."

Com. Evans moved to accept the low bid from PBI, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

UPDATE ON EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE
Michael Anton, Anton Insurance

Com. Burrus, "For the audience's information, this will be an update on our health insurance which will be renewed or addressed as of the first of April."

Mike Anton, "I appreciate the opportunity to address the renewal situation for the county's employee health insurance benefit plan. At this particular moment, it is just an agenda and I will read over it and make a representation today. With us today, are three representatives from the Stewart Miller Company who is our third party administrator, Sherrie Jamison who is our account representative, and Tracy Jordan, and of course Bob Bryant and I are here from Anton Insurance. I know you are running on a tight schedule so I will ask Sherrie Jamison to give us a report on last years' expenses."

Sherrie Jamieson, "What I handed to you is the annual report that our office has put together for Porter County Government. On the first page, it gives you a background of how the experience went for 2001. Claims paid were up about 600,000 from 2000, with total claims paid of $3,454.326.00. Average monthly participation for the county was 559 employees which came to a monthly average claim cost of $47,023.00. Our office had 12,330 claims submitted in 2001 which is an increase of almost 900 claims from last year. On page 2 is a graph which illustrates comparison of the average cost per employee from 1999 to 2001. As you can see from 2000 to 2001 there was an increase of $97.00. On the third page, we've broken up the average cost by employee by benefit area for 1999 and 2001. The inpatient hospital experienced the greatest increase on an average cost for employee bases, with an increase of $27.00. This is per month. The next increase would be in prescriptions, it went up $15.45. There is a graph at the bottom which illustrates 5% of claims experienced. On the fourth page, we have outlined that prescription drugs and the inpatient hospital benefits were the greatest claim expenditures for the county for 2001. On the bottom graph, it illustrates the total dollar expense of claims paid by benefit area. Fifth page we've broken up the claims experienced paid by family member, employee, spouse, and dependants as well as the number of claims submitted by family members. On the next page we have an illustration of how the PPO which is with CCN is working for the county. The average charge per day for 2001 per day was $1,798.00; average pay per day was $988.00. Then we have it broken out in network and out of network and then total admissions. The county paid $3,131,431.00 to various providers in the year 2001. We have listed the top 7, the second and third, please note that those are the prescriptions. These seven providers do represent 35% of the amount paid. The final page is hospital average length of stay. The county had 109 admissions for 2001. The average length of stay was 5.89 days. We put together a little comparison of in network and out of network of different diagnosis. The heart and heart complications, the county had 5 admissions in network; in pregnancy and related complications you had 42 in network; cancer: 2 in network; mental\nervous: 2 out of network. At the bottom is the inpatient providers where the county has had admission and you will note that Porter Memorial has 71% of the inpatient admissions for the year. Any questions?"

Com. Sheets, "If I recall, about the last month, maybe longer of 2000, we didn't have funds so we carried some of those claims over to 2001. Would that have skewed this somewhat? So when we look at page 1, you show the graph of 2000 being pretty close to 1999 and then a big jump to 2001 when in reality 2001 might be a little higher on the graph than 2001 being a little lower. It is important when we are dealing with our employees and we need to have an accurate picture and that is why I raised that issue."

Com. Burrus, " Would it be possible to come up with an average cost per employee per year with respect to the total cost?"

Stewart Miller, "On the front page there is kind of a synopsis of the average cost per employee per year. $470.00 per month and if you add reinsurance and administration expenses, you are looking at right at $520.00 per employee per month."

Com. Burrus, "So then the total cost per employee is over $6,000.00 on average?"

Mr. Miller, "Right. One of the reports that was passed out is the report that has a graph on it. Towards the back, there is a print out of averages of claims expense by employers in the Midwest. Provincial Insurance programs like the County's with a PPO program are spending $7,202.00 on the average so the county is right at $1,000.00 less than the average in the Midwest. It is still high, but comparatively, the county is lower than the average in the Midwest. Also, on the front page of the report there is some information with what happened with the reinsurance industry after 9-11. The global reinsurance industry took 140% loss ratio. In other words, they took losses of 40% over the premiums they had received. Primarily, they had not only diminishing reserves, but also had diminishing earned interest income on the reserves they had in house. Most insurance companies took a pretty big hit in the reinsurance area and now they are trying to get some of that money back by passing the cost onto clients like the county with stop loss reinsurance. I think we are going to continue to see medical inflation at about 12% and inflating reinsurance costs."

