PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004
10:00 A.M.

The regular meeting of the Porter County Board of Commissioners convened at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chamber of the Administration Center.

Those present were: Commissioners David Burrus, John Evans and Robert 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 June 28, 2004, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

APPROVAL OF CLAIMS

Com. Evans moved to approve the claims of July 6, 2004, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

RTA REPRESENTATIVE-APPOINTMENT

Com. Burrus, "This is just a formality. The Regional Transportation Authority has invited participation from Porter County on an interim basis to be present on that Board until such time as a state statute can be revised to create a permanent situation. With respect to the interim representation, the Cities of Portage and Valparaiso, are each being represented by one person and the unincorporated areas of Porter County are to be represented by an individual. We will open this for discussion but I suggest we have our Planning Director, Bob Thompson, represent Porter County. Is there any further discussion or issues with that statement."

Com. Evans, "I think it makes sense that he has a responsibility to his existing duties and responsibilities."

Com. Burrus, "Bob, do you have anything to add?"

Com. Harper, "Yes, I feel the same."

Com. Burrus, "Okay, with that in mind, then we can make a motion."

Com. Evans moved to approve Bob Thompson as the Porter County representative of the RTA, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

COSTAL ZONE ADVISORY COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT

Com. Burrus, "John, I think you had that initially to go over the topic."

Com. Evans, "Yes. Because the costal zone is obviously in the North District and came to my attention. Bill Satterlee has been fulfilling the duties of the representative on this commission since its inception. We have not had any problem and he has been reporting back to me after every meeting and it is difficult to make all the meetings and he has expressed his desire to continue doing that. The Coastal Zone Advisory Commission has informed me that in order for him to continue to do that with a vote for Porter County, I need to resign and he needs to be officially appointed so I would like to make that in the form of a motion."

Com. Burrus, "That includes your resignation and his appointment."
Com. Evans, "Correct."

Com. Evans moved to resign as representative of the Coastal Zone Advisory Commission and to have Bill Satterlee appointed in his place, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

DRUG FREE COMMUNITY FUNDS

Sharon Cawood, Director of Porter County Substance Abuse Council

Com. Burrus, "Is Sharon Cawood here? Or anyone representing that interest? I have a note for the July 20th meeting so this item on the agenda may be premature here today. If she does arrive, though, we will address it later. We can move on then to the next item.

VALPARAISO TRIATHLON - JULY 10TH, 2004

James Spanopoulos

Mr. Spanopoulos, "We did the same thing last year, we are requesting to detour traffic for two hours at 700 North and Meridian. We will detour the traffic, the Porter County Sheriff's Department will detour the traffic to Calumet."

Com. Burrus, "Okay, A little bit of background possibly. You are proposing the triathlon to originate and to terminate at the Lake Wood Park on North Meridian. Right?"

Mr. Spanopoulos, "Yes sir."

Com. Burrus, "The roads that would be involved in your request today, Jim, would be a portion of Meridian, 550 North, 50 West, 700 North, 175 West and so on. You are making a loop out there around the West side of the Park."

Mr. Spanopoulos, "Yes. We are putting up signs letting the folks know 5 days ahead of time that there will be a race going on between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Saturday. Local traffic only. We don't want to stop traffic on those particular roads but we want them to be aware that there is a race and we are going to have 400, at least 450, participants between the time of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m."

Com. Burrus, "So the bulk of your route will still have traffic available for local residents."

Mr. Spanopoulos, "Yes sir."

Com. Burrus, "The ones that you requested to be detoured or to be closed temporarily are which ones again."

Mr. Spanopoulos, "Meridian, the city police will detour traffic at Burlington Beach and Campbell."

Com. Burrus, "Okay."

Mr. Spanopoulos, "But that will be the only road that will close. It will be between Burlington Beach and 700 North and that will be for approximately 2 hours. As soon as the last rider is off the course, I will radio to the Sheriff's Department that they can open up traffic."

Com. Burrus, "This is the same route, the same procedure, as last year?"

Mr. Spanopoulos, "Exactly."

Com. Burrus, "You have coordinated with the Highway and Sheriff's Department?"

Mr. Spanopoulos, "Yes."

Com. Burrus, "Any other questions?"

Com. Evans, "No."

Com. Harper, "No."

Com. Evans moved to approve the request to close Meridian from Burlington Beach Road to 700 North for two hours on July 10, 2004, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

Mr. Spanopoulos, "Thank you."

OFFICE HOLDERS/DEPARTMENT HEADS


Al Hoagland, Highway Superintendent
Highway Money

Mr. Hoagland, "Good morning. I am before you requesting that you appropriate funds to the Highway Department. There are some construction jobs we would like to do. We are finding that in some of our anticipated funds we fell short a little bit, a shortfall this year. We are not sure if it's taxing, from the fuel tax, or just where the shortfall is coming but we are starting to drop off just a little bit."

Com. Burrus, "Okay, we do have a project. Number one, which is that the reference on our CEDIT plan for right of ways, which is Highway. I don't have that number currently, but it is in excess of $1 million over the year. Any discussion on this?"

Com. Harper, "I was going to bring it up. I think we should get that moving. The season is going to be over. I think we should get that in action. That money is in and it is much more important to get it in the highway."

Com. Burrus, "Do you have a balance on that account at this point in time?"

Mr. Hoagland, "This addition I went through to bring it down to $21,313.00. The next draw would be due in November."

Com. Harper, "Which account are you talking about?"

Mr. Hoagland, "I am talking about the one for right of ways."

Com. Evans, "You see those proposed revenues come in throughout the year."

Mr. Hoagland, "Right."

Com. Harper, "Do we have half a year's worth? We should be about there. Right?"

Com. Burrus, "It would be this 430 x 3 plus $21,000.00. "

Mr. Hoagland, "Anything would help right now."

Com. Harper, "What do we need to do?"

Com. Burrus, "We need to approve it, I believe and then it needs to go before the Council."

Com. Evans, " I move that we put the entire amount that is there, is existing right now, into the highway budget to get a jump start on things."

Com. Burrus, "You have all but $21,000.00. Is that right?"

Mr. Hoagland, "It is all but $21,000.00."

Com. Evans, "What do you want to leave?"

Mr. Hoagland, "Your pleasure. If we left it at $21,000.00 if we had something unexpected, at least we know it is there."

Com. Burrus, "Okay."

Com. Evans moved to put the entire amount that is existing right now into the highway budget, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.


AMERICAN CORRECTIVE COUNSELING SERVICES, Bad Check Program Brian Gensel, Prosecutor's office

Atty. Gensel, "Good morning. The Prosecutor's Office, traditionally, I believe you gentlemen are aware of the fact that we have a Pre-Trial Diversion Program for low level misdemeanants and often times people who write bad checks to local merchants fall into that category. We process them and to a certain extent we expend manpower from our office to act as kind of a collection agency for the merchants. We were approached by a company, American Corrective Counseling Services. In essence, they are a company, they are nationwide. They have worked in a number of counties in Indiana and I have spoken with a representative from the Allen County Prosecutor's Office as well as the Noble County Prosecutor's Office who have entered into a contract with this company to basically act as the administrative arm to process the bad checks. Basically, the bad checks are referred to the Prosecutor's Office. Jim and I have met with the representatives on a number of occasions. I have had several phone conversations with them. My discussions with some of the other counties who utilize them is that they are quite happy with the results that they have received from this organization in doing a better job of both collecting bad checks for merchants that would otherwise have to go through the Prosecutor's Office, as well as they have indicated that the cases, the bad check criminal cases, that end up in court have been lessened. So there has been less of a burden on the courts by utilizing their services. They are able to do things that we are not able to do in a Prosecutor's Office capacity such as taking payments and coordinating and all those types of things. The bad check process for the Prosecutor's Office is kind of a pain and this organization has given indication that they know what they are doing. They are in Marion County and have been for a number of years. What we are asking is approval to enter into a contract with them to have them do the administrative work, representing our office. There is no cost to us. There is actually a fee that is collected that would go into our Pre-Trial Diversion account as the ones would now that we all the processing."

Com. Burrus, "That fee that you collect from ..?"

Atty. Gensel, "From the people who write the bad checks."

Com. Burrus, "So they will get paid through their success then."

Atty. Gensel, "That is correct."

Com. Burrus, "Any questions or comments?"

Com. Evans, "You currently collect the bad checks. Is that amount of money collected offset, do you have a fee for that, obviously that you charge?"

Atty. Gensel, "What happens now, is when we have someone and it has made it all the way to the point that it gets to our office, the merchants have a statutory duty to send them a 5 day letter and these types of thing. If they don't avail themselves of that procedure, it comes to us. Then we file a criminal charge. They end up coming to court and often we enter into a Pre-Trial Diversion Agreement with them where they have to pay our Pre-Trial Diversion fee. I believe it is around $150.00. Then what happens is that they also have to attend the PACT sponsored bad check school. They also, obviously, have to pay the restitution for the check. This organization does all that under one umbrella. The have bad check school. They do the collection. The merchant gets the money. It is just less administrative issues for our office."

Com. Evans, "What about the person that is paying the fee. If I write Bob a had check and it goes under your offices and my dollar amount comes out to $100.00 and now this other agency is collecting the fees. How much am I going to have to pay?"

Atty. Gensel, "You are talking you are the retailer or you are the bad check writer?"

Com. Evans, "I am the bad check writer. I wrote the bad check,"

Atty. Gensel, "Well, you are going to have to cover the check. You are going to have to cover whatever fees there are. If there is going to be an administrative fee that comes to the Prosecutor's Office and there is going to be about $150.00 fee that goes to the bad check school. So it is going to get costly. It is really not any more costly than the current system."

Com. Evans, "If I write the bad check under the current system, regardless of what the bad check dollar amount is, what am I going to end up, approximately, paying under the current system? Whereby, you hire an outside contractor."

Atty. Gensel, "If there is a $25.00 bad check fee that is over and above the amount of the check. So you have that to begin with. $25.00, that's what the banks charge because for their processing. So there is that fee, there is our Pre-Trial Diversion fee, currently about $150.00."

Com. Evans, "That wouldn't apply anymore. Right?"

Atty. Gensel, "Well, that fee would not come directly to our office. What would happen is that we would get a much smaller dollar amount but there would be one ____ is that they process in a far greater volume then we do. There are checks that we just don't process for various reasons, that they will. They will also then be responsible for paying for this company's bad check school, for lack of a better term. So dollars and cents wise it is just about the same. Because they are either going to pay it to us and then the money was going to be divided up, pursuant to our Pre-Trial Diversion. Whereas those monies now will be just kind of reallocated between the company that is doing the administrative work and us."

Com. Evans, "My only concern is, obviously, people write bad checks are under some kind of financial strain."

Atty. Gensel, "Well, sure."

Com. Evans, "So I don't want to create a greater hardship for them to have to be able to now meet the new, just because it is easier for us."

Atty. Gensel, "I understand. Those cases, that only happens when they have not availed themselves. Initially, they can pay that off. If they ignore it, which often times they do and one of the things that I am told, the curriculum for these people when they have to go to an 8 hour class on Saturdays, which they do now. It basically teaches better recordkeeping skills. Better bank balancing skills and those types of things. There is some merit to the educational hoop that they have to jump through so hopefully, they won't fall prey to that kind of sloppy book work in the future."
Com. Harper, "No questions."

