TOWN OF PLAINFIELD TOWN COUNCIL

May 23, 2005

The Plainfield Town Council met on Monday, May 23, 2005. In attendance were Mr. Gaddie, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Fivecoat, Mr. McPhail and Mr. Kirchoff.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Approval of the minutes of the regularly scheduled Town Council meeting of Monday, May 9, 2005.

2. Second reading of Ordinance No. 34-2005: Duke Rezoning to I-1, Office Research District and I-3 Office/Warehouse Distribution District and Ordinance No. 35-2005: BW Partners, LLC from R-4, Medium-Density Residential to OD, Office District.

3. Approval of the IT Director’s Report dated May 23, 2005, Human Resources Director’s Report dated May 21, 2005; Transportation Director’s Report dated May 20, 2005 and the Town Engineer’s Report dated May 21, 2005.

4. Approval of the April 2005 monthly report for the Plainfield Fire Department.

5. Approval to release retainage in the amount of $5,235.58 and accrued interest to Harco Asphalt Paving for the Harlan Street Storm Sewer project per the Town Engineer’s Report dated May 21, 2005.

6. Approval of Change Order #1 to the contract with Hunt Paving Company in the amount of $2,749.23 for the final measured quantity adjustments for the Southfield Drive extension project per the Town Engineer’s Report dated May 21, 2005.

7. Approval to release retainage in the amount of $10,728.59 plus accrued interest for Hunt Paving Company for the Southfield Drive extension project per the Town Engineer’s Report dated May 21, 2005.

8. Acceptance of sanitary sewer easement from the Indianapolis Airport Authority across Lot 14 in the Stanley Cove Subdivision per the Town Engineer’s Report dated May 21, 2005.

9. Acceptance of sanitary sewer easement from Ryan S. Morgan crossing Lot 25 in the Mares Meadow Subdivision per the Town Engineer’s Report dated May 21, 2005.

10. Approval of the quotation from JDH Contracting in the amount of $19,980.00 for construction of a sewer connection to Ryan S. Morgan property per the Town Engineer’s Report dated May 21, 2005.

11. Approval of renewal agreement between the Town of Plainfield and Midwestern Electric, Inc. that has been modified to reflect current labor and equipment costs per the Transportation Director’s Report dated May 20, 2005.

12. Re-approval of Change Order #1, Dan Jones Road project in the amount of $80,724.21 to the contract of Atlas Excavating including authorizing Councilor Kirchoff to sign the change order per the Transportation Director’s Report dated May 20, 2005.

13. Rescind the third and final reading of Ordinance No. 33-2005: Duke/Brunswick Park Annexation that was inadvertently included on the Consent Agenda for the May 9, 2005 Town Council meeting per the Town Manager’s recommendation.

Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Fivecoat – yes Mr. Gaddie – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING: Becton Dickinson Real Property Tax Abatement

! 1

Mr. Brandgard said we have two public hearings this evening. Do we have proof of publication?

Mr. Daniel said yes we do.

Mr. Brandgard said the first public hearing is the Becton Dickinson Real Property Tax Abatement.

Mr. Carlucci said I will just briefly go over some of the numbers on the Becton Dickinson project. Becton Dickinson is a Fortune 500 company. They are going to locate a new distribution/warehouse facility on the north side of Reeves Road. It will include Sections 1; 2 and 3 on the former Brunswick Park Subdivision. The initial building will be 653,000 square feet. It has an expansion capability to 965,000 square feet. It is located on approximately 63.5 acres. Becton Dickinson will invest 20 million dollars in the land and the building and an additional 20 million dollars invested in machinery and equipment. Becton Dickinson will retain 94 employees and add 70 employees by the year 2012. At the last meeting I went over, at length, the strategic benefits for the Town. I actually will talk a little about that later under my report on the Indiana Department of Commerce infrastructure grant. We have here tonight Blaine Paul from Duke. He might want to briefly show the building. Some of you have seen it at the Plan Commission meeting. Also with me is Brian Haynes who is the Operational Manager for BD. I know he had a couple of words he wanted to say.

Mr. Brian Haynes said first of all I would like to thank the entire Town of Plainfield. I started in on this project about a year and a half ago. We looked at a lot of sites and Plainfield was our top choice all along. It is the best place for distribution. I think you guys have done a wonderful job of really promoting your community and promoting the benefits that your community as for business as well as the general population. From BD we are very happy to say Plainfield is going to be our home for the next several years. So, thank you on behalf of BD. We are really looking forward to this project getting underway. We have 94 people at BD right now that work for a third-party logistics provider. We are hoping we can move the majority of those people here so that we don’t lose any jobs as well as create 70 new jobs, which is very important to us. We wanted to stay around Central Indiana. When we did our network study, there were three main areas. There was Columbus, OH; Indianapolis and Boling Green, Kentucky. Obviously, BD is a type of company that likes to take care of its own. We try to stay near the place so that we can take care of the people that work for us. So, again on behalf of BD we like to thank you for everything that you have done.

