The Plainfield Town Council met on Monday, August 9, 2004. In attendance were Mr. Kirchoff, Mr. Fivecoat, Mr. Gaddie, Mr. McPhail and Mr. Brandgard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Approval of the minutes of the July 26, 2004 Town Council meeting.
Approval to table the third and final reading of Ordinance No. 14-2004: Church rezoning to the August 23, 2004 Town Council meeting.
Approval of the Human Resources Director’s Report dated August 6, 2004; Town Engineer’s Report dated August 9, 2004; Utility Billing Director’s Report dated August 6, 2004 and the IT Director’s Report dated August 6, 2004.
Approval of the July 2004 monthly reports for the Plainfield Fire Department; Plainfield Police Department; Plainfield Town Court; Planning and Zoning and the Department of Public Works.
Approval to release Request for Proposals for the Fire Station Location Study per Chief Byron Anderson and Town Manager, Rich Carlucci’s recommendation.
Approval to reject all bids associated with the extension of One Galyan’s Way east of Perry Road that were opened at the regularly scheduled Council meeting of Monday, April 12, 2004 per the Town Engineer’s recommendation dated August 9, 2004.
Approval to enter into a preliminary engineering contract with Edwards and Kelsey in an amount not to exceed $30,000.00 for transportation analysis services per the Town Engineer’s recommendation dated August 9, 2004.
Mr. Kirchoff said in the minutes on page 8 when we were discussing the contract for the sewage treatment services I believe Mr. Daniel said “there is not” a renewal clause. Then on item three of the agenda just to make sure on the Utility Billing Director’s Report we were approving the report but we are not approving her request for staffing.
Mr. Brandgard said she is asking for the staff increase.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would like to have more discussion on that. And then on item 7 I would just like to make that subject to review by counsel.
Mr. Daniel said in regard to item 7 I would also suggest that it is my understanding that this is a time sensitive project. Since Council member Kirchoff would be signing this contract I would recommend that he be authorized to make any minor revisions or further requirements on behalf of the Council and go ahead and approve anything like that if that becomes necessary.
Mr. McPhail asked, will we need a separate motion for that?
Mr. Daniel said yes.
Mr. Brandgard said we can approve this with the changes noted and then come back and approve the review and signatory on item 7.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to appoint Council member Kirchoff as the signatory after a review by Council on item 7 of the Consent Agenda. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Motion carried.
Mr. Brandgard said we will have discussion relative to the Utility Billing Director’s Report request for additional manpower.
Southfield Drive Extension
Mr. Brandgard said we have three bid openings this evening. Do we have proof of publication?
Mr. Daniel said I have publication on all three of them.
Mr. Brandgard said the first bid opening this evening will be on the Southfield Drive extension. The first bid is submitted by Fleetwood Contracting Corporation, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel said the Fleetwood Contracting bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Fleetwood Contracting is $378,804.20. The second bid is submitted by Harco Asphalt Paving.
Mr. Daniel said the Harco Asphalt Paving bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Harco Asphalt Paving is $236,961.96. The third bid is submitted by Milestone Contractors, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel said the Milestone Contractors bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Milestone Contractors is $252,609.46. The fourth bid is Calumet Asphalt Paving Co, Inc., Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel said the Calumet Asphalt Paving Company bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Calumet Asphalt Paving Company is $239,000.00. The fifth bid is submitted Hunt Paving Company, Inc., Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel said the Hunt Paving Company bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Hunt Paving Company is $214,571.80. I would like to thank everybody who took the time to submit a bid for the Southfield Drive project. And also I would like to thank everybody who followed the bid instructions and all of the proper documentation easily identified and where it belongs. The bid opening process went well. The engineer’s estimate was $267,602.00. I would like to ask a bid review committee made up of Town Engineer, Mr. Tim Belcher, Mr. Chet Parsons, Mr. Bill Kirchoff and Mr. Don McGillem to review the bids and come back with a recommendation at our next meeting.
Buchanan Street Combined Sewer Rehabilitation
The next bid opening is for the Buchanan Street combined sewer rehabilitation. The first bid is submitted by Miller Pipeline Corporation, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel said the Miller Pipeline bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by the Miller Pipeline Corporation is $129,100.00. The second bid is submitted by Insituform Technologies, Lemont, Illinois.
Mr. Daniel said the bid by Insituform Technologies, USA concerning the financial statement they have included their 2003 annual report for their financial statement in lieu of any other type of financial statement.
Mr. Brandgard said I don’t think that meets our requirements or the State’s requirements.
Mr. Daniel said our bid requires that they complete the questionnaire under Form 96 and for Section 3 that requires a financial statement be filled out and signed including the attachment of the contractor’s financial statement as stipulated in Section 3. Of course, Section 3 essentially says it must be adequate to satisfy the Town that they have the financial capability of doing the project. But it does not include either a normal form 96 financial statement nor an auditor’s statement signed. It is an annual report.
Mr. Brandgard said I think in the past we have given some leeway if the reports were in there and not signed but I will open it up for comments here. It probably should be rejected I think.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to reject the Insituform Technology bid for lack of proper documentation of the financial reports. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Mr. Brandgard said the third bid submitted is J.G.K. Pipeline Services, Inc., Cincinnati, OH.
Mr. Daniel said the J.G.K. Pipeline Services bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by J.G.K. Pipeline Services is in the amount of $173,587.00. The fourth bid is submitted by American Water Services, Hilliard, OH.
Mr. Daniel said the American Water Services bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by American Water Services is $104,280.00. I would like to thank everybody that took the time to submit a bid. I think it took a little longer to find the information this time but a comment to Staff is we need to tighten the process up so we require things up front and easily located. The engineer’s estimate was $148,000.00. I would like to have a bid review committee made up of Mr. Tim Belcher, Mr. Jason Castetter, Mr. Dave Lahey, Mr. Dan Fivecoat and come back at our next meeting with a recommendation.
Harlan Street Storm Sewer Extension
Mr. Brandgard said the next bid opening will be for the Harlan Street Storm Sewer Extension. The first bid is submitted by Eagle Valley, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel said the Eagle Valley bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Eagle Valley is $124,376.00. The second bid is submitted by Dougherty’s Services, Inc., Orleans, Indiana.
Mr. Daniel said the Dougherty’s Services bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Dougherty’s Services is $118,457.00. The third bid is submitted by Fleetwood Contracting Corporation, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel said the Fleetwood Contracting bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Fleetwood Contracting is $127,260.00. The fourth bid is submitted by Harco Asphalt Paving, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel said the Harco Asphalt Paving bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Harco Asphalt Paving is $104,711.60. The fifth bid is submitted by ASD Construction, Inc., Brownsburg.
