TOWN OF PLAINFIELD TOWN COUNCIL September 25, 2006 The Plainfield Town Council met on Monday, September 25, 2006. In attendance were Mr. Gaddie, Mr. McPhail, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard and Mr. Fivecoat. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Brandgard said we have several bid openings this evening. If anybody has failed to turn their bid in for any of the three, now is the last opportunity to do so. Being no one coming forward the opportunity to submit bids is closed. CONSENT AGENDA 1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Town Council meeting of Monday, September 11, 2006. Second Readings of Ordinance No. 33-2006: Post Construction Stormwater Runoff Ordinance and Ordinance No. 34-2006: An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 20-2005 Former Belleville Conservancy District Rates and Charges. Approval to release Glen Haven Inc.’s Performance Bond No. 134147 in the amount of $4,130.00 for Street Signs and Monumentation in Glen Haven Section 1 per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval to release Stafford Development, Inc.’s Performance Bond No. CSB 1303198 in the amount of $2,500.00 for Monumentation in Glen Haven Section 3 per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval to release Stafford Development, Inc.’s Performance Bond No. B21857979 in the amount of $1,750.00 for Monumentation in Glen Haven West Section 1 per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval to release Ark Developers, Inc.’s Performance Bond #5883597 in the amount of $15,000.00 for Street Topcoat in Nottinghill Subdivision Section 2 per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval for release of all retainage held at Lincoln Bank, approximately $42,300.00 plus interest to Atlas Construction for the Crystal Bay Lift Station project per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval of an updated proposal dated Setpember 19, 2006 in the amount of $13,631.00 from The Schneider Corporation for professional services associated with an environmental study and Brownfield Grant application for the former Shouse Landfill site near Pike Lane per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval of Change Order 3 to the contract with Atlas Construction for the Crystal Bay Lift Station project increasing the contract amount by $31,094.39 for multiple revisions associated with utility conflicts and field changes necessary to complete the project per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval of Change Order 4 to the contract with Atlas Construction for the Crystal Bay Lift Station project decreasing the contract amount by $52,779.00 reflecting final measured quantities per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval of Change Order 3 to the contract with Atlas Construction for the Clarks Creek South Interceptor Phase 3 project increasing the contract amount by $4,853.29 for addition of a sewer manhole section and a 4” vent pipe at the lift station per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval of Change Order 4 to the contract with Atlas Construction for the Clarks Creek South Interceptor Phase 3 project increasing the contract amount by $8,797.00 reflecting final measured quantities per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval for release of all retainage held at Lincoln Bank approximately $159,600.00 plus interest to Atlas Construction for the Clarks Creek Interceptor Phase 3 project per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006.
!1
14.
15.
16. 17.
Approval for release of all retainage held at Lincoln Bank approximately $109,250.00 plus interest to Atlas Construction for the Reeves Road East of SR267 project per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval for release of all retainage held at Lincoln Bank approximately $72,500.00 plus interest to Atlas Construction for the Clarks Creek Road South approach to U.S. 40 project per the Town Engineer’s Report dated September 25, 2006. Approval of the August 2006 monthly report for the Department of Planning and Zoning. Approval of Chief Anderson’s; Chief Brinker’s and Plainfield Parks and Recreation Reports dated September 22, 2006; Town Engineer’s Report dated September 24, 2006 and the Human Resources Director’s and Clerk/Treasurer’s Reports dated March 25, 2006.
Mr. Kirchoff said I have a correction on the minutes of the last regular scheduled Town Council meeting. I believe it is page 7 where I’m reporting on the Crystal Bay Homeowners Association contacting us about assistance on the “no parking”. We need to add the word “not”; “they were not asking for ticketing” and it indicates that they were. With that I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried. BID AWARD: Reconstruction of CR550 South between Reeves Road and I-70 Mr. Brandgard asked, do we have a bid award recommendation for the reconstruction of CR550S between Reeves Road and I-70? Mr. McGillem said we do not have a bid award recommendation but we do have a bid rejection. We met and we had three bids on the project. The lowest bid was only 10% above the engineer’s estimate. We felt that part of the problem was the project this time of the year. We met with Duke Development because this is the primary access into the Foxconn parking lot. They are also a major contributor to the funding of this project. In meeting with them they had some thoughts in mind that we might also be able to cut the cost associated with the project. They felt they could go ahead and maintain that access through the winter and doing the maintenance to the road. It will not affect our roads so based on that it is the committee’s recommendation to the Council that we reject all awards and re-bid this after the first of the year and see where we got with it at that time. Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve the recommendation from the bid award committee for the reconstruction of CR550S between Reeves Road and I-70. The recommendation is to reject all awards and bids at this time and we will go out for re-bids in the spring. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Motion carried. BID OPENING: Bob Ward Park Mr. Brandgard said we have a bid opening for Bob Ward Park. we have proof of publication?
Do
Mr. Daniel said yes we do. Mr. Brandgard said the first bid Development Company, Inc., Indianapolis.
is
submitted
by
Evans
Mr. Daniel said on the Evansville Company on their financial documents they have signed and notarized the section but they missed a signature up at the top of that page for verification. Since the notarized section is signed if the Council approves, they can allow the bidders to correct that minor issue with another signature. Other than the bid is in proper form. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to allow the bidder to sign the missed signature should the bid be accepted. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried. Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Evans Development Company, Inc. is $263,000.00. The second bid is submitted by JDH Contracting. Mr. Daniel said the JDH Contracting bid is in proper form.
!2
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by JDH Contracting is $252,450.00. I’m going to retract that; that is the base bid amount on this one. And the alternate breakout for the west side park is $23,500.00. The third bid is from Patterson North General Contractors, Indianapolis. Mr. Daniel said the Patterson North bid is in proper form. Mr. Brandgard said the base bid submitted by Patterson North Construction is $253,000.00. I’m going to say that is the total because there is no breakout for the west side. That was all of the bids that were submitted for the Bob Ward Park. I would like to thank all those who submitted a bid and the engineer’s estimate for the base bid amount was $184,500.00. The alternate bid amount was $24,750.00. Again, is this right? The total combined is $184,500.00? Mr. Belcher said yes. Mr. Brandgard said then the alternate should be included. I would like to ask a bid review committee made up of Councilman Ed Gaddie; Clay Chafin; Tim Belcher and Mark Meyerholtz come back with a recommendation at the next meeting please. SUMMARY OF THE BIDS FOR BOB WARD PARK COMPANY
BID AMOUNT
ALTERNATE BID
JDH Contracting Evans Development Patterson North
$252,450.00 $263,000.00 $253,000.00
$23,500.00
Engineer’s Estimate
$184,500.00
BID OPENING: Sale Engine #122 Mr. Brandgard said we also have a bid opening for the sale of Fire Engine #122. Do we have proof of publication? Mr. Daniel said yes we do. Mr. Brandgard said the first bid submitted is from Hope Volunteer Fire Department. Mr. Daniel said the bid from Hope Volunteer Fire Department is in proper form. Mr. Brandgard said the bid submitted Department is in the amount of $15,000.00. bid that was submitted. Again, we will Anderson; myself and Mr. Carlucci come back
by the Hope Volunteer Fire I believe that was the only have a committee of Chief with a recommendation.