Mr. Brandgard said thank you. We appreciate your comments. We also welcome you to Town.

Mr. Carlucci said a lot of you have already seen the building. They are on a very short fuse to get this done. This project requires everybody moving very quickly. We are running multiple planning and zoning issues, vacation of streets and rights-of-ways, variances, annexations all parallel with each other to try to get this done.

Mr. Brandgard asked, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Council relative to this public hearing? Being no one coming forward we will close this portion of the meeting tonight and go to the next public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING: Additional Appropriations Town Road Fund

Mr. Carlucci said the next item has to do with an additional appropriation. This came about because the Town of Plainfield went through the Department of Local Government Finance for approval of a bond issue. We agreed to do this in concert with the Plainfield Community School Corporation to construct the road around their facility. We have to spend money in a way that the State requires us to do an additional appropriation. That is why we are here. We are doing this to meet the statutory and administrative requirements of the State to do this. There are other steps that we have yet to do. One of them is to sell the bonds. We anticipate within the next 10 days to get a notice from the Department of Local Government Finance approving the bond issue. Then everything will kick into high gear. The notice has been given and it has been in the paper.

! 2

Mr. Brandgard asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to address the Council relative to this public hearing, which is the additional appropriations for the Town road fund?

Mr. Carlucci said it was 3.1 million for the additional appropriation. I believe that is actually in the resolution.

Mr. Daniel said it is.

Mr. Brandgard said being no one coming forward we will close the public hearing and move to the next item on the agenda.

BUSIENSS FROM THE FLOOR

Mr. Jeff Kanable said I’m here representing Premier Properties at 5252 E. 82nd St., Indianapolis. I’m here to talk about the future east/west road running from SR267 to Six Points Road that is a primary access point for our development, Metropolis. We would like to see that future road named Metropolis Parkway. We feel that the road is an extremely important southern access point for Metropolis to pull people off of SR267 and Six Points Road. We feel naming this road Metropolis Parkway is pretty critical for identification purposes. Our study shows that the shoppers will come from beyond Plainfield and Avon but from all around the region. We think providing these people with clear and simple directions is the best way for Metropolis to be successful. We feel that Metropolis Parkway is a name that gives people an indication that they are moving in the right direction and that they will reach our project.

Mr. David Flaherty with Flaherty and Collins Properties said we are the owner and developer of the 264-unit apartment complex out at Metropolis, which would be the central park at Metropolis. We understand there is some issue regarding the naming of the road. I just wanted to appear tonight and express our support for having Metropolis Parkway as the name of the road as the branding of ours as well as the retailers. Getting the name recognition is very important as well as directing prospective tenants and retail buyers to the area. It sounds like it isn’t a big deal but it really is. There is a real special development going on here and I think we are all fortunate to be part of it. But we really want to create the image of a spectacular development and not just a development, it is the area. So, the more that we can incorporate the name of Metropolis in with the road system as well as the different developments then we think we would all benefit. I’m not sure what the down side would be to allow the name. I know it would hurt us not to have it. Would our deal go bankrupt? No but it would definitely have a financial impact on us as well as it would the retailers and we think others in the area. It is very important to us and I did want to take the opportunity to appear before you tonight and express our concern and support for including Metropolis as the name of the road. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Brandgard said you mentioned that it would have a financial impact. Explain that please?

Mr. Flaherty said with us it is all about getting people to the property. Can we say okay we are going to lose out on not getting “x” number of residents? It is hard to quantify but the easier it is to get people to the property the more recognition we can have with the name of our property in the area then the more marketable the property becomes and the easier it is to lease our units. We are going to have some very high-end units so we just want to create that image. If a couple of tenants walk out the door, they are not going to say I’m not leasing here because of the name of the road. It is not a conscious decision like that. It is more of the impression or the image that they get when they walk in and they come down Metropolis Parkway, pull into our property with Metropolis in the name and pass the Metropolis retail center. It creates an image. There really isn’t hardly anywhere in Central Indiana that as we travel around the country and see these planned developments that, have a lot of different pieces to it and they are very well thought out, we see the names incorporated into those developments. It would definitely be a negative. Can I tell you how much it would cost us? I can’t quantify that. I apologize.

Mr. Kirchoff asked, how much money are you willing to put up to help us build that road?

! 3

Mr. Flaherty said we have been through that whole situation. What we are doing that we would not normally do is the cost of our development is probably 20% more than other developments that we have done. That is to create a standard and an image to get it at this level more than the typical apartment complex. If there is a financial contribution, I would like to think that is our financial contribution.

Mr. Ben Comer said on the second reading of Ordinance No. 34-2005 on the Consent Agenda did the Council do the second and third reading or just the second?

Mr. Brandgard said just the second.

