PLAINFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
December 12, 2011
Mr. Brandgard: The Plainfield Town Council meeting for Monday December 12, 2011 is now in session. Would like to make note again we are again honored with the presence of some Boy Scouts from troop 2308 and also Cub Scouts from pack 308 Hope Presbyterian.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Brandgard: As our custom I'd like to ask them to come forward and lead us into the Pledge of Allegiance, if you would all please stand. We know sometimes the meeting can run longer than you need to stay, so feel to leave or come and go as you wish, we know you are working on your merit badges and that, and it is a pleasure having you here, thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: We have a few items on the consent agenda.
1. Approval of minutes of the regularly scheduled Town Council meeting of Monday, November 28, 2011 and minutes of Executive Session of Tuesday December 6, 2011.
2. Approval of Change Order # 1 in the amount of $14,895.00 with Edwards-Rigdon Construction for work on the Lazy River Project Phase 2 per the Parks and Recreation Director's report dated December 9, 2011.
3. Approval of Transportation Director's and Parks and Recreation Director's reports dated December 9, 2011, and Town Engineer's and HR Director's reports dated December 10, 2011.
4. Approval of November 2011 monthly reports for IT, Department of Planning and Zoning, Plainfield Police Department, Department of Public Works, and Utility Billing.
5. Approval of Change Order No. 1 to the engineering contact with Banning Engineering in the amount of $21,312.50 for additional design and inspection costs associated with Phase 2 of the South Hills drainage project, per the Town Engineer's report dated December 10, 2011.
6. Approval of Change Order Number 2 (Final) to the contract with E&B Paving Inc for the CR 200 S and CR 900 E Full Depth Pavement Reclamation Project resulting in an increase cost of $45,444.42 per the Transportation Director's report dated December 9, 2011.
7. Approval of Change Order Number 4 (Final) to the contract with Gradex, Inc for the Metropolis Parkway Phase II Project resulting in a decrease cost of $208.00 and approval for the retainage release of approximately $59,564.73 plus interest per the Transportation Director's report dated December 9, 2011.
Mr. Brandgard: I think that number 8 is a repeat of number 2.
Ms. Whicker: Correct, we can delete item number 8.
Mr. Brandgard: Are there any other changes or corrections?
Mr. Kirchoff: I move we approve as read.
Ms. Whicker: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda as read, if there is no further discussion roll call vote please.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Gaddie- yes
Ms. Whicker- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes, except I abstain on the minutes of Monday November 28th.
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Plainfield Town Council consent agenda for December 12, 2011 is adopted as amended.
Mr. Brandgard: We do have two bid openings tonight. Do we have proof of publication for both of them?
Mr. Daniel: Yes we do.
BID OPENING: Sugar Grove and Westmere Pedestrian Trails
Mr. Brandgard: The first bid opening will be for the Sugar Grove and Westmere Pedestrian Trails. If anybody hasn't turned their bids in, now is the last chance to do it, nobody is coming forward, thank you. First bid is from Calumet Civil Contractors, Inc., Whitestown, Indiana.
Mr. Daniel: Calumet's bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you. The base bid submitted by Calumet Civil Contractors, Inc bid is $574,300.00 again that is $574,300.00. The alternate bid 1 is $94,860.00 again that is $94,860.00.
Second bid is submitted by E&B Paving, Inc, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel: E&B bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Total amount of the base bid submitted by E&B Paving Inc is $649,425.00 again that is $649,425.00, alternate bid number 1 is $141,300.00 again that is $141,300.00.
Third bid is submitted by George R. Harvey and Son, Danville.
Mr. Daniel: George R. Harvey bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, total amount of the base bid submitted by George R. Harvey and Son, Inc is $562,000.00 again $562,000.00 alternate bid 1 is $102,362.00 again that is $102,362.00.
Bid number 4 is JDH Contracting, Plainfield.
Mr. Daniel: JDH Contracting bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, total amount of the base bid submitted by JDH Contracting is $549,391.15 again that is $549,391.15, the total amount of the alternate bid is $111,092.00 again $111,092.00.
Fifth bid is John Hall Construction, Plainfield.
Mr. Daniel: John Hall bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you the total amount of the base bid is $621,350.35 again that's $621,350.35, the total amount of the alternate bid number 1 is $99,457.00 again that is $99,457.00.
Sixth bid is from Millennium Contractors, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel: Millennium bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, the total amount of the base bid submitted by Millennium Contractors is $503,642.00 again that is $503,642.00, total amount of alternate number 1 bid is $102,661.00 again that is $102,661.00
Seventh bid is submitted by Yardberry Landscaping Excavating, Anderson, Indiana.
Mr. Daniel: Yardberry bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, the total amount of the base bid submitted by Yardberry Landscaping Excavating is $974,387.00 again that is $974,387.00 the total amount of alternate bid number 1 is $160,079.00 again that is $160,079.00, and that was the last bid. I would like to thank everybody that took the opportunity to submit a bid for the Sugar Grove and Westmere Trail construction, the engineer's estimate for the base bid was $630,000.00 again that is $630,000.00 the engineer's estimate for alternate bid 1 was $120,000.00 again $120,000.00.
I would like to ask the bid review committee made up of Clay Chafin, Renea Whicker, and Dave Lehay to review the bids and come back with a recommendation, thank you. If it would please the Council if we could split the bid opening, Brad Dubois from the Chamber is here to make a presentation with several of the Chamber members, it might be better to do that now because we have about six or seven bids on the next one. If they have to leave they can leave.
Mr. Dubois: Good evening, I'm Brad, I am the Executive Director for the Plainfield Chamber of Commerce, it is my pleasure to present the Town of Plainfield with a check, these are proceeds from our Quaker Day Festival, a lot of hard work went into this, our out-going Director, with his guidance, a lot of volunteers, a lot of membership volunteers, a lot of local people from the community to help put this on. This money we would like to see go towards the Miracle Field, I think that is what we had suggested, and the check is in the tune of $6,936.77.
Ms. Whicker: It was a successful Quaker Day event.
Mr. Dubois: Very successful considering it was our first one, let's just hope that the rest are just as successful, and we are going to try to make it so. So with that I would like to give this check to Wes.
Ms. Whicker: Thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, many thanks from the Town to the Chamber for their efforts and the Miracle Field Fund is growing. We appreciate this, thank you. We will take a quick 5 or 10 minutes and adjourn.
BID OPENING: Talon Creek
Mr. Brandgard: The Plainfield Town Council meeting for December 12, 2011 is now back in session. We will now go to the bid opening for the Talon Stream Remediation Project.
First bid is submitted by Gradex, Inc., Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel: Gradex bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, Tim, is this bid just supposed to be base or plus the alternates? The total amount of the base bid submitted by Gradex is $2,807,000.00 again that is 2,807,000.00. The total for bid alternate 1 is $77,800.00 again that is $77,800.00, total for bid alternate 2 is $111,000.00 again that is $111,000.00.
