PLAINFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
August 29, 2011
5:00 p.m.

Mr. Kirchoff: Plainfield Town Council special meeting for August 29th is now in session. Would you all rise with me and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Kirchoff: We have 2 items on the consent agenda.
1. Approval of Change Order 1, to the contract with John Hall Construction in the amount of zero dollars for changes in the work associated with the Main Street Area Drainage Project, per the Town Engineer's report dated August 26, 2011.
2. Approval to Advertise and receive bills for phase 2 of the South Hills Drainage Project per the Town Engineer's report dated August 26th 2011.

Mr. Kirchoff: I would like to go back to item one, Tim; can you give us just a brief overview of what item 1 is about?

Mr. Belcher: Yes I would be happy too, it is unusual for us to have a zero cost change order, but what is happening there is these funds for this project are coming up through the State Revolving Loan Fund and what's happened is, it is a unit price contract and some of the units have been added to the project, for example, televising the sewers was not originally in the project, we've had to televise a lot of sewers, they will not process a pay estimate for the televising unless we have a change order showing that that televising has been approved to be in the contract. The money was already in the contract, and the line item that was within the project already to do the work, but it wasn't identified with televising for example, so what the change does is it takes money that is already in the project, moves it to the line item associated with televising and pays for the televising, so if you approve that change order then essentially that will allow us to go ahead and process Mr. Hall's pay request, so I appreciate you letting me bring that tonight.

Mr. Kirchoff: Is there any questions or comments on the consent agenda?

Mr. McPhail: I would move we approve the consent agenda as read.

Ms. Whicker: Second.

Mr. Kirchoff: We have a motion is second to approve the consent agenda. Everyone in favor indicate by saying aye, opposed, motion passed.

SR 267 Water Tower painting Bid Opening

Mr. Kirchoff: Tonight we have bid openings for State Road 267 water tower painting; do we have proof of publication?

Mr. Daniel: Yes we do.

Mr. Belcher: Mr. President, would you allow me to address the board one more time about this project while Rich is looking to open the bids?

Mr. Kirchoff: Certainly

Mr. Belcher: First of all I wanted to thank you for allowing me to bring this item forward tonight, normally we would try to give ourselves a little bit more time, when I knew there was a special meeting coming up I requested permission to bring it tonight to bid because of the time of year. The painting of that tower is so critical in terms of temperature, and wind and things like that, that our only chance or a better chance is received by the Town by receiving those bids tonight as to waiting two or three more weeks till our normally scheduled Council meeting. It is extremely helpful to the Town because what would happen if we could get these done this year, during the hot season next year, June and July would be our first next opportunity to do this work, so I thank you very much for allowing me to bring this forward, and I hope we have a successful bid here, if it is possible, once the bids are received, if you would allow me permission to review the bids between this meeting and the next and do an a tentative award subject to those all being properly submitted then we can come to the next meeting with a report of the contract being tentatively awarded.

Mr. Kirchoff: And we do have them in this year's utility budget, this cost?

Mr. Belcher: Yes, thank you.

Mr. Kirchoff: First bid is Utility Service Co., Inc., in Perry Georgia.

Mr. Daniel: The bid from Utility Service Co., Inc. includes a bid bond in the amount of 5%, and the bid specifications and the notice provides for bid bond in the amount of 10%, so the bid does not meet the advertised requirements.

Ms. Whicker: I make a motion that we reject the bid from Utility Service Co., Inc. for not providing the proper documentation requested in the advertisement.

Mr. McPhail: Second.

Mr. Kirchoff: Is there any other discussion on that? I have a motion and a second to reject the bid from Utility Service Co., for the lack of proper documentation and lack of proper bond amount. Is everybody in favor of that motion, indicate by saying aye, opposed, that is rejected. Second bid is from Industrial Painting Contractors, Inc. in Taylor, Michigan.

Mr. Daniel: Industrial Painting Contractors bid is in proper form.

Mr. Kirchoff: The bid from Industrial Painting Contractors is $384,000.00, again $384,000.00 even. The next bid is Caldwell Tanks, Inc., from Louisville, Kentucky.

Mr. Daniel: Caldwell Tanks bid is in proper form.

Mr. Kirchoff: The amount of the bid from Caldwell Tanks, Inc., is $464,180.00 that's $464,180.00. The next bid is Horizon Brothers Painting, Inc, in Howell, Michigan.

Mr. Daniel: Horizon Brothers bid is in proper form.

