PLAINFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
June 14, 2010
Mr. Brandgard: The Plainfield Town Council meeting for Monday, June 14, 2010 is now session. I'd like to ask everyone to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Brandgard: Let the record show that Renae Whicker is not in attendance this evening. We have several items on the consent agenda.
1. Approval of the minutes of the regularly scheduled Town Council meeting of May 24, 2010.
2. Second reading Ordinance 09-2010: No Parking Brookside Lane between Buchanan and Section Streets.
3. Approval of May 2010 monthly reports Department of Public Works, Plainfield Police Department, Utility Billing, IT, Department of Planning and Zoning and Plainfield Town Court.
4. Approval of Town Engineer's and Parks and Recreation Director's reports dated June 11, 2010, Transportation Director's report dated June 12, 2010 and HR Director's report dated June 14, 2010.
5. Approval to release Meyer & Najem Construction, LLC Performance Bond No.: 82154640 in the amount of $39,184.00 for Storm Drainage, Sanitary Sewer and Sidewalks, pending the submittal of maintenance bond in the amount of $3,682.10 per the Town Engineer's report dated June 14, 2010.
6. Approval to release Six Points Road Developers, LLC Letter of Credit No.: 1207 in the amount of $15,000.00 for Erosion Control, per the Town Engineer's report dated June 14, 2010.
7. Approval to increase Patriot Engineer's contract amount by $20,000 for materials testing for Plainfield Fire Territory Station #123 per Chief Anderson report dated June 11, 2010.
8. Approval for Globe Asphalt Paving to install speed bumps at four pedestrian crossing locations in Franklin Park in the amount of $1,928.00 per the Parks and Recreation Director's report dated June 11, 2010.
9. Approval of the following Change Order's per the Transportation Director's report dated June 12, 2010:
● CO#14: Change 1 ½” trenchless pipe installation to ¾” Trenchless Pipe installation resulting in no change in cost to project
● CO#15: Rap Binder replacement credit in asphalt mix resulting in a decrease in cost of $7,882.13.
● CO#16: Added street maintenance work not covered in original contract for north two lanes during winter including patching of sanitary manhole failures resulting in an increase in cost up thru April of $7,981.13
● CO#17: Reinforcing temporary signal pole at NW corner of Center Street resulting in a total increase cost of $2,547.23.
● CO#18: Adjusting castings to grade for water meter pits on Vine Street resulting in a total increase cost of $849.97.
● CO#19: Claim for down production time of contractors storm sewer crew and water line crew while Town spent approximately a full day attempting locate working valves to shutdown water resulting in an increased cost of $18,476.71.
● CO#20: Several pipe catch basins needed reestablished due to elevation changed determined to be necessary resulting in an increased cost of $5,712.00.
●CO#21: Moving the pay item for Structural Backfill for storm sewer from the Transportation Enhancement funded portion of the project to the Stimulus Funding portion of the project resulting in no change in total cost to the project.
Total for the Change Orders above for the US-40 Streetscape project resulting in a net increase to the contract in the amount of $27,684.91.
Mr. Brandgard: Do we have any changes or corrections to the consent agenda?
Mr. Kirchoff: I would move that we approve as read.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: The motion is second to approve the consent agenda as read. If there is no further discussion roll call vote please.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Gaddie- yes
Mr. McPhail- would the record show that abstain on item number 1 and yes on the rest of the items.
Mr. Bennett: So noted.
Mr. Kirchoff- I am going to do the same thing because I was unable to open item number 1. Yes, exception of number 1.
Mr. Brandgard- Yes
Consent agenda for Plainfield Town Council Meeting of June 14, 2010 is approved as amended.
Mr. Kirchoff: You only have two ayes on number one so I would assume we would go ahead till the next meeting.
Mr. Daniel: Correct.
Mr. Kirchoff: I move that we withdraw item number 1 from this consent agenda and move it to the consent agenda for the next meeting.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: Motion is second to move item 1 from the consent agenda for today's meeting to our next meeting. If there is no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye, opposed, motion carried. Thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: We have a public hearing scheduled this evening for the
Magnum Logistics Real Property Tax Abatement.
Mr. Carlucci: Thank you Mr. President the Mr. Daniel has the legal notices for this meeting tonight that we're published twice in the Hendricks County Flyer.
Mr. Daniel: Yes I do.
Mr. Carlucci: The project that the Council will be considering later this evening is Magnum Logistics, they are proposing to construct a 13,530 square foot building on ten acres of land and that is going to be located just north of Fundex on Perry Road. They currently have 106 employees with an annual payroll over approximately 5.6 million dollars. They are proposing to add 20 new employees with an additional payroll of $900,000.00. The construction of their facility is estimated at this point at 1.2 million dollars. I believe we have representatives here tonight from Magnum Logistics, I was wondering if maybe Jim Sharp is here today and if he wanted to say a few words to the Town Council?
Mr. Sharp: I'd just like to say thank you to Hendricks County for extending this opportunity for us it is really great for our business and I wanted to answer any questions that you might have about what's happening.
Mr. Brandgard: Could I get you to put your name and address on the sheet for the record please. Do we have any questions? I don't think we have any questions at the moment, thank you.
Mr. Sharp: Thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: This is a public hearing is anybody in the audience who would like to address the Council for or against the Magnum Logistics Real Tax abatement? Again, this is a public hearing for the Magnum Logistics Real Tax Abatement. With nobody coming forward I will close the public hearing and deal with the resolution at the proper time in the meeting. Thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: We do have a bid opening this evening for Metropolis Pwy East Extension do we have proper notification?
