PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 2003
10:00 A.M.

The regular meeting of the Porter County Board of Commissioners convened at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 in the Commissioners' Chambers of the Administration Center.

Those present: Commissioners David Burrus, John Evans and Bob Harper and County Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger.

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

APPROVAL OF PAYROLL

Com. Evans moved to approve the payroll of November 17, 2003, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Com. Evans moved to approve the minutes of September 16, 2003 Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.


COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS

Center District: Com. Harper

1. Brooks Industrial Park Performance Letter of Credit #32000645 10002, from
Porter Bank in the amount of $49,739.00. Expiration date is November 7, 2005. Recommend approval.

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

2. Union Minor Subdivision #0133-D-1, located on the Joliet Road between US 30 and Lake-Porter County Line Rd offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $3,000.00. Owner and subdivider is Stacy Jill Fekete. Recommend approval.

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

3. Center Minor Subdivision #1433-D-1, located on the south side of Clifford Rd between SR 130 and 150 West offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $1,500.00. Owners and subdividers are John B. and Kathryn A. Spencer. Recommend approval

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

4. Center Minor Subdivision 1134-A-1, located on the southwest corner of Joliet Road and 250 West, offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $3,000.00. Owners and subdividers are Robert and Paul Landgrebe. Recommend approval.

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

5. Windsor Park Subdivision, Phase V Performance Letter of Credit #443 from DeMotte State Bank for $5,000.00. Expiration date is May 5, 2004. Recommend approval.

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

6. Bridlewood, Phase B, Hunt Club Drive Acceptance Form. Recommend approval. Please see letter dated November 13, 2003 to Richard Mostak ( Bob Rossman's attorney) Exhibit "A". Exhibit "B" is he memo that was faxed to Rossman on October 23, 2003. Note the last paragraph.

Com. Harper moved to accept,

Com. Burrus, "If I may give a little bit of background on this. The Bridlewood Subdivision had basically two discrepancies before it was to be accepted. One of them was pavement preparing sealing on Hunt Club Drive and the other had to do with some tree falls on the bridge structure across the Clark Ditch. The Hunt Club Drive portion is completed, the wing wall portion has not. I think the content of that memo possibly is that the Hunt Club Drive portion is completed and we want to wait until the entire discrepancy list has been addressed before we give final acceptance."

Com. Harper, "I agree with that but then why does it say recommend approval?"

Com. Evans, "I think he is recommending approval of Hunt Club Drive portion, the asphalting work that was done and then he is pointing out the wing wall issue. I think this is two separate issues."

Com. Burrus, "I think so. He is asking for our approval of Hunt Club Drive but he won't release on the developer until the whole thing is completed."

Com. Evans seconded the approval of Hunt Club Drive only, motion carried.

South District: Com. Burrus

1. Utility agreement for NIPSCO to install 1 pole at 146 East 400 South in Malden. Recommend approval.

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

2. Utility agreement for NIPSCO to install 4 electric poles on the south side to 650 south west of 150 West. Recommend approval.

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

3. Recommend traffic control devices to be altered on all cross roads on CR 600 South between SR 49 and County Line Road. Stop signs for all north south roads.

Com. Burrus, "By way of explanation, CR 600 South is an east-west road that goes from SR 49 all the way to Laporte County and joins 421. We are upgrading that road to make it a more passable thoroughfare and therefore we want to give it the access without stop signs versus the north-south roads that currently have the right of way."

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

CORRESPONDENCE

Treasurer's monthly report for October 2003 is on file.
Building Department Monthly report for October 2003 is on file.
Court Security Activity report for October 2003 is on file.