Mr. Daniel said the ASD Construction bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by ASD Construction is $107,325.41. The sixth bid is submitted by Calumet Asphalt Paving Company, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel said the Calumet Asphalt Paving bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Calumet Asphalt Paving is $153,365.92. The seventh bid is submitted by York Construction and Excavation, Inc. Yorktown, Indiana.
Mr. Daniel said the York Construction and Excavation is a corporation and there is no financial information or statement in here on York Construction and Excavation, Inc. There is other financial information in here but not on the company.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to reject the bid of York Construction and Excavation, Inc. for lack of proper financial information. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Mr. Brandgard said the eighth bid is submitted by R.L. Coon Excavating, Rushville, Indiana.
Mr. Daniel said the R.L. Coon Excavating bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by R.L. Coon Excavating is $170,291.50. The ninth bid is submitted by Sweeney Construction, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel said the Sweeney Construction bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the bid submitted by Sweeney Construction is $158,709.00. I would like to thank everybody who took the time to submit a bid. The engineer’s estimate was $145,000.00. I would like to ask for a review be conducted by Mr. Tim Belcher, Mr. Jason Castetter, Mr. Dave Lahey and Mr. Dan Fivecoat and come back with a recommendation at our next meeting.
For the record we had a bid opening earlier at 6:30 p.m. for the Clarks Creek Phase III. We only received one bid and that bid was rejected due to the fact that we just received one. We will re-bid that project.
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
Mr. Tom Brown with United Water said I’m the General Manager for United Water Indiana. I’m responsible for our projects throughout the Indianapolis area. I just want to come before you this evening and talk briefly about our partnership with the Town of Plainfield. As you know, our partnership is nearing the end of its five-year term. I wanted to just talk to you briefly about what I believe are some of our accomplishments over the last five years. I had sent to you late last week and hopefully you received a letter dated August 5 from Pete Corsaro our project manager here locally. Attached to it are several graphs that I want to discuss with you briefly. Back in 1999 when this project was first put out for request for proposal the Town identified four areas that they wanted to see accomplished through this partnership. The first area preserved the Town’s assets. The second area protected the environment. The third enhanced employee training and opportunities and last but not least to control cost and provide a savings to the Town. I would like to briefly touch on those four areas and the accomplishments that we have achieved in those four areas.
In preserving the Town’s assets over the last five years we have developed and implemented a computerized maintenance management system for the treatment facilities both water and wastewater. We have developed and implemented preventive and routine maintenance procedures at the facilities and also standardized operating procedures at the facility.
In terms of environment protection even though the flows and loadings to the wastewater treatment facility, because of growth in the community, which for many folks is a good thing, increased by some 35% we still have achieved affluent results at an average of 89% below the permit requirements. So, they are significantly below the permit requirements. We have had a reduction in the odor complaints received at the facilities and we have increased the water production by 21% by virtually eliminating complaints for bad taste, color or odor. So, from an environmental standpoint we have had significant accomplishments as well.
In terms of employee training and opportunities currently 86% of the project’s staff holds some form of certification from the Indiana Department of Environment Management. We provide countless hours both on the job and in classroom for the project’s staff in wastewater treatment, water treatment and water distribution. These folks were proud of the fact that they hold certifications in water and wastewater. We have enhanced personnel development within our United Water family. Personnel have access to work in several different projects for training or personal development. Several of the project’s staff have volunteered to spend time in other United Water projects in Indiana, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and California. We have enhanced employee safety. In fact, not too long ago I was here before the board and we received an award for safety at the facilities on behalf of the Indiana Water Environment Association. So, we have received that award two years in a row for the wastewater treatment facility and for 2002 at the water treatment facility for safety from the Indiana Water Environment Association. We also received recently the Indiana Water Environment Association’s outstanding device award for 2002 and 2003. As you recall, I was here to receive that award on your behalf a few months ago.
Last but not least we have been able to control cost and provide significant savings to the Town of Plainfield. Back in 1999 the Town estimated that the potential savings by this partnership over a 20 year period would be about 4.9 million dollars total. If you refer to the first figure I gave you, it shows several lines on those graphs. The red line to the far left is basically the cost that the Town had when the Town was running the system. So, from 1995 through 1998 we plotted out the information that was given to us during request for proposal process to come up with those numbers shown in that red line on the left side of the graph. Figure 1 shows the Town’s cost increasing at the same rate that it was during that time period and projects it out on a dotted red line to show what the cost would have been had they continued at that same rate. You can see that this year in 2003 and 2004 the figure would have been some 3.7 million dollars. Whereas, our cost to the Town this last year was approximately 1.7 million dollars. The green line represents accumulative savings over the five years. So, you can see at the end of five years projecting the cost at the same rate that the Town had been spending prior to the partnership the total accumulative savings for the five years was some 6.9 million dollars. It was well in excess of the 20-year projection that was originally envisioned by the partnership back in 1999. If you don’t want to continue projecting costs at the rate that it was previously incurred by the Town and simply increase the rate by the consumer price index, figure 2 will do that for you. In figure 2 we project out the cost for the Town to the year 2003/2004 and the total is 2.5 million. Again, our costs was substantially lower and the accumulative total savings based on that assumption was some 3.5 million dollars. Lastly, figure 3, reflects if you don’t want to inflate the costs at all and say that the costs basically stayed the same and increased not at all from when the Town ran the facility. The last year of operation of the Town was approximately 2.2 million dollars. Our costs for this last year was 1.7. The accumulate savings in that scenario would have been 2.6 million dollars. Obviously, there are a lot of numbers that I’m throwing around here but the bottom line is that not only did we save the Town a substantial amount of money but we were well in excess of the original projections that were envisioned by the partnership.
Given the fact that we have protected the Town’s assets through our programs. We have protected the environment through our operations. We have enhanced employee-training certifications and we have saved the Town a great deal of money. We would like to continue discussions with the Town regarding the future of our partnership and look forward to those discussions in the weeks ahead. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doug Parrish said I live at 6143 E. CR600S, Plainfield, Indiana. I’m here representing the Indy Bandit Softball Team. It is actually a group. This year we have three teams and next year we plan to have five teams. We are basically a travel softball league that represents basically Plainfield. Over 90% of our kids are from Plainfield. Next year we will have close to 60 players. Right now we basically practice at Franklin Park on Wednesday nights. The Pee Wee people have always been really good to us. The problem is we have kind of outgrown the size of Franklin Park. It is okay for our smaller kids but our bigger kids have trouble practicing there. What I would like to do is to start to see about practicing at Swinford Park on diamond 4 maybe two nights a week. Diamond 4 is the least used diamond that they use. It also has its own lighting system that is not included in their buildings. The lights for that field are separate and out where they could be gotten to. Basically, that is it. We have been together for seven years now and we play basically travel ball. We play one tournament a year here but we would like to be able to host a tournament in the fall after their season is basically over with. The cost to the parents of the people that play in Plainfield are about $45.00/$50.00 a year. Our sign-up fee is $250.00. The fact that we don’t have any diamonds to host a tournament really runs the price up for our parents. Our parents spent this year, the minimum that you could have gotten by with, was about $1,500.00 by the time you travel and do hotels, etc. That would be the bare minimum. Again, we would just like to get some diamond space so that we can continue to play and practice. Right now we practice at my house a lot. I have a batting cage I put in my yard and we have three teams that come out there three or four nights a week and we practice there now but we would like to use diamond 4. I also know that the Town is losing Lovell Field and this is kind of a bad time but we would also like to be included in any kind of a talk with the expansion into another park or add some diamonds. We would like to be considered for some diamonds there.