Mr. Comer asked, is that later in the agenda tonight?

Mr. Carlucci said yes.

TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT

Mr. Carlucci said I want to report on the Becton Dickinson project. I had mentioned earlier that the Indiana Department of Commerce, which is now the Indiana Economic Development Corporation has an infrastructure grant program. Here tonight is Harold Gutzwiller, with the Hendricks County Economic Development Partnership. As we went through this project, we were very involved with probably one of the first projects the State did under the new governor and the Indiana Economic Development Corporation. The State has agreed to provide the Town of Plainfield with a $400,000.00 infrastructure grant. The Town of Plainfield has agreed to put in $473,000.00. Let me go into what that will involve. It’s dollar for dollar. If we only spent $400,000.00, the State would spend $400,000.00 and hopefully we would save $73,000.00 somewhere. It’s dollar for dollar, it’s reimbursable to the Town. We spend the money up front and then they reimburse us for those costs. We have done several of these before.

I’ve already talked about the jobs and also one thing I did want to mention is the Indianapolis Airport Authority is the owner of the land. They are selling the land to Duke Realty. That land will now go back on the tax rolls. But this money, the main part of it, will primarily pay for reconstructing Reeves Road from approximately SR267 to Duke building number five, which is probably a little over three-quarters of a mile of roadway. It will be reconstructed into a wide two-lane road with curb and gutter. This will give us, with the addition of improving Reeves Road from SR267 west to Center Street, any improvements on Reeves Road from Perry to Columbia Road. It will give us a complete new and/or reconstructed roadway from Center Street all the way to Columbia Road. That is critical for the Town to have another east/west road, which basically mirrors Stafford Road and U.S. 40 across our community. This will also have a benefit to the school system. Their buses can go on Reeves Road east to SR267 to Whitaker Road and go north on Whitaker Road to their bus garage. That will cut their time down. It will give them a safe road to travel on.

The area to the south of Becton Dickinson site is currently being marketed by the property owner. By having this roadway constructed to a Town standard urban section road we think development will come quicker on the south side of that road. So, there have been many pluses to having that road rebuilt.

Another issue that we have right now is a lot of the vehicles that take the perimeter road or Perry Road on the east side of Town a lot of those trucks end up all at the Hadley Road/SR267 intersection. Sometimes it is very busy down there. Sometimes it’s not but when it is busy, it is very irritating to our residents. By having this road redone and by having a new signal at SR267 and Reeves Road that will be part of the SR267 project and that will allow the truck traffic to have another way to get to SR267 without having to go through the Hadley Road intersection. We think a lot of trucks will chose that direction or they can go to Columbia Road and go out that way. But we think it will defuse a lot of that truck traffic and make it a lot safer and move the traffic a lot quicker.

Part of that money is also to go for extension of water and sewer lines. Water is already out there. We don’t believe those extensions will be very long but we will then move that line from SR267 and connect it up to the Duke building five line, which will give us a loop in that line. Sewer is there. It is just a matter of making it more accessible to the developer for that project. With that we get an

! 4

almost 50% grant. We have been pretty good about using other people’s money to further our goals for the Town.

But I will have to ask you tonight for permission on a couple of things. One is to authorize the Council President, the Clerk/Treasurer, Mr. Isaacs, myself and Mr. Daniel to sign the grant application. And also authorize Council member Brandgard to sign a letter to the Department of Commerce to request early approval to expend funds as opposed to waiting for the grant to come back fully signed. So, I would need Town Council approval for that. Mr. Gutzwiller will make sure we sign everything properly and then he will hand deliver it to the State or get it to the Department of Commerce so that they can get it executed.

Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the infrastructure grant and authorize Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Carlucci, Mr. Isaacs and Mr. Daniel to sign the agreement. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.

Mr. McPhail made a motion to authorize the Council President to sign a letter for authorization to expend funds prior to the receipt of the grant. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.

Mr. Carlucci said at the last Council meeting we approved a contract with Fararr Garvey to do the redesign of that roadway. We were going to hold off until we got the grant application. We didn’t have the application in hand. Now that we do I would ask for permission to have the Town Engineer to authorize Fararr Garvey to begin the actual design of the reconstruction of Reeves Road.

Mr. Brandgard asked, is there consent to issue a notice to proceed? Consent given.

Mr. Carlucci said later in the evening there are two tax abatement resolutions. The first one is for Panattoni Development Company, building two. As you know, Panattoni has an existing distribution center. It is directly north of the Brylane building. They have another lot just south of their existing building on Perry Road and they are on the west side of Perry Road. They have 28.5 acres. They are proposing to construct a 500,000 square foot speculatively warehouse distribution facility. The value of the investment and land and building is estimated at 9.7 million dollars. I just wanted to give you those facts prior to that coming up in the resolution.