Mr. Daniel: We do have a public notice of the bid opening and I think at this time Mr. President it would be important to note a discrepancy in the legal bid package on this. I was advised before the meeting the legal notice that was published in the paper requires a ten percent bid bond or bid security that would be our normal requirement for this type of a project and then we apparently just learned this afternoon about 4:30 that the bid package that went out on this calls for a five percent bid instead of ten percent. So I am going to do two things if anybody has submitted a bid with a five percent bid security and would like to withdraw that bid you may do so before we start opening bids. Then we are going to open bids and if someone has submitted a bid with a five percent security and that becomes a successful bid we are going to give them an opportunity to change their bid security to ten percent. So would anybody like to withdraw their bid at this time this would be the time to do it, otherwise we will go forward opening the bids and we will require any bid that is selected for the project that will provide a ten percent bid security.
Mr. Brandgard: Appears nobody coming forward we will move on with opening the bids.
First bid is submitted by Calumet Civil Contractors.
Mr. Daniel: Calumet's bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you. The total amount of the bid submitted by Calumet's Civil Contractors is $1,766,257.00 Again that is $1,766,257.00. The bid amount for alternate number 1 is $40,543.00 again that is $40,543.00. Thank you.
Second bid is submitted by Central Engineering and Construction Inc., Greenfield, Indiana.
Mr. Daniel: Central Engineering bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you. The total amount of the bid submitted by Central Engineering and Construction Associates is $1,365,483.80. Again that is $1,365,483.80. The total amount submitted for alternate number 1 is $46,584.00. Again that is $46,584.00.
Third bid is submitted by Gradex Inc., Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel: Mr. President the Gradex bid on the financial portion there are places as you know that requires two signatures, the one that requires a notary has been signed and notarized and they missed the signature at the top of that page which is the more general signature. Otherwise the bid is in proper form if the Council is willing to require them to sign that up there the successful bidder and avoid that technicality.
Mr. Brandgard: You need a motion to do that.
Mr. Kirchoff: So move.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: The motion is second to allow the bid from Gradex missing a signature on the financial section if they are the successful bidder they have to get that signed within seventy-two hours. If there is no further discussion all those in favor signify by aye, opposed, motion carried. Thank you.
The total amount of the bid submitted by Gradex, Inc. is $1,191,294.56 again that is $1,191,294.56. The alternate bid amount is $53,500.00 again that is $53,500.00.
Forth bid is submitted by Milestone Contractors, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel: Milestone Contractors bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you. Total amount of the bid submitted by Milestone Contractors is $1,456,000.00 again that is $1,456,000.00. Alternate bid amount submitted is $40,543.00 again that is $40,543.00.
Fifth and last bid is submitted by Reith Riley Construction, Indianapolis.
Mr. Daniel: Reith Riley bid is in proper form.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you. Total amount of the bid submitted by Reith Riley Construction Company, Inc. is $1,324,457.00 again that is $1,324,457.00. And there is not an alternate bid submitted.
I'd like to thank everyone who took the opportunity to submit a bid. The engineer's estimate is $1,979,936.00 again that is $1,979,936.00. Engineer's estimate for alternate one is $20,700.00 again that is $20,700.00. I'd ask the bid review committee of Don McGillem, Tim Belcher, Bill Kirchoff, and Shawn Strange to review the bids and come back at the next meeting with a bid recommendation. Thank you.
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
Mr. Brandgard: Any business from the floor, please come forward and give us your name and address and write it down.
Mr. Cole: My name is John Cole and I live at Plainview Drive, Avon, Indiana and I own a 35 acre farm at Vestal and Township Line Road and I got a registered letter from Banning and they said they want to annex my farm and I'd like to know what the advantage I would have if they did that.
Mr. Brandgard: I think when you came in earlier, I now have a little more information, we have asked Banning Engineering to go out and survey the area to see what the thoughts were of people if they want to be annexed or not. I think the biggest advantage is you get Plainfield Police, Fire, and trash pick up.
Mr. Cole: I already have that; the only thing I don't have is the trash pick up. The rest of it I'm taken care of.
Mr. Kirchoff: What was your address again sir?
Mr. Cole: 125 Plainview Drive, Avon, Indiana and the farm is on Vestal and Township Line Road, it's actually 2969 Vestal Road is the actual address.
Mr. McPhail: Which Corner of the intersection?
Mr. Cole: It the corner across the creek there where the bridge is Vestal Road goes straight and you got the blue house there on the corner.
Mr. McPhail: So you are on the northeast corner.
Mr. Cole: Yes.
Mr. McPhail: Are you in Washington Township?
Mr. Cole: Washington Township, I already pay enough taxes I don't need anymore.
Mr. Brandgard: I can agree with you on that and as I mentioned earlier we are able on the farm ground we can abate the Town taxes on that portion so you would not have an impact on what you're farming.
Mr. Cole: Now they charge me taxes for investment they say, it used to be just farm but now they charge me for investment because I don't live there.
Mr. Kirchoff: It's rental property?
Mr. Cole: Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: Is there any other business from the floor this evening? No more business from the floor we will go to Town Manager's report.
TOWN MANAGERS REPORT
Mr. Carlucci: No report tonight.
Mr. Brandgard: Anything from utilities? Clay, do you have anything from parks?