Second bid is submitted by JDH Contracting.
Mr. Daniel: Mr. President on the JDH Contracting, Inc, contractors financial statement, if you will recall, we have dealt with this before, the form that is required by the State has two places to be signed, one notarized and one not notarized. This document has the signature that is notarized or it has been notarized but they missed the signature at the top that does not require a notary, other than that the bid was in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Normally we would allow that with the successful bidder to come in and sign that. Do we need a motion for that?
Mr. Daniel: Yes.
Mr. McPhail: I move that we accept the bid and if the bidder is successful they sign the documents where they have missed a signature.
Mr. Kirchoff: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: We have a motion is second to accept the bid for reading, noting that the one signature was missed and that if it is a successful bidder, the bidder would have to come in and sign the document within 48 hours, if there is no further discussion, all those in favor signify by aye, opposed, motion carried, thank you.
The total amount of the base bid submitted by JDH Contracting is $2,370,250.00 again that is $2,370,250.00 the total amount of bid alternate number 1 is $39,350.00 again that is $39,350.00, total for bid alternate number 2 is $36,100.00 again that is $36,100.00.
Third bid is submitted by Millennium Contractors.
Mr. Daniel: Millennium bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, the total amount of the base bid submitted by Millennium Contractors is $1,951,009.00 again that is $1,951,009.00 the total for bid alternate number 1 is $40,797.00 again that is $40,797.00, the total for alternate number 2 is $68,450.00 again that is $68,450.00.
Forth bid is submitted by Poindexter Excavating, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel: Poindexter bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, the total amount of the base bid submitted for Poindexter Excavating is $3,680,347.89 again that is $3,680,347.89; total amount of bid alternate number 1 is $92,201.82 again that is $92,201.82 the total amount for bid alternate number 2 is $145,997.23 again that is $145,997.23.
Fifth bid is submitted by R.B. Jergens, Vandalia, Ohio.
Mr. Daniel: Mr. President I have a suggestion, as you know, you can tell by looking at this, this is not the way Plainfield normally has it's bidding done by taking the entire project manual, saying it is in the bid and flagging a couple of items in here, I am trying to go through this without keeping everybody here all night, I can't find any financial information. Well I guess it is over here, alright I will take a look at that.
R.B. Jergens bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, the total amount of the base bid submitted by R.B. Jergens is $2,385,647.29 again that is $2,385,647.29. The total amount for bid alternate 1 is $40,365.27 again that is $40,365.27. The total for bid alternate number 2 is $91,303.00 again that is $97,303.00.
Sixth bid is submitted by S&G Excavating, Terre Haute.
Mr. Daniel: S&G Excavating is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, the total amount of the base bid submitted by S&G Excavating is $2,785,982.00 again that is $2,785,982.00. The total amount for bid alternate number 1 is $78,683.00 again that is $78,683.00. The total amount for bid alternate number 2 is $133,447.00 again that is $133,447.00.
I believe that was the last bid submitted, again I would like to thank everyone that took the time to submit a bid. The engineers estimate for the base bid was $2,025,500.00 again that is $2,025,500.00, total amount for alternate number 1 for the engineers estimate was $124,600.00 again that was $124,600.00. The engineers estimate for alternate number 2 was $142,400.00 again that was $142.400.00. I would like to ask a bid review committee made up of Tim Belcher, Terra Site Development, and Council member Bill Kirchoff to review the bids and come back with a recommendation.
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
Mr. Brandgard: We will go to business from the floor, is there anyone in the audience that would like to address us in the business from the floor segment? No one would be coming forward we will go to Town Manager's report.
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. President, my report has to do with the last Plan Commission meeting and I would ask Mr. Daniel if he would go ahead and give us a summary of the important item on that having to do with Metropolis.
Mr. Daniel: The Council members here some of you were not on this Council when Metropolis started many years ago, I am not going to give you all of the details, but when that project was approved there was some concern about making sure that it was financially liable, and a substantial number of commitments was attached to the rezoning when that project was approved. One of those commitments required that all phases of that project be approved within three years of the commencement of the project, my dates I don't have in my head now, but I think it was late 2002, early 2003, and I think that three years expired sometime in 2006. As you know the good news is, the major part of that project, it was completed, but there are some parcels that are in that land unit development, which is what that ordinance created that are not developed. Many of those are I think are in the hands of about nine separate entities that will now basically stand in the shoes of Chris White, as far as the project is concerned, in an effort to allow those properties to do what they would like to do, go forward and present plans or present to the Town something. It seemed important to put that project in a position where everybody knew procedurally what they needed to do to go forward on these properties, so the proposal was and it was made in the Plan Commission that that three year time period be extended, which is allowed by the original ordinance, but it had to be extended by both actions of the Plan Commission and actions of the Town Council. As a result of that at the last Plan Commission meeting the Plan Commission made a motion and approved an extension of that time period for ten years, commencing when both the Plan Commission and if the Town Council approved, if both of those approvals occur then that ten years commences at that time. So you have on your agenda tonight ordinance number 14-2011 and that ordinance if you approve it, start to approve it, if it is approved, that then would complete the process of extending those time periods in those commitments in those 10 years, from the date of the two approvals. So if you have any questions I'd be happy to address them.
Mr. Kirchoff: You might share with the Council members, our conversation about what happens if we do not do this when the zone…
Mr. Daniel: Well what really puts it up in the air and this is really a grey area in Indiana law as far as what the status of that property would be and essentially end up one of two results, either it would go back to its earlier zoning or which it was I-1 and I-2, or it would remain a PUD, but without any zoning the way that PUD is designed, until each phase goes through the procedure set up in the ordinance, there really is no zoning, there was concept ideas but that was understood all along that was not approved zoning, so with those two alternatives available it was believed I think by the Plan Commission that it was better for everybody including the owners out there to approve the continuation of that PUD and not have that go back into I-1 and I-2, which probably would not be good for that particular area as far as development, what is allowed in I-1 and I-2, probably would not fit well in those properties that are left in that PUD. This allows the PUD to continue on and the property owners can go through the procedure and do what they would like to and move forward and do something with those properties.
Mr. McPhail: I think the important issue here is that although if we extend the PUD, each and every project still has to go through the process to be approved, because there was only a concept of what would be developed on those undeveloped parcels.
Mr. Daniel: That is correct, and the ordinance which is rather lengthy with commitments there when they laid out that entire process that each phase would have to go through and be completed before that particular use on that parcel was approved.
Mr. Brandgard: Since the Plan Commission forwarded that to the Town Council for action, I think we have to approve the report before we can go there?
Mr. Daniel: Yes.
Mr. Brandgard: So we need a motion to approve the Plan Commission report.
Mr. McPhail: I move that we approve the Plan Commission report and accept their recommendation.
