 |
PORTER COUNTY COUNCIL June 26, 2007 The Porter County Council met on June 26, 2007 at 6:30 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, Lindy Wilson, and Patti Gibson. President Whitten called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance. FIRST READING At this time, Mrs. Wilson read the Notice to Taxpayers. A & A MANUFACTURING Compliance with Statement of Benefits Mr. Whitten, The next thing on the agenda is the A & A Manufacturing, Compliance with Statement of Benefits. Chris Metrusias, Good evening everybody. My name is Chris Metrusias, I am the controller with A & A Manufacturing Company. We are here to seek the annual approval of our compliance, excuse me, statement of compliance with benefits. We go by the legal name of A & A Manufacturing, but for the Council our trade name would be Gortrac. We are a manufacturer located in Valparaiso. We are very pleased to report, and I’ll refer the Council to our employment table that was submitted with our annual filing this year. I’m very pleased to be able to report that our employment table reflects that we are, have exceeded actually, our anticipated original projections for employment increases. We are currently at 107 employees. If we go back and look at the original application for the tax abatement, our baseline was 50, and our anticipated gain was 12. We are very pleased to report that we’ve added 57 employees since that time period, well in excess of the 12 we anticipated. I’m also pleased to report that on that same employment table, that 50 of those individuals represent Porter County residents. So from our perspective we’re very please. We’ve seen strong business over the past year, about a 12% growth in our sales. It’s about the fourth year in a row we’ve seen double-digit growth in our business. Obviously, we’d like to be able to report these types of things every year. But to give you some idea, we do anticipate at this point, at least see that our business levels do remain strong, maybe not the double-digit growth, but we expect to be in a similar position next year. So with that said, I would respectfully ask that the Council approve our compliance statement for an additional year. Mr. Whitten, What’s your pleasure? Mr. Poparad moved to approve A & A Manufacturing’s Compliance with Statement of Benefits as submitted. Mr. Burge seconded. Mr. Whitten, We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Poparad, How many years are left on this? Mr. Metrusias, How many years left? Mr. Poparad, Yes. Mr. Metrusias, I believe this is year six, so there will be four more additional years. We originally had a real property abatement, and a personal property. The personal property expired last year. So this year we seek only the real property abatement approval. Mr. Whitten, Sounds like you guys have been doing some pretty good stuff there. Congratulations, that’s great. Mr. Bucko, Is there potential for expansion or do you see expansion in the future where you are at or somewhere else in the county, coming back to us for additional considerations? Mr. Metrusias, We absolutely think that it’s possible. We are at the point in the current facility where if we do seek additional growth or obtain growth through acquisition, we would be in a position where we would have to seek potentially some additional space. We recently acquired some land adjacent to our Valparaiso property that does afford the opportunity if we do want to expand our facility. We have, now the land in order to do that. So it’s certainly on our mind as a possibility. Mr. Bucko, Thank you. Mr. Whitten, Any other questions? Comments? There’s been a motion and a second. Can I get roll call, please. Mrs. Wilson, Certainly. Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Metrusias, Thank you very much. Mr. Whitten, Thank you very much for coming. Mr. Murphy, Thank you. SUPERIOR COURT 1 - 01.82 Additional Appropriation $100 to 3720 Software Mr. Whitten, The next thing on the agenda is Porter Superior Court 1, it’s an additional $100 to Software. Judge Bradford did contact me, and asked if he could be excused from coming, since it’s such a small number. Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Superior Court 1 - 01.82, the amount of $100 to 3720 Software. Mr. Poparad seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. SUPERIOR COURT 2 - 213 Additional Appropriation $20,000 to 3110 Legal Mr. Whitten, Superior Court 2 - 01.83 or 213, an additional 20,000 to Legal. Judge Alexa. Judge Bill Alexa, We are asking for the additional appropriation to cover a bill that we had to pay that we didn’t anticipate coming up. Let me begin by saying in account 01.83, we originally started with a $25,000 balance. In that account, as of May 31st, there’s $343.83. With outstanding warrants against that or claims against that of $2,677, which is not there. The reason that account is depleted was because in February of this year, we received a bill from the Indiana State Public Defender for $16,203.10. That was related to the appeals, the murder, a person convicted of murder, by the name of Christopher Matson. That happened before my tenure here, Judge Webber was here. That particular point, after the conviction, he wanted to appeal it, and it became some type of a conflict between our Porter County public defender’s office who was supposed to handle the appeal, and the defendant. The upshot was that the appellate court ordered the Porter County public defender off the case, and the put the state public defender on. The state public defender doesn’t normally do that kind of direct appeal work. They can, but they have to be paid for it. So at the time that this was done, we signed an agreement that they would be paid. The state public defender took the appeal from the superior court here to the appellate; it was affirmed. They then took it on transfer to the state supreme court; it was affirmed. Then they took it on certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, and that was denied. They sent the bill in February for $16,203. I went through the bill, and the amount of time that they spent there, in my view, was reasonable, and their billing rate is $50 per hour. So we paid that. That came out of that account that had a balance of $16,000, and there was just no way we could not pay that at that point. Now, there’s another fund here. I think I sent the information out to you folks. Whenever we have a case with a public defender appointed, and the defendant has some funds, we’ll order that they pay something toward the public defender’s fees. That account had a balance as of mid-May of about $77,000. I suspect that you probably could transfer out of that. The account was established by the county commissioners under an ordinance, and I think, reading the ordinance, that this would fit under that type of an appropriation. I can tell you that in, from January 1 of ’06 to December 31 of ’06 that fund received 20,000-some odd dollars from the courts in reimbursement to the public defender. That’s basically what my pitch is. I’ve asked for more than the $16,000, because we have had some additional expenses this year that were not anticipated. I have three rape cases up there, two of which are public defender cases, and they have requested DNA analysis of some of the evidence, and we had to grant that, and that’s $1,500 for one case and 15 for another. So that’s the reason for going above the 16,000. Mr. Whitten, If a case finds itself, I’m just curious, but if a case finds itself into the federal court for whatever reason, constitutionally or whatever, do the federal public defenders get assigned then, if the public defender is? Judge Alexa, If it, if it goes on appeal to the federal court, yes, the federal court would make that appointment. Then it would be federal, not us. Mr. Whitten, So we wouldn’t be paying back then? Judge Alexa, We wouldn’t, we would not. Just as, a little aside, when this Matson case went all the way through the court system on appeal, that exhausted the appellate practice, and he then has a right to go on post conviction relief, which he is now a five, and of course, the state public defender is the one who is charged with prosecuting that, and we don’t pay for it. The problem is that his appeal on PCR is to incompetent the appellate counsel, who actually is the attorney general. So they can’t represent him. They’re going to have to hire outside people to do it. And I talked with them, and I said, you don’t think we’re paying for that, do you? They said, no, they would pick that up out of their budget, so we’ll be alright there. Mr. Whitten, What’s your pleasure with this request? Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Superior Court 2, the amount of $20,000 from the Public Defender 213 to 3110 Legal. Mrs. Stevenson seconded. Mr. Whitten, We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mrs. Stevenson, I had spoke with Judge Alexa on this, so I’m for this. Mr. Whitten, Good. Any other comments or questions? Can I get a roll call, please? Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Whitten, Thank you, Judge. Judge Alexa, Thank you very much. SURVEYOR PERPETUATION 57 Additional Appropriation $1,000 to 1210 FICA Mr. Whitten, Surveyor Perpetuation 57, we have an additional 1,000 to FICA. Mr. Surveyor. Kevin Breitzke, Mr. Chairman, for part-time help for section corner perpetuation program, in fact for many, our part-time budget I need to cover the FICA, as well as pay the salaries out of this, and this is what I’m asking for. Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Surveyor Perpetuation 57, the amount of $1,000 to 1210 FICA. Mr. Murphy seconded. Mr. Whitten, We have a second. Discussion? Mr. Poparad, How much do you have in part-time? Mr. Breitzke, I think 14,000. I’d have to verify that. Mr. Poparad, Oh, you can’t use this… Mr. Breitzke, No, I’m just about done with the part-time. Mr. Poparad, You have no part-time money left? Mr. Breitzke, I’m almost out of part-time money. How much exactly do I have in part-time? Mrs. Wilson, We can’t get the computer up, so I can’t tell you. Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Poparad, I can verify that for you at a later date. Mr. Poparad, How much is in the perpetuation fund? Mr. Breitzke, More than enough to cover this. Mr. Poparad, How much do you have in the perpetuation fund? Mr. Breitzke, It’s about $35,000. Mr. Poparad, I’m just wondering why he can’t, couldn’t cover the FICA out of his part-time pay. Mr. Breitzke, Well we’re going to start paying out of the perpetuation fund, and I need to cover FICA as well. Mr. Whitten, Does that answer your question, Bob? Mr. Poparad, I guess. Mr. Whitten, Any other questions? Comments? How about a roll call. Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Whitten, Thank you. CONVENTION, RECREATION & VISITORS COMMISSION 93 Additional Appropriation $1,500 to 1241 Longevity Mr. Whitten, Convention, Recreation & Visitors 93, an additional 1,500 to Longevity. Longevity payment for two employees for full year. Lorelei Weimer, We knew the Council was going to address the longevity for county employees, so we put a request in, and this would be coming out of our budget, not out of the general fund. Mr. Whitten, What’s your pleasure? Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Convention, Recreation & Visitors Commission 92, the amount of $1,500 to 1241 Longevity. Mrs. Stevenson seconded. Mr. Whitten, Questions? Discussion? Comments? Mr. Poparad, Did we not budget for the two people? Ms. Weimer, We don’t put it in if the Council doesn’t for your budget, so we follow suit with the County. So we leave it blank, then if you do add it to the current, then we follow suit with what you are doing. Mr. Whitten, Any others, Bob? Roll call, please. Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Whitten, Thank you very much; have a good evening. COMMISSIONERS 01.30 Transfer $450 from 3970 Memorial Day Expenses to 3977 Appraisers Mr. Whitten, Commissioners 01.30, transfer $450 from Memorial Day Expenses to Appraisers. What is your pleasure with this one? Com. Bob Harper, That’s on the appraisal on the property for the highway garage. Mr. Whitten, Any motions? Mr. Murphy moved to grant the request for transfer of funds submitted by Commissioners 01.30, the amount of $450 from 3970 Memorial Day Expenses to 3977 Appraisers. Mr. Poparad seconded, motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Whitten, The transfer is approved. COMMISSIONERS 233 Additional Appropriation $80,000 to 4540 Other Equipment Mr. Whitten, Commissioners 233, additional $80,000 to Other Equipment. You’re going to install some digital cameras--so they can videotape the escape. Com. Harper, This came out of, arose out of meetings, a main meeting that was held with the federal marshals, the sheriff, the county attorney, members of the jail, and myself. As you know, we have, we are holding prisoners for both the federal and the state, and the staff at the jail is getting asked questions, and has some amount of accountability to both of those places, because they are holding prisoners for them. Mr. Whitten, What sort of questions are they being asked? Com. Harper, Questions on treatment of prisoners, things like that. How long prisoners stay in holding when they come back from federal court, and different things. Virtually, everything in the jail is covered by cameras, except for the inside of the cells. So all the passageways and everything, but the setup now is not a type, but they can save the film, and most of it is reused after a week or so. And I think it’s absolutely, totally necessary for the protection of the County, and for the protection of the people in the jail. By the way, also in that meeting with us, were the lawyers that represented the liability insurance carriers for the County, and especially one lawyer who is an expert in this area. And this is a step that I think is absolutely needed to protect the County, and protect the staff at the jail. It is, it’s out of the prisoner fund, 233 is the prisoner fund, so it’s money, so that’s, that is the purpose of this request. Mr. Whitten, What’s your pleasure? Mrs. Stevenson, How much is in the fund? Com. Harper, Well, I have to ask them exactly how much is in the fund. Melissa, you’ve got an idea though, right? Melissa Hartig, I want to say roughly 600. Com. Harper, We pay utilities regularly out of that fund, but we’ve run it out, and Melissa is convinced we have enough to pay the utilities, keep paying the utilities for the rest of the year, and also take this out. Correct? Ms. Hartig, We may need a little bit… Mr. Poparad, Is this the cameras and installation, Bob? Com. Harper, Pardon me? Mr. Poparad, Is this camera and installation, everything? Com. Harper, Yes. Mr. Whitten, So you have enough to pay for this, and throughout the year with the utilities? Com. Harper, Yes. Mr. Whitten, Otherwise it would be… Com. Harper, We may have to come in for an additional, but the money will be there. We may have to come back for a small additional on the utilities, but the money will be there. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Burge, Since it’s digital, they’ll save everything electronically. Com. Harper, Right. Yes. Mr. Burge, Forever, and ever, if anything happened. Com. Harper, Yes, we just cannot be… Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Commissioners 233, the amount of $80,000 to 4540 Other Equipment. Mr. Whitten, We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Bucko seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. CEDIT #19 - 318.30 - Request Denied $100,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project #19 CEDIT #20 - 319.30 - Request Denied $250,000 to 0001 CEDIT Project #20 Mr. Whitten, CEDIT #19, 318.30, $100,000 to CEDIT Project #19. This is the, is this the corridor study part, Bob? Com. Harper, No, it’s not. Bob. I’m going to ask Bob to explain it, if he will. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Bob Thompson, We just recently had the Unified Development Ordinance approved, and in Chapter 8 it refers to a number of developmental standards on this. And we have been referring to 90-3, which is the engineering standard, and it’s, as I said, 90-3, so it’s about 17 years old. What we are looking at is actually developing engineering standards for a number of different things that we do not have, such as lighting standards, or it could be parking lot standards that we. Plus, looking at the actual road standards and the engineering standards. It’s updating this and then going along with our Chapter 8 within the Unified Development Ordinance. Mr. Whitten, What happens if we don’t do this? Mr. Thompson, Like right now we do not have any standards whatsoever for private roads, period. Com. Harper, Let me answer that a little bigger than that, okay? Mr. Whitten, Yes. Com. Harper, Because I think the answer is bigger than that, you know. One thing that got me started on this, and if everybody can visualize this, it’s my thought that started concerning me a long time ago, is driving. I drive up 250 to what I call the Old Hobart Road, and I turn left on the Old Hobart Road to 149, north to my office, you know. And then a lot of times, and I used to live out on Long Lake, and I would go down Highway 6, all the way down Highway 6 to Meridian and down. And if you think of either of those two stretches of road, if you think of the road to Hobart, okay, and you visualize what happened there, on the corner of 250 and that road we put in a subdivision. Then all of a sudden, right next door to that subdivision was a, the Crazy D’s, which is a rather large gas station. Then the next thing I saw happening, and this didn’t happen 30 years ago, this happened seven years ago, is an outdoor semi storage that went next to that Crazy D’s. And my mind is, what’ I’m seeing, what I think I’m seeing is the development here of a type of street that you might see down in Whiting, you know, years ago, with this and that, and residential, and it’s just uncontrolled on a plan. Okay? Mr. Whitten, I don’t see, what’s the, you’re talking about spot zoning and… Com. Harper, Well, I’m talking about… Mr. Whitten, But we’re talking about roads. Com. Harper, Okay, but we’re talking about, I’m sorry, Dan, to get off of this… Mr. Whitten, That’s okay. Com. Harper, But I’m talking about this and the next one. So we, we’re trying to get a handle on zoning and planning in the county, and not to, make sure that we don’t have to read, that somebody 30 years from now is just sitting around trying redo what’s going on right now. And that’s one of the things with this. Okay? Mr. Whitten, Well I understand. Okay, I understand that, and I don’t want, everybody else can speak for themselves. I understand the notion of planning, because we’ve had this discussion many times in many meetings that you have to have long-term planning for this county. We’re moving in different directions. We have to know which direction we’re going in, and be ready for it, and I think you have two separate issues here. One is the corridor study. Com. Harper, Yes. Mr. Whitten, And the other one is this $100,000 for the Section 8 of the private road, you know, standards. So I want to make sure that we understand that these are two, two separate things that are… Mr. Thompson, I’ll go back, and I’ll go to the example, Com. Harper gave as far as that gas station and the residential and everything like that. Right now, within the Unified Development Ordinance, we did write standards where there can only be so much bleed over of light into a residential area or into other commercial or industrial areas. What we do not have though is the standard for the type of light that we want… Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Thompson, On that. I mean do we want a recessed type light that only angles the light down in a certain area. We don’t have anything for that. So if somebody comes in, they’ll see that, you know, okay, I can only bleed over one blocks of light for my commercial into the residential area, but what kind of light can I put in. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Thompson, So that’s one item. We do talk about certain areas for having street lighting, intersections within subdivisions. Here again, we do not have a standard for the type of lighting that we want for that. I mean, a nice subdivision, do we want a wooden pole with a light coming off of it or do we want something that would… Mr. Whitten, A lantern with a… Mr. Thompson, Be decent. Yes. I mentioned private roads. We don’t have anything as far as private road standards, as far as the depth of the stone that needs to be there; the depth of asphalt, curbs or anything; the width. We’re working towards that, but now we need the actual engineering standard for that. I mean this is going to be prescribed engineering standards, ten inches of stone, two inches of binder asphalt with an inch of surface, with a roll-back curb or whatnot. The engineering department has already sent me a number of items that they would like to include in it. What this is also going to include is pulling out, like the highway supervisor, Al Hoagland, some of his equipment, and probably some of the local fire departments, and actually figuring out what’s the turning radius of some of these vehicles so that way we can prescribed the turning radius within a subdivision. So that’s what I’m looking for with the standard here. Mr. Whitten, Rita. Mrs. Stevenson, This is with Project 19, correct? The $100,000. Mr. Thompson, Correct. Mrs. Stevenson, Okay. Is it going to take the 100,000? Mr. Thompson, I don’t know. Mrs. Stevenson, And who are we going with? Mr. Thompson, I don’t know, I have to write up the RFQ, and submit an RFQ out, and start soliciting for that. Mrs. Stevenson, Is there more than DLZ? Is there different? Mr. Thompson, There’s a number of different firms, yes. Mrs. Stevenson, Okay, because it seems like DLZ gets a lot of our business. Can we move it around? Mr. Thompson, We can… Mrs. Stevenson, And get, and get a good study. Com. Harper, When we… Mr. Thompson, Sure. Com. Harper, When we did the zoning plan that we just passed, we started out with like 17 possible people, right, and then we narrowed it down to six… Mr. Thompson, We sent out a number of… Com. Harper, You