Mr. Kirchoff: The bid from Horizon Brothers is $397,650.00 that's $397,650.00. The next bid is TMI Coatings, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Mr. Daniel: TMI Coatings bid is in proper form.

Mr. Kirchoff: The bid from TMI Coatings is $538,000.00 that's $538,000.00. The final bid for this evening is V & T Painting LLC, Farmington Hills, Michigan.

Mr. Daniel: V & T Painting bid is in proper form.

Mr. Kirchoff: The bid amount from V & T Painting LLC. is $395,000.00 that's $395,000.00. That is all the bids; we appreciate everyone who made the effort to submit a bid, thank you for doing so. The engineer's estimate was $500,000.00 and Tim, can you give us a sense of timing.

Mr. Belcher: As there is not any unit prices on this it will probably be a relatively quick turn around if the bidder that is low, low here tonight unless we find something that, unless he calls and said he made a mistake, of course his bid bond would be subject to calling that and those kinds of things, but other than that I think…

Mr. Kirchoff: How soon for the bid committee, is Robin going to be back and how soon do you need to meet?

Mr. Belcher: That is where I wasn't sure how to set up the bid review committee because normally it would be Robin and that is his liaison area, but I don't know his return to the United States. But any Council member obviously could be involved.

Mr. McPhail: I think he is due back Wednesday isn't he?

Mr. Kirchoff: Just in two more days?

Mr. McPhail: I think so.

Mr. Belcher: That would be ideal.

Mr. Daniel: September 5th he will be back.

Mr. Kirchoff: So you probably want to move before that.

Mr. Belcher: Let's see that will be next week; we probably would try to meet this week if we could to go through the documents.

Mr. Kirchoff: Kent would you be willing too? So let's name a bid review committee of Council member Kent McPhail, Dave Lahey, and Tim Belcher. Help me here Mel, do we need a motion or just consent to go ahead and move forward with a preliminary award?

Mr. Daniel: You will need a motion on that.

Ms. Whicker: I make a motion that we move ahead with pre bid committee as before mentioned.

Mr. Kirchoff: And authorize them to a preliminary bid award.

Mr. McPhail: Second.

Mr. Kirchoff: I have a motion and a second to authorize the bid committee to review the bids and to make a preliminary bid award, any discussion? If not, everybody in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye, opposed, thank you.

Mr. Belcher: Thank you very much.

PUBLIC HEARING: Wyatt Annexation

Mr. Kirchoff: We have two public hearings tonight. Are you going to address the Council and the public please?

Mr. Carlucci: Thank you Mr. President, I sent Ed down there to look for the newspaper that I had cut it out of for the public hearing tonight, but there is a scheduled meeting today. I will verify that, Ed couldn't find it on my desk, and I looked all through the stuff I have and I don't have it with me, but there is a scheduled public hearing tonight and I will verify that with Mel. The Wyatt Annexation is located on the very north side of Plainfield, it is on County Road 200 South, and if you took Ronald Reagan up to 200 South and took a left, and when you run out of the last house on the left as you head to the west is where this property is located, the Wyatt property. It is approximately 7 acres of land, and that is requested to be annexed. This did receive approval from the Plainfield Plan Commission as a matter of fact I think they went at least twice to the Plan Commission, we also have a set of commitments for that property, that again took some time to craft and I think that is an I-2 zoning district, but it has a substantial amount of commitments on that property. When this process is through and if the Council decides to approve the annexation then we will do what we always do, is we record the annexation ordinance. We record the commitments, I think there is a delay from the day that you adopt the ordinance there is so many days delay before you can record the annexation by State Law, so that will be the next step. So I will go ahead and sit down and then we can get to the public commentary.

Mr. Kirchoff: This is a public hearing and this is an opportunity for the public to make any comments concerning the Wyatt annexation request. Does anyone want to come forward to comment on the Wyatt annexation? Seeing none, I will close that public hearing and we will proceed to the second one.


PUBLIC HEARING: Denison SR 267 at I-70 annexation.

Mr. Carlucci: Thank you Mr. President, the next annexation is Denison Properties, Inc.; they are requesting annexation of approximately 40 acres of land directly to the southwest of I-70 and State Route 267 interchange. A note on this project is the annexation zoning for this annexation is Agricultural, and there is a public hearing on a rezoning petition by the developer I believe on September 8th.

Mr. Kirchoff: It will be at 7:00, at the Plan Commission?