Mr. Kirchoff: I assume in doing that, and then we can come back and revisit the ordinance.
Mr. Daniel: That is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff: I will second that motion.
Mr. Brandgard: We have a motion is second to approve the Plan Commission report as given relative to the Metropolis PUD. If there is no further discussion all those in favor signify by aye, opposed, motion carried. Thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: We will go to staff reports; Joe is there anything from Planning and Zoning? Chief Lees do you have anything from the Police Department? Chief Anderson? If I could impose upon you to give us a quick update of where we are at on the Fire Station 123?
Mr. Anderson: The last few weeks we have had activity going on pretty much everyday, Locution is being installed, work has been done last week and this week, AT&T has been in phone lines have been installed, phone system is going in tomorrow, we are waiting on furniture delivery hopefully in the next two weeks, we are getting really close to occupying.
Mr. Brandgard: Very good.
Ms. Whicker: Is it approval of occupancy, like you actually give the occupancy permit for the Fire Station.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, we're out there everyday doing some installation work, some are vendors and some of those things that we are doing; the building has a certificate obviously, so that is all done.
Mr. Brandgard: That was given a month ago, and that was given jointly by the Fire Marshall. Bill, do you have anything from IT world? Jason, do you have anything from DPW? Clay, do you have anything from Parks and Recreation?
Mr. Chafin: Good evening, planning ahead just a little bit in my report, I mentioned a little bit about the work session that we are planning in February, the intent of that work session is to give you a draft at that time of the master plan that we are working on, we have a focus group meetings this week that we will have people to contribute to that and we have had meetings up to this point, I just wanted to button up with you that day so that we can make sure the room is ready and we can get everything planned, so if you want to do that right now that would be great.
Ms. Whicker: That would be good, get it on the calendar.
Mr. Chafin: I know it is usually the third Thursday of the month which is the 16th, but February is kind of a usually between the first and second meeting and that kind of throws that off, but if the 16th works, that is the third Thursday, if you want to the 23rd, that would be the same week as the Council meeting.
Mr. Kirchoff: Third Thursday works.
Ms. Whicker: I just have it as the day before winter break, I'm not sure if you or your family have plans, or but that is the day.
Mr. Chafin: After this Christmas we won't be going anywhere, I'm broke.
Ms. Whicker: I would prefer we do it on the 23rd.
Mr. Kirchoff: Because of that, Renea's suggestion of the 23rd is fine.
Mr. Chafin: So we will do the 23rd.
Ms. Whicker: If you don't mind Clay, thank you.
Mr. Chafin: No, I don't mind at all, I just wanted to make sure we had the room all buttoned up and if I find out there is a conflict I will come and talk to you.
Mr. Brandgard: 6:00?
Mr. Chafin: Yes, 6:00, we will have some nourishment. The only other thing is Santa is coming Saturday, Radio Disney is going to be there and we have some bounce houses, so from 11:00 to 1:00, so if you have kids, grandkids, friends, neighbors, bring them out, I'm sure it will be a fun and busy place. That is all I have.
Mr. Brandgard: Very good, thank you. Ron, do you have anything from HR?
Mr. Lydick: Thank you Mr. President and Council members. You should have received a pack of information in your reports about the proposed salary schedule for 2012. To review for you in 2009 the general increase for salaries for our employees was 2%, now we do periodically make adjustments for certain positions in order to get them up to the scale that we had that Flashpoint figured out for us, but generally speaking from 2009 we saw an increase of 2%. In 2010 we did not get any increases, in 2011 there was no increase in salary but in June of 2011, the Town Council determined that there were enough funds available to give a 1 time lump sum bonus to the employees of 2% under their annual salary. There is a work study for the State of Indiana, it was determined that in 2010 the average increase in salaries throughout the State of Indiana which includes both the public sector and the private sector, and it is 2.5%. This included also the 0% because in 2010 there were several municipalities in the State of Indiana that did not give increases in 2010, but even with those zero's averaged in, it was still a 2.5% of 2010. 2011, it turned out to be a 2.9% increase across the State, again with these zero's averaged in, and then after projecting in 2012 that the increase will be 2.9-3%. We also have our salary structures, were we have the five different grades, and generally speaking, those grade levels would change as we go through the years, not necessarily every year, and not at the same rate as the salaries increase, but in order to stay competitive with other municipalities, with the private sector, those grey structures do need to be adjusted periodically. In 2011, these grade structures on the average increase 2%. We just completed our grade structure adjustment in 2010, and because we didn't give any general increases in 2010 and no general increases in 2011, we did not feel that it was proper to adjust the salary structure at this time. So it has been recommended by Flashpoint that maybe in 2012 that we look at a majority of our positions and to see how they compare to other municipalities with the private sector and maybe make an adjustment to the salary structure in 2013. The recommendations that I have is two fold, one of them is that we give a general increase to employees, I know the goal of the Town Council is to go to a pay for performance and we have now gone through a third year of evaluations. The first year was a very rhythmtary evaluation, if the supervisor would just get used to it, as a result there has been a lot of improvement in evaluations over 2010 and 2011, but I would like to see at least one more year before we go into the pay for performance and give the managers and the supervisors the opportunity to receive feedback on their evaluations and to show where there strengths and weaknesses are and doing the evaluations. Because once you start say the pay to performance the employees are going to be very interested in how accurate these evaluations are, and because of the fact that we have not had any increases in the last 2 years, it is recommended that we just give a straight across the board raise this year and the recommendation that has come back is 3% increase for the majority of the employees. Now we have about of positions that we had talked to the department heads and said what positions would you like to see check for validity and relativity with the marketplace, I got back about six positions. So Flashpoint said that it really wasn't fair to take that limiting number and do a study on them because there could be other positions that have the same novelties that these positions have, so it was recommended that maybe we look at these half a dozen position on pure relativity, rather than going out and doing a market study, so there were 6 positions that marked on the spreadsheets that did receive a different compensation than 3%, some may be more and some may be less. So the second portion of the recommendation is that Clay Chafin, the Director of Parks and Recreation would like to reinstate the $.25 per hour that park employees used to receive as a result of returning this year, because if you could get employees to return you have more security and more consistency in the performance of your employees and so when the full time employees stopped getting raises, the part time employees stopped getting their $.25 an hour, and now that we have gone back to this year we are going to give a raise to our full time employees, Mr. Chafin would like to have that $.25 an hour reinstated to the part time parks employees. Do you have any questions? I know the ordinance comes up later to be voted on.
Mr. Kirchoff: I think you have summarized well our discussions with Flashpoint, it would be beneficial, I don't know exactly in the process where you would have the information to do that, but I think it would be beneficial to provide the Council at the appropriate time what it would look like if we did have a pay for performance matrix, she worked on something like that but I'm not sure when the right time is for that to occur.