COMMISSIONER HARPER'S COMMENTS ON PROBLEM WITH NIPSCO IN NORTH COUNTY

Com. Harper, "Someone contacted me about another resolution on this NIPSCO problem up north and I know one time it was turned down, I think on the basis of supporting these people that are having the problems with NIPSCO and had filed a lawsuit downstate and at one time it was turned down because it might come up before the BZA or the Plan Commission. I think it is clear that it is not going to come up before the BZA or the Plan Commission. So I wondered if we could entertain a resolution supporting them and the problem they are having. I have been up there, and it's right between two houses and if it is not going to come before any board here, I see no reason we can't at least have a resolution to let them know down state that we support these people."

Com. Evans, "I don't know that we turned them down, I think we declined to take an action because it is still up in the air as to whether it is supposed to go before the BZA or not. Our Planner says yes it is and the attorney for the Plan Commission says it is not. I totally emphasize with those people, I mean the new location is even worse than the first one. This one is 150 foot from Mr. Lightens bedroom window and it is no good."

Com. Harper, "Did you see a copy of that memorandum where Lake County Plan Commission and BZA tries to get involved with these things and in fact, NIPSCO is willing to go to them for Lake County. Is the attorney from the Plan Commission or someone who can let them know what our legal position is so we can help these people if there is someway we can?"

Com. Evans, "In our non action what we were attempting to do is not to bias the Plan Commission or the BZA by taking a stance in showing them what we thought we should do because we appoint those bodies and thereby using undue influence to cloud their judgment or change their judgment and just stay neutral to make sure the process is fair. I am of the opinion they really do need to come to the BZA to get their approval. They may be able to go over their heads with their right of eminent domain but I think they should at least play by the rules."

Com. Burrus, "I agree with your comment in particular and that is that the BZA is a most autonomous board. I think if this has a potential to go to that board, then we need to remain neutral. On the other hand, it would probably be appropriate to find out as soon as possible what the actual procedure is going to be. I have no problem with the resolution inasmuch as it does not conflict with the autonomy f the BZA."

Com. Harper, "Why don't we wait until the next meeting. It is not going to be in front of any county organization."

Com. Burrus, "I think so, too."

Com. Harper moved to recess the morning session, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

PLAN COMMISSION SESSION

Rezone, AG to R1, Carmen Good, Owner, 1st reading.

Mr. Thompson, "This is Plan Commission Resolution No. 03-16, Petitioner Carmen Good requesting a parcel of land be amended from AG to R1, single family residential. This was heard before the Plan Commission at their October 8th meeting and was recommended denial by a 6-0 vote."

Com. Burrus, "This being the public hearing for this request we will go first with anyone who will be speaking in favor of."

Don Bengel, "I am an engineer and surveyor here in Porter County. I am representing Lonnie Ailes and Carmen Good on this 6.9 acre piece of property on 150 South. At the Plan Commission, there was only one person that spoke against this and that was an adjacent owner. Somebody said it was spot zoning, and technically it is spot zoning but if you look at the land use in the whole area, everything is pretty much residential. Right adjacent to the west is a minor subdivision with four houses on it. Almost all of the property on the west side of 200 is all small lots and then to the north we have the frontage lots and then the _________ subdivision back of that. So we didn't feel it was out of the question to ask for this. We would be happy with our R-1; it probably wouldn't make much difference because the septic has been controlled and the most we would get out of that would be 4 lots with 1.7 acres a piece. Right now, it is just sitting there. It is residual the whole farm that Dr. Ailes and Mr. Good bought. (Inaudible…) to be able to put four houses in there that would be equal to or better than the other houses in the neighborhood. I can answer any questions."

Com. Evans, "How many street cuts would there be?"

Mr. Bengel, "Just one."

Com. Burrus, "Next we want to offer an opportunity for anyone to speak who is opposed to the proposed rezoning and you may take the table or stand at your seat. Please state your name and address for the record."