Mr. Chafin: Good evening, I will be brief. I have received a letter from the Plainfield Chamber of
Commerce and they have asked the Recreation and Aquatics Center to participate in their Chamber of Sponsor gift certificate program called Chamber bucks. I don't know if you are familiar with the program or not, I think I scanned the documents and put them in with my report but I would like to ask you consent to be a part of that program. I think all the details were in there but if you want me to explain it just a little bit more I can. Essentially I think the Chamber is going to sell these gift certificates to local businesses to either use or hand out to employees and then they can redeem at businesses in town that expect the Chamber bucks so essentially trying to keep all the money in Plainfield or spent in Plainfield in Plainfield if you will and then we would except that gift certificate and then invoice the Chamber for reimbursement minus the retainer fee if you will.
Mr. Brandgard: Kent does that sound correct?
Mr. McPhail: That is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff: One question I have on that is this typically for merchandise versus do we want to consider applying this to merchandise for Splash Island etc. and not membership fees so that we are not discounting membership?
Mr. McPhail: I think that and I don't know what we are paying in credit card fees and those types of things but you know 5% is just a handling fee, you know I don't know if that will affect it or not but it is 5%.
Mr. Bennett: Maybe just over 2% for the cost of the transaction.
Mr. Brandgard: Do you think it would be a good deal?
Mr. Chafin: I think yeah if it helps keeps business in town I think it's a way for companies to purchase them and use them as staff incentives but the limitation is it's not like a Visa card and they can take it anywhere. They would have to use that here in town so you are supporting and patronizing local businesses.
Mr. Brandgard: What is the increment amount of the bucks?
Mr. McPhail: It will be selling those in $10.00, $25.00, and $50.00 gift certificates and then the intent of the program is to keep the dollars in Plainfield. And to be able to sell a gift certificate that can be able to be used at fifty or sixty different merchants. You can go get your oil changed, get a hair cut, buy dinner, or workout, we do have a couple of fitness centers that are Chamber members that we anticipate their participation.
Mr. Brandgard: I think if this is a chance to open it up to more people it might not be a bad idea to give it a try for one year anyways and see where it goes. Do we have consent?
Mr. Chafin: Thank you that is all I have.
Mr. Brandgard: Chief Mitny anything at the Police Department? Joe is there anything with Planning and Zoning?
Mr. James: Good evening, I've got two certificates I'd like to present to the Town Council. These are from the State Historical Preservation office, recognition of our historic district being put on the National Register.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you. I guess on one it says it was put on the Indiana register of historic sites and structures on the 27th of January 2010 and the other shows us on the National register on the 31st of March 2010. Thank you.
Mr. James: And then I've got one more item I'd like to recognize Gary Brown with the Parks Department for his work on the Gateway signs, he went out and did some maintenance on the signs and landscaping and did a nice job and talking with Clay earlier tonight, Clay said that he thinks that they will be able to maintain those signs on a regular basis.
Mr. Brandgard: Great! It's always good to have someone come in and recognize an employee, we appreciate that and I'm sure Clay will pass that onto him, and thank Clay for taking over the maintenance of the signs, at least the landscaping maintenance.
Mr. James: That's all I have, thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: Bill anything from the IT area? Jason, Public Works?
Mr. J. Castetter: I have two items I'd like to get Council's consent on tonight to purchase one of which I spoke to you a few meetings back on a hydraulic valve turner and a valve box turning machine it's a pull behind trailer that has all the equipment on the top. I've went out for quotes, I've received three quotes. The lowest quote was from
EJP- Everett J. Prescott in the amount of $35,263.71 again, $35,263.71 and with your consent I would like to move forward with that purchase, that is a budgeted item for this year.
Mr. Brandgard: I would like to see Jason move forward with that, I've seen the guys out trying to work some of these valves and some of these old valves that haven't been worked very often are really hard to move. And of course you always have the fear of doing it by hand and your going to break it and this machine should recognize the resistance and adjust itself so you don't break the valve.
Mr. J. Castetter: Break valves and the possibility of breaking backs.
Mr. McPhail: It reminds me of a little tour we had of the new Rolls Royce plant last week and it was so automated and computer controlled that I don't think a mechanic can twist a bolt off there because of it. It's just the technology out there has just improved so much over the years; it certainly would be a tool I think would be helpful for you.
Mr. Kirchoff: Do you have funding?
Mr. J. Castetter: It is a budgeted item.
Mr. Brandgard: Does he have consent?
Mr. J. Castetter: Thank you very much. I have one other item. This is also a budgeted item, we have 41 lift stations here in town and we have other needs for this equipment as well. As storms roll in like this it sometimes gives us a little bit of a sleepless night with these lift stations and the pump going down. So with that being said I went and got quotes for a pull behind mobile generator so we can be utilized on lift stations and other needs that we have in DPW. Currently when we have a lift station go down and sometimes multiple lift stations we have to call a vendor and try to schedule an arrangement in order to get a generator to us or we have to pick it up and sometimes at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning that can be difficult to arrange, especially during a storm or an outage so with your consent I would like to move forward with the purchase of a generator it would power the lift stations and give us the ability to be more responsive to the power outage and be able to move from lift station to lift stations if you would. I received four quotes, the lowest quote for that was $38,270.00 and that was to Cummings Generators that was $38,270.00.
Mr. McPhail: Jason, what size is that generator that you are looking at, do you know?