Mr. Lydick: We do have that available, in other words I have that available and I can share that with the Council anytime, she did come up with a matrix based upon the 2010 evaluations. I went through all the evaluations, corrected some math errors, and got the accurate ratios of the scores for the different employees and then Krista Skidmore from Flashpoint came up with a grid showing what the increases would have been if we did pay for performance. It ranged from 5.75% to down to 1%, and that averaged 3% and that of course is what the recommendation is.
Mr. Kirchoff: I think it is beneficial for us to understand what it would look like if we were in the real world of pay for performance. The other thing is the other thing that I appreciated from that was it was a reasonable distribution of performance, it wasn't bottom heavy or top heavy and again that is another thing that would be helpful for us to see as a Council how the supervisors, department heads are evaluating people. So again I don't know do you have that yet for 2011?
Mr. Lydick: No, I do not have, I have not had the opportunity to review each employee evaluation.
Mr. Brandgard: That is probably worthy of a work session or a separate session.
Mr. Kirchoff: Well, we can put it in front of you and I think you can digest it without too much trouble, but then a follow up conversation. I will tell you I thought it looked reasonable, did you not?
Mr. Lydick: One of the things that helped, the supervisors are required to make comments if they give a rating of anything other than 3, so this has a tendency to have the supervisors really think about what they are doing and complimenting them on their successes and then also pointing out some areas that they need to improve on.
Mr. Brandgard: And that is what it is designed to do, that is good.
Mr. Kirchoff: I think we've got a good start, and I commend the department heads, I think they are working at it and having done it for years, it can be a challenge to be as objective as you can be, I did feel like that matrix she showed us was well done and reasonable results.
Mr. McPhail: I had the opportunity to review that also and I was pleasantly surprised, I didn't anticipate the quality this early in the process, the quality of the evaluation spread, but it pleasantly surprised me without knowing any individual information or anything, the distribution is probably the one that I expected seeing veterans doing the evaluations, so I was pleasantly surprised.
Mr. Kirchoff: Another thing, you indicated that the recommendations for those that are getting the greater of the 3%, or based on the pure relativity and we didn't look at market at all?
Mr. Lydick: That is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff: I didn't understand that.
Mr. Lydick: Kent, do you remember the conversation with Krista, that there was some kind of a market analysis?
Ms. Whicker: I thought there was.
Mr. McPhail: Yes, it wasn't a full blown study.
Mr. Kirchoff: There was about three or four.
Mr. Lydick: It was compared to the IACT survey, but there wasn't any kind of customized survey.
Mr. Kirchoff: No, I understand that, I thought there was some market; some bench marking that had been out there for us to have some logic where we just didn't do it half hazardly because we thought somebody in our opinion was out of line, and there was some logic and some analysis behind that to support it.
Mr. Lydick: Yes, that was my mistake in understanding what you was saying. Yes, because the IACT survey which is a survey that is done, by not enough Towns and cities each year, of course that is published and readily available to used.
Mr. Kirchoff: And that was true for all recommendations that you gave us?
Mr. Lydick: Of the 3%'s? Yes.
Mr. Kirchoff: I commend Ron on his efforts and I continue to be pleased with the professionalism and the analysis that Flashpoint does for us.
Mr. Brandgard: I was going to say it is obvious the choice was correct with Flashpoint if the trainee has been such those who are evaluating, they are doing a good job. In my experience, the hardest part of evaluations is looking beyond right now. It is easy to grade somebody on what you see right now, but you have to remember the whole year, that is the difficult part.
Mr. McPhail: But I think other than one exception on our salary schedule, that we've covered the basis there, we did ask Flashpoint if they had any recommendation on our elective Clerk Treasurer because of Legislation that we deal with and all that, that salary can never be reduced, and I believe that is the reason they really made no recommendation at all on that particular situation, so we had some discussions and I think with Flashpoint and with legal Counsel on that particular situation and the particular Legislation that we are dealing with, and I did as you know I sent all of you a study that I had done based upon trying to evaluate the Clerk Treasurer's current salary based on IACT study and was able to make some recommendations there, then that recommendation, I indicated that there was a possibility that part of the Clerk Treasurer's salary could be or wages could be paid directly from Utility Department or something like that and I suggested we look at maybe a split situation there of total salary and then I think they also done some analysis and I think we both came up with the same ballpark number that we thought was competitive. After endless discussions I feel that in our best interest not to try to split that and go two different ways but to address that particular situation with the current way it is and not try to break that salary down in any way, but I do think based on those studies that we should make an adjustment there and I think we should establish that salary from that position for 2012 at $65,000.00.
Ms. Whicker: That is not including the 3%?
Mr. McPhail: No, increase it from the current to $65,000.00. I based that on per capita being paid across the State and in Cities and Towns approximately our size.
Mr. Gaddie: I think in the way of giving raises we are giving other people, I know he is an elected official, but we have other city employees that is not getting a big raise, I mean they are employees, now he is elected official, but if we are going to work with him, we ought to look at some of the other positions that other Towns would be interested in some of the people it is based on the average here in the County or this Region, not County, but they are under paid compared to some of the other Towns.
Ms. Whicker: I believe that weren't the findings done from the IACT study from other municipalities that we have looked at?
Mr. McPhail: Yes we have completed that study working with Flashpoint. Every year we've addressed that issue, as far as the Clerk Treasurer concern we've taken that position out and have not treated it because it is different, it is an elected official, we treated it differently and not included it in general increases, not always, some years we have, but all the other positions we have addressed in the manner that Ron just went through.
Mr. Lydick: Another thing you need to remember about elected officials, whereas all the other full time employees have to participate in a longevity program, the elective officials do not get to participate in that and also that 2% lump sum payment that we received in 2011, elected officials did not receive that either.
Mr. Brandgard: I think Ed, we are trying to operate this as a business would operate on salaries and that, not all Towns look at it that way and they have no criteria for what they pay, we do have a criteria and that is what we are trying to hold to and it is based on business today surveys like businesses to see what they are paying so they remain competitive in the marketplace. Now there are some Towns that pay an awful lot with no criteria behind why they pay and there is some that don't pay any at all, and I think that we are pretty much in the mid or a little bit above the mid point in how we pay our people, now again I think the issue with the Clerk Treasurer is, and it is just the same thing with the Town Council, we are elected officials and once our salary is set, it can't go back, so if you have somebody that comes in that is not performing, you can't cut the salary back, and I think over time that is why we not done much with the elected official salary. But this is a case that I think the Clerk Treasurers salary is really out of line and we need to adjust it.