Mr. Carlucci: Yes. I think the reason it is on that night is because of the Holiday. So what we brought in today is basically bringing in if it goes through the whole process tonight bringing in that 48 acres of land annexed into the Town and it will have an agricultural zoning district on that, and so one of the purposes of the meeting on September 8th is that Mr. McNault has a petition to rezone the property other than agricultural, and again it is a two step process, the Plan Commission cannot rezone property once that hearing is complete and there is no guarantee that there won't be a delay or something along the line, but typically once it gets to the Town Council it is their decision to accept the rezoning or not to accept it, again I will go ahead and sit down and get to the public hearing part.

Mr. Kirchoff: This is a public hearing and it is now time for anyone from the public who would like to address the Council concerning the annexation of the Denison request at State Road 267 and I-70.

Mr. Behling: Leonard Behling, resident of Sycamore Estates, the area which is under consideration for partial annexation into the Town. The board needs to understand the reason for the requested annexation, is to first of all rezone a portion 4.4 acres from GC, general commercial, which was zoned that way by the County Commissioner some time back, and for 48.3 acres to I-2, office warehouse distribution industrial, pending partial annexation. I am going to try not to take up too much of your time, but would you all kind of picture the situation if you are not familiar with that neighborhood. The people who would be…

Mr. Kirchoff: Let me stop you just a second, you are addressing rezoning, we are talking about annexation tonight.

Mr. Behling: Yes, but I am talking about the purpose for the annexation.

Mr. Kirchoff: That is the second step. Would that be correct?

Mr. Daniel: Yes.

Mr. Kirchoff: So if you have any comments concerning the annexation itself? That is what the public hearing is for tonight, you can come back on the 8th of September, and you can come and talk about rezoning.

Mr. Behling: Ok, that is fair enough, I plan to be here anyway. I think I speak for the people in Sycamore Estates generally and especially those in the Cottonwood addition that we oppose this annexation.

Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public?

Mr. Ali: Si Ali, from Sycamore Estates, 7971 Black Oak Drive, Plainfield. I would like to know what the purpose of this rezoning or annexation is? Why is that being changed from what it stands?

Mr. Daniel: The purpose of the annexation is to bring it into the Town, anytime territory outside of the Town limits is brought into the Town it automatically is brought in with an agricultural zoning, and then it stays agricultural until it is rezoned if it is to some other zoning classification.

Mr. Ali: Why would that need to be changed now? Why are you planning to change now to agricultural from what it is currently?

Mr. Daniel: Why is it coming in, as agricultural?

Mr. Ali: Yes, from the current classification to agricultural, why?

Mr. Daniel: Because anytime property outside the Town is annexed into the Town it comes in as agricultural, that is the way our annexations take place.

Mr. Ali: That's the way it is done all the time?

Mr. Daniel: Yes.

Mr. Kirchoff: Which again is why we have a two step, we address the annexation and then we talk about what comes after.

Mr. Ali: I understand the next phase of it. I was curious about the annexation part of it.

Mr. Swift: My name is Jim Swift, I live in Sycamore Estates. My question though has to with south of I-70, is there a master plan? Has that been developed?

Mr. Kirchoff: The Planning Director is here, Joe.

Mr. James: Good evening, my name is Joe James and I am the Planning Director for Plainfield. Yes, there is a master plan it is called the Plainfield Comprehensive Plan and it provides land use recommendations for all of the land in Plainfield and for land that is not in Plainfield yet, it is our growth boundary I guess you could say, so there is a recommendation for this part of the interchange, it is for Interstate Commercial Note, which is highway related businesses like you see north of us.

Mr. Kirchoff: Does that answer your question?

Mr. Swift: Well has that plan been submitted to Scott Pruitt, Fish and Wildlife?

Ms. Whicker: I believe that plan was written in 2007.

Mr. Kirchoff: It has been approved, when was the last we did the master plan?

Mr. James: It was adopted in December of 2005, but this area has no bad habitat, that is the question so DNR would not get involved.

Mr. Kirchoff: But it is a public document that I am sure he has had an opportunity to review.

Mr. James: Yes, our comprehensive plan is online at www.townofplainfield.com click on Planning and zoning page and then you will see the comprehensive plan, it is PDF format so it can be viewed online.

Mr. Swift: Has that been submitted to Scott Pruitt?

Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that, I am not sure I understand your question why that is?

Mr. Swift: Ok, you are working south of 70; I was told that there was no comprehensive master plan to present to Scott Pruitt.

(Inaudible)

Mr. Swift: Well, I was told two years ago by this Council that they were going to get on this right away and nothing has been done.

Mr. Kirchoff: Get on what? I don't understand.