The other item I have is Panattoni Development Corporation, if you know where the Fulkerson property is on Stafford Road, on the north side, at one time there was going to be a residential development there. That project they are proposing to construct a 750,820 square foot building on that property. It is expandable to 1,221,380 square feet. It is going to be constructed on 82.4 acres. It is just directly west of the Bridgefield Subdivision. There is a potential company that is going to relocate there. Their board of directors have not given final approval. So, at this point it will remain unnamed. They are going to retain 377 full-time jobs and add an additional 130 jobs. The total investment in land and building is $29,748,921.00. That is a pretty substantial building. The company would like to occupy that building in January. The reason that I bring that up is they are going through the Plan Commission in June for approvals. You may recall that the Fulkerson property had a sewer line that went diagonal through that property. They have to relocate the sewer. If you see some work, it’s not as much as saying we will do what we want out there but it is saying they have to do something but we won’t meet their deadline. We are concerned that the Plan Commission would be upset but we don’t see any choice but to let them try to move some dirt and move that sewer line.

Mr. Kirchoff said no matter what is developed it will probably have to be done anyway.

Mr. Carlucci said that sewer line will have to be done because it is zoned I-2. It is no longer residential. At some point the sewer line is going to have to be moved.

Mr. Belcher said no matter what develops there that line would have to be moved. It is a good chance it will be started before all the approvals are granted. But the sewer would be approved ahead as far as the plans go and that wouldn’t change. The only other thing is, and you may be aware, that they are going to relocate the creek that

! 5

also runs diagonal across there. That is something that they have been working on for a year or better to get the permits in place. So, that also may be going on all at the same time, a lot of earth moving involved with that to create a channel that is, I think, a couple hundred feet wide actually. It has a lot of wetlands planning. It is a unique project. I think it will be quite a good project for the Town too but because of the amount of effort that has to go through there it will have to start soon to meet the schedules that they want to meet.

Mr. Kirchoff said you talked about the main adjacent property owner. Are there any other property owners in the area?

Mr. Belcher said that is one reason we wanted to bring this up tonight. The abutting property owners to the east in the residential area would get noticed on the public hearing coming up in June, if they haven’t already gotten noticed. I think Panattoni was going above and beyond trying to let them know about what was going on there. Drainage is being dealt with as it would have been in the prior approval back when it was Rambling Brook Farms. A lot of the concepts that were approved there by the Plan Commission are also in this project as far as making sure the drainage works. The original primary approval on the Fulkerson Farm was Rambling Brook Farms. So, I don’t think anybody would be surprised. The zoning is already I-2 out there so those homeowners would all have been notified during that.

Mr. Carlucci said they have spent a lot of time and effort on that piece of property with fish and wildlife, the Corps of Engineers, DNR and another federal agency that has to do with relocating the stream. But to the extent of the work that we would allow them to do has to do with the sewer line and relocating that creek and that would be it. There is no reason to let them do anything else prior to the Plan Commission approval. Typically, if somebody already has those approvals, we will give them a foundation release early, if they really need it. But in this case we won’t do that because they don’t have Plan Commission approval for a building yet. But we should know shortly in regards to the company that will be there. It is a company that is already in Central Indiana.

REPORTS

Mr. Fivecoat said I’ve been working with the Hendricks County Solid Waste District along with Mr. Gaddie. We thought we had a private individual going to take over the waste site treatment facility down here. That fell through. Knowing we are going to be building a trail in that area I think maybe we need to start looking at moving that facility. They are running out of space down there because we moved them from the back up towards the front and it is costing the district about $2,300.00 about every two weeks to have that ground up and moved out of there so we can have more people drop off yard waste. So, I think we need to start looking at moving that facility.

Mr. Brandgard asked, do you have any idea what size?

Mr. Fivecoat said not right off hand. I thought I would get with Mr. Castetter and maybe tour some places to see where we have some property we could put it. I know pretty soon they will be coming in with a lease agreement between the Town and the district because we are getting them put together now. I thought we would get this on the table now and start looking. They are running out of room. On Saturdays they are backed up down Vine Street waiting to get in.

Mr. Brandgard said the fact that it is right in the middle of the trail system it was going to have to be moved anyway. I think we need to move on that.

Mr. Castetter said I have an idea for it.

Mr. McPhail said at the recreation center we have instructed the contractor to start the design and move forward on a chiller enclosure. It is moving forward. We have a date set of Wednesday afternoon to do a final punch list. There are still a few minor items that need to be taken care of. All in all I don’t think it will delay any openings but there are a few minor issues of things that we need to get cleaned up.

Mr. Kirchoff said at the last Council meeting I committed that I would get with Staff and get a policy to you and get it drafted for the location and installation of lighted street signs. Other matters have intervened and I haven’t had the opportunity to do that. I will get

! 6

that done and because of some discussions that we are having with Metropolis and street lighting we need to get the street lighting committee together. So, maybe after the meeting we can pick a date for the four of us to meet. I would like Mr. McGillem to come in and share some of the things going on at the Metropolis. Those are the only two items that I had, just meetings that I need to get set up.