Mr. McPhail: The issue, and I think in this particular case is there are no qualifications for an elected official to meet in terms of the Clerk Treasurers office or for the Town Council for that matter. The thing that has bothered me every since I have been on the Council is that we could get an official elected that is not competent, they can't perform their job and for that reason I have been hesitant and I think rightfully so, increasing that salary to a point that if you get somebody in and they are not competent, but that is the only influence we have is to manage that budget, I feel like based on Wes' performance and the study that I have done, that we are on the low side and I think we need to make an increase and make an adjustment there. I guess I will make that in the form of a motion that we establish the Clerk Treasurers salary at $65,000.00.
Mr. Lydick: My suggestion, we make sure that whenever the ordinance is presented, because the ordinance itself does not present that salary, so that you amend that ordinance. Is there any other questions?
Mr. Kirchoff: Good work Ron.
Mr. Brandgard: Good work. Kent, do you want to withdraw your motion till next meeting?
Mr. McPhail: Yes. I was going to do it when we got to that point…
Mr. Brandgard: Tim do you have anything from Engineering? Don do you have anything for Transportation?
Mr. McGillem: Just a quick update on the Township Line Road, even though the weather has been what it is, the contractors have continued to work, he was driving piling out there today, they've been out there just about everyday that it hadn't been raining hard. The pier two is poured, all the timber pilings are driven for the false work, the west endbent for the bridge was completed forming and steel place today and they should be pouring that tomorrow. They will be starting pier one later this week in forming and getting the filing driven for it. Intent is whatever it takes this winter to get all concrete poured for the substructure, all the piers, endbents to be ready early spring as soon as the weather breaks to start forming pouring back.
Mr. Brandgard: Very good, thank you. Did I miss anybody?
Mr. Brandgard: Old business?
Mr. McPhail: No old business.
Ms. Whicker: No.
Mr. Kirchoff: I guess I will cover it under old business, I thought we were going to have a resolution tonight to support mass transit.
Mr. Carlucci: I have it here.
Mr. Brandgard: I thought I saw it come across.
Mr. Carlucci: It is on the agenda.
Mr. Kirchoff: Oh there it is I'm sorry I stand corrected and I will wait. I was going to tell you saw the news tonight, they've announced that there will be press conference to announce the revised Indy Connect plan at 10:00 at the State Fairgrounds and I would share with you is, I guess the synopsis is that all Counties will still have an opportunity to participate, but the focus will be on the northeast corridor, which we expect it. It is a little stronger worry than I would like along that line, but that is where the economic benefits are and that is where need is, you can't keep adding lanes to I-69, so I think that is what the announcement will be tomorrow, and I seen some preliminary information, and like I said channel 13 had it tonight, that is what is coming, Rich and I are going to go there.
Mr. Brandgard: Ed?
Mr. Gaddie: None.
Mr. Brandgard: Kent, new business?
Mr. McPhail: Mr. President I do have one item to refer to Joe's report from the Planning Department, there was a report in there about the brick home at the corner of 267 and Main Street and I was approached by a potential buyer of that property who asked me if the Town would have any interest in buying that building and relocating it. I did not respond to that, I told him I would bring that up. I'm a historical guy and I hate to see that building tore down, but I personally see any interest in the Town and where you would move it anyway. We have no restrictions as Joe's report said and demolishing buildings of historical nature, I do know he has made an offer if he purchases it to give it to the Quaker Church, they have not responded at this point. I do need to report back to him if the Council had any interest in that property.
Ms. Whicker: I have a question for you Kent, I know that the downtown redevelopment and our guidelines for improvement of facades or signage or even when the bank went up, but through the downtown, they have to adhere to certain architectural styles to maintain the historic time period, so I am kind of confused on considering that, or why would we take down a historical building when we were preserving it.
Mr. McPhail: You know we have nothing in our ordinances or in our historic district that gives us any control whether they demolish those. He would though have to meet the current standards to put a new building up, which we would have control over the architecture, the set backs and that type of thing.
Mr. Kirchoff: Joe in your report, I can't remember, it is not on the National Register?
Mr. James: It is in the district, it is a contributing property in the district that means as a contributing property, that it is eligible for tax credits and tax deductions.
Mr. Kirchoff: But it is not like if it is unregistered where you could not demolish it.
Mr. James: There is nothing that would prevent someone from demolishing the building.
Mr. Carlucci: I just would like to add one thing about this, if one of the things that people in the district would say when this was being put together was, those people did not want to lose control of their properties. So we did more of the light version of it as opposed to the one where if someone wants to take down a house, they can take down a house, however because it is in the district, they might have to do something to the new building that is architecturally consistent maybe with the Town Center's designs.
Mr. Kirchoff: Is it not a possibility that we can help the Friends or someone that might be interested in that might be interested in that building to get some grants to help with moving it, whatever the case might be?
Mr. James: I have been in contact with Indiana Landmarks and there is a grant that they offer that could help in rehabilitating the property and then also the State Historical Preservation Office also has a grant that they offer for a not for profit organization, but the grant is for improvements, but it wouldn't pay for the costs for moving the building, or it wouldn't pay for repairs for damage that occurred during the moving of a building.
Mr. McPhail: I'm not sure, and I didn't respond to him in terms of rebuilding and since having a conversation with Joe, we do have requirements of architectural standards and setbacks and those types of things, and that might have some kind of effect of whether they want us to move forward or not, but it is a local businessman and he wants to build an office building.
Mr. Kirchoff: I don't have any interest in putting tax dollars in this structure.
Mr. McPhail: I see nothing for us to gain there in that type of situation. I will pass that on and you know if it is a will of the Council I would pass onto him that we would like to see the building saved rather than demolished.
Mr. Gaddie: I would think that if someone was interested in that building where it is located would be the cheapest way out, I don't know what the property costs, but what it would cost to move that brick building, it is probably three or four layers deep of brick, we could sell the brick I guess.
Mr. McPhail: It would be expensive to move it.
Mr. Gaddie: Yes, the height of it, all the lines and stuff.
Mr. Kirchoff: The age, it would be a very delicate thing.
Mr. McPhail: I would doubt if anyone could afford to move it. My guess is that the church, whether they have an interest or not, I doubt they would be able to put that kind of money in it. Well I will convey the information to him. I do have one other thing I would like to report, I don't know if you are aware, but Chief Mitny's father has pancreatic cancer and is not in very good shape. The prognosis is not very good. I don't know if Eric has heard anything more today? I just wanted to pass that on, that is all I have.
Mr. Brandgard: Renea?
Ms. Whicker: No new business.
Mr. Kirchoff: I am trying to think, I think I read it in the Star, where a couple of local communities were sending tax abatements for projects that didn't go and it just reminded me we have a process Rich that you review those to make sure the tax abatements are being met?
Mr. Carlucci: We seem to have the opposite problem, we have people that come in, we may serve them on abatement when they leave, but typically we haven't had that problem, they just walk out the door, unless it is some kind of emergency or something or a corporate thing.
Mr. Kirchoff: I don't know if you saw in the paper where they didn't reach their job.