Mr. Brandgard said you probably have come in with your request at an opportune time while we are searching for another site to replace Lovell Field. This will add another element to what we need. I guess I would like to ask Council member Mr. Gaddie who is the liaison over parks and Mr. Prince our Parks Director to take into consideration your request and see if we can make this work. I know the girls use the softball diamonds at Swinford Park but there may be an opportunity for them to maybe get in a couple of times a week hopefully. You might want to get with Mr. Prince. I think he pretty much coordinates all of that type of thing.
Mr. Gaddie asked, have you checked with Mr. Hickam at the Township park?
Mr. Parrish said we go through them now for Wednesday nights because they have church softball on the other nights. And also they are about to be requested to help out with the Lovell Field problem too is the rumor. Once that happens we don’t have as many kids as the Lovell Field people do so we become the low man on the totem pole. We are trying to get started early. We have asked before but we have always asked so late that it wasn’t fair to PGSA to make them redo their schedule. So, we are asking now for next spring. Right now diamond time is easy to get but next spring it is hard for us to get any at all.
Mr. Carlucci said I have known Mr. Parrish for a long time. Just so you know he has indicated that he and his wife have a strong desire to be in the Town limits of Plainfield. Your girls are what ages?
Mr. Parrish said they start at eight and go to 15.
Mr. Carlucci said this does overlap with the Plainfield Girl’s Softball Association is that correct?
Mr. Parrish said right.
Mr. Carlucci asked, what is the difference between what you do and what they do?
Mr. Parrish said they are basically two groups. They have slow pitch and fast pitch. They are a very local group. They don’t travel very much. They do what would be considered All Stars. They play Brownsburg and Mooresville and some local things at the end of their season. We play all tournaments. We start in April playing tournaments. We just finished two weeks ago. We take like two or three weeks off and this Saturday is our tryout for next year. We play through the fall and then we play indoor in the winter and then we start again in April and play outside. We basically travel more with higher competition. They play local competition and we try to play national competition. This year we have played teams from Texas, Florida, Kentucky, Alabama, all over. We just got back from a weeks stay in Florida where we played in Panama City. We took all three teams down and played in a 280-team tournament. This is basically the level of competition that they play verses what we play or we try to play.
Mr. Gaddie asked, do they have a big complex in Panama City?
Mr. Parrish said they have a huge complex in Panama City.
Mr. Fivecoat asked, how successful are your teams?
Mr. Parrish said the 14 and under team qualified for nationals for the last seven years in a row. They have finished as high as fifth in the nation. Last year they were 13th. The 10 and under team this year was a brand new team and all three teams qualified for the nationals so for them that was a big step.
Mr. Brandgard said for an organization that has teams so successful why don’t we know about it?
Mr. Parrish said it basically has been run by myself and a few coaches. We are not into being in the paper or anything. We just basically play softball. We try to raise money through the Town with car washes, etc. to try and cut some of our expenses but as far as why you don’t know about us, I don’t know.
Mr. Brandgard said well you just told us you are not in the papers.
Mr. Parrish said we don’t do much in the paper. You are welcome to come and watch a game.
Mr. Brandgard said thank you for coming in and we will see if there is some way we can accommodate your needs or plan for it in the future.
Mr. Chuck Foggatt at 7300 E. CR100N, Avon said the reason that I’m here tonight is to talk about Williamsburg in the Woods Subdivision and the recoupment agreement that we have. It is hard to believe but 14 years ago in November we signed an agreement to provide water and sewer service to Williamsburg in the Woods. This was an agreement put together by the Town but it was really necessary in order for us to get the water and sewer service. But in addition to that what it provided for was eventual recoupment of costs for excess capacity for both sewer and water. I don’t have all of the numbers here with me but if anyone other than the condominiums to the east of Williamsburg in the Woods or the Plainfield Christian Church, if anyone other than that, connected to or tapped on or used any of the sewer/water services, there was a recoupment payment back to my company, Guilford Developers. As far as the numbers, it was $240.00 roughly for sewer and about $160.00 for water. As far as the sewer side, I believe quite some time ago there was a connection made that would have accounted for all of that use. So, that is kind of past history there. As far as the water taps, there have been a few water taps. I know I was aware of a few, I think it is Plainfield Bible Church, but as far as the remainder it is obviously going to be coming from a project just to the south of Williamsburg and then some condominiums behind that. The agreement ends November 12, 2005 so it has a little bit of time left. But as opposed to having a series of small payments for individual taps for the water, we thought it might be a good idea to follow a precedent that was established by ADESA a few years ago where you just basically took the amounts left and divided it into and use that as an immediate recoupment. I was going to propose that for tonight and I was going to ask if you could authorize two things. One would be that in lieu of a series of small payments and the other one would be just to follow-up on the past history of the sewer and make the recoupment payment for that.
Mr. Brandgard said I’m not sure we are prepared to authorize that this evening but we will take that under advisement and look at it and come back. That ought to be something that we can come back with at the next meeting with some kind of decision to do that. And then also follow-up on your second request, which we should do anyway to make sure that everything has been taken care of.
Mr. McPhail asked, have you received any recoupment payments?
Mr. Foggatt said I’m thinking maybe 10 years ago or so there were three to you I think for the Plainfield Bible Church. That is the only thing that I have seen.
Mr. Kirchoff said Mr. Belcher I assume we have records to verify this.
Mr. Belcher said yes. That is one reason that I would like to have a little more time because I haven’t had a chance to go back and really verify for sure what we have collected and maybe what we should have collected. I wanted Mr. Daniel to look at the contract to make sure that we are interpreting correctly. I think I’m reading it correctly but I want Mr. Daniel to look it over before we would make a payment either on the sewer or finalize the water, if that is the wish of the Council.
TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT
Mr. Carlucci said we have a request for an annexation that was submitted by Denison Properties. I put a map in there. I’m going to pass around a plat map here that will give you a little bit more description. Denison Properties, as you know, we have dealt with Mr. McNaught for many years. He has developed Saratoga and probably the majority of the industrial parks on the east side of Town. He is proposing to annex approximately 25 acres. The land is located south of I-70 on Camby Road west of SR267. It is also on the south side of Camby Road between CR825E, a portion is CR825E, and SR267. As indicated on the map, Guilford Township owns one acre that is in there. I have talked to Mick Hickam Sunday and asked him if they would send us a letter requesting annexation because we want that to be a friendly annexation because they go quicker. If we don’t do it that way, we will go around them, which makes no sense for his acre. So, Mr. McNaught has requested annexation. He has notarized documents that give him permission from the property owners to go forward. With the one acre from Guilford Township there is probably close to 27 acres there. Again, it is on the south side of Camby Road, west of SR267. Camby Road is CR700S so it is between CR825E and SR267. He has not indicated in writing the preference of zoning yet but at some point we will be doing that. Before we go forward I need to have the Council’s approval. The water is close and the sewer is nearby, more nearby than what it will be if we get more than one bid for those interceptor sewers. But it is nearby. They may be able to connect on at that point. But I think also Mr. McNaught looks at it as long-term. He has never been one to do a short-term development in Town. But again the Council would have to authorize me to move forward on the annexation.
Mr. Brandgard asked, is there consent? Consent given.
Mr. Carlucci said I’m going to coordinate this all at the same time but it looks like we have five or six annexations that will come in all at the same time and do them all at once. It may be easier on everybody for the final readings to do them at the same time. There are other good reasons to do it that way too but we will add this and it will be a consensual annexation and should go rather quickly.
Mr. Fivecoat asked, did you read the Letter to the Editor in the Flyer about the carwash?
Mr. Brandgard said no.
Mr. Fivecoat said it was kind of disturbing to me that supposedly there were some young ladies standing at the roadside that said, “topless carwash” in Plainfield. There was a letter to the editor wanting to know why these young ladies were standing on the side of the road with these signs that were very distasteful signs reading “topless carwash”. I don’t know if this was happening in the shopping center but it is kind of disturbing to have that going on in Plainfield.
Mr. Brandgard said I tend to agree with you but on the other hand I didn’t see it so it may have been misread also. That is one of those things if you see something, you ought to stop and say something at the time. But on the other hand we have had a number of carwashes going on in the last few weeks.
Mr. Carlucci said I talked to one of the persons who was involved in that who came later and actually it was my understanding that they were raising money for someone with leukemia. It was probably a poor choice of words but what they meant by topless was they were going to do just the tops of the cars. However, it came out wrong because nobody could read that to say that. It was just a poor choice of words from the people doing that. I think they understand that now. They had the heart in the right place but again that was just the wrong image for the community. These are 13-15 year old girls that are out there standing. I know Chief Brinker stopped and got some people off the median on U.S. 40 Saturday and there will be times there are three or four in a row. I think we are getting the word through but sometimes they even tell them to stay off the middle of the road and they are still out there. But again I think their heart was in the right place. I agree with Mr. Fivecoat that it was just the wrong thing to put on those signs.
Mr. Fivecoat said I had a Mr. Halfaker at 655 Vestal Lane contact me in reference to the Windsor Heights Subdivision. I met with Mr. Halfaker at his residence and he showed me the pipe that he had on his property that runs through his property. He is getting a little seepage from sewage from the Windsor Heights Subdivision. I passed out to the Council tonight Ordinance #4-94 and also the letter that I put with it from the State Board of Health addressed to us on April 13. Mr. Halfaker was wanting to know when we were going to move on this problem they are having up there at Windsor Heights with the septic systems. He was also asking that there has been some discussion amongst the board members about maybe rolling back some of the fees. Since the ordinance was enacted it has been going up 6.6% a year. He was wanting to know if we would be willing to roll it back to the amount that was originally stated for a period of time to give a grace period for people to hook on and that was $7,855.00 for people to hook on up there plus the tap fees, connection fees. In talking with Mr. Belcher and Mr. McPhail we kind of agreed that we need to roll it back a little bit to try to help them because this has been growing 6.6% a year. So, I’m bringing it to the Council tonight because he would like some movement on this.
Mr. Brandgard said for one thing it would be a good policy to get everybody on the sewer but I know in several other areas in the past we put the sewers in and then we offered a dollar amount to hook on, which is basically to cover the cost of the sewer work that we had to do to put the sewer in place. Then after a certain amount of time if they haven’t hooked on as time goes on, there is a cost of money associated with it. The Town paid for putting that in so that money is sitting in the ground that could be used elsewhere. So, there is a cost of money involved in this and I guess I look at it in two ways. One, there are a certain number of people hooked on during that time period to save incurring ongoing interest charges for waiting to later. I feel a certain amount of respect to those people of not going back to the original number and given another grace period because they did sign on while a lot of them did it to avoid paying a higher fee later. If we roll it back, we are rewarding people who waited. I have some difficultly of going back to this $7,855.00, which I think was the charge at the time. But on the other hand if we want to make a policy decision to say everyone out there has to hook on because of the health problems out there, which is what a letter from the Hendricks County Department of Health says. But the Hendricks County Department of Health is very good at writing letters to pass on the responsibility to other people. We do have it within our authority to order it on due to health problems. I think if we do that, I would be receptive to rolling that $10,500.00 number back some but certainly not to the $7,855.00 it was originally.
Mr. McPhail said to add a little more information to this situation if we go back a couple of years ago and worked on this situation, we were able to get the board of health to do some testing. We find one violator and that certainly hasn’t solved the problem because there are others. It is my understanding that in this letter they have said we are not going to come out and do any individual testing. Certainly, I think we need to move forward and make sure these folks hook up because we don’t know really who is violating. We don’t know if their septics are working or not and we have no means of our own to go out and test those individuals that are not hooked up. I think probably in hindsight if we were going in there today, we would probably be a little more forceful in having people hooking up. I don’t know because I certainly wasn’t around in 1994 when the situation was there.
Mr. Brandgard said I think the reason that we weren’t more forceful is because the board of health wasn’t.
Mr. McPhail said they apparently have left it on our shoulders and it is a situation that definitely needs to be corrected. If I understand it right, the $7,855.00 at that point and time included all tap fees. Am I interpreting that right?
Mr. Belcher said the only thing that it didn’t include was the $25.00 inspection fee. There was a $1,000.00 tap fee total per house minus $25.00 so $975.00 was in that $7,855.00.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, what is it today?
Mr. Belcher said $2,290.00.
Mr. McPhail said my thoughts are if we offer them the $7,855.00 plus the current tap fee, which is $2,290.00. I think that is more than adequately fair and is less than if we go through this calculation of percentages. But I certainly don’t think it is fair to those who paid the $7,855.00 in 1994, and those that may have paid a premium in the meantime, that those that didn’t hook up I agree should not get off scot-free but I do believe if we took the $7,855.00 and added the current tap fee……………
[Tape one concluded at this point and time and resumed on tape 2 as follows with Mr. Kirchoff speaking:]
…………but you said the $7,855.00 included a tap fee before.