Mr. Castetter said I want to thank the Council for allowing me to move forward with the new utility truck. It is going to used for a good purpose for our sewer collection.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Brandgard said I would like to deal with the Wincher Heights sanitary sewers and then we will come back to the reports.

Mr. Fivecoat said I met with Mr. Daniel and Mr. Belcher the other day. We came up with an agreement that we can all live with. We want to be fair to everybody out there. The Council has a copy of the memorandum that Mr. Daniel sent laying out what we have come up with.

Mr. Daniel said all of these properties are obviously within 300 feet of a sewer. Under State law, and because of the letter that we got from the County, the Town believes that they must require all of those properties to become connected. To do that and to enforce that the statute requires that they be given 90 days notice via certified mail. So, part of the reason that you see the timing in the memorandum it relates to making sure we have the 90 days in place, etc. and gives everybody a real opportunity to position themselves to connect. In the event there will be a 90 day notice go out, if this is approved by the Council, then anybody who fails to connect after that 90 day notice expires, the statute gives the Town the authority to go to the Hendricks County courts and require the connection and also requires the property owner to pay the costs and the reasonable attorney fees for the Town in pursuing that connection. Based upon the requirements of notice and to make sure that the Town gets everyone notified that needs to be notified it has been suggested that we engage a title company to do a title search on the remaining properties. We think we know who they are. We will give the title company the information that we have, which we think will expedite things. Then we would suggest that the notice be out prior to July 1, which will give time for the title company to do its work and for the Town to get the notice prepared and sent out, which then would make the 90 day notice expire on September 30, 2005. Which means the property owners by September 30, 2005 would have to agree to connect or be connected one way or the other.

The amount that has been arrived at, based on the calculations, can be paid in three different ways. The amount is $10,464.00. That can be obviously paid in cash. It can be paid in installments. The prior agreement that was used before was a 10-year agreement with 120 payments. It would be suggested that it also be a 10-year, 120 payment installment contract. The only thing that would change that installment amount would be the interest rate that is applied to that. Mr. Belcher put together a table in his report showing the different monthly report that would result starting at two-percent and going to six-percent. You may recall that the earlier agreement had a six-percent fee in it, which was appropriate at the time. Our bonding now is probably somewhat less than six-percent and that is how that was arrived at before. At that time our bonding cost was about six-percent. We had been told that there may be some parcels that are owned by persons that just absolutely cannot either make a cash payment or make the monthly payments. The suggestion was that they provide some reliable information of the hardship that they have in paying that and if that is satisfactory with the Town, we have some ideas along those lines dealing with tax returns. We would ask them to sign a lien that would be applied against their property that would be placed on the property and would only be enforced in the event the ownership of the property is transferred. So, there would be a lien with interest accruing but they would be allowed to connect and not be required to pay either through the installment contract or the cash at this time.

The only other item was the inspection fee. The inspection fee right now is $375.00. The inspection fee when we last contracted, was $25.00. You may recall connection fees are absorbed in the $10,464.00. The thought in mind in trying to make it as even as it can be is it has been suggested that the inspection fee for this project be $25.00 rather than the current $375.00. That is the result of the meetings

! 7

that we had and the proposal and the memorandum. If you have any questions, we would be glad to answer those.

Mr. Kirchoff said the only question that I had was the interest rate in the draft was artificially low. I thought we ought to have some discussion around that. What is our current rate?

Mr. Belcher said I just looked at the current bond issue. The littlest bond issue in 2003 and the interest rate ranges from 3.5% to 4.75% in terms of what our current costs are.

Mr. Kirchoff said I’m not a financier but I ran some numbers and it seems to me in one of our earlier conversations when we took the $7,800.00, if we applied the 6% for the 10 years, that really comes out to almost $14,000.00 at 6% per year. So, the $10,400.00 equates to about a 3.3% reduced rate. So, I think we are reducing our true costs there. I just think to be fair to the other ratepayers in the Town we should not have a subsidized rate but it be something reasonable and comparable to what we are paying. I don’t think we should make money on our interest rate but I don’t think we should lose money.

Mr. Gaddie said I think in the $10,400.00 we already have 6% figured in there.

Mr. Kirchoff said $7,800.00, if we had applied 6% for 10 years, we would have charged $14,000.00. We are only charging $10,400.00. So, the $7,800.00 really has only been added at 3.3% is all we are asking at the $10,400.00 rate. So, we have already reduced the carrying charges once. I’m not opposed to that. I’m very comfortable with the $10,400.00 number. I’m just saying I don’t think we should have a large subsidy as we go forward because we have already subsidized some of the interest.

Mr. McPhail said that’s about half of the interest, about half of the 6% interest.

Mr. Kirchoff said I think we did the right thing there. I think we did it with some of the other fees that we had.