know, when we sent out RFQ’s. Mrs. Stevenson, Okay. Com. Harper, So we, you know, so there’s a whole big, you know, we had people from all over the state… Mr. Whitten, So they were selected through the bidding. Com. Harper, Pardon? Mr. Thompson, We actually… Com. Harper, Yes. Mr. Thompson, Six coming with RFQ’s. They interviewed all six, and of the six, they selected three, and went further, and then asked these three to submit an RFP to actually start… Com. Harper, We spent a couple nights just interviewing people. Mrs. Stevenson, As long as we do it that way it sounds fair. Mr. Whitten, Bill. Mr. Carmichael, You know, even though you would pass something, it would only apply to any new applications. You can’t change anything that currently exists. Mr. Thompson, Correct. Mr. Carmichael, You can’t take it away from people or put additional requirements on them. The county commissioners have the final say on rezoning when it comes up before them. Mr. Thompson, Correct. Mr. Carmichael, The plan commission is just advisory. Mr. Thompson, Correct. Mr. Carmichael, Why can’t our highway engineer and our plan commission advise the commissioners as to what they shall require in order for the rezoning to go through? What’s wrong with that? We have a highway engineer. We hired you and a whole staff up there to implement the plan commission. Mr. Thompson, This isn’t dealing with recommendations for rezonings. This is dealing with actual engineering standards for the developments that would be applying. Mr. Whitten, This is the criteria they would have to meet. Is that what you are talking about? Mr. Thompson, Correct. Mr. Whitten, It’s going to be a written criteria that they have going into this. Mr. Thompson, If somebody comes in with a subdivision plat or another situation, a development plan, or an actual commercial or industrial development, then this would be the engineering standards that they must follow to develop their site, as far as parking, lighting, roads that could go into it. Mr. Bucko, It can be several things, even more than that. It could probably even pertain to--what do I want to say--screenings. You can go on and on with a lot of this. I mean you really can build on this, your plan commission wherever you want to take it. I mean this makes all the sense in the world. If it’s down there, and if it’s in writing, and it’s the ordinance that’s part of the County’s, and somebody just wants to go off on a whim and change it, then there can be repercussions whether it’s a new commissioner or an old commissioner, a new planning commission director or whatever. You just can’t go and do things. You’ve got a defined process. Mr. Thompson, Correct. I guess buffering, you bring that up, and I will tell you, we’ve tried to do a buffering and landscaping manual, and we’re still working on that. We’ve been working on that for over a year, and we’re still not done with it. It’s just trying to find the time, you know, to do something like that. So that’s why we’re in here requesting the money to be able to go get consulting, so that way we can get it done. Mr. Whitten, Bill, did you have another question? Mr. Carmichael, Sure, not a question. But I would rather you get an RFP, and get proposals before us, according to our rules and recommendations which say anything over 75,000 needs three proposals. I believe that’s correct. Is that right? Com. Harper, Well we do that. We will have, we’ll probably have six. Mr. Carmichael, Before you ask for the appropriation. I want to see it in writing. Mr. Thompson, Okay, a lot of consultants won’t bother unless they know that there’s money in the bank. Mr. Carmichael, Well… Mr. Thompson, Then the question is… Mr. Carmichael, They don’t want the work. Mr. Murphy, They don’t want to do business with Porter County. Mr. Bucko, Would you do that if you were building a $3,000,000 building? I don’t know that. I mean unless, I understand what you are saying, and I think there are some areas where that actually applies, but in reference to this application, uh huh. How can you… Com. Harper, I have no problem… Mr. Bucko, And I would go out and write a request for qualifications first, get all that information back in, then write an RFP for a proposal, and pick those people that would be added to proposal. Then you could write it in there saying that there’s x-amount of money available. Mr. Thompson, Well, if you want I will not mention any kind of money amounts to the consultants. But the first question they are going to ask is, do you have the money, and if I don’t, I’m going to have, you know, if it’s not appropriated, I’m going to have to tell them no. Mr. Carmichael, If you tell them you’ve got 100,000, you know what the proposal is going to be. Mr. Murphy, 99. Mr. Thompson, That’s why, that’s what I was… Mr. Carmichael, No, 100,000. Com. Harper, Well, Bill, let me tell you this, okay. Mr. Thompson, I will not mention any amounts. Com. Harper, We had 200,000 for ground rules, and their proposal was 90, I think. That’s what it was for. Let me say another thing, just my comment looking from the outside in on this. Mr. Whitten, You’re on the inside, Bob. Com. Harper, You know, if there’s anything where time is important, it’s moving on zoning issues. You know, it took us three years to get that master plan done. And it was three years of a fight to get it through. I mean these things just don’t happen overnight, and we have one of the fastest growing counties in this state. What we are doing right now is going to affect the way people live here for years--I’ve just got to tell you that--and, you know, the wheels of government turn slow any way you turn it, you know, and I saw it getting this new zoning ordinance through, because it was something else. So, you know, what, whichever way we go on this, trust me, there’s going to be five new subdivisions or six built before this is ever in place or maybe 20, you know, even if we start moving tonight. Now that’s just the way it is. That’s what we’re dealing with. Mr. Whitten, Okay. If we were to approve this money, when would you start with the process. I mean, when would you start sending out your RFQ? Mr. Thompson, Still have to develop the RFQ. I mean the RFQ, I would have to run past the county commissioners as far as whether or not they feel it’s sufficient, and I get their approval to let it out. Plus, with the number of firms, I’m going to try to research a number of firms… Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Thompson, Get it in, so I mean we have a good selection. Mr. Whitten, So what are you thinking? Mr. Thompson, I could probably have, could be looking at interviews with possible companies in September. Mr. Whitten, Well I certainly agree with you, Commissioner, that things don’t necessarily move very fast, and zoning and planning is probably the most important thing facing us right now, other than maybe this issue with the fight on drugs, and we have to be ready. Mr. Murphy, I guess my only question is, is this how the County conducts business? They come out, they get an appropriation from the Council, and we sort of tell everybody, because this is a public entity, how much money we are putting out there, aren’t we kind of showing them the play book? I mean I don’t know. Com. Harper, Well here’s what happens, Matt. Mr. Whitten, Then it’s competitive… Com. Harper, Here’s what happens, we got… Mr. Whitten, It’s competitive, excuse me. Mr. Commissioner. It’s competitive bidding, so I think that, you know, whether we have 100,000 or 200,000 they are not going to come in and say, 99,000 just because there’s 100,000 in the till, knowing that they are not the only game in town. I think the market will mandate that. That’s, at least been my exposure to, or my experience to this RFP process. But go ahead, I’m sorry. Any other questions or comments? Let’s take these one at a time, obviously. So let’s look at the $100,000 for CEDIT #19. Mr. Poparad, Can I ask a question? Mr. Whitten, You certainly may. Mr. Poparad, Is this coming from unallocated CEDIT? Com. Harper, Yes. Mr. Poparad, How much we got in there, round numbers? Mr. Whitten, You got the computer up working now? Liz Bailey, Uh huh. Mr. Whitten, No? Oh my God, this is embarrassing. Ms. Bailey, It’s just… Mr. Poparad, Round it to the nearest. Mr. Whitten, We have no idea what we’ve got in the funds. Com. Harper, One point two, I was just telling him. Melissa, what’s the fund number? Ms. Hartig, 308. Ms. Bailey, That’s what I have, it’s 2,016,000. Com. Harper, Yes, it probably just got some added to it. Mr. Whitten, Well. Okay, any other questions? Mr. Burge, Yes, just one. When you were calculating this or coming up with the idea of 100,000, basically, all that funding is just for man-hours for these firms to research and give you the written documents. Or are there other costs that breakdown under that 100,000? Mr. Thompson, I’d like to give them, I mean I’m sure they will give me an hourly rate on something like that, but I mean in the end with an RFP, I would like to give them, have them give me a number that, a shall not exceed number. With an hourly rate exceeding over that would have to be approved by the commissioners. Mr. Burge, I mean are they giving you, to come up with 100,000 they must have given you some kind of a ballpark, is that how you derived the 100,000? A number they couldn’t be held to, but just for ballpark reasons, is that how we come up to the 100,000 initially? Mr. Thompson, I didn’t ask anybody for, any kind of consultant to give me an idea on that price, just to be able to give that out, I didn’t want to do that. We’ve had small engineering studies done on subdivisions, and we’re looking at one that’s about $15,000, just for one subdivision and everything, so. It costs us roughly $100,000 to do the Unified Development Ordinance. Here again, that was a firm that we did through the RFP process, and it was the lowest bid price. So I mean, that’s kind of what I was going by. Mr. Burge, I guess overall, the development standards, I don’t have a problem with. I kind of agree with, I think, with Matt a little bit that it, I’d rather see some sort of proposal or quote, and then, you know, fund, you know, what it is we are going to end up with. If you needed something in your quiver to show them that we are serious so they don’t not quote it because they don’t think it’s funded, perhaps Dan could draft a letter from the Council saying, you know, we’re in favor of developing these standards, as soon as we know what the price tag is we will fund what the approved amount is. Something to that effect might be an alternative. Mr. Bucko, I guess the option is too, that if they all bid 99.999, you throw it out. You know, you can always look at the thing and say, nah, I don’t like this they’re all pushing right at the envelope, $100,000, throw it out. Re-bid it, and come back with something that’s reasonable. Com. Harper, That’s a, well, what happened on the planning thing is they were all over the place. I think there was $70,000 difference between the high and the low when they got done with the planning thing, when they, you know. Mr. Whitten, Well if a consulting