Mr. J. Castetter: It is a 60 hertz 80 KW, that will power every lift station except two that we currently have and one of those is for the head works for the south plant and I believe Clarks Creek lift station I believe that would be too difficult for us to handle.
Mr. McPhail: That would be if you had an emergency that would provide some emergency lighting and that sort of thing and it would light quite a bit?
Mr. J. Castetter: Yes, absolutely. I think it is kind of like the vac truck like when we bought it, we had an idea of how we are going to use it and now it's just grown in all different faucets, this is kind of the same thing. We know we need it for a particular event but it will be used in several areas.
Mr. Brandgard: And this is a budgeted item?
Mr. J. Castetter: Yes it is.
Mr. Brandgard: Just one question, do you have a method of security? So when you hook it up and you walk away from it someone else won't walk off with it.
Mr. J. Castetter: Typically we won't be walking away from these as they are running the pump down the lift station a lot of times there is more than one out and it is usually in a chain in a pump down get to the next one pump down and get to the next one and bounce back, typically it won't leave the truck.
Mr. Brandgard: Do we have consent?
Mr. McPhail: Consent.
Mr. J. Castetter: Thank very much!
Mr. Brandgard: Good seeing you back out. Chief Anderson, anything from the fire department?
Mr. Anderson: There are two things going on, there is a tornado warning for Northwestern Hendricks County, not for Plainfield. There is a thunderstorm warning for Hendricks County and Plainfield it's just a few miles west of us so it will be rolling in here in the next few minutes. I just wanted to get that out there.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you. Ron, do you have anything from human resources?
Mr. Lydick: Thank you Mr. President and Town Council members. I got the report on your tables here. Last meeting some of the Council members were asking about the effectiveness of the unified group services and how they were receiving this money. If you remember I told you last meeting that the discounts that they had been receiving for the ten months this year has been 34.91% so those are discounts that are equivalent to Anthems. Also Council members were asking about other areas where Unified saved us money, there are an area called inappropriate coding and charges, they saved us $18,950.00 there and duplicate charges and that was that they were charging twice for the same procedure and they found $3,701.00 and then the network savings of that 34.91. But then when you go out of network Unified was also able to get some discounts with these out of network providers. In some cases if a hospital was in the network and didn't give at least a 20% discount it would go back to them and try to negotiate additional discounts and they saved another $1,637.00. That is a total savings of $24,289.00 or about 1.33% as result of their scrutinizing the claims coming in.
Mr. Kirchoff: What is the first number you gave us the 34.91%?
Mr. Lydick: The discounts in other words if a physician charges $100.00 and they will have it contracted with...I have some figures for you to come up with the amount of the increase proposal for this year. Some of these numbers are more recent and so now.
Mr. Brandgard: Ron, I want to interrupt you for one second. If Chief Anderson, Chief Mitny, or Jason if you think that you need to leave go ahead and leave or at sometime you think so go ahead.
Mr. Lydick: The total amount that we have collected or set aside for claims and for our fixed costs drained the 2009 and 2010 claim year is $2,472,335.00. The actual claims through May 31st are $1,995,000.00 and so we also have a $60,000.00 specific stop loss, we had claims in excess of $60,000.00 in the amount of $19,598.00 so that money is being refunded to us. So our net claims that we have paid is $1,975,000.00 and so many cents. So that leaves us with $496,000.00 in our fund, our actual fixed cost for the year is $346,754.00. So we got $150,000.00 left in our fund. But we still have to pay June's claims. Now if you take the 1.9 million over 10 months and you gone to find out average monthly it's $197,000.00 of average month claims. So if our June claims do come in at a $197,000.00 we are going to be $47,000.00 short this year in our funding but we have no idea what those June claims are going to be they could be less than that or they could be more than that. Then Unified has told us as of May the 31st the claims per employee per month are $820.07 and that of course includes all the dependents for that employee.
Mr. Kirchoff: So if you took it 820 X the employees, does that come close to the 197?