BID OPENING: Sugar Grove Pedestrian Trail Mr. Brandgard said the third bid opening is for the Sugar Grove Pedestrian Trail. Do we have proof of publication? Mr. Daniel said yes we do. Mr. Brandgard said the first bid is submitted by John Hall Construction, Inc., Plainfield. Just to make sure I understand this one shows a base bid amount and an alternate bid is additive. form.
Mr. Daniel said the John Hall Construction, Inc. is in proper
Mr. Brandgard said the amount of the base bid submitted by John Hall Construction is $196,326.00. The alternate breakout is in the amount of $26,436.00. The second bid is submitted by JDH Contracting, Plainfield. Mr. Daniel said the JDH Contracting bid is in proper form. Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the base bid submitted by JDH Contracting is $178,200.00. The alternate breakout is in the amount of $24,750.00. Those were the only bids that were submitted for the Sugar Grove path. I would like to thank everybody who took the time to submit a bid. The engineer’s estimate for the base bid amount was $145,400.00. The alternate bid amount was $16,750.00. The total
!3
for the combined bids for the engineer’s estimate was $162,150.00. I would like to ask for the bid review committee made up of Councilman Bill Kirchoff; Tim Belcher; Don McGillem and Mark Meyerholtz to review the bids and come back with a recommendation at our next meeting. SUMMARY OF THE BIDS FOR THE SUGAR GROVE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL COMPANY
BASE BID AMOUNT
ALTERNATE
John Hall Const. JDH Contracting
$196,326.00 $178,200.00
$26,436.00 $24,750.00
Engineer’s Estimate
$145,400.00
$16,750.00
Mr. Belcher said I would like to get this on record before we leave this public meeting. Mr. Meyerholtz had heard from one of the contractors that the $196,326.00 he believes is the combined number. So, as we review those bids, if we read it in wrong, we may have to take it as it is written but I just wanted to report that. I believe John Hall Construction the tentative bid was $170,000.00 and $26,000.00 for the alternate for a total of $196,000.00. So, I wanted to get that on record now. As we review the bids, we will bring back some thoughts on that at the next meeting. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. John Ryan said I’m the owner of Buffalo Wild Wings Grill and Bar. It is located at 2683 E. Main Street in the Plainfield Commons Shopping Center. I wanted to speak in reference to the proposed Ordinance No. 31-2006. It is an ordinance concerning smoking in public places and places of employment. It is my understanding at this time the Town is considering a ban of non-smoking in restaurants and bars. I wanted to go officially on record as saying that I am in support of a smoking ban. I would, however, like the Council to consider a smoking ban across the board to include bars as well as restaurants. I have experienced in Lawrence, in my other franchise that I have on the east side of Town, they enacted the Marion County, which they chose to. They chose to adopt Marion County’s proposal over there and at that time they banned it from restaurants but a lot of bars to continue. We are experiencing over there roughly a 20% decrease in sales through our alcohol and probably 10% over across the line decrease. I realize people may consider that it is from my side a financial situation and I am concerned about that but I think the main reason that you are considering a smoking ban, and I would think it would be primarily a health issue, if this really is the root of why we are going to do that, then I think it is hypocritical to not include the bars and not include their workers in there and people who do not chose to smoke. I think if we go across the board this way, it is an even playing field for all restaurants as well as bars. Nobody will really get hurt by the situation there. The bar owners may squawk a little bit and it will be a little inconvenient for smokers but it will also, like I said, level the playing field for everyone. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Mr. Brandgard said the letter you sent I just want to let you know that it was probably one of the best-written letters that I have seen. And I appreciate the way that you stated your comments, which is pretty much the way that you presented it here tonight and really appreciated hearing from you. Mr. Ryan said I do understand smokers. I was one for 20 years and I quit four years ago so I also understand what they are doing there but I think it makes sense and I don’t think that should you do it across the board, it is only a matter of time. In a number of a couple of years we are going to be facing that anyway. I would like to see the City of Plainfield be proactive on this. TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT Mr. Carlucci said I want to pass around a thank you card for Kyleigh’s Krew. As you recall, they held an event at Franklin Park not too long ago to raise money. I have several certifications to present tonight, Plan Commission certifications. These all occurred at the September 7, 2006 Plan Commission meeting, which was on a Thursday night. Normally we would bring that to the Council the next Monday. That was not possible because of the short turnaround, however, they are here and there are
!4
several of them and I will go through them as quickly as I can. As a matter of fact, we had so much Plan Commission items to present to the Council, and I realize three of the Council members are on the Plan Commission, but we also have two members who are not. So, I provided all of the reports, memos, ordinances and put that in a separate folder on the CD-ROMs. I, Richard A. Carlucci in my capacity as Secretary of the Plainfield Plan Commission hereby certify that the Plainfield Plan Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, September 7, 2006 on the petition of Opus North Corporation, RZ-06-006 for rezoning 11.94 acres from Hendricks County RA, Rural Residential District to I-2 Office/ Warehouse Distribution Industrial District. The Plainfield Plan Commission voted four to zero to make a favorable recommendation to the Plainfield Town Council to rezone property described hereto on attached Exhibit “A”. This was dated the 22nd day of September 2006. I have signed and sealed that as the Secretary of the Plainfield Plan Commission. This 11.94 acres is located on the south side directly across from the Becton-Dickinson project. annexed into the Town and rezoned to meet the existing property. So, that is the recommendation of the Plan that item.
