REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2005
6:00 P.M.


The regular meeting of the Porter County Board of Commissioners convened at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 in the Commissioners’ Chambers of the Administration Center.

Those present were: Commissioners Robert Harper, John Evans and Carole Knoblock, County Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger, Melissa Hartig, and Vi Wagner.

President Harper called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF PAYROLL

Com. Evans moved to approve the payroll for May 2, 2005, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Com. Knoblock moved to approve the minutes of April 19, 2005, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

APPROVAL OF CLAIMS

Com. Evans moved to approve the claims of May 3, 2005, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

PORTER COUNTY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION BOND REPAYMENT ISSUE

Com. Harper, “The hospital has set up a meeting to meet with me on Saturday, so I call for a motion to continue this until after that.”

Com. Evans moved to approve the bond issue based on Com. Harper’s continued negotiation with the hospital,

Com. Evans, “I think everyone is negotiating in good faith, I don’t think it is fiduciary responsible to continue to make the hospital wait and pay $2,500.00 a day to pay them off. It’s like paying a mortgage.”

Com. Harper, “Is there a second?”

Motion dies for lack of a second.
Com. Harper, “Let me respond to that. We have continually talked to the board. Our only interest is to see that these two parcels of land on which the main buildings are located are in the name of the Commissioners so that in full faith of the statute which requires action on the Plan Commission, Commissioners and the hospital board in the event there was ever a transfer of sale. That is the only thing we are talking about. That is the only thing we are trying to work out. The building where the hospital is located is presently in the names of four people. The one in Portage is not in the county name and that is the only thing we are trying to work out. I think everyone is, in good faith, trying to work towards a resolution. So that is the only statement I have to make.”

Com. Evans, “I would like to say one thing further. We are trying to do this in good faith and the hospital is acting in good faith then we should take them from the burden of $2,500.00 a day. It is not right that they have to pay $2,500.00 a day just because we want to prove a point. We have no more business telling them how to run their hospital than we do telling the Fair Board who to bring in for the county fair for entertainment, what land the Park Department can purchase. It is too much of a burden they are under, it has cost them over $75,000.00 just because we want this negotiation.”

Com. Harper, “Well, perhaps we should do what we did before and that is hold a meeting and let the public come in and comment on whether they feel that if it is a county hospital the county should own the land or not or if we should just give up any control at all whatsoever we had for the possible lease or sale and let the public comment on that. I thought about that. Maybe if we hold a general meeting and see what the public feels we should do.”

Com. Evans, “Even if we gave up the ownership of the property, we still don’t give up the lease for sale rights.”

Com Harper, “Oh yes we do. That is not fair at all. We do not give up the lease rights. They have already leased……it just depends on the length and the scope before it and the council and the Commissioners and the people, who have a right to say over it.”

Com. Evans, “If this was such an issue, why didn’t the Blue Ribbon Committee for the hospital board of finance that you appointed come across it. Why didn’t it come up, why did they say sign off? Why did everybody that looked at it say sign off of it? And then we hold them up?”

Com. Harper, “Well, they weren’t presented with that question.”

Com. Evans, ‘They should have discovered it. The board that was removed knew it.”

Com. Knoblock, “Think about this though, John. This was last fall when this started and I never heard about until maybe a month or so ago.”

Com. Evans, “No one did. No one knew about the ownership until we asked the auditor to check them.”

Com. Harper, “Any further discussion?”

Com. Evans, “No.”

TRANSFER FROM BRIDGE FUND TO FAMILY AND CHILDREN FUND
David Hollenbeck, Council Attorney

Atty. Hollenbeck, “John Rozkowski is with me. John is the director of the Department of Family and Children and at last Tuesday’s council meeting, he appeared before the council and indicated to them that his Family and Children Fund which is supported by real estate property taxes is in need of a cash flow influx due to bills that he has basically to pay foster parents and to pay institutions that take care of children. The County Council agreed to authorize John to be able to borrow on an interfund basis. This is something we have done in previous years. $600,000.00 from the Bridge Fund, $300,000.00 of which would be repaid out of the part one payment of taxes and the other $300,000.00 would be paid out of the second installment of taxes. This would be from the Bridge Fund, the Auditor’s office tells me you currently have $1.7 million in the Bridge Fund and of course it will receive tax payments in June and December as well. John currently has a balance of $173,000.00 in this fund and the bills are about $100,000.00 a month so there is some urgency to make the transfer so he can pay his bills. We ask people to be foster parents and we ask institutions to take these kids and when we don’t pay them, it becomes more difficult for John’s agency to fulfill his obligations under the statute. So we are here to ask the Commissioners’ acquiescence in the short term borrowing from the Bridge Fund, half of which would be paid in June and the other half in December.”

Com. Evans, “Normally when we do the Bridge Fund loans we do them specific to the Council and the Council appropriates.”

