 |
PORTER COUNTY COUNCIL April 24, 2007 The Porter County Council met on April 24, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. in the County Administration Center, 155 Indiana-Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana. Members present were Mike Bucko, Jim, Burge, William Carmichael, Matthew Murphy, Robert Poparad, Rita Stevenson, and President Dan Whitten. Also present was Attorney David Hollenbeck, Auditor James Kopp, Lindy Wilson, and Jan Noll. President Whitten called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Whitten, The next thing on the agenda, the approval of minutes, March 19, 2007 and March 27, 2007. What’s your pleasure? Mr. Poparad moved to approve the minutes of March 19, 2007 and March 27, 2007 as received. Mr. Murphy seconded, motion carried unanimously. FIRST READING At this time, Mr. Kopp reading the Notice to Taxpayers. TREASURER’S REPORT Mr. Whitten, Next thing on the agenda is the Treasurer’s Report, provisional billing. Mr. Murphy. Jim Murphy, Good afternoon. Mr. Whitten, Good afternoon. Mr. J. Murphy, The question probably is, are we going to do provisional bills. You guys are in a hurry, the short answer is, no, for several reasons. We have gotten settlement approved. We do have assessed values from the assessors. We’re going to meet on Thursday, and work on the scheduling again, get that timeline worked back in shape. Another reason why it may be a good thing to wait, the counties that have billed all over the state have been emailing back and forth, and have been noting the taxes have gone up anywhere between 15 and 40%. The Legislature is still in session, they are aware of this, and they are going to adjust, they are very likely to adjust the homestead credit back up to 28%, and make some other accommodations. This way, by not doing provisional bills we’ll be able to have the discount from that show up on both of our installments. Mr. Whitten, Questions? Thank you. Mr. Poparad, Can you communicate the timeline to us when you establish it? Mr. J. Murphy, As soon as we know, you’ll have it. Yes, sir. Mr. Whitten, Thank you, Mr. Treasurer. COUNTY ASSESSOR & TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR - SOFTWARE DISCUSSION Mr. Whitten, The next thing on the agenda, County Assessor and Township Assessor software discussion. Mr. Scott. John Scott, For the Press, we have a handout that we gave to the Council. If any of the Press would like to have one, see Susie over there. Software. Mr. Whitten, Software. Mr. Scott, There’s three companies that are basically in the running. Two of them are pretty well up at the top, and we’re still looking at them. The problem with one of them is that they have never talked to us. Mr. Whitten, Which one has not talked to you? Mr. Scott, Hamer. We sent memos to them, and asked them if they could possibly return and show us some more of their wares, which would help us tremendously. The thing back from the county, from the township assessors was, five for Hamer, five for True--I say solutions, because that’s what they had on it, but any way--and two for Tyler. Second choices was, five for True, three for Tyler and two for Hamer. So if you took them in their place, it would be five, five, two, five, two, three. You have a handout there, and I have a synopsis of that particular handout. And it’s in chronological order with the exhibits and everything that we’ve had from the time that we started or should say, the time I started. We, the assessors actually had their work done, and it was glitches within the computer system. One part doesn’t talk to the other part. I think what is mystifying people is that they think if you hire a hardware, I mean a software company to come in that they immediately put everything in the computer, it’s all over with, that’s not true. That’s not true. One of them gave a us a perspective of possibly four to six months to get in. Another one said, when I talked to IT, she said that, Sharon Lippens said, the possibility of 16 to 18 months of getting everything corrected, and put into place, and between this time we have to take and have the state okay them once we, and I’m hoping that by the middle of June or the beginning of June to have made a decision on which company I intend to take, which one would be the best one for us. The True solution one is coming back. They’re sending three people to look at all three sides to see what they need to do in order to do it. I will give the same advantage to Hamer if they wish to come back. Like I said, we’ve asked them to, and they’ve kind of reneged on ours, didn’t want to do it. Mr. Poparad, Didn’t they come here once, John? Mr. Scott, They came once and showed us their product. Mr. Poparad, When was that? Mr. Scott, That, I think they were the second one that came. Manatron came. Xsoft came. Do we have a date on when Hamer came? Jan Meyers, February 21st. Mr. Scott, February 21st, and then right after that is when the next one came, and like I says, and then we had, Tyler came, and then the last one was the one right now. Mr. Poparad, You didn’t meet with Hamer then? Mr. Scott, Excuse me? Mr. Poparad, You did not meet with Hamer? Mr. Scott, I tried to meet with them, and I… Mr. Bucko, They were here for the… Mr. Scott, Memos to them, letters to them, and they’ve never contacted me. Mr. Poparad, Wait a minute. They were here February 21st to demonstrate. Mr. Scott, Never, never, after that never, never contacted me. Mr. Poparad, No, but I mean they were here. Mr. Scott, Huh? Mr. Poparad, They were here February 21st. Mr. Scott. Oh yes, they were. Yes. Mr. Poparad, Did they give a demonstration? Mr. Scott, Yes, they did. Mr. Whitten, Who did they give a demonstration to? Mr. Scott, To the township assessors, and to the county treasurer and the auditor. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Scott, And myself. Mr. Whitten, Okay, and that was in February. Mr. Scott, Yes. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Poparad, You were there? Mr. Scott, Yes, I was. Mr. Poparad, Oh, okay. Mr. Scott, And I talked to them at that time, and I says I would like to, to have you send me more information, and they says, well, I’ll have to talk to Mr. Kopp or I’ll have to talk to Mrs. Lippens, and I says, no, you talk to me, because if the responsibility is mine I need to talk to you directly, not through a third party or second party. Mr. Whitten, Was part of the consideration, John, that you know, that whatever software you go with does the auditor have to go with the same, and does the treasurer have to go with the same or… Mr. Scott, No, they do not. Mr. Whitten, Let’s say that you picked one, Mr. Kopp picked another, Mr. Murphy picked a third one, is there a problem with them communicating, the three software programs, do they interlink, what’s… Mr. Scott, The three companies that we’re looking at say that they can all do that. In fact, the one, the True one--the solutions--I want to say solutions, and it’s not, True Advantage or whatever it is. Anyway, it, that particular company already works with Hamer in Texas, so I mean they already made the bridge between there. In fact, they’ve set up a system there. Mr. Bucko, Could we break right to the facts and say that the state is going to require that to be certified that all three of these, no matter which one is picked, have to be able to communicate across seamlessly so it really doesn’t matter which one anyone were to pick. You could pick all three different ones, but seamlessly, they have to work together to be qualified, certified, by the state. Mr. Scott, Absolutely. Mr. Poparad, Wait a minute. I’ve got IT shaking her head, no. Sharon. Mr. Whitten, Let’s do this one at a time here. You’re saying that, yes, they all have to be able to… Mr. Scott, They have to or it can’t get certified. Mr. Whitten, Alright, before we get to that point, is there a cost difference if we, I mean do we get a reduction or a cost if all three use the same software. Is it more money to go with three different… Mr. Scott, I have no idea. Mr. Whitten, You have no idea about that yet? Mr. Scott, No, they, the companies that have, that we have seen, and one of them that, they’re coming back, they’re sending three people to look at everything that’s there, and then they said that they can give us an educated guess at what it would cost. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Scott, Hamer is, has given a price, and it’s, it’s ridiculously low. So we’re scared that that one there wouldn’t really be a realistic figure. Mr. Whitten, A price for you or a price for delivering to all three departments? Mr. Scott, The price for all three. Mr. Whitten, Sharon, you’re shaking your head, no. You’re IT, what’s, why a no? Sharon Lippens, The state certification, these, the details of different vendors being about to work together are very limited. They have an export file that has the minimum amount of data that the state is going to require that we give to them. Those different vendors have to be able to export that data, and then import that same layout into their software. So if you have three different vendors, you are going to export a file, then have to import it, export/import it, so that’s one disadvantage. One advantage of all of them, which may or may not be advantageous for us, but one advantage of having them all from the same company is that all of the data is always together. It’s always seamless, so when the auditor does a transfer, the assessor sees it automatically. If they have different companies, they’re not going to see that. They’re either going to have to download a file daily or monthly, and then upload it into theirs or they’re going to have to do double work. Mr. Whitten, Okay, so from your perspective, you see some serious advantage to having the same software for all three? Okay? Mrs. Lippens, I can see good. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Now I’ve heard the vote from the township assessors that you’ve indicated. How about the three of you guys? Is there any software vendor that would be all of your second choice or, I mean… Mr. Kopp, There’s only one vendor that has given us a complete package with pricing and with delivery. Mr. Whitten, Okay, and that’s? Mr. Kopp, That’s Hamer. Mr. Whitten, Hamer. Mr. Kopp, The people from Texas… Mr. Whitten, Have you met with the others? Mr. Kopp, Yes. The people from Texas that John is talking about have not decided yet if they want to work in Indiana, and they’re coming up next week to determine that. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Kopp, Tyler has not given a price, and they don’t operate on the same platform either, which is a whole different problem. Mr. Whitten, Jim. Mr. J. Murphy, I haven’t seen an auditor’s package that’s as comprehensive as the one that Hamer has, which is why my recommendation to Jim was to go with Hamer. And I have seen some of the work at GUTS & LOW, and a couple of other ones for the treasurer’s office, and they’re okay. But they wouldn’t be connective with the auditor’s package that Hamer has, and since that’s the superior, and one of the most important pivot points for information in the county, that’s my recommendation with Hamer. Mr. Whitten, Thank you. John. So it is your thinking now that Hamer will not work for you or you just haven’t gotten to that point yet? Mr. Scott, I don’t know, I can’t… Mr. Whitten, You want to meet with them? Mr. Scott, Can’t communicate with them, and that’s, that’s difficult, because if I can’t communicate with them, I can’t figure out what’s going on. Mr. Carmichael, John, why don’t you take one of your staff, and go down to the headquarters of Hamer instead of having them bring their dog and pony show up here. Mr. Scott, Uh, I think… Mr. Carmichael, Is that a solution? Mr. Scott, I think Sharon Lippens has been down there. I think Jim was planning on, he asked to take ten people or something like that down there. It’s difficult for me to figure that there would be an advantage if they’re not even communicating with me right here. I mean if they’re not communicating with me here, how much more advantage would I have when I went down there? I don’t know. And I know what Sharon’s talking about, the languages and stuff, but they have to be seamless like Mr. Bucko said, because that’s what the state is demanding. Mr. Bucko, No, no, no, she’s not saying that. She’s saying they have to import and export files, but I see exactly where she’s coming from there, and I see that as extra work, and something that you absolutely don’t want to do in a process. All that’s doing is layering on extra work for people. It’s not a benefit. Mr. Poparad, John, is there a big issue with Hamer? Do you have a big issue with them? Mr. Whitten, Sounds like it’s a communication issue to begin with if they’re not getting back to you. Mr. Poparad, Okay, yes. Mr. Scott, They have made statements that are scary. They’re scary. Mr. Poparad, We got all the township assessors… Mr. Scott, I know. Mr. Poparad, Jumping up and down for it. Mr. Scott, And they, most of them have been to it. I don’t know if the treasurer has been to any of the other meetings except for Hamer. Have you been to those? Janna Pursell, I was at… Mr. Scott, No, I’m talking about the treasurer. Has he come to any of them? Mr. J. Murphy, I’m sorry, John, I wasn’t listening. We were represented at the demonstrations, yes. Mr. Burge, Yes, the township assessors I’ve spoken to are pretty passionate and in favor of Hamer, as well. The ease of use between the three offices, as well. Is there anything, communications from your office that may have given Hamer a reason to believe that they were no longer in the running? Is that why maybe they haven’t returned your call? Mr. Scott, No, uh huh, because they were actually, they came in, they came in second, and I, when I looked at it, it looked like a pretty good program. I started asking questions, and that was the end of that. They kept saying, go see Sharon Lippens; go see Jim Kopp; go here; go there. Didn’t want to talk to me directly, and I told them, I says, I’m the one you want to talk to, you want, I want information. I asked them to send the same stuff that they sent to Sharon and also to Jim Kopp, never happened. Never happened. Jim brought down some stuff that, that they had sent to him. That’s not them, they’re not dealing with me. I mean I don’t know what to say. I mean it’s like if I’m going to do business with somebody or if I’m going to say this is the… Mr. Poparad, No, no, John. I think you need to be qualified, that the County is going to do business with them. Mr. Scott, Excuse me? Mr. Poparad, The County will do business with them, not you. Mr. Scott, That’s, well, okay. Okay, but… Mr. Poparad, But I mean I’m not, I’m not going to beat on this horse too much, but… Mr. Bucko, Sharon, I know the process is somewhat being that most things go through you as IT. Okay? Has there been any indication that they may have perceived that the fact that John was supposed to be talked to because things were to go, could something had been misled in that way, miscommunicated, somebody just assumed something or whatever from their end, that that’s how that may have gone. You know, I don’t know… Mrs. Lippens, No, they… Mr. Bucko, I’d like to see the thing patched up so we’ve got an open line of communication, and we’re not going to get there unless; I don’t care, I’ll take them by the hands, and do this if I have to. I mean… Mrs. Lippens, I’ve spoken to the salesman, and he at first thought there would be one point of contact. I told him, no, that, you know, the departments would like to speak to him individually, that was fine. They informed me that they had tried on more than six occasions to get a hold of John, and their phone calls are not forwarded to John, that they are turned away, told that he’s not there that day, he’s unavailable, and that they have tried. They’ve emailed him… Mr. Whitten, Sharon, I don’t mean to cut you off, but we can Monday morning quarterback all day here, but we have a short meeting here, so let’s move it along. Thank you, Sharon, by the way. But now we have to problem solve. What’s your suggestion, John? It sounds like our auditor and our treasurer have done some due diligence. It sounds like you’re trying to. What’s your suggestion? Mr. Scott, I say, let them come back and just like, just like the other vendor is going to come back, and I’m going to call and talk to Tyler, and see if they’ll come back; send some people in here to look at the system, see what they have and offer up what they have. I mean just to pick one, and say, man, that’s it, to heck with the rest of them. That’s not where I want to be. Mr. Whitten, Well I’m… Mr. Scott, I want to get the best one that I possibly can for the assessors. Mr. Poparad, Correct. Mr. Whitten, I will tell you that I’d like to see… Mr. Poparad, No, wait, for the assessors, but we’re leaving out the auditor and the treasurer, and all the duplication of work that has to be done. Mr. Scott, Everything starts from the assessors. Everything starts from the assessors. Mr. Poparad, Correct. Mr. Whitten, Okay, alright… Mr. Scott, All the information comes from the assessor and goes… Mr. Poparad, Yeah, the township… Mr. Scott, Other places. Mr. Whitten, One at a time, guys. There’s minutes out of this meeting. Mr. Poparad, Yeah. Mr. Whitten, So one at a