 |
PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS The regular meeting of the Porter County Board of Commissioners convened at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 in the Commissioners’ Chambers of the Administration Center. Those present were: Commissioners Robert Harper and John Evans; County Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger; Administrative Assistant Melissa Hartig; and Recording Secretary Vi Wagner. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE President Harper called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance. FLINT LAKE DRAINAGE ISSUE DISCUSSION Com. Harper, “Before we start this meeting, I want to make an announcement regarding the hearing on the drainage issue for the lake. I know several people are here on that. If you will remember at last meeting we asked a member of our Plan Commission to check out the easement issue and apparently that is a problem but not one that can’t be overcome and apparently there is a problem with that. I met yesterday with the conservancy district because we were meeting about some other issues and they have agreed, I think the thing has to be re-engineered. It is going to have to be re-engineered. The conservancy district has agreed to get some prices on getting a re-engineering study on the solution of the problem. We feel that the one study that was done several years ago on the pump has to be updated and we have to deal with the fact that the water coming off the project has to come off clean before it goes to the lake. And so they promised me they would get back to me within two or three weeks on that study and I think I can tell you folks we are committed to solve that problem. We are not going to let it go away but we just need some more time to work on it and try to come up with a solution. So do you have any questions, on Flint Lake? When we get it reset again, I will let you know. I will get it back on the agenda. We are not going to forget it and we are going to work toward getting it solved. Thank you very much.” Lady in audience, “What is the problem with the easement?” Com. Harper, “What the engineer told me was that he had trouble with, there is one piece of property that he had trouble getting permission to put the easement where it needs to be done according to the last engineering study. Now, we may be able to take some action regarding that, but it is true that is a problem unless we take some legal action. But I think that everyone agrees that the plan has to be redone anyway.” Lady in audience, “I think there was a time when the person who started this project was out there. The person, I am assuming, they want to go straight across their property and she may. I don’t think that person is still living in that house. It was sold at least twice.” Com. Harper, “Yes, that’s the property we are talking about. But they are going to try and talk to an engineer about re-engineering it and also deal with the water quality and the water coming off of it because you can’t just start pushing dirty water into Flint Lake so they are going to have to deal with that. We will keep you informed.” Lady in audience, “What about the water that was coming down from the other areas from the other projects?” Com. Harper, “We are having meetings on that also. So we are working on it. We will let you folks know, but we are not going to let it go.” Lady in audience, “What about K-Mart back in there? They could put retention ponds in there or something to keep it from coming down.” Com. Harper, “Well, the water is always going to come down. That water really isn’t your problem the way it come down. It comes down that ditch and I think it bypasses you, I believe. But they are working on all these projects and I am just telling you we are not going to let it go. You cannot live that way and we have talked about it.” Lady in audience, “Now I am remodeling my house because of the mold.” Com. Harper, “We understand you can’t live that way and we are working on it.” Lady in audience, “Do you have any idea when there will be a meeting again?” Com. Harper, “We will let you know. I am hoping by the end of January we will have something concrete to report. Thank you.” Man in audience, “I have one question. Basically, I attended the meetings and (most of the comments were inaudible due to the fact he was at the back of the room and did not speak loud enough) Com. Harper, “And we plan to take some action. Thank you.” APPROVAL OF PAYROLL Com. Evans moved to approve the payroll of October 29, 2007, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.
Com. Evans moved to approve the minutes of October 16, 2007, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.
Com. Evans moved to approve the claims of October 23, October 30, and November 6, 2007, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Com. Harper, “The next thing we are going to do, with Commissioner Evans’ approval, is I am going to take the Highway Department next. Al, do you have some bids? Or you don’t?” Mr. Hoagland, “No, the 20th.” Com. Harper, “Okay, who has bids tonight?” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Jim Kopp and Brian Schafer.” Com. Harper, “All right, I will take Jim Kopp because he has to have time to review his bids.”
RECEIVE AND OPEN BIDS-FLEET FUEL RETAIL PURCHASING Mr. Kopp, “I have the bids from Speedway Super America.” Com. Harper, “Jim, what are these on now, the gas cards?”
Mr. Kopp, “These are for gas credit cards for the Sheriff, the Highway and other incidental county cars.” Mr. Kopp, “Basically, price per gallon.” Com. Harper, “That one is from?” Com. Evans, “Wright Express Program.” Com. Harper, “This one, and maybe that one says about the same. It says the pricing on this bid will be based on the daily OPIS pricing, the final pricing will continue that plus taxes plus 2007 mark-up per gallon.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “I don’t think that is the way to read it, the way we drafted these proposals, you are not going to be able to read off a paper.” Com. Evans, “I don’t think so, either. These people also propose a method for frequency of payment and discounts applying to that as well. So I think these are going to require some study.” Com. Harper, “He wants to try and see if he can do that tonight. And if there is anyone that submitted these bids, you are free to look them over. Come back before the end of our meeting. The next thing on the agenda is we have someone from DLZ on the county building evaluations.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “We also have the bids for the roof repair at the Opera House.” Com. Harper, “All right. Do you have the bids for the Opera House? We might as well open them.”
RECEIVE AND OPEN BIDS-ROOF REPAIR AT MEMORIAL OPERA HOUSE Com. Harper, “We have two bids, one from Babilla and it looks like their bid is $142,021.00. And we have a bid from Culver Roofing and their bid is $124,777.00. Do you want two weeks to review them or do you want to review them tonight?” Mr. Schafer, “I am going to try and review them tonight.” Com. Harper, “Now we will have the county building evaluations.”