firm wanted to know what you had in mind, they need merely to look at the minutes now. Mr. Thompson, True. Mr. Whitten, The cat is sort of out of the bag, but… Mrs. Stevenson, Being on the plan commission, I want to ask you this. As far as getting the information, standards and everything, is it going to be repeats like we had, like with IDEM? All we got was a lot, with the one study, all we got was a lot of repeated pages from rules, laws from IDEM. Are we going to get duplicates of a lot of that stuff that we can get off the internet ourselves? Or is this all going to be actuality of what, what we have to have in place for the subdivisions. Mr. Thompson, It’s going to be what we want. Mrs. Stevenson, It’s not going to be repeats? You know what I’m talking about. Mr. Thompson, No. Mrs. Stevenson, Okay, so it’s not going to be repeats like that. It’s going to be actual, you know, like the light posts. Mr. Thompson, It’s going to be what we want, and what we need. Mrs. Stevenson, Okay. Dimensions, stuff like that? Mr. Thompson, Correct, correct. To give you an idea about fire, there’s a building and fire standards, and they do have some areas and roadways as far as that goes, but some of your local fire departments don’t even agree with those widths. They think they’re too narrow. So it’s, yes, I had a meeting with some people. No, it’s not going to be, it’s going to be what we need. Com. Harper, Dan, let me just say this, you know. Mr. Whitten, Yes. Com. Harper, And I will back away from it, I’ll do whatever the Council’s desire is. But I just have to tell you that the issue of planning and zoning in Porter County is still in a crisis state, in my opinion. We are still on a daily basis repeating mistakes that we are going to pay for in the future, and the faster we plug some of these holes, the better off we’re going to be, and that’s just it. You know, we’re not dealing today with mistakes, we’re dealing with mistakes made three years ago. Okay? Mr. Whitten, Right. Com. Harper, We are repeating ourselves, because Porter County has not invested in planning and zoning. They have not done it, you know. Mr. Whitten, I would agree with that. Com. Harper, They, and it’s just, I think in my opinion, you know, another example I think of, Central Avenue is Portage, okay, you know where they made, you know, where they decided they were going to have a sign ordinance, and they were going to have certain types of signs and different things, and, you know, not requiring anybody to change that’s already there, just requiring the new people that come in, you know, and you’re surprised at how quickly things changed, you know, and how quickly a whole street can change when you get things into place, so… Mr. Whitten, Yes, but if you wait too long it looks like spot zoning. Then you’ve got, you start creating ordinances that say, only externally illuminated signs, when there are 500 internally illuminated signs, and it just starts to defeat the entire purpose. Com. Harper, I know, and we still have, you know most of the County, although it’s the fastest growing county--one of the fastest growing counties in the state--most of it is still not developed. But if we don’t get on top of it, if we don’t get on top of it, and Bill, you mentioned what people do in the plan commission office, you know we, everyday I get calls, abandoned homes, junk cars, this, that, and the other. I drove down Highway 6 the other day, and I looked, because I just know we don’t have the staff to take care of it. I saw like seven new painted signs, they have painted 4 by 8 signs that have gone up, and I think what are we doing. We gotta get on top of this. I think we’ve got to get on top of it. When you see the money that Valpo is investing in trying to undo some of what’s been in the past to make it look decent, well let’s, I think we need to get going. I mean nobody is trying to… Mr. Whitten, I don’t think any… Com. Harper, Misuse money. Mr. Whitten, Bob, I don’t think anybody, anybody would are argue with your vision and your passion here. Matter of fact, I understand what you are saying, because I’ve been saying it for years, but, I mean the proposal is in front of us. What is your pleasure? Mr. Murphy, I would echo again with Jim. I support this endeavor, I think this is a worthy project, and I’m 100% behind it. I just have a problem with the methodology. I would ask that we put the bids out, get a feel for what we are looking at, and if we have to draft a letter saying, you know, you have my commitment, I’ll tell you this right now in public that I support this, I just don’t know if I like, and in talking with Dave, this isn’t how it’s normally done anyway. I mean it’s sort of out of the realm of… Mr. Hollenbeck, Bill made the point, and I don’t have it here, but we do have a written policy… Mr. Carmichael, That’s right. Mr. Hollenbeck, Concerning how this process is supposed to go forward. Mr. Murphy, So I guess I would say I’m going to vote no, but I would ask you to, you know, go forward with the, putting the proposals… Mr. Whitten, We don’t have a motion, so are you going to couch that in a form of a motion? Mr. Murphy moved to deny the request for additional appropriations submitted by CEDIT Project #19, with a letter to be drafted by President Whitten stating that the Council supports the use of CEDIT funds for Project 19, but requires that request for proposals (RFP) and request for quotes (RFQ) be submitted per the County’s policy. Mr. Whitten, We have a motion and a second. Mr. Bucko, I have one more question. That’s for an RFP. I mean so you go out for qualifications, and then you get an idea, is that going to help? Because I understand the situation here. I mean, you know… Mr. Thompson, I’m still going to go out for… Mr. Bucko, It’s backwards. Mr. Thompson, The RFQ’s. Mr. Bucko, You know a lot of this is because we have never done it. We don’t really know how to do it, and that’s the problem. Mr. Whitten, Is this going to delay you? Is this going to delay you doing it this way? Or will it limit the pool that you think you’re going to pull from? Or neither? Mr. Thompson, It could. It could. Mr. Whitten, Well… Mr. Thompson, Because like I said, there are going to be consultants that realize that there’s no money in the bank, they’re not going to come visit. But if the Council is willing to show a letter saying that they are willing to support this, and I can show that in that situation, I’ll go ahead and go do the RFQ’s, and then make a selection down to three, and then do the RFP’s with the three, and ask them to actually give us a written quote. Mr. Whitten, Great. Mr. Poparad, Can I make a comment? Mr. Whitten, Sure. Mr. Poparad, Let me throw this out to make, because I’ve been silent here to keep everybody happy. Mr. Whitten, Uncharacteristically, go ahead. Mr. Poparad, You pay for it with your own money, and we’ll use EDIT money to replace your plan commission money. That way it doesn’t stop you from moving forward. You’ve got $508,000 sitting there. Hopefully, you’re not going to spent it all between now and the next few months You’ll move forward, and then when the price tag comes in we’ll replace it with EDIT money. That doesn’t stop you, and that keeps everybody happy on what you’re doing. Mr. Carmichael, Bob, is this related to the 600,000 we owe the jail in the 217 fund? Mr. Poparad, No. Mr. Carmichael, We owe them 600,000. We promised to pay them back, we never did. Mr. Poparad, I know. Mr. Carmichael, It’s the same deal. Mr. Whitten, We promise we’re going to pay you back. Mr. Poparad, I’m just throwing it out for discussion. Mr. Thompson, And that’s a possibility, and I will give consideration to that. I mean one of the things that always is, by the time we select with an RFP, and by the time we get contracts and everything like that going, I can probably be back in front showing a contract with the actual amount that’s needed, and that way I can… Mr. Whitten, So you would rather just keep it. Mr. Thompson, Get council approval at the same time. Mr. Whitten, Right. Mr. Thompson, Because… Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Burge, Because the earlier discussion as far as the delay, wouldn’t it really be a maximum of a 30-day delay? That’s if you got the number the day after a council meeting, you’d have to wait 30 days before you got it approved, realistically. Mr. Thompson, I think it would be a minor delay. Mr. Burge, Worst-case. Mr. Whitten, Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Poparad, The motion is to disapprove it? Mr. Whitten, I think the motion is to deny the requests, but to have me write a letter indicating our support of the project, and we have a second. Roll call, please. A yes is to deny, by the way. Mr. Carmichael, What now? Mr. Whitten, If you vote yes, it’s to tell them no. If you vote no, you tell them yes. Mr. Murphy, Yes means no. Mr. Bucko, Okay, then I will vote yes. I won’t vote… Mr. Whitten, To deny. Mr. Bucko, I’m voting no against the motion. Mr. Whitten, Okay, you’re voting no. Mr. Bucko, Yes. Mr. Whitten, Mr. Bucko votes no. Mr. Bucko, A no vote is a yes vote to not deny. Mr. Whitten, Okay, go on. Motion to deny CEDIT Project #19 carried on the following roll call vote: Bucko - No Burge - Yes Carmichael - Yes Murphy - Yes Poparad - No Stevenson - Yes Whitten - No Mrs. Wilson, Four to three, it’s denied. Mr. Whitten, Denied. CEDIT #20, 319.30, an additional $250,000 to CEDIT Project 20. This must be the corridor study. Com. Harper, This is the corridor study. Mr. Whitten, Okay, where is it; all this crap. Mr. Murphy, You got to be the president… Mr. Whitten, It’s good to be the king. Mr. Poparad, I get the stuff in black and white, and they get the color. Mr. Whitten, Just me, just me. Mr. Carmichael, All the minutes. Mr. Murphy, It’s because I voted no; because of my motion. Mr. Bucko, I don’t think so; when has this ever been discussed in this county. Mr. Whitten, Okay, this… Mr. Thompson, The corridor study, I guess to explain it simply is, it’s looking at a, and most people related to the transportation system, land use along transportation does not necessarily have to with the motor vehicle transportation system. It could be, I mean, a linear pathway or something. But the one thing I am looking at is mainly a longer transportation system such as US 30, and I’m going to give the example of that, because many times we have people come in for rezonings along US 30. And you always hear the comment, well we don’t want to look like our neighbor to the west along US 30, with all the commercial… Mr. Whitten, That’s the “L” word. Mr. Thompson, Okay. I didn’t want to come out and mention that, but I have to. And I hear that all the time, we don’t want to look like this. You know, we want to have some green area here or we want to have some separation between the Merrillville and Hobart area coming into Valparaiso. We hear that a lot. You know, we hear that from the plan commission members; we hear that from the commissioners. We also hear, what do we want, and that is the biggest question, I guess. Does anybody have an ideal of what they really want along that corridor? Mr. Carmichael, Sure. Mr. Thompson, That’s