time, please. Mr. Poparad, The township assessors is where it starts, and that’s the ones that are busting my chops about buying this software. Not the county assessor, the township assessors. They’re the ones that want it… Mr. Scott, Yeah, and their choice right now… Mr. Poparad, They’re the ones that input the data. Mr. Scott, Would be, not Hamer. Okay? It’s close, but… Mr. Poparad, That’s not what I’m… Mr. Whitten, No, wait a minute, we’re going to… Mr. Scott, And that’s why I want to let all three of them get a chance to… Mr. Whitten, We’re about to get, John brought us a list of the feedback from the assessors. She’s making copies for us now. You all have where the assessors came in at first and second choice, that will help move that along. But, personally, I guess I would like, even though I do believe you, and I do understand the notion of the certification requiring that these three programs, you know, three departments all have to communicate through the software, I’d like to see one software program. I think it would, if it makes one extra hour of work for our staff that we can avoid by simply agreeing on a vendor, let’s just do it. So, what’s your suggestion? Let’s move this along. Anyone? Mr. Carmichael, What date did you set for a decision, John? June 1st? Mr. Scott, I’m hoping that I can have everything in place by June 1st, yes. Mr. Whitten, Can we have, can we have from all three departments, by our next, well I don’t know, that may be too late, but within two weeks, sort of a write up of the software vendors you’ve looked at, and why one stands out over the others. So we can put our heads together, and figure out if one works for everybody. It sounds like you guys have been doing some of that. Mr. Scott, I don’t know if two weeks would be a realistic thing because we’re bringing people into look at the system and… Mr. Whitten, Four weeks, the next meeting. Is that too late? Jim? Jims? Mr. Kopp, Hamer is working on our stuff now. Mr. Whitten, You’ve already got them in. Mr. Kopp, And True Automation does not have an auditor’s package. Mr. Whitten, Okay, so that makes your write up pretty easy. Mr. Scott, That’s not true. Mr. Whitten, So if we can get that by our next meeting, maybe we can move this along. I don’t want to sit here, and Monday morning quarterback all night. You guys are the ones out there in the trenches, give us what you’re coming up with. You know, give us a proposal. Any problem with that? Mr. Scott, Then it would also be what, what each one is asking for, and what they’re offering, and what they’re… Mr. Whitten, Absolutely, and I guess I’d like to hear from your township assessors what they see is the disadvantages to each one, John. Not that that’s going to be the deciding factor, but you’ve given us their vote, I guess I’d kind of like to know why. Mr. Scott, We have that list, and we’ll make it available to the Council. Mr. Whitten, Okay. That’s it. Thanks, John. CEDIT 317.30 Additional Appropriation $215,620 to 0001 CEDIT Project #18 CEDIT 313.30 Additional Appropriation $1,200,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project #14 CEDIT 314.30 Additional Appropriation $200,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project #15 CEDIT 315.30 Additional Appropriation $30,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project #16 CEDIT 316.30 Additional Appropriation $150,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project #17 Mr. Whitten, CEDIT, we’ve got CEDIT 18, 14, 15, 16 and 17. I assume we will want to take a look at this individually, I would think. Mr. Commissioners, good evening. Do you want to give us a quick synopsis of these CEDIT plans? Com. Harper, Just give me a second. The first plan is a proposal to set aside funds for the North County Highway Garage. I believe I sent you all a packet on that. And Com. Evans can give you a little more background on what we think land cost is going to be in the north county, which is very high, which was going to run, I think will run the cost of this project up. We wanted to get that money set aside because as I also gave you in that packet, there’s other things coming up that we’re going to be coming before you on, and we want to make sure that we had at least a good hunk of the money for that garage set aside. The second two things on the agenda, there’s been a lot of discussion about the drug problem in Porter County. I think almost everybody was here on the Pathway’s presentation. There’s several people here tonight, the director of Pathway, Mann Spitler, Bob Taylor, and others that if you have any questions or anything like that they would be available to address it. As you were told, and explained to, Pathway deals mostly with adolescents or people under 18 or younger, although sometimes they’re a little bit older as they continue in the program. Porter County was also certified with the drug court that pays for itself, and did not require additional money. The drug court is a court where people that, with felonies are referred to the drug court. They just simply enter a guilty plea, and if they are not successful in the drug court, they are sent back to the sentencing court where they then enter a guilty plea for sentencing. Our Indiana Department of Corrections has funded counselors through our PACT program because they feel that by using this drug program, we’re taking a load off of the prison system. These people, this drug court is an intensive thing where in Phase 1, when they go into Phase 1, they are required to come to court once a week. They are required to meet their counselor every day, and they are subject to drug tests. If they want to test them, they can test them every day. They are required after a certain period of time to get a job. A lot of them don’t have jobs. Some of them come right out of jail. Okay? And sometimes they are required to stay in halfway houses or places like that. So far, just to give you an example, PACT has two people--two counselors--that are funded by the Department of Justice. So far they’ve run 633 drug screens, and to give you an idea of what intensive probation is like, or drug court activity like, they only had two dirty urines out of 633 screens. But, if someone does have dirty urines, they’re punished, and they take immediate action on it. It’s not unusual for someone to be in drug court, and then back in jail for a week or two, and then back in drug court, because it’s a long-term process that is trying to go toward recovery with getting these people to learn how to handle their drug problem to go to NE and AA, and so forth. They, PACT, could use some extra money for things that they don’t have funds for, for these people right now. Sometimes they want additional or special counseling. For the first month or so, when they’re in these halfway houses, now they’re required to pay in these halfway houses. Barb Claypool is here from the PACT program, but they’re required, and she can give you all the figures, but they’re required to pay a certain amount of rent there. I think it’s like 100 or 120 a week. But some of them don’t have jobs for the first month, or two months, so they have some extra expenses. If we’re looking at the total drug problem, and the work that this court does, and the fact that it’s funded by the State, I think it would be a good investment to give our community service program this little extra money to help them pay for some of these extras, extra counseling or for rent for these people until they get back on their feet and so forth, when they’re in the halfway house. So that’s what that project, so really, Projects 2 and 3 are projects that deal with the drug problem, and hopefully some possible solutions, and things that we are working on. By the way, let me also say this about the drug court. The drug court had to be licensed by the Indiana Supreme Court. In fact, they sent staff down here at all times to monitor what’s going on there, and so forth. So it’s really a pilot project, and really on the forefront, and I think hopefully it will be another part of possible success with the drug problem. The next project is the GIS. I think everyone on the Council has gotten the request for the software for the GIS. It’s just another part of GIS program, and that’s the money for the software. The last thing, it was discussed at a joint, I don’t think it was at your meeting it was discussed, but I was here, and it was requested that we put money in to get the software package for the auditor and the treasurer. So that’s what we have. Mr. Whitten, Questions about these? At this time, Mr. Carmichael handed Com. Harper a newspaper article from the Times regarding PACT. Com. Harper, Do you want me to address