COUNTY BUILDING EVALUATIONS Mr. Kromkowski, “The proposal before you begins the assessment, the condition assessment for the county facilities; the Administration Building, the North Annex, the Courthouse and the Animal Shelter. The work that we would identify is one, identify the existing conditions, it would identify any deficiencies that are found. We would also recommend proposed improvements to correct these deficiencies, we would also develop the cost that is associated with correcting those deficiencies. Looking at four specific buildings, looking at all aspects of it, not only from the outside of the building, maintenance improvements, looking at mechanical, electrical, structural integrity of the facility and also the interior throughout and the site conditions.” Com. Evans, “What about the roofs?” Mr. Kromkowski, “The roofs would also be included.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Is this going to encompass the problem we’ve been having with this building with the windows and the sealant and the concrete? I mean that has been an ongoing issue we have had here. Dave Schelling was working on it and it really wasn’t in his jurisdiction. It seems to me if they are going to be doing this, they would be the proper party under this agreement to take that on.” Mr. Kromkowski, “We would be looking at this building and the outside of this building, looking at the exterior veneer and the windows and some of the different quotes you have had and providing a recommendation of improvements and the associated costs with them.” Com. Evans moved to accept the proposal and get the buildings inspected, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.
Com. Harper, “Let me ask you one question. I have been approached because the Clerk’s office is out of space, and I mean out of space, in the Courthouse. At one point I believe we asked your firm about the weight bearing walls because we had approved money for these rolling file cabinets. Were you involved in looking at that weight bearing?” Mr. Kromkowski, “My company was, I was indirectly involved and am aware of the project we did. From what I recall, is that the existing structural system was not able to maintain, or not able to withstand the weight of those compact files, those rolling files. It doesn’t mean that you can’t install those, but again, you would locate those on the ground floor because of the condition, it is a structural condition. We would look at the re-programming of space or repositioning of the Clerk’s office but we could look at the compact storage on the second floor, as I recall.” Com. Harper, “I think it was on both. Let me ask you this: does a problem like that have any solution?” Mr. Kromkowski, “There is always a solution but it can also be very costly. You are basically building a new structure to withstand the current weight. So most of the time it becomes a little more economically if you can reprogram and relocate specific functions so that we work in tandem with each other instead of basically going with the existing.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Bob, do we know where the money is coming from?” Com. Harper, “Well, can we take it out of CCD Building & Structures?” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Yes.” Com. Harper, “Is that all right? John, is that all right?” Com. Evans, “That’s probably the place it belongs, Contractual Services under CCD, or do you want to do Buildings and Structures?” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Either one of them actually. If you take it out of Contractual Services we have $41,000.00 or Building and Structures we have $67,000.00. You might want to take it out of Contractual.” Ms. Hartig, “Contractual is what we pay Johnson Controls for their services.” Com. Evans, “So it is already spent. Then let’s do Buildings and Structures.” Mr. Kromkowski, “I have one item, if I may. We are under contract for the assessment of two of the facilities at the Fairgrounds. I’ll have a draft report within the next two weeks, you should have a copy of that, a draft for your review. So, that is for the field work and the inspection and so forth and we are finalizing the documents and so forth. Also, the mechanical work at the Portage Annex facility, shop items have been received, material is on order. We are waiting for that. Last word we had this afternoon, it would be at least four weeks for that material. It won’t be mobilized until after we have the material on site. We do have a meeting this Friday to look more closely at how they are going to sequence it and how they are going to approach the renovation. But it looks like it is most likely December or right after the first of the year that most of that work will be completed. I will have a little more information after we get the plans. And that is just to bring you up to speed.” Com. Evans, “When you look at the old Courthouse, would you kind of look at the basement area there, too, in regards to the files for the Clerk, if there is any way that it could be converted. It is not a very large area and part of it is only half, if you will, but it might be a way to use that foundation down there or the floor above it or something.” Mr. Kromkowski, “Okay, thank you.” AMENDMENT TO ORDINACE NOS. 95-14A AND 97-28 (FUND 143 CABLE), 2ND READING Atty. Rinkenberger, “This is 2nd reading of our cable fund.” Com. Evans moved to approve the amendments to Ordinance Nos. 95-14A and 97-28 on second reading, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. 8TH AMENDMENT TO CEDIT PLAN, PROJECTS 6 AND 21, 1ST READING Com. Harper, “Next thing we have is the 8th amendment to the Economic Development Income Tax Capital Improvement Plan. During the Council hearings, they requested that to help the general budget that we transfer the budget for NIRPC to the EDIT Plan to take a load off the general budget. There has been a line item that has existed for several years in the EDIT Plan that was first put in for the study, a $3 million study that was to be done on rail transportation that was shared by 12 cities and towns and three counties. However, to get that study done, it only required $150,000 leaving about $600,000 and some or $700,000 in that line item. And this would transfer that money so it could be used on a yearly basis for the NIRPC fees which are about $150,000. I’ve written NICTD and got verification that the study has all been paid for and it will not be taking any more of these funds.” Com. Evans, “This is where we got hung up before. The estimated cost is $150,000 per year for NIRPC but again, the contribution is $200,000.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “It will continue to roll over, we created a new line item, it should be line item 21 and we will have $600,000 and it is $150,000 a year we’ll get to keep paying year after year until this line item is depleted, then you will have to budget it in another CEDIT Plan. So this will last for 4 years.” Com. Evans moved to approve the 8th Amendment for Project 6 and 21 on first reading, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. COST SHARE PROGRAM AGREEMENT, PCCRVC Com. Harper, “Is Lorelei here? Somebody from Tourism? Are they coming tonight?” Ms. Hartig, “She said she would be here.” Com. Evans, “It is part of their ongoing planning project for the new building out there. And the estimated cost of the project is $21,901.00 and the cost share level is 68%, so the estimated cost share would be $14,896.00. As I understand it that would be from her funding that she already has.” Com. Evans moved to accept the proposal, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.