Mr. McPhail asked, what did you say the current bond rates were?

Mr. Isaacs said we are getting about 3.5%-4%.

Mr. Kirchoff said I don’t think we should be making money on this but I also don’t think we should be overly subsidizing. I like the plan. I think it makes sense. I just think we need to be fair to the other ratepayers and not ask them to subsidize it anymore than they already have.

Mr. Fivecoat said our legal counsel found out that we had talked about at one time about a sewer lien against the property, if they didn’t pay. We found out in the State law with the sewer liens once we place a sewer lien on property the next year the taxes come out that sewer lien is on there and they have 90 days to pay it or foreclosure happens. We said we wanted to stay away from that completely. That is the reason that we came up with this lien instead of a sewer lien because it wouldn’t be fair to the people out there because the State law is very specific what a tax lien is on sewers.

Mr. McPhail made a motion to accept the recommendation of the committee to charge $10,464.00 and to offer a 10-year payment on a 4% interest rate and that we extend our offer for a lien agreement for those who are able to proof that they are unable to participate in the program as stated. And that we reduce the inspection fee to $25.00. Second by Mr. Fivecoat.

Mr. Daniel said before we take any action there is one thing I failed to mention. I believe it is in the memo but I failed to mention it. One other thing that we looked at, and Mr. Belcher had talked about the dates of the contracts as far as when they start, it was suggested that all contracts, all payments start January 1, 2006. So, that we don’t have somebody trying to keep track of different commencement dates. In addition that gives the property owner essentially from tonight’s meeting by the time paperwork is finished and the notices go out, etc. to January 1 to get their arrangements made to get their own work done and get connected. That allows a couple more months without any payments.

! 8

Mr. McPhail amended his motion to allow for the contract payments to commence January 1, 2006. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Mr. Gaddie - no. Mr. Fivecoat, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Brandgard – aye. Motion carried.

Mr. Mike Williams at 345 Meadow Lane said I didn’t hear anything in there about is there going to be any kind of penalty if we pay it off early? If we pay on this a couple of months and then come up with the money, do we have to pay for the 10 year in-term or what? There was nothing mentioned about that.

Mr. Daniel said there will be an installment schedule that will be prepared showing how much goes to principal and interest. So, that any time someone wants to pay that off, we had one of those in the last one, if he pays 13 months of 25 months, you can come in and they can tell you what your payoff balance is. That would basically cancel out the interest for the rest of the term.

Mr. Kirchoff said there is no prepayment penalty.

Mr. Daniel said I will start preparing the documents.

Mr. Al Smith at 725 Henley said one thing that I really didn’t grasp for sure in here is you didn’t specifically address the unimproved lots.

Mr. Daniel said no.

Mr. Smith asked, is there still no decision regarding that?

Mr. Fivecoat said what we looked at there is they are not hooked to the sewers. We just left them like they are. They are vacant lots.

Mr. Smith said if it became a building lot then what?

Mr. Fivecoat said they would have to come in and go through the process.

REPORTS

Mr. Ron Lydick said I want to give you a little historical prospective as far as to how our health rates have happened over the last few years. Our claims experience each year by Anthem is judged on February 1st through January 31st. So, starting with February 1st of 2000 to January 31st of 2001 our claims were 89% of the premiums. With the other costs that Anthem has they actually had about a 10% on our account. The next year we really had a bad year in 2002. We had a loss ratio of 102% and then with the other expenses we had a total loss of 20% by Anthem. But one year they gave us an 18.96% increase. The next year they gave us a 28.82% increase. So, I think they got their money back by increasing our premiums. Then in 2003 our claims experiences started coming down. We only had 85% of our premiums that were paid out in claims and they had a loss of 3.5%. But they made a big change in our policy in 2003. They did away with our HMO and went to PPOs and when we did away with the HMOs, they did away with a five million dollar maximum and changed it to a one million maximum. By doing that they were able to hold our rate. In other words they did not increase in the year 2003. In 2004 our claims went down again. They are down to 76.84% of the premium and Anthem, for the first time, actually had a profit of 6.54% on our account. Then this year claims went down again. Our claims are only 68% of the premiums. So, I think this is a testament to our employees as being wise medical consumers by doing a lot of the preventative care and also using the mail-in prescriptions in order to save money. As a result, Anthem had a gain this year of almost 15%. As usual, Anthem likes to come in with a rate increase so we decided to do some shopping around for insurances and Lee Hunt is our insurance broker and he went to five different insurance companies. Two of them refused to give us a quote. They said they were not competitive with what we were paying for our benefits. We got two other quotes and the one that was most viable with M-Plan. I don’t know how familiar each of you are with the M-Plan but it is strictly an HMO. The benefits for the out of network are considerably less. M-Plan came in with a rate that is less than what we are paying now. In fact, based upon the current census of our employees the M-Plan’s annual cost would be about $130,000.00 less than what we are currently paying with Anthem. The employees pay about $28,000.00 of that $130,000.00 and the rest of it is born by the Town. It would be a little over $100,000.00. Anthem knew that we were