Com. Evans moved to approve the contract with American Corrective Counseling Service for processing bad checks for the prosecutor's office, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.


FIXED ASSET GUIDELINE REPORT
Sandra Vuko, Auditor

Ms. Vuko, "Good morning. I am just submitting the ordinance for your review. What you can do is, review it and let me know. I just wanted to submit it."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Is there a boiler plate ordinance to use as a draft?"

Ms. Vuko, "Yes."

Com. Evans, "Will this will take two readings?"

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Well, not if it doesn't have a fine or a fee. No. It is really just a policy ordinance."

Com. Burrus, "Let me just give a little bit of background for the folks here. It has been a state requirement for a number of years that all governmental entities have a listing of all their fixed assets. Everything of any value showing the original acquisition price, I believe. Isn't that right, Sandy?"

Ms. Vuko, "Right."

Com. Burrus, "In the case of Porter County, it could be our roads, our bridges, our buildings, our computers, this is a very comprehensive list and as a result it has been very difficult to get done and also has been avoided, I think, for a long period of time too."

Ms. Vuko, "Yes."

Com. Burrus, "Sandy and her folks have been working on this. The Highway Department has contributed, I think they have their roster in. We are at a point, now, where this is all going to come together in the form of a list and it has to be adopted by ordinance. What we have here is a draft ordinance to consider. With that background in mind then, where are we with respect to this? Is there something we can act on today, or do we need to consider it?"

Atty. Rinkenberger, "It looks pretty simple to me. I would say you could act on it today."

Com. Burrus, "Any comments from the Board?"

Ms. Vuko, "That would be great."

Com. Harper, "Has most of the work been done?"

Ms. Vuko, "Yes."

Com. Harper, "This includes the automobiles?"

Ms. Vuko, "Yes. In fact, the Highway Department is excellent with all their information for the roads. I couldn't ask for anything better."

Com. Harper, "And then you are going to try and put down one of the things, is the actual value?"

Ms. Vuko, "Depreciation, actual value, historical, yes. All of that is in there."

Com. Burrus, "And acquisition costs."

Com. Harper, "How long do you think it will take to get it done?"

Ms. Vuko, "This should be done within a week."

Com. Harper, "And then you send it downstate, I assume you have a copy here."

Ms. Vuko, "The State Board of Accounts needs it for our audit. They will go over it and audit it. This is something that hasn't been done in our audit since. . . the Auditor's office has been written up for this. Actually, it goes to the State Board of Accounts, they are the ones who go through the audit."

Ms. Hartig, "Ordinance No., 04-15."

Com. Harper moved to approve Ordinance No. 94-15 on first reading, Com. Evans seconded,

Com. Evans, "How is this going to be maintained on a yearly basis, are we going to have to do the whole thing every year or just portions of it?"

Ms. Vuko, "Basically just portions of it, but each individual department like Highway with the bigger amounts of equipment, will just program it for every year."

Com. Evans, "So when they sell a car or get rid of a truck? What about property, how we will be able to do that?"

Ms. Vuko, "That's your department. We are going to have to work with you to be sure what's not there anymore, what's been sold, we get that list the first of the year and go from there."

Com. Burrus, "Obviously the biggest endeavor here is to go back and reconstruct from years back until the future with the additions and deletions."

Ms. Vuko, "Yes."

Com. Evans, "A monumental task."

Motion carried.

Com. Evans moved to suspend the rules of having to wait for a second reading and to approve Ordinance No. 04-15, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

Com. Evans moved to approve Ordinance No. 04-15 immediately on second reading, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.


GRANT AGREEMENT, HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Connie Rudd, R.N.

Ms. Rudd, "The contract I brought to you actually is to receive the funds each local health department has been actively involved in mass prophylaxis clinic planning which is for emergency preparedness. If you have an event where we would have to distribute large amounts of medications say to treat all of the people in Porter County we would be prepared to do that. We've done one the first session of our planning and submitted that. This is the second part of that planning. The state is actually paying each local health department for doing that work instead of having a consultant come in and do that. Instead of paying a consultant, they are paying the local health departments for doing that. That is the contract you have in front of you."

Com. Burrus, "Is this under the Homeland Security Act and the requirement to be able to respond to a mass tragedy situation and the health department has a lead on that?"

Ms. Rudd, "Yes. For distributing medication."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "This is fine, I have reviewed it."

Com. Harper, "This is for CEDIT monies? How much money?"

Ms. Rudd, "$10,600.00"

Com. Harper, "And what is going to be done with that $10,600.00?"

Ms. Rudd, "Right now, we don't have a plan for the exact usage of it. It is supposed to be put forth for mass prophylaxis planning efforts. A lot of that will be training and not only our Health Department staff but it will probably be holding trainings for local nurses and we have calculated we need 118 staff per 8 hour clinic to try to cover Porter County in four days in having round the clock clinics. The seven nursing staff I have is going to fall short of the 117 that we need. But there will be a lot of training and if we have to purchase any kind of equipment for those clinics, that kind of thing. Right now, it is coming but we don't have anything particular being earmarked for it."

Com. Harper, "Its not for additional staff, is it?"

Ms. Rudd, "No, it is not."

Com. Burrus, "I think the key word you mentioned is planning efforts."

Com. Harper moved to approve the grant for the Health Department for mass prophylaxis planning, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Ms. Rudd, "It will be accounted for like we do our local health maintenance funds accounts so that if we had an audit, we keep all track of all those that are fulfilled."

Com. Burrus, "You folks are picking up a lot of responsibility with this Homeland Security."

Ms. Rudd, "Yes, we are but if the Health Department chooses to accept those funds. It is not much different in each county."

REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS

North District: Com. Evans

1. Coventry Subdivision, Phase I, Maintenance Letter of Credit # 626 from HFS
Bank in the amount of $100,000.00. Expiration date is September 25, 2005. Recommend approval.

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

Center District: Com. Harper

1. Bridlewood Subdivision Acceptance Form for Phase B, Hunt Club Drive.
Recommend approval.

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

2. Union Minor Subdivision #238-B-1 Road Agreement, located on the south side of CR 50 North between CR 750 West and CR 700 West. Offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $1,500.00. Owners and subdividers are Robert J. and Brenda C. Farabaugh. Recommend approval.
Com. Harper moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

3. Washington Minor Subdivision 2231-B-1 Road Agreement, located on the south side of CR 400 North between CR 275 East and SR 49. Offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $750.00. Owner and subdivider is Joseph D. Fisher. Recommend approval.

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

South District: Com. Burrus

1. Morgan Minor Subdivision #2349-C-1 Road Agreement, located on the east
side of CR 300 East between CR 550 South and CR 500 South. Offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $3,000.00. Owner & Subdivider is Birky Family Trust, Joyce Oury, Trustee. Recommend approval.

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

2. Morgan Minor Subdivision #2350-C-1 Road Agreement, located on the east side of CR 300 East between CR 550 South and CR 600 South. Offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $3,000.00. Owner & subdivider is Birky Family Trust, Joyce Oury, Trustee. Recommend approval.

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

3. Falling Waters Subdivision Performance Letter of Credit #2001-12 from Citizens Financial Services in the amount of $343,000.00.New expiration date is June 18, 2005. Recommend approval.

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

4. Bridge 58, Baums Bridge Road (CR 50 West)(over the Kankakee River) Consultant Proposal Request. I propose that the Commissioners receive consultant proposals for the design engineering and construction engineering by August 22, 2004. These proposals would then be opened during the meeting on August 23, 2004 to be taken under consideration.

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

5. Liberty Lakes Estates, LLC Performance Letter of Credit #1007525 from Lexon Insurance Company, in the amount of $102,000.00. Recommend approval.

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

CORRESPONDENCE

Weights and Measures monthly report for June 2004 is on file.
Veteran Service Officer monthly report for June 2004 is on file.

Contract with Indiana State Board of Health for Bovine Brucellosis and Tuberculosis

Com. Evans moved to approve the contract with the Indiana State Board of Health for Bovine Brucellosis and Tuberculosis, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

Proclaim September 27, 2004 as Family Day-A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children requested by National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse

Com. Harper moved to approve September 27, 2004 as Family Day-A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Request for Transfer of Funds-Veteran's Affairs

Fund 01.27$300.00from acct 1120Hourly
Into acct 2110Office Supplies

To cover expenses for printer cartridges

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

Fund 01.27$1,000.00 from acct 1120Hourly
Into acctTraining & Education

To cover expenses incurred for mandatory meetings for certification.

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

Request for Additional Appropriation-Commissioners

Fund 255.30$175,000.00Acct 0001CEDIT Project #6

For promotion of economic development-support of RTA.

Com. Burrus, "This is for the RTA, to cover our expenses that were committed to Congressman Pete Visclosky with respect to the contribution of Porter County to study the extension of the commuter rail into Porter County, specifically Valparaiso. This is an amount greater than what we need but we will adjust this amount to the specific amount that is required that the Council will need. It is $70,000 some thousand dollars per year for two years."

Com. Harper, "We are not going to take it all out this year, though, right?"

Com. Burrus, "We can't."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Are you going to take it out and pay them or just take it out so it has been appropriated so you can make your payment for them when it is due?"

Com. Burrus, "We can do it either way. We have to keep in mind that we are dealing with eight specific accounts with CEDIT. This comes under specifically for RTA, it does not affect the balance."

Com. Harper, "What was the other one?"

Com. Burrus, "That was the Economic Development Fund."

Com. Harper, "I understand."

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

Fund 132.20$115,592.00Acct 4110Land purchase

To purchase property adjacent to North County garage, not advertised in 2004 budget

Com. Burrus, "This was a corrective action to balance our CCD Budget. It was pointed out by the Auditor that there was a discrepancy in that budget of $115,592.00 and it was simply that the Council approved our budget for an amount greater than what we submitted. So in order to balance the budget and satisfy the State Board of Accounts, we have agreed to put $115,592.00 into a land purchase line item. If the possibility exists that we can do that, the objective was to purchase some additional property next to the North County Highway Garage. If that does not present itself as a possibility then we can transfer funds out of this account."

Com. Harper, "We are not approving that land purchase by making this because I had some questions about that."

Com. Burrus, "Any discussion on the expenditure of these dollars would have to be discussed independently."

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

Fund 257.30$50,000.00 acct 0001CEDIT Project #8

For promotion of economic development, support of the Malden Railroad.

Com. Burrus, "We would like to re-submit our request to the County Council to use a portion of the CEDIT funds that are earmarked for economic development to support the grant that would be purchasing the CSX Railroad in south Porter County and also LaPorte and Starke Counties. There is a great deal of private money going into this as a local share. The Starke County contribution was approved at $50,000.00 the LaPorte County contribution was approved at least $70 or $75,000.00. They are asking Porter County to contribute $50,000.00. The Commissioners have approved this at a prior meeting and it was denied at the council level. We think there was some confusion there and some additional information has since been presented. We would like to resubmit to the council for their reconsideration. Any discussion on this issue?"

Com. Evans, "We will save our arguments for the council. Motion to approve."