Mr. Lydick: Yes. Our original quote, you'll notice about a 44% increase in expected claims, fixed costs were going to go up 23% or a net increase of 41.78%. As a result of Jeff Fox going back to Zurich is the person as our reinsurance. You got to revised quote and so you would notice now the fixed cost were $413,111.00 compared to $435,000.00 to decrease our fixed cost by $24,000.00 for next year. Then also we added the expected claims the original quote that had the 2.7 million in expected claims and they came back with a revised figure of $2.67 million. Now our increase is only 38% so if we wanted to fund this to the maximum cost we'd have to increase our collections or our funding by 38%. I don't know if you remember Mr. Fox telling us before in his 27 years of experience he's only had five companies that have ever reached their maximum cost. So he said it is very unlikely that we will lose our maximum cost so it is not really necessary to fund to the maximum cost of that. This year we funded 2.4 million and our maximum cost was 2.724 million, so we actually funded 90.73 percent of the maximum cost that is what we said we were going to save. If you wanted to save at that same level at 90.73 percent we would have to come up with another $939,000.00 in order to do that in order to come up with a 90.73 percent each year, which causes that 38%. But again, ideally it would be nice to save for the maximum cost because you would never have any surprises, you would never have to come up with any money at the end of the year, and then if you came in at less than your maximum costs then you will have some extra funds set aside for the next year. I don't think our budgets will permit a 38% increase. So what is it for actual this year? Again our claims 1.9 million that one month of June $197,000.00 and our actual fixed cost were $346,000.00 so our total costs this year was 2.519 million. We already funded 2.472 so we've only funded 98% of what we need. Now that is assuming that this 197 stands it could be less or it could be more but we really only actually funded 98% of what we need. Currently we have a 60,000 specific stop loss, next year they estimate that our expected claims will be 2.6 million our fixed costs are going to be $413,000.00. Our total estimated cost is going to be $3,091,000.00, well based on this amount of funding, what we are doing now, how much is it going to take to bring it up to $3,091,000.00. It takes a 26% increase which will give us a little more cushion so a 25% doesn't reach $3,091,000.00, 26% is a little bit over. Last year, we were funding at 109% of expected claims or in cost, this year with the 26% increase we'd only be funding up to 101%. So we wouldn't have as much cushion next year as we would have at the end of this year. You say what about these expected claims 2.67 million? How accurate is that? Well Jeff Fox went to eight different companies for quotes; three companies did not quote at all because they say they weren't competitive. But the other five companies all came within $78,000.00 of each other. So I think this is a pretty realistic figure, and it is not one that is excessively high or excessively low. I mentioned to you last month or last meeting that in order to save some money you can got to a $70,000.00 stop loss. If you go to a $70,000.00 stop loss your fixed cost goes from 413 down to 376. Your expected claims go from 2.677 up to 2.76 and you say well why do claims go up when you go to a $70,000.00 stop loss? Well that is because we are going to be paying everything between 60 and 70, so there is a potential for more claims. And so even going at the $70,000.00 stop loss we'd have to have a 27% increase in order to even funds that. The upside on that is you possibly could save $36,157.00 in other words if you don't spend that $70,000.00 they are going to give you a $36,000.00 discount in order to absorb that $10,000.00 window. So it would take four people before you lose any money at the $10,000.00. So that is a question do you want a potential savings of $36,157.00 or do you want to continue at our same 60,000.00. Even at 26% that's an awful lot of money because I am assuming if it is increased at 26% that means the Town is going to have to kick in 26% and then the employees also will be increasing their contributions by 26%. So what can we do in order to get this figure down? Is it possible? Our actual claims again through May 31st is 1.9 for June 197,000.00 but one thing we haven't talked about last July we didn't pay any claims because Anthem was still paying the claims then. So in order to get the whole years worth of claims I put in another $197,000.00. This 2.3 million would be twelve months worth of claims. Not actual, but a reasonable estimate. Medical inflation is about 9.5%, so for the next year if those claims went up 9.5% you would have that much more claims. Your fixed cost, so now your total cost is $3,899,000.00. What does it take in order to make that? It takes 22%. So this is just a different way of coming up with what we think our maximum costs are going to be. Now if we think that this years claim are anomaly then maybe all of this is a little bit high maybe we will not spend that much next year. So if you wanted to you can come down here and change that to 20% and with a 20% increase we'd have almost $3,000,000.00 to spend. This year we spent 2.5 million and with a 20% increase we will have 3 million to spend. So we will have another $500,000.00 to spend. Is that enough? I don't know. The thing of it is if you save it now as you go or you know that you can save the 20% and then you can find out next March or April if we run out of money you will have to come up with some more funds. With the 26% there is still no guarantee that that will be enough money but obviously there will be $500,000.00 more that you have to play with. One thing you need to remember all the money except that $413,000.00 all the rest of the money stays right here until you have to spend it. It doesn't go to Anthem or anyplace like that. It stays right here and Mr. Bennett, I've told him he can't spend any of that money and it stays in that fund to pay claims in the future. So my question is, or I guess my recommendation is that we continue with Zurich who is the current insurer, the question is do you want to stay with the $60,000.00 stop loss or do you want to go with $70,000.00 stop loss? And then what level do you want to fund it? Do you want to fund it? Do you want to fund it at 20%, 25%, and 26%?
Mr. McPhail: Is that the estimated claims based on the same employees count?
Mr. Lydick: Yes, it is based on 218 employees yes.
Mr. Kirchoff: On our page two the last number is 22%, you show it 20%.
Mr. Lydick: I just changed it. In order to get the $3,800,000.00 it takes 22%. And with the 20% it comes in $2,900,000.00 whatever it was it was a little less than 3 million dollars. So you would have a potential short pole there. The other thing you need to consider is let's say you go with the 20% now, then next April you needed more money, all the money would be coming from the Town's side. None of it would be coming from the employee side.
Mr. Kirchoff: In this year's experience was without the clinic?
Mr. Lydick: That's correct.
Mr. Kirchoff: But we are going to be introducing the clinic here shortly so hopefully that will pay long term benefits.
Mr. Lydick: It should because the idea of the clinic is that we get people in and we get those annual check ups find those diseases quicker; the treatment will be less expensive.
Mr. Brandgard: I think the biggest thing is any money we are putting into this is the Town's money. If you save it the Town is saving it and if we're still going with Anthem or something like that it all goes to Anthem and if they save, they keep it we wouldn't get it back.
Mr. Lydick: Right. We had a bad year; our claims were high this year.
Mr. Kirchoff: I think we're still in the program, I question changing much. I think we need another year in history. The other question is I contemplate this and I'm trying to think of where or what organization it was, listening to and they were talking about changing deductibles and I think you've talked about this before, if we make any changes in the plan is everything going away?
Mr. Lydick: No, not anymore. Because we have our own plan now, in other words, Anthem had that rule, but Anthem has to have State approved plans. They had our plan approved well if we changed it then they had to go back and get it approved again. And of course they did not want to do that so they said if we changed our plan any that we'd have to go to one of their approved plans. So that is the biggest advantage of being a partially self funded is you can design this program anyway you want. Now there is certain laws that you have to follow that are mandated.