of Reeves Road That land was zoning on that Commission for
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the recommendation from the Plan Commission to approve the petition of Opus North Corporation, RZ-06-006 for rezoning 11.94 acres from Hendricks County RA, Rural Residential District to I-2, Office/Warehouse Distribution Industrial District. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Motion carried. Mr. Carlucci said I might mention, and you have already seen them on the agenda, that there are companion ordinances to each one of those on the agenda. I, Richard A. Carlucci in my capacity as Secretary of the Plainfield Plan Commission hereby certify that the Plainfield Plan Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, September 7, 2006 on the petition of Verus Partners LLC, RZ-06-008 for rezoning 34.47 acres from AG, Agricultural District to C-1, Commercial/Industrial District. The Plainfield Plan Commission voted four to zero to make a favorable recommendation to the Plainfield Town Council to rezone property described herein on attached Exhibit “A”. This is dated the 22nd day of September 2006. This property is located on Ronald Reagan Parkway. That will be the name on the sign someday but it is also known as Six Points Road. The property is located approximately three-quarters of a mile north of Stafford Road and is located on the east side of Six Points Road. The 34 acres represents the frontage of a larger piece of property that has the Town’s new Commercial/Industrial zone on it. The property is not big enough for a warehouse but it is large enough for the C-1 zone and Verus Partners is the owner of the property and requested the rezoning. Mr. Fivecoat made a motion to approve the recommendation of the Plainfield Plan Commission on the petition of Verus Partners LLC, RZ-06-008 for rezoning 34.47 acres from AG, Agricultural District to C-1, Commercial Industrial District. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried. Mr. Carlucci said I, Richard A. Carlucci in my capacity as Secretary of the Plainfield Plan Commission hereby certify that the Plainfield Plan Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, September 7, 2006 on the petition of Verus Partners LLC, RZ-06-009 for rezoning 92.48 acres from AG, Agricultural to I-2, Office/Warehouse Distribution Industrial District. The Plainfield Plan Commission voted four to zero to make a favorable recommendation to the Plainfield Town Council to rezone property described herein on attached Exhibit “A” dated the 22nd day of September 2006. This property is located on Six Points Road and it is owned by Verus Partners. It is located actually contiguous to and just east of the previous 34 acres. The zoning is for a warehouse/distribution type facility and that’s the Plan Commission’s recommendation to the Town Council. Mr. Kirchoff said we might advise the other members the reason that those votes were four to zero is because that is all that we had
!5
there that night. It wasn’t four to zero and three abstaining or anything else; we only had four members there that night. So, with that I make a motion to approve the recommendation from the Plainfield Plan Commission on the petition of Verus Partners LLC, RZ-06-009 for rezoning 92.48 acres from AG, Agricultural District to I-2, Office/ Warehouse Distribution Industrial District. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried. Mr. Carlucci said I, Richard A. Carlucci in my capacity as Secretary of the Plainfield Plan Commission hereby certify that the Plainfield Plan Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, September 7, 2006 on the petition of Airwest Partners LLC, RZ-06-010 for rezoning 71.5 acres from AG, Agricultural District to I-2, Office Warehouse Distribution District. The Plainfield Plan Commission voted four to zero to make a favorable recommendation to the Plainfield Town Council to rezone the property described herein on the attached Exhibit “A”, which included zoning commitments dated this 22nd day of September 2006. This property gets much more difficult to describe just because of its odd location but it is located in the southeast Guilford Township. It is in the Town of Plainfield. Again, it is difficult to describe. If you were to go out 1075E south of I-70, that will give you kind of an idea. The access to this property will actually come through Ameriplex and Marion County. So, this property has been annexed into the Town of Plainfield and the rezoning is for an industrial building that will actually split both Marion County and Plainfield, Hendricks County, which we are all enjoying working through all of those issues with the Staff in how you do the multiple jurisdictions. But that is the recommendation of the Plan Commission for rezoning that property. Mr. Fivecoat made a motion to approve the recommendation from the Plainfield Plan Commission on the petition of Airwest Partners LLC, RZ-06-010 for rezoning 71.5 acres from AG, Agricultural District to I-2, Office Warehouse Distribution Industrial District. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried. Mr. Carlucci said be advised that pursuant to Indiana Code 36.74-600 on Thursday, September 7, 2006 the Town of Plainfield Plan Commission gave a favorable recommendation to a proposal to amend the Town of Plainfield’s Zoning Ordinance TA-06-001 applicable to all real property located in the Town of Plainfield about adoption of the Town Council, the Town of Plainfield of the County of Hendricks, Indiana. The Plainfield Plan Commission hereby certifies said proposal to amend the Town of Plainfield’s Zoning Ordinance to you for your consideration with a favorable recommendation. A copy of the proposal to amend the Town of Plainfield’s Zoning Ordinance is attached in this certification as Exhibit “A” dated this 22nd day of September 2006. I might also point out that they also voted four to zero. There are multiple changes, as you saw, in your materials. Some of these have been gone over different committees for quite awhile. I’m not sure who all were involved in those. I know Mr. James was involved in some of those; Mr. Valanzano was involved in some; I know Mr. McPhail has been involved. I’m not sure who all was involved but there are a lot of, not major changes, but a lot of changes that we tried to make to make the Zoning Ordinance work better for everybody. I certainly would be glad, if you have any questions about the changes, to answer those. If not, I will call on Mr. James or anybody else if you have any questions. Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve the recommendation of the Plan Commission on the proposal to amend the Town of Plainfield’s Zoning Ordinance, TA-06-001 applicable to all real property located in the Town of Plainfield on adoption by the Town Council, the Town of Plainfield of the County of Hendricks, Indiana. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried. Mr. Carlucci said be advised that pursuant to Indiana Code 36-7-4.600 on Thursday, September 7, 2006 the Town of Plainfield Plan Commission gave a favorable recommendation to a proposal to amend the Town of Plainfield’s Subdivision Control Ordinance, TA-06-002 applicable to all real property located in the Town of Plainfield upon adoption by the Town Council of the Town of Plainfield of the County of Hendricks Indiana. The Plainfield Plan Commission hereby certifies said proposal to amend the Town of Plainfield’s Subdivision Control Ordinance to you for your consideration with a favorable
!6