Mr. Swift: To get dealing with this master plan south of I-70 and they have to have that approved by Scott Pruitt before they can do anything with it.

Mr. Kirchoff: I'm not sure I agree with that comment.

Ms. Whicker: Was it in a Town Council session sir? I'm trying to recall.

Mr. Swift: Yes.

Ms. Whicker: And what was the topic at hand that we were discussing that that came up?

Mr. Swift: We have property south of I-70, it was annexed, apparently for no reason at all, and now we are trying to get it so we can get development there and everybody is dragging their feet and saying I don't know what happened, I don't know, so I'd like to get some and get some things cleared up.

Mr. Kirchoff: What areas are you talking about that were addressed previously?

Mr. Swift: You know where PepsiCo, and Mack McNault.

Mr. Kirchoff: Yes.

Mr. Swift: Coming east there is a bridge there that needs to be replaced; nobody will move on it, nobody will move with the Fish and Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife according to you didn't want to say anything and didn't want to do anything without a copy of the master plan. Now if it is.

Mr. Carlucci: This isn't the issue before us tonight though. That is another issue on the other side of the road. (Inaudible)

Mr. Swift: Would the master plan only be for that 48 acres that you are looking at, or would it be for the whole thing?

Mr. Carlucci: We are not doing any master plan, this is an annexation request (inaudible)

Mr. Swift: Has there been any attempt? We've had email after email and people asking questions.

Mr. Kirchoff: In all do respect, that is an issue that is separate from what we are discussing tonight. This is an annexation request for the southwest quadrant of 267 and 70, I am familiar with what you are talking about, and it is a totally different issue.

Mr. Swift: This is the way the Council deals with what is going on, I mean, what is the difference?

Mr. Kirchoff: To me it is a whole different issue, we are talking about an annexation request for the southwest quadrant of 267 and I-70, you are talking about something on the southeast quadrant, it is totally a different issue. I appreciate your frustration, we have had a number of issues talking about the area you are talking about, and we have not been able to resolve it, I appreciate it, but that is not on the table tonight.

Ms. George: My name is Kathryn George; I live at 6915 Cottonwood Drive, Plainfield. Any warehouse or anything would abut up to my property, now that field right there, the field that they tore the house down between the church and Sycamore Estates, it does have wildlife run through there all the time, we have a lot of deer. That to me is, I think it should be kept the way it is, I'm not opposed up front where the church or up towards 267, being commercialized, but that field close to our homes would deteriorate everything and cause our children harm.

Mr. Kirchoff: I appreciate that and again, I think that is an issue to be brought to the Plan Commission on September 8th.

Ms. George: Ok, I just wanted to say that I am opposed to the annexation.

Mr. Kirchoff: Any other comments on the annexation request?

Ms. Behling: Gay Behling, 8075 Dogwood Court, in Sycamore Estates. I was just wondering who is doing the petition for the annexation. Is it the developer?

Mr. Carlucci: Mack McNault and Denison Properties that owns that land there.

Ms. Behling: Ok, so he wants it annexed, if the people around don't want it annexed, does it go through and get annexed anyway? I mean I don't know there are a lot of people that don't want it annexed for fear of what the annexation will bring. Like lots of commercial development, I think they would like to have it stay agrarian. We had quite a few people, we just informed and we saw the little signs there and we were just informed about three or four days ago, we didn't get a certified letter like the 16 people in our neighborhood of 180 that got one. So we were unaware and shocked and for fear of what might happen if it is annexed and then rezoned, so consider our fears. We have petitions of people that signed and do not want it annexed.

Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you. Is there any other comments concerning the annexation?

Mr. Egenolf: Steve Egenolf, 8095 Black Oak Drive, Plainfield, Indiana. After coming from Hendricks County Planning Commission today, I can see where the Town of Plainfield owns a significant amount of property in this area, and I fail to see how you cannot be biased and have a financial interest in what is going on in this area and I would like to hear an explanation of how you can distance yourself from this annexation when it can mean a lot of financial gain for the Town.

Mr. Kirchoff: That is news to me, what property do we own down there?

Mr. Egenolf: Well all of these in blue according to Hendricks County are owned by Plainfield.

Mr. McPhail: They are not owned by Plainfield, they may be in the Town of Plainfield, but they certainly are not owned by Plainfield.

Mr. Egenolf: That is not the way the guy explained it to me in Hendricks County.

Mr. James: The only partial that Plainfield owns is this parcel right here.

(Inaudible)

Mr. Kirchoff: I think, didn't we actually buy land down there with anticipation of some day of a potential fire station in that area.