! 9

talking to M-Plan and because each time that I communicated with them I said we had not made a decision yet. The Council is kind of ignoring your proposal and that we are seriously considering the M-Plan. I actually wrote a letter to our broker encouraging him to do some work for us. I had a conference last week and when I got to the office on Friday afternoon, I received a letter stating that Anthem will not increase our rate the third year in a row. Even though back in 2001 and 2002 we had a lot of claims we have not had an increase in the last three years. Anthem will not increase our rates and they are not changing the benefits at all. They are not decreasing our benefits. It is the same policy we have right now except it is going to be at the same price as it was this year and last year and the year before.

Mr. McPhail said it was a good job.

Mr. Kirchoff said well done.

Mr. Brandgard said I want to make note that the letter you sent to Mr. Hunt was a very well written letter. It was to the point and I want to make mention of the fact that I appreciate it.

Mr. Carlucci said Mr. Lydick asked me to look at that letter before he sent it. Normally in the Staff we check each other’s letters. I gave it back and said just send it and see what happens.

Mr. Fivecoat said it got some results.

Mr. McPhail said I think it is fair to say that our employees, with our direction, have certainly reduced the cost of health care, reducing those claims and taking care of themselves better and better utilizing the services. It took a little effort but I think Anthem recognized our efforts and I appreciate that.

Mr. Kirchoff said I would agree that it is a yeoman’s job. I read through that and we have had iterations of that and one thing that hit me, and I’m sure you are doing this but I just want to double-check with you, we are down to where we don’t have a lot of options. Is there something that we could be doing, as a customer, to begin to give ourselves more options? It’s like it is Anthem or it is M-Plan. That doesn’t make me feel real good that we can’t seem to have other people interested in our business.

Mr. Lydick said the comments that I have heard is some people are not real fond of self-insured. As you will review these figures, if Anthem loses money one year, the next year the premium is enough to cover the losses from the last year. Back there when we had the 10% loss, they raised our rates 18%. The next year we had a 20% loss and they raised our rates 28%. One thing you can do is to think about doing a self-insured plan. Another option, and it is a relatively new one, and that is the health savings account. That is different than the flexible spending account. The health savings account is a plan where you buy insurance with a high deductible and the minimum deductible is $1,000.00 per year. But then an employee can set aside money to fund that deductible. And, of course, the Town could also contribute to that deductible.

Mr. Kirchoff said the only reason that I’m bringing it up now we are buying ourselves a year here. We are going to take this offer with no increase. We bought ourselves some time where I think we ought to be thinking about other options because it seems like we get down to the wire. We got to the point where we had two choices. In today’s world that doesn’t make me feel very good.

Mr. Brandgard said on the other hand the way that I read what we had the reason that we didn’t is because we are already under what they would charge.

Mr. Lydick said our plan is very rich and lot of insurance companies don’t want to quote on that. I don’t know if you remember but on our prescription plan we have $5.00 for generic; $12.00 for a brand name and $22.00 for the non-formulary drugs. The M-Plan came back with a four-tier drugs. The third-tier that we are paying $22.00 for they want $50.00. When we mail ours in, we can get a 60-day price and 60 days worth of drugs for a 30-day price so we can get 60 days for $22.00. They want $150.00 for a 90-day supply. So, there is a huge difference so I think because of our prescription plan is one reason why a lot of insurance companies don’t want to quote on it because it is so rich and they know it is going to be expensive. I would have to

! 10

look it up but I think a fourth of our total claims are in prescriptions.

Mr. McPhail said one issue that I had several discussions with the chamber members over the last couple of years is this particular issue and the fact that there are so many companies withdrawing from the health care insurance. So, the options are going to continue to be limited.

Mr. Kirchoff said which is all the more reason we need to be thinking down the road.

Mr. Lydick said over a year ago Anthem was said to have about 40% of the business in the State of Indiana. With the M-Plan I don’t know what their percentage is but they would be the two major carriers in the State of Indiana.

Mr. Brandgard said my comment wasn’t disagreeing that we ought to look but I’m just saying that probably the reason we are not getting more is because we are already under what others would charge.

Mr. Kirchoff said three weeks ago we were talking about a $200,000.00 difference and my comment to you was help me justify to the taxpayers why we should pay $200,000.00 more. All I’m saying is it is a job well done but let’s make sure we think about where we may be headed down the road.

Mr. Fivecoat said I’ve been talking with the County Council, Mr. Hursel Disney because we are going through the insurance thing with this board. It looks like the board of Hendricks County Solid Waste is going to be able to hook onto the County’s insurance plan. He said they are willing now to look at bringing towns on too, onto their self-insurance.