recommendation. A copy of the proposal to amend the Town of Plainfield’s Subdivision Control Ordinance is attached to this certification as Exhibit “A”. This is dated the 22nd day of September 2006. Again, that last paragraph should have the Plainfield’s Subdivision Control Ordinance and not the Zoning Ordinance on it. There were not as many proposed changes in there; substantially less than there were in the Zoning Ordinance. Again, I would be glad to answer any questions and I’m sure Mr. James would be able to do that too. Mr. McPhail said in both of these the changes were intended to simply help expedite the process. I think it will be simpler for folks to go through our process. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the recommendation from the Plainfield Plan Commission on a proposal to amend the Town of Plainfield’s Subdivision Control Ordinance, TA-06-002 applicable to all real property located in the Town of Plainfield upon adoption by the Town Council, Town of Plainfield of the County of Hendricks Indiana. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried. Mr. Carlucci said I received a certified letter dated September 13, 2006. It is addressed to Mr. Brandgard as the Council President and myself as the Town Manager. It was sent from Jerry and Karen Houser. It involves waterline extensions to the South Hills Estates Subdivision. I provided some comments in my report about this. Mr. Houser quotes a covenant that was dated April 26, 1973 that he believes requires the homeowners to hook onto the Town water, if the Town extends their water. He has also requested the extension for himself. I placed this in my report and raised some issues that I think need to be resolved. I’m not sure if there is not maybe an Indiana statute somewhere that says that covenants have a life, a beginning and an end. They may not last as long as 1973 to the present. The Indiana Code specifically prohibits us from forcing people onto municipal water. I don’t know how that plays into it. Again, one of the other issues is does the Town of Plainfield have a right to enforce a covenant on those neighbors even if it is permissible. So, my suggestion was that we do need some answers to some of these questions. I had asked that maybe the Council consider referring that to Mr. Daniel for further investigation. Mr. Brandgard said with that we will refer that to Mr. Daniel for further review in the interest that there is a correct way of taking care of situations. Mr. Carlucci said I did send this out to you earlier. I apologize because I don’t like sending information out the same day of the meeting. As you can see, there were a lot of resolutions and ordinances in there. Resolution No. 2006-38 really has to do with the Epson project out on Stafford Road on the north side. When we approved that project, the abatement for that project, one of the items that we agreed to do was to allow them to abate for a three-year period. Actually, I went back today and I was looking at what we did for Becton-Dickenson and that is exactly what we did for them. The reason that this hasn’t come to you sooner is that the people who worked for Epson on site locations, etc. never sent us the application and I can’t work until I get one. If you adopt this resolution tonight, that is the only resolution that you have to adopt because the area is already considered an economic revitalization area under the tax abatement statutes. So, we don’t have to go through another public hearing. So, again it would be three years for logistics equipment and that is why you have that on your agenda tonight. I was not on the committee but there was a wayfinding sign committee. I know that Mr. McPhail and Mr. James were on that and Mr. Haase and Mr. McGillem. The wayfinding sign program is something I think we sorely need mainly because of the growth, the difficulty of people trying to get around the community to find different locations. It could be the schools, the Metropolis, U.S. 40, the retail corridor, the Town Center and parks. We went through a process of interviewing three firms. The firm the committee is recommending is Schmidt and Associates. As you know, they are already doing the high school project and I think everybody feels that they are doing a pretty good job on that and the working relationship between Schmidt and the Town seems fairly strong. I did send the contract over to Mr. Daniel and I know some changes were made in the contract and he has approved it ready to go forward. Our goal is when Ronald Reagan Parkway is
!7
completed, SR267 is completed, immediately afterwards we will already have all of the signs ready to go in at the specific locations. That would be early next fall. We have a lot of work to do. I don’t know if any of you have been down to Bloomington, Indiana lately. They just implemented a new wayfinding sign program within the last couple of years down there that I think will be somewhat similar to what we are looking at here. Indianapolis has the quadrant signage for the town center so we have a lot of work to do. Just on the committee we have differences of opinions on how many signs should be where. So, that is the reason to bring someone in there who can bring some clarity out of chaos. That is our recommendation that Schmidt and Associates enter into a contract with them and authorize the Town Council President to sign the agreement. Mr. Kirchoff asked, what did the contract cover? shocked at the price so what does it cover? Mr. Carlucci said at the end of the day, us where the signage should go, but they will ready to be bid out. When we do these bids, the do right away is look at their price. We envelopes and we try to find the best person.
I was quite
not only will they tell have the bid documents one thing that we don’t keep those in separate
Mr. Kirchoff said from what I perceived that program to be it just seemed well out of what I had anticipated that it would have been. Mr. Carlucci said the work at the end does get pretty substantial when they have to provide the bids. They also have to help us find the sign contractors to do this work. It is not something that we are going to be able to do on our own. Mr. McPhail said there is also an element in the contract to go through the INDOT process and clarify any resolutions that we have with INDOT and all of those other things. Mr. Carlucci said INDOT will allow us, just like they have other communities, to put wayfinding signs in but it is a separate process that we have to go through to get their permission. That is part of it. I’m not sure we put in there that new visitor’s signage and if that was part of it or not. There is another program that INDOT has but I think we limited it to wayfinding and getting their approval to put the signs in both public and State right-of-way. Mr. McPhail said I might add that we have been struggling with this thing for such a long time. Mr. Higbee and Mr. Valanzano and finally Mr. James has kicked the ball down the road and got it this far and we really need to move forward on it. I know it is an expensive process but it is a very complicated process to go through to get approvals and to handle the design that will get this done. Mr. Carlucci said at the end of the project they give you a standard pallet so that you can, at some other time, expand the program without having to go back to them. They will give you the color numbers and everything that you need to go through to get it done without having to bring them back in to do it. I think part of it may be that we just keep expanding the community. There is a lot to direct people to. There are some communities that 10 signs may do it but given the corridor on SR267 and U.S. 40; Avon Avenue; Metropolis Parkway; there is a lot to be done. One special area is also down by the interstate where we still have to decide how we are going to handle all the hotels and the locations down there. Mr. Kirchoff said Schmidt is a good firm but I just think it is unreasonable. Mr. Carlucci said Don also mentioned that we are also looking at entry signs into Plainfield. In Danville they have one in different locations so it would also include that too. If you are concerned about that amount, I can go back and try to negotiate a different number. Mr. Kirchoff said I don’t know if anybody else shares the same concern but I just thought it was unreasonable. Mr. Brandgard said I thought it was high but when you are looking at what needs to be done, they are going to go through and audit all the existing signage that is in Town as well as developing new signs. I notice that they are going to be complete by January 31, 2007.