Com. Burrus, "The 12% is what we had proposed last year as we prepared our budget at that time."

Mike Anton, "Is the 12% taking into consideration the 27-30 % inflation for prescription drugs?"

Mr. Miller, "Yes, it is factored in with the hospital and medical costs, they are still looking at 12% overall."

Com. Sheets, "Do you recall what our increase was, it seems to me it was higher than 12% or 13%."

Mr. Miller, "There is a report that shows the year by year inflationary factors there. I can't recall for sure but we can get that for you."

Mike Anton, "I think what Larry is referring to is a couple years ago, either ‘99 or 2000, we did this by claims and you may recall the aggregate issue where we had the aggregate number of claims for the whole group and when they calculate the attachments were that point of claims that we enter into the insurance. We went beyond a couple hundred thousand dollars so that would be considered a bad year and we have to reflect that in our aggregate premiums."

Sherry Jamieson, "We topped the market for a stop loss for the county's renewal of April 1st. I talked to about 5 or 6 different markets and I have given you what quotes came back to our office based on past claims history for the county. Currently, the county has a specific deductible of $80,000.00 and that is on an individual. On the first part, is the current reinsurance costs what their renewal is and then other bids. The second and third page are increases in the specific deductible and the second page is if you wanted to increase this to $90,000.00. The renewal from the account is about a 21% increase. You have been on the low end on the increases with their renewals, typically we are seeing about at least 25 to 30%."

Mike Anton, "We have two stop loss mechanisms within the partially self funded program. The first one is $80,000.00 specific stop loss and what that means is any individual claim that would exceed $80,000.00 in a policy term would then revert to insurance coverage. That is our cap for an individual claim."

Com. Burrus, "In other words, the county is self insured up to $80,000.00 per claim, per person."

Mr. Anton, "Correct. Then we take all the claims that would be experiencing and we also have a cap to the aggregate amount of claims which is what we refer to as the attachment point. After we reach the attachment point, we would have insurance to prevent that."

Com. Sheets, "You are recommending the ULLICO?"

Mr. Anton, "With the ULLICO bid there is a provision at the top of the proposal there that it is the only bid presented on a paid contract which means all prior incurring claims to the policy would be adjudicated as they were submitted. The other proposals are based on what is referred to as a 15-12 contract. They would take those incurred charges for the first three months any charges that came after that. There is one bid there in the third column that put a cap on it. A paid contract is a more advantageous contract to you and you could have a little higher cost associated with that but if you look at those proposals, you will note that the ULLICO proposal fixed costs is significantly lower than the regular proposals. Those are numbers that we know. We don't know what the county's experience is going to be over the next 12 months. Hopefully, it will be something better that it was in the last 12 months."

Com. Burrus, "Would it be appropriate to read these comparative quotes? This would be the specific reinsurance premium, this would be on a per person, per month basis. ULLICO is $27.77; Hartford is $40.42; American National is $44.13; and AUL Insurance is $40.03. The one that you are recommending is the lower of those which is $27.77 on premiums and the total annual fixed cost. There is another category that would be lowest also and I will read those: ULLICO is $217,426.00; Hartford is $291,205.00; American National is $317,979.00; and AUL is $289,385.00. We are looking at a significant cost savings if we elect to go with ULLICO."

Com. Evans, "The specific deductible raising from $80,000 to $90,000 really doesn't have much merit?"

Mr. Anton, "No. There is a report that is generated that will tell us the number of claims we have that exceed 50% of the specific deductible and apparently we have 80 individuals that have exceeded 50%. If you look at that spread, I think it is $23,000.00 so we could only have 2 claims before we start to lose money on that decision so we can't recommend moving to the $90,000.00."

Com. Sheets moved to approve the renewal of ULLICO for $27.77, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Mr. Anton, "I did want to mention beside the ULLICO presentation there is no change to the administration charges with Stewart C. Miller or Anton Insurance. Stewart Miller had committed a couple years ago to a three year fixed servicing fee and this is the third year of that agreement. That is a really positive thing because of the inflation issues."