Atty. Hollenbeck, “This will be the same way. The Council’s resolution basically authorizes the Auditor to transfer the money and then requires John’s agency, . . . well what happens is he never sees the money when the tax settlement is made.”

Com. Evans, “So our repayment will be coming from John instead of from the Council, is that correct?”

Atty. Hollenbeck, “It is my perception that it will be the way it has always been. The resolutions always provide authorizing the Auditor to make the book transfer of the money and then when the settlement comes the Auditor will withhold what she sends into John’s fund; the $300,000.00 in June and the other $300,000.00 in December.”

Com. Evans moved to approve the loan, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

REPAIRS TO THE EXPO CENTER
Rick Renner, Johnson Controls

Mr. Renner, “This is upstairs at the Expo Center where originally there were six units and recently we replaced one that has failed. All of the units up on the roof are original, exceeded their useful life. In our opinion you have been pretty lucky to get as long as you have. One of them has failed and this is the proposal to replace the remaining ones.”

Com. Harper, “So this proposal for all of them together is how much?”

Mr. Renner, “I have this broken down into the equipment. What I did was I brought three competitive bids from different manufacturers. That is attached to the back of the document. Then the proposal for the one we recommend is the first one on the top. The second proposal, we went out and got bids for the electrical work and the second proposal is for the electrical portion. Then the third is the Johnson service included in the _________ and tying in the ductwork. I also included pictures of each one of the units that show how the jacket is wrapped around the insulation, is wrapped around the duct work, you can see the condition. All that is going to be replaced as well. There will be new insulation around the duct and a new jacket.”

Com. Evans, “I think you did a good job getting these together. In our conversation yesterday, you also pointed out that you were going to put a control device in that will allow, in the absence of a monitor, at the physical location for it to be tied back in.”

Mr. Renner, “That’s correct. It will be tied into the existing system that monitors the rest of the buildings in the county.”

Com. Evans, “I think the only question we have is to decide on funding and I thing we need to go ahead and approve this.”

Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Knoblock seconded,

Com. Harper, “Have you talked to the Expo to see if they have funding for this?”

Mr. Renner, “I talked with Lonnie several times about this project but funding was never brought up.”

Com. Evans amended his motion to include concurrence of funding between the Commissioners and the Expo, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Should we put this back on for two weeks to get this resolved?”

Com. Evans, “I think we just need to have a conversation with Lonnie.”

OFFICE HOLDERS/DEPARTMENT HEADS
Award Pickup truck bid
Ed Melendez, Park Dept.

Mr. Melendez, “In front of you is a note coming from us that we received one bid for two pick up trucks, the ¾ ton and the one ton. It is from Cedar Lake, Indiana for the price of $62,503.00. We had quotations from the three auto makers to give us a comparison of how our municipal bids could come in with three different types of quotes, from Ford, Chevy and GM. As you see, they came in even under the municipal costs of well over the combination of $3,000.00.”

Com. Evans, “What kind of trucks are these?”

Mr. Melendez, “These are Dodge, ¾ ton and one ton.”

Com. Harper, “So you are recommending we accept this bid?”

Mr. Melendez, “Yes, please. We are down to where we are still able to get under the 2005 built list so they can be delivered in three to four weeks.”

Com. Evans, “And these are to come out of CEDIT funds?”

Mr. Melendez, “Yes.”

Ms. Hartig, “CCD.”

Com. Evans moved to approve the recommendation for two trucks, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Award bid for concrete sidewalk
David Schelling, Highway Engineer

Mr. Schelling, “We received one bid for the sidewalk project in South Haven for Midway. Its about 1,500 feet of sidewalk. If we want to get the work done we are going to have to award it. It is more ___ than I would like but other contractors did pick up the bid package but did not submit it.”

Com. Evans, “This is the second time we bid this and I just want to express my disappointment again in the fact that we could only get one bidder as we just did with the Highway Department, only one entity seems to want to do business with us. The money has been allocated, these are sidewalks in South Haven, coming out of my portion of the CEDIT money from my district for that period of time. We have already talked about it extensively.”

Com. Evans moved to accept the bid of Rieth Riley for $65,200.00, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.


Mr. Schelling, “I do have a couple claim forms. I have two claim forms from INDOT for reimbursing the county for over payment on railroad crossing, gates and flashers that have been installed over the years. The first one is reimbursing the county $1,928.04, for the crossing that was done at Sedley Road and Canadian National and Grand Trunk Railroad. We deposited a little over $20,000.00 back in 1998 and they finally closed out that project. The next one is another Canadian National project at 250 West. This is again in 1998 and there is a check for $1,401.88. The next one is kind of a _____ one, reimbursing us for overpayment for the Calumet Trail. Keep in mind that our initial deposit, our only deposit with the state was $20942.23 and we are getting back $18,470.00. That is really great.”