!8
Mr. McPhail said through the process too we didn’t get a lot of response to inquiries that we sent out. Apparently, there are not a lot of people that do this and do it well. I was more impressed with the gentleman that they are partnering with, and I can’t remember his name, that Schmidt brought in. He seemed to be really an expert in dealing with all of these regulations. I’m concerned about getting through the INDOT process and having the expertise to get all of that taken care of. This gentleman had really a good track record of being able to do that. I think our number two firm was out of State, if I remember right, and I don’t remember what their numbers were but they had travel expense in there and some things that we felt like we couldn’t control also. I think we have to move forward and we have to get this project going and take care of it. I would like to tell you that we can go out there and beat the price with the same expertise but I don’t think we can do it. Mr. Carlucci said the firm that did the City of Indianapolis sign program and Bloomington’s we actually contacted them and they declined even though they have been in this area because they are just too busy. We were kind of limited by who we could get to come in here. Mr. Brandgard said just, as a question in that regard, the document that we have I just want to make sure I understand. When I read it last night, it says the fee will be $85,000.00 and additional services requested by the owner will be billed. You were talking about INDOT; where is that specifically indicated in the description of services? It is something that we need to have done but I want to make sure that it is specified somewhere. Mr. Carlucci said we can clarify that with them. I don’t think making a decision tonight is as important as at some point we do need to move forward. I can clarify that because I believe that was in our RFP when we sent it out to them. Mr. Brandgard said I think it was but I don’t see it in the list of what the program will consist that they wrote in the letter here. I want to make sure what the RFP is what they quoted here and make sure it is specified and not that I don’t trust anybody on this but I also know if it is not written down, you have no agreement. Mr. Fivecoat asked, was there another piece of document to this because it says “see attached document for activities” and I don’t see that here? Mr. McPhail said I would suggest we have the Town Manager contact Schmidt and come back with a more detailed report before the next Council meeting. Mr. Brandgard said if you would, we would appreciate that and again I feel some sense of urgency of getting this program going because we need to get information out there so that people will know where to go for whatever they are looking for. Mr. Carlucci said as Mr. Carlucci said, we are wrapping up two projects here pretty quickly with Ronald Reagan and SR267. Mr. McPhail said I’m basing my opinion based on the interview process and not the document. I just remember going through the process and talking about all of the things that we need to get done. Mr. Brandgard said the $85,000.00 is a flat fee and it says additional services required by the owner will be billed according to the attached hourly rate schedule. I want to be very sure what it is we are paying for so we don’t make a request for them to do something that we already assume that they are doing. Mr. Fivecoat said the piece attached for specific activities”.
that
we
don’t
have
is
the
“see
Mr. Carlucci said I will take your direction and bring it back at the next Council meeting. At the last Council meeting it was brought up about did we have an appointment to the Ronald Reagan Parkway Coordinating Committee? I think Mr. Kirchoff brought that up. I contacted Don Reitz and he said only one community had responded and we were not that one. Mr. Reitz said we should appoint someone and maybe pick up a couple of more and
!9
he will call the committee together. be appointed for that committee.
I would recommend that Joe James
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to accept the Town Manager’s recommendation to name Joe James to the Ronald Reagan Parkway Coordinating Committee. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried. Mr. Carlucci said I did a brief report on the Peacock Court streetlights. They had one erected in the cul-de-sac. I talked with the gentleman from Hendricks Power and we talked about the other three streetlights. I haven’t been out there to check it since last Thursday so I don’t know where they are on this but they seem to understand where we want the lights and why we want them. One issue that they had right at CR700E and Peacock Court the light at that intersection, the arm of that light would be so long it would be into their wire so I suggested they adjust it a little bit. They wanted to put it on a pole farther north and I said that won’t work because that is not where we want it. So, they seem to be moving forward to get that done. Mr. Kirchoff asked, has anybody been on Saratoga to see if they got that started? Mr. Fivecoat said the poles are laying on the ground. Mr. Brandgard said there is one up. Speaking of that one up, while I’m thinking of it, I believe they took care of a stop sign at Kensington where they put that one pole up. You may want to take a look at that because it is bent and laying on the ground there. At least I assume that’s happened when they put the pole up. Mr. Castetter said (inaudible). Mr. Brandgard said I stand corrected. sign is down and we need to get it back up.
The point was the stop
Mr. Carlucci said I know that you saw the street name signs outside. I know that Jason will talk about that in a minute. Mr. Brandgard said the note that you sent us of future public hearings at Saratoga crossing the annexation on Monday, September 23rd I’m assuming that you mean October. REPORTS Mr. Fivecoat asked, when are we going to get the crossover out in front of the police station? Mr. Carlucci said that is not our project. Mr. McGillem said Dennison Properties is responsible for putting that crossover in. I called them last week and indicated if they didn’t get the Saratoga at the Kenwood openings filled in and completed along with the ones on U.S. 40 that we were looking at stopping work within Kenwood until they got those items finished. They have moved forward and they are putting stone down in the Kenwood and Saratoga openings. They indicated to me that they ran into some materials on the openings on U.S. 40 and are waiting for INDOT to schedule a time that they would come out in order to get INDOT’s approval for them to go ahead. So, that is the holdup where they are now. Mr. McPhail said I was contacted by a fellow indicated that he was the president of the homeowners association in Glen Haven requesting a stop sign be installed. I passed that information onto Councilman Kirchoff; Mr. McGillem; Mr. Castetter and Mr. Belcher. I went back to the gentleman and told him we would certainly be glad to consider that. A Town ordinance would have to be adopted if we put a stop sign in there and that we would require a written request from the homeowners association and apparently that didn’t get done. But there is a request to put a stop sign there on the Glen Haven Boulevard. I don’t remember the cross street but it is just before you go into the five units in the back. I think they had called a couple of other people. I did ask them to submit it in writing and authorized by the homeowners association before we would consider it. One other quick item is I expect to pick up some banners tomorrow to put along Main Street. I got a message late this afternoon that the flags are ready. So, we will pick those up and see if we can get some of them up.
!10
Mr. Chafin said to stay with the theme of signs down here at Friendship Gardens there are a lot of their signs that honor the teacher of the year and various people. So, we had a sign company make up a sample of one. The rotary club always covers the cost associated with the trees for the teacher of the year, etc. I have been talking with them about placing some of those signs so we are working with them. There are 19 signs at that park so these are about $118.35 each. We may try to phase them in as we can but the goal is to put a sign out there, this is a 6” x 6” and it is engraved and something that will last and especially legible. So, if somebody gets a sign for “In memory of”, we will have something that will look nice instead of what is there now. Mr. Brandgard said I think that is a good-looking sign. Mr. Carlucci asked, do you sink that into concrete? Mr. Chafin said yes. It is a garden stake. That is two foot but we can get it three foot in length. What our plan was is to pull out the old ones, the little pieces of wood, and put those stakes in there. part?