Com. Burrus, "Comments? Bob."

Com. Harper, "I move to not approve at this time just because I don't think we have all the information from what I have read in the paper. I am not sure what happened with the council. I was not at that meeting. I ask for more questions about this project at this time. I am going to change my vote."

Com. Burrus, "Let me take the vote if we are ready I will second the motion, first of all."

Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Burrus, seconded, motion carried 2-1.


DISCUSSION ON MAINTENANCE CONCERNS

Com. Burrus, "The next topic, Bob, I think this is something you are involved with as far as maintenance issues on County buildings."

Com. Harper, "Yes. Let me just pass this down because somehow it is in the book, those pictures are better. I asked that head of maintenance try to get some bids about the weeds. The plants and the trees that are dying and so forth. She tells me, I talked to her this morning, she contacted several people and they are to get back to her. The only one that did was Getz Landscaping which I had discussed with you fellows to do some sort of quick work a couple of weekends ago when the weeds were getting so out of control. I think we have the funds and I think we need to do something pretty quickly for the rest of the summer to keep these buildings looking half-way decent. That proposal is in there. As I say, I asked her this morning, she said she talked to 3 other people and they all were going to get back to her and none of them did. I suggest we either accept this proposal or do something to make sure that we can at least have these things looking decent for the rest of the summer."

Com. Burrus, "I do not see a total on this."

Com. Harper, "I was looking over that too. I mean there is different.."

Com. Evans, "There are 2 or 3 options."

Com. Harper, "There is 2 or 3 options. I have read them over. If you would like to, maybe, when we take a break here at some point read them over and then decide. Any of the options are fine by me. I think we have the funds and we should just do something. I understand there are difference options. One of the things was, I think one of the difference options was getting the chips and doing the mulching that needs to be done. Also, at some point we need to discussing the watering with this building. I understand that is not even an outside faucet on this building. There is a sprinkler system, probably would be pretty expensive to run that sprinkler system. We have trees dying here and other things because of the water issues. This is at least a stop gap to keep the place from, there were thistles that were knee high."

Com. Evans, "What funds were you thinking about to support this?"

Com. Harper, "I would have to get the funds out again."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "We have building maintenance."

Com. Harper, "Maintenance fund."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "We have CEDIT money in maintenance."

Com. Harper, "We have it in both of those places. We have CEDIT."

Com. Burrus, "My question is that you talk about which way you want to go."

Com. Harper, "I think we need to take action on it. Two weeks they are going to be back up again. I say we take it out of building maintenance because if we do CEDIT we are going to have to pass it ___. Go ahead."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "On that CEDIT, you have a whole $150,000.00 or whatever for building maintenance you can just go and ask them to appropriate $150,000.00 for maintenance and you fellows should be able to do projects like this for building maintenance. So it is up to you. I do not foresee having to go back to the Council for every $500 for building maintenance out of $150,000.00. Just depending on how you want to appropriate your CEDIT money out of building maintenance you can approve it now out of our fund now and just do it. Eventually, you should be able to do the same thing for CEDIT money. I think, by just saying we want to appropriate."

Com. Harper, "Let me tell you about a couple of more projects we have coming up. We have that center window in the Clerk's Office. It has been broken for several months. Also, I have been told, they are getting bids on that right now. They are supposed to be trying to. I have also been told that apparently if the electricity goes out, which it has a couple of times, all three windows come crashing down. Somebody is going to get hurt. This is a safety committee issue. Somebody is going to get hurt, so they are asking to get a price and try to look at that. John, I talked to Shinneman. I did want the window and the door fixed and they do have an issue in the Courthouse with a window they need in the door when they take the prisoners out. Maybe we could, if you are alright with giving him the go ahead maybe we could with taking it out of building maintenance if we do not get the seeded passed in time. Maybe we can start asking to get that $150 for the building maintenance, I am going to see it through with some of these projects that are coming up. Does that make any sense?"

Com. Evans, "Yes."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Yes."

Com. Evans, "What about the JDC. There is nothing in there for JDC."

Com. Harper, "There was in the one I had. You know what. It is right up at the top, John. Way at the top of the last page."

Com. Evans, "I see it now."

Com. Burrus, "I think in general terms, I can agree with this. The thing that bothers me or at least I want to check on would be the fact that other than CEDIT our building maintenance fund comes out of a CCD fund and having contributed a substantial share of the Sheriff's Department here recently, I am not sure what that balance is. I think we need to take a look and see how much. ."

Atty. Rinkenberger. "(Inaudible.) and that is called building maintenance too."

Com. Burrus, "There is money in that one. That is probably more appropriate."

Com. Harper, "I have to pull the funds out of the other one. We can cover this if we want to. If you want to cut it down, I just really want to see us do something."

Com. Burrus, "Let's do this, if it is okay with you. Let's recess for the next few minutes and review the options and see if we can come up with a specific proposal."

Com. Harper, "That's fine."

Com. Evans, "I would like to throw another one in there too. That is handicap access to this building, through the front door. If somebody is coming in they should be able to push a button and open the door like they do at the Courthouse."

Com. Burrus, "Then we will put this one on hold for further discussion until our next session. I have one other item that I would like to announce. The efforts that are going to be extended in the Courthouse with respect to the mold concerns. We have contracted with the Environmental Solutions Group and they will be scheduling their work to begin on July 9th in the evening. I believe that is on a Friday and will continue throughout the weekend. That effort is under way this coming weekend. With respect to that, while we have given the Environmental Solutions Group a go ahead, they have submitted an hourly rate for their work and I guess this requires an adoption. The hourly rate for a certified, indoor, Environmentalist is $65.00 an hour. An Environmental Technician is $45.00 an hour and 8 air samples can be collected at $125.00 per sample. I assume that the ESG's firm estimates that approximately 35 hours will be expended for the management project. The estimated cost to conduct the above sampling and complete a final report is $3,275.00. If that is acceptable, then we should approve that document. Any discussion?"

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

Com. Burrus, "Is there anything else on our agenda for the first session? Then we will stand in recess until approximately 5 minutes after 11:00 a.m. at which time we will reconvene for the Plan Commission Session. We stand in recess."

Recess until 11:05 a.m.

AFTERNOON SESSION OF PLAN COMMISSION
Robert Thompson, Plan Commission Director

Com. Burrus, "We call this meeting back to order. The purpose of this session is to address Plan Commission issues. The first item on the agenda, I believe, is the second reading of an Ordinance to rezone for rural residential R1. Bob, I will let you describe it. You have the information there.

Rezone- RR to R1 - Bernie Madej, Owner - 2nd Reading

Mr. Thompson, "This is Plan Commission Resolution 04-8 petitioner Bernie Madej requesting a rezone or an amendment to the rezone maps from RR Residential to R1 Single Family Residential this is located in the Southwest corner of County Road 200 West and U.S. 6. This is seconding reading and the first reading was approved with written commitments and asking for an amendment to the written commitments to include fencing along U.S. 6 and 200 West along the areas of a park."

Com. Burrus, "Is there any further discussion from the Board?"

Com. Harper, "I have none."

Com. Evans, "Do they have the sewers?"

Mr. Thompson, "From what I understand, I was just talking to the engineer last Friday, and they are expecting that letter to come for the utilities here shortly. I have emphasized to them, no letter, no subdivision."

Com. Evans, "Just so we are on the same page."

Mr. Thompson, "Right."

Com. Evans moved to approve the rezone for Bernie Madej from RR to R1 on second reading, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

SELECT CONSULTANT FOR REVISION OF CODES AND ORDINANCES FOR PLAN COMMISSION
Robert Thompson, Director
Brad Johnson, Ground Rules Planner

Com. Burrus, "The next item on our agenda is a consideration on the proposal for the open space ordinance. This will be in the form of a public hearing and we will hear the presentation first from our planner. Let me back up on that and stand corrected. We do have a consultant selection request or a requirement. Bob, would you care to make a comment on that."

Mr. Thompson, "Okay. This is for the revisement of our Codes, the Subdivision and Zoning Codes. I guess I'll go through a brief history on this. Advertisements and requests were sent out for revising Codes at the end of January. This was an RFQ request. Six firms responded to our request for the RFQ. Whiteman, Petry, Incorporated; Ground Rules; Duncan Associates; Camareles; DLZ and HNTB. All six firms were interviewed by the Plan Commission on May 5th and May 6th and a series of questions were sent to each consultant and answered during their presentations that happened on May 5th and May 6th. At the May 12th Plan Commission, three firms were selected and invited to respond to a scope of work. The three firms were HNTB; Ground Rules and Duncan Associates. The scope did request a cost estimate and was due before the June 23rd meeting. At the public hearing, the Plan Commission ranked Ground Rules, number one and HNTB, number two and Duncan Associates withdrew. Ground Rules was ranked number one as suggested. The reason why the Plan Commission ranked Ground Rules number one was defense ability of the Codes. These are user friendly Codes. Team included an experienced attorney in Indiana Planning and Zoning. I called four to six references. They all stated the same points above and all enjoyed working with Ground Rules. Other items within the proposal were money back guarantee if not satisfied with the first draft and most cost for doing the study. The Plan Commission vote was unanimous to recommend Ground Rules as the number one choice and I would like to introduce Brad Johnson who is with Ground Rules and who will be the number one planner for this project."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you. Is there any discussion, questions from the Board?"

Com. Harper, "I have some discussion, if I might. First, I have a question. The firm that withdrew after the Plan Commission selected three. Would you explain to the other two Commissioners, I don't want them to think that they withdrew because of submitting of money. There was another issue, correct?"

Mr. Thompson, "Correct.."

Com. Harper, "And that was?"

Mr. Thompson, "I called up, after I received the letter, I can read off the letter or pass it on. It is from Kirk Bishop who is executive vice president of _____."

Com. Harper, 'Basically, wasn't it basically that they did not provide engineering work?"

Mr. Thompson, "It is engineering within the scope of work the Plan Commission requested. I draft up for submitting to the three firms and included engineering standards and also GIS, possibly electronic formatting of our zoning maps. My hope on that point was to be able to put our zoning maps on to the web page of the Counties. Those two items, Duncan said they do not provide services for. Their past experience was when they team up with engineering or GIS firms, that it has not been a good experience for them so they withdrew for that reason. One of the things I do feel going through process is that we need to develop engineering standards for subdivisions. That in my opinion is a very important part of it, zoning and uses."

Com. Harper, "Let me say this, at the Plan Commission level, because in receiving the answers to the scope of work that Bob sent out, there were suggested prices by the number two firm over $200,000.00 and the number one firm, Ground Rules. I think Bob called several of these references. I think everybody was a little leery of where we are going with that. He called several people around the state and gave a rather lengthy presentation at the Plan Commission about the praises that he had gotten from Ground Rules. He called a nearby place, Portage, and Bloomington, I think Kokomo was one provider."

Mr. Thompson, "Bloomington, Kokomo and Fishers."

Com. Harper, "Okay and he received very good reviews from all of those. I think that is what swung everybody on the Plan Commission; all the work he did. Based on that and the price (inaudible)."

Com. Evans, "I see the price is obviously a factor that would be in our favor. Bob and the Plan Commission are the people that have to work with those people and I think if they are satisfied and if they are happy with that choice, then that's what we should do."