Bob Bryant, "I am going to give an individualized Care Management report. What this company does is they work with individuals that have higher claims and make sure they are being processed correctly, and that they are getting adequately cared for and also to protect the county's interest so that claims don't go overboard. In this case, they handled 79 new patient care this year and one psychiatric with a total of 80. On the third page, the Care Management saved bout $18,696.00. The hospital saving was $1,656.00 for a total of $30,356.00 on managing the claims. The last page is the graph showing what their cost was last year and the savings turned out to be $4.53 per employee per month. You can see how this was a good plan to have in force to protect the county. The renewal terms for April 1, they are $92.00."

Com. Burrus, "So this ICM is a service that we have that focuses on high dollar claims?"

Mr. Bryant, "Right. The nurse will contact the individuals to make sure they are getting adequate health care, they contact the doctors, they check with the hospitals to make sure the length of stay is appropriate."

Com. Evans, "Is there a threshold that it kicks in on or is that done on all?"

Mr. Bryant, "They check will hospital admissions."

Mr. Anton, "They make a determination right from the get-go due to the severity of the condition or incident. They would certainly be there for accidents."

Com. Burrus, "Does in-patient treatment kick it in?"

Mr. Anton, "Yes. Like for pregnancy you get two days and then if you go over that they get involved to find out why. Or it could be triggered by activity to the adjudicate."

Com. Burrus, "You were saying the savings they generated was about $4.53 per month and per employee and that their cost was $1.89 and the total aggregate savings was over $30,000.00 so we are saving somewhere in the neighborhood of about $15,000.00 to $16,000.00?"

Mr. Anton, "Correct."

Com. Sheets, "During our discussion of changes on our insurance for employees there was two questions asked. One was do we audit the people representing us to make sure we are getting what we pay for and paying what we get. I think that is what this ICM does. The other question was, the services that are provided, even though we are self insured, is that we do go out for bids for third party administrator. Everything is bid out for all these services provided. It is not handed to somebody."

Com. Sheets moved to adopt the services of the Individual Case Management, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Com. Sheets, "This is for the county taxpayers and employees. We don't know where our insurance is going to go tomorrow or we don't know where our funding is going to be. It is susceptible to change and we need to review it. Our financial circumstances caused that."

RECEIVE BIDS FOR HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
Jack Jarnecke, Highway Superintendent

Com. Sheets, "We have 3 bids here for liquid asphalt for Porter County and Koch and Bitmat Products and Seneca. Thank you for bidding."

KOCH:
DeliveredFOB
AE-T, AE-90, RS-2$.51 $.51
AE 150$.57.7 $.557
AE300$.64.7$.66.7
Dustday$.537 $.50.7
AE-P$.927$.907
AE-PL$.587$.577
AE-90S$.757$.757

BIT-MAT PRODUCTS:


AE-90$.49$.47
RS-2$.49$.47
AE-PL$.49$.47
AE-150$.58$.56
AE-300$.62$.60
AE-90S$.72$.70
RS-2P$.72$.70
HFRS-2$.49$.47
HFRS-2P$.72$.70
AE-P$.92$.90
Dustop$.45$.43

SENECA PETROLEUM:

AE-90, AE-T$.5425$.51
AE-PL, RS-2$.5425$.51
AE-150$.5625$.53
AE-90S$.8925$.86
AE-300$.7225$.69
Dustop$.5125$.48
AE-P$.9925$.96


Jack Jarnecke, "I would like to take these under advisement until the next Commissioners' meeting."

Com. Sheets moved to take the bids under advisement until the next meeting of April 2, 2002, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.


DEPARTMENT HEADS\OFFICE HOLDERS
Extension Office, Karen Dezarn

Ms. Dezarn, "We have a contractual agreement that we are asking to be signed. It is not asking for anything more to be put into the budget, it is just a contract that Purdue is requesting that has already been agreed upon in the budget. It is for salaries."

Com. Burrus, "This figure of $108,650.00 is approved in your budget and has survived the 10% cut?"

Ms. Dezarn, "That is correct."

Com. Sheets moved to approve the contract, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.


PLEXIS SOFTWARE CONTRACT FUNDING APPROVAL
Shirley LaFever, Porter County Assessor
David Hollenbeck, Attorney

Com. Burrus, "Your topic you want to talk about today is your pending contract for assessor software and the question from the Commissioners is whether or not there is approved funding in place for that so you can respond to the vendor to continue with that contract."