that, Commissioner Carmichael, about the staff? I think the drug court was, did tell the Council that there would not be any extra money for staff, and this is not money for staff. This is money to go through PACT for rent, and so forth, and things like that. Mr. Carmichael, Well what does it say? Com. Harper, That the judge told a group Monday the drug court is being initiated without any additional cost to the County by utilizing existing community correction programs, that may eventually have to ask for additional pay for staff, but it will be drawn from state money and not local tax dollars. Mr. Carmichael, There it is. Com. Harper, Okay. Well, let me just say, I mean I understand that, and I think this is for things that were not contemplated at that time. I think when you talk about these people, the number of people that are running through this, and the number of people they are serving, the County is getting a pretty big bang for its buck right now for the court. So it would be our recommendation, and if you have any questions of any of the people from PACT, the PACT people are here. Judge Jent is here, and of these people would be glad to answer questions concerning that. Mr. Carmichael, You’ve got Pathway up, which is dealing with the same, the very same thing. Com. Harper, No, that’s not true, commissioner. Mr. Carmichael, Well… Com. Harper, Because Pathway is dealing with the high school age student where most of these people in drug court are 18 and over, completely different. Most of the people, I think the people from Pathway will tell you that, that it is a completely different thing. The Pathway problem, number one, not all their kids come through the criminal justice system or the juvenile system. A lot of them, their parents just discover they have heroin problems, and so forth, and take advantage of that. Whereas, these counselors at PACT are working with people that have a felony, and plead guilty to it, in fact. They plead guilty to it with the understanding that they’ll either complete drug court or they will be sentenced by the judge, you know, if they plead guilty to a B-Felony, they’re looking at 20 years in jail, so they have a pretty big hammer over their head that they’re looking at. So it’s a completely different type of situation, I think. Mr. Carmichael, Well when people come before us or make public statements I take them at their word, period. Mr. Whitten, I don’t have a copy of that. What is it? Mr. Carmichael, I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Com. Harper, Neither you nor I. Mr. Burge, Mr. Harper, on the 200,000 for Pathway, that 200,000 will accomplish a specific task, a specific project. Com. Harper, I’ve been told, and I sent you, I think I sent you some information that that will get them off the ground, and that they will be self sufficient. Am I correct about that? Terri Nissley, Right. Com. Harper, Do you care to address that. Real briefly address it, because they’re on a real tight schedule. Mr. Burge, Sure, the only thought was, I heard earlier from someone that there’s a local foundation that might be willing to match funds that we give them, and if they could use 200,000 total, perhaps we could give 100,000 and the foundation could match, then they would have the 200,000. Ms. Nissley, We’re looking for 540,000 total. Mr. Burge, That’s what yours, okay, that’s what I wanted to know if it was the total or a portion. Mr. Whitten, Bob, is it necessary that all this stuff be done tonight? Com. Harper, No. Mr. M. Murphy, I mean the software thing is up in the air, right? Are we going to pull the trigger on Hamer? Com. Harper, You know, I, obviously, I’ve been sitting here and hearing that, I think it was the understanding to everybody that we were going to put in our project the last time. When’s our next meeting? Mr. Whitten, May 22nd. Mr. Carmichael, Let’s take the highway garage, and get John off center. Com. John Evans, The highway garage, you all got a package. I would like to suggest if you don’t pass that, that you hold all your meetings there from now until we are able to erect that building and that facility, because it’s really a shame that Porter County has to have a building that we have people functioning in, actually performing a very vital task for our county, that work in conditions like this. It’s really a shame. So we have an opportunity, we hope, we haven’t gotten the appraisals back to purchase the property that’s very close to this property. What we want to do, and the proposal is to try to save some money in the architecture is we still have the plan or the garage we built in South County. We just want to duplicate that garage in North County. We would still use the property that exists there for salt storage, storage for material, and a lot of collected debris that gets… Mr. Carmichael, You’re going across the road, John? Com. Evans, Exactly. Mr. Whitten, Well let’s take these one at a time. Com. Harper, Dan, could I ask you? Mr. Whitten, Yes. Com. Harper, Since everybody came, could I let one person talk about this PACT program for like three minutes, that’s all I ask Tammy O’Neil to. Would that be alright or? Mr. Whitten, How many people are you going to have speak for three minutes? Com. Harper, One. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Carmichael, Let’s take the highway garage first. Mr. Whitten, Yes, but, Bob, hold on a second. Let’s deal with the one that’s not related to that, and that’s the highway garage. Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by CEDIT 313.30, the amount of $1,200,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project 14, for the purchase and construction of the North County Highway Garage, and CEDIT 18, the amount of $215,620, for the purchase of software for the Treasurer and Auditor. Mr. Burge, CEDIT 18 and CEDIT 14, is that the… Mr. Poparad, Yes, 14 and 18 is the highway Mr. Burge seconded. Mr. Whitten, We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Bucko, Anything, can you tell me if it was as bad as South County? Com. Evans, It’s worse. Mr. Bucko, Okay, never mind. Mr. Whitten, Roll call, please, on the motion. Mr. Kopp, CEDIT 18 is Hamer. Mr. Whitten, Whichever ones are the highway. Com. Harper, Only one is for the highway. Mr. Whitten, Then 14. Mr. Carmichael amended his motion to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by CEDIT 313.30, the amount of $1,200,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project 14, for the purchase and construction of the North County Highway Garage. Mr. Burge seconded. Mr. Poparad, Do we want to talk about 18? Are we going to talk about Hamer? I mean these guys have already made their decision. Mr. Whitten, Let’s deal with 14. Let’s deal with the highway garage. We have a motion and a second. The motion amends to Project 14, and the second concurs. Roll call, please. Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Whitten, Now, do you want to deal with the others. Who do you want to have speak for three minutes, Bob? Com. Harper, Well, the only person I was going to ask is because the question was on 16, which is the one for PACT to use for their services, if one of their people could just speak for two or three minutes. Why don’t you come up. Tammy O’Neil, Okay. Com. Harper, Tammy, get up, and you’re going to have to give them your name and who you work for. Ms. O’Neil. Okay. Where do I sit? Com. Evans, Here, sit here. Com. Harper, Thanks, John. Go ahead. Ms. O’Neil, Just? Com. Harper, Give them your name and who you work for. You’ve got three minutes. Ms. O’Neil, Tammy O’Neil from Porter County PACT. First of all, thank you for considering our request. Porter County has been very fortunate. Many drug courts across the country are losing funding because they went after three year grants, and things with pretty short-term funding. Judge Jent approached us several years ago, and asked us to consider starting a drug court. So we looked at what income we had available, and what services we already had available, and we looked at our community corrections program. We looked at the target population, and the people that we were going to serve in drug court were already a part of that target population in the day reporting center, which had been funded since 1993 from the Department of Corrections. So financial sustainability was pretty good in this particular program, and it receives high ratings from the Department of Correction. They allowed us to designate a portion of our staff to actually start doing drug court services, and this particular project really marks, is a benchmark for the State in that it marries the Department of Correction, and the Indiana Judicial Center. And