Mr. Carlucci asked, would the medallion lay on top of the flat
Mr. Chafin said yes. That goes in the ground and straight down like that and then this is bolted so it is turned where you can read it as you are looking down on it. It has pleats in the bottom to help it grab concrete or ground or whatever it is. We want to put it in there as permanently as we could. Mr. Brandgard said it looks like a nice system. Mr. Chafin said we looked at a handful of different places and that is the one that I think we liked the best. We will try to phase those in with money that we have in our current budget as soon as we can. The tree for this particular teacher of the year has been ordered and we just have to pick it up and plant it. I just wanted to show this to you. The other couple of things that I wanted to bring up is in the report there is the request for the creation of an additional full-time person for the food and beverage resale coordinator. I know the job description was approved at the last meeting. The position description is in tonight’s report and I just wanted to see if you had any questions. The intent is to have monies in the budget to have that position start January 1, 2007. So, we could get the café prepared for opening and going possibly before then but the position itself we would try to do the legwork prior to but having him start the first of next year. Mr. Fivecoat said I think it is a good idea to move forward. Mr. Chafin said the only other thing was Mr. Fivecoat had asked about the younger kids upstairs and we had a lot of discussions with patrons and full-time staff and part-time staff, etc. One of the things that we thought may be the best alternative to that was to come up with some programs for the kids. In the report there were a couple of programs for kids that are under 13. One was the aqua athletes and then the health promotion and then there are a couple of others. We came up with “Fit for Life”. It was more or less a fitness program that we could utilize one of those meeting rooms that we have downstairs that we could combine a cardio portion to it, conditioning, training, etc. that would cater to kids for that age group. That may be better served because we are offering aerobic programs. As part of the membership, this could be another benefit and it could be for kids or kids and parents. If we could get the parents and kids working out together, I think it would be a great tool especially at that age. That was one of our ideas and we wanted to make it food for thought. We haven’t instituted anything yet. Mr. Fivecoat said I think it is something that we need down there. We have a facility down there and I think we ought to have every age participate, especially for kids under 13, because they need to do some physical exercise. Everybody is talking about obesity in our schools and we need to get some exercise for these kids and not just basketball. Whatever we come up with I’m in favor of.
!11
Mr. Chafin said we will move forward and try to get the details solidified and then start promoting them by word of mouth or literature in the schools or various ways. Mr. Kirchoff said today I was working out and staff members approached me and said I sure wish the Town Council would look at raising the age for kids that can come up here. He is somebody who works on Saturdays and he said Saturdays have become the Middle School hangout. They go from machine to machine to machine and he said they are using up vital machine time. It is a safety hazard and he said please convey to the Town Council I think we need to be looking at different age restriction for getting upstairs and using that equipment. I told him that was the conversation that we have had based on some things that have come to the Council and that we are going to be doing that. And then I ran into Brent and told him his staff member just talked to me and he said yes we were talking to the Middle School kids about weight lifting, etc. So, I just wanted to share with the Council that your staff is saying we really need to be looking at age restrictions upstairs. Mr. Chafin said we have been talking about adding some requirements for the younger kids, i.e., making them take an orientation session in how to use the equipment, some preliminary procedures when you go up there, to make sure what you are doing is right for your body and some other safeguards and some behavioral protocol. What I will try to do for one of the upcoming meetings is try to get a hold of the facilities in the metro area and find out if they have the facilities and what age group that they allow and go from there. Mr. Kirchoff said we are shedding September and between now and as we head to fall and winter the facilities are going to get much busier and we really need to be having them used by people that need them. I think we need to be pretty judicious who we have up there using the equipment. Mr. Chafin said if they behave appropriately, we can look at a different age whether it is 16 or 13 or whatever. I think we can make it work. Mr. Fivecoat said I think the idea of having ID cards like 13-16 has a different card and it is a privilege to be up there or we can take that card away from them is a good idea. Mr. Kirchoff said I just wanted to share with the Council that staff members are seeing the same concerns. I was working out, I think it was Saturday, and there was a young man up there that I kind of questioned. The staff member had already gone to them and asked grandma how old is he. He is 13 years and three months she said. Brent said it is sad but we have people stretching the truth. So, I’m walking around the track and there is this young gal in the aerobics room. I suggested to the staff member that he might want to check the aerobics room so he started in there and she had left. By the time he left she went downstairs and got a younger friend. So, I stuck my head in there and I said how old are you and she said I’m 11. I said you really need to be 13 to be on this floor and she was playing with the equipment in the aerobics room. So, when I told her she needed to be 13, her eight-year-old friend or nine-yearold friend left. Again, I think it is more reasoning why we need to be cognizant of that. Mr. Fivecoat said if you have that 13-16 identification card, it would have your date of birth on it too. Mr. Kirchoff said I just wanted to re-emphasize that we need to be working on this. Mr. Jason Castetter said I’m sure everybody has seen the large stop sign in the parking lot tonight. Just to clear some things up our standard is a 30” x 30” stop sign. What is out there is 36” x 36”. We put these up on major intersections. South Center Street has several of them. At Longfellow as well as Hadley Road and others have them as well. They are at Simmons and Stafford Road as well. This is the extreme. This is probably the largest sign that you would see out there but if you like the sign and like the color, we can always downsize that. If we are going to a 30” x 30” stop sign, I would say a 36-inch blade would probably work well on top of the stop sign in
!12
residential areas. It is large because of the graphics. I wanted you to see the graphics, what was going to be on the smaller sign as well as high intensity. So, there is red, there is blue. It is there for show. Mr. Kirchoff asked, what is that size? Mr. Castetter said those are 48 inches. and nine inches wide.
Those are four foot long
Mr. Brandgard said they didn’t look that big. Mr. Castetter said actually I used an existing sign post that I had so actually the stop sign is six inches shorter than what it should be. So, the higher you go it is going to look a little narrower. Mr. Brandgard said I like the blue and it showed up better than the red. Mr. Castetter said that is why I put the red on top and the blue broke that up. If you go red on top of red, you just have that blending affect and it doesn’t stand out. red.
Mr. Carlucci said I got some comments from the school for the Mr. Bennett said the Plainfield colors are scarlet red and blue.