Shirley LaFever, "I went before the Commissioners in December, 2001 and presented to you this Plexis contract. It is a three year contract and it will be $41,869.26 over six payments in three years. You approved the contract based on Council funding. Then I went before the Council in December, and at that time I told the members it would be approximately $46,000 in six payments for three years and Mr. Carmichael said at that time we have close to a million dollars reverted and these are the minutes from the Council meeting and those are between two funds of 108 and the approximate one million dollars. I only do a budget for one year at a time so my budget in January I put in there for the money I needed for 2002. I don't know how the Council or who does it for the next years of 2003 and 2004. We do have money approved for the 2002 contract. And the 2002 contract includes my software and also my support and my training. My question I presented to Gwenn a few weeks ago after the reassessment budgets were heard in January, my understanding was there was only like $1,300.00 left in the reassessment fund. I asked what am I supposed to do for 2003 and 2004 since this was a three year contract. I guess that is why we are here today. We need the software to get going. It has already been ordered."

Com. Burrus, "I think the position we have to take on this is we are certainly in a responsible position to negotiate and to consummate these contracts subject to the proper funding. I think we are going to need some assurance from the Council that not only will we have the first installment but we need some kind of assurance on the subsequent installments."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "I sent letters out in that regard setting forth everything Shirley has said today to everybody on the County Council. I think we need written commitment from the County Council that they will fund this contract for 2003 and 2004. Since we are in the unfortunate situation where we have approved a contract without money and we can't do that."

Ms. LaFever, "At that time, I understood there was money."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "We were all under that impression."

Ms. LaFever, "In January at the Council meeting, we brought it up again about the money and David is the one that said it was a statutory job to do the reassessment, you have a fund that generates money to do that, and if the fund doesn't have enough money to do that, you have to pay for it out of the general fund. But I understand how the county is in bad circumstances, but I don't know what to do. Without the software, we cannot continue with reassessment."

Com. Burrus, "I think we all agree that it needs to be done. The only thing we need to cover ourselves on here is getting involved in contracting in good faith. We need to make sure we have the ability to follow through on this. Gwenn mentioned we need to have assurance from the Council that they will follow through on this and this is not the only contract we are having some second thoughts on right now. The anticipated funding that we looked at in previous cases may not always be there. It is one of these issues that has not surfaced before."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "I guess one of the reasons we have Attorney Hollenbeck here is to let us know that he will discuss this with the County Council."

Com. Burrus, "The thing we need to point out, is that telephone costs for us on the normal system that we carry are part of our fixed costs and they have been under funded to the tune of over 10% this year. We are looking at approximately one million dollars of under funding in August, this is not even with the 10% cut of our fixed expenses. Every one of these that comes along on board is going to have to be addressed under its own merit. I would hope that you would cover this also in your discussion."

Ms. LaFever, "But this is a cost that Data Processing and myself wasn't aware of from the original time we did the contract that these phone lines were going to have to be installed."

Com. Evans, "No one is blaming you, Shirley."

Ms. LaFever, "I understand, but we did know about this extra cost when the time was we could have put it in the budget."

Com. Burrus, "I think the whole point we are trying to make here is, that this is an item that has to be done for your reassessment process and we need to make sure it gets addressed and gets funded before other things of less importance get addressed and funded."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "From my clients' perspective, the issue is how much of micro-management do you do in terms of a particular elected officials' department? Do they go into that department and say what is important or what is not. You need some latitude to make those decisions. You can argue that it is a prescription for failure for the County Council to go into your budget and say you cut this or that and you don't have any say in that. That is not to say I don't agree with your concern that if you look at the cuts that have been made, you wonder what we are going to do in September, October, November, and December when some of these fixed costs come home."

Com. Evans, "I don't agree entirely. I think that the office holders always come to the Council with their own priorities in mind and they know their office and they know what cuts they can make and where they have to have their funding. I think the Council needs to go back and look at that office holder's recommendation and go back to a funding mechanism whereby they do the fixed liabilities first before they do the other things. That would put everybody in a better perspective. It has always been for years and years they go to a pot of money that is the largest pot and say well, cut this in half and come back in six months and then we will balance your budget because that is what we need to get under budget. They are going to have to quit that."

Ms. LaFever, "I would like to add something. This is not my wish, this is state mandate."

Com. Evans, "We are 100% behind you. This would be one of those fixed liabilities I am talking about."