Mr. Gaddie: That is Township.

Mr. Kirchoff: Sir that is the only property that I am aware that we own in the area.

Mr. Egenolf: Well, still would bias your decision making in the overall of what you want to see done in this area.

Ms. Whicker: Mr. Egenolf my question to you would be, when you say why you are distancing yourself, and why we would want that, but I haven't made a statement for that gathering so I don't know how you would perceive the fact that I want to distance myself, and maybe you can explain that to me.

Mr. Egenolf: Well if you had no property, that you hadn't already annexed everything in the area, this would be a decision that wouldn't really influence, or wouldn't be influenced by what is already there now, and it just seems like it is continually expansion when it is really not going to be beneficial to the people that are already there. Now here again we will be back for the zoning, I understand that,

Mr. Kirchoff: And we will welcome your input that night.

Mr. Egenolf: Thank you.

Mr. Kirchoff: Any other comments pertaining to annexation?

Ms. Daum: Frances Daum, 1912 Crystal Bay East Drive, Plainfield. I really had not intended to do this. I really feel for the people in that area because they have been harmed by the airport buyout, their properties have been diminished in value and they have had to increase their sound proofing of their homes and so I'm sure they feel right now like they have been picked on by more than one entity, and now we are doing the same thing. Why would Denison Property go to the Town of Plainfield and ask for annexation when they could have gone to the County and asked for the property to be rezoned instead of taking this route with the Town of Plainfield? There has to be a benefit to them, there has to be a benefit to you or this wouldn't be considered a Plainfield problem instead of a County problem. The second item is are you prepared to cover this area with water and sewer, trash pick up, city streets to be paved and street lights? Are you prepared to offer to them the entities that are offered to the rest of Plainfield? I do know that several years ago, Joe Williamson asked for the property on the other side of 267 to be annexed into the Town of Plainfield and you refused his annexation at that time, now what the reason was, I don't know, I didn't attend that meeting, but there must have been some reason at that time, so I would just like to hear if you can answer any of these questions for me.

Mr. James: Could I say something about the zoning?

Mr. Daniel: Wait.

Mr. James: Well I can tell them what it is currently zoned through Hendricks County.

Mr. Kirchoff: No, this is an annexation request. Water and sewer, Tim can you talk about that?

Mr. Belcher: If this property is annexed and a developer comes to the Town or it is annexed and it comes to the Town, the Town would look at the needs of that project and the developer would have to pay for the extension of those utilities to his property. That is how every project is handled typically. The roads would be handled in similar fashion, obviously any development has to look at roadways and transportation and typically the developers are required to pay for the upgrade to the roads too.

Mr. Kirchoff: Anything else?

Mr. Carlucci: Francie you have been here longer than I have, I don't think any of these members of this board were here when that took place.

Mr. James: It probably wasn't contiguous at that time that is why it hadn't been annexed.

(Inaudible)

Mr. Kirchoff: I think Mel makes a valid point, the reason we are considering this is the developer approached the Town and wanted to be in the Town of Plainfield, he has had several development projects within the Town and he's requested to do that and so we are considering his request. Are there any other comments? Yes.

Ms. George: Kathryn George again, I'm not clear, can you explain what the annex is going to do to us as home owners or how is it going to affect us?

Mr. Kirchoff: There should be no effect to the home owner's right?

Mr. Daniel: Just brings that piece of property into the Town of Plainfield if it is approved.

Mr. Behling: Leonard Behling again, and I failed to give my address the first time, 8075 Dogwood Court. This raises a question of the motive of the developer, not talking about the rezoning, but the taxes, would any industrial construction be under the ten year tax abatement program?

Mr. Kirchoff: That is surely congestion depending on what kind of project would be proposed for there. Again that has nothing to do with annexation.

Mr. Behling: What I am saying is, it certainly does, and because the property is not annexed then they would be subject to taxation by the County which does not have a ten year tax abatement program as far as I am aware of, correct?


Mr. Kirchoff: You're smarter than I am, I don't know.

Mr. Behling: That is a very valid question which I think needs some answers.

Mr. Carlucci: To the extent that Town of Plainfield does give tax abatements, the Hendricks County has given tax abatements for the leased warehouse on 39 and 70. They don't do as much as we do, but they do do tax abatements.

Mr. Gaddie: Rich, I've got one question, you've got this public hearing on this property with Denison, and we are doing the third reading of the ordinance here for that annex. Is that normal for the public hearing after we went through two readings?