Mr. Castetter said I don’t want to make things complicated but what is out there, the red and blue, I don’t think it is all bad in just the intersections that we are talking about where we are putting them at the schools. We want a red and blue theme. It is up for discussion. We don’t have to decide tonight. I just wanted you to see it. The red and blue are high intensity on that sign. I didn’t bring the engineer grade because of the high intensity that we are going to with a lot of our signs. The engineer grade does have some reflectability in the paint that is on it but it is not the decorative what you see on a stop sign that stands out at you. Mr. McPhail said this before. I think school areas. There are be inappropriate around the theme works there. these things, it may be little different theme. had them all over Town,
I think I made this comment when we discussed it is certainly appropriate in and around the some areas where I think the sign itself would the mall and places like that. I don’t think I guess I’m suggesting as you are looking at different areas of Town that you want to have a I think they are attractive but I think if you you would get tired of looking at them.
Mr. Castetter said I am well stocked with signs that we have on the current streets. Unless I could make a good deal with our sign makers, as far as overlaying our current signs that we have with a sticker type sign, that is the only way that it is feasible. But right now I am well stocked. Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible). Mr. McGillem said (inaudible). Mr. Castetter said I think the price for the signage that you have out there, the 9” x 48”, because of the graphics, to have it made the first time was $138.00. To have that sign remade today it would be $117.00. The price comes down with the more that you order but I don’t think we are going to go there right yet. Mr. Fivecoat said the parking lot and the planting of the trees looks very nice. I have had a lot of comments on the parking lot and it is starting to take shape. Mr. Castetter said we were fortunate to be able to get those trees and we are making use out of them. Mr. McGillem said we had our monthly meeting today with INDOT on the SR267. I think most of you are aware that the concrete paving has started out there and they are moving along. The one thing that we discussed today, which is going to happen now that the concrete paving has started, is at Hadley Road where they have paved up on each side of it with the new section leaving a three lane section through the intersection tomorrow, that three lane, is going to be reduced further
!13
to two lanes through that intersection. That is going to create further restrictions at that point. We have Hartford opened right now. They did have Hartford closed as they paved through it. One of our thoughts was is to try to keep any truck that would normally turn off SR267 on Hadley to take them to Hartford and post signs to prevent no truck turning onto Hadley eastbound. Also, trucks coming across Hadley from the east and direct them down Hartford to get back out to SR267 to try to restrict that movement. What they will be doing there as they work that out, they will work the outer lanes, the right turn lanes and paving into the lanes that are closed on the approach. Once they get that done then they will open up the outside lanes and take up the inside lanes and then pave out the inside lanes. Hadley Road is probably the worst intersection that we are going to deal with because if you look at the pavement where they paved up, there is about a 19 inch difference between the finished paving and the distant grading where the trucks are trying to turn right now and you have that differential. I guess we had one to get up on the corner of pavement here last week and if you get one up there, you have them hung up until you get a wrecker. We are also looking at Stanley Road. The east road on the east side will be closed when they get Reeves Road opened. They expect that to happen within approximately two weeks. They will open up Reeves Road. They have paved all the way through it. They have the new bridge done on the east side. They have the stone down. So, they will open up Reeves Road across the new pavement section. They will close down the east approach to Stanley Road to pave through it. At the time before they do that they will also open up Agan Drive to where it comes out onto SR267 and put a temporary median crossover at Agan Drive to keep the traffic flow at the Stanley Road approach down. Farther as you go up the line it complicates things too because at the same time they are doing it at the pace that they are paving they will be restricting Stafford Road to two lanes coming through Stafford Road up there. Eventually they will be coming back up on it. So, it is good that the paving has started. We are only about a week behind schedule. The paving operation is moving fairly rapidly. They are making a pretty good pace on it. There will be further restrictions as paving goes forward. I am going to try to get out and get with INDOT with public relations. I would like to see if they would get at least some kind of a newsletter that identifies these stages. So, we can get it out in the paper and people will know what is going on. Mr. Brandgard said you answered a number of questions that I was going to ask. Mr. McGillem said we talked about closing to the point that we could get everything done, close the intersection completely down and at the last minute just before they switched traffic over on the northbound lanes. The only thing they would have to do would be the opening of Hadley Road. And then they would shift the traffic over to the new lanes and do Hadley Road and keep it closed down at the same time and at the same time they close it down and go ahead and build out the west side of that intersection due to the elevation differential. To do that and the logistics of getting that done and the timeframe we thought it was probably too long to close the intersection. They will be wedging out on the site where you have the elevation differential to get back out. It is going to be a pretty descent slope to get up there once we get the intersection paved out. That will be just for the timeframe of getting everything done before you get the traffic shifted across there. Of course, Ronald Reagan is being paved too. Mr. Castetter and I went down through there today. It is paved just north of Stafford Road along the southbound lanes and they were moving at a pretty good clip when we went through there today. We are scheduled on the northbound lanes for SR267 and Quaker Boulevard to make the switchover on traffic around the first of December. Mr. Kirchoff said they originally projected Thanksgiving but with the rains that we have had it’s not bad.
!14
Mr. Belcher said you have talked about this for several years Mr. Brandgard trying to get a work session together on capital items in the water/sewer department and if we could have that meeting, that would be one thing to talk about. Actually, we have added another component, which is stormwater and you know about a lot of the projects that have been talked about as the public hearings went through. But we have several that got to the starting gate basically and we also added a component of trails. Mr. Carlucci, Mr. McGillem and I and one of our consultants put together a list of different trail projects that we would like to bring before you and prioritize and hopefully come up with a strategy for funding those on a much quicker time scale than what the federal programs will allow us to do. I think that came out of one of the budget meetings. We have some ideas and I’m working on some proposals to show you and see what you think about it. Thursday, the 12th at 6:00 is the date that I was thinking. That date was picked because it was far enough out that we could be ready for it and if it needs to move a few days, it is not a problem. We can move it to suit your wishes. [After conferring with schedules the work session was scheduled for Tuesday, the 17th at 6:00.] OLD BUSINESS Mr. Fivecoat said some meetings ago you were talking about there was an agreement between Marsh and the Town about putting a stop light on Stafford Road. I think we need to look at that. The other morning at 6:30 in the morning I was on Stafford Road and it looked like U.S. 40 with people going to work. I know with construction going on traffic is going to be heavy but it is really getting bad and with people trying to get out of the apartments and Marsh both it is almost impossible. Mr. Brandgard said we need it there but most importantly we need to put the median in. Mr. Fivecoat said I think we need to look at pushing that. Mr. Brandgard said maybe as that intersection is being built, at least the median will be in there but we need to go back and make sure that the agreement is still in affect especially now that Marsh is not Marsh anymore. Mr. Daniel said it has been a long time but the agreement did require a warrant study. Mr. McGillem said the agreement did require a signal in the intersection when it became warranted. We did run a signal warrant analysis of that intersection about three years ago. At that point we were right in the grey area. Our warrant analysis indicated a signal could have been warranted. We sent that to Marsh but it was in one of those grey areas at that time. But they did recognize it in that agreement but it is still out there. I think one of the things that Tim and I discussed many times at that intersection is we need to take a hard look at it in order to hopefully not create another Cambridge Way situation. The other thing is if it is going to be done, we need to do the raised median all the way from SR267 to Southfield Drive. If it is going to be done next spring, when INDOT does the Stafford Road approach along with the southbound lanes, they will be reconstructing that entire section of Stafford Road all the way back west of Southfield Drive. As part of that construction, we should take a look at getting a raised median at that point. Mr. Brandgard said my feeling is we need to have a signal there and we need to have the raised median but definitely that raised median. I’m surprised there’s not more accidents in there than there are because I have had several near misses as you are going across Quaker Boulevard and all of a sudden you have somebody hitting the brakes so they can stop and turn into Village Pantry off of Stafford. I would say it is dicey at times especially in the evenings when there is a lot of traffic heading to the west. Mr. Fivecoat said you were talking about a task sheet and the Council make suggestions and going through my computer we have a task program on our laptops. The only thing we need to do is see if we can make one that we can all send it to that they can comply and get it back to us.