APPROVAL OF ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE FOR PINE TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR Atty. Rinkenberger, “I feel bad because Nancy Kolasa is here for something that is very simple. You could come up and you don’t have to listen to the Marquette Plan Phase II presentation.” Com. Evans, “Well, it is going to affect her township.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Oh, is it? Then she may voluntarily stay. She just has a simple request for us to approve, an assignment on the lease for her office space so she can continue paying through the end of the year.” Ms. Kolasa, “One more month to go. The place is the same, but the name has changed. The building sold so I need to have your approval.” Com. Evans moved to approve the request, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.
MARQUETTE PLAN PHASE II PUBLIC HEARING RESULTS/DISCUSSION Com. Harper, “All right, let’s go back to the Marquette Plan. Who is here on the Marquette Plan? Do you want to state your full name for the record?” Mr. Calpino, “My name is Greg Calpino, I am a principal and architect with JJR, Consulting Firm out of Chicago.” Mr. Keith, “And I am Kerry Keith with SCH out of Munster, we are partners on this new project, the Marquette Plan and the Porter County Corridor Study.” Mr. Calpino, “This will be brief briefing. And it is actually Phase II of the Marquette Plan, not quite Phase III yet. But we will get there. I am not sure what is the best place to stand. I guess I can stand over here since Bob is by the projector. This will be quick. There are a couple reasons why we are here tonight. One is to give you a briefing on the projects for a couple of reasons. This is actually two pieces, Marquette Plan Phase II is a follow up to a study that we finished in 2005 that looked at basically the lakeshore from Chicago over to Burns Waterway. The next phase of Marquette Phase takes us all the way to the Michigan border. That’s the first piece. The second piece is the Porter County Transportation Study which is a very good reason why we are in the room since we funded by Porter County for that portion. So, this is a briefing on both projects, they are being run together and the public meetings have been doing it at joint meetings. Looking at both land use issues associated with Marquette and also some very detailed issues associated with U.S. 12 and 20 as it relates to Porter County. So this is kind of a combined attended presentation to kind of give you an update of where we are at and where we are headed. So, with that, what we’ve been through process-wise, we’ve been through a couple rounds of public meetings; we’ve had a whole series of state meetings; we’ve met with town councils and how many total, Kerry? Fourteen or fifteen probably in the course of the last couple of months, just trying to understand the needs of each community. Really kind of in a way, bringing comprehensive planning to the communities that don’t have the resources to do that is some cases. So, we are learning what each community wants, what they don’t want as it relates to their own town or city as well as their neighbors with things like U.S. 12 and 20. Profits where we are at right now, we are in the draft plan and serving up the home stretch here, certain public meetings coming up later this month right after Thanksgiving, we’ll be at the Visitor’s Center in Porter County on the 27th. Both of these meetings are 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., the next night we’ll be at Michigan City Senior Center and we will be unveiling our draft plans at that point. We’ve been going through alternatives and a lot of listening and now we are starting to really get to the point and moving in with the strategic plans and some real projects that have come out of this. Again, the goal is to have broad land use strategy, standards for the roadways, both in terms of esthetics, operations, safety development along them, not development in front of where you’re at, and as well as serious action projects for the towns that will eventually be funded through the various sources. So that’s some of the things we are working on right now. The study area, as I mentioned, the first phase took us to a buffer right in Portage, from over here, and the next phase takes us all the way over to the Michigan border and all the towns that are a part of that. It has been a very interesting process of different scale on a level of input that we have had. Some of things we have heard is a lot of consistency from the first phase, and a lot of new things as well, a lot of issues of raising standards and we sort of rode the wave of the BP, a permit issue with water standards and things like that. We also have kind of new issues that have come up as we move further east which has been the issue of tourism and the local economy and way of life. Folks further west were embracing visitors and wanting more visitors and more public access. As we move further east there has been plenty of a call for privacy and balancing or managing that visitor with the exception of certain towns. Portage, for example, Chesterton, Michigan City, the Pines, to some degree, are the towns that have sort of embraced those visitors, but generally, the rally cry has been about managing those visitors and making sure that the privacy and way of life in each of those towns is respected by people who come to casinos and natural parks and things like that so, it is a very interesting process there. With 12 and 20, a lot of discussion basically about raising the bar in terms of getting the way it functions. Most of the way it looks for people with video tours of the roadways and stop certain places. A lot of folks really talk about how they wish that road would better reflected ourselves and our region, whether the bridges could be enhanced, we could have views of water as you go over water, could we have a better way finding system so people go to the right place after you get off the expressway for parks. A whole series of things that are both physical and functional in terms of U.S. 12 and 20 and the connectors to those, the north-south ways, the 149’s, the 249’s, etcetera, and things like that. So, you will see some ideas come up here shortly. Overall principles that we have been going through with the first couple of phases, Kerry will go over these in detail Again, we talked about their real focus in Phase II about the balance the resident visitor needs and a real push about investing in an infrastructure. It hasn’t been about massive clean ups, those steel mills, it’s been a different landscape. Over here, it’s been issues of water quality, well and septic, and the ways we can bundle together as communities to do things like improve water service, sewer, things like that, too, so, where infrastructure has been a benefit. Water quality and things like that as well. Some of the data we are going through, again, this just gives you an overview, there is a much longer presentation we are not going to go into tonight. But regional things, we are going through a lot of data right now. A lot of it has been provided by Porter County, by NIRPC, by a lot of sources and we have been trying to take very complex stuff that Jay Newhef helped us with on the project. In trying to summarize that, some of the key issues that lead us to recommendations, those have been put into summary maps like you see here for the environment and the natural infrastructure and the recommendations are tied into those. And then looking at broader issues, this relates a little bit to the 12 and 20 issue for opportunities. This is actually looking at the visual qualities of 12 and 20, about the approach to Michigan City in LaPorte County, looking at different certain elements the way we are taking care of the landscaping, things like bridges, power lines, all those things. So, at the end of the day