Mr. Belcher said yes it did.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible). You would double dip it if you did the $2,290.00.
Mr. Brandgard said no I think part of where I am is if we were to drop out the tap fee that was in there and add on the new tap fee, you are still rewarding them for not hooking on earlier.
Mr. Kirchoff said the numbers I ran is it has been 10 years at 6% per year so you are now at $14,000.00.
Mr. McPhail said that is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff said and if you net the tap fee, it is $9,170.00 and if you add the current one to the $7,855.00, you are at $10,145.00.
Mr. Brandgard said right.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would think that we shouldn’t do any less than that.
Mr. Brandgard said in fact I would probably suggest going to $10,500.00. It is still giving them quite a break from what it would be under the current thing.
Mr. Carlucci said we annexed that area in. It is along Vestal Road so it is on either side pretty much until you get to the Sunset Estates, which was always on Town sewer. The County Health Department took some pretty high readings on Ecoli and, of course, that is a health hazard. At certain times of the year it would be in the swales and actually it is in our park. It will go down to the White Lick Creek Park into the pond so that was a concern at the time. What we tried to do to be fair to everybody, and we did this bond issue, was to indicate to them that the Town said they wouldn’t force anybody on unless they could prove that there was Ecoli. That was kind of the unwritten promise that we made them. A lot of the people have hooked on but the way that the agreement worked is that if you signed up one day, you could pay it all at once or you could pay a monthly payment. Now if you didn’t make any payments and you didn’t pay it all off at once and all of a sudden you decide you want to move, this is where we caught a lot of the people when they were selling their homes. They couldn’t necessarily sell them. They would negotiate basically with the buyer but they would have to pay the catch up to that point plus the interest. We did allow a lot of those people to take over those agreements to continue on the monthly payment. The situation that we have now is that Mr. Halfaker obviously has a legitimate complaint. He has a swale where this stuff is coming through. We could spend a lot more time with the Hendricks County Health Department but their letter indicates that they are not interested in helping. They are interested in writing letters like Mr. Brandgard said. Yet we have places like Cartersburg, which has the worst septic problem in the State and yet nothing gets done up there and still hasn’t gotten done. We have offered to help with that. I think everybody agrees that having Ecoli and still having this problem and spending months and months trying to figure out who is on and who is off or who has the problem or who doesn’t is just really spinning our wheels. If you agree that we need to go forward on this because the State Law does say that if they are within 300 feet, and they all are a lot less than that, they can be forced on. They can be required to tap to that sewer and this may be the time to do that or this situation will never get solved out there.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, how many do we have out there that are not hooked on do we know?
Mr. Carlucci said we are guessing 40 but we will have to get the exact figure.
Mr. Belcher said that is out of 100 originally.
Mr. Daniel said Mr. Carlucci you gave part of a history lesson but I’m going to add to it a little bit. The other thing that probably should be brought out here is that subdivision was approved by the County with septics on point two-acre lots, two-tenths of an acre lots. Most of them are a quarter acre or less. It was approved by the County. It was not in the Town. When they developed sewer problems rather quickly after that, not very long after that, then the County asked the Town to annex the area and solve the sewer problem. That development was completely built out and developed in the County and approved by the County and was not part of the Town when all of this occurred. That development was never approved by the Town, it was approved by the County. They were very small lots on sewers.
Mr. Belcher said I have talked to Mr. McPhail and Mr. Fivecoat on this idea of maybe fixing a fixed cost of the sewer project at $7,855.00 and then adding the tap fee. Whatever the current tap fee is what somebody would pay at the time of connection. If there is a vacant lot out there, they could wait five years but the current tap fee would then add so someone like Mr. Halfaker who has a blank piece of land might want to pay that off and be done with it. So, whoever then would purchase the land from him in the future or if he decides to develop it himself, he knows it would be the current then tap fee at the time that he connected. So, that would put every piece of land out there that is undeveloped in the same boat as other piece of land. There is some advantage to that. Instead of always having to look back into the interest schedules and trying to figure out how each lot should be handled that is undeveloped out there. So, that is one advantage of doing what you are talking about. I don’t know how that stacks up with the finances how the bond was originally issued but we did refinance that bond too. So, the six percent borrowing cost may have actually reduced, believe it or not, because our second bond after that that refunded that was a lower interest rate. By the time we got the new bonds they were at a less interest. I don’t know what the last person paid. That would be the person like Mr. Brandgard said that we would be concerned about, the last one that connected on. If they paid a much higher amount than that, they would probably be coming back to talk to us about that. So, we would have to be sure how we handled that.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do we have other similar situations in the Town?
Mr. Carlucci said out at Clover Drive.
Mr. Belcher said there are some water contracts in Medallion Meadows. I think that is the only one that we have a payment plan. We got out of the banking business after we did a few of these because it was getting very difficult to manage them.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do we have others where we could have people approach us wanting us to deviate from what we said we were going to do?
Mr. Carlucci said it would only be Clover Drive.
Mr. Brandgard said the only other sewer that we put in was Clover Drive under those conditions.
Mr. Carlucci said if they don’t want to ever be on the water and we have offered them a contract, you can never get them on anyway.
Mr. Kirchoff said I understand that. If we deviate from what we said we were going to do, if we have six more of these cases setting out there, I don’t want to start setting precedents.
Mr. McPhail said I might add this comment. We have probably in the last two or three years studied three or four different unincorporated areas and done sewer studies and cost studies. They have all come in somewhere around $13,000.00-$14,000.00 per lot in a developed area. So, really in 1994 when we put that six percent in there or whatever it was, it was not too far off from what it cost today to put in a similar area and do the same thing.
Mr. Daniel said the interest payment was you can pay actually what it cost right now or you can wait. The Town had to pay for a significant part of that project because there wasn’t enough people to hook on to pay it. So, it became if you don’t want to pay now, then you will have to offset the cost the Town sunk into that with a bond. That was the whole idea.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, are we of the opinion then that if we do this, that we are going to require everybody to do it?
Mr. Brandgard said I think the answer to that is yes at this point and time. Based on what the board of health says we need to do it all because obviously the way that it has been going, a piece here and a piece there, it has not corrected the problem. It may have helped it some but it has not corrected it. In fact, I would almost say that it has gotten worse even though there are less people that are still trying to use septic systems.
Mr. Carlucci said I think your approach on the incentives is correct. However we come up with that number that you have 45 days to make a decision. You sign up within that period. If not, if you wait until after that period, you are going to pay the full amount and you are still going to have to hook on.
Mr. Brandgard said if we are agreeable to that type of scenario, we need to do a little research and see what the last person paid out there.
Mr. Kirchoff said we are sticking to your guns. We are backing up to 1994 but this time we are going to say this is it.
Mr. Carlucci said I think we have a legitimate reason to believe that there is a problem out there.