!15
Mr. Brandgard said I think Mr. Carlucci has started to make an attempt with a follow-up list. Mr. Carlucci said Bill came into my office and said he is looking at some basic programs, software that is not that expensive where we can download it and have it on everybody’s computer. That way we can keep this updated. So, I don’t know if he has gotten anywhere on it. He has a lot of things that he is doing but he volunteered to look for some software to make it a little bit easier for everybody. I know what you are talking about on the Outlook and I use that sometimes. Mr. Brandgard said most calendar programs have that in there. Mr. Carlucci said we were looking for some separate software that wouldn’t just be housed in one computer because that limits the ability for everybody to use it. Mr. McPhail said just remember whatever you do you have to have a training session for those of us who need help. Mr. Carlucci said when I went through the list, I tried to put as many items in there as I could that we talked about at the last meeting so at least you can see that they are being taking care of. Mr. Kirchoff said you could have an Excel spreadsheet and update it and put it on there each time just to keep us posted what is going on. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Kirchoff said part of Mr. Bennett’s report had to do with insurance exclusions. I saw John was here and he left. Is that what he was going to talk about? Mr. Bennett said he wasn’t here really to talk about that. That was something that came in. It was actually a duplication when our insurance policy was originally issued. So, there have been no changes since that policy has been issued. Mr. Kirchoff asked, did we read it right that skate parks and fireworks are not covered under the policy? Mr. Bennett said fireworks are not covered under the policy. The skate parks are. It’s the competition, it is skating competitions that are not covered. Mr. Kirchoff said if that is the case, where does that put us with the 4th of July? Mr. Carlucci said we have a separate policy on that every year. RESOLUTIONS Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2006-34: Verus Annexation Fiscal Plan. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Gaddie – yes Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2006-36: Excess Levy Appeal. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Gaddie – yes Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
!16
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2006-37: Reimbursement of Expenditures. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Roll call vote called. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Gaddie – yes Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2006-38: Epson Personal Property Tax Abatement. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Roll call vote called. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Gaddie – yes Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCES Mr. Fivecoat made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 35-2006 on its first reading. An ordinance for the Opus North Corporation Rezoning I-2. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Gaddie – yes Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 36-2006 on its first reading. An ordinance for the Verus Partners Rezoning C-1. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Roll call vote called. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Gaddie – yes Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 37-2006 on its first reading. An ordinance for the Verus Partners Rezoning I-2. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Gaddie – yes Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 38-2006 on its first reading. An ordinance for the Airwest Partners Rezoning I-2. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Gaddie – yes Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 39-2006 on its first reading. An ordinance for the amendments to the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Roll call vote called.
!17
Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Gaddie – yes Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 40-2006 on its first reading. An ordinance for the amendments to the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Gaddie – yes Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 31-2006 on its second reading. An ordinance concerning smoking in public places and places of employment. Second by Mr. McPhail. Mr. Gaddie asked, what major changes did you have? to read any of those changes.
I didn’t get
Mr. Kirchoff said they were very minor. We said enclosed malls for shopping malls we changed non-smokers to persons and people protected. We changed the affective date to February 1st. We made all Town property non-smoking and not just buildings. That’s all we did. Mr. Gaddie said (inaudible). Mr. Brandgard said we didn’t change anything else that is of any substance in the ordinance. Mr. Gaddie said (inaudible). Mr. Brandgard said I think when we pretty much decided to stick with the intent situation and to keep any exceptions to the private club as your private home; anything be non-smoking.
had our work session, we of this, which is a health minimal and we looked at a else that is public would
Mr. Gaddie said (inaudible). Mr. Brandgard said I agree but this State has a problem for the State to do much of anything so it is left up to the municipalities. Maybe at some point and time the State will but I have my doubts. They haven’t shown it in the past. Mr. Carlucci said but I remember it was some cities and towns, us included, that drove the issue of drinking alcohol in motor vehicles, the open container law, because the State would not do anything about that issue. I think a few communities started doing it and the State did finally step in and change the law. Mr. Brandgard said they did come somewhat watered down from what we had.
in
and
change
the
law
but
Mr. Carlucci asked, did we also discuss nursing homes? Mr. Kirchoff said we discussed it but we didn’t make any changes. Mr. Brandgard said with that we have a motion and a second to approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 31-2006 on its second reading. An ordinance concerning smoking in public places and places of employment. Roll call vote called. Mr. Gaddie – no Mr. Fivecoat said I would like to make a statement first. My fellow Councilmen; ladies and gentlemen of the public. I cannot support this non-smoking ordinance as it is presented here tonight. This ordinance violates the rights of business owners to chose what they feel is best for their business. But as an elected official I
!18
have been elected to represent all the citizens of Plainfield and I must look at this ordinance as an elected official and not as a businessman. I must vote yes to this ordinance because it is what is best for all the citizens of Plainfield. This is a health issue and not an economic issue. My vote is yes. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Fivecoat – yes Kirchoff – yes McPhail – yes Brandgard – yes
4-ayes, 1-opposed, 0-absent.
Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to sign the necessary documents and adjourn. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.
___________________________________________ Mr. Robin G. Brandgard, President
!19