Susan Larson, "I have a comment just to back up Shirley. It has to do with the state mandate. The money for the entire county starts with us small township assessors down to the smallest township we have. If we don't get our work done, you will have nobody else to go to."

Com. Evans, "We understand that. But what did you do fifteen years ago when there was no software?"

Susan Larson, "I have almost 16,000 parcels and I am so late getting my software and I usually get done in August. I am down two employees and that is fine and I don't have software and I am not going to be done in August."

Com. Evans, "Everyone is in the same boat. Sometimes I believe the software manufacturers hold all of us hostage. There are one or two companies that provide this product, and one or two companies that provide the products for just about every function we have and they know they have a captive market."

Susan Larson, "We just got our direction now, it is not even the software people, it is the legislature."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Did anyone figure out why it was $1 million dollars and $1,300.00 dollars in the fund?"

Ms. LaFever, "Bill Carmichael thought it was $1 million dollars in December but they had to get the final totals from the ______ so it could be reverted back. But you had reassessment budgets before the Council in January, there was no reassessment budget for 2002, then that amount got reduced. I knew and they knew the budgets had not been heard."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "But if that is the theory, then we do the fixed costs in the reassessment budget like this and we cut more people and then we can't do the work that the computer is supposed to have us do. Then we cut more people because that is not a fixed cost."

Ms. LaFever, "This is a reassessment fund and there was money in the reassessment fund but in the past, the reassessment fund is being used for other things to be purchased in accounting like for our GIS which I don't want to beat a dead horse, but that money was spent out of the reassessment money, if that money was not spent we would be in good shape right now. That is all I want to say about that."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "It is scheduled to be part of my attorney's report with the Council tonight. So I guess I haven't changed from what I said in January, with the only condition being is the County can write checks until the cows come home and if there is no money in the bank, any commitment my client makes has to be conditioned by the statement pursuant the funds are in the bank. That is something they have no control over, we have learned that the hard way."

Com. Evans, "In our defense, we also conditioned our acceptance of that contract on the very same wording providing the funding was there."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "The 2002 payment will be, so this is for 2003. I have not seen the contract, but in hindsight maybe we can look at the language of multi year contracts that does put some limiting language in conditioned on the availability of funding."

Com. Evans, "But there are so many of these that are lease purchase that if we don't enter into that type of contract, they are not going to give us any terms."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "I understand that and that is why your chairman is saying that we are falling on new ground here."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "We couldn't do this project if we tried to do that. This is a project that is a set fund that is $233,000.00 and that is the way it is. We can't say we will pay $100,000.00 and then maybe we will pay $200,000.00 later."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "In past years, when we said this a three year contract, and we said what if the county closes down in 2003, we all would have laughed. It is not a laughing matter anymore, it is a definite real possibility. It is a consequence we haven't had to deal with and I am saying I have not changed my legal opinion from what I told the troops in January. I will say that again tonight. I think their response is going to be they are totally committed to the project and totally committed to paying for it with the caveat that they can't bounce checks. If the money isn't there and the county closes down, there is nothing they can do about it."

Com. Burrus, "You are suggesting a point that I want to speak to them tonight about how fixed costs are addressed and I think that each department has a certain number of fixed costs they have to fund every year and we certainly have a large number of costs that are not fixed that we have more control over. I would think and hope as we go forward in future years in the budget process that fixed costs are addressed initially before the funds are consumed. This would include contractual obligations in every departments that we have already committed to and we have no control over and we don't ignore them. We are concerned from a point of view of entering into a contract in good faith and we don't want to default. To the extent we can take that message to the Council tonight and they can give us a commitment that it will be a fundable item in the future, then we are prepared to go forward with it."

Ms. LaFever, "Just to make sure the Commissioners understand also that after this three year contract has paid for the software, we have to maintain our annual support at $47,600 per year until next reassessment. So even though the software will be paid for, we still have an annual support. Just like we had with Manatron in the past."

Com. Burrus, "I think the entire picture has to be addressed to them to make sure they understand and maybe just to re-iterate the story, this is an obligation we have to take a look at. There is another cost we have to look at of the annual re-occurring cost of about $3,500.00 for telephone support. I would request you to make sure that part is included in your discussion with them, too."

Ms. LaFever, "I don't know where the money is going to come from because we did not know this cost at the time we did our budgets this year, without the phone calls."

Com. Burrus, "I think we are finished on your issue, then Shirley, until tonight."