we have certain sight specific recommendations as well as broad system-wide things so that may say for this section of 12 for example, you need to address traffic, safety, improve the esthetics in the following way, have a meeting, those sorts of things will come out of this plan. You will see some examples here in a second. Looking at the big framework plan for Marquette II we looked at how to balance between these three elements and we have a series of options that focused on what we call the community first, conservation first, and took these out to the public to try and get a sense of where we wanted to put our focus. People said, ‘well we want to see a balance of all three’ which isn’t surprising. Probably a little more towards the conservation and community of the two that focus, and again, that protecting that quality of life to find the balance of the visitors and forwarding looking ways (inaudible)…. We were (inaudible)….. to make sure we take care of those opportunities and perhaps if there are towns that want to have those visitors stay, let’s make sure we do the right thing so that they stay an extra day and spend a little money in town, those sorts of things. Again, looking for a balance between those focuses. We did a series of drawing diagrams and looked at how you might physically detect those three options. This showed a community driven plan, or community first, that really protected the individual rights for those communities. It wasn’t looking at trying to make an Ogden Dunes or a Beverly Shores into a Portage. Portage is a town that embraces a visitor as does Michigan City and Chesterton, but perhaps there is another way of looking at some of the smaller towns that want that privacy managing traffic along 12 and 20. So, this is one that really looked at focusing on the resident first. You know, if we are looking at embracing the visitor with things like (inaudible)…to make sure we went to the right place first and try and bring in more development for the visitor, things like that. You know, guiding the businesses is kind of what it is for this one. The next one we looked at was sort of converse driven was looking at almost sort of the red arrow, you know, one lakeshore, what can we do that each town can work together to attract more visitors and attract more economic development. You know this didn’t get as much buy in as the other ones did. We are looking at just the range of options to get people’s attention on the issues. There are some things people liked, too, but generally they preferred one that focused more on the visitor and they preferred one, as this one will show, that is more conservation driven. Looked at alternative transportation, looked at any open space, perhaps utilizing our transit stops as transportation development or find connections, things like that. We’re looking at new developments perhaps being off the lakeshore but in places that could be done to the highest ecological standard. So, this was something people really endorsed, again, combining that with that hierarchy of park communities that want to embrace the visitor versus having the privacy. This seems to be where we are headed as an option, at least from the broad patterns. And in terms of 12 and 20, Kerry did you want to get these all?” Mr. Keith, “I can, real quick, I know we are getting close on our time already. Basically, 12 and 20 do have some functional safety issues associated with them, more so on 20 than on 12. We looked at traffic projections and 12 will probably be able to sustain itself for some time in its current two land configuration but 20 will be seeing some changes based on that growth that is happening in the north portion of the county. Some of the things that happen regularly on these projects, and it’s on most corridors that you find and as you move forward with your next Porter County corridor study, you are going to find this over and over again. It’s things like access management, too many driveways too close, site triangles at intersections. We’ve got to start trying to find ways to incorporate better ordinances and ways of putting these together. INDOT has some access management methodologies, they are fairly new so as the projects are moving forward, some of those things may be incorporated. But we would also like the communities to be able to start looking at the ways our roads function and work better. With that, there is also the whole esthetic component on them from the get-go at the public meetings and we tried to get the community to understand that the corridors really aren’t attractive corridors. We have a national lakeshore, you know, we have Lake Michigan, a gold mine up there in a sense, that isn’t attractive for people, the resident or the visitor coming to see. We could do a lot of things to enhance it. Bringing the buildings up to the edges, this would give it a 20 corridor kind of picture. Usually the right kind of entry ways letting you know you have arrived at a location, visual clutter, power lines, power poles, too many signs, just our whole wave line. With that, there is several scenarios on how these road systems might be looking. The 12 concepts are we’re looking at either a shoulder bypass, bike lanes, and/or off road shared bike/walking paths.” Mr. Calpino, “And tied into the broad regional trail work that is being done, again, we made sure we reflect those corridors and actually do a little bit with these corridors.” Mr. Keith, “And with that we have a process that we call our virtual reality imaging. Here’s a photo of U.S. 12 current and that would be the National Lakeshore area. With our concept is our BRI photo showing this here trail over there on the side, with some shoulder enhancements with beautification, with some signage, power lines are buried; those kind of things. That is what we would like to be looking at in the future, just this concept component. Here’s another one through Pines where, you know, the potential of the bike path along side, I understand it doesn’t work today because the speed limits and the way people are working on that roadway, but we can move forward. Pines has somewhat volumes of a concept that it would be park town, that some of those amenities to restaurants, the hotels that are there, we can enhance that if that were the case. This kind of scenario would work better. With that, there is also scenarios for 20 which has center left turn lanes and/or divided sections. There is an urban section on 20 really that is the Portage/Burns Harbor, they have to be looking probably at this kind of scenario as you get out of Burns Harbor going east you would probably be looking more at the divided highway, more scenic scenario. And with that, here’s another BMI image existing Route 20 in Portage, bring buildings up to the edges, bury power lines, put the center turn lane to allow traffic to work better. With that, this is the second scenario, this is as you are leaving Burns Harbor and entering the National Lakeshore, just small enhancement, visual enhancements using looking at traffic controlled systems such as medians to work for that. So, some of the concepts that we’ve come up with that we are moving forward with the public.” Mr. Calpino, “I am not sure of the format, if there are some questions and we have to answer them? One thing, we want to pass the word again that we have meetings coming up November 27 and 28, the 27th at the Visitor’s Center, the 28th at the Senior Center in Michigan City and with that if there are questions, we will answer them. If not, thanks for your time.” Com. Harper, “I have a question. Are you guys involved in all of the work in Portage right now that is going on?” Mr. Calpino, “Yes, our project team is very involved in the Portage one.” Com. Harper, “What is the status of that?” Mr. Calpino, “We are working on the north side of Russell, on Lakefront Park.” Com. Harper, “Now Lakefront Park, what is that?”