Com. Evans, “We can just sign them. I do want to address the Calumet Trail one. If we receive that much money and Ed, I think you might want to be looking for a mower to maintain that with a boom arm because that has to be spent in that endeavor. I know you have been looking at sickle mowers but the boom might be better. You tell us.”
Mr. Melendez, “We’ll get some prices.”

COUNTY HOME DEMOLITION DISCUSSION

Mr. Melendez, “Just a clarification , the one funds you are looking at is the County Home itself, you are not looking at Sunset Hill or the barn. So the figure you are looking at is the upper figure of $4,945.00.”

Com. Harper, “Why don’t you explain where we are at. Ed has been working with the committee since November or October on, and they have had a lot of people out at the Count Home, there has been engineers, Dave’s worked with him, Dave Pilz has worked with him, different people have come up with different ideas on demolition and so forth.”

Mr. Melendez, “Right now we are at the point of we need to correct two problems. One of them is the lead we have in the building as well as some of the fixtures and the trim and molding. The other is the asbestos that we have around in the basement that is still wrapped around the pipes. What we are looking at is Sunpro came in and gave us somewhat of an analysis of what we would have to do to give us the levels of what we have for asbestos and lead. And from that point, the asbestos has to be removed and they will give us an idea how on a bid process to get that taken care of. At this stage of the game since the building is being demolished. That is one thought that with the demolition we do not correct the lead problem. We have to state it during our bid process that there may be lead contained in the building, they will give us the results. The contractors that are handling the demolishing has to make sure they do proper handling and proposal and clean up. That relieves the county of their responsibilities at that point. The asbestos at that point in time, whether it is demolition or clean up, we still have to take care of the asbestos problem. From that point on we can move forward with what you folks would like to do.”

Com. Harper, “It is my understanding that proving this amount of $4,900.00 is going to get them to do the work necessary to put you in the position that you could write this and demolish this, is that correct? And when you wrote those bids after you get this information from Sunpro, how many bid specs would you write and to what different people?”

Mr. Melendez, “We would have to find out who we have to work with. We would probably work with Russ and see if there are other agencies in the state of Indiana as well as northern Illinois. So we have a fair bid process.”

Com. Harper “If you would be asking bids for more than someone that does demolition, correct?”

Mr. Melendez, “Basically for the asbestos and the lead, yes, we would ask on that point, basically on the asbestos. We would ask for more bids to come in on that. Once it goes from that point in the clean up, then the demolition specs would come in next for the removal of the building.”

Com. Harper, “We might be able to bid this out at the same time bidding out the asbestos rule and so forth further giving a demolition crew the chance to bid the whole project itself, am I wrong about that?”

Mr. Melendez, “There may be agencies. There’s one point where a lot of agencies wont get their abatement people in there to take care of the problem so there can be added to it. We can have specifications added to that where they correct the asbestos problem as well as working on the demolition. There is a possibility that one set of specs could be wrote up.”

Mr. Schelling, “That could eliminate other contractors that would be interested in the demolition that is not set up for asbestos.”

Com. Harper “Well, we can bid more than one way. We are not limited to bid one way. Are you telling us that after you get this report back and we spend this $4,900.00 you are going to be in a position to put these bid specs together.”

Mr. Melendez, “We should be able to get you specifications upon request if you want to see one set of specs with everything to it, or another set of specs without the asbestos and that is a separate cause that another company would handle, not just demolition. There are some options for you to look at once we get to that point.”

Com. Harper, “But we are going to be ready to go if we approve this and we get this done, we should be ready to go and get our bids out.”

Mr. Melendez, “That is one of the things we want to make sure we get from the company is how we write them up and what way we can go. From that point on, is what time period you want to start sending out bids for demolition.”

Com. Harper, “The answer is yes. Once you got this, you are going to have . . . .”

Com. Evans, “Are you trying to get Sunset Hill in there too?”

Mr. Melendez, “No.”

Com. Harper, “When this whole project started there were some figures batted around of how much it is going to cost for this demolition. We are going to need some guidance because we are going to have to go to the Council and ask to appropriate some of our own unallocated CEDIT money. You talked a little bit about prices. But you don’t have bids, correct?”

Mr. Melendez, “We have some quotes on the demolition as well as speculations on the removal of the asbestos.”

Com. Harper, “At one point, people are telling about the ______, do you think it would safe to go ask for less now.”

Mr. Schelling, “This is based on there being a lot of debris in the basement area and then covering it up with a foot of soil. I did contact again the demolition to try and get an idea of what it would cost to back hoe the soil and I have not yet gotten that cost. It is going to be more than that $150,000.00 if we go that route.”

Com. Harper, “If we decide to do this, do you think if we asked they have $300,000.00 of those non allocated CEDIT money set aside for this, we would be safe?”