ORDINANCE 02-03 ISSUANCE OF NEW TAX ANTICIPATION WARRANTS
David Hollenbeck, Attorney

Atty. Hollenbeck, "As you know, our plan B in terms of the cash flow crisis as a back up to the bail out bill, which I am told arrives on the governor's desk today, is to issue some additional tax anticipation warrants. We are scheduled to sell those tax anticipation warrants at 1:00 this afternoon in the Auditor's office in an amount not to exceed 10 million dollars. The cash flow statements that we currently have show that we can make the April 8th payroll in the county but we have no money on April 9th or 10th. It is critically important that either the bail out monies are available or Plan B is available. That is why I am here to culminate our authority to issue and to sell at 1:00. I need you to approve the ordinance I mailed to you authorizing the issuance of no more than10 million dollars of tax anticipation warrants. The game plan would be that we would sell not more than 10 million dollars in tax anticipation warrants, we would use 5 million of that immediately to pay back the Indiana Bond Bank and that accomplishes two things. It extends our deadline, the bond bank deadline is June 30th to pay back the 5 million. This warrant issue would be paid back in December which gives us some more breathing room. Secondly, it avoids the need for the bond bank imposed lock box where we had to take the first 5 million dollars that we got in and put it in the lock box to protect them. It does away with that so we can use for cash flow purposes, the money that comes in from the property taxes. We are working to expedite the issuance of the bills. The Auditor's office has indicated they could have their work done by Friday of this week which means Data Processing can have it the first part of next week and we are hopeful to get the bills printed so we can take up First National's Bank offer the last week of March. They have indicated their equipment is available to us so that equipment will fold, stuff, and we are hoping the bills can be mailed the first week of April. That is the game plan now. We talked to a number of local banks to see if they would process their escrow accounts expeditiously and they have indicated they will. The tax bills will be on the streets April 2 or 3 and hopefully people will start paying their taxes. We have a commitment from the Treasurer's office that they will count the tax dollars as they come in on a daily basis and basically close out their books on a daily basis so the Auditor's office can go down to the Treasurer's office in April on a daily basis and access some of the money in the hope that we can close the cash flow gap. I need you to approve this ordinance on the basis of waiving your rules and approving it twice at one meeting."

Com. Evans, "If the governor signs the bail out measure, then this is not where we will be going for the money?"

Atty. Hollenbeck, "If the governor signs the money and we can get the money by April 9th, this is not where we are going. If we don't have money by April 9th or 10th from the bail out bill, then this has to be in place. The cash flow statement shows with the 10% budget cut, we can make it to December 31st. But, that means not a dime in additional appropriation and you have already dealt with two issues this morning. General fund is about $29 million dollars, $3 million of that is health care costs. On top of that, you already told me your phone line item was cut and you can't make till December, so this is not long term. The only way we live within our means is within those 10% cuts of the budget."

Com. Sheets, "When we have these conversations, we are short funded about a million dollars. If we can find some way to reduce that, we are still going to have those fixed costs."

Com. Sheets moved to waive the rules and adopt Ordinance 02-03 in the amount of $10 million dollars to be issued in the form of tax anticipation warrants on the second reading, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.



COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS

North District: John Evans

1. Road Agreement for Jackson Minor Subdivision #2615-B-1, located on the southeast corner of CR 450 East and CR 1200 North. Offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $3,000.00. Owner and subdivider is Mark Grott, Grott, LLC.

Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

Center District: Larry Sheets

1. Performance Letter of Credit #381 from DeMotte State Bank for Windsor Park, Unit
II in the amount of $59,000.00. New expiration date is September 15, 2002

Com. Sheets moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

2. Performance Letter of Credit #2002-ILC-439 from Bank Calumet for Emerald Ridge Subdivision, Phase A in the amount of $20,500.00. New expiration date is September 30, 2002.

Com. Sheets moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

3. Performance Bond for Murvihill Road sewer project is due to expire on March 28, 2002. There are still deficiencies and the letter needs to be extended. The contractor has not extended this Performance Bond and I recommend filing a claim. Weiler Inc. Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning is the contractor. They have not been responsive to our requests to complete the clean up for the permit issued April, 2000. The contractor has been repeatedly notified.