the whole, okay. Mr. Carmichael, You want an idea? Route 30, all frontage roads as it has been since back in the days when I was county commissioner. We never allowed anything on Route 30 except if it was put in on a frontage road. Mr. Thompson, Frontage roads don’t exactly work that well. That’s why a number of them are starting to go with roads that are 300 feet further back. Mr. Carmichael, What do you mean they don’t work that well? Mr. Thompson, They don’t work that well. All you have to do is look at the stacking problem in the city of Valparaiso along the hotels and Wal*Mart. Those are frontage roads. Mr. Whitten, Is the point of this study to sort of get out the different ideas and thoughts, and give us a… Mr. Thompson, Where do we want commercial; where do we want industrial; or do we not want that? It could also get involved in with intersections. Are there intersections that we could be looking at improving. It gets into engineering, and it also gets into planning situations. It could be looking at buffers. It could be looking at the signage that we have going on. It’s further getting into the standards that we would like to see set along these corridors, and how we want to visualize, and how we want to see Porter County grow, and how we want to see, have people see it as they enter into Porter County. Mr. Whitten, Who gets the 250,000? Where does that go? You’re hiring all these consultants, is that what’s happening. Mr. Thompson, There again, we’re looking at an RFQ and an RFP type process. Mr. Whitten, And to probably address the same question that Jim had earlier, I mean we just, you came in with the $250,000 number addressing manpower hours, is that what you are thinking or are we going to see some product or? Mr. Thompson, Product, dash, recommendations on whatever they feel, I mean we do have a land use plan right now, a comprehensive plan, but it just shows notes that we want with commercial and industrial. The question is, what kind of commercial or what kind of industrial do we want in these areas, how do we want it to look. How do we want these areas to develop? What areas do we want to keep a rural character? Where is, do we feel it’s the best fit for type of development coming in? And in the end, how do we want these corridors visualized? What kind of appearance do we want people coming in? Mr. Whitten, I would agree that it’s certainly is at times difficult to put our finger on the pulse of exactly what we want, and what might be occurring. I mean I was somewhat vilified in the newspapers for having the audacity during the 100 South discussion, I mean our Congressman was offering some matching grants that say what sort of improvements are we talking about, and no one really had a good idea what the answer to that question was. And, you know, that question ought to be asked about all the major roads. What are we talking about? Are we talking about strip malls along the southern part of our county? Are we talking about, you know, a motor speedway along Route 30? Are we talking about shuffling all the trucks that don’t want to pay the tolls to another major road in our county? I mean there’s a lot of questions that no one really seems to have an answer for. That’s my opinion. Mr. Bucko, And when you don’t have planning in place, it looks like Portage does from County Line up to the city’s municipal lines, those kinds of rag-tag type businesses… Mr. Whitten, Wait a minute, my business is there. Mr. Bucko, I understand that. Anyway, you’re putting through South Haven, I mean, it’s just simply because people thought it was a good idea when they did it, and they approved it, and they didn’t have a plan coming down the line. I mean, you know, it just makes sense. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Burge, Bob, in this process, and I agree that this type of process is needed to help stop some of the bad things that happened in the past. The vast majority of anybody I’ve ever spoken to, they don’t want to see what’s going on in Merrillville come across the county line. They want it to be more structured, more organized, and make more sense of it, improve the aesthetics, etc. But in that process, could you describe what provisions are in the for the protection of personal property rights to balance against the corridor plan. Because what’s one man’s eyesore could be another man’s livelihood Mr. Thompson, Sure. Mr. Burge, And there has to be some balance in there. If someone has, say someone is retired, a retired farmer or a retired, anybody along say US 30, since you brought up US 30, there’s certain, you see certain property values going up. A lot of people may be depending their whole retirement on the value that they sold that land. Mr. Thompson, Correct. Mr. Burge, Now suddenly, you know, the person becomes 80-years old, and suddenly you shift it to where they cannot be anything but farmland, now instead of being, instead of someone maybe paying 80 or $100,000 an acre, maybe now it’s only worth 15 or 20. Do you see the devastating fact that could have on a private citizen in lieu of trying to make things look nice. And I think we need both. I’m just trying to get a feel for you in this process, what is your plan to equal the debate for personal property rights, along with the corridor plan. Mr. Thompson, One, during this whole process you will have to reach out to the people in a number of communities, the economic development people, any stakeholder along this. And advertise, and bring these people in and have them sit with the consultant, and sit down and figure out what path it is. I understand what you are saying. At times though, tough decisions have to be made, because everybody that has land along US 6, comes in and talks to me thinking they’ve got a gold mine with commercial property right there, and we just talked about the fact that we don’t want commercial all up and down it. But the question is, what do we want? So I mean, that’s what I’m trying to look at. Mr. Whitten, I may have missed some of this, Bob. This doesn’t involve taking of property, does it? Mr. Thompson, No. Mr. Bucko, No. Mr. Thompson, I mean if there’s no residential or anything, there’s still the right to come in and petition for a subdivision--for a residential subdivision--in that situation. Mr. Poparad, Would this involve rezoning? Mr. Thompson, It could be used as a guide for situations for looking at it if somebody comes in for rezoning. Mr. Poparad, Well no, I meant, you made the comment about commercial. What if somebody had commercial, and the study says it needs to be kept residential? Mr. Thompson, Any of the commercial and industrial along the major thoroughfares, we cannot do any down zoning with our Unified Development Ordinance. Com. Harper, You know, that’s what I wanted to mention. With the Unified Development Ordinance, the meetings that were held on that, with the, you know, the farmer groups, with everybody, when we finally got down to the ends, I don’t think there’s any person that could say that their land was down zoned or not, something done as far as zoning with their land was done that they were not happy with. There was a few that wanted it changed from residential to commercial, but as far as anybody, when it was all said and done, I think at the last commissioners’ meeting there was like two or three people who came up to me, because it went through all these. To Bob’s credit, I think, that he took, he had meeting after meeting, and was able to get some semblance, I mean not everybody loved every provision in the plan, but it also didn’t start a riot, you know, and he was able to get it done. And I think he would do the same, the same thing would be followed with this. Mr. Poparad, Is this only for the unincorporated? Mr. Thompson, I’m sorry? Mr. Poparad, This is only for unincorporated. Mr. Thompson, Only for unincorporated areas. Mr. Poparad, If this goes forward, will there be coordination with the municipalities? Mr. Thompson, Correct. Mr. Poparad, So they’re not, you know, bumping heads or bumping goals between the cities and the towns and the County. Mr. Thompson, Because a number of the municipalities do have growth management plans in place. So the thing is, is we would need to work with them. I know Portage is starting to work on one, looking at those areas. So I mean we do need to work with those municipalities, and those economic development people to make sure. Yes, I agree that we all work together. Com. Harper, You know, Bob, and if you stop and think about it. My concern about time, you know, here we are getting the street lights and the corridors coming through Valpo all fixed up, and then, you know, we almost had a waste transfer station right outside of town, you know. And I mean, these kind of, if we do not plan for these kind of things, it’s going to get us right in the side of the head. Now it was changed, finally the people beat it, and now it’s changed and put in an industrial park where it can handle the semi traffic. So, you know, if we don’t do this, if we don’t move in a timely, and if you could, you know, again, I go back to Central Avenue in Portage. If you can see, if you get these plans in effect, things change fast. You know, you don’t think about it, but you know, things change fast. Businesses change hands. People change the way they are doing it, and if they have a new plan they have to deal with, then it looks different. Mr. Whitten, That’s right. Mr. Murphy, Bob, I support this plan, just like I did the last one, and I’m going to make the same motion I did. I think we need to do this. I’d ask you to move forward without delay, but I’d like you to follow the policy, and do it that way, as opposed to, and again, draft a letter saying you’ve got the support of the Council. That would be my motion. Mr. Murphy moved to deny the request for additional appropriations submitted by CEDIT Project #20, with a letter to be drafted by President Whitten stating that the Council supports the use of CEDIT funds for Project 20, but requires that request for proposals (RFP) and request for quotes (RFQ) be submitted per the County’s policy. Mr. Whitten, So you motion is to deny, with a letter of support. Mr. Carmichael seconded. Mr. Whitten, We have a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Burge, Well I think it’s the same discussion as the last one. All it’s doing it’s just not giving a blank check, and saying we’re in favor of what you are doing. When we get the actual numbers with the actual amount, as opposed to just to giving a blank amount. I think that’s all we are saying. Mr. Thompson, That’s fine. Mr. Carmichael, I have a comment, Dan. Mr. Whitten, Certainly, Bill. Mr. Carmichael, The money we are talking about here tonight on CEDIT 19 and 20 is $350,000. That would give every county employee a $500 raise. Now that’s a huge expenditure, for as little discussion we’ve had about the whole thing. No one has discussed this with me before. It hadn’t been brought to me before. I don’t know if it’s been brought to anybody else, but I certainly haven’t heard of it. All of a sudden, CEDIT 19 and 20 appeared, and it’s over a quarter of a million dollars, enough for a $500 raise for every employee in this county, in county government. That’s all I have to say. Mr. Whitten, I agree, Bill, that it’s a large expenditure. I think it warrants some further discussion, particularly when we look at the hard numbers to come. I mean it’s a priority I suppose that we have to look at. We’re going to be doing a lot of that in the budget meetings, prioritizing expenditures. That’s important to us. Mrs. Stevenson, Do you think it’s going to come back any higher than what you’ve requested? Mr. Thompson, I don’t know. Mrs. Stevenson, Because we don’t want to give a blank check. Mr. Whitten, Well, we’re not going to because they’re going to have to come back to us with their… Mr. Thompson, I will bring back the numbers. I would hope that it’s not, no. Mr. Whitten, I mean I don’t think we were ever going to give a blank check. I think we were being asked to give two, pretty big checks. There were some big numbers on them. Mrs. Stevenson, If it’s not within this amount of money, 350,000, then it’s going to be higher. And with the study, is it going to cost us any more outside of the study? Com. Harper, Well, I think that the goal of the study would be to guide us in our zoning. Mrs. Stevenson, Correct, and I understand that, but it’s not going to cost us coming back up here, and asking for any more, besides the study itself? Com. Harper, No, I don’t think so. Mrs. Stevenson, Okay. Mr. Whitten, Can I get a roll call, please? Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Burge - Yes Carmichael - Yes Murphy - Yes Poparad - No Stevenson - Yes Whitten - No Bucko - No Mr. Whitten, Denied. Mr. Thompson, Thank you for your consideration. JAIL 217 Additional Appropriation $120,000 to 3950 Contractual Services $25,000 to 2330 Household & Bedding $40,000 to 3140 Medical & Hospital $25,000 to 1130 Overtime Mr. Whitten, Jail 217, we have some additionals here. Mr. Carmichael, Let’s take a five-minute break. Mr. Whitten, Certainly, it’s probably a good time for you to go, Matt. Mr. Murphy, Yes, in about five minutes. At this time, there was a five-minute break; meeting reconvened with Mr. Murphy absent. Mr. Whitten, Shall we reconvene. Jail 217. Sheriff. Sheriff Dave Lain, Well, I think I should preface what we are looking to accomplish here tonight by really emphasizing two issues. One, we are not asking for a dollar of general fund money, and two, this is really, as my experience in the last eight years of county government, this isn’t anything new. We’re not reinventing the wheel. This has come to be kind of a standard need about this time of year, so this is just a continuation of the way things need to get accomplished. Mr. Whitten, The 120,000 for Food & Groceries? Sheriff Lain, Yes, except you’ll see that as, actually as Contractual Services. Mr. Whitten, Right. Sheriff Lain, It used to be called Food & Groceries, we now have a contract with, I think it’s Compass or Canteen. So that’s essentially the same, that’s the old food and grocery bill. Mr. Whitten, The 120,000, Dave, I mean is it true that over a third of the budget was for the prior year’s expenses? Sheriff Lain, Yes, it is, and that’s what we’re basing. We’re looking at, you know, dealing with budgetary figures for 2007, and as you can see, in all of these categories, we’re catching up from the last quarter, and we’re, I’m working very hard at that, trying to overcome this deficit spending. That’s going to be one of my goals. Mr. Whitten, I mean is there every going to be a time that we are going to be budgeting what you actually for that year? Sheriff Lain, Well I certainly hope so. I’m not sure, as I said here, I’m not sure how we are going to accomplish that. But certainly I’d like to. I think, I’ve got to compliment Sergeant Gootee, doing an excellent job at really identifying that this is what has gone on, and we don’t know how long, but we believe it’s probably been since time and memorial is the way that has been occurring, because we have, we have consistently seen the need to come back to the table about mid-year, and play catch-up, in order to get us to the next, the next stage. Mr. Whitten, So with the current monies that you have in the budget line items here, is it still your belief that that would get you through October. So you would have a shortfall of November, December. Sheriff Lain, Roughly, but again, this isn’t a new instance. We’ve, if you’ll remember, it’s something that may trip your memory, in the fall we get another influx of money through county corrections, and we use the county corrections fund for this sort of thing too. So it’s what it’s designed to do. But as I say, at some point I’d like to be able to spend current year money in the current year, rather than trying to catch up. Mr. Whitten, What’s your pleasure with, we’ll take these one at a time. $120,000 to Contractual Services. Mrs. Stevenson, Wait, I want to try and get some figures to find out if this is always what it’s been like. That’s what Sharon’s looking for right now. Mr. Poparad, Sheriff, on the Overtime, is that overtime that’s already been accumulated or projected? Sheriff Lain, Well that’s jail overtime. Mr. Poparad, Has that already been, we already owe this to the men? Sheriff Lain, We… Mr. Poparad, Or is this what you think you’re going to owe to the men? Sheriff Lain, We’re, essentially, roughly there’s, well how much is left currently? Bud Gootee, We’re down to like 2,000-bucks this pay period. Less than 2,000 for the jail. Mr. Poparad, $2,677. Mr. Gootee, I guess, sir. Mr. Bucko, That’s what’s left in the Overtime? Mr. Gootee, Yes, and that’s not obligating what this pay period is, which I know now since I found the numbers, it’s going to be about 1,200 bucks. Mr. Whitten, Do you want to deal with the Overtime first, Bob? Mr. Poparad, What did you start with in Overtime for the year? Mr. Gootee, We had two line items, actually. The first one was 6,750 in the general budget. Mr. Poparad, 67,000, no? Mr. Gootee, No, 6,700. Mr. Poparad, Right. Mr. Gootee, It’s not a lot. And then we have the 217 line item that has 25,000. Now, you should note that one of the things in trying to keep in good with you council people, we tried to buy down some of the comp-time too, then we ran out of money. We can never really tell how quickly we’re going to have to spend this money until, except for a few things that we know is going to happen. We’re always short in the jail. We’re about two to three bodies short on the manning board, that means we have to then pay them overtime just to staff the jail as it is. So, like it or not, there’s only on way to do that, and I think the steel mills are doing the same thing. Rather than buy, you know, add new bodies, they’re paying the overtime. Mr. Poparad, But they’re also working 12-hour shifts. Mrs. Stevenson, Yes. Mr. Poparad, But we’ll finish that discussion Monday. Mr. Gootee, Okay, we’ll be ready for you. Mr. Whitten, Okay, did we get the answer to Rita’s question? Ms. Bailey, She wanted to know what they had. Mrs. Stevenson, Yes. First of all, I wanted to know what the budget was for 2007 for each of these items, and then, what was appropriated for them, and then… Mr. Gootee, Can I help you? I have that. Mrs. Stevenson, Is it the same thing as what they’ve… Mr. Gootee, Right out of their computer. Here’s ’06. Those are the line items we are talking about, the amounts for overtime. Mrs. Stevenson, Okay. Mr. Gootee, We had the… Mr. Whitten, Just give us the numbers real quick, can you? If you have them. Ms. Bailey, In ’06 in 3950 Contractual, they started out with 100,000, but they had 200,000 adjusted with additionals. Mr. Whitten, Okay, so we had 100,000 in additionals. Ms. Bailey, Last year. Mr. Whitten, In the contractual for food and groceries. Ms. Bailey, Or no not, that’s for contractual for… Mr. Whitten, Isn’t that the food and groceries? Mr. Gootee, And we had a Food & Groceries line item in the general fund of 170, so we had 370 for a total for the whole year. Sheriff Lain, The reason you saw both last year was because that’s when the contract began. Mr. Whitten, Right, got it. So they had a shortfall, obviously. Sheriff Lain, And we’re dealing with something directly related to it. Mr. Gootee, We’re putting out about $7,900 a week now. Okay? If you do the math, and that’s what I did, trying to figure out, you know, approximately how far, of course that peaks the value. We went from 75 to 7,900 a week, just food and groceries. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Gootee, But we had some serious population spikes too. I have my numbers. Mr. Whitten, The population spike, does that include federal prisoners? Mr. Gootee, No. Sheriff Lain, Well, yes, not actually. The federal and state prisoners have always, you can always gauge, it’s been consistent since it began, since the program began. Between 25 and 30% of the population. Mr. Whitten, Okay. So if our population is up, then we’ve had a few more federal prisoners. If the percentage… Sheriff Lain, Yes, or, well, that may be when it goes down to the 25% level. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Sheriff Lain, I haven’t tracked it exactly, but. The unarguable issue is that the vast majority of people in the Porter County jail are local inmates. Mr. Bucko, Excuse me, are what? Sheriff Lain, Are local inmates. Mr. Whitten, Local. Local crooks. Sheriff Lain, Now remember, even those, some of those charged federally and DOC, they are local as well. Mr. Whitten, Okay, what’s your pleasure with this? You want to take one line item? Bob, you had asked questions about the overtime. Did you get your answers? Mr. Poparad, Yes. Mr. Whitten, What do you want to do with the overtime? Mr. Poparad, The problem is we owe it to them, probably. They’ve already accumulated it, correct? Mr. Gootee, I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you? Mr. Poparad, You’ve already accumulated it? Mr. Gootee, We were, we will. Mr. Poparad, I’ve got to be honest. You made a comment that bothers me, which actually I didn’t think you were allowed to do, and you were buying off comp-time. I didn’t think we were going to allow that. Mr. Gootee, Yes, we were actually asked to. Mr. Poparad, Not in terms of money. We told you… Mr. Gootee, I mean I’m taking it from what the Council… Mr. Poparad, You were told to burn up the comp-time. I don’t think anybody here intended that you buy their comp-time. Mr. Gootee, Well… Mr. Bucko, Because we denied Data Processing from doing just that. Mr. Poparad, Yes. Mr. Gootee, Oh. Well the Fair Labor Standards Act won’t allow us to actually force somebody to take the time off. We have to, they won’t… Mr. Bucko, Excuse me? Mr. Poparad, Excuse me? Mr. Gootee, We can’t just make them do it. Mr. Bucko, That is not true. Mr. Poparad, Wait, well okay… Mr. Bucko, You can tell a person to go home today an hour early and… Mr. Whitten, Let’s get an… Mr. Bucko, We’ll pay you. Mr. Whitten, Dave, I guess this would be your cue. Mr. Bucko, And you come in an hour later, and we’ll pay you. Mr. Whitten, Hold on, Mike. Are you allowed to tell people to burn up their comp-time or do you have to pay them for it? Mr. Hollenbeck, You certainly do not have to pay them for it. Mr. Whitten, Can you mandate that they take it? Mr. Hollenbeck, Not only that, but strict compliance with the law requires them to have the opportunity to take it within a set timeframe, following the period of time it was earned. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Mr. Hollenbeck, Now the only caveat I would have, and I’m not prepared tonight to give you a dissertation on all the unique nuances of the FLSA, but to the extent that we are dealing with public safety and law enforcement, that’s the only caveat I would add. I know for instance, policemen and firemen are different in terms of just the way they work and the shifts and stuff. Whether that would be, we’re talking about the jail, right? Mr. Gootee, Well, and they are part of public safety. Mr. Hollenbeck, Right, well but, I’m just saying I’m not sure to what extent that difference would make a difference if we are talking about the jail. I know firemen and policemen have different rules in terms of how that works. Sheriff Lain, Well, in that regard, we are between the proverbial rock and hard place, because people having the comp-time accrued, we are already at, below minimum staffing levels to the extent that we are routinely covering that with overtime as it is. Mr. Whitten, Now you’re just talking about the jail, right, David? Sheriff Lain, Just the jail. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Sheriff Lain, So we aren’t at a level, we can’t, there are precious few opportunities for people to take their comp-time. Mr. Whitten, Okay, what’s your pleasure with the overtime request, the transfer? Mr. Poparad, We don’t have a choice, I’ll make the motion. But I think we need to have a way longer discussion on this issue. Mrs. Stevenson, Yes. Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Jail 217, $25,000 to 1130 Overtime. Mr. Bucko seconded. Mr. Whitten, Further discussion? Mr. Carmichael, Discussion. Mr. Whitten, Bill. Mr. Carmichael, Under the law now, you can no longer run these stops, or click it or ticket, right? The law has changed? Sheriff Lain, Not to my knowledge. Mr. Carmichael, Is that correct, Bob? Mr. Poparad, Wasn’t there something about that new seat belt law. You can’t run a seatbelt check point? I just seen something in the paper. They mandated seatbelts for pickup trucks, but they also eliminated seatbelt check points. That is what the article was about. Sheriff Lain, Well that’s, that’s… Mr. Poparad, July 1st. Sheriff Lain, Okay, well then that’s something proposed that I have not seen. Mr. Carmichael, How much have you expended this year on click it or ticket? Sheriff Lain, Well I don’t know, that, I can’t answer the question, but those are funds, that is a special fund that is brought in. We’ve spent none of our own funds. When we take part in those programs, that’s a grant. Those are grant monies. Mr. Carmichael, Right, absolutely. Where’s that report? Do we ever get word of it? Sheriff Lain, I’m not sure I understand the question, Bill. Mr. Carmichael, How are the grant monies expended? Sheriff Lain, Well it’s, we have to report back to the granting body, which is the state government. Mr. Carmichael, These are salaries paid in addition to the normal salary? Sheriff Lain, Yes. Mr. Carmichael, In other words, they get two salaries at the same time. Is that right? Sheriff Lain, Well it’s overtime. This is overtime. These aren’t officers, this isn’t normal working hours. These are police officers working overtime for the grant, for the grant monies. Mr. Carmichael, Where’s that reported? Mr. Whitten, I think he’s saying since the money doesn’t come from us, they don’t report back to us. They report to the people that gave them the money, the granting body. Is that correct? Sheriff Lain, Right. Mr. Whitten, I think it’s a… Mr. Carmichael, It’s always the sheriff that sees those reports. Mr. Whitten, I think that anybody can see them. Sheriff Lain, Yes, you’re welcome to them. Mr. Carmichael, I would like to see a copy. Sheriff Lain, Sure, sure. Mr. Carmichael, Okay, thank you. Mr. Whitten, Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Poparad - Yes Stevenson - No Whitten - Yes Bucko - Yes Burge - Yes Carmichael - No Mr. Whitten, How many yeses were there? Mrs. Wilson, Four to two. Mr. Whitten, Okay. How about the 40,000 to Medical, wait, let’s, $25,000 to Household & Bedding. Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Jail 217, $25,000 to 2330 Household & Bedding. Mr. Poparad seconded, motion carried on the following roll call vote: Poparad - Yes Stevenson - No Whitten - Yes Bucko - Yes Burge - Yes Carmichael - Yes Mr. Whitten, $40,000 to Medical & Hospital. Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Jail 217, $40,000 to 3140 Medical & Hospital. Mr. Bucko seconded, motion carried on the following roll call vote: Stevenson - No Whitten - Yes Bucko - Yes Burge - Yes Carmichael - Yes Poparad - Yes Mrs. Wilson, Five, one. Mr. Whitten, Alright, last and ironically not least, $120,000 to Contractual Services. What’s you pleasure? Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Jail 217, $120,000 to 3950 Contractual Services. Mr. Burge seconded. Mr. Whitten, Discussion? Mr. Poparad, Question, how’s 217 running? Do you guys know? Sheriff Lain, Roughly 320? Mr. Gootee, 342. Mr. Poparad, Will that catch you up, 313? Is that the number you wrote down? Okay. Mr. Whitten, Other questions? Roll call. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Carmichael - Yes Poparad - Yes Stevenson - No Whitten - Yes Bucko - Yes Burge - Yes HEALTH BIOTERRORISM 238 Transfer $2,000 from 3220 Telephone to 4430 Other Mobile Equipment Mr. Whitten, Okay, Health Bioterrorism 238, transfer, $2,000 from Telephone to Other Mobile Equipment. We’ve got a transfer here, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Poparad, Is this that grant money, Keith? Keith Letta, Yes it is. Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for transfer of funds submitted by Health Bioterrorism 238, the amount of, $2,000 from 3220 Telephone to 4430 Other Mobile Equipment. Mr. Murphy seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Whitten, The transfer is approved. HEALTH CRI GRANT 319 Additional Appropriation $1,500 to 2110 Office Supplies $1,000 to 3130 Training & Education $1,500 to 4430 Other Mobile Equipment $62,022 to 3950 Contractual Services Mr. Whitten, Health CRI Grant 319, we have some additionals here: 1,500 to Office Supplies; a grand to Training & Education; 1,500 to Other Mobile Equipment--geez oh, Pete--$62,022 to Contractual Services--well. What’s your pleasure? Mrs. Stevenson, I’ll make a… Mr. Carmichael, Do you want to take them all at once? Mr. Whitten, That’s entirely up to you. Mr. Carmichael, I’ll take them all at once. Mr. Poparad, Is this for the consultants, the 62? Mr. Letta, Yes. Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Health CRI Grant 319, the amounts of, $1,500 to 2110 Office Supplies, $1,000 to 3130 Training & Education, $1,500 to 4430 Other Mobile Equipment and 62,022 to 3950 Contractual Services. Mr. Poparad seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Connie Rudd, Thank you. Mrs. Stevenson, Thank you. Mr. Whitten, Have a good evening, folks. PLANNING/ BUILDING DEPARTMENT 239 Additional Appropriation $1,800 to 4440 Furniture & Fixtures over $100 $2,500 to 4510 Data Processing Equipment Mr. Whitten, Planning/Building Department 239, we have a couple additionals: 1,800 to Furniture & Fixtures over 100; 2,500 to Data Processing Equipment. You’re going to buy a desk. Bob Thompson, Yes. This is for a new desk, and for a new computer for a new employee within the office. Mr. Whitten, What’s your pleasure? Mr. Bucko moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Planning/Building Department 239, the amounts of, $1,800 to 4440 Furniture & Fixtures over $100 and $2,500 to 4510 Data Processing Equipment. Mrs. Stevenson seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. HIGHWAY 02 Additional Appropriation $100,000 to 2210 Gas, Fuel & Lube Mr. Whitten, Highway 02, an additional 100,000 to Gas, Fuel & Lube. The fuel account is almost depleted. Al Hoagland, $4,722 left. Mr. Whitten, Wish I hauled fuel for a living. Mr. Bucko, Is that pretty much all highway department that comes through there now and fuels up? Mr. Hoagland, There are, Hazmat and also, the Surveyor’s office, some Parks equipment. We get reimbursed over a period of time. I, when I did the original budget, I just, I can’t predict the weather, and I sure didn’t predict the fuel prices, and it just caught us short. Mr. Bucko, Alright. Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Highway 02, the amount of, $100,000 to 2210 Gas, Fuel & Lube. Mr. Carmichael seconded. Mr. Poparad, Will this get you through the year, Al? Mr. Hoagland, Yes. Mr. Whitten, Alright, fantastic. Any other questions? Roll call, please? Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. HIGHWAY LRS 26 Additional Appropriation $15,000 to 3950.191 Contractual Services $15,000 to 3950.291 Contractual Services $15,000 to 3950.391 Contractual Services Mr. Whitten, Highway LRS 26, we have some additionals, 15,000 to Contractual Services-District 1; 15,000 to Contractual Services-District 2; and 15-grand to District 3. Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Highway LRS 26, the amounts of, $15,000 to 3950.191 Contractual Services, $15,000 to 3950.291 Contractual Services and $15,000 to 3950.391 Contractual Services. Mr. Bucko seconded. Mr. Whitten, This is for striping, right? Mr. Hoagland, Right. Mr. Whitten, Any discussion? Can I get a roll call, please? Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Whitten, Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Mr. Hoagland, Thank you very much. PARKS 01.85 Transfer $9,000 from 1110 Salaries to 1120 Maintenance Hourly $1,000 from 3920 Disposal to 3950 Contractual Services PARKS OPERATING 127 Additional Appropriation $1,000 to 1120 Hourly $970 to 3310 Printing other than Office Supplies $1,000 to 3950 Contractual Services Mr. Whitten, Parks & Recreation, Parks Operating 127, transfer, 9,000 from Salaries to Hourly; 1,000 from Disposal to Contractual Services. Ed Melendez, That is a correction, Mr. President. That’s the 01.85 account. Mr. Whitten, Okay. What is your pleasure with the transfers? Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for transfer of funds submitted by Parks 01.85, the amounts of, $9,000 from 1110 Salaries to 1120 Maintenance Hourly and $1,000 from 3920 Disposal to 3950 Contractual Services. Mr. Poparad seconded, motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Whitten, The transfers are approved. Let’s talk about the additionals, 1,000 to Hourly; 970 to Printing other than Office Supplies; and 1,000 to Contractual Services. What is your pleasure? Mr. Carmichael moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Parks Operating 127, the amounts of, $1,000 to 1120 Hourly, $970 to 3310 Printing other than Office Supplies and $1,000 to 3950 Contractual Services. Mr. Poparad seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Melendez, Thank you. COUNCIL CASINO MONEY 234 Additional Appropriation $197,420 to 4510 Data Processing Equipment $155,000 to 1241 Longevity $65,000 to 3965 NIRPC Mr. Whitten, Council Casino Money 234, we’ve got a few items on the agenda. $197,430 to Data Processing Equipment, that is to purchase the Hamer Software, per motion on 5-22-07. What is your pleasure with this one? Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Council Casino Money 234, the amount of $197,420. Mrs. Stevenson seconded. Mr. Carmichael, Does that include John, the assessor? Mr. Poparad, He’s on board with it, I guess. Mr. Carmichael, Okay, good. Mr. Whitten, Now are we going to get this money back? Mr. Poparad, Yes, from the reassessment fund. Mrs. Stevenson, And this is going to, this amount is going to take care of all three? Mr. Whitten, Can we take this from the reassessment fund without John’s? Mr. Bucko, We can maybe not appropriate it. Mr. Hollenbeck, Well, it’s a Catch-22, because after January 1st, he has to come here to get an appropriation. I suppose if he chooses not to come here to get an appropriation, then you’re back in deadlock with him in terms of how your are going to proceed. Mr. Whitten, So we could, is it possible that we could pay for this out of the casino money, and not get it back? Mr. Hollenbeck, I suppose it’s possible, but at this point… Mr. Bucko, But think beyond that. Mr. Hollenbeck, After July 1st, he has to come and get county council appropriation approval for the expenditure of the money in the reassessment fund monies. Mr. Whitten, Okay. Any other discussion on this one? I think we said a mouthful at the last meeting, so. Can I have a roll call, please. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Stevenson - Yes Whitten - No Bucko - Yes Burge - Yes Carmichael - No Poparad - Yes Mr. Whitten, Me and Bill, we’re like… Mrs. Wilson, It’s four to two. Mrs. Stevenson, It passes, correct? Mrs. Wilson, Yes, it does. Mr. Whitten, 155,000 to Longevity. Mr. Bucko moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Council Casino Money 234, the amount of $155,000 to 1241 Longevity. Mr. Poparad seconded. Mr. Whitten, We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? This is to pay for the first half of longevity. Can I get a roll call, please? Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Whitten, 65,000 to NIRPC, this is regarding, I believe your request last meeting, Dave, we were a little remiss in our? Mr. Hollenbeck, Correct. In looking at the calculation, I think it’s actually going to be closer to about $61,000, but if you could leave it, whatever it is, it’s going to be based on the $.70 per capita. So if you can approve it at this level, I’ll work with the auditor and NIRPC, and report back to you. My calculations, I think, after the last meeting came in between 61 and 62,000. Mr. Whitten, What’s your pleasure? Mr. Bucko moved to grant the request for additional appropriations submitted by Council Casino Money 234, the amount of $65,000 to 3965 NIRPC. Mr. Carmichael seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. ANIMAL SHELTER 01.45 Transfer $175.50 from 3930 Dues & Subscriptions to 3220 Telephone $350 from 3130 Training & Education to 3220 Telephone Mr. Whitten, Animal Shelter 01.45, transfers, $175.50 from Dues & Subscriptions to Telephone; and $350 from Training & Education to Telephone. What is your pleasure? Mr. Poparad moved to grant the request for transfer of funds submitted by Animal Shelter 01.45, the amounts of, $175.50 from 3930 Dues & Subscriptions to 3220 Telephone and $350 from 3130 Training & Education to 3220 Telephone. Mr. Bucko seconded, motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Whitten, Thank you for coming. Sandy Ogle, Thank you. Mr. Whitten, All that, you waited the whole meeting for that. COMP-TIME DISCUSSION Mr. Whitten, The next thing on the agenda is the comp-time discussion. How do you want to proceed? Mr. Bucko, Could I ask you, just as a point of reference, about how many departments do we have total now in the budget? I don’t know. Mr. Whitten, We have 90-some budgets, but I don’t know. Mr. Bucko, 50-something? The reason I ask is, is we’ve got 11 respondents from our question; 11 respondents came back to us. Some had ideas, others never had a plan. Mr. Whitten, I actually received a couple of calls from some of the judges saying they don’t accumulate comp-time. Mr. Bucko, I did, and the letters are in here from those. Mr. Poparad, I wonder if we can sort of let this go for a while and see how they handle by the time we get the budgets to see where we are at. Mr. Whitten, You know… Mr. Poparad, Let them keep going like the way they are going. Mr. Whitten, The commissioners have asked us to give them a month or two to deal with the comp-time that’s under their watch, because they are beginning to dig in a little deeper to see just whose entitled to comp-time and whose not, and what they can do to alleviate that. So they’ve asked that before we really get into some serious head-butting, I guess, to give them a couple of months to try to correct it internally for themselves, and then come back to us. Mr. Bucko, That’s probably fine, because just based on some things that are here, it’s obvious to me that some people that are supervisors--the supervisory level--feel that they are entitled to comp-time. Mr. Whitten, But there’s a lot… Mr. Bucko, But I do also look at things where, and I always know Voters Registration has always been an issue. That’s a tough nut to crack, but there’s people with one month, as much as two months that they could literally be off, but they could probably never take that off, so the only thing that’s ever going to happen with that, and I don’t understand, and I did not ask as to, you know, some people are saying, well I’ll just take it as I can. That’s not a plan. I mean it isn’t what we asked for, for goodness sake. I mean is that real hard to ask somebody to think through a process, and I mean that. That’s exactly what… Mr. Whitten, You know, Mike, maybe along those lines, maybe, of course, we are going to be buried in August with the budgets, but maybe what we need to do is have one of our joint commissioner/council meetings that we’ve had in the past, and have the meeting agenda be the discussion of comp-time, and we’ll invite all of our elected officials to come and join the fun, and we could address it face-to-face… Mr. Bucko, We could. Mr. Whitten, About what some of their, what their plan is. Mr. Bucko, That could be, probably a good idea. And to tell you the truth, with what the commissioners are trying to do to determine who is or isn’t qualified or should be or shouldn’t be qualified, that should be part of an individual’s profile in his job classification, what have you, that are there. And, you know, there are many times, I think, several people on this Council have made statements to the effect that, you know, at 4:30 nobody is here, where’s the comp-time coming from. You know, you could take a swag and simply say, 50% of the comp-time really isn’t necessary comp-time, just for the sake of coming up with some kind of a baseline to deal with, and then you could literally take that baseline, and look at the accumulated comp-time across each department, then you could figure out an overtime schedule, and eliminate comp-time, and literally provide overtime. That might be a way to fix it, just do, and go back that way. Mr. Whitten, Sounds good. Mr. Bucko, So, yes, let’s let them see what their, what’s going to happen. Mr. Whitten, So maybe what I’ll do is, I don’t want to bury us too bad in August, so maybe early September-ish, we can, we’ll schedule a meeting. Mr. Bucko, But why don’t we also find a way to encourage people to utilize, you know, I just heard that you can’t ask somebody to not come in. Don’t come in at 8:30 today, come in at 9:00, we’re going to pay your anyway, you go home at 3:30, we’re going to pay you until 4:30. I don’t think there’s an issue, there isn’t anybody that can push that issue and say, you can’t make me do that. So they can utilize the comp-time if it simply becomes a little bit more of a priority from each of the departments. And I do understand, you’ve got people out there that are working with groups of individuals, and I’ll take the highway department or whatever, I don’t even know, you might not have comp-time. But if you’re an individual where it takes four of you to do the job, obviously, if one goes away, maybe the job isn’t going to happen, and can’t be done. So there are issues like that. But when you are looking at individuals that are clerks, and different things like that, surely, and hour here, and an hour there, based across the work week will eat up a lot of comp-time. Mr. Whitten, And I that’s, I think you’re right, Mike. I think it all can be part of a, sort of a joint plan that we try to put together here to resolve some of these issues. Mr. Burge, Some of the encouraging points were, some of those letters and information back from some of the courts, I mean, because they virtually had none, and they cited the rules that you have to use it within a certain amount of time. Why is it that other departments within the County aren’t doing the same thing. If it was that easy for them to do, why can it not be implemented across the board? Mr. Whitten, Maybe it’s a question of cross training, things of that nature, and those are things that we can discuss. I know we’ve asked that question in the past, right, so? Mrs. Stevenson, Uh huh. Mr. Whitten, Okay. We’ll be revisiting that. I thank all those elected officials that responded, that makes it very helpful. PROPOSED RESOLUTION 07-06-26 - REQUEST DENIED Mr. Whitten, We have a proposed resolution, 07-6-26. What is this; ah, here it is. I guess I can, what’s your pleasure with this resolution? Shall I read it? Just like that everybody is gone. Mrs. Stevenson, What did you say. Mr. Whitten, I don’t know, is it something I said. Mr. Poparad, Yeah. Mr. Bucko, Yeah, yeah, yeah. Mr. Hollenbeck, You’re like the old Groucho Marx show, Dan, you said the magic word. Mr. Whitten, The magic bird, the chicken came down, and they were all gone. Mrs. Stevenson, The true followers. Mr. Carmichael, What’s the resolution. Mr. Poparad, Is this the 144? This is the 144. Mr. Whitten, What is this? Mr. Poparad, Well, it appears that there’s some people that worked in the assessor’s office, now in the auditor’s office, and they think they need another $1,000. Who are we talking about here? Mrs. Wilson, No, the 144… Mr. Poparad, No, I mean this resolution. Mr. Bucko, What? Mrs. Wilson, I haven’t seen the resolution. Mr. Whitten, Who proposed this? Mr. Poparad, I don’t know. Mr. Bucko, Well it’s got Jim’s, well, no, it doesn’t have anybody’s whatever on it. Mr. Poparad, But this is on a 144. Mr. Bucko, They’re asking for a salary increase. Mr. Whitten, Why don’t we table this? Mr. Bucko, They changed jobs, and they want to maintain getting paid for it. Mrs. Wilson, That probably has to do with the Level II… Mr. Poparad, Yes. Mr. Whitten, Yes. Mrs. Wilson, We talked to the people downstate… Mr. Whitten, We’ve got a lot… &nbs |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
June 26, 2007