Mr. Kirchoff said I understand. I’m talking about the financial part.
Mr. Fivecoat asked, do you want to table this until the next meeting?
Mr. Brandgard asked, are we agreeable in context of what we are talking about? If we are, let’s table this until the next meeting to get a chance to research what the last person paid and then we can make a decision how we want to go from there. I think overall I believe the situation is such that we have to require people to hook on out there. It is built up all around them and they are no longer out in the middle of a cornfield so we have to do something reluctantly.
Mr. Kirchoff said I can’t disagree with that.
Mr. Brandgard asked, are we agreeable? Agreed.
Mr. McPhail said at the last meeting I reported that we were going to shut the chiller down for a few hours in the evening. I was out of Town over the weekend and all day today but I stopped by my office and there was a note from one of the residents there saying they had a quiet weekend. So, apparently that is helping a little. I cannot give you an update on when the blankets will be in but we are moving forward on that situation. It seems like we are getting a little bit of relief for those that are being bothered.
Mr. Brandgard said not to be argumentative with anybody but that noise emanating from that unit certainly does not sound like a normal sound. It sounds like two pieces of metal rubbing on each other.
Mr. McPhail said it is a high-pitched noise and you can extend some areas and not even hear on the ground but when you get up the hill, it is going up. We are moving forward there and hopefully these blankets will help.
The only other report I have to make is at the last meeting you had asked me to head up a committee to look into the contract with the utilities and I have submitted that report to the committee, the information that we were able to get together. The committee has not been able to meet in full to discuss those fact-finding things that we came up with. But we have made that much progress. Due to the fact that Staff and Council were in budget meetings I think we all went home last weekend and introduced ourselves to our families. There wasn’t time to get that all together and have a full committee meeting. Certainly I do believe we provided enough data for the Council to evaluate and make a decision whether we should move forward with bringing the utilities back in house or take some other action.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, are we talking about a work session at some time or what do you think?
Mr. Brandgard said we probably need to pull a work session help here fairly quick.
Mr. Kirchoff said it was well done by the way and a good start for discussion purposes.
Mr. Brandgard said I have to say that you have your thoughts on our current situation and I do too. But not withstanding what was reported to us tonight the fact that the hydrants haven’t been flushed for two years I think that created a problem with another customer now that we had that was not a good thing to happen. We will schedule a work session when we can try to get everybody together between now and our next meeting. For those who worked on that thank’s. That is very well done.
Mr. Brandgard said Mr. Bill Castetter it was a good report that you generated.
Mr. Castetter said I won’t bore you with all of the details every time but I thought I would give you a flavor for what was going on.
Mr. Brandgard said I’m glad you did because like you said it gives us a flavor of what is happening in your world. We know there is a lot going on but I don’t think we realized that it was exactly that much but I do understand the problems.
Ms. Burgner asked, are we going to discuss my report now or later or at the budget session?
Mr. Brandgard said we will do it during the next budget meeting, which is Thursday evening.
Ms. Holland said I wanted to speak briefly to you on my report. We had some discussions in the past about the call volume. With this new 911 system it allows us to gauge the call volume as well as peak times and individual agent, which would be the individual dispatcher call volume and what it is. I have the lowest call volume because for my phone it is not calculated in the system because I’m not logged into the 911 system per se. I can answer calls but that is about it. But if you look at these reports, these are just some of the samplings of the reports that we can generate. I’m not going to throw these at you every month. I just wanted to give you an idea of what we have available to us and as you can see, the call volumes reflect what our peak times are. The other interesting thing was the average ring duration in seconds, which is four seconds. I think that is awesome because that is the average. So, you saw there was one in there for 72 seconds. That is a low priority line so for a 72 second one to believe that the average is four there has to be a lot of twos and threes. I was pretty amazed by what I could find and like I said I won’t burden you with these every month but I just wanted to give you an idea there are a lot more. So, if you want to see anymore of them, you can let me know. Some of these I will reflect on a line item every month under regular report.
Mr. Fivecoat asked, on total calls is that inter-department calls that is coming in?
Ms. Holland said some of those are yes.
Mr. Fivecoat said I noticed on the total account on this one data sheet says there are 10,340 total count and then total answered was 7,630.
Ms. Holland said the 7,000 was the answered and the outgoing was the 2,609.00.
Mr. Kirchoff said I assume you shared this with Staff as well.
Ms. Holland said I have showed it to some of them. What I did show to the Staff also is I ran their individual count to show your call taking verses his call taking. By the end of the day they were racing for the phone because they wanted to boost their count. So, there was a little competition there. I would be happy to address any other questions that you have.
Mr. Brandgard said we appreciate what you have done here. It gives a perspective that we haven’t seen before.
Ms. Holland said maybe I could do this once every six months and give you a hard copy.
Mr. Brandgard said that would be good. It is interesting. By any chance do you know the record of the calls that you take verses the other 911 call centers in the County?
Ms. Holland said I don’t but I will certainly inquire. The most that they could do is say no.
Mr. Brandgard said it would be interesting in what the comparison is.
Ms. Holland said I will ask.
Chief Brinker said I wanted to start off by apologizing. The motorcycle monthly you can see we don’t have that but part of that is our record situation right now. We will soon be overcoming our staffing and hopefully be able to provide that kind of information. One thing I can tell you is we had a new motorcycle rider this month and he made a couple of stops and a couple of runs and really came to a serious appreciation for what those guys do out there. He is crazy enough he may try to go back out there and ride again. I enjoyed that a lot this past month.
Today we had a very serious situation here in Town. I think most of you have heard a little bit about it but I wanted to update you a little bit more. Last night the Hendricks County Sheriff’s Department and the Indiana State Police were sent out to SR39 and I-70 on a truck that had been spotted. It was known to be wanted. When they arrived, they impounded the semi but they couldn’t locate the driver. The driver was wanted for an attempted murder and abduction of a 13-year-old girl over in Paris, Illinois. She went through extreme emergency surgery and we are in grand hopes that she just might pull out of the situation there. She was able to give police a little information before she went into surgery, which has helped us. We then through a little bit of luck but a lot of fantastic cooperation and police work were able to coordinate our efforts and start narrowing down the area that this subject might be. We knew that he was within an eight-mile radius of the I-70/SR39 intersection, which could take us all the way from Plainfield to Little Point and points north and south. But keeping in mind he was along I-70 we were able to locate him tonight at 6:00 p.m. and arrested him. He is now being questioned by the Illinois State Police. This was again given the radio communication, which was extremely difficult with the other departments not having 800-Megahurtz but the fact that we were all inter-jurisdictional, right in the area, it was an excellent day for law enforcement in all four agencies, the State Police, Morgan and Hendricks County and Plainfield. I’m proud of the people that were involved.
Mr. Brandgard asked, where was he located?