Mr. Calpino, “That is out to bid right now.” Mr. Calpino, “The construction dock for the park, a $6 million park, paths for recreation, essentially a visitor pavilion with toilets and meeting spaces.” Com. Harper, “It is going to bring back the beach? How much beach?” Mr. Calpino, “We are not adding any beach, we are adding….” Com. Harper, “The park is along the lakefront, right? How far, how long is it along the lakefront? How big of a space?” Mr. Calpino, “The area is from Burns Waterway to Ogden Dunes. Maybe an eighth of a mile. Actually our park is 60 acres but its part of a 120 acre track.” Com. Harper, “And how are people going to get to that? Where is going to be the access to that?” Mr. Calpino, “The new bridge that was built related to the accident that occurred when the South Shore and U.S. Steel, they built a new bridge, I think you guys were partners in that program. The new bridge is actually the access component to the new park system at this point in time.” Mr. Keith, “The reason we do this is to try and find the next 1 and 2 and 5 of those.” Com. Harper, “So it is going to be bring back about another eighth….” Mr. Calpino, “Another eighth to a quarter mile probably, I don’t have the exact amount. I know it is about a half mile deep.” Mr. Keith, “It is about 1,200 feet. And you are hitting on a really important component. The Marquette Plan I is one of the regional development authority funding rezoned development that fund Marquette projects. That Lakeshore Park is the use of the Porter County component of that money at this point in time. Portage, prior to this, has never had an access on the lakeshore in Portage. For the first time ever, residents of Portage, and Porter County and Northwest Indiana and everywhere else will be able to get to the lakeshore in Portage. The congressman, Congressman Visclosky, has made this one of his key projects and as Greg said we hope to open that it is open next spring.” Mr. Calpino, “Hopefully doing everything the right way. They really proceeded with the park service, the city is (inaudible).” Com. Evans, “The bridge that leads to nowhere may someday lead to somewhere.” Mr. Keith, “It is going to the lake.” Com. Harper, “Thank you very much.” OFFICE HOLDERS/DEPARTMENT HEADS E-911 2008 Budget, 2nd reading Com. Evans moved to approve the 2008 E-911 budget on second reading, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.
Approval of Catering Contracts, approval of linen contracts, and approval of 2008 price sheet Com. Evans, “How much did the fees go up for 2008?” Mr. Thorstad, “The fees for rental itself of the buildings didn’t go up at all, it is just some of the incidentals and some corrections to problems that we had.” Com. Evans, “Tables and linens and those types?” Mr. Thorstad, “A lot of people read into the price list their own way of reading it or interpreting it and I think this was just a clarification.” Com. Evans moved to approve the catering contracts, the linen contracts and the 2008 price sheet, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.
Underground Storage Tank Site Investigation at Sheriff’s Garage discussion Mr. Shirley, “Good evening. Just real quick, everybody is aware there was a problem when the tanks were removed at the Sheriff’s Garage in approximately 1990. Early this spring we received a request for IDEM for further site investigation. They wanted to recheck the site. As a result of that we hired a contractor, Thompson Environmental, and I have Bob Thompson and Alan Jones, the Project Manager, here with me tonight to answer your questions. The letter that prompted me to be here tonight was a letter we received a week ago from IDEM basically advising us on where we stood as far as reimbursement for the project and I think probably Alan could give you a better explanation what that is.” Alan Jones, “I am Alan Jones from Thompson Environmental. Basically, we had applied for reimbursement for the underground storage tanks from the state of Indiana. They have approved us for that. It is a $35,000 deductible. Anything beyond that point is for reimbursement for their guidelines for the reimbursement plan.”
Com. Harper, “So, where are we at in this project?” Com. Harper, “Have they sent us the letter back?” Mr. Jones, “We did receive a response from our project manager down at IDEM. We proposed some additional marking, insulation of some wells, if it approved our approach and basically what we can do at this point is get what is called a (inaudible)… from the state of Indiana. Once we receive that we will try and request no further action from the site. Just to kind of give you a brief history of the site. As Russ mentioned, in 1991, the tanks were removed. The Barnett Salting Company was involved in 1992 to do the work. It looks like for some reason in 1992 that was stopped. Seven years later in 1999 another consulting company was involved, did some remediation, the work was stopped. Here it is eight years again and come back and asked to do some more work. So basically, what our goal is, get in here, do what the state requested, with the goal of getting a ‘no further action letter’. Once we receive that letter, that stops the cycle from coming back another eight years down the road and say we’ll do some more work out there. So where we are at right now, we’ve got to put together a proposal to do our next stage of work. The Project Manager has agreed that if everything comes back as planned, it will improve our site configuration at that point and we will go in there and ask for a ‘no further action letter’.” Com. Harper, “Do we have a copy of that proposal?” Atty. Rinkenberger, “I’ve not seen it.” Com. Harper, “Since we are just getting this is it all right, is there going to be any big problem if we just pass on it for our next meeting which is two weeks down the road?” Mr. Jones, “No, it shouldn’t be a problem. Basically, the project manager has requested that we finish this in the fourth quarter. The fourth quarter does end December 31st. If necessary, we can request an extension and go up to the first quarter which would be between January and March. But we will have to do some type of marketing in the fourth quarter, we have four wheels out there.” Com. Harper, “We’d like to have the proposal and the let our attorney look it over. When is our next meeting? November 20th?” Mr. Jones, “That shouldn’t be a problem.” Com. Evans, “How many more sites do we need to do this for? We need to do this at North County, obviously.” Mr. Shirley, “This is the only one we have been notified that we have to do it for right now.” Com. Evans, “All right, but let’s get ahead of the curve, because I mean it is coming. So, let’s just get it going and get it done. We are talking about going to a credit card system, all those tanks need to be out of the ground. The state doesn’t want them there, we don’t need them there, we need to get a plan and get all of them out of the ground and get where we can comply with them and not keep pouring money into the holes in the ground.” Com. Harper, “So we need to get a proposal together, a plan to do that.