Mr. Brandgard: The biggest one is RedCats, which is out here too. Ok, that is all I have. Ed?
Mr. Gaddie: None.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. President, I have a short presentation as part of my report. Part of my report included a report on group health fund. We have a immediate need and a near term need to address, I thought it was important enough to bring before the Council and put some slides up in front of you, I also have Scott Walker from Public Sector group in the audience with me tonight that worked with me and my staff on this and so I am going to ask him to come up and give you the details and then if the Council is inclined to want to move forward with this, we can bring the necessary documents at the next meeting to address both our short term need as well as our near term need with these funds.
Mr. Walker: I'm Scott Walker, for those of you that don't know me. As part of a normal monthly due diligence, Wes' staff brings from time to time to Wes' attention, any funds that look like they might be in trouble or their might be some flows that are problems and the ladies brought the group health fund to Wes to look at and he asked me because of my experience in other places with group health funds to take a look at it. Here is what we found; here are the facts first of all. There is the group health fund, it seems to be under funded in recent history, at the end of October there was a negative balance of $52,000.00. We started, if you know the history of the thing, there is seed capital of about 200,000 put into that particular fund and then from that point up to a stop loss amount, health claims are paid out of that, and once a particular case gets to a stop loss, then the premiums that have been paid for that stop loss, insurance kick in and those catastrophic events are taken care of. It is very difficult to predict those kinds of claim volumes, and the severity of those claims. If you don't have any history in a self funded program, well we now have a history, it is eighteen months, and my practice in other municipalities has been to keep an eighteen month rolling history. I can do a mean and a median analysis of those, anything that is variable we do a mean and median analysis, anything that is a fixed cost, we use the greatest cost, anything that is a funded situation, in other words we are funding through employer contributions and employee contributions because there are fluctuations in the volume of people that avail themselves of the group health plan, those things are going to fluctuate somewhat after enrollment periods, so we will use the least value in those or the most recent value. In this particular case, we did a median study on the amount that was being funded and it came out to about be about $207,000.00 on a median basis. We also did a study on the claims and if you'd pull the slide up on that shows the claims, if you take a look at the health claims you will see quite a bit of variance. Some of that is based on when they actually built those for those claims, but if you take a look at the middle of that, you can see that the troths in terms of the least amount of claims that we would pay, and the peaks, that shows you that our mean is rising with time. So we have a particular amount of funding for employer and employees that was figured out by the insurance company probably through an actuarial without a significant amount of self funded kind of experience that is sort of a short shot in the dark. It funded us fairly well for awhile, and then the reality started to sit in. By the way, one of the reasons we use 18 months is because my experience with other municipalities has been within an 18 month period, if we are going to have some catastrophic events, we are probably going to have that in 18 months, we are going to have some preemies born or someone would have a motorcycle wreck, or someone fell through a roof or something like that, which causes catastrophic health plans, we are probably going to have that within an 18 month period. If you take a look at the cash balance, you can see I have funding level 207K, as we started to accumulate that means starting to go up, it tanks the cash balance. Because you have the cumulative effect and that is exactly what happened to the fund? You can see it stayed for a while and then it at the end it tanked, and by the way one of the things that happens also, sometimes insurance or a hospital will hold onto claims for a while until a procedure is completed or until they are released from the hospital and then they will hit you all of a sudden, which is why the funding gap has to be fairly significant so that you can take care of those catastrophes. So what we are recommending, we have got a couple problems, first of all, we need to fix the shortfall, that is the first thing we need to do. So Wes, Ron, and I had some conversations and the recommendation is that we contribute between 80 and 100,000, and we have some calculations that we have put into a table that we would increase each departments contribution based on the volume of participants that they had and what types of plans that they have in order to make that short fall, so that would be an increased appropriation for some, it would not be an increased appropriation for others because they may have had that remaining in their budget. For example, if a particular had some individual that dropped the plan, they may have access in their department budget and therefore we would not need to increase that appropriation, there are some others that had pretty high participation and we will have to ask for an additional appropriation for those in December in order to get that fully funded. Teresa did a really good job by putting a matrix together on that and I believe that was in your packet. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer any about those specific details after the meeting, no problem. That was the first recommendation. So what we actually did was do you want me to take the time to explain the problems real quick? If you would like for me to afterwards, I'd be glad to run through it with you. The second recommendation is once we get that to even and we are funded then we have to put some seed capital back in that fund, we've got to get it back so that we have some immediate needs that come up in January, we've got to fund it. So the recommendation is to take $200,000.00 from the rainy day fund and seed that fund again. We then refigured what really would have been necessary in that 18 month period in order to fund that with some gaps and we came up with an optimum number through a statistical study that I did of about $225,000.00 per month. A contribution from the employer portion, now just to explain a little bit of the detail, I don't want to go too far into it because I will put some people to sleep here, but I actually did the analysis based on the type of plan and the numbers of participants in the type of plan. So the increase percentage, we have it all figured out by employee and by plan how much the contribution would have to be increased by the employer for that particular portion. So once the next enrollment period has ended, it has completed, we can take that same formula that I set up and apply it to the new enrollment, we will then know where we are at that point. But we already have some statistics based on our history and we pretty much know where are going. So the third recommendation after the seed capital then is to get that employee contribution at the $225,000.00 level, and like I say, we have the statistics and the formulas ready to go as soon as the enrollment period is over.
Mr. Kirchoff: Does that mean that we go back and adjust the budgets?
Mr. Walker: Yes, there may be some budget amendments that will have to happen.
Mr. Kirchoff: 11 or 12?
Mr. Bennett: 2012
Mr. Walker: 2012, and there is obviously two ways to do that, we can either take that within the same fund if there are some places that we can get it or apply to DLGF for the increased appropriation. From that standpoint, Wes has done a great job of, and Rich, of keeping it very fiscally sound, and I will tell you from the communities that I deal with, this is a great team because you wouldn't believe what I have seen in other places, they are scrambling all of the time and it surprises me that they have been able to give raises because they are not as financially healthy as Plainfield, and so like I say from my experience I would commend you on that.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you.
Mr. Bennett: I would just reiterate Mr. President and members of the Council, this is standard due diligence on our part and although we don't want to be in the negative, we are not necessarily totally surprised based on the fact that we have had some of our employees drop the insurance and we have had some additional claims. It is just kind of normal due diligence.
Mr. Brandgard: In reality we are still learning.
Mr. Walker: Yes. One other comment on that, that medium was 207 that is a fixed contribution within the analysis that went down to 193.5.
Mr. Kirchoff: As I look at this one, again as you say we are still learning, what should our, my gut reaction that seems kind of high for rejected balance.