Mr. Melendez, “I think so, yes. The only thing is when its complete if we asked for a specification of the demolition, what you see in the one figure is still . .(inaudible). Dave and I asked for that separate cost and that may be a little bit more to remove that because then you asking for more fill to come in. Every contractor is going to be a little different whether they haul it or they have a place to take it to or they are going to recycle it. $300,000.00, if we added everything else of what you have in front of you, is safe. They may surprise us, but we are very impressed how the figures dropped down if they recycle. Or recycled or reused and salvaged. So that is our savings place.”

Com. Harper, “The demolition crew makes their _____, they will be the ones to deal with that? But they have already taken a look at what’s there.”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “We can reject the bids if we don’t have the money.”

Com. Evans, “What we are doing by this laboratory analysis is determining what level the bids will be allowed at because without the removal they are going to be bidding two different things.”

Com. Knoblock, “And they do want the bricks, right?”

Mr. Melendez, “Yes, very highly sought after.”

Com. Harper, “You know it was costing us around $50,000.00 to keep it going. I think we should consider tonight taking action and move to demolish it. At least start the wheels in motion to ask the Council and okay this $4,900.00 to do that study.”

Com. Evans, “I agree, I don’t think we want to get too far ahead. I think we should do the study and then let the bids and see how they come back rather than try to determine the dollar amount first for somebody to bid into. I wanted to put it on the auction block with the old jail, I just want to get rid of it.”

Com. Evans moved to go ahead with the laboratory testing, based on the results of the testing, then determine the bid letting process and entertain the bids upon the completion of the testing,

Com. Harper, “Which fund are you thinking of? Its for $4,900.00.”

Ms. Hartig, “We can ask for it out of the unallocated or the property disposal fund.”

Com. Evans, “Yes, property disposal.”

Com. Evans moved to have it come out of property disposal, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “What kind of time frame?”

Mr. Melendez, “I will call the company tomorrow and I’ll let them know on Friday about the Park Board and I’ll have ___________ them under two separate agreements and bring it back to you folks during the week and then proceed on their scheduling.”

Com. Evans, “The Park Board has already agreed?”

Mr. Melendez, “They know about us so that is why we are bringing it to the Park Board.”

Com. Evans, “You are to be commended for all the work you guys have done on this.”

COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT

Com. Evans, “Dave, do you want to give us an update on the Great Lakes Transfer Station on LaPorte County Line?”

Mr. Schelling, “I got an email from IDEM about the status of the transfer station on County Line Road. Basically, the applicant did put a document in that wasn’t satisfactory to IDEM so the applicant wanted to stop the hold on their application review from IDEM but the information wasn’t satisfactory so they have until May 19 to satisfy IDEM and then at that time IDEM will decide whether or not to extend that application. So I don’t really understand all their procedures, but they did not verbally approve what was submitted to them by the applicant.”

Com. Evans, “But the application has not been withdrawn and has not been denied?”

Com. Harper, “Whatever happens, if it goes forward there will still be a public hearing and we will still be notified.”

South District: Com. Knoblock

1. Fieldstone Subdivision, Phase III, Performance Letter of Credit #00716 from Centier Bank in the amount of $26,200.0. New expiration date is June 2, 2006, recommend approval.

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

2. Fieldstone Subdivision, Phase IV, Performance Letter of Credit #00717 fro Centier Bank in the amount of $28,800.00. New expiration date is June 2, 2006. Recommend approval.

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

CORRESPONDENCE

Building Dept. monthly report for March 2005 is on file.
Weights and Measures monthly report for April 2005 is on file.
Clerk’s monthly report for March 2005 is on file.
Treasurer’s monthly report for March 2005 is on file.

American Red Cross to use third floor room for blood drives

Com. Harper “We have a request for the American Red Cross to use the third floor conference room for blood drives for the following dates:

July 15, 2005
September 9, 2005
January 6, 2006
March 3, 2006
May 5, 2006

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

Porter EMS to donate out of service ambulance

Com Evans, “I spoke with them and this is a normal occurrence when an ambulance goes out of service, the fire departments usually pick it up and use it to carry air bottles or equipment. There is very little other uses for those types of vehicles.”

Com. Evans moved to approve Porter EMS to donate an out of service ambulance to the Union Township Fire Department.


Com. Evans, “We need to approve an oversight on our part from the previous budget cycle of the toxicology lab. Sorry I don’t have the numbers with me that were discussed at the joint finance committee meeting last night. We need to approve and sign that contract and then apply to the County Council for additional appropriations for that funding in that regard. I have a copy on my desk I can go get. The new contract would be for $282,031.00 and a portion of that has already been approved so the additional needed would be . . . I don’t have that.”

Com. Harper, “The motion would be then to approve the contract for $282,031.00 and for the additional appropriation from the County Council, between that and last years’ contract.”

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

APPOINT NEW MEMBER TO PORTER COUNTY HEALTH BOARD

Com. Harper, “We have a vacancy due to a death on the Health Board and Carole, do you have a motion regarding that?”