it’s really a cooperative, and pretty much is a pilot across the state. Well when you look at the funding of the program, the Department of Correction, community corrections act funds has supported these case managers through PACT in the day reporting center since 1993. They’ve continued to fund it currently. And it covers staff salaries, office supplies, training, all of those things we need to operate the program. Well when, coming into drug court, the things that we are finding are these short-term, temporary needs of the individuals being referred to drug court. We had these individuals for a long period of time. This eases the burden on the county when you look at the dollars saved through incarceration it’s huge. If you look at diversion from the local jail, it’s $82,250 just in the time that we had these individuals from the beginning of this program one year ago. Okay? If you look at the same from the DOC, it’s just under 140,000. So it’s really a savings. The things that we are looking at are actually not for new staff members. Those, we will continue to go to the State for. The things that we are really needing assistance with are those things that help reduce the risk to re-offend of those individuals in the program. These individuals often are able to get survival jobs fairly quickly after enrolling in the program, but they don’t typically have disposable income to afford treatment, drug testing, those sort of things, and this is that pocket of money that we’re requesting you to consider are to provide those temporary services. We’re also looking at writing something in so that individuals pay this back; that this is a scholarship that they receive. That income returning back to us is going to be very slow, and we understand that. But this is that one piece that if we could have that support from the County that would be very appreciated, on the part not only of PACT, but for the clients that are receiving the services. Mrs. Stevenson, Would this be a one-time thing? Ms. O’Neil, I… Mrs. Stevenson, You’re not going to come back for 30,000 again… Ms. O’Neil, Again… Mrs. Stevenson, Again, and again, and again. Ms. O’Neil, That’s. Com. Harper, They’re hoping to set up a, you know, a program to refund it. And the thing I can tell you is, they have run the day reporting program for years. Okay? That is what, since 1993? Ms. O’Neil, Yes. Com. Harper, And, you know, that’s funded by the State. That’s a program where high-risk offenders have to check in two or three times a week, call in daily, and so forth. And our PACT--Porter County PACT--is known for the success of their programs. I mean they have a high, high rate of success, and they are, and in this program--this particular program--they are working with a high, high risk offender. I mean they, you know, the people that are coming to this program have a hard-core drug problem, and I think we’re getting a lot, I think through the work of PACT and the through the work of the court, we’re getting a lot of bang for our buck already, and hopefully, you know, if they work out someway for it to be paid back, hopefully, they won’t be back. However, I will say this, that we are presently, and have been called on to do this, Mr. Whitten and I have been discussing this, and so forth, are taking a look, trying to take a look at a total idea of a drug, of some sort of attack on the drug problem in Porter County across-the-board, and I think this is just one of the, you know, tonight is our two-goal pieces in that puzzle, and hopefully, if we can keep attacking these things we will fulfill our duty. Ms. O’Neil, If I could add just one other thing just to help drive home the success of this program. We’ve been working with the Department of Corrections to develop a recidivism study. And we recently have gone back, and checked the records of any individual in the day reporting center, and remember, these are high-risk felony offenders, back almost three years, that’s 30 months. We, just under 80% have never been back through the system for anything, not so much as a parking ticket. That’s an amazing statistic when you look at the individuals who are in that program. We have excellent indicators of program success there. Our program average completion rate is between 85 and 90% annual. Mr. Whitten, I don’t think there’s any question of your success. Any other questions about any of these? Mr. Bucko, I’d just say, the point of clarification for me is in reference to a, it seems to me like that it could emerge into a type of user fee thing that could support it to some degree or another. Is this acting like a pilot program for the County to determine your success rate, us to take a look at you, do an evaluation. Is this where we are at? Is it that kind of… Ms. O’Neil, Well it’s, the way it’s considered a pilot is because of the marriage of the different branches of government in finding ways to sustain funding of drug court services. The evaluation that we are doing, we have initiated locally, and brought that to the State, and the State is willing to work with us on that. Regarding the user fees, we are limited by statute in how much we can assess for each individual in the drug court program. That cap is $500 per person, and you figure by the time they receive all those services for at least 18 months, there’s no way that’s going to cover that. So we’ve looked at that possibility, as well. Mr. Whitten, And we have, at times, this Council looked at some of the services that are being provided… Mr. Carmichael moved to deny the additional appropriation request submitted by CEDIT 315.30, the amount of $30,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project #16. Mr. Whitten, Well I’m not done. I was in the middle of my comment, I want to finish. We have at times on this Council looked at different areas of service to people that are going through addiction problems. We’ve read in the paper. We’ve heard from law enforcement officials. We’ve heard from our drug task force about how are we going to deal with the problem that is rising in Porter County. The more we look, and the more we talk, the more criticism we take. Now this is an area of our government that is successful. That is proving to be successful. I do not concur with your motion, Mr. Carmichael. Does he have a second? Motion died for the lack of a second. Mr. Whitten, Motion dies for the lack of a second. What’s your pleasure with these CEDIT plans? Mr. Poparad, Well on 18, I’m going to regress a little bit. I thought that was part of the highway one. The software for the auditor and the treasurer, they’ve already made up their mind. I don’t know why we don’t go forward with that, and let them get the system installed. That’s not going to happen overnight. Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by CEDIT 317.30, the amount of $215,620 to 0001 CEDIT Project 18, to purchase software for the Auditor and Treasurer offices. Mr. Murphy seconded. Mr. Whitten, We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Burge, And this is specifically for Hamer software? Mr. Poparad, Yes. Com. Harper, Well let me make it, so we’re not to spend it on anything but that, is that what you’re telling us? Mr. Poparad, That’s what they wanted. Com. Harper, Okay, we’ll, I’m just asking you because it’s in ours. Mr. Kopp, Can I say something? Mr. Whitten, Yes. Mr. Kopp, If we don’t get, well, let me back up. We were 1.7 million dollars difference this year between the State and what we collected, and we backed into a settlement. They’re not going to allow us to back into a settlement next year. If we don’t have a software system in place to track this stuff when we’re doing it, we’re going to be worse off next year with settlement than we were this year. Mr. Whitten, Is this the software that we are going to have an opinion back on… Mr. Poparad, Daily settlement. Mr. Whitten, I mean are you going to give us an opinion back on this. Is this the software purchase? Mr. Kopp, Yes, if that’s what you want. Mr. Whitten, Yes, that’s what I want. Mr. Kopp, But we’re moving ahead because to get tax bills out in August or September we need to have this stuff running so we can balance at the end of the year. Mr. Bucko, Let me ask a question. You know I haven’t got a problem with the first or second, I mean you either want what you want or you don’t want what you want, and there’s a five-five tie between True-whatever and Hamer. Okay? If we say no to the software for the treasurer and the auditor, we tell Hamer, you know what, you ain’t going to get this unless you’re up here in this courthouse talking to our people. Now do you want the opportunity to get the sale, then be here, and be here within minutes or days, I don’t care. Mr. Whitten, We just appropriate the money. So I mean once we give them the money, we’re not going to be demanding that they do anything. Mr. Bucko, Well, but he can tell… Mr. Poparad, To counter your discussion, I can’t believe any company that is trying to make a sale is going to blow off John Scott. Mr. Whitten, Well… Mr. Poparad, Now, there may be… Mr. Whitten, I’m going to take… Mr. Poparad, There may be a communication issue, miscommunication, whatever, but. Mr. Whitten, I don’t believe our assessor would come and misrepresent things. Mr. Bucko, I don’t know. Mr. Whitten, Obviously, there’s some… Mr. Bucko, I’d like to just blame it on the guy that’s trying to make the sale. Mr. Whitten, There’s some issues to be worked out. What is your pleasure with CEDIT 18? Mr. Poparad, I made the motion to appropriate the money. Mr. Whitten, We have a motion and a second. Mr. Poparad, That way the auditor can get what they need, and the assessors, we’ll deal with that later, because according to everybody, they’ll all have to talk to each other. Mr. Whitten, Alright, well, I’ve got to tell you, when, six months from now, a year from now, I’m done. Roll call, please, we have a motion and a second for CEDIT 18. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Carmichael - No Murphy - Yes Poparad - Yes Stevenson - Yes Whitten - No Bucko - No Burge - Yes Mr. Kopp, It’s four to three. Mr. Whitten, Okay, 15, 16 and 17, what’s your pleasure with any of those? Mr. Bucko moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by CEDIT 314.30, the amount of $200,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project #15, as the County’s contribution to the Pathway Program. Mr. Poparad seconded, motion carried unanimously. Mr. Whitten, CEDIT 16, that’s the drug court. Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by CEDIT 315.30, the amount of $30,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project #16, to provide funding to PACT for the placement of drug offenders into residential housing. Mr. Whitten, We have a motion. Is there a second? Mrs. Stevenson seconded. Mr. Whitten, We have a second. Discussion? We’ve had a lot of that tonight. Roll call, please. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Stevenson - Yes Whitten - Yes Bucko - Yes Burge - Yes Carmichael - No Murphy - Yes Poparad - Yes Mr. Whitten, CEDIT 17, to purchase software and equipment for GIS. What’s your pleasure? Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by CEDIT 316.30, $150,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project #17, to purchase software and equipment for the Geographic Information System. Mr. Murphy seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONERS 233 Additional Appropriation $25,000 to 4510 Data Processing Equipment Mr. Whitten, Commissioners 223, 25,000 to Data Processing Equipment. Com. Harper, That’s equipment for the sheriff’s department, that 233 is the jail’s… Mr. Poparad, Tiburon or whatever. Com. Harper, Yes. Mr. Whitten, What is your pleasure with the Commissioners 233 additional? Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Commissioners 233, the amount of $25,000 to 4510 Data Processing Equipment. Mr. Bucko seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. PLANNING/BUILDING DEPARTMENT 239 144 Form Planner 1 from 0 to 1 at $33,000 Code Enforcement Officer from 0 to 2 at $27,500 Mr. Whitten, Planning/Building Department 239, 144 Form, Planner from 0 to 1 at $33,000; Code Enforcement Officer from 0 to 2 at $27,500 each. Mr. Thompson. You want to hire some people. Bob Thompson, Correct. Mr. Whitten, This comes out of your fund, right? Mr. Thompson, It comes out of the Building, Planning & Zoning fund. I feel there is more than an adequate amount of money to be able to hire these employees with benefits. Everything, I mean if approved, we’ll be back in for the benefit part of it for additionals. But, this is something the Plan Commission is bugging me to get in, and get more people, especially, out on the streets as far as inspections, inspections as far as zoning violations that are occurring. One of the things that came up recently at the plan commission is with private subdivisions, and the lack of inspectors we have with private development, and that we need to be assuring the public, and giving them safe assurance that what they are buying meets standards, and there will be no problems. We are lacking at this. I mean we just don’t have the people. The Plan Commission has been bugging me to do this. The Planner I position, trying to go out, I can get some of the things that I’ve been doing off onto this Planner I position, so I can actually look over and manage the office, and be the manager and the director, which… Mr. Whitten, Well we have a council member on the Plan Commission. What’s your recommendation, Rita? What do you think? Mrs. Stevenson, I’m the one that asked him to put it in this meeting. Mr. Whitten, So you like this idea. Mrs. Stevenson, Yes, because we definitely are in need. I mean if you saw all the subdivisions, if you would go out and see the subdivisions that these so-called builders and developers are building, it’s terrible. I mean we need two code enforcement officers, at least. Mr. Whitten, Any other questions? Mr. Bucko, Is this really a replacement of a planner, because wasn’t there an individual before in there that more or less act as a… Mr. Thompson, We have a title for one, the Zoning Inspector/Zoning Administrator/Assistant Planner, but the duties are such that, I mean you can pretty much scratch the assistant planner because their function is almost all with zoning. Mr. Poparad, Your fund will take all these hits? Mr. Thompson, Yes, it will. Mr. Whitten, What’s your pleasure? Mr. Bucko moved to amend the 144 Form submitted by Planning/Building Department 239, Planner 1 from 0 to 1 at $33,000; and Code Enforcement Officer 0 to 2 at $27,500. Mr. Poparad seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Thompson, Thank you very much, appreciate it. Mr. Whitten, Thank you. HEALTH TOBACCO 203 Additional Appropriations $3,000 to 4410 Office Equipment over $100 $5,000 to 4440 Furniture & Fixtures over $100 $350 to 3610 Maintenance Agreements Mr. Whitten, Health Tobacco 203, we have several additionals, $3,000 to Office Equipment over $100; $5,000 to Furniture & Fixtures over $100; $350 to 3610 Maintenance Agreements. What is your pleasure? Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Health Tobacco 203, the amounts of, $3,000 to 4410 Office Equipment over $100, $5,000 to 4440 Furniture & Fixtures over $100 and $350 to 3610 Maintenance Agreements. Mr. Burge seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. ANIMAL SHELTER 01.45 Additional Appropriation $10,000 to 3970 Sterilization Mr. Whitten, Animal Shelter 01.45, additional $10,000 to Sterilization Mr. Poparad, Uh oh. Mr. Whitten, Just sounds rough. Mr. Poparad Yeah. Mr. Bucko, Bad. Mr. Whitten, We’re going to do some sterilization, sounds like. Sandy Ogle, Yes. Mr. Whitten, What’s your pleasure with the sterilization request? I just like saying sterilization, I do; it soaks my spirit too. Mr. M. Murphy, That’s sounds better than euthanization, I guess, right. Mr. Whitten, Yeah, that’s true. Mr. Poparad, I’ll make the motion to keep Dan happy. Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Animal Shelter 01.45, the amount of $10,000 to 3970 Sterilization. Mrs. Stevenson seconded. Mr. Whitten, We have a second. Discussion? Mr. Poparad, Will this get you through the year? Ms. Ogle, No. Mr. Poparad, No? Ms. Ogle, No, usually the donations fund picks up the second half of the year. Mr. Whitten, Roll call, please. Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Whitten, Thank you. Ms. Ogle, Thank you. CORONER 01.07 144 Form 3rd Deputy from 0 to 1 at $7,309 - Request denied Additional Appropriation $4,900 to 1120 Hourly - Request denied Mr. Whitten, Coroner 01.07, 144 Form, 3rd Deputy from 0 to $7,309; additional, $4,900 to Hourly. Coroner, how are you? Vicki Deppe, Good evening, I’m fine. Due to the time constraints of the Council, and also, I’ve provided everybody with a packet that goes a little more in-depth to what the needs are, let me just say a couple of things that the budget does not reflect the number of deputies that had when I came into office. Secondly, to that, we now are currently working one deputy less than when I did come into office. Adding to that, our number of coroner cases are up dramatically. This first quarter, right now, today, we are at 60 coroner cases, and that doesn’t include the 59 calls that are informational that aren’t coroner cases. So even though historically, I know that the Council has not granted additional appropriations for staff outside budget time, I do implore you to consider these unusual circumstances for the coroner’s office so we can continue to meet the needs of the decedents and the families in a timely manner. Mr. Whitten, There’s no question your calls are up. You see that in the paper, unfortunately. Questions? Mr. M. Murphy, So somebody, I think my understanding was you had somebody when you started was working for free basically… Ms. Deppe, Free. Mr. M. Murphy, For the previous coroner. Ms. Deppe, Yes. Mr. M. Murphy, Then when you came in, what happened? Ms. Deppe, I had three deputies that were working, and then one that was working for free taking the same amount of calls, one of the paid deputies left, so I was able to put the person who was free, who wanted to be paid, into that slot. So now I don’t have any monies available. You know, the free person has been working there for over a year, but was not added to the budget for whatever reason last year. Mr. Hollenbeck, I hope that doesn’t spread. Mr. Burge, You had 60 coroner cases. How many for this time last year? Ms. Deppe, Last year, well, I don’t know exactly how many last year, but at this time last year at this number at 60 we were into July. So it was 60 in July last year, and now we’re at 60 today. Mr. Burge, Oh okay, because you indicated they were significantly higher. Ms. Deppe, Significantly higher. Mr. Burge, But we don’t know what that exact number is. Mr. Whitten, Seems like she’s two months ahead of the game. Ms. Deppe, Yes, two months, a little over two months ahead of what we usually have. Last year there was 137 cases total. That doesn’t include just the information calls that we don’t take, because there are number of those that aren’t really coroner cases. So for the whole year last year, 137, today, we’re 60 cases, and here we’re just at the end of the first quarter. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Ms. Deppe, And these are mostly violent deaths, suicides. Mr. Whitten, Now these people were paid a salary or are they paid per call? Ms. Deppe, No, they’re not paid per call, Dan. They’re paid per salary. Mr. Hollenbeck, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I should’ve mentioned this back on Sterilization. We need to remember that additional appropriations we grant out of the general fund will not be approved by the DLGF until the tax rates are certified. The people who are up here need to realize that. Mr. Whitten, Okay, any other questions? Okay, a motion either way? Mr. Poparad, This is not a pay increase for the deputies? Ms. Deppe, No, it’s not a pay increase. Mr. Bucko, I just have a quick question. Ms. Deppe, Sure. Mr. Bucko, If at one time or another, okay, you’ve got a deputy here, 7,309 based on minimum wage--I didn’t do the math, I haven’t got a calculator--at what time or at any time does that dollar amount ever exceed minimum wage or? What happens then? I mean it almost sounds like… Ms. Deppe, I’m not sure I… Mr. Bucko, How many calls can they make? That’s, what I’m wondering before it exceeds or becomes less than minimum wage. I’m just wondering, about getting in trouble with the minimum wage issues or do you have to come back and ask for more dollars. Is that how you handle that? Mr. Carmichael, Mike, they’re just getting a retainer here is all they’re doing. Ms. Deppe, For another deputy. Mr. Carmichael, It’s not per call, it’s just a retainer. Ms. Deppe, No, we’re not doing any extra per calls. Some counties do that, Mr. Bucko. They get paid a salary, then they get an additional on call. Mr. Bucko, So that’s more or less a retainer, and they get some portion of it whenever they make a call? Ms. Deppe, No, that’s what they get, period, for the whole year. Mr. Whitten, It’s a salary, it’s not hours, it’s a salary. Ms. Deppe, That’s their salary, so it doesn’t matter how many calls they make. Mr. M. Murphy, Vicki, what if we waited until budget time to do this. I mean that’s what I think most people on Council would like to do because once we do this we open the door up for adding additional people. I know you’ve got a very interesting, this one working for free is new, I mean what would that do. Ms. Deppe, Well what it will do is a few things. It’ll increase the calls that we all take now. I’m a working coroner so I take calls, as well. We already have one person who says that he won’t continue to work like this, so one of those seasoned people will leave. I think what really concerns me though, Matt, is that with this number of calls that we have, and the people that we have to fill the calls, we get very behind in terms of death certificates. We get behind in terms of reports that have to go to the detectives, and to the other law enforcement, and it backs up their system, as well. Then, unfortunately, for the families of the decedents, they cannot retain monies from life insurance or anything else until I get that out. So that’s really, that’s the inconvenience, unfortunately, and I’m already getting, I get calls about that. I tried to get them out as quickly as I can. Mr. Poparad, I’m sorry, since you opened the door I’m going to walk through it. Do these part-timers make out reports when we have a full-time secretary or is that the secretary’s job? Ms. Deppe, The secretary does most of the typing and all that. Mr. Poparad, Okay, so I guess, you know, the whole paperwork thing, I wish you hadn’t said that because you lost credibility. Mr. Poparad moved to deny the 144 Form and additional appropriation request submitted by Coroner 01.07. Mr. Murphy, I’m going to second that motion. I understand the situation you’re in, and I feel for you. But I just don’t want to open this door. I just ask that you work through it, do the best you can, and come see us in August. It’s almost summer time now, so hopefully we won’t cause too many problems. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. Mr. Whitten, Okay, we’ve got a motion and a second. Discussion? Roll call, please. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Poparad - Yes Stevenson - Yes Whitten - No Bucko - Yes Burge - Yes Carmichael - No Murphy - Yes Mr. Kopp, Five to two. Mr. Whitten, Thank you. AUDITOR MAPPING 33.02 144 Form Cartographer from 1 at $28,357.02 to 0 - Request tabled AUDITOR 01.02 144 Form GIS System Administrator from 0 to 1 at $44,990.40 - Request tabled GIS Manager from 0 to 1 at $35,999.60 - Request tabled Cartographer from 0 to 1 at $29,575 - Request tabled Deputy Real Estate 3 at $26,310.96 to $27,757 - Request tabled Deputy Real Estate 1 at $28,137 to $26,311 - Request withdrawn Additional Appropriation $20,000 to 3130 Training & Education $20,000 to 1120 Hourly Mr. Whitten, Auditor Mapping 33, 144 Form, Cartographer from one to zero at $28,357.02. Mr. Kopp, The Auditor Mapping was funded by fees. According to last payroll I had $720 in that account. It’s generating about $1,500 a month, and with salaries, benefits and taxes, I have $3,500 coming out, so it’s gone. I have no money to pay for the full-time cartographer that is there, and that cartographer will run the GIS, under the third person, which would maintain the mapping system that is part of the GIS. Mr. Whitten, Perhaps we should address these together. Mr. Kopp, Probably. Mr. Whitten, We also have Auditor 01.02, the 144, GIS System Administrator from 0 to 1 at $44,990.40, GIS Manager from 0 to 1 at $35,999.60, Cartographer from 0 to 1 at $29,575, Deputy Real Estate 3 at $26,310.96 to $27,757 and Deputy Real Estate 1 at $28,137 to $26,311. Mr. Kopp, Cancel the last Deputy Real Estate, that shouldn’t be on there. Mr. Whitten, Okay, you said the one should not be on there. Mr. Kopp, Right. Mr. Whitten, Okay, so here we are. Questions? Mr. Murphy, Which one are we on, the GIS? Mr. Whitten, We’re doing them both, the Auditor Mapping 144 Form and the Auditor 01.02 144 Form. Because if we approve the 144 for the Auditor Mapping, and take it out the general, and then don’t approve the next one, that’s a bit of a problem. Mr. Bucko, Yes. Mrs. Stevenson, Are you ready to start up with the administrator and the manager? Mr. Kopp, We will be when we get the equipment. We just authorized the equipment, so it will probably take 30 days to get the equipment in, and then between Sharon Lippens and I, we’ll work it out how we’re going to get the equipment installed. There will be eight or 10 stations, four in the auditor’s office, the plan commission will have two, the surveyor will have two, the health department will have one, and the assessor’s will have one. Mrs. Stevenson, Okay. Mr. Bucko, So you’re looking at 45 days or better depending on how things get installed, for any salary or