Com. Burrus, "Question to you, sir. Can you share with us the disparity of prices? Do you have a much lower overhead? How do you folks manage to keep your prices downs?"

Mr. Johnson, "You are comparing a five person firm with a 6,000 person firm. The overhead is greatly reduced in our operation. I have been working since I was 14 and focus a lot on efficiencies. A lot of face-to-face time with cliental. To me, more meetings means less time in production versus the opposite knowledge as my predators use. I don't know how to explain it other than we find it more face time with the communities gets us to the end result faster. So we just don't have high priced employees that some of the other firms have."

Com. Burrus, "It certainly is an attractive feature."

Mr. Johnson, "I should have charged more. We feel that we are going to give you a Cadillac product. We are very comfortable with the price that we quoted. It is consistent with the other price quotes we provided other communities and we have proven that we can do it."

Com. Burrus, "Any further discussion?"

Com. Evans, "My only question to that would be, 6,000 people versus five; the scope of the work is pretty involved in the production time that you are going to require. What if someone gets sick? You are still going to give priority with your taking on other work that would delay your work for us."

Mr. Johnson, "In my previous roles, I have actually worked as a planner with an engineering firm, a large engineering firm, with a large architectural firm being their senior planner at the time. I am very clear with operating in those environments. Quite honestly, the persons leading this project tend to have 15 to 10 projects on their plate at any given time. Then they delegate out to junior staff, interns and sometimes the role of production. We use a model where we only have super planners working on projects. They are actually running the project as well as writing the Ordinances. We are not delegating. There is no loss of efficiency trying to explain to junior staff and to try to correct junior staff's mistakes, etc. We try to have a smaller team versus a larger team because we get Southlake _____ projects we feel like we end up with a better project and save time. Because . . (inaudible.). In our model we actually have about 3, 4, at most, on anyone's plate at any given time. For me personally, there was a situation where I had four projects under my watch for the duration of time with that firm. Now having three to five projects myself is very demanding. I have a much greater quality of life because of that. Not only do I think it is beneficial to the clients but it is also beneficial to myself."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you."

Com. Harper, "Nothing further."

Com. Evans, "The only other thing I saw here is that you like to have a steering committee. Is that an accurate statement?"

Mr. Johnson, "It is preferred."

Com. Harper moved to approve Ground Rules as the firm to prepare our new Ordinance revision, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING

Com. Burrus, "At this point in time, we are ready to consider the proposed Open Space Ordinance. Before we do, I would just like to make a comment or two. As Porter County is looking toward continued and possibly accelerating growth, we recognize that growth by its own nature does reduce some of our open space, it does reduce some of the land that we have available to us for recreational purposes and there is probably a general consensus that some form of a preservation effort would be appropriate. What we are going to be looking at today is a proposed ordinance and from my own point of view, I want to state very clearly that conceptionally this has a look of merit. We are going to hear from first our planner. At this point in time the Board will have an opportunity to ask Bob some of the questions that may have been on their mind regarding how this developed and the intent behind it. Following that, we will open for a public hearing and we will have the opportunity for those folks who care to speak in favor of the proposed Ordinance an opportunity to speak and then finally we will wrap it up with an opposition view point. With that in mind, does the Board have any more comments before we turn over the floor?"

Com. Evans, "I would just like to say, I agree. I am not opposed to open space at all. I think it needs to be turned over and adequately administered and we need to have a working type ordinance rather than arbitrary type ordinance."

Com. Harper, "I would like to make a comment. I am obviously in favor of this ordinance. I sat on the Plan Commission where it was passed. The only one thing I do not want to see today is for us to duck our responsibility and take the easy way out sending this back to the Plan Commission. The law provides that this ordinance can be amended and maybe it should be. But if it should be, it should be done here. Because the end decision is here and that is where the buck stops. We recently seen with the Recycling Ordinance when it starts going back and forth, years can go by before anything gets done. In my mind it is so important that we act on this ordinance. That sending it back to the Plan Commission is like burying it. If my other two Commissioner members feel there should be some changes made in it, then we should make some changes. We should pass the ordinance and not dodge the bullet. That's all I have to say. Thank you."

Com. Evans, "I don't intend to dodge any bullets, but now we could have the attorney explain to us what our options are."

Com. Harper, "I think you have already had them explained."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "I think the whole Board understands that we need to take a vote on this within ninety days from the date it was certified to us from the Plan Commission. They sent us an ordinance for us to consider and within that ninety days you can either amend the ordinance, if we do that, we send it back to the Plan Commission with a written statement supporting our request of the amendment, the Plan Commission then has forty-five days to consider our amendment to either adopt them or reject them. You could adopt this ordinance as written today, you could adopt this ordinance as written any time within the ninety days. You have to vote within ninety days one way or the other. You could reject the ordinance with written statements as to why within the ninety days and send it back to the Plan Commission saying why you rejected it and let them start over on an ordinance that is taking your considerations into account. So those are your options."

Mr. Thompson, "This is Plan Commission Resolution 04-9, petitioner is Porter County Plan Commission's amendments of the zoning ordinance for open space. I will go through some of the highlights of the ordinance. The Planned Unit Developments, Planned Unit Residential and Residential Developments shall be required to provide open space. Developed open space shall be designed to provide active recreational facilities to serve the residents of the development. Undeveloped open space shall be designed to preserve important site amenities and environmentally sensitive areas. The intent of the ordinance is to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources, 2) to preserve the integrity, stability beauty and value of the land, 3) preserve the natural beauty of the county and insure appropriate development with regard to natural features, and 4) to provide recreational opportunities for the residents within a proposed development. The ordinance proposed shall apply only for the unincorporated areas in Porter County. There are two items in here as far as definitions that really define the open space. That definition is open space that may be improved and set aside, dedicated, or designated or reserved as recreational facilities such as play equipment for children, ball fields, court games, swimming pools, picnic tables, etc. An open space undeveloped to prevent preservation of which use would conserve and enhance natural scenic resources, protect streams and water supplies, or preserve sits designated as historic pursuant to law. Open spaces essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use, or for use and enjoyment of owners or occupants of the residential development. Within a PUD, less than fifty (50) acres shall contact either undeveloped or developed, or a combination of both. PUD's fifty (50) acres and larger shall contain both developed and undeveloped open space. A recreational report is required for the PUD. This is the same as 1983 master plan where the old requirement was under the PRD, Plan Residential Development, is a special exception. One of the requirements for the special exception was that a recreational report must be given for the residences that are going to reside in the PRD. In 1996 is when the PUD Ordinance took effect that is in now. Residential subdivisions or residential developments, being condominium type developments, shall set aside 20% open space. Municipal services are not provided, well and septic development, the 20% open space will be proposed for developments within thirty acres or larger. Over thirty acres, but not greater than eighty acres, shall have developed or undeveloped open space, or a combination. Eighty acres and larger developments shall have both developed and undeveloped with 10% being developed and 10% being undeveloped. Residential subdivisions and developments proposing sanitary sewer for residential subdivisions greater than fifteen (15) acres open space requirements. 20% you have developed or undeveloped. For condominium developments greater than five acres open space requirement is 20%. Residential subdivisions fifty acres and larger with sanitary sewers shall provide both developed and undeveloped open space. Improvement requirements developed open space shall be a minimum of four acres and must be suitable for use, such as, ball field and playgrounds, it shall be leveled and dried. Storm water management facilities, parking, drainage and utilities shall not be considered in the area calculated for developed open space. Undeveloped open space intent is to preserve natural features, such as, mature tree stands, wetlands, scenic watercourses, steep slopes and other environmental features. Storm water management facilities, parking, drainage, and utility easement shall not be considered within the calculated open space. Deed restrictions, open spaces shall not be further subdivided and continued and perpetuaturity the ordinance then refers to ownership and maintenance for the open space and at that I will turn it over to the Commissioners."

Com. Burrus, "Any questions or comments?"

Com. Harper, "Bob, this was presented to the Plan Commission, if I might give a little history. When I have attended their meetings, the members of the Plan Commission have expressed their frustration at not having some open space ordinance to work with. You finally sent them a memo asking for guidelines and finally at one meeting a motion was passed for you to prepare an ordinance. Is that correct?"

Mr. Thompson, "Correct."

Com. Harper, "When you did that, is it correct that you looked at a lot of open space ordinances from around the state in comparing that?"

Mr. Thompson, "Correct."

Com. Harper, "Now, did you prepare this document for all the members of the Plan Commission showing what the open space requirements were of some of the other counties, cities, and towns that you looked?"

Mr. Thompson, "Yes."

Com. Harper, "In Indiana? And, are there areas that have a 20% or higher requirement for open space in Indiana?"

Mr. Thompson, "Yes."

Com. Harper, "Can you pass that down? Based on these ordinances that have been passed in other counties and apparently have been upheld, you then prepared this ordinance for us."

Mr. Thompson, "Correct."

Com. Harper, "Do you have any questions? We had a Supreme Court decisions at the Plan Commission and so forth. Do you have any questions regarding the legality of that information?"

Mr. Thompson, "No."

Com. Burrus, "Does this represent the entire list of communities that you inquired as to their open space ordinance?"

Mr. Thompson, "There might be a few others that I did not put on the list. I can't really say for sure. I do have all of those cities that are mentioned in there, I do have the ordinances here with me in this folder, yes."

Com. Burrus, "Did you say twenty acres or more would be typical or atypical of what you have put together?"

Mr. Thompson, "20% percent?"

Com. Burrus, "Yes, that is what I said."

Mr. Thompson, "For PUD's you get a wide range from out of scene. Sometimes as high as 25% open space, some are less. There is a wide range in that. I think Monroe County is one that recommended 25% with open space in there."

Com. Evans, "How about the subdivision requirements, were those any where approaching 20%?"

Mr. Thompson, "The one 20% that was in their ____. Yes they did have a 20%. However, I am constantly going over these things. I did find out that they lifted some developmental standard requirements because they did have a set density in there. They kept the set density at 20%. The other ones I noticed, like Boone County, they had 10%. That was just 10% straight across."

Com. Burrus, "How about local? What about Valparaiso for subdivisions?"

Mr. Thompson, "Valparaiso had a formula. If you have one-half an acre for up to fifty units and for every unit over fifty, I am not sure if it is .1 or .01 acres it had to be dedicated for every unit after fifty."

Com. Burrus, "Portage?"

Mr. Thompson, "Portage did not have anything as far as within the subdivision control. That is one that I do not have listed here. I called up A. J. Monroe on that. They do not have open space requirements for subdivisions. However, within the PUD Ordinance they do require recreational opportunities for their residents in there. However, they do not set a percentage on that. It is highly recommended. They have a density though but once you start exceeding a certain density level in Portage then that percentage that you are exceeding is expected to be placed back into open space. I would assume that Portage is more up to review and the decision of the Council or Plan Commission. I don't want to perceive the design."

Com. Burrus, "John, did you have something to add?"

Com. Evans, "Yes, those areas that have a 20% requirement, are there any as strict as this ordinance? When they go to 20% they allow density increases, they allow clustering, they allow different abilities with the percentages. Isn't that correct?"