Chief Brinker said he was located finally at Hazelwood Road and County Line, which as we had sat and started working our triangulations we were being told through different companies regarding how he was being perceived from GPS that he was clear out in Plainfield. And then is clear out in Little Point and back and forth and finally we just started on our own narrowing it down. We had it down to about a square mile area looking for him with the helicopters and he made a phone call on his cell phone and told them to get the helicopters out of here and I will give myself up. We knew we were close then.
Mr. Brandgard said that was a good report. I appreciate it.
Mr. Belcher said one quick update that wasn’t in Mr. McGillem’s transportation report is we got a call from Rieth-Riley today. They are going to be working out on U.S. 40 near Vestal to repair that dip. I don’t know if you have noticed in the new lane that they built there is going to be some grinding and lane restrictions. So, I just wanted to give you some heads up because we just found that out late today.
The second item, and this is something that is not in my report, but I found out from Mr. Lydick today this is part of the process. I haven’t hired a lot of people in my department and never have gone through the process of establishing a position. But I understand the way that it works I have to come to you and request that. We have talked about this position. It will be called the Director of Transportation. I’m recommending that the Town go to this position and create this position so that we can hire the individual and the talents we need to continue to keep the transportation system at the forefront of what we do around here. I think it is critical that we continue to do the planning, the capital improvement planning, just the roadway planning, inter-government cooperation and coordination with INDOT and the Indianapolis MPO. We have regional issues and we obviously have local issues. All of those things are needs that we have to stay on top of to keep our quality of life that we enjoy in terms of transportation and moving about. We have been doing this up until now through a contractual method, through consultants. There is a point and time when a consultant’s cost end up coming close to the cost of hiring somebody and having it in house. So, we are getting to that point I think with the hours that I’m seeing and the workload that is already here and the workload that I see in the next probably 10 years. You all have been in the transportation work sessions once a year and you listen to what is out there and know what we are working on. There is always more. We always have to react also to new things and new projects that decide to come here that are always great things but we have to understand how it impacts our priority system and how we can continue to maintain the streets we have and also plan for the new ones. I’m sure Mr. Lydick gave you a copy of the job description. We worked together on that and I think it does describe pretty well what this person would do. It would be highly geared toward transportation and the planning effort all the way through the implementation phase, which gets right down to the process of managing the scope of work for design contracts. And getting those right-of-way parcels acquired, all of the things that go into building a project right down to moving utilities and dealing with homeowners as best we can on road projects when they are done, all those things that encompass a road project. There would also be some crossover work this person would do and that they would have an engineering background. And the other work that I do with sewer and water and drainage is becoming a big issue. I see myself getting pulled into that a lot more with the new regulations that we have. So, it is going to need time and I’m going to have to spend that time but this person would be able to help in that area too I believe. Other departments unlike fire and police can use this person I believe and probably get benefits from things like pre-emption signals and signage, issues like that. Traffic accident areas that we have we can work together to try to solve those kinds of things. This position would be the starting point to continue to stay on top of that. I’m recommending and I request approval of the position so we can attempt to hire someone for a Director of Transportation for Plainfield.
Mr. Brandgard said I think it is probably something that is almost long overdue. As Mr. Belcher said, transportation is the big item because we have to be able to move people through Town. When you look at everything that goes on with the industrial development and the retail development and just the housing development, it becomes more and more important as we grow.
Mr. Kirchoff said Mr. Carlucci and I had a conversation earlier that this person being an official representative of the Town certainly carries weight in the community. As we talked the other night, I think it would also relieve Mr. Belcher of having to attend some of the meetings just like the bids. If we get this person, you won’t have to be on the committee anymore doing bids. Mr. Belcher’s workload I’m sure continues to increase as well. I think this is a move in the right direction. I would make a motion that we accept the Town Engineer’s recommendation to establish the position of Director of Transportation. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Mr. Brandgard said I would like to tell you and Mr. Lydick both that I appreciate the job description. It is very well done and very professional.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, would it be reasonable to expect this done quickly?
Mr. Belcher said I hope so. I would like to make a recommendation for a person to hire as quickly as possible.
The next item I’m actually standing in for someone so this is an unofficial time for me. It is the bridge issue in trying to select some pedestrian bridges. Alan Hamersley’s wife is expecting and literally could be tonight but I will try to do the best I can to present what has happened up to this point and show where we think we are at now. We were able to have a meeting after the last time we submitted some things to Council for some input. Mr. McPhail and Mr. Kirchoff were able to sit in with us. It really helped us I think to get some direction in how at least two Council members felt. I think the rest of you gave us some input at the last meeting that was helpful. I will sit down here and try to show you what we have. It is a short five slides and we will talk those over and we would like your input now.
The two locations we are talking about are one at Crystal Bay, CR600S and Hadley Road and the other is at Stanley Road near Providence Estates, the new subdivision there and Hardin’s Creekside Estates. This is going back for a moment but this is what nobody liked. I have to admit that I first liked it when I first saw it but I was the only one. I think the idea here was to try to replicate the rail system, which obviously in here made perfect sense with the Monon Rail. But the two locations that we are talking about were not on rail so that one was, even by the Council at the last meeting, pretty well quickly discarded as not really the one that would fit in the neighborhood that we were talking about.
This is another bridge that you have seen before. It shows a boardwalk on the deck and on the rails and actually at Hadley Road we have, I don’t want to say two bridges but it will appear like two bridges, a big opening to the lake that water will come through on a major storm event and then we have the creek. We have to cross both of those areas and we want to cross the creek without anything in the creek. That was one of our first parameters. We do not want to have to pull trees off of a bridge in a 100-year storm event out of White Lick Creek. Some do come to the lake. We have seen that happen but it is not often and the bridge that is actually already crossing the lake outlet and Crystal Bay west and east is a wood bridge and has pillars going to the openings. It is not as big of an issue there but it was something that we were concerned about.
But again we looked at wood. We are a little concerned about maintenance on the wood and things like that so we looked at another idea. This was one with more of an open rail. That was something that was pretty well received, again the openness, maybe not the color so much, but the openness to it and the concrete deck, which does cut down on maintenance and things. We think this was where you were headed when we came to the last meeting that the whole Council saw.
The next two slides I believe are relatively similar. This is what we would recommend at the Crystal Bay bridge. This is what was talked about in terms of dressing up the abutments and making it more of a concrete end or block or something that looks nice at each end of the bridge. Because as the bridge comes across White Lick Creek it will actually turn so that point of turn will be out near the lake and we wanted it to look nice and sort of be a place where people could actually stand. Based on the comments of the neighborhood we don’t have any connection at that point back to the road because they didn’t want that. But that is still a point where somebody was walking across that area might want to stand and look at the lake and look at the creek. So, dressing up the end supports is real important. Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. McPhail seemed to think it was more important that it blended in with the neighborhood in the Crystal Bay area, which is another direction we weren’t sure about. With Hadley Road being so highly traveled we thought maybe that is a place where you want the bridge to be bright and out there and that wasn’t the feeling that Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. McPhail had. Probably for the neighbors and everybody it is probably good to tone it down and make it fit into the neighborhood just like any other component of that neighborhood like it was there from the beginning.