Mr. Carlucci: You have to have so many days in between we did the first and second reading of those ordinances, but there is a big gap between meetings, I think there is 45 days, 30 to 45 day requirement before you can actually adopt the annexation.

Mr. Gaddie: I was curious about the public hearing; you have it now on the third reading, is that normal instead of the first?

Mr. Carlucci: Yes. You might as well do them together; it makes it a little more efficient.

Mr. Gaddie: Well I thought you'd have it on the first reading instead of the third.

Mr. Kirchoff: No, you can't.

Mr. Carlucci: We can't do that.

Mr. Gaddie: Well that is why wondering.

Ms. Whicker: I have a question for you Rich, as mentioned previously annexations into the Town for those requests then are automatically put in an ag district and then they come back to the Plan Commission then for request a zoning, then on the annexation proposal for the Wyatt property, they are requesting an I-2, so that is not one that goes to ag and then Plan Commission to request change or can you just…

Mr. Carlucci: I think they went to the Plan Commission to ask for the I-2 zoning.

Ms. Whicker: Before they were annexed?

Mr. Carlucci: Yes, and you can do both, you can do it both ways.

Ms. Whicker: You can do it in reverse order.

Mr. Carlucci: You can do it both ways, you can request that zoning, I think Mr. McNault, I don't know why Mr. McNault did it the way he did it, and you can do it both ways. You can request the rezoning, and if it is consistent with the plans it is not that big of an issue.

Ms. Whicker: I heard a few questions with the future use or why would it want to be annexed in there, and I noticed in the table of contents on both annexations after statutory considerations, and before basic data there is a section in the annexation that says that need and use and I just don't see those on this annexation report, is that something that is optional to fill out for an annexation on a fiscal plan for an annexation area? Or maybe if you can help me maybe it is in a different order or you could find that. It is listed in the table of contents but I don't see the need or use for the land specified here on the annexation request, and I hear that is the question kind of, that I believe that the public is asking. Is that need and use something typically that is provided at this time at of requesting annexation?

Mr. Carlucci: I think that is why you have a public hearing. The way Mack is doing it, he is going ask for the specific zoning and he is going to come in and try to explain to the Plan Commission and the people that are for or against why he wants to do that annexation and what the use of that property is going to be.

Ms. Whicker: And if just this annexation, this resolution accepting it, specifies table of contents for need and use then I just want to make sure the need and use is not here, and so I am not agreeing to the annexation to the ultimate need and use of that land, is that correct?

Mr. Carlucci: It is hard, because if you follow the way we do the annexation process, they can request that they don't have too. The Town Council has the ultimate authority to say on a rezoning whether they think is the correct use of that property or not. But they will also base that on the comprehensive plan and other documents and other information provided by staff or the developer, or the citizens of the community. So on the need and use, I don't know how to interpret that other than it seems to be more boiler plate than anything else.

Ms. Whicker: Well just because it is not specifically mentioned and it is on the table of contents, maybe that is something that we can just delete from this, but at this point in the resolution we can or cannot make changes in that? Or how does that work?

Mr. Carlucci: Well you are conducting the public hearing right now, so I don't know the proper one, you can probably make an amendment to the resolution if the Council members agree to it.

Ms. Whicker: Well the need and use is not explained in this annexation, so I would possibly make that an amendment.

Mr. Kirchoff: Is there any other comments from the public?

Mr. Ali: Is the Town Council aware of the purpose or the motive of the developer requesting annexation and still support the annexation?

Mr. Kirchoff: I have not seen any proposal from the developer.

Mr. Ali: Well the developer must have indicated why they want the annexation changed from what it is currently. Has the Town Council asked the developer any questions about that?

Mr. Carlucci: I don't question anybody's motives about why they want to do a certain thing or not to do something. They have a right to come in and petition the Town Council and go through the process and at the end of the day, the Town Council will have to make the decision to whether they will want to rezone this property or not, but I think it is a good idea to be questioning peoples motives, either good or bad and one way or the other.

Mr. Kirchoff: And my response to that would be is that I will review that on the merits of his request, and until I see that, I can't be comment on what he might be proposing because I haven't seen anything.

Mr. Ali: I would think that the Town Council would be interested in knowing what the purpose of the business would be.

Mr. Kirchoff: I think you are getting the cart before the horse.

Ms. Whicker: September 8th probably is the time you will…

Mr. Kirchoff: That is making an assumption we would agree or disagree with what he might be proposing and until that comes to that point, I think you are getting the cart before the horse.

Mr. Ali: They haven't submitted any explanation of why they want this annexation?