Mr. Thompson, "Can I go back to Carmel. They keep a set density on that no matter what zoning district you are in. It keeps a set density. I guess it becomes more of a developmental review because they do lift, we have eighty- foot size requirements, say 11,000 square foot lot within our subdivision control for our one providing utility services. They start waiving the height, ___ and set back requirements within the subdivision control for the 20%. Yes, I guess it is going towards a cluster ordinance. It keeps a set density."

Com. Evans, "There is flexibility in other areas throughout the .."

Mr. Thompson, "Yes."

Com. Evans, "In comparing these ordinances, with the other counties and municipalities to ours, what is your observation?"

Mr. Thompson, "We do have 20% but we do not allow the flexibility such as Carmel. I can state that. As far as other ones, I will go back to Boone County, granted theirs is lower at 10%, but they are more in line with what we have. It is just 10% and they don't allow any flexibility or any other items. It is a lower percentage."

Com. Evans, "So the flexibility being the wetlands areas, parking and drainage areas would be considered as open space?"

Mr. Thompson, "That, I guess, I haven't researched that ordinance enough to know whether or not if I can answer that one. Generally, most of them, I won't say utilities, generally most of them will exclude parking areas and stuff like that. I can't confirm that as far as utilities, such as a pipeline easement, or something. It might go through a high tension water easement developments. I can not .."

Com. Evans, "Have you had a conversation with Conservationists in our area regarding this ordinance?"

Mr. Thompson, "No."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Do you have any presentation for the public hearing portion of the Plan Commission?"

Mr. Thompson, "Yes, they did."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Who did you hear from the public hearing portion of the Plan Commission?"

Mr. Thompson, "We heard from Mr. Reed and Mrs. Reed. I am sure they will speak up and represent their interest here. They were a few others, but to be honest with you, I could not recall."

Com. Burrus, "Okay."

Com. Harper, "Now, I have a question. Until you, Dave, were asked about Valparaiso, their green space requirement. One-half acre of green space for fifty units. What percentage would that probably be?"

Mr. Thompson, "Right off hand I don't know."

Com. Burrus, "About 1% percent."

Com. Harper, "About 1%, Mr. Burrus says. Would you agree with that?"

Com. Burrus, "Don't commit yourself. That was .."

Mr. Thompson, "They have a different lot size requirement than what we do. We have 11,000. I think within the City of Valparaiso, with utilities and everything, you can go down to 8,000. I could be wrong."

Com. Harper, "How many homes would you get per acre if you went to 8,000?"

Mr. Thompson, "You would probably be looking at three to four units per acre."

Com. Harper, "So if you have three units per acre and you have fifty units, how many acres would you have?"

Mr. Thompson, "150 units."

Com. Harper, "No, if you have three units per acre, you have fifty units, you wouldn't have 150 units, you would have 1/3 of fifty."

Mr. Thompson, "Oh, wait a minute. I am sorry. Yes, that's right thirty units. So you are looking at about seventeen acres."

Com. Harper, "So, you look at what percent?"

Mr. Thompson, "One-half an acre."

Com. Harper, "One-half an acre out of seventeen. If you have over fifty units, you only need a tenth of an acre?"

Mr. Thompson, "You are probably only looking at one-half percent."

Com. Harper, "One-half percent of green space that Valparaiso requires. Do you suggest that use Valparaiso as a role model here for our Green Space Ordinance?"

Com. Burrus, "I don't think anybody makes that suggestion at all, I think it is just a matter to show that there are others with less than 20%. Do you have any other comments, Bob?"

Com. Harper, "No."

Com. Burrus, "Okay, let's begin the public portion of the hearing and we will open it up first for those who would like to speak in behalf or in favor of the proposed ordinance."

Com. Harper, "Maybe we should introduce these letters."

Com. Burrus, "Before you do that, I would also ask that whoever chooses to speak, that you would stand, state your name and address, please very clearly and we will try to record this so we can have a record and we can make sure we know who the speakers are. We are going to read a couple of letters, or at least identify some letters, we have received in support of the proposed ordinance."

Com. Harper, "Right. We received a letter from Mrs. Cole at 1429 North Tremont Road, Chesterton, in favor of the ordinance. We received a letter from Ruth Ahzane of Dickerson Road, Chesterton, on behalf of the ordinance. A letter from Sylvia Troy in Porter County on behalf of the ordinance."

Com. Burrus, "We do have three letters on file that are available for review if anyone cares to look at them. We are speaking on behalf of the proposal at this point in time. The gentleman there?"

Gentleman, "I had one question."

Com. Burrus, "Okay, yes sir."

Gentleman, "I am for Open Space Ordinance, I am against distance. So which side does that put me on? As it is presented."

Com. Burrus, "I guess you feel free to choose your side and we will note the comments that you make at that time. Yes sir, Herb. Mr. Read."

Mr. Read, "Can I come up to the .."

Com. Burrus, "You may, yes sir."

Mr. Read, "My name is Herbert Read. That is spelled Read, at 1453 North Tremont Road, Chesterton. That is a Chesterton address, but it is actually unincorporated Porter County. I appreciate this opportunity to speak at a public hearing before the County Commissioners in support of this proposed ordinance. I did a little research and I remembered that the first time I spoke in favor of preserving natural resources and open space at a formal public hearing before County Commissioners was in the County, it was the public hearings that lead up to the 1959 master plan. That was forty-five years ago. I hope I don't have to wait another forty-five years to see this ordinance pasted. I am concerned about delay. This subject has been brought up here by the Commissioners. Delay can be used as a tactic to defeat. Can this ordinance be massaged? Be a little bit better? Probably, but again not the point where it is defeated. Now, the subject also came up of the 20% and Bob Thompson has enlightened you a bit on the various percentages that have gone on in other places of the country and the state. For example, Coffee Creek is 33%, Duneland Partners is showing 50%, you might say these are not really growing concerns. They are growing concerns. Prairie Crossing in Illinois sets aside 60% of 677 acres and Trion Farms just east of Michigan City sets aside 75% of 170 acres. Now granted, they do more clustering. But 20% should be a bare minimum for single family homes. I am an architect, I have done much in the way of planning. If these builders plan that they cannot do 20% I will be glad to offer my services for a very reasonable fee on how they can do it. So, the first thing is I want to say the 20% should not be used. Some of the acreages used, in some PUD's it is 50 acres or 30 acres. If it is 50, I could see a lot of 49 acre subdivisions coming along. So I hope that loop hole is closed. I think all the numbers pull something to their community more than just building. After all, what they are tinkering with is a resource that is almost never recoverable and is fixed. There have been examples of space/ being returned like in the National Park, my own home for example. I might point out that the building industry generally on the opposite end of the table from me, over the many years I have spent trying to preserve open space and I think they would be opposed no matte what the percentage is. I heard Mr. Leeth talking before the Plan Commission about taking without just compensation. There are ways when that can be realized if the developer donates it to a private 501C3 non profit corporation, he gets some kind of tax benefit and that is some compensation. So it is not zero compensation. I heard some objection from the county home associations, I think a homeowner association is a good idea whether it is open space or not. It is a good forum for people to take care of the things necessary. I heard somebody say that what about the taxes in open space. Obviously there is no just means of taxing a permanent protected open space as a potential building area so there is a tax benefit there and you might want to clarify that in the ordinance at some point, that there is to be tax benefit. That the home owner's association would not have to pay taxes such that as long as it is permanent open space as if there was another building space for a house. I heard him say something about cutting the grass. Bob Thompson has pointed out the existing ordinance provides for both natural areas as well as more concentrated. So you don't have to cut the grass on all of this area. My lease back is some two acres of woodland and prairie grasses. I have a little area around my house which might be considered a lawn which I cut once a year whether it needs it or not. So, grass cutting may be necessary for a formalized recreation, but the home owner's association should consider that, they can tax us to do that. Picking up trash would do them some good. Get them out of the house and see what the outdoors is like and if they pick up enough trash, maybe they won't throw it around. Those things can be taken of. I would like to see you pass it. Pass it today. If you want to amend it six months from now when you find some problem, okay, do it. I am putting up my own money on speculative house, a residence, that's a lot that I selected because it had a view of protected open space. I am risking my entire retirement fund on doing that so I believe you can make money with this type of thing. At the Plan Commission meeting I read a little excerpt from the newspaper and I will end with that. Valparaiso University have the conference on growth and protecting natural resources and one panel discussion some of the panelists were saying when one thinks of the places in the country with the best jobs, with top notch companies paying decent salaries, they are almost always located and well planed communities that tend to have tight controls over development. Protection of resources may sound like an environmental issue, but it really affects economic development. I am putting my own economic development up here so I thank you very much for the opportunity to let me say my peace."

Bill Tanke, "290 North 250 West, Valpo. The Plan Commission ordinance went into effect in September of '59. I took office and was a member since January of 1960. in that period of time there were a succession of amendments and modifications of the ordinance to make it better for all concerned. I remember we had quite a bit of discussion about it. That the . . (inaudible) were against was the original ordinance that called for a payment section of six inches of aggregate and one inch surface. Now what would happen to all those in the county if they had stuck with that? They could have upgraded it. I remember the developer wanted it. The open space was in the ordinance adopted February 1974 and there was also a Thoroughfare Plan and a map that went with it part of the original plan which I think Bob has copies of. The blue area is there with the park areas. They have designated school sites. It also had Thoroughfare Plans which some of them are the '83 amendment, they got taken out. The original ordinance calls for sites for parks, schools, playgrounds, or other public uses that are located within a subdivision area that are shown on the Master Plan. Commissioner requests are dedication, present purpose or reservation for a period of one year following the date of the final approval of the plat. In the event a governmental agency concerned that's resolution expressing its intent to acquire the land _____ reservation period shall extend for an additional six months. It sets out that we were getting a lot of requests with no open space and there was a subdivision the ____ can contain more than 2 ½ acres, lots per gross acre and fifty more lots, at least one acre open space for each fifty lots shall be plat and permanently dedicated for community park, playground use. I can read on, but I don't want to bore you. The jest of it is that there is a president in the Master Plan at one time in 1974 included a request for a mandatory obligation to provide open space in a subdivision whether it a PUD a regular subdivision and that the Master Plan also showed the proposed park areas and thoroughfares and those were also permissive and needed to be approved by the Commissioners before the Plan was approved. So, I guess, basically what I am saying, is I have done a lot of lay out with people, lot of subdivisions, the open space requirement as proposed is not going to hurt them that much financially because the cheapest part of any development would be installation of the streets. The cheapest part would be dedication for parks, of course, the most expensive is all the infrastructure and cost of land. Even if you figure at $10,000.00 an acre, which I think is high, would still be justified and warranted because I got we are running out of open space and I think we should preserve it."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you. If any other individuals would like to speak, we would be happy to have you."