Mr. Kirchoff: Same token, I think we need another year in history. I sound like a broken record but this is a very rich plan that we have and the day is coming when we are going to have to take a hard look at all of this.
Mr. Lydick: We have one plan that has 0 deductible and the other plan has a $250.00 deductible. They say most plans now are running $1,000.00 and the average deductible is $800.00.
Mr. Kirchoff: I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I think we are going to have to make changes soon.
Mr. Brandgard: But I think he hit the key that this is our first year, I'm thinking it was probably a bad year. In order to make educated decisions on this, we need to go over this one more or maybe two years before you start making changes to make sure you understand what the true impact is.
Mr. Kirchoff: The other reason I wouldn't want to change the deductibles if we are asking employees to pay another 26% plus change the deductible, that is double dipping them and I hope we never have to get to that but I think we are one year closer to making some changes.
Mr. McPhail: I think we should have if everything goes right at least six or eight months of this claim history which will up the employees and can throw some of that cost. I just have to believe that the clinic is going to pay some dividends and help us with this deductible if you get in the habit of using the clinic and taking care of those kinds of things then raising that deductible is not going to be near the penalty because they should be taking care of those things at the clinic rather than going to the doctor right? I'd like to see us stay about where we are and if it's 26%, it's 26% and look at it a year from now and hopefully that 26% increase on both ends right.
Mr. Lydick: Yes.
Mr. Gaddie: Is there any negotiation on these claims from the company that handles that?
Mr. Lydick: Yes, they negotiated claims; you remember I told you a while ago. First of all they got a 34.91% decrease, in other words if a doctor charges $100.00 they'll only pay them $60.00. Then they also went on some of the out of network vendors and they went to talk to them and got some additional discounts on them.
Mr. Gaddie: What's the deductible now?
Mr. Lydick: One plan is $250.00 a calendar year deductible and the other has a zero calendar year deductible.
Mr. Gaddie: So they have a choice?
Mr. Lydick: Right.
Mr. Brandgard: So what do you need from us this evening?
Mr. Lydick: Well I need authorization to get a contract to one of these insurance companies and my recommendation is Zurich and then I need a recommendation as to what level we are going to fund it as. What percent of increase do we want to set aside for our future claims and fixed cost?
Mr. Kirchoff: You said Zurich?
Mr. Lydick: Zurich, yes.
Mr. Kirchoff: I would move that we accept this recommendation and contract with Zurich. Is that for the reinsurance you are saying?
Mr. Lydick: Yes.
Mr. Kirchoff: And that we fund at the 26% increase.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: The motion is second for the Zurich additional claims reinsurance portion of it and the 26% increase.
Mr. Kirchoff: Ron, I don't know how often it makes sense for you to kind of keep us posted but I appreciate as you can if you can keep us posted as to how claims are going and how funding levels are looking. I think monitoring that would be advantages as we go from here.
Mr. Lydick: Unified provides us very good reports and at the end of every month, I receive a report, aggregate claims report to tell how much we spent this year.
Mr. Kirchoff: Now we're going to have you here for comparisons so gives us some sense, I think it is beneficial to us.
Mr. Brandgard: We had a motion and a second if there is no other discussion all those in favor signify by aye, opposed, motion carried. Thank you.
Mr. Lydick: One other thing in relation to the insurance program as of September 23, 2010 they gave our plan year after September 23, 2010 we have to cover all children adult children up to the age 26. We have currently two adult children, age 24 who will lose their insurance coverage as of December 31, 2010. By law they will be able to come back on our plan July the 1, 2011. We will be required to take them back on the plan July the 1, 2011. My question to the Council is you may choose and go ahead and accept this new law effective this claim year which will be July 1, 2010 and then these two adult children could continue on the health insurance up till age 26 without having that six months of service. Now the downside to that is that there are other in the past we have always said you have been able to claim your dependants on your tax returns in order to cover them. The new law does away with that. So we could possibly have other adult children 22, 23, 24 years of age who are not financially dependent on their parents that could still come on our plan.
Mr. Kirchoff: That would still be living in the same household don't they?
Mr. Lydick: They have to be a child; you don't have to have custody of them, no.
Mr. Bennett: Is there a residency requirement?
Mr. Lydick: I didn't think there was but I can obviously double check the law on that.
Mr. Brandgard: I would bet there is.
Mr. Lydick: I know that adult married children can be on your plan. So if they are married they are not living in your household. In other words if these 24 year olds get married between now and the time they are 26, we still have to carry them on our insurance until they are age 26. Now the grandfathered clause, and we fall under the grandfather clause it says that between now and 2012 or 13, if that adult child has other group insurance or is eligible for other group insurance they can't be on ours. But then that goes away again I forget what year that is but it is 2012 or 2013 that goes away even though they could have insurance on their own they can still stay on their parents. I have no idea how many people that would involve.
Mr. Kirchoff: How soon do you need a decision on this?
Mr. Lydick: You can amend your plan at anytime. Our plan year actually starts July 1, 2010 so that would be one opportunity to do that. You don't have to do that until July 1, 2011.
Mr. Kirchoff: I guess I'm wondering if there is anyway for you to do an analysis to see what our new exposure would be to do that.
Mr. Brandgard: We need to have more information so if nothing else I would defer the decision until the end of the year.