Mr. Kirchoff: I have not seen it.

Mr. Egenolf: Steve Egenolf again, it is unfortunate that nobody is living on this property because the people in Sycamore Estates cannot vote for the Plainfield Town Council; I mean those are going to be the people that are going to be most impacted by what you are doing with an agricultural piece of property in which nobody lives. So it is just a statement that it is a fact of life, but it is not very democratic to have us unable to influence whether you hold the office that you hold and that you are definitely making a decision that is going to affect a lot of people.

Mr. Kirchoff: Let me respond to that just a little bit, we just recently, well it was the Wyatt annexation, when they came in and their neighbors were outside of the Town, and we required the petitioner to meet the standards as if they were within the Town, so I disagree with where you are coming from because we take all citizens rights equally whether they are inside the Town or outside the Town, and so I respectfully disagree with your position. I think we are ready to close here unless someone else has some public comments.

Mr. Egenolf: I appreciate your comment, and I am sure we would like to see your understanding when we go through the zoning process.

Mr. Kirchoff: I will be happy to voice my opinion; you will find out that I am not too bashful when it comes to the Plan Commission asking questions. Any other final comments, last one then we are going to close it up.

Mr. Kidwell: Joe Kidwell, I live in the Highlands subdivision Guilford Township. This explanation that you have here just seems very strange to me that you don't know, and you don't really want to know what they are going to do with the property, since I am in the area there, can I petition to have my property come into Plainfield and you don't particularly care why, you will just go through this and evaluate it?

Mr. Kirchoff: What I am hearing you say is that we have already agreed if we annex it we are going to let him do what he wants to do, or is asking to do, that is not true.

Mr. Kidwell: No, I am just asking why you wouldn't be interested.

Mr. Kirchoff: Because that is the next step to find out.

Mr. Kidwell: What is the next step?

Mr. Kirchoff: Him coming in to present a position for rezoning and then what his development plan would be. That is a different item than what we are discussing tonight. We are not addressing that.

Mr. Kidwell: But you will make your decision after he presents the zoning what he wants to do with it? You will make your decision after he tells you what he wants to do?

Mr. Kirchoff: Decision not on annexation, on his rezoning or development plan.

Mr. Kidwell: Well are you going to decide if you are going to annex the property before…

Mr. Kirchoff: Absolutely.

Mr. Kidwell: It still doesn't seem to make any sense.

Mr. Kirchoff: Obviously I've not done a good job helping you understand that annexing it, is simply annex it. Maybe he has presented something to you all, but then the next phase he may decide to do something totally different down there and so we are going to go back and de-annex? No, I don't think so.

Mr. Kidwell: I would think you would be more protective of your Town of what something might do.

Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you.

Mr. Gaddie: The only comment I have you know, which you know you have had some zoning done before you annex, I can't believe a developer would come in and want to annex if he didn't know what he was going to put in there. I just can't think a developer can risk that much money to go through this, that is like you said the horse before the care, you know I think the zoning should be potential before you annex it for any reason.

Mr. Kirchoff: Any other comments? I am going to close the public hearing portion of this hearing and I will turn it over to Council comments.

Mr. McPhail: Mr. President I have a few comments to make, you know we have a property owner who has property owner's rights, and he has requested to be annexed into the Town of Plainfield. The annex ordinance requires that with out previously requiring zoning commitments without annexation that would be annexed as agricultural property. I believe that every time in the past that I have been a part of this Council, that we have had that request from the property owner we've annexed that property. This property is in an overall zoning, or an overall planning area of the Town of Plainfield, and we include those areas that we expect to annex in our future or they would not be in our planning area, so I think the zoning is a separate issue, I do believe that the property owner is looking for in the future the services that we provide or he would not want to be into the Town and we would have been in the Town, and we provide those services that are not available in the County. So this zoning issue that seems to be the issue, not the annexation, I have not heard anybody explain to me why they wouldn't want it annexed, it is all a zoning issue and this property owner has the, if we do not annex this property they have the right to go to the governing board of the County and ask for any kind of zoning they want. I prefer that it was in our planning area that we annex it and we have control of that process ourselves, and not delegate that to the County when it is in our planning area. I think it is as simple as that. People want to be into the Town because of the services that we are able to provide to those property owners, and I would guess in this particular case there is probably some motives down the road that they will in whatever he does he will want the services that we provide. We provide services in the un-annexed areas because it is the right thing to do particularly the police and those kinds of things, so I don't see this being any different than any other annexation being brought forward to us.

Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you.

Ms. Whicker: I applaud those for being involved and being aware and coming here and giving your chance to ask questions and get answers and learning the process sometimes in how that continues, but it is an annexation and we do hear frequently from people that they do like to work with the Town of Plainfield because I do feel that we are efficient in getting our information and helping developers whether it is residential, whether it is commercial, or whether it is people from different parts of the Nation that come in here and want to do business or live that they really appreciate the effectiveness of the services that we provide and not just during the process of becoming established but also once they are here the amenities that the Town has to offer. So for this annexation this evening to annex into the Town is one thing but then again September 8th would be the rezoning at the Plan Commission at 7:00 P.M.

Mr. Kirchoff: Any other comments from the Council? As we have handled the public hearing separately, we need to handle the resolution separately as well. So you have before you two separate resolutions. Resolution number 2011-17 is for the Wyatt Annexation, and I will entertain a motion.

Mr. McPhail: I would move that we approve resolution no. 2011-17, the Wyatt Annexation physical plat.

Ms. Whicker: If I could add, did we amend or by deleting need and use out of table of contents listed on page three, which is not in the body of the annexation.

Mr. Kirchoff: Do you agree to that to your motion?

Mr. McPhail: I will accept that.

Ms. Whicker: Second.

Mr. Kirchoff: I have a motion and a second to approve resolution no. 2011-17, Resolution of the Plainfield Town Council acknowledging accepting petition for voluntary annexation to the Town of Plainfield and we are amending the table of contents deleting need and use. Is there any other discussion? Roll call vote please.

Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brandgard is absent tonight
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gaddie- yes
Ms. Whicker- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, motion is approved.

Mr. Kirchoff: Second resolution you have before you is resolution number 2011-18 the resolution, Plainfield Town Council acknowledging and accepting the petition for volunteer annexation into the Town of Plainfield and that would be the Denison properties request. I entertain a motion.

Mr. McPhail: I would move that we approve resolution number 2011-18.

Ms. Whicker: And if I could request the amendment that we delete need and use, page three from the table of contents since it is not included in the body of the resolution.

Mr. McPhail: I would accept that amendment.

Mr. Kirchoff: We have a motion and a second to approve resolution number 2011-18 the resolution of the Plainfield Town Council acknowledging and accepting petition for voluntary annexation in the Town of Plainfield, any more discussion, roll call vote.

Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brandgard is absent tonight
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gaddie- no
Ms. Whicker- yes
Three ayes, one opposed, one absent, the motion is approved.

Third Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 08-2011: Denison SR 267 at I-70 Annexation.

Mr. Kirchoff: So we need to handle these ordinances separately. We have before us tonight the third reading and adoption of Ordinance number 08-2011 the Denison State Road 267 and I-70 annexation.

Mr. McPhail: So move.

Ms. Whicker: Second.

Mr. Kirchoff: I have a motion and a second for the third reading and adoption of ordinance number 08-2011 Denison State Road 267 and I-70 annexation, any further discussion, hearing none, roll call vote please.

Mr. Carlucci: Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gaddie- no
Ms. Whicker- yes
Three ayes, one opposed one absent, the motion carries.

Third Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 09-2011: Wyatt Annexation

Mr. Kirchoff: Next, we have the third reading and adoption of ordinance number 09-2011 which is the Wyatt annexation.

Mr. McPhail: So move.

Ms. Whicker: Second.

Mr. Kirchoff: I have a motion and a second to approve the third reading and adoption of ordinance number 09-2011, the Wyatt annexation, any further discussion, roll call vote please.

Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brandgard is absent tonight
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gaddie- yes
Ms. Whicker- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, one absent, the motion is approved.

Third Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 10-2011: Deadly Weapons Ordinance

Mr. Kirchoff: Then finally we have the third reading and adoption of ordinance number 10-2011 which is the deadly weapons ordinance.

Ms. Whicker: I make a motion that we approve and adopt the third reading of ordinance 10-2011.

Mr. McPhail: Second.

Mr. Kirchoff: I have a motion and a second to approve the third reading and adoption of ordinance number 10-2011 the Deadly Weapons Ordinance, any further discussion, roll call vote please.

Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brandgard is absent tonight
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gaddie- yes
Ms. Whicker- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, one absent, motion is approved.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Kirchoff: Any other business to come before the Council tonight?

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Kirchoff: Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to sign the documents and adjourn.

Mr. McPhail: So move.

Ms. Whicker: Second.

Mr. Kirchoff: Everybody in favor indicate by saying aye, thank you.