Mr. Cole, "I am Tim Cole. 845 North Calumet Avenue, Liberty Township, Chesterton mailing. I guess, you are probably going to hear about property rights very soon. I can concur that everybody has a right to do with their property that they own, according to our Constitution, Jefferson had something to do with it. He was contested at that time, I don't know if you have read history. He didn't, that almost didn't get into our Constitution. People were reliving the fugal rights back in Europe where only Lords and Barons owned property. All we did was work it. We wanted to get away from that and we instituted property rights and property ownership. Well, that was fine for a nation as big as we were at the time. There were quite a few people inhibited. That is no longer the case. Our population has increased to an alarming extent. Where now, my family, for existence had 2,000 acres when we first came to Porter County. Now, well I don't even own twenty-three. I owned twenty-three acres until last year, when I gave part of that to my daughter. Around five acres. That's why the reductions, seven generations. I think we are all experienced in that. I think the important thing to consider is that, in those seven generations, all those property owners died. The property still exists. The property, the nature of that property that stays with that property, doesn't change. Some of it has changed forever. Why should it change forever, for a person who no longer benefits from that change. Maybe this is one good reason for preservation of open space so that we do have the nature of the property preserved. We have to live with it. We can not divorce ourselves from the fact that we are.. some of the critters, some of the wildlife, some of the mold on the face of this earth. It is going to last a lot longer than we are. Why do we take it upon ourselves to say, we as engineers or landowners or a person who lives to have his lawn mowed and weeded with poisons and pesticides and all of that nature, I don't want to say nature, with all of those exotic items, chemicals. Why do we presume that we should have that kind of control. Constitutional right is one thing. I don't know that we can change that very easily. I am not in favor of changing Constitutions and By Laws and Bill of Rights. However, I think there comes a time when we have to face reality and we continue in that regard using up the open space. Using up the university that essentially we can not really exist without. _____ to great extent. I don't think it can replay air, trees, sunshine, healthy living conditions and the quality of life. It just can't do that. With that being said, I guess, that is a concept we have to embrace when we talk about open space. There is another one. It is called natural resources. You know, we reserve oil rights, mineral rights, and gas. Why not agriculture? Why not recreational? Why not simply the open space that exits in nature? Right now. Why don't we reserve that as a natural resources. It certainly has to be something that we have to think about. I mean, Plan Commission, the public hearing for the Plan Commission we heard from some developers that we have quality developers in Porter County who automatically give the subdivisions that they create a certain ore-a of open space because they are quality developers. We shouldn't have to put a law or a restriction or an ordinance into effect to make them, or force them into that regard. Well, I don't know. Can we trust people to simply follow a moral or ethic that would allow us to have what we are asking here. Can we rely on them to ascertain, for today's public, and for future children a certain amount of open space, playground space, nature. I don't think so. Don't tell the first graders that you can have as much recess today as you want. How much do you want. You know what you are going to have. (inaudible). Sprawl. We heard a lot of definitions of sprawl. I don't think any developer in here is guilty of sprawl. According to his definition. On the other hand, I think we, many of us, driving down the roads have seen sprawl. We see sprawl occurring, we see sprawl about to occur. Sprawl, is contingent upon open space as well. If you took the open space development. I think, especially in a rural area, you have created some form of sprawl. Whether you want to look in Webster's or some nicely authored book on plans today. I think a lot of people have recognized and anticipate what is going to be sprawl. What more can I say. 20% is just. 20% is adequate. 20% may be too little. I think that this ordinance as it exist, with its inclusion of developed and undeveloped open space is a very proper one and I think it probably should at least be ____ and I don't it is too restrictive. It is not respective enough. Thank you very much."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you, Jim. Next speaker on behalf of the proposed ordinance. Yes, sir."

Mr. Lakin, "Keith Lakin, 1260 North 345 East, Chesterton, Indiana. As I said before. I am for an open space ordinance. I attended the last Plan Commission meeting. I get very nervous. I am shaking. So I wrote a letter afterwards. I apologize. I will read the letter. First, may I apologize for my poor taste and the comments at last nights meeting. I mentioned things that I should not have mentioned and did not present the concerns that I really had about this ordinance. I get so nervous that I lose track of my thoughts. My concerns are as follows: I did not feel the meeting was constructive. There was not a discussion. It was really.. we are for it, or we are against it. I feel there were quite a lot of things not addressed. First, I do not believe subdivisions are thirty acres or less should be exempt from the ordinance. This would only create more smaller subdivisions that we really need open space somewhere outside the subdivisions. I will add to that. It is not in the letter. I think if you divide an acre should put some money aside for open space. I mean if you wanted to divide an acre, or if I wanted to divide an acre off of my farm, I should present some money for that person that is going to buy that house to have open space. Second, I feel that there should be a provision that money could be donated for open space outside the subdivision. As in this way, two or three or more smaller subdivisions could create a really more beneficial open space. Third, I think the twenty foot rule, could or should, be amended to make credit for sidewalks or walking trails that are less than twenty foot wide. In this matter, several natural areas, small areas, or resting areas could be connected. Rather, than one large area that would probably be driven through by cars. Requiring more parking spaces that would use up more land. I vision a subdivision as more open and accessible to all residents. I would like to comment on that a little bit, but we send millions in this town, I think, already for walking trails. Why can't have them in our sidewalks, as walking trails, in our subdivisions. If somebody would put in the sidewalks where you can walk through the subdivision. I think they should get some credit for that, for open space. Instead of having to walk in the street, or drive. Further, I believe all subdivisions, where possible, should be planned so that con-joining subdivisions, or adjoining land, may be accessed from that subdivision without going back the entrance and then entering the nest area to join. _______ I appreciate this was required at the Carriage Hills in Jackson Heights Subdivision joining my land in Jackson Township. I have been spoke to over that, I have been criticized for that. The neighbor that did the addition to Jackson Township came over to my plan. Bulldozed out my trees, which he paid me for, eventually. But there was no.. to me.. It was not a benefit to me. They didn't put the entrances or the roadways that would have been benefited by subdividing. But they are there. Particularly, Jackson Heights, was ¾ of a mile with one entrance, winding back through the woods. At least, if you had a catastrophe or something back there. A porch fire or something, the road was blocked, those houses behind you, they might not be able to get to them. I think all subdivisions should be made so they can be joined together. We want to save gas and energy. If you drive a mile or two to get to your neighbor that is a 100 yards away. That is not saving energy or anything. Five, I feel that this ordinance may cause lot prices to be more expensive. Where possible, smaller lots and greater ___ should be allowed. We could go into that in great detail, I think. I am for this . Maybe the 20% is too stringent. I feel that round table discussion of builders, land owners, home buyers and environmentalists, farmers and open space advocates should be included. If a group of twenty or so made up of each of these groups, and possibly, more groups, we would be assembled to iron out a more comprehensive plan. Then present it to the public for open discussion. It would calm the people for and against that would result in an ordinance that is fair, as it is now written. I wish to thank those who have put effort in bringing this ordinance to the front. I hope to see a good ordinance that will make this country better. That was the letter that I sent. Some of my credentials, I serve on the Lake Michigan Costal Zone Management Advisory Committee. I serve on the Little Calumet in Salt Creek Total Bailey Maximum Load Not Quite Pollution Committee. I am not a Board member, I am an Advisor. I have been to all of these meetings. I was recently invited to attend a study being presented by Purdue University for Wood Land Preservation and Open Space Preservation. I have put seventy-seven acres of my own land, easement on it, it can never be developed that is wood land. Of that seventy-seven acres, eighteen acres was farm land that I recoursed. I have twenty-six acres of farm land set aside for street bank preservation. I am in the process of putting in ten acres in wildlife and wetland on a farm I have in Jasper County. I do work to try to preserve the open space. I did oppose, a few years back, the Wetland Ordinance. None of you people were here then, I don't believe. It was so ambiguous, they said a building site, was an example. What is a building site. Some poor gus, may have ½ acre. Somebody may have five acres. Somebody may have forty acres. Nobody knew what wetland is. Nobody knows what a wetland is yet today. There is so many different definitions. I would have loved to see wetlands preserved. But even the Federal Government final gave up their attempt to have it. Because they can't decide what a wetland is. I would like to see this ordinance, as I said, more discussion and an ordinance that we can have. I get one to two maybe more than that some months, letters, certified letters. My wife says, what's this? I don't even open them sometimes. I would rather see something that we can work with. Make some open ends, even. If you have walking space. I would like to see, as I understand it, I didn't have a copy of it here today. I would like to see more detention. Or retention ponds, instead of detention ponds. One thing, that water stays, not just slows down for a day or two. It adds to our ground water and it can make a nice recreation area. Now, if you make a retention pond, I think possibly that should be used as an open space. I think I have talked enough. I would just like to see a good open space ordinance with a little more input. This is not 9-11, you know. We got in trouble with 9-11. Rushing into things. We are deciding maybe we have taken too many of our freedoms away. Let's take a little time to discuss this and pass a good ordinance. Thank you."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on behalf? Yes, sir."

Mr. Kasper, "Hi. Joseph Kasper, 5891 Lexington Avenue, Portage. I would like to go on the record to, I am an advocate of Boone Grove at the County level. I believe that growth is good for the County, but as I see other communities are looking into developing and planning and strategic growth guidelines. I know that we need to take a look at our County and manage growth patterns. I would like to applaud Commissioner Harper on bringing the issue up of green space to light. We need to look at the growth more, manage it more. As a candidate for County Council, I am going to continue to bring up the issue of managed growth. I believe that if we do not manage the growth at the County level, we are going to find out that we are not going to be able to provide adequate services, other services, to the communities that are sprawling out, further and further, away from your police departments and your fire departments. That is going to cause an undo burden on all the taxpayers and we are going to be able to increase the taxes to provide adequate services. I just believe that this ordinance. It worked quarterly. It is going to be a good ordinance. I am all in favor of providing an ordinance to limit green space. But we need to manage the growth, accordingly, and make sure the County grows at a good level, but a consistent level. Thank you."

Com. Burrus, "Any other individual who would like to speak on behalf."

Ms. Read, "Charlotte Read, 1453 North Tremont Road, Chesterton, Indiana. I would urge the Commissioners to do the right thing, which is to approve this ordinance and give it a chance to work. It probably not stop all of the problems but it will begin to show to the people of Porter County that you care enough about the future, as well as the present, to begin to take to heart the important of preserving open space in subdivisions. The County is growing rapidly and I do not think that will change. It is how we grow and we need to grow. In coordinating and treating all developers equally, not to grow haphazardly. We have had enough haphazard growth. Let's do it right. Please pass the ordinance."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you. Any more speakers on behalf?"