Mr. Kirchoff said it meshes with the bridge that we have within Crystal Bay now. We have brown and we are looking at painting that some kind of dark color. We thought that this looked like it fit.
Mr. Belcher said the other idea was this has trusses. Most of the crossings at White Lick Creek, in terms of the old days, were truss bridges. We bought one new truss bridge and we remodeled one old truss bridge so there is a little bit of a theme there. So, this is just another kind of truss structure. One other discussion we had this bridge is actually showing a core tin steel. Core tin is great as far as maintenance. It is actually a pretty low cost. The poles that you see along SR267 are core tin poles. They come painted and the paint goes away and they are meant to rust to a rustic look basically.
Mr. Brandgard said the rust creates a protective coating.
Mr. Belcher said right and they don’t need a lot of maintenance. The problem and concern I have is that we would put a concrete deck on this bridge and the nice end sections and that stuff goes somewhere when the red stain material comes off of those and ends up running possibly on the deck and possibly on the nice form work that we might have under the ends. It is not a tremendous amount more in terms of initial cost with the painted bridge where you could either go with the dark green or brown or something that would match that color. Long term we would have to repaint it and things like that. I guess you could paint core tin but the idea of buying core tin is to leave it alone so I’m not sure we want to go with core tin.
Mr. Brandgard said I’m wondering if there isn’t some way that we can’t seal the concrete so the stain will wash off and won’t absorb into the concrete.
Mr. Belcher said we might be able to do that.
Mr. Brandgard said I kind of like that core tin because the way that it rusts it kind of blends in especially in that type of setting.
Mr. Belcher said I asked about it being used in Bloomington’s buildings where other trail systems are going with it now. I was surprised that it was actually less expensive with the initial cost and the long-term costs are less because you don’t have to paint it. I think with as much things that we have to maintain in the parks it might be a good thing.
Mr. Gaddie asked, what is the cost like with the one in Franklin Park verses the one that you are talking about here?
Mr. Belcher said I think we are talking roughly in the same range, $250,000.00. I think these bridges are in that price range.
Mr. Gaddie said I haven’t seen any problems with the one in Franklin. I walk the one in Franklin. I don’t pay any attention to it.
Mr. Belcher said it is very well done in terms of the paint job. The painting spec on federal aid jobs is very tough so if they are painted right, they will last a long time but they will need painted some day.
Mr. Carlucci said the one in Franklin Park is 12 foot wide and these are going to be 10 feet. The reason that we did that is because we didn’t think with the volume down here it was needed. Once you go that 12-foot it really gets expensive as opposed to a 10 foot.
Mr. Belcher said shipping is a problem.
Mr. Carlucci said you just don’t need that down there or the one over at Stanley. There just won’t be the volume of traffic there.
Mr. Brandgard said Mr. Isaacs just made an interesting comment relative to that steel.
Mr. Isaacs said the core tin will rub off if you want to rub against it.
Mr. Belcher said that was mentioned too. That it could be a problem.
Mr. Brandgard said that was something that I wasn’t aware of. I think it is worth noting.
Mr. Belcher said that decision doesn’t need to be made tonight. The selection of paint verses core tin we can make that at a later date after we find out how somebody else deals with that issue with somebody leaning up against it and complain about getting stain on their clothes. That is Hadley Road’s location.
This is the idea we are thinking about for Stanley Road, which again that is between a lot of really nice subdivisions on all sides there. This is sort of an open bridge and it has that open railing. I’m not exactly sure what the two vertical points are unless they are lighting or possibly a structure for lighting. I would have to ask Mr. Hamersley about that.
Mr. Brandgard said if nothing else, it just may be an architectural feature.
Mr. Belcher said I think really the abutments becoming attractive I think is going to be a plus. I’ve not really paid attention to those in the past projects but I think with the area we have there are three or four nice subdivisions on all sides of this and I think it will really fit into the neighborhood well in a toned down kind of a color. So, that is what we are thinking about. That is the extent of the presentation.
Mr. Kirchoff said I understand the change from the Stanley Road bridge from an earlier idea is we were going to hang something off the side of the existing bridge and this is freestanding, is that correct? Hadn’t we talked about that at one time?
Mr. Carlucci said if we did, it was a long time ago and we decided that wouldn’t work.
Mr. Kirchoff said I just wanted to make that point that this is a freestanding structure probably on the south side.
Mr. Belcher said right.
Mr. Kirchoff said we tried to pick both selections to fit into the area.
Mr. Belcher said it would still be very attractive from the road and if you are driving in a car, you will see the bridge and it will look nice but it won’t stick out like a neon sign or something. I don’t think that would be appropriate in the neighborhood.
Mr. Carlucci said I just might add for our reporters this is what we call Phase II of our greenways. Phase I was a federal aid grant and Phase II is a second federal grant and we hope to have these bid out sometime next year. These are two of the bridges that will be added on the trail system. The reason that we are putting one at Crystal Bay is because what is happening now is the people won’t go north on the sidewalks to Hummel Park. They will come out of Hadley Acres and Hawthorne Ridge in that area down there and they are cutting down the intersection across the Hadley Road bridge. This bridge is to make sure that they are safe to getting into Hummel into the backside of the park. So, that is one reason that bridge is going in. The other one is on Stanley Road where that bridge is now there is no room on that bridge to safely get people out of those neighborhoods and Stafford Pointe apartments and those new developments down there. So, this is to get them off the roadway and get them up the hill and cross them over and they can head back to the trail system. Those are two of the features and I think these will probably be, given what we have done in the past, less expensive than what we have already done but still have an architectural feel to them.
Mr. Belcher said if you feel we are on the right track, we will continue and will go down these design directions and then come back. The plans will be ready to go out for bid actually next year.
Mr. Brandgard said I think you are moving in the right direction.
Mr. McPhail said the Westwood Trailer Park and the Wal-Mart project continues to move forward. They are removing mobile homes. Wal-Mart has stepped to the plate and have offered some financial assistance to those people that are being moved. I didn’t get an update today but I feel confident that the escrow agreement has been put in place and should be in place today or tomorrow whereby when those residents meet the qualifications set forth by Westwood and Wal-Mart, then they will get some financial assistance to relocate. I think it is a good program and things are moving forward.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 16-2004 on its first reading. An ordinance for the Craig/Duncan rezoning for 11.24 acres from “AG” Agricultural to R-3 Medium-Density Residential. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gaddie – yes
Mr. Fivecoat – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to sign the necessary documents and adjourn. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Motion carried.
Mr. Robin G. Brandgard, President