Mark Henry, "178 West 150 South, the parcel immediately to the east of what you are looking at there. When we originally bought that land, that area was divided up into thirteen 10 acre parcels. Approximately five years ago, the one remaining parcel that has the homes on the front of it on the west side, they rezone that under the minor subdivision to allow them to put four homes on that land at that time. That land has already been rezoned once now it appears to me they are trying to rezone it again breaking it up into little bitty pieces as they go in order to get around the minor subdivision loop hole that will only let you build four homes rather than put in a major one. I think that was the take at the prior public hearing had on it as well. I am against it because that was not the understanding when I bought that land and invested my hard earned money into it that there were a lot of covenants out there and all weather homes on that 130 acre parcel or $3 million homes and Carmen wants to come in and build a bunch of little cracker box $120,000.00 homes and I know that is not one of your concerns, but devaluing property is one of my concerns. Again, they don't own the land in front of those homes so they have to put them in there kind of catty-wumpus. If you look at how those other ones are put in there on the cul-de-sac with their backs facing the roads and facing my property. I guess the one legal issue to really hang your hat on is whether they are trying to get around the rezoning law by breaking this 10 acre parcel up into little bitty four acre four site homes, with one parcel at a time. It appears to me it was already done once so how can you come back and rezone the same land again; get it now and come back and do it later. I guess that is all I have to say."

Mr. Bengel, "It was never zoned, the petition for minor sub was filed and the reason we are asking for rezoning is that to do another minor sub you have to have the first ones done and the whole farm then you need rezoning in AG. It would be a major subdivision because you can only do one minor. The houses will be served by 60 foot easement coming off the road. That is a crazy situation because the property line for the farm to the north was south of 150 and then it was kind of strange that Mr. Good, well I don't know if he was an owner but his brother owned farm at one time and they just let all the parcels go that line. If they wouldn't have done they wouldn't have had that strip between 150 and the parcels.

Com. Burrus, "And the situation is that the road is off the section line, is that correct?"

Mr. Bengel, "Yes, and then it comes back on with that curve in the road. So we never had a rezoning before and I am not sure of the price of the houses but these will be 1 ½ acre parcels. I doubt that it is going to be real cheap houses; they will fit in the neighborhood. All the houses across the street will be setting the ________. These houses all face 150 South."

Com. Evans, "This will be served with a cul-de-sac, too, is that what you are saying?"

Mr. Bengel, "Well, it won't be a cul-de-sac, they'll come in and there will be a road, interior access parallel to 150. There will just be one entrance on there at 150."

Com. Burrus, "I am trying to follow your logic here, Don, on this. Inasmuch as one minor subdivision has been created on this parcel already, that precludes any more minor subdivisions and this one is intended to be a major subdivision. Is this logic within the guidelines of our ordinances?"

Mr. Thompson, "I don't know how the six acres came about. If they divided it into 13 parcels, that is fine, all divisions of land 10 acres or greater are exempt from subdivision control by our definition. Now if somebody took that 10 acre parcel and made them four-lot minor subdivision out of six acres, I guess that is where I am confused because I am not sure how that six acres came about; it should have been a lot. It is not 10 acres. Now if somebody owned the 10 acres and wanted to do a minor subdivision and they came in today, I would make sure that all of those would be into the lot. So I am a little confused on how that six acres really came about."

Com. Burrus, "Is there any history on that?"

Mr. "They had that 10 acre parcel, they got the minor subdivisions, we were invited to come to a hearing, or they got the minor subdivision, they put the four they wanted on the permit and they left this parcel, they didn't do anything with it."

Mr. Bengel, "I think that is right because I don't believe that Good and Ailes owned any other land besides this at the time, so I think it is true."

Com. Burrus, "So their parcel started out as the 10 acres?"

Mr. Bengel, "Yes."

Com. Burrus, "There was no rezoning required for the minor subdivision?"

Mr. Bengel, "Correct."

Com. Burrus, "And then with the residual 6.9 acres, they are restricted from any further minor but they can move forward with a major, is that correct?"

Mr. Thompson, "Correct."

Com. Evans, "Even on AG zoning?"

Mr. Thompson, "No, it has to be rezoned."