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Elizabeth Forbes to the Porter County Board of Health, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

PLAN COMMISSION SESSION

Rezone, RR to R1-Moser Enterprises, 1st Reading

Com. Harper, “The only matter that we have on the Plan Commission tonight is the rezone from RR to R1, Moser Enterprises, 1st reading. This is set for a public hearing and we have rules that we always read at a public hearing. I will read those rules and then turn it over to Mr. Thompson. At a public hearing before the Commissioners, the petitioner and proponents shall first present the facts and arguments in support of the case. Those opposed shall follow. The petitioner shall have rebuttal time at the conclusion of those that are opposed to the petition. Those opposed will then be allowed time to rebut any new statements made by the petitioner in his or her rebuttal. It shall be within the discretion of the Commissioners to impose any time limitations on either the petitioner or the respondent and to limit public comment to those determined by state statute to be interested parties. Written remonstrances shall be accepted by the Commission but may not be read into the Commission record. Once that procedure is followed, this will then conclude the public hearing. To maintain orderly procedure each side shall proceed without interruption by the other. Presentation of the case, burden shall be on the petitioner to supply all the information necessary for a clearer understanding of the problem. The Commissioners may continue the hearing within their judgment, if the petitioner has not supplied sufficient evidence on which to make a determination. Every person appearing before the Commission shall abide by the order and direction of the president. Discourteous, disorderly or contentious conduct shall be regarded as breach of privileges of the Commissioners and shall be dealt with as Commissioners direct. Let me also say that everything we do here is recorded, so we ask you before you speak to state your name and your address. The petitioner will present his petition because they have the burden, then those that want to speak either for it and against it we will ask them to go up to this podium right there and get in a line and use that mike. Vi has to type these up so it really helps if you give your name and address clearly into the microphone so she can do the minutes. We are going to impose a four minute time limit on those talking, other than the petitioner, either for or against otherwise we will be here all night. We usually do some kind of time limit. We will have a four minute time limit and our county attorney will keep track of the time.”

Mr. Thompson, “This is Plan Commission Resolution 05-6, Petitioner Moser Enterprises, Inc. requesting an amendment to the zoning maps, requesting an RR change to R1, single family residential. This was before the Plan Commission on a number of dates, the last one was March 9, where it was forwarded to the County Commissioners with no recommendation by a 5-1 vote.”

Com. Evans, “Were there ever any votes in regard to this passage?”

Mr. Thompson, “I think it was at the February meeting, and I don’t know the exact date. Let me get it real quick here. At the February 23 meeting there was a vote taken, and it was a favorable recommendation. That vote failed on a 4-2 vote. Four in favor, two against the recommendation and by the rules though and the state statute, the majority of the Plan Commission member consists of five members must vote for the recommendation. In that situation, since there were only four it was automatically continued to March 19th meeting.”

Atty. Leeth, “Good evening, my name is Todd Leeth and I am here on behalf of the petitioner Moser Enterprises and D.F. Hedg. Mr. Hedg is the primary developer of the petition and joining us are Professor Jim Segady from Ball State University and I will introduce Mr. Segady in a few minutes. Also, Jim Dunbar from Duneland Group Engineering is here with us. Also here with us is Attorney Greg Babcock who is representing the petitioners in this matter. Mr. Babcock has been working with the town of Chesterton’s utility service board. Mr. Hedg has asked, he has not spoken previously in this matter at the Plan Commission, but given the level of concerns and remonstrances, he has asked to make a brief statement. So with your permission, I would ask Mr. Hedg to come forward.”