anything. Mr. Kopp, Right. Mrs. Stevenson moved to table the 144 Forms submitted by Auditor 33.02 and Auditor 01.02. Mr. Whitten, We have a motion to table all… Mr. Poparad, I was going to ask a question, what’s the $20,000 in Training & Education for? Mr. Kopp, That is money… Mr. Carmichael, You can’t table it, you’ll have to readvertise. Mr. Kopp, The additional is money that has either been paid out or needs to be paid out to Cender and RDS to bring the computer system up to where it is right now. We’re getting our reports ran, and we found some $100,000 in funds that we’ll probably put back in the general fund in the next week or two. It’s, the computer system is in balance, more or less. And the Hourly, to give you an example, on TIF, I spent about 800 hours straightening out the TIF, no, 900 hours, and we’ll have about 800 per year in TIF. With this Hamer system, between my office and the treasurer’s office, and working very diligently with us trying to make all the stuff work, and getting the settlement done, there’s $2,900 of people who have given to this, and that’s what the $20,000 is for. Mr. Whitten, Okay, we’re at 6:02 in the evening. What do you guys want to do with this? Mr. Bucko, I don’t have any problem with dealing with the mapping and the auditor issues, because we’ve already supplemented and approved appropriate monies for the equipment and it goes in. And if we might add 30 to 45 days before even people are put into place. Mr. Whitten, So are you making a motion? Mr. Bucko, I’ll make a motion to approve. Do we have one on the floor? Mrs. Stevenson, Yes. Mr. Bucko, Motion to table. Mr. Poparad, We’re hiring three new bodies, is that what you are saying? At least two new bodies. Mr. Kopp, Yes. Mr. Poparad, We’re hiring two new bodies for a department that’s not even running. Mr. Kopp, Well they have to be hired to load the software, and to receive the software, and start making this thing work, and they have to be trained before we take on these things. Mr. Poparad, Is this department going to stay underneath the auditor? Mr. Kopp, As of now. Mr. Whitten, We don’t decide that. Mr. Burge, So essentially this takes it from being a project to becoming a department. Mr. Whitten, To what, Jim? Mr. Burge, The GIS, it takes it from being a project within the auditor’s office to becoming an independent department Mr. Whitten, It will be part of the auditor’s office, but it will be a sub-department almost, right? Mr. Kopp, Yes, with a chief deputy just like the real estate side. Mrs. Stevenson, How did you come up with the figures? Mr. Kopp, I interviewed, well, I got comparable salaries from Sidwell and they were much higher. I interviewed a couple computer people, and they’re between 40 and $45,000. I haven’t worked the exact numbers, but they’re in that range. The 36,000 is the low end of what other managers of GIS systems are being paid in the state who has functioning GIS systems. The cartographer is at the low end of what a cartographer would be making. Mr. Whitten, Dave, we have a motion on the floor to table these 144’s. Bill said we can’t do that, he doesn’t believe, we can’t table a 144 request for advertising. What’s your… Mr. Hollenbeck, Well the effectiveness of tabling it would be that it would have to be readvertised and redone anyway, so. Mr. Whitten, Well, we have a motion on the floor. Mr. Burge seconded. Mr. Whitten, This is to table. Okay, we have a motion and a second to table. Discussion? Roll call, please. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Stevenson - Yes Whitten - Yes Bucko - No Burge - Yes Carmichael - No Murphy - Yes Poparad - Yes Mr. Kopp, Five to two. Mr. Whitten, We have the additionals, $20,000 to Training & Education, and $20,000 to Hourly. I don’t believe your motion encompassed those. Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Auditor 01.02, the amounts of, $20,000 to 3130 Training & Education and $20,000 to 1120 Hourly. Mr. Murphy seconded, Mr. Whitten, Alright we have a motion and a second to approve. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Poparad, Oh, wait, wait, discussion. A lot of this money involves the TIF zones, correct? Straightening them out. Mr. Kopp, Yes. Mr. Poparad, Are the municipalities going to be more inclined to come in and talk now that we’ve gone through this, Chesterton specifically, Porter, Burns Harbor, and make sure everybody on the same page before we go through all this again? Mr. Kopp, We’ve had conversations back and forth, we’re going to send them the data, we’re going to have to generate… Mr. Poparad, Right. Mr. Kopp, And that’s going to take hours, and that’s not… Mr. Poparad, No, no, I’m saying no one is going to get blind-sided and all that. Mr. Kopp, Yes. Mr. Poparad, Okay. Mr. Kopp, I think they’re relatively happy with what they got Mr. Whitten, Wonderful. Roll call, please. Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. PORTER TOWNSHIP 01.57 Transfer $50 from 2110 Office Supplies to 2120 Office Fixtures under $100 $250 from 3630 Equipment other than Vehicles to 2120 Office Fixtures under $100 Mr. Whitten, Porter Township 01.57, we have a couple of transfers, 50-bucks from Office Supplies to Office Fixtures under $100; $250 from Equipment other than Vehicles to Office Fixtures under $100. What’s your pleasure? Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for transfer of funds submitted by Porter Township 01.57, the amounts of, $50 from 2110 Office Supplies to 2120 Office Fixtures under $100 and $250 from 3630 Equipment other than Vehicles to 2120 Office Fixtures under $100. Mr. Carmichael seconded, motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. BOONE TOWNSHIP 01.51 Transfer $100 from 1120 Hourly to 2250 Other Supplies Mr. Whitten, We have Boone Township 01.51, $100 from Hourly to Other Supplies. What’s your pleasure? Mr. Bucko moved to grant the request for transfer of funds submitted by Boone Township, the amount of, $100 from 1120 Hourly to 2250 Other Supplies. Mrs. Stevenson seconded, motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. COUNCIL 01.25 Transfer $28.61 from 2250 Other Supplies to 3120 Consultants Mr. Whitten, Council 01.25, transfer, $28.61 from Office Supplies to Consultants. What is your pleasure? Mr. Bucko moved to grant the request for transfer of funds submitted by Council 01.25, the amount of, $28.61 from 2250 Other Supplies to 3120 Consultants. Mr. Poparad seconded, motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. BZA Appointment Mr. Whitten, The next thing on the agenda, appointment to the BZA. Well, I have a letter, actually, I’ve got a couple of letters. I got an email from you saying, did I get a? Ms. Noll, I never got anything. We got a resignation letter from the current appointment. Mr. Whitten, Yes, but we don’t have a member to the BZA right now. Ms. Noll, Right. Mr. Whitten, I got a call from someone that wanted to be on the BZA, but I haven’t received a letter from him yet. I know there was some discussion or concern about getting the word out, and getting a bunch of requests. So I don’t know that we can do this right now. I hate the idea of not having a BZA appointment, that, I will tell you. So what do you want to do? The call I got was from Greg Simms. Mr. Poparad, Greg Simms, that’s the one I got, but I didn’t get a letter. Mr. Whitten, I didn’t get a letter. He wants to be on the BZA. Mr. Bucko, I don’t know too much of him. Mr. Whitten, He’s only run against four of us up here. He ran against Jim. He ran against Bill. He ran against me. But he’s a good guy. Mr. Bucko, A good guy, right. Mr. Whitten, He really is. He ran against me, I’m a Democrat. I like Greg, he’s a school teacher here locally, he’s expressed an interest of being on the BZA, but I do not have a letter. Mr. Bucko, Now I know who he is. Mr. Burge, You’re requiring a letter? Mr. Whitten, Yes. Mr. Murphy, Need a letter. Mr. Burge, Then we should wait. Mr. Whitten, Alright, you want to table that? Mr. Burge, Yes. ATTORNEY REPORT Mr. Whitten, Attorney Report. Mr. Hollenbeck, No report. Mr. Whitten, Great. LIAISON REPORTS Mr. Whitten, Liaison Reports, we have none tonight. Second reading, please. SECOND READING Mr. Bucko moved to approve Second Reading. Mr. Murphy seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Whitten, This meeting stands adjourned, we’ll see you over at the dance at the Opera House. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. PORTER COUNTY COUNCIL PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA Michael Bucko Jim Burge William Carmichael Matthew Murphy Robert Poparad Rita Stevenson Dan Whitten Attest: James Kopp, Auditor |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
April 24, 2007