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “When we do that, one of the nice things for the remediation we have to do now, we get reimbursement and we come up with a plan to do more?” Com. Evans, “We have to apply for each one separately.” Mr. Jones, “Yes, every time there is a new incident, you have to reapply. So each individual site, if there was a release, we can go through the reporting process. But there would an assessment of $35,000.00 deductible per incident.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “So what we are doing at this site is everything the Commissioners want done at this site right now?” Com. Evans, “The ultimate goal is, as they said, is to get a letter that says no more action is required.” Mr. Shirley, “Right, then everything we’ve spent to date will all apply towards that $35,000.00 deductible.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “What have we spent to date, do you know?” Mr. Shirley, “Off the top of my head, no. Other than the fee for Thompson Environmental this year which was approximately $1,000.00, I believe the earlier expenditures will be applied to that, too.” Mr. Jones, “Right. Any type of costs that were incorporated with the instant number should be. So if we go back and get those records from the 1991 investigation, the 1999 investigations, we can submit those reimbursements for review.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Now from this proposal, do you propose a cost, or just what you are going to do?” Mr. Jones, “That is basically a proposal for our next phase of work.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “But it doesn’t really put a monetary figure… $6,847.00?” Mr. Jones, “Right. That would basically what we do with that for this investigation, you are, if the results come back, we can incorporate the request for no further action in this report and see if we can get it closed at that point.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Based on this figure right here?” Mr. Jones, “Yes.” Atty. Rinkenberger, ‘Then I would say motion to approve. It’s $6,847.00 for that phase of work, it is not like it is $100,000.00.” Mr. Jones, “There is the possibility the state can come back and require additional investigations. That is what we will do on your behalf is request a ‘no further action letter’.” Com. Evans, “These are the same wells we have monitoring since ’91 and ’92?” Mr. Jones, “No, they are not. Basically the data from 1999, since it is over eight years old, we have to basically reassess the entire site again. Not to say that the work that was done in 1999 is invalid, but basically we have to evaluate the site for the current conditions at this time.” Com. Evans, “What is the distance from the original tanks, how far out are we talking about?” Mr. Jones, “This investigation, the underground tanks were first removed in 1991 to a different location than the current tank right now. So, basically we are probably about 100 feet difference where the current tank is at. Based on this investigation, it doesn’t appear to be any (inaudible) on the existing underground storage tank. So, it doesn’t look like there is and fumes or any type of concerns. This is an old tank that was removed in 1991.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “We are under a time line. This is a pretty simple proposal.” Com. Evans, “This is going to have to be done regardless. If this comes back dirty, so to speak, then we are going to have to continue from here, right? Is there anything else we should do to be looking at in conjunction with this at the same time, worse case scenario?” Mr. Jones, “There is a possibility we could have problems with that. With my last investigation that we had we put in a well in the old tank, and I don’t anticipate there being any problems. Basically what this next phase of work is we have to put down graded wells just to verify its not migrated off the site, off the property. Next, if there is a possibility there is contamination, our next step would be to actually go off site of the property.” Mr. Shirley, “We will have to deal with it regardless.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “And then you would come back before us because it would result in another proposal.” Mr. Jones, “Yes.” Com. Evans, “For the amount of money I think if we can get it going we should get it going.” Com. Harper, “Unless you are going to give us a written, something in writing.” Mr. Shirley, “Some type of a plan of action.” Com. Harper, “In the next couple of weeks, what else we need to do in this county.” Com. Evans moved to approve the request, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Ms. Hartig, “Where is this going to be taken from?” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Well, where have we been paying the bills that we have accumulated to date from on this project?” Com. Evans, “It will be part of the reimbursement, I’m hoping.” Ms. Hartig, “We have only had one.” Com. Harper, “For now, let’s earmark that out of buildings and structures out of CCD.” Com. Evans, “All right. If it is reimbursed, it will go to the general fund.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “We are going to have a trick with the reimbursement going back into any line item we take it out of.” Mr. Shirley, “This may be applying more towards the deductible at this point, it is part of the research agreement records from 1991 as to what was paid for. We don’t know for sure how much is going to be applied.” Com. Harper, “Well, we don’t have to decide tonight. Talk to Mr. Kopp about it and discuss how we are going to do it.”