Mr. Hedg, “My name is Donald Hedg, owner of D.O.Hedg & Company representing myself and Moser family who I have done business with for some forty years. I live at 1086 Mission Hills, Chesterton, Indiana. I have a problem with the remonstrators expressing their views, I respect that, that is their right. We also had a chance to solicit many members, workers, building trades, subcontractors, whose livelihood depends on the county residential market to attend this meeting to voice their support for our petition. They also have a vested interest. Residential building is a major industry in Porter County. We didn’t think that was what we were trying to accomplish. I like to think that it is not simply the side that has more in attendance will carry (inaudible.). . . . For us to develop 267 lots using well and septic, we would need to acquire close to 500 acres. To achieve the same thing we can do on 150 following the Open Space Ordinance that the county has spent quite a bit of money and effort on by many people involved to create an ordinance for the future. Where you have a certain density and you allow for adequate open space. One acre housing is not for everyone. Most people prefer traditional type of housing development. The area needs that type of development because as you probably read in this weeks’ Post Tribune and The Times, there are major economic events that are happening; the RDA; the airport; the South Shore; bills that are going to be signed by the governor. There’s talk that they are going to take some of the excess land by the steel mills and create a massive trucking distribution center. All these things are going to bring change to the area. Development on Route 49 and 2, Menard’s, Home Depot, Kohl’s, Target, Marshall’s, those people and all those companies didn’t come here to build just for the existing population. They did market studies, they take that into consideration and the future growth of the area. That is why those things are happening. The winds of change are coming. Its like a roll over; its at the top of the hill and start to roll downhill. These things create momentum of their own. Two of the things these companies . . . .(inaudible) . . . the schools are packed with _____ and if there are adequate existing housing. We need a broad spectrum of housing to accommodate all these needs. We have a unique opportunity to be outside town limits yet have sewer and water as opposed to septic and well. A report from our engineering company, Duneland, of 114 failed septic systems reported for 2004. And forty this year to date from your own Porter County Health Department. 20% of these were additions which still leaves 92 for 2004, statewide according to IDEM, its 60 to 60% failure. Everyone doesn’t want to live on one acre of land with well and septic. What happens is if you live within a few miles of any given town or city, they are going to expand to the next adjacent land and create a density greater than what the county allows. On one hand you are almost defeating yourself when you expect all the ____ to stay totally rural. That is not reality. If the county so deems it and that is what you really didn’t need the open space ordinance. You could just say all we allow is farm land that is being bought for development is one acre plus sites and that would be the end of it. Then you could have the distinction that you are a county of no growth. If that is what you want, so be it. I believe we are one of the first to come under review under the new open space ordinance. Developers want to come in, buy farm land, then come in and abide by the open space ordinances, they get shot down, not because of the ordinance, and the land ___ but because of the number of people that attend this. The number of people in attendance is going to rule today, then we don’t need open space ordinances. We just go by 1 acre plus. Growth is going to come whether you, I, or anyone else likes it, it is not going to stop. It is going to take 500 acres and 267 lots to accomplish those goals. This whole ___ to the county, to maintain and plow, you also increase four miles of travel for the Sheriff and fire departments. This is urban sprawl, exactly what you are trying to prevent. Economically it is not advantageous to anybody. We need a mixture of both. If you really like rural living, it has become obvious you cannot live a couple miles from existing towns. That land is going to be developed sooner or later by the towns and you are going to have a greater density. If your lifestyle is so that you like to live in one acre plus housing, that should tell you that you should be at least 25 miles from the nearest town because the towns just keep growing. Finally, and reluctantly, in order to protect our investment, I have talked to the owner of the land adjacent to our 50 acre parcel. My attorney, Todd Leeth, has mailed the out of town owner a contract to purchase. This would then make us contiguous to the town of Chesterton and it would allow us to annex to the town.”
Atty. Leeth, “The petition before you is one for a zone change from the RR which is rural residential, one acre lots, and the traditional septic system residential development. We are seeking the zone change to the R1 Single Family, subject to a certain set of written commitments. Written commitments are now allowed by the general assembly as a tool that you and the property owners can use to restrict them when you make a zone change petition and approve those. I provided you with a copy prior to the hearing tonight of the proposed written commitments that were forwarded at the first of the Plan Commission and then hopefully to you as well as a couple aerial maps. I want to show you on the map the property in question. This is the two parcels if you will that are separated north and south by Sidewalk Road or County Road 1050 North. The 50 acre parcel on the north actually touches the existing boundaries of the town of Chesterton. The town boundaries of Chesterton are cross hatched both on your drawing and the display. The balance of the property is 100 acres but lies on the south side of Sidewalk Road. The site that we are asking for the rezoning is actually in the town of Chesterton’s planning and zoning comprehensive plan’s study area. We touched upon that and discussed that at the Plan Commission. I’ve got a copy if you are interested in reviewing their introductory plan describing the plan area. Their comprehensive plan shows it as residential in the future land use plan. We believe that the town of Chesterton will ultimately annex this territory whether or not this petition is approved. Currently the town boundaries are hemmed in by the Toll Road on the south so any growth for logistical reasons, you can’t go south, you have to go east in that general direction and ultimately reach this property. I think we all recognize that at some point in time, whether it is ten years, twenty years or thirty years, this land will be within the town limits. The proposal is to extend the sanitary sewer from Chesterton to service the property. We have had some discussions preliminarily with the town, if you have any questions we can certainly be more specific with regard to that. But the agreement for written commitments which is part of this petition specifically state that it is a condition of your approval tonight. Drinking water will be supplied by Indiana American Water Company as well. So it will have the two utilities services, water and sewer, provided by utility providers. The written commitments we’ll talk about a little bit. There are several of them in section 4 of the lettered items of our commitments. Both were arrived at following the public hearing we had; a neighborhood meeting, we had with the interested neighbors that showed up at the public hearing on January 12th. We had four or five members of the public, neighbors at that time, those were the interested parties who came to a meeting we called frankly at the suggestion of some of the Plan Commission members and staff suggesting we do that. Some of their concerns, primarily the ones that relate to screening and so forth, were a result of that. But I wanted to briefly indicate to you what those limitations are. Number one, we do not have in the written commitments an agreement that the lots will be of a certain number but we have agreed to provide that the lots on the north 50 would be 11,000 square feet in size and the lots on the south side would be 13,000 square feet or greater. You also have a drawing that shows the lot size of each of the lots that we have shown on the overall drawing as you can see on the board up here. The lots on the north are the ones we are suggesting be no smaller than 11,000 and the ones on the south side be no smaller than 13,000. Under your open space ordinance, we would be entitled to have lots as small as 9,500 square utilizing the intensity bonus, the developer has elected not to utilize that portion of the open space ordinance and are committed to this particular layout and configuration which produces overall 267 lots. Item B of Section 4 of the commitments provides that we will have the open space. The open space is approximately 22 to 24% of the overall development exceeding your minimum. We have agreed to preserve and ____ and trees surrounding the property and to add landscaping where appropriate. We also agree to provide for restrictive covenants for building materials on the exterior of homes. No aluminum siding or vinyl would be permitted and that they would have premium building materials used for the homes that will insure quality construction. I think if you are familiar with Mr. Hedg’s other projects, St. Andre’s subdivision in Whitethorne Woods, you recognize that is not a terrible stretch for Mr. Hedg to commit to such building standards. We would do so regardless. And lastly as I indicated, the condition of rezoning in Section 4-I, indicates that we must have sewer and water servicing the property. One of the things you are duty bound under state law to consider when you look at our petition is the comprehensive plan. This land is under your comprehensive plan classified as an urban fringe development and that is found in your future land use map on figure 25 of the comprehensive plan. The reason why it is designated as such is quite frankly due to its proximity to the town of Chesterton. Also, I think it is very important to recognize that the comprehensive plan independent of its classification as urban fringe encourages development on sanitary sewer and water. Mr. Hedg’s comments with regard to septic failures is the perfect example for the reason for that. It is simply better, its more environmentally sensitive and friendly to provide for waste water treatment to municipal services rather than what some have called the ticking time bomb on individual septic systems. The urban fringe development is defined in your comprehensive plan and if you didn’t bring one along, I brought a big version. Page 62 of your land use plan, the comprehensive plan defines urban fringe development as areas located adjacent to existing towns. We touch the town of Chesterton. Proposed for primarily residential growth of a density comparable with that of the adjoining urban areas. Again, we touch the town of Chesterton, there are subdivisions surrounding the entire subject property. ____ density, this is your comprehensive plan guiding you, Mr. Hedg, and the entire citizenry. Recommended in densities are within four and six units per acre for single family developments. Our proposed subdivision is less than two units per acre, less than one half of the low end of the range that is provided for in your own comprehensive plan. Lastly, connections to public water and sewer systems are required for this land use category. This definition meets every single requirement of the proposal before you. What is a comprehensive plan, why does this document, this page, this definition, mean so much? Well, the Indiana law says before you can get a zoning ordinance you have to have a comprehensive plan. It’s the big picture. You’ve got to have a plan that is implemented by the zoning ordinance. That is what good planning is all about. So the comprehensive plan is going to be or should be ____. It was done in the study and fought. Matter of fact, Professor Segady had the very first start here in Porter County with regard to this comprehensive plan that is adopted today. The process was frankly many years but ultimately boiled down to a fifteen month process between January of 2000 and April of 2001, fifteen months, twenty seven meetings, in Hebron, Kouts and Portage, all throughout the county, its this building, and in townships, and libraries throughout the county. Citizen groups came together, environmentalists, builders, economic development, farmers, agricultural, parks, all segments of the community came together in twenty seven meetings for fifteen months to arrive at what we now have as our comprehensive plan. It was done with the assistance of a consulting group out of Indianapolis, HNTB. The county paid $138,500.00 for their expertise. All of this boils down to what we call our comprehensive plan. Frankly this petition in many regards, and many aspects is a referendum on whether that comprehensive plan is for naught. Were all those twenty seven meetings no good, did they not mean anything? Because this petition and this comprehensive plan dove tail perfectly together. It shouldn’t matter that we throw out this plan because of the opposition of a small neighborhood. This is a comprehensive plan for the entire county. I’ve asked Mr. Segedy from Ball State University to join us tonight. Mr. Segedy, as I indicated, was kind of at the start of this comprehensive plan. Mr. Segedy is a professor of urban planning at Ball State. He was invited to be a part of the initial aspects with regard to the adoption and creation of the comprehensive plan prior to HNTB’s being hired by the county. I think one of the most unique aspects of his qualifications is he is a former Plan Commission member himself in Muncie Plan Commission. So with that I am going to ask Professor Segedy to address the issues with regard to density and traffic and how, in your opinion, the plan fits into the comprehensive plan and the development of the ______.”