Mr. Walker: No it is not high. I will tell you and give you an example of a city that is twice your size, that has about twice the claims, they run about 4 to 600,000.00 per month in claims, $700,000.00, and I tell you they had a million two balance and they got sucked dry. They had to put $500,000.00 in from the rainy day fund just to pay claims for one month, so you need to get up to a million dollars eventually if you can and watch the history and if you have a huge gap at that point, at that point you can start reducing the contribution, but I tell you that you get five catastrophic events at one time, and that is very painful.
Mr. Kirchoff: I wish there was a place to make up, if we get to, let's say our history goes down and we a large cash, can that then be paid back?
Mr. Walker: Yes, absolutely, that is a serviceable internal fund, absolutely.
Mr. Bennett: What this slide demonstrates is that if we would have funded our group health fund with $225,000.00 a month, we would have had about 2 ˝ months worth of reserves, I know you and I have had the discussion, and I have had this discussion with the department heads as well, what is the right amount of reserve? Three months can get soaked up pretty quickly, so we would certainly like to be between 3 and 6 months cash reserves.
Mr. Kirchoff: Thanks.
Mr. Bennett: That is all I have.
Mr. Brandgard: Good report.
Mr. McPhail: I would like and maybe Ron can help us a little bit, do we have a feel of where we would have been if we had stayed with a conventional program?
Mr. Lydick: That would be very difficult to determine without the insurance, because with the traditional indemnity plan, if you have claims one year, then they are going to raise your premium up enough the next year in order to meet those and I think one thing that helped us to get off to a slow start, not knowing what to do about claims in our first year, 2009 and 2010, we used the same figure that Anthem had used for 2008 and 2009. With medical inflation being around 90%, we probably started out 90% too low, but we didn't when we went to partially self funded, we did not want to increase the employees contribution because we didn't want them to think we were doing that in order to get more money out of them, and so we used the same figures that Anthem had and I think if I remember right, Anthem that year ran about 93% of claims to premiums, which only left them 7% to pay all of their administrative expenses excreta. So I think we have funded lightly that first year. Then the 2010-2011 year, we did increase our contribution 26%, I think you remember, we were kind of shocked about having to do that, but that is again taking in consideration, we started out light, we didn't account for the 9% medical inflation in 2009 and 2010 and again in 2010 and 2011 with another 9% inflation, so with the claims this year as of the first four months of this plan year, our claims are 119% of what we expected them to be. When we planned our funding for this year, we planned it based upon our expected claims and so that is another reason why, it is just having a run of bad luck here with people being sick and injured and having high claims, and so this 119% of expected claims has definitely affected that balance.
Mr. McPhail: I think just another case and point that we need to be really prudent with keeping that rainy day fund and some balances around, because we can't predict these, and this is a significant number to have to take care of.
Mr. Lydick: In the ratio I showed you earlier this year, that the Town of Plainfield is paying about 81% of the medical expenses and the employees are paying about 19%, and the industry standard is for partial sub funded accounts like 80/20, so we are just right in the same area that most municipalities have to fund.
Mr. McPhail: We anticipate that as we go forward with the clinic and that type of thing that we may start gaining on this thing a little bit, we've got less than a year into the clinic.
Mr. Lydick: That is correct and also you are contributing to about $10,000.00 a month of this fund to the clinic. $10,000.00 that you are paying for the clinic is included in these figures, so if you didn't have the clinic, those numbers come out, but then your other claims would be higher. The 10,000.00 that you are paying for the clinic is included in these figures, so if you didn't have the clinic and those numbers come out, but then your other claims would be higher because the cost of the clinic is more cost effective than what it is to go into a private practice.
Mr. Kirchoff: We are changing plans again 01/01 is that correct?
Mr. Lydick: Yes.
Mr. Kirchoff: Is the enrollment completed?
Mr. Lydick: Almost, probably 98% of the people have made their decision.
Mr. Kirchoff: What are you seeing, can you give us…
Mr. Lydick: We actually have 128 people signed up for the high deductible health plan, which is I think almost 65% of the employees that are electing insurance coverage have selected the high deductible.
I attribute that to your generosity of providing that $2,000.00 for the family plan, and so hopefully that maybe this year I know it is not looking good right now, but when this plan goes into effect on January 1st, there are claims to get to such a point where the Council will be able to continue that $2,000.00 contribution again in 2012. I attribute to that because most people signed up for that because of that $2,000.00.
Mr. McPhail: It also gives them more ownership.
Mr. Lydick: Yes it will. In other words, even though we contribute $2,000.00, they have to contribute $3,000.00 before they receive anymore money. So we pay the first 2 and they pay the next 3 and then another plan pays the rest.
Mr. Kirchoff: Due diligent, this is not going to go away.
Mr. McPhail: No it is not.
Mr. Kirchoff: Again I commend you for your efforts.
Mr. Lydick: Thank you.
Mr. Kirchoff: Wes I guess my question, do you need a motion for us to do this?
Mr. Bennett: I don't think I need a motion at this time, but I would like consensus to go forward and I will bring the necessary documents at the next meeting.
Mr. Brandgard: I think we have consent.
Mr. Bennett: Thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: If there is no other new business we will go to resolutions. We have 5 resolutions this evening.
Mr. Kirchoff: Can we do any of them together? I would move that we approve resolution number 2011-19 and 2011-20 together since they are both related to ADA.
Ms. Whicker: I second that motion for resolution number 2011-19 and 2011-20 in reference to the Americans with Disability Act
Mr. Brandgard: We have a motion and a second to approve resolution number 2011-19 adopting the Americans with Disability Act Accessibility Guidelines for Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way, and resolution number 2011-20, appoint Americans with Disability Act Coordinator and Adoption of Guidelines, again if there is no further discussion, roll call vote please.
Mr. Bennett: Ms. Whicker- yes
Mr. Gaddie- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Town Council resolutions 2011-19 and 2011-20 are adopted.
Mr. Kirchoff: Then I have a question on the next one, I believe it was in Rich's report, I saw 2 different numbers, I saw 1.43 and I saw a 1.36 miles, in Don's report I think it said 1.36.
Mr. McGillem: The net was 1.36 miles, the 1.43 with a reduction that we had applying, it was total 1.43 in mileage and then we had to take a piece, a very short piece of old Clarks Creek Road off which net at 1.36.
Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you.
Ms. Whicker: I make a motion that we approve resolution number 2011-21.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: We have a motion is second to approve resolution number 2011-21; Certification of street mileage to Indiana Department of Transportation, again if there is no further discussion, roll call vote please.
Mr. Bennett: Ms. Whicker- yes
Mr. Gaddie- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Plainfield Town Council resolution number 2011-21 is adopted.
Mr. McGillem: 2011-22 is essentially again the ADA, it is the transition plan that we are having to put together that will assemble the other 2 items and provide the overall milestone 1 of the transition plan to Indianapolis MPO.
Mr. McPhail: I move that we approve resolution number 2011-22.
Mr. Kirchoff: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: We have a motion is second to approve resolution number 2011-22; Transition Plan for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Ways, again if there is no further discussion, roll call vote please.