Com. Harper, "When they came in with this minor subdivision, did everyone think it was going to cover the 10 acres?"

Mr. Thompson, "If it came through while I was sitting on TAC, I guess I just recall it. We probably possess 45 or so a year. Really if it came in on the 10 acres, then it was an accident made at TAC."

Mr. Henry, "That's true but if I brought one in today, we'd probably put four lots on the whole 10 acres."

Mr. Thompson, "No, it was an accident because if somebody came in with 10 acres today and wanted to do four 1-acre residential lots, we would stop them. The residual left over is less than 10. If somebody had 15 and wanted to come and do four 1-acre lots, then we would let it go because the residual left over would be 11."

Mr. Henry, "I'd be in favor of putting one house on there, at least do something with it so it is not land locked and useless."

Com. Harper, "What did you think when it came in when you went to that meeting that these were going to be four lots on 10 acres?"

Mr. Henry, "That was my understanding all along, when you break up a parcel, you break the parcel up not . . . . "

Com. Evans, "What size are those lots?"

Mr. Bengel, "An acre a piece."

Mr. Henry, "And they are about $150,000.00 homes, all the rest of them, I don't think you could buy for less than 1/3 of a million."

Com. Burrus, "Well, I still want to make sure I understand you correctly, Bob. Even after a minor subdivision has been created with the residual lot being left, then there still is an option to rezone it to residential and then to propose or request a major subdivision, correct? Is that the route you are following?"

Mr. Thompson, "Yes."

Com. Burrus, "So there is a provision in the ordinance for what we are dealing with today?"

Mr. Bengel, "Yes, and if they come in there will be a public hearing."

Com. Harper, "What were some of the problems that there was a 6-0 vote, there must have been some type of discussion."

Mr. Thompson, "The items were spot zoning, the fact it was an agricultural area and the proposed lots were not directly on the county road. To explain that, one of the reasons behind that is because if they do put four lots on there, with a major subdivision, they have to be able to access all those lots, they must abide code. To develop a road to county specifications, if they do anything less, they have to request a variance in front of the Plan Commission."

Mr. Bengel, "I would think they would request a variance on a private road. They would still end up paying the road agreement, but the interior part would be … it is just going to be …….Well, in response to Bob's question, I don't know what happened at Plan Commission because there were six people and three were speaking favorably and three were not. All of a sudden there was a 6-0 vote."

Com. Burrus, "This right of way for the private road, will that be a private owned right of way also or will that be public?"

Mr. Bengel, "That will be private. Yes, an agreement between lot owners to maintain that."

Com. Harper, "These lots across the street, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, how large are those?"

Mr. Bengel, "1.1, it is kind of hard to read, 1.4. I would say directly across the street they are all 1.1 but that included the center of the road."

Com. Burrus, "Was there any other discussion at the meeting regarding topics other than spot zoning?"

Mr. Thompson, "I missed most of the comments by the remonstrators, I was researching something at the time and I tried to comment on some of the things I heard when I came in. Also there was a drainage issue, of drainage going through the property."

Mr. Bengel, "I think Mr. Henry said that right now being unused the ground is _________ and open. I think Bob is right, spot zoning was mentioned by one of the Commissioners, it is an agricultural area. Basically that was the two comments by the people who were opposed."

Com. Burrus, "In the plat book, there is quite a significant density of housing of one kind or another between 150 South and 250 South. As you pointed out, Don, on the north side of 150 there is going to be subdivisions so, I have difficulty defending the idea this is spot zoning or anything out of character with the rest of the neighborhood."

Mr. Henry, "Everything east of my property is all agriculture."

Com. Burrus, "Right, from your property the drain slopes off into low flat ground and that is primarily all AG."

Mr. Bengel, "The original intent was to go for that whole half mile and I think they got hit by the economy so they sold off big chunks."

Com. Burrus, "I think our procedure here has kind of drifted from that of a hearing; we have been having a discussion more than anything else. Mr. Henry, do you have any further comments about this because we need to wrap up the public portion of the hearing."