Mr. Segedy, “Thank you, Mr. Leeth, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this matter this evening. As Mr. Leeth has suggested, my students and I were involved with the earlier version of the plan that eventually HNTB came in and worked on back in the early to mid 1990’s. We are involved with that process. So, I am familiar with the process and we have been involved with a number of projects in this area including Valparaiso. We are somewhat familiar with happens here and surrounding communities as well. My primary reason for being here this evening is not so much to convince you this is the ultimate development that should or will happen here but to indeed suggest that we are trying to provide a good quality community and development that is appropriate and sensitive to the needs of Porter County and the communities that contained within it. To that extent, in looking over the development proposals, which there are several ___ in it and a number of variety of issues that have been raised up have been addressed by Mr. Hedg’s such as providing appropriate buffering and so forth between the drain land uses along the road to provide a quality visual experience as has been expressed, the density of the development is according to the agreements which are contractual. This is indeed lower than what would be normally in this kind of development, this kind of R1 zone. Is it higher that the rural residential? Yes, no doubt and no is going to argue otherwise. This land is going to be developed one way or the other. This is essentially an infield project. There are already developments as Mr. Leeth has suggested, as you know, surrounding the property. This is nothing new, this is what is planned for Chesterton and for Porter County and it is appropriate to happen here. This is in my opinion being a professional planner, I have initials at both ends of my name, is something that is actually a very mild approach to what could be there. I know the developments that have occurred and I also know the challenges and pit falls of some of the immediate neighbors such as Coffee Creek and Sand Creek and the challenges that have happened there. I understand those things and am very sensitive to those things. I also understand the potential of what is trying to happen. I think this is a good opportunity to preserve some of the character that exists there. Great care has been taken to not only set aside more open space than is required, but to make that open space contiguous and useful. It will provide a fair amount of the natural drainage on the site, you have a minimal burden on the existing sewer systems for Chesterton for which they have agreed to hook up. One of my major concerns looking at this project, because I know the soils of Porter County and they are not good. They do not handle septic well, certainly not at the densities that are there. Even at the rural residential level they are not particularly good. So if the development came in, you are going to overwhelm the soils and there is no way it can be opposed really. The septic systems will fail at a fairly reasonably short amount of time. But going to a public sewer system is distinctly, at a rather significant cost to the developer, I think is admirable on their part. They are going to be hooking into existing sewer as opposed to proposing some kind of septic system or individual wells for water supply as well. Is there going to be a traffic problem on County Road 1050? There will be a change in the traffic, there is no doubt about it. Is that traffic problem going to be significant? No, it is not.”