Mr. Lydick: I will be glad to come back with more information and again when you make that decision you have until July 1, 2011 and then the decision is made for you at that time. So you will be accepting all of these people coming July 1, 2011.
Mr. McPhail: Thanks for all your work Ron.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you Ron. Tim, anything in the Engineering Department?
Mr. Belcher: I've got a couple of things sort of continue a discussion we started in a work session we had on landscaping and lighting but this is mainly a landscaping question because someone, I don't know which Council member but I thought it was a pretty interesting idea and we talked about possible funding sources for this maintenance of our medians and things as the street department funding gets more and more reduced because of revenue shrink coming into that where we get those and our desires of the town to try to increase possible landscaping the view of the town, the image of the town as terms as our major medians and things like that. I think just a couple of meetings ago the Council authorized a median over by Metropolis Mall to be maintained even though we were going to try to recover those funds from the Mall as they are responsible for that but the point was pull out some of these nice landscape meetings get out of hand is really not a good thing for the town, so one of the topics we talked about in the work session, I thought it was good to bring to a regular Council meeting was the idea of added funds being a potential source of funding for that type of work. We know that downtown here we are going to have some storm water plantings and that might be other source we are going to investigate a little bit later. As we go into the summer we are still struggling with the landscaping median at Metropolis, we got it. The first authorization you gave us we took care of that, we hit some existing MBH funds that Jason uses for his maintenance and things and that drain those down, those are not funds that he expected to pay out so I though it would be good to talk about that as we again look at those medians again. They've been growing and we've got this kind of rain this year that they are going to get out of hand really quick if we don't stay on top of them and even though we'd like to recover those funds, especially on the medians near the mall, a temporary funding source if they continue to allow that to be funded outside of our maintenance of our streets and roads is what we would like to try to find and again with your comments at the work session I brought tonight I wanted to help a meeting and discuss it one more time because we are going to need to come back with some proposals on those quickly.
Mr. Brandgard: I think it is good that you are bringing it back. I still think that landscape meetings are economic development element, so their aught to be some funding from the Economic Development pool to help pay for that. Especially when we put this on the people in the industrial parks that do some pretty nice planning out there and we need to maintain it we need to maintain our entrance ways as an equal to what they have to do. So I think that is a good source on the near term and while we are trying to work out the long terms.
Mr. Kirchoff: What are the restrictions on this?
Mr. Carlucci: I think you can use it, I don't think you should use added funds to supplement to pay the employee but I think you can use it for those purposes of maintaining the medians. But certainly we don't want to get in the habit of if we've never done this before and to do it again to tie that money up in the salaries is which…
Mr. Belcher: No, we were thinking the same thing and if we were going to do it, probably a specialized kind of service that we would be providing with our own employees that would be contracted out of again, people who work with flowers and plantings and things like that maybe tree trimmers and more specialized things contracted out for service. But really I just wanted to talk about that with you since it was again I thought it was a good concept that came up at the work session wanted to confirm what I thought I heard and we are going to be having to come back and talk about it pretty quickly and talk about it some more and again away the grass is growing. Hopefully we will be keeping those up this year and if that is a potential funding source then we will work with Rich and Wes as these estimates come in for doing this work we will get back to you as soon as we can. The second item I would like to get an approval if I could sort of with your consideration as a Tri-County proposal again the basic apprentice behind this, we looked at it before to connect the Tri-County sewage system which is the Heartland Crossing area. Currently that system goes to Indianapolis and they pay Indianapolis for treatment. They have their own maintenance staff down there and they take care of their own system but all the sewage is treated by Indianapolis at a wholesale rate. That rate in Indianapolis is going up quickly and I think I read on their website today they have a guaranteed 10.75% increase until 2013, the Indianapolis rate is going to see that increasing. They've already set that out there and that was probably a 50% under what they thought they needed but they and saw it under pencil and they went 10% or 10 ½ % or 10.75% per year from '09 to 2013. Indianapolis is doing the same thing as we are doing as they are working on their CSO problems and all those kinds of things but their problem is just massive. It is extremely big and they waited too long to probably get into it, Tri-County I think concerned about being on that system with the rates increasing and ours they see is being more stable. I see this as potentially a benefit to our customers by providing a large customer base that would help spread out costs out there for keeping our rates more stable for our customers, so I believe there might be a deal to be had here that would be beneficial to the Plainfield customers, certainly it would be to the Heartland customers but you know that's not my primary concern, quite frankly it's our customers but there is equivalent of 1,600 or 1,700 customers equivalency in flow so this is a very large customer base that I think it seems wise to spend some effort and some dollars to update the report and see what it would be to make that connection between the two systems. It doesn't guarantee that we will have a deal but without that we really can't start. What I have and attached to my report was a proposal from Whitick Engineering and it is in the amount of $6,500.00 to essentially take the report we did three or four years ago updated to today's information, now we have Deer Path online things like that that we can look at and see if that will save us some money to make this system to work. Just to give you a refresher, it was almost 10 or 11 million dollars of capital cost needs to make this connection so this is a very large project if it were to ever take place. But you got again 1,600 customers of revenue coming in to try to support that plus the developer of that area still has ground to develop so it would be connection fees involved plus they are willing to put money in obviously themselves to make it happen so the main thing that we told them, Rich and I have talked and I've just spoken very briefly with them as if there wouldn't be any rate increase for the Plainfield customers for this that is not in the cards here so it has to do without that so with those parameters in place it still seems wise to try to look at this and we appreciate having the ability to update our report and get back to you and them and see if we can hammer out a deal. I assume this would come out of the sewer funding which would be a logical place for this.