Mr. Henry, "If there are some other questions about what was said, maybe take a minute to read the minutes from the meeting because I don't have a copy of that. If there is something else troubling or missing . . . "

Com. Burrus, "We have a summary of the Plan Commission as part of our packet. They make mention of the spot zoning; they make mention of the drainage issues, septics, home values."

Mr. Henry, "What does that spot zoning mean, is that for the developer?"

Com. Burrus, "It has to do with an isolated rezone in an area that is predominantly something else. For example, 6.9 acres in something that is nothing but agriculture right now but with a developed subdivision and a number of parcels sold off, that are all residential in nature on both sides of the road, all the roads in that area, certainly has a residential character to it now."

Mr. Henry, "In the back of all the property is still alfalfa, farming."

Com. Burrus, "Let me officially close the public portion of the hearing for the record and now the Board members can discuss the issue further and ask questions. John?"

Com. Evans, "I was just looking at the comments, also, and one of the things I noticed it says that the citizens that complained said these lots would be smaller and not in character than those surrounding lots. I think I see just the opposite of that. It looks like they would be same size as the ones directly across the street and the ones to the west. It says the others are 10 acres or larger, now I can see that in the tracks that are going either way, but I think the spot zoning refers to simply the fact this is agriculture and is used as residential. I question the validity of the surrounding lots being as large as 10 acres and whether or not the use is in the manner as described as agriculture at this point. I have a hard time with the spot zoning thing."

Mr. Henry, "The 10 acres they were referring to is the rest of the block that is originally . . all the parcels adjoining that are all .. ."

Com. Evans, "But if you look directly across the street,"

Mr. Henry, "Well that was about 20 years ago with the tract homes and $120,000.00 homes. Then the new development came in six years ago . . I am just talking about the two classes of development, one from the 1970's and one maybe five years ago with a totally different type of homes in there."

Mr. Bengel, "The lots we have proposed for this would be 179 feet wide and so that is a lot bigger than anything else around there. The best would be 181 feet."

Com. Burrus, "It sounds like you might have a difference in the configuration."

Mr. Bengel, "I've got these lots at 1.56 acres and one at 1.58, "

Com. Burrus, "That's what I was saying. The proposal size is over an acre and a half and across the street you are looking at 1.1, something about 2/3's of what you are proposing."

Com. Harper, "I wanted to ask Bob, what is this Commission members did not agree with the rezoning parcel because of bad planning in the past. What is that statement about?"

Mr. Thompson, "About what is across the street. They did not feel that they should be held for the rezoning to residential from major subdivision like what was done across the street."

Com. Burrus, "What is wrong with the one across the street?"

Mr. Thompson, "That whole area that was north of 150 South there in the subdivision and the number of residential lots along the existing county road. Some of them felt it was bad planning."

Mr. Bengel, "Not that many years ago you could go in an develop, which is what Jerry Good did, he put a subdivision on the inside."

Com. Harper, "I guess because we are at where we at, it seem to make sense to me that this parcel has already been partly been broken up, if there is that kind of housing across the street, I cant see what good it would be to deny this at this time but I would have to say this; if I am reading this correctly, this is surrounded with 10 acre parcels and I think we need to take a look at that minor subdivision plan and maybe limit that statute somewhat because it just becomes a domino, you know, now we have this one so now to the right and to the left and to the south and to the north, it happens again. Then this fellow and a bunch of his neighbors apparently have gone out and bought 10 acre parcels with some expectation that they were buying 10 acre parcels and they were going to remain 10 acre parcels. The argument continues to be what is next door, I mean I guess we can work at Lake Station and work to the south part of the county and not worry about the size of lots. As I say, this parcel is not going to be a 10 acre parcel so I feel that stopping right here is not maybe a place to stop and I think the edge of this property is the place to stop. I think we need to look at that minor subdivision ordinance so people can not be coming in here and start to break up a parcel like that and all of a sudden the argument is look what is next door. I hate that argument."