(Laughter from audience)

Com. Harper, “Hold on, we are going to give everybody a chance here tonight. It is not going to do any good to talk over anybody else. Lets do this in a right way and let everybody have their chance. It never does anybody any good to heckle somebody else, it always brings an adverse reaction. Go ahead.”

Mr. Segedy, “Am I concerned with such issues? Absolutely, I have been working with the Indiana Department of Transportation with their contract sensitive design standards which are new coming into the state of Indiana, we are somewhat behind the rest of the country. We are working on this. The particular area in which I live in Muncie has a density four times what this is proposed and other than the drug dealer that used to live across the street from me, we have never had a traffic problem in the area. He is now gone, we no longer have traffic problems. So, these are the kinds of things that happen with development and these are things that need to be dealt with fairly easily with appropriate planning as is already addressed in your award winning, Mr. Leeth didn’t mention that but there are a number of plaques on the wall over there of which the organization of which I was formally a president, gave you a recognition of the effort as the comprehensive and thoroughfare plan of the area, has addressed these issues in anticipation and I think will be handled in an appropriate way. Those are the primary points that I would like to make. This is compliant, I think the issues that have been raised in previous remonstrance’s have been in effect to my satisfaction have been appropriately addressed and I am comfortable in suggesting this development is a step in the positive direction for Porter County.”

Atty. Leeth, “That concludes our initial presentation of our petition and we look forward to answering questions that might come up in the public hearing.”

Com. Harper, “There is a mike there and a podium and everyone will have four minutes. First I want to ask if there is anyone here that wants to speak on behalf, in favor of, this petition, other than those that have spoke already. If so, come forward and state your name and address and limit your comments to four minutes. After we get this started you can start a line, it moves along a little faster. Anyone to speak on behalf? No? Now those that would like to speak opposed , whoever wants can just start out. You can form a line and someone can start. Just state your name and address. We don’t have conversation back and forth between the parties. If you have some questions, you may ask them and they can answer later on. And if there are any Plan Commission members that want to speak, they can. Okay, lets start.”

(The public hearing portion of the meeting was not transcribed due to the length of the meeting.)

Com. Knoblock moved to deny the R1 rezone,

Com. Harper moved to amend the motion that the denial is based on the current condition of rural, the roads are not sufficient, and the most desirable use is the present use and to rezone would lower property values, Does anyone have any objections?”

Com. Evans, “No.”

Com. Knoblock, NO.”

Motion carried.

With no further business the meeting was recessed.


BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PORTER COUNTY INDIANA

Robert P. Harper
John A. Evans
Carole M. Knoblock


Attest: Sandra K. Vuko, Auditor