Mr. Breitzke, "My name is Kevin Breitzke. I am Porter County Surveyor. I am also on the Plan Commission. The ordinance, fundamentally, is a good thing, I think. Open spaces has always been a positive thing but we have to look to the quality of what we are preserving and how we are going to cover the cost of what we are preserving. Therein, lies the problem. We want to engage the developers to this willingly and to do it well. To the best of quality, to expectation. We laughed at motivation in the ordinance as it stands itself. I hope we can do it someway. I get very concerned because what we have many times are out lots put up on tax sale on a regular basis. This could happen with these open spaces, if we are not guarded to protected to this. This adds additional burden to us. If we have ways to stimulate something kind of financing to help offset some of this, to be diligent and identify as Bill Tanke suggested in an earlier plan we had actually identified the conservation corridors and to reactivate portions of that plan with a lot of enhancements because that still fell short of where we should be working. In long term looking toward the corridor such as Salt Creek Corridor which it could be a great benefit to all of the citizens, including the residents in proximity of it. I think the other thing to look at is the development of the County itself isn't totally within the subdivision context. Minor subdivisions probably pick up close to, I am going to conservatively say three hundred acres per year out of our development. Those are subdivisions that are four lots or less that consume all the lot of land. Yet, they will not be really contributing anything for this end of having open space, or taking care of this. The other problem I have with ordinances in generally, I say at the Plan Commission Meeting is that we encourage ten acre divisions. Large track development. We have an opportunity to greet or to rework our ordinance slightly to encourage the development of say, a building site out of that ten acres with the commitment from the property owner to open space, farm land, forest land through maybe another zoning classification. Therein, that land, will be set aside rather than creating a lot of land to be mowed, which it seldom is, and not enough land to be plowed. We need to be looking at development, as a total picture, and for our County it is not just in subdivisions. It is not a PUD. Mostly, our single family housing residential development is in the other two types of development. That is the ten acre or more parcels, and we pretty frequently see a farm with eighty acres, one hundred sixty acres broken up into ten or twenty tracks and then those people usually come back to us for further subdivision which is below what our minimum is. So those are the things that we need to address but fundamentally, I hope we keep the open space concept ideal alive and encourage quality development of that open space for conservation purposes, for recreation purposes, and to give us as a County a means of supporting it here and after without relying on specific individuals or Homeowner's Association, etc. that they are not turning it back to our Park Department or our Commissioners without the help that we are going to need both to maintain, to use, and to pay for these entities. I am closing. We have a lot of open space in Portage Township, for example. Part of the reasons is not be facilitated as, it has fallen into disuse. Some areas it has fallen into disrepair because we either don't have the financial aid to perpetuate the use of it or the users for it. Whereas we have to garden about where these monies are going and what our obligations are that the legacy cost we are passing on."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you Mr. Breitzke. Would anyone else like to speak on behalf of the proposed ordinance? Yes, ma'am. Ruth Ann."

Ms. McWhorter, "My name is Ruth Ann McWhorter, 601 Evansburg, Valparaiso. As I am sure you are all well aware, we don't have any tax dedicated to park recreation. It would appear that an ordinance setting aside space within development would be more obvious solution at this time to help the County have green space preservation. There was discussion about amending this ordinance before you pass it. I would suggest, maybe, passing it, taxing this ordinance, while the amendments are pending, as a catalyst to make sure that you actually get an amendment. If there are to be amendments, that would speed the process along ____. I also agree on the small tracks that they would be good to look at a way not to exclude the small tracks because whatever the exclusion is, it will probably be the next popular size for subdivisions. I think if you could think of a way to do that, that would be good. And also, I think the ordinance would help level out the playing field between our quality developers and the lesser quality developers because we do have quality developers that satisfy open space in their developments and it is not really fair to them to have other developers not having to do that. I think that this would make a more equal playing field between the quality developers and the lesser developers. There was an article in the newspaper over the weekend about bringing technology to area and the one comment by one of the speakers was that it wasn't entirely just our lack of the infrastructure for it, but partly our reputation, which we get from our neighbors, but our reputation of being primarily steel mills and crime. I think if we have development, quality development, that have open space within them, that this can help enhance our reputation to bring in the kind of people that we want in Porter County to be these entrepreneurs to help our economic face and in the end we will help the developers sell more houses. So I guess, I would say, I would encourage you to the ordinance as speedy as you can and not wait too long because there won't be any green space left."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you Ruth Ann. Another speaker. Yes, ma'am."

Ms. Crawford, "My name is Marjorie Crawford.

Com. Burrus, "Would you care to come up and use the microphone here?"

Ms. Crawford, "I would rather speak from here. Can everybody hear me?"

Com. Burrus, "Give it a try. We are trying to record what you are saying. We don't want to put you on a spot, but the lady that is here is recording the comments.."

Ms. Crawford, "I don't have a very long speech."

Com. Burrus, "Speak into that microphone, right there."

Ms. Crawford, "My name is Marjorie Crawford. I live at 324 East Morgan in Chesterton. I would like to say, to the whole group here, most of the people in this room will be dead in thirty years from now and the rest of us, most of the rest of us,.."

Com. Harper, "Let's make it forty."

Ms. Crawford, "I don't want to be gloomy about this, and the rest of us are going to be in our declining years, if I am even alive then, we will then not be County Commissioners, County Planners, builders, or citizens. During these thirty years the rest of the world will be doubling its population. At the present rate of increase, that means twice as many people, twice as many homes, twice as many cars, twice as much asphalt. I urge the Commissioners to pass this ordinance, imperfect as it maybe, ours may be the last generation to make a difference in what happens to our environment. Thank you."

Com. Harper, "Thank you."

Com. Burrus, "Another speaker on behalf. Everyone has had an opportunity who would like to speak in favor of the proposed ordinance. At this time, I see none. We will open the floor to those who would like to speak against or in opposition to. Mr. Coolman."

OPPOSITION OF OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE

Mr. Coolman, "Good afternoon, gentleman. My name is Bob Coolman. I president of Coolman Communities. We have been building and developing in Porter County even longer than Herb Read has been involved as my folks began the development business that I am currently involved in, in 1952. Over that period of time we have developed communities such as Sylvan Manor, Heritage Valley, Walden, Keystone Commons, where we are involved with Wagner Communities, Aberdeen, Essex Park, the Prairie to Aberdeen, Hidden Hollow, Hawthorne Hill Timber Bridge. All but three of those, incorporated some significant part of open space. Anywhere from about 5% when my folks first started trying to figure out a way to do open space fifty years ago to the Prairie to Aberdeen today which incorporates something better than 50% open space into the community. The ordinance that you are considering today, if I understand the way it is constructed correctly, would preclude any of those developments being approved with the possible exception of Walden. Walden, under that ordinance, could probably have been approved. Unfortunately, probably less than 1% of the residents of Porter County can afford to live in Walden. We take just as much pride in developing communities that incorporate a variety of home styles and price ranges, accommodating all the residents of Porter County, as opposed to just the up scaled elite. So the simple question that I would pose to you this afternoon, is that, is a blanket ordinance that requires that all development must have a significant set aside amount of open space, as an ordinance. Does it constitute good planning? So we would look at that question. Should all providence, regardless of their use, regardless of the size of the lots that are being considered, regardless of the site conditions. Should every development across the board require a 20% open space. Would professional park planners agree that, that kind of an approach is a logical approach to doing open space development. Obviously, because of our track record, I am hardly coming to you from a perspective that I don't believe that your development should preclude the use of open space. We do that almost all the time but we don't do it universally because certain kinds of development, certain kinds types of site conditions, certain types of uses simply are consistent with incorporating open space as a blanket statement across the board. Especially, in light of the fact that at the present time, Porter County does not have a workable or usable PUD Ordinance. Most of the developments that we have referred to were done either as the original PRD Ordinance under the County Planning requirement. Under a previous PUD Ordinance in the County or under the City of Valparaiso's PUD. At the present time, because of the engineering requirements that are included in your current PUD Ordinance under most circumstances the requirements to do Planned Unit Developments are so ____. A PUD is basically a request for a zoning change. The expense of preparing a PUD request. It is just so expensive with the complete possibility that it could be turned down with the County's current PUD Ordinance all but precludes the use of PUD's as a viable planning tool. What we do know about this ordinance, is that it would lower raw land valleys. It would increase the rate of farm land reduction which seems _____ but the reality of it is, is that we are talking about an exacerbation of sprawling. When you simply say, that across the board, every parcel has to have 20% of it left in open space and you haven't made any provision for density changes, that means you are going to absorb more land in order to accommodate the same number of humans. Pretty simple economics. It will almost mandate higher lot prices and ultimately as Mr. Breitzke indicated it is going to probably result in a lot of small, poorly managed, parks. What we have seen over and over again over the years in development owner's associations has been that owner's associations are not any happier with incurring the cost of maintaining common property than the County is. That is the reality of it. So when you start mandating that the owner's associations must do these things, unless there is some significant revision in the ordinance that provides elimination of property taxes, that provides a functional revenues for the ability to be able to provide for well-managed small parks in these neighborhoods is almost precluded. As a stand alone ordinance, this ordinance is a misguided effort at trying to do land use planning. It is strange that the ordinance, in of itself, contradicts your own land use plan. We all understand that providing for open space is an essential part of good planning but it needs to be done in context with a viable PUD Ordinance. it needs to be done in contact with impact policy that provides income streams for the acquisition and operation of real parks. It doesn't create double taxation kinds of situations that we incur with property owner's associations. It needs to be done in context with density provisions and allowances that are reasonable and consistent without people, in the world who want to live today, not everybody wants to live in a large lot world development that has large open space tracks that they are maintaining. That is the reality of it. My generation is approaching a point in time as baby boomers that is no longer attractive but to a very, very few. They would much rather live in higher density neighborhoods that do provide for levels of common space. With no density allowance provision this ordinance, what you are going to get is a greater rate of property and greater impact on our farmland preservation policies than you would without them. Ultimately, your planning policies need to be developed in association with Porter County Cities and Towns that ought to have real input over development areas that they are going to be annexing, in the foreseeable future. That is not presently a part of this as well. I don't think that the City of Valparaiso or the City of Portage or the City of Chesterton or any of our smaller towns are interested in maintaining these kinds of tracts of land that are poorly managed when if, not if, but when the time comes that they are going to be annexing parcels that are on their boundaries. You hired a planning firm this morning, apparently, at a pretty beneficial rate, to go back and take a look at your subdivision control policies and your zoning ordinances and we would, I would, certainly, applaud you for that. My only concern would be that since you got a good deal that you incorporate into his responsibilities taking a look at these kinds of open space requirements in context of all of a set of planning policies within your already existing land use plan. My suggestion to you is, I don't think you will find any planning professional in either the public, or the private, sector who is going to advocate that a blanket set aside for open space, Bob mentioned the various open space requirements but in almost every single one of those situations, those open space requirements are done in context with other land use policies that he would provide additional density provisions and allowances. That provide for argent use through certainly in townships where they do have an impact fee for acquisition and development for parks. That those things are consistent and are incorporated into all of that. to do this as a separate ____ is primarily just, it would appear to be, at least from my perspective, a very, very poor way to go about for providing for the very real kinds of land use that we need to see in Porter County. Thank you very much."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you, sir. Another speaker in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Yes, sir. Mr. Green."