Com. Burrus, "I think that fix you refer to has been put in place in 1983 or '85."

Mr. Thompson, "Yes, what you see here is rather common. Someone has large acreage, 150 acres, then bam, 15 ten-acre lots. It happens in a lot of places all over the county. Then it becomes a race. Somebody buys the ten acres and then races to see who is going to be first one into a minor subdivision of 10 acres. If they don't get the minor subdivision with 10 acres, then they want to have it rezoned or if it is in a residentially zoned area, then they want to a major subdivision of 10 acres with only three lots and ask for the variance for not developing the road to county specifications. That is what happens all the time."

Com. Harper, "So the minor subdivision thing is still happening, right?"

Com. Burrus, "The point is, the minor sub issue is still going forward but it has to have all ten acres divided, there cannot be a residual piece left."

Mr. Bengel, "You can't have a piece less than ten acres."

Com. Evans, "It just couldn't happen today."

Mr. Thompson, "We try to really go over these things and look at them and find out what the residual is and try to prevent things like this. I am not saying it is perfect, but we do really try to stop this."

Com. Harper, "As I see it, what is going to happen tomorrow when the person that owns 10 acre south of this and says across the street we have all these lots so I want all these lots. So his neighbor around here says no we don't. Is there ever going to be land that is agricultural and people want to live on 10 acre lots there? Obviously the economics are worth more if you cut it up. Do you understand my question?"

Mr. Bengel, "It might as well be in another zoning classification to include bigger lots."

Mr. Thompson, "That is one way. As long as you have those ten acres, if somebody wants to split off, you have those three 10-acre parcels to the south of there, you have found everything like that and you have somebody wants to come and say, well I am going to sell off a couple acres to my brother and let them build a house, they are going to have to come in here in front of this board and ask for it to be rezoned. What is creating this is a definition of what a subdivision is and which it states what is not a subdivision is for all parcels created for 10 acres or greater. If somebody divides up that in the agricultural like that, they could get that ten acres and prove that is wasn't a subdivision. I can point out a number of places in the agricultural area that has happened. I can point out a number of places in residentially zoned areas where that has happened. It is much easier for somebody that has a large land owner that doesn't want to put that much money into development or wants to sell out for that purpose and just go ahead and split it up, 10 acres to everybody and then sell those 10 acre parcels."

Com. Burrus, "You know the 10 acre division makes some sense but it also makes some sense by what we are talking about here. You might want to consider eliminating the minor subdivision on a 10 acre parcel. It is the secondary division that seems to be an issue here. If you chop a farm up into tens, then if you find somebody who comes along and wants to further divide that into these four parcels, that is where all the opposition is coming from."

Mr. Thompson, "Like I said earlier, they sell those ten acres and the first person to buy those ten acres rushes to get into our office and start developing a minor subdivision."

Com. Burrus, "We are on the verge of doing some major re-writing of ordinances and Master Plan and this ought to be an ideal opportunity to correct some of these."

Com. Evans, "Increase the size of acreage needed for a minor subdivision."

Com. Burrus, "Any further discussion on this topic?"

Com. Harper, "It is all cut up around it and I don't see anything in spot zoning not to do it but because that parcel is already cut up, I am just saying at this particular area, that should be the end of it. I don't want to keep going on. If this was on that ten acre south of it, I would say no; it has already been cut up. That is all I have to say."

Com. Evans, "I agree with that. I don't know what else you can do with it. It makes it in accordance with the rest of the use around there. I don't really agree to the spot zoning; that should have been zoned differently at the outset."

Com. Evans moved to approve the rezone from Agricultural to Rural Residential, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

Mr. Henry, "Is that it, you are voting against the Plan Commission's recommendation?"

Com. Burrus, "That is correct, we voted to authorize it."

Mr. Henry, "To go around loopholes and let him do what he wants even if they disagree?"