Eagle Ridge Subdivision, Phase I, Performance Letter of Credit #2005-ILC-546 from First Midwest Bank in the amount of $47,520.00. New expiration date is October 14, 2008. Recommend approval. Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Harper, “Is Bob Thompson here? Mike, are they just continuing this bond, is that what’s happening here?” Com. Evans, “Yes.” Com. Harper, “For Eagle Ridge it says $47,520.00 new expiration date is October 14, 2008. We’re not releasing any of this bond, are we, we are just continuing it?” Mr. Mike Haller, “You said Eagle Ridge?” Com. Harper, “You are just continuing it, right?” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Isn’t this something that Dave Schelling usually presents? Dave Schelling usually presented this and would tell us the status of this so shouldn’t we have Ray Riddell doing our bonds and our letters of credit instead of our building department?” Com. Harper, “Mike is not here to do it, I am just asking.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “I know, it just makes me nervous that we don’t ever have anybody here for that.” Com. Harper, “Let’s continue these for two weeks, John?” Com. Evans, “The only thing is if this is expired.” Com. Harper, “We’ll do them tonight.” Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Center District: Bella Vista Subdivision Performance Letter of Credit #HACH152624Os from Harris Bank in the amount of $40,000.00. New expiration date is October 31, 2008. Recommend approval. Com. Harper moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried. South District: Yellowstone Subdivision Phase A-3/C, Performance Letter of Credit #586 fro DeMotte State Bank in the amount of $20,000.00. New expiration date is May 7, 2008. Recommend approval. Com. Harper moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried. Com. Evans, “The thing I would particularly like to know is, David, if you tell Ray Riddell when he comes, that if a portion of the work has been done and the bond is reduced, we need to know why, and what amount it has been reduced.” Com. Harper, “Yes, I don’t want to do this one on Augustine Subdivision because that is a reduction of bond until we have someone here. Can I have a motion to continue that?” Com. Evans moved to continue the Augustine Subdivision bond for two weeks, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Com. Harper, “In fact, all these reductions. I don’t want to do those until we have somebody here to discuss them. Okay?” Com. Evans moved to table the reductions of bonds until next meeting, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Com. Harper, “Gwenn, we need to back up. They are asking and where it is in our book here it said that they wanted an extension but this says a reduction.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “I say no action until….” Com. Harper, “How do we undo what we’ve done so far because I want to undo it.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Make a motion to revoke your previous motions on Eagle Ridge, Bella Vista and Yellowstone.” Com. Harper moved to revoke the previous motions made on Eagle Ridge Subdivision, Bella Vista Subdivision and Yellowstone Subdivision because the way they are written is not the way they are presented, Com. Evans seconded, Com. Harper, “We are asked to reduce those bonds and I don’t want to do that until we have input from the Building Department and the Highway Department and we know what we are doing.” Motion carried. Ms. Hartig, “So these are moved until the November 20th meeting?” Com. Harper, “They are.”
RECOMMENDATION OF RETAIL FLEET PURCHASING QUOTES Com. Harper, “Jim, have you looked over your bids?” Mr. Kopp, “Yes, we have two bids; one from Super Fleet, the other from Wright Express. The city of Valpo uses Super Fleet, the state police use Wright Express. The Super Fleet quote is 7 cents per gallon mark-up, the Wright Express quote is at pump price. The day I got back in September showed the mark-up at five different Speedway stations ranging from 13 cents to 30 cents, so it would appear that Super Fleet on the average is about 15 cents a gallon cheaper than Wright Express. Everything else appears to be the same except we do not have a bid bond from Wright Express, we do have one from Super Fleet.” Com. Harper, “So you are recommending Super Fleet?” Mr. Kopp, “I recommend we go with Super Fleet.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Who did you say Super Fleet was used by?” Mr. Kopp, “The city of Valpo and the city of Indianapolis, I believe.”
Atty. Rinkenberger, “And the state police use?” Com. Harper, “Somebody wants to say something.” Brian Porter, “Brian Porter with Super Fleet. The city of Indianapolis uses the program as well as the city of Valpo and the cost plus 7 pricing is what that does is it insures that the county vehicle will never pay more than 7 cents above our cost per gallon, less taxes, less any applicable deductions you have and tax exemptions. So, it costs us $3.00 a gallon and we are selling it at $3.20 you will get it at $3.07, so you get it for thirteen cents below. And fuel prices range every day, that is the oldest pricing. It’s Speedway, Marathon, Rich Oil, Super America, if anyone is ever doing prisoner transport to Minnesota. That’s a little bit about the program that I laid out.” Com. Evans, “The cards that they’ll receive, they will be able to identify those stations from the card?” Mr. Porter, “The card is, obviously I carry one as well, on the back is the logos where it’s accepted at and it’s accepted at every Speedway, every Marathon, every Pilot, every Rich Oil, every Super America. And they are restricted to obviously fuel only so that a person is not buying, you know, a Coca Cola on the county or a pack of cigarettes on the county as well as there are other restrictions. If you want it only to be swiped twice a day, or max 25 gallons per day, which each department, which I am more than happy to go to each department head to see what the cruisers might want versus what the Building Department might want to make sure it’s secure. Plus, the driver identification so the county would know who filled up and at what time and is specific to each driver regardless of what vehicle they are in.” Com. Evans, “Will the driver have a separate PIN number and the vehicle a separate PIN number or will they be one PIN number?” Mr. Porter, “The way most counties work and cities work is the vehicle has a card and then the driver has their identification number specific to them that works on any of the city or county vehicles or in this case, county cars. So, it’s driver specific. So, if Jim wanted to look up and see Suzie Q, how many purchases she had in all vehicles, he can do that. Or each department can do that so you can know they are doing the best not to be defrauding the county.” Mr. Kopp, “Each driver will have his own card, but he can fuel several vehicles with it.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “And the accounting will show the driver and the vehicle.” Mr. Kopp, “Yes, we will have both.” Com. Evans moved to accept the recommendation for Super Fleet, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Com. Evans, “In that same vein, I just want to go back and give kudos to Dave Burrus because the thing that happened a few years back was called the bankruptcy of Bethlehem Steel and our vehicles are probably better scrutinized than any other county I would say in this state due to that problem and due to the frying we were put under to make sure that nobody was driving them home, and take home cars were limited and there was such a to-do in the paper here of late about that is not watched, and it is watched in Porter County very closely. That’s all.”
RECEIVE MEMORIAL OPERA HOUSE ROOF BIDS Mr. Schafer, “We received two bids, from E.C. Babilla out of Gary and Culver Roofing also out of Gary. Both bidders are qualified according to the information they provided. Both bidding per the specs that were submitted with no exceptions. We recommend the lower bidder which would be Culver Roofing.” Com. Evans moved to accept the recommendation, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Com. Evans, “Can they accomplish it by the end of the year?” Mr. Schafer, “Well, the exceptions, a part of the specs that was submitted was a time table that I had created to begin work within ten days of the bid award, so I would assume, yes.” Com. Evans, “Keep your fingers crossed for good weather.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “And has the money been appropriated?” Com. Harper, “Yes, it’s been taken care of.” Mr. Schafer, “And the Opera House Foundation has $7,200.00 that must be contributed to this project in particular.”