Mr. Bennett: Ms. Whicker- yes
Mr. Gaddie- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Plainfield Town Council resolution number 2011-22 is adopted.
Mr. Brandgard: We have 2011-23.
Mr. McPhail: I would move that we approve resolution number 2011-23.
Mr. Carlucci: The only change I made was that I have a little paragraph about the Commissioners, section 2. That is what they have told us all along that it is in their hands.
Mr. Kirchoff: That will probably be contingent upon what the final Legislation looks like, but that is the proposal at this time, and it will be the County Commissioners and depending on, I don't remember the difference of CAGIT versus other income, it could be the County Council or the Commissioners, but I think that is appropriate for now and if the Legislation changes.
Mr. McPhail: I will move that we approve resolution number 2011-23 as amended.
Mr. Kirchoff: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: The motion is second to approve resolution number 2011-23; Support for Enabling Legislation to Conduct Referendums for Transit and Transportation Alternatives as amended. If there is no further discussion, roll call votes please.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Gaddie- yes
Ms. Whicker- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Plainfield Town Council resolution 2011-23 is adopted.
Mr. Kirchoff: If we could I would love to have a signed copy of that to take…
Mr. Carlucci: We can do that, all I need to do is change the front page and we can all sign it, we can do that tonight.
Mr. Kirchoff: Because tomorrow is the announcement and Wednesday is the CIRTA board meeting and then following that is the IRTC policy meeting, if you could I would appreciate that.
Mr. Brandgard: We have 2 ordinances, the first is ordinance number 14-2011; An ordinance amending ordinance number 21-2002 the rezoning Market Place Planned Unit Development
Mr. McPhail: Does this the ordinance require three readings.
Mr. Daniel: I think on the second reading, we would (inaudible) and suspend the rules.
Mr. McPhail: I don't want to do that, we just updated another ordinance I wasn't sure of that.
Mr. Daniel: Yes it does.
Mr. McPhail: So we've got two more times to discuss it.
Mr. Kirchoff: Let me make just one other comment here, my understanding is doing this doesn't send any kind of positive or negative messages as to what people might be proposing.
Mr. Daniel: No.
Mr. Kirchoff: It is simply reestablishes the time frame.
Mr. Brandgard: Time and method.
Mr. Kirchoff: Yes, not to say that this could go or that can go, or couldn't go. I think that is important as well.
Mr. Daniel: Exactly right.
Mr. Kirchoff: I think that is important as well.
Mr. McPhail: Based on that I move that we approve the first reading of ordinance number 14-2011.
Mr. Kirchoff: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: We have a motion is second to approve the first reading of ordinance number 14-2011; an ordinance amending ordinance number 21-2001, Rezoning Market Place Planned Unit Development. If there is no further discussion, roll call votes please.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Gaddie- yes
Ms. Whicker- no
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
First reading of Town Council Ordinance 14-2011 is approved.
Mr. Brandgard: We have ordinance number 15-2011: 2012 Salary Ordinance, which requires one reading.
Mr. McPhail: Mr. President I would move that we approve ordinance number 15-2011, with one change that the Clerk Treasurers salary be amended to $65,000.00 and that is line number 6, employee number 13186.
Clerk Treasurers salary be established at $65,000.00.
Mr. Kirchoff: Motion is second to approve ordinance number 15-2011; the 2012 salary ordinance with an amendment to increase the Clerk Treasurers salary to $65,000.00.
Mr. McPhail: That is not the correct line on the ordinance that was just on the spreadsheet.
Mr. Brandgard: If there is no further discussion, roll call votes please.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Gaddie- yes
Ms. Whicker- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Plainfield Town Council ordinance number 15-2011 is adopted as amended.
Mr. Brandgard: No proclamations.
Mr. Brandgard: When will the last meeting of the year be? We need to establish that?
Mr. Kirchoff: We talked the last time about the 29th, but I understand.
Ms. Whicker: I am leaving town on the 26th.
Mr. Brandgard: We would have all of the transfers and stuff ready that is the main reason for the meeting.
Mr. Bennett: Well that transfers can be ready by the 21st or the 22nd, does the Council also have, is there reorganization or is that at the first of the year.
Mr. Brandgard: Well I was going to suggest once we establish this that we can all be sworn in early for the next term, we can do that at the next meeting so we won't have to worry about it January 1 swearing in ceremony.
Mr. Kirchoff: We got our new corrected…
Mr. Brandgard: Did you get the new corrected ones?
Mr. McPhail: We don't have to be sworn in the way of a meeting do we till the first meeting in January, first meeting in January.
Mr. Kirchoff: Or we can do it in December.
Mr. McPhail: But I mean we wouldn't have to do it in December. We wouldn't have to do it January 1st right?
Mr. Brandgard: No.
Ms. Whicker: Well you would at a Plan Commission meeting some would and then at a Town Council would, but if we could all come on the 21st, we could do all of that.
Mr. Kirchoff: 21st does not work for me.
Mr. Brandgard: 22nd.
Ms. Whicker: That does not work.
Mr. McPhail: I don't have my calendar with me, so I will be there whenever you say.
Mr. Kirchoff: Should it not be a relatively short meeting?
Mr. Brandgard: Should be.
Mr. Kirchoff: Could we do it earlier on the 21st? I have a 6:30 commitment. We would surely be done in an hour wouldn't we?
Mr. McPhail: We should see if the staff can be ready.
Mr. Kirchoff: Well usually there is not that much for staff.
Mr. McPhail: With the bid reviews, we can wait till January?
Mr. Brandgard: We will have that done.
Mr. Kirchoff: When are we going to work on awarding those?
Mr. Belcher: In terms of the bid review for the Talon Creek, I think we can look at it, but there are some things that the low bidder needs to produce which may take them till after the first of the year. We could do the tentative awards.
Mr. Kirchoff: Is it critical that we get it done this month or can it wait?
Mr. Belcher: It can wait, if you want to wait till the firs meeting in January, I think that would still be workable for that project.
Mr. McPhail: I would hate to rush you going through that process.
Mr. Kirchoff: I agree. My question is from a schedule standpoint…
Mr. Belcher: No I think we are still ok, we sort of anticipated that being this late in the year.
Mr. Brandgard: So we want 4:30 on the 21st?
Mr. Bennett: I will ask Judge Spencer if he would like to be sworn in at that time and tie into that with your approval, and I would ask and suggesting Judge Smith do the swearing in.
Ms. Whicker: Does he have court at 4:30?
Mr. Bennett: I don't know if Judge Smith is agreeable I can invite him if he is available and if he is not then I will get back with our Council President and go with plan B.
Mr. Brandgard: Mel has done it before.
Mr. McPhail: I move we adjourn.
Ms. Whicker: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: All in favor signify by aye, opposed, motion carried.