Com. Burrus, "Well, it is not so much going around loop holes because the loop holes exist right now."

Mr. Henry, "What options am I left with?"

Com. Burrus, "I will refer you to Mr. Thompson on this one."

Rezone, AG to C2, Douglas Wilkes, Owner, 2nd reading

Mr. Thompson, "This is Plan Commission Resolution 03-C-13 where the petitioner, Douglas Wilks, was requesting an amended parcel of land from AG, open space, to C2, offices and institutions. This is the southwest corner of State Road 49 and 300 South. This is where the current and existing Jake's Seed and Feed store is at."

Com. Evans, "As is recall, this is just a square of a parcel in conjunction with a piece that is already existing there and to get the semi trailers out of there so he can use some substantial warehousing rather than …."

Com. Evans moved to approve the rezone from petitioner Douglas Wilkes from AG to C2 on 2nd reading, Com. Harper seconded,

Com. Burrus, "There were a number of people speaking on behalf of this project."

Mr. Thompson, "Yes, we had four or five citizens that came to Plan Commission to speak in favor of this."

Motion carried.

Com. Burrus, "We have one other issue under Commissioner business before we recess. We have had a discussion here regarding the dates of Christmas with the 25th of December being on a Thursday, and with conversations between the three of us we prefer to offer Friday, the 26th as an additional day off for our staff and employees. Any further discussion on that?"

Com. Evans, "I agree it is a good idea."

Com. Evans moved to approve the 26th of December, 2003 as a paid holiday for the employees of Porter County Government, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

OPEN HIGHWAY BIDS FOR SUPPLIES FOR 2004

Com. Burrus, "We will call this meeting back to order. The afternoon session today is to open bids for 2004 Highway Department's supplies and materials. We will open each bid and announce who the bidder is and if it is possible, we will at least announce a representative pricing. We may not list every single price due to time. All the bids will be taken under advisement by the Highway Department and at a later meeting, they will be making their recommendation to us as to who the successful bidder will be. Our purpose today is to simply open the bids and where I can I will give you the pricing. We have 32 categories of bids so it will be lengthy and in some cases we have as many as a half a dozen or more bidders. Feel free to come and go as you see fit but it will probably be at least an hour of opening here."

1. LIMESTONE: Indiana #53, delivered to North Porter County

Whitcomb Trucking $ 8.70 per ton
Harry Brown Trucking 8.85
Ralston Paving 8.60
Vulcan Construction 9.35


2. SLAG: #53, North of US 6

Levy Company $7.05 per ton
Beemsterboer9.35
Ralston Paving7.75

3. BITUMINOUS PLANT MIX:

Bucko Construction $22.50 per ton
Walsh & Kelly26.00
Aggregate27.95
Gallagher Asphalt28.95
Central Paving36.50
Rieth Riley Cons.27.50

4. ICE ABRASIVE MATERIAL: #24 STONE SAND, delivered

Vulcan Const. $ 8.50 per ton
Aggregate6.75
Ralston

5. FILL SAND

GE Marshall $ 5.75 per cubic yard
Whitcomb 5.00
Ralston Paving5.20
Duneland Sand1.58

6. PAVEMENT STRIPINGS AND MARKINGS

Airmarking Co. $ .05 unit price basis

7. RENTAL RATES FOR EQUIPMENT (each bidder is authorized to submit prices on whatever equipment he has available for rent)

Bernie Johnson
Klink Trucking
Walsh & Kelly
Bucko Construction
GE Marshall
Mt. Carmel Sand and Gravel
Rieth Riley Construction
Northern Equipment