Com. Sheets moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

South District: David Burrus

1. Road Agreement for Morgan Minor Subdivision #2038-B-1, located on the east side of
CR 150 East between CR 400 South and CR 500 South. Offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $1,500.00. Owner and subdivider is William Griffey.

Com. Burrus moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.


CORRESPONDENCE

Veteran's Service Officer Monthly Report for February is on file.
County Treasurer's Monthly Report for February is on file.
Proof of Publication for appropriation of funds approved on March 5th meeting for E-911

Com. Burrus, "We have a request for approval for Valparaiso Community Festivals and Events to use Courthouse grounds during the months of May through October for local Farmer's Market. In addition, they are requesting the grounds for their festival Voyager Days, on the weekends of June 15th through July 27th."

Com. Sheets moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Request for Transfer of Funds – Commissioners' budget

Fund 01.30$5.00from acct 2110Office Supplies
Into acct 2410Medical & Dental

To reimburse the Juvenile Service Center employee for TB tests.

Com. Sheets moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Fund 01.30$1,065.00from acct 3973Change of Venue
Into acct 3750Other rentals

To pay for rental fees for Expo Center

Com. Evans moved to approve, and suggested in the future to have the petitioner pay the costs, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

Com. Burrus, "One comment I would like to make on that with respect to the Expo Center and our budget work this year with Lonnie Steele. We were able to identify virtually every one of his operating expenses out there in the form of utilities and insurance and contracts. Some of the items that have been paid for in the past out of the Commissioners' budget, he was not aware of. So in an effort to try and encourage the Expo Center to be 100% self sufficient, Lonnie will be trying to cover all those expenses identified. In exchange for that effort, we offered to pay direct out of pocket costs. In other words, some of the labor that was necessary for events that we have to be involved in out there. I think your point about the petitioners is a good one and we should follow up on that. For this afternoon, we have a 2nd reading on the rezone of Richard and Nancy Baulos and we had a rezone that was withdrawn. Citizens Financial Service will not be on the agenda, so it looks like a very brief agenda."

John Whitcomb, "Have you heard from the state highway department about this intersection of Highway 2 and 30 yet?"

Com. Burrus, "No sir. We haven't heard and we probably wouldn't. There has been some individual requests put out. Larry, did you have a conversation about the stop light issue?"

Com. Sheets, "When we were at INDOT about the 149 situation, it was brought to their attention and then after that we sent a letter and have not heard anything back yet."

John Whitcomb, "I request that you follow that up with another letter. I called them a couple months ago and got ahold of somebody and they said they wanted to leave it that way until they got enough right of way to put another turn lane on the south side. I won't live to see that unless they are going to that this year. They said they had no idea of what they were going to do out there."

Com. Burrus, "I had a conversation with an INDOT member yesterday and their position on a number of issues is reflecting the state's budget problems, and they don't expect to see action on hardly any thing that has to do with right of way acquisition any time soon. We can keep it on the table, but I don't know what we will expect to see."

Com. Evans moved to recess until the afternoon session at 1:30.m., Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

AFTERNOON SESSION--1:30 PM
Rezone, Richard and Nancy Baulos, 2nd reading
Steve Nygro, Assistant Planner, Plan Commission

Steve Nygro, "This is the second reading of the petition for rezone for Richard and Nancy Baulos, rezoning a parcel from R-1 to C-1 at the intersection of Calumet Avenue and State Road 49."

Com. Evans moved to approve the rezone on second reading, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

Com. Burrus, "I have one other item. This is a request from a university group that we need to address as Commissioners. It is a student chapter for Habitat for Humanity and they have requested our permission to hold a shack city demonstration outside the courthouse from noon of April 5 to the afternoon of April 6th. What they intend to do is demonstrate for the spectators what the homeless people might be putting up with. I talked to the representative and I told her that she would have to have one of the faculty sponsors assure us that they would be responsible for a complete clean up and restore the grounds to the condition they found them. I have a letter to that effect from Alan Bluhm who is a professor at Valparaiso University. Any objections?"

Com. Evans, "Do they require bathroom facilities?"

Com. Burrus, "They do have vehicles available and they would shuttle back to the university for that purpose."

Com. Sheets moved to approve the Habitat for Humanity student chapter, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Com. Evans moved to recess the meeting, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

With no further business to conduct, the meeting was recessed.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

David L. Burrus
Larry D. Sheets
John A. Evans

Attest: Sandra K. Vuko, Auditor