Mr. Green, "My name is Gary Green. I live at 250 White Thorne Lane. I am somewhat confused on which side I should state my cause. I am for open space but I am against this ordinance. I come to you with a background working on the last go around at the Porter County Comprehensive Plan. My objection to this ordinance, is that it not does not follow the outline or the intent of the ______ Plan. I am pleased to see the Plan going forward but as I was involved in the state meetings and the individual meetings to each of the communities, there was tremendous public input in that meeting and I think it gave it, the planners very clear direction on which direction they would like to see the County move. One of the overwhelming things that I heard at that meeting, I heard from a lot of these people that are here speaking in favor of this is, that we need open space in Porter County. We need good quality for open spaces in Porter County. What I did not hear from anybody in that, was a huge public outcry for private space. The ordinance is written it creates private space. It is funded ____ into those developments which I think is not consistent with the direct of the open space plan. A couple of other items that I don't think that this ordinance addresses, are the market conditions. Developers that are developing in Porter County are not creating room will respond in two groups. That group comes to us in a variety of direct manners. We have the aging of the population. Generally speaking, we are probably not going to be putting play sets and play grounds into developments where we have age ____. I don't think the ordinance addresses any of that. I don't think there is any consideration in the ordinances, Bob said looking at the specific character of the geographic areas that are going to be developed. Trying to apply what's going on in Hamilton County to Porter County, I think, this is ludicrous, it is trying to put a blanket on open space requirement without considering the character and nature features of each of property that comes before the developers. I don't think that this ordinance considers the overall economic impact of what development would be in Porter County if the developers can go to Lake County or LaPorte County and develop property with specific, without some of the other costs that are going to buy into their developments, we may lose ground on our growth and development. Finally, I would say to this Board, if you want to take what the public is saying move ahead with your parks, not private. Do some type of funding for your public park system. I think that is what the County wants. I think when you envision Porter County, if you don't take steps to set aside those areas, you are missing the boat. I don't think this ordinance does that. Thank you."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you, sir. Another gentleman. Mr. Leeth."

Mr. Leeth, "Good afternoon. My name is Todd Leeth. I am here on behalf of the Porter County Builders Association. I serve on their Board and represent them as an attorney in their council as well. My address is 103 Lincolnway, Valparaiso. The Association agrees, as you have heard from some of their member builders, that responsible develop does include an evaluation of open space needs for the residential projects that they build, the developers of the association. This ordinance, as it has been presented, first at the Plan Commission and now before you, is really the first opportunity that the association or public has had to view or express any concerns or their opinions with regard to its provisions. Unlike a comprehensive plan, as Mr. Green indicated that was adopted back in May of 2001, there was a series of stakeholder meetings. Public groups, special interest groups were invited through their township organizations to come and present input to the, then consultant, hired by the County. That hasn't happened with this particular ordinance. No groups were consulted or invited to provide comment. Environmentalists, farmers, Chambers of Commerce, the general public, all of those groups of interest. I think they are very much impacted by this. We have heard that testimony, frankly from both sides of the isle in regard to that. Our concern with regard to the ordinance probably falls within two realms. One, we think it is back public policy for the following reasons, as Mr. Coolman indicated, we think that it promotes urban sprawl. It limits flexibility of the Plan Commission to bury very rigid requirements and standards. It does not address minor subdivisions. It does not give developers proper credit for green space, that is dictated and dedicated for other purposes. It needlessly increasing the cost of land and therefore the cost of future homeowners and residents of our County. It places burdens on the homeowners to bear the continued cost of maintaining expansive parcels beyond any realistic benefits derived from that open space. It fails to recognize that green space inherit in large lot developments are outside of the dedicated open spaces and the parcels as defined by your proposed ordinance. And last, it sty fills invocated land planning by providing, or not providing rather, incentives to developers. That is something that your current PUD Ordinance in your comprehensive plan tried to do. That, I think, is exactly the point that Mr. Green was making in his comments. The current proposed ordinance does not allow for the continued public policy that has been dictated through the PUD Ordinance and comprehensive plan. The second flaw that we find in your ordinance, has to do with its legality. I am not here to suggest to you or threat to you or to bang on the table that the ordinance, as proposed, is a violation of Constitutional Law. A taking, as we refer to it. But I am here to say that in my opinion, 20% open space across the board is too much. It is over reaching and, in my opinion, it does rise to the level, or can rise to the level, of a Constitutional taking. The problem that we have, is that when we view the ordinance, we look at it in its four corners and you can't do that. You have to take it and apply it to different scenarios. Scenarios that my clients, perhaps not members of this association, but other developer clients that I continually represent, at the Plan Commission. Their projects, when applied to this ordinance, may, under some circumstances, in my opinion, violate the Constitution. Currently, the law, with regard to takings, in this scenario would provide a three-prong test. In my opinion, looking at those three prongs. One prong would favor the ordinance and the Constitutionality of that ordinance. One prong, I believe, in my opinion, detracts or would find fault with that ordinance and the third prong, quite frankly is a gray area. The law, as we all know, is full of gray areas. I can't tell you, across the board, is this ordinance invalid on its face. I would suggest to you that it is probably not. But when applied, as the law will require it to be applied, to certain developments, it may very well find that it has crossed the Constitutional line. At the Plan Commission, as Commissioner Harper knows, I referred to and compared this ordinance to the Valparaiso Ordinance. I am not suggesting to you that is the perfect model. Far from it. I am suggesting to you, in my comparison, the Valparaiso Ordinance, when using a sewer and water availability subdivision of 100 acres both plans zones R1. This Ordinance requires 500% more open space and only allows 72% of the same number of homes. For that 100 acres, I don't believe, across the board, 20% is the right formula or method to impose upon open space in your ordinances. The Valparaiso Ordinance, as I think Mr. Thompson was alluding, has a formula or a fraction, there are certain requirements for open space for our first number of units. Then after that, it is a decreasing scale. I think that is a good type of formula. We don't want to have an across the board amount of land to set aside based upon the number of homes or the number of lots. That's, in my opinion, wasteful dedication of land for open space purposes. The ordinance that has been proposed has admirable morals. We've all, today, agreed that we need an open space ordinance and that position is supported by the Builders Association. But the result of the current ordinance, I believe is devastating. There is not a rush or an emergency to place an ordinance that even those speaking today in favor, has suggested is potentially flawed or there might be a mistake. Let's create an amendment to an ordinance, but let's put the ordinance in place today. I think that is wrong. I think your job is to place in law the proper ordinance, after careful consideration and study. We have a perfect opportunity right here today we have just engaged a new consulting firm. Mr. Coolman indicated that very possibility. I think it is within their scope of work, quite frankly. They are going to do it, as I understand, their task, their charge is to take the comprehensive plan and turn it into law. Pure and simple. In 1983 we did that, that was our last amendment and overhaul of the zoning and subdivision control ordinances. Twenty-one years have passed and it is time that we do that. If we took the first step as a community, as a county, when we adopted the comprehensive plan in May of 2001, this is the next step. Why go about peacemaking our development requirements. Why go and adopt an ordinance that some believe is flawed. Certainly, I do, and my clients believe the current ordinance is flawed. Why adopt that, when we have the perfect opportunity to create a comprehensive, cohesive well duck-tailed ordinance that will address all facets of developments through the Subdivision Control Ordinance and through the Zoning Ordinance. That is what I think is the proper and the good stewards of public policy. That's your charge, in my opinion, as we move forward today. The Builder's Association pledged that the Plan Commission may do to you, to work with accounting to be part of those stakeholder meetings to assist the developers, to assist Mr. Thompson in creating, what we believe, is a well-thought out, well-reasoned and legally enforceable open space ordinance. Part of your overall ordinance package, if you will. Thank you."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you. Do we have any other speakers who would like to speak in opposition to the proposed ordinance? Yes, sir."

Mr. Atkinson, "My name is Gary Atkinson. I am with Dunes Country Partners, 1491 Farley Lane, Fresco. I have a prepared statement I can read. We would like to go on record as being opposed to this ordinance, but not for the reasons stated by most of the opposition. We believe that this ordinance is willfully inadequate to accomplish its stated goals. Each piece of real estate, each parcel, is unique to itself. You can not put a square peg into a round hole. In most cases, 20% set aside for open space is far too little to create a comfortable place for people to live, work, play and rest. We don't need any more beige, vinyl, garage door subdivisions or any gated communities filled with big mansions. They gobble up countless, natural resources. Each development plan should take into consideration the nature amenities of the site and the effect that the development will have on the surrounding eco-systems. We need economically diverse, culturally integrated, mixed use communities that create a sense of place and belonging. This ordinance will give developers another tool to demand that their projects, approval of their projects, because they met all the minimums required by ordinance. It will encourage multiple, small projects, to avoid compliance with the open space requirements. You have competent staff on the Plan Commission, the Technical Advisory Board and the Board for Zoning Appeals to carry out your policies. The introduction to this ordinance puts the development committee on notice that you are demanding more open space and integrated designs. Let's not be satisfied with leaving only 20% of our land available for the enjoyment of future generations. Of all the people who have ever lived on the earth, half of them are alive today. That statement illustrates that we will continue to experience expediential population growth and the demand for housing will continue to escalate. Let's cherish our natural resources and develop our land in such a way that our children, their children, will be safe and comfortable and will be proud to hale from Porter County. Thank you."

Com. Burrus, "Sir, thank you. John, would you care to make any remarks."

Mr. Whitcomb, "My name is John Whitcomb. I live 2059 South State Road 2, in Center Township here. I am opposed to this ordinance, as it stands now. I agree with Mr. Gary Green over there and Todd Leeth. One thing I have noticed, today, and a couple of weeks ago at the Plan Commission hearing was that people that were more than just twenty (20) percent, or more, weren't going to contribute any of their property to the 20% open space. They want somebody else to contribute that. I don't quite agree with that. If they want that open space, I think, like Todd Leeth, I think, said, or Mr. Green said, the Park Department. They can support the Park Department and pay taxes into it and then they can get their green space. They will be paying, a little bit for it, at least, to saddle the developers with 20%, some of them say, that's not enough, they will give more than that. That's crazy. They are going to let whoever is going to buy in that subdivision, they could shop and buy one where they like. A lot of open space or in clusters where they don't have to mow their lawn very much, or have much of a lawn to mow. How much people, you Commissioners, to take my situation into consideration. I have lived here seventy-one years in Porter County. Now you want to snag 20% of my property. I really don't care for that. Thank you."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you, John. Any other speakers in opposition. Yes, sir."

Mr. Kovavich, "I am not really in opposition. I just have a question. I am Ned Kovavich, I live at 259 ____ Drive, Valparaiso, Indiana. Along with the explanation from your attorney on the procedure. I would just to like to know the date that this was certified with a favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission to the Board of Commissioners. Because at ninety days from the date that was served by. Is that the date that the Plan Commission made a decision on it, or is there another date you sent it certified."

Mr. Thompson, "Certification was done on the 9th day of June, 2004. It was the first meeting of the Plan Commission. It was where the resolution was adopted and recommended favorable recommendation. This was within the ninety days."

Mr. Kovacich, "If I understand this correctly, the Commissioners can make a couple different decisions today, approve it, reject it, do nothing or amend it. And the only way it goes back to the Plan Commission is if they reject it or amend it. If they approve it or do nothing or take another action, the ninety days still run."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "We have to vote on it in ninety days. At this meeting say we take it under advisement and request a little more information on it and then vote on it, it automatically becomes . . (inaudible.)"

Com. Burrus, "Any other comments for opposition. Before we close the public portion of the hearing is there any closing comments on behalf of anyone here. Seeing none we will close this for public input and open it for Commissioners deliberation."

Com. Harper, "I am in favor of passing this ordinance, but I think it is so important that everyone realize that there is a lot more at stake here today that just this ordinance. We are getting ready to codify and work on the entire zoning for the county. In fact, if you will notice, the fellow from Ground Rules is still here b