8. Signs and Sign Posts 24 inch stop signs, quantity of 1-50

Fishers Associated $ 13.95
Hall Signs 9.98

9. CALCIUM 38% solution delivered

Great Lakes Chloride $ 43.6 per gallon
Brunk Corp. 48.8

10. GASOLINE, lead free, per gallon, delivered

Triple J-Mar $ 1.23.45
Petroleum Traders1.21.2
Baird & Marine1.26

11. DIESEL FUEL, #2

Triple J-Mar $.99.35 per gallon
Petroleum Traders.86.33
Baird & Marine.92.00

12. MOTOR OIL AND CHASSIS LUBRICANTS

POCO Paulson Oil$ 4.24 per gallon
Baird & Marine 4.00

13. TIRES (1020 drive axel truck tire)

Brown Tire$ 166.72 each
A&M Farm Center 180.04
GCR Tire Center 160.00
Moser Tire 170.00

14. TUBES

Moser Tire$ 15.00
A&M Farm 15.29
Brown Tire 19.77
GCR Tire Cntr 12.00

15. GALVANIZED RIVETED CORRUGATED STEEL CULVERTS AND GALVANIZED SPIRAL STEEL CULVERTS AND GUARDRAILS
(12" culvert, 14 gauge)

Metal Culverts$ 6.03 per foot
St. Regis Culverts 4.02
Debco Metal Culverts 5.11
James Drew Corp. (no competition, bid was not read)

16. PRECAST OR PRESTRESSED BRIDGE SLABS AND BEAMS

American Timber-stated in cover letter prices are same as last year
Rinker$ 23.24 per sq. foot for concrete beam
Bridgetek (no comparative bid)
St. Regis corrugated metal options

17. READY MIX CONCRETE 5 Bag mix

Zimco Materials$ 68.00 per cubic yard
Ozinga 72.00

18. GRADER BLADES, ¾ IN. X 8" X 6 ft.

Onyett Fabricators $ 7.89 per ft.
Howell Tractor 6.30 or 40.00 each
Lacal Equipment (did not bid snow plow grader blade)
American Wire & Rope 5.98
Northern Equipment 61.15
St. Regis 5.96

19. DISPOSAL SERVICES FOR HIGHWAY GARAGE SITES

Able DisposalNorth:$200.00 per load
Center:$230.00
South:$240.00

20. OFFICE CLEANING SERVICES, HWY 2 AND ST. RD 8

R&D Janitorial$380.00 per month
$310.00

21. PARTS WASHER SERVICES AND USED FLUIDS PICK UP

None.

22. BATTERIES FOR EQUIPMENT

Barenie Products(no examples read)

23. HARDWARE & TOOLS (Too numerous to read, available for review)

Sanders Indiana Hardware
Barenie Products

24. TRUCK REPAIR PARTS

Owens-Burgess InternationalWill be offered at major fleet prices
Wiers InternationalWill be offered at major fleet prices

25. FAN BELTS (too numerous to read, available for review)

Dewey Auto Supply

26. FILTERS (acknowledge bid, available for review)

Howell Tractor
Dewey's Auto
Service Auto Parts

27. WIPER BLADES (acknowledge bid, available for review)

Dewey's Auto Supply

28. HYDRAULIC HOSES AND ENDS (acknowledge bid, available for review)

Barenie Products

29. TIGER MOWER PARTS (acknowledge bid, available for review)

Lacal Equipment Co.
Northern Equipment

30. ANTI-FREEZE

POCO Paulson $ 241.45 per barrel

31. WELDING SUPPLIES -8" rod

Praxair$ 1.26 per lb.
All American 1.48
Lacal Equip. (no price)

32. ROADSIDE VEGETATION CONTROL SPRAYING

Daltons

**(Administrative note: if any price read deviates from the bid documents submitted, the bid documents prevail.)

Com. Burrus, "Everything we opened is on the front row seat here for review. We will take them under advisement and will be awarding the contracts at our next meeting or sometime in December in order to give them adequate time for reviewing. Thank you to all the bidders. If there is no further business, we will stand in recess."



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

Com. Evans moved to recess, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.


BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

David L. Burrus
John A. Evans
Robert P. Harper

Attest: Sandra K. Vuko, Auditor