Com. Harper, “How about the holiday schedule, about the Monday before Christmas.” Com Evans, “Christmas is, what on Tuesday?” Com. Evans moved to include December 24th as part of the Christmas holiday for employees, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.
Clerk’s monthly report for September 2007 is on file. Approval of 2008 Animal Shelter Service Contracts with: City of Valparaiso in the amount of $20,150 and Town of Ogden Dunes in the amount of $558 Com. Evans moved to approve the contracts for 2008, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Approval of addendum to the maintenance contract with Otis Elevator to change the billing cycle from quarterly to annually. This would entitle Porter County to a 3% discount Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Approval of snow removal proposal for the winter of 2007-2008 Com. Evans, “Is it the same vendor, or who is it?” Ms. Hartig, “We contacted Landscape Group, MJB Lawncare and Sno Pros.” Com. Harper, “Who did we use last year?” Ms. Hartig, “Landscape Group.” Com. Evans, “What’s your recommendation?” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Well, did Charlotte look at these?” Ms. Hartig, “Yes, I guess. We had MJB a couple of years ago and we just weren’t real happy.” Com. Harper, “I think it was better last year.”
Ms. Hartig, “Of the three they are probably the best.” Com. Evans moved to accept Landscape Group for snow removal for 2007-2008, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Approval for the American Red Cross to use Room 309 in the Administration Center for blood drives on the following dates: January 4, 2008; February 29, 2008; and May 2, 2008 Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Request for transfer of funds—Commissioners
Fund 01.30 $600.56 from 3920 disposal To purchase tires for Animal Shelter vehicle Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Request for transfer of funds-Commissioners
Fund 01.30 $1,000 from 3160 veterinary services
Fund 01.30 $ 700 from 3710 equipment To cover burial claims through the end of 2007 Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Request for additional appropriation-Commissioners
Fund 233.30 $ 4,000 to 3510 Power To cover monthly expenses through the end of 2007. Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Com. Harper, “I thought the Sheriff’s Department was going to have a request.” Ms. Hartig, “That was the $15,000.00.” Com. Harper, “That was all they requested? Okay. Anything else?” REQUEST TO HAVE OFFICES OPEN AND STAFFED DURING BUSINESS HOURS Com. Evans, “Without mentioning any names, we’ve had some problems with various offices in this building remaining open at different times and closing to go on seminars and training sessions and what have you. Could we just put out a general memo to all department heads and office holders that have facilities in any county building that, of course we can’t require them to keep specific hours, but if they want to maintain offices in our buildings, they need to be open and have their buildings and offices staffed when this building is open. All the offices need to have somebody present and ready to wait on the citizens who are paying their fee when this building is open.” Com. Harper, “Well, I don’t think that. You know, like Veteran’s Affairs, they are only part time.” Com. Evans, “But they have three people.” Com. Harper, “Can we bring that up in two weeks?”
Com. Evans, “Okay. The other one I want to throw out there, too, is the same thing that we did before in relation to the Plan Commission for signage. We are winding down the election process and the election signs and for this year and last year and the year before, both times I made the suggestion that the county get in sync with the rest of the municipalities and put a 30 day restriction on the signs going up. Not let people get them up 60 days ahead of time. We’ve even got people from the municipalities putting signs on county property because they can put them out there 60 days ahead of time, when the city or the municipality they are running for won’t allow them to put them up.” Com. Harper, “Can’t you talk to your Republican friends and tell them not to do that anymore?” Com. Evans, “It’s your guys, Bob, they are in the right of ways.” Com. Harper, “John, I agree with you 100%. But let me tell you what happened. I am in absolute total agreement with you. I think 30 days is fine, but the city of Valpo and their attorney has even said that can’t be enforced. They were challenged two years ago and that is a problem. I am in total agreement with you, 30 days is long enough. But, they very specifically in Valpo, Gwenn, would you take a look for us? For two weeks from tonight just to handle it one way or the other. If we can do it, I think we should do it. The reason we didn’t do it the last time you requested because it was just after the big hullabaloo out in Valpo when their attorney said they can’t enforce it. So, if it’s legal, I am with you 100%.” PAUL C. ZONA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY ACQUIRING 28 ADDITIONAL ACRES Com. Evans, “Okay. And one other thing I have is in regard to the wildlife sanctuary people. They have an offer to add to the sanctuary by about 28 acres. The offer would require a dollar amount expended from their existing CEDIT money and probably an expenditure matching that from unallocated CEDIT on our part and then the remainder, or a little over 50% of the whole price would come from a matching grant that they have the ability to attach very soon. As I understand it now, and I think we need to get just a little better handle on it, but, the sale price is like $225,000.00; $50,000.00 would come from their existing CEDIT; we would need to tender $50,000.00 from unallocated CEDIT, right at this point and $125,000.00 could be obtained from a grant that is able to be attached within the next three weeks. So it may be something we need to get a better handle on it and be able to be prepared to react to at out next meeting.” Com. Harper, “We need to go to the Council this week so we better ask the county attorney to prepare the amendment.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Or you can make the motion right. I can prepare the amendment but I think that the Wildlife Management Board could, if they are going to purchase $225,000.00 worth of property should come into a public meeting and be organized about it, present it, and ask what they need…” Com. Evans, “They are preparing to do that.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “And tell us the grant process before we commit funds. So, I request that they be on the agenda for November 20th and if they have their ducks in a row, the amendment will be ready. I’ll do that.” Com. Evans, “I think in the interim, to show the support, I would tell them to get their grant in gear.” Com. Harper, “Commissioner Knoblock has been helping the polls, managing the polls, as they were in need of workers and she volunteered. Do I hear a motion?” Com. Evans moved to recess, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Robert P. Harper
|
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
November 6, 2007