Mr. Bennett: Sewer availability?
Mr. Belcher: Sewer availability or the operating if you thought that was capable, availability would be logical though.
Mr. McPhail: I move that we authorize the Town Engineer to contract with Whitick Engineering to update the study for Tri-County not to exceed $6,500.00.
Mr. Kirchoff: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: We have a motion and a second for the Town Engineer's recommendation to contract with Whitick Engineering to update the Tri-County sewer study for not to exceed costs of $6,500.00. If there is no further discussion all those in favor signify by aye, opposed, motion carried.
Mr. Belcher: Thank you very much. The last thing I reported that they were going to make the switchover on the Deer Path Plant, it was done by noon today and so even with the rain this morning and coming in the evening, Bowen had their work planned out well and got their work done and we are officially one waste water plant less than we were yesterday so that is a good thing.
Mr. Brandgard: Very good, thank you. Don anything from the traffic engineering side?
Mr. McGillem: Not much more than what was in the report. Just keep trying to dodge these rains morning and night out there and keep the contractors moving as much as we can. I think they have done a pretty good job. We did get the switch over on Perry Road last week so we are on the new pavement over there and the new widening and they've already got to Reeves Road and the section tore out south of Reeves Road and the line stabilization done on that Saturday so things are moving but the rains aren't helping us make it.
Mr. Brandgard: It looks pretty good down there and I've gone down through there two or three times and the traffic, people figured it out pretty quick. Did I miss anybody from the staff? If not, we will go to Old Business, Kent?
Mr. Bennett: One item I believe at your last Council meeting which I was not here you approved some funding for a truck for the Police Department, part of that funding I think was in the amount of $5,000.00, that is coming out of fund 118, which is the Police Department portion of the deferral fees. I think the Council wanted some information as to exactly what fund that was going to come from. So part of that $5,000.00 was from the deferral fees of the Plainfield Police Department and the other portion was from their operating funds.
Mr. Brandgard: I guess with that thought before you leave it, Chief what did you buy? I think we gave the permission to go ahead and I know you've got a truck but it's an interesting story behind that truck.
Mr. Mitny: (inaudible)
Mr. Brandgard: Ed?
Mr. Gaddie: I don't have anything.
Mr. McPhail: Mr. President I just have one item. I have been invited to attend a meeting tomorrow with the Indiana Chamber of Commerce they have a report on an original water study done by Indiana University. Our Town Engineer made a reservation for me and the Town Engineer to attend the meeting. They've changed it about it three times and now he's not able to go but if any body would like to join me we need to leave here about 10:45 a.m., we will have lunch and hear about regional water study done by Indiana University. If anybody would like to join me, let me know.
Mr. Kirchoff: Wes is there any prep for us before the budget meetings for next week.
Mr. Bennett: No sir, you will be getting some documents in advance and those will be coming out on Thursday.
Mr. Gaddie: You still got the same dates set on that?
Mr. Bennett: Yes, Monday and Friday of next week.
Mr. Gaddie: I can't be there on Monday I have a doctor appointment.
Mr. Brandgard: Ed any new business?
Mr. Gaddie: John Coates stepped up and asked me about this annex and I had another member ask me and I'd like to see a copy of the area that we are talking about the annex there. I had two individuals ask me about that already but I would kind of like to have the area about the annex.
Mr. Brandgard: I think we should be able to provide that. We've authorized Banning to go out and get a study but, again, it probably wouldn't hurt to have a copy of the area he's looking at.
Mr. Brandgard: We will go to Resolutions; we have Resolution No. 2010-13: Browning-Duke TIF Resolution.
Mr. Kirchoff: So move.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: The motion is second to approve Resolution No. 2010-13: Browning-Duke TIF Resolution.
Mr. Gaddie: I have some questions on that we are talking a maximum of what, 15 million, up to 15 million?
Mr. Bennett: That's correct.
Mr. Gaddie: What is owed on it now roughly?
Mr. Bennett: About 14.
Mr. Gaddie: How much is it going to save us, I know we went last bond issue and we got a cheaper rate and everything.
Mr. Bennett: Well this is a conversion of a bond anticipation notes to full time. I believe our rate right now is at 6% on those bond anticipation notes. Until we sell the bond and we don't know for sure but I know the rates better than 6%.
Mr. Brandgard: I think the bond is covered by the developer and the TIF out there, the tax payers are not on the hook for any of this.
Mr. Bennett: Correct.
Mr. Brandgard: If there is no other discussion, roll call vote please.
Mr. Gaddie- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Plainfield Town Council Resolution No. 2010-13 is approved.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you. We also have Resolution No. 2010-14: Confirmatory Resolution Magnum Logistics Real Property Tax Abatement.
Mr. McPhail: So move.
Mr. Kirchoff: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: The motion is second to approve Resolution No. 2010-14 the Confirmatory Resolution Magnum Logistics Real Property Tax Abatement. If there is no further discussion, roll call vote please.
Mr. Gaddie- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Plainfield Town Council Resolution 2010-14 is approved.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you. If there is nothing else to come before the Council at this time I would entertain a motion to sign the documents requiring signature and adjourn.
Mr. Kirchoff: So move.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Brandgard: All those in favor signify by aye, opposed, motion carried. Thank you.