Mr. McPhail said just a year ago they took the opposite position.

Mr. Fivecoat said he said that but now they have an insurance board over there that is made up of the employees instead of elected officials. They are taking a broader look at different things so it might be one avenue to look at.

Mr. Carlucci said the only concern that I have always had with self-insurance is if you have two or three catastrophic losses, it drains the system. Not too long ago, as I recall, in the paper they were having some problems over there with their self-insured plan and having to make some adjustments.

Mr. Brandgard said I was going to bring up the same point. It wasn’t that long ago that they were in trouble with it.

Mr. Fivecoat said what they found out was the County itself was paying all of the insurance and the other departments, the highway department, etc. wasn’t paying a dime of it. So, they were trying to make it up all by the County. Mr. Disney said they were slowly but surely getting it turned around where all the departments are paying their fair share of the insurance so they are getting it turned around over there.

Mr. Carlucci said the other problem with trying to match up plans besides self-insurance, of course, we take the view never say never in looking at it, but they don’t have the same benefits that we have here, which is another issue too. If I was the County, I would try to do the same thing because they can spread my risk out to a larger base. The reason that this can get done is because Mr. Lydick understands the insurance and he can talk their language and they can’t pull the wool over his eyes. When he goes into those meetings and he says you did this this year and you did that this year and you did this over here so what is the difference now? He was upset that one day and he brought in that letter and I thought I would read it and that is the letter that I want to send but it is his knowledge that helps. Because if they think you don’t know what you are talking about, they will run over the top and convince you that apples are oranges.

Mr. Prince said I see that Bob Ward Park is later on the agenda. I wanted to discuss that tonight. Maintenance had the pool ready to go about three weeks ago. I wanted Nate to open it on Thursday and he said his labor pool is still be educated down the street here so we

! 11

can’t open it until school gets out. Saturday the pool will open and we will be all ready to go. That is all that I had until later.

Mr. Belcher said as a quick history, and the Council has been involved with this from the beginning, a few years we have been working on the downtown Town Center plan. That has been moved into sort of a streetscape plan along U.S. 40. We have been working on that for at least year and a half. I think it was a wise move in looking at the whole corridor and not just the downtown center. We hired Butler, Fairman and Seufert and they had another firm work with them, actually two other firms to look at, not only the streetscape and downtown, but the buildings and the downtown. And then also as you go out of the downtown of Plainfield, all the way to the Marion/Hendricks County line, which is Plainfield to what we consider the west side right now, Moon Road and Saratoga Parkway where it hits U.S. 40. So, tonight we would like to bring you up-to-speed on how the comments came back from our public meeting on April 21st at the recreation center. The one major change that I didn’t note in my report from our plans that we drafted at that time was one-way streets were proposed on East and Vine south of U.S. 40. That was, to put it lightly, not well received. I think they were polite about it but I think several people didn’t like that idea at all and made it known to us. We went back and changed things. That is why we had the meeting. We really took efforts and a lot of time to try to get people to make comments and sometimes it’s not what you think they like so we change it. I would like to introduce Carl and Alan and give you a summary of the plan. It’s not the whole plan. You have a copy of the whole thing but we would like to seek your approval of this conceptual master plan for the U.S. 40 streetscape.

Mr. Brandgard said I want to thank you for giving us an electronic version rather than a paper version.

Mr. Alan Hamersley said I’m with Butler, Fairman and Seufert. We are the civil engineering firm on the project. Our partners are Rundell Ernstberger Associates, landscape architects represented by Carl Kincaid Axis Architects represented by Kevin Cooper. We would like to go through a summary, a Readers Digest version, of the master plan. We have a schedule starting back in March of 2004. We have had several meetings since then with DNR, a second meeting with INDOT. Basically, we are down at the bottom of the schedule showing we are making a presentation here tonight or the final plan and also you can see that we have had several meetings that were advertised, two specifically public meetings, that provided public input. At that time we showed what we had and asked for opinions and comments and got those and as Mr. Belcher mentioned, the most recent one here was April 21st where we made some major changes to some things that we had in the plan at that time.

This is our overall plan that shows the separate districts from Saratoga Parkway to Raceway Road. We essentially split into the character of each district suburban to the west, historic downtown and historic residential and then the commercial district, which takes the majority of the route.

Our goal was to enhance, not only the pedestrian access and movements, but also traffic enhancements. Very briefly we have some bullet points that shows how we believe we did both changing the lane widths, eliminating parking on U.S. 40 and putting the parking at the rear of the facade and widening sidewalks. And improving the rear faces or suggesting improvements to the rear facades of the buildings to make them a second door to businesses, trail connections along the way, proposed improved street lighting, unifying that street lighting, timing the stoplights to improve, not only pedestrian movements, but also the vehicular movement along U.S. 40.

This is the downtown historic area plan. With that I’m going to hand things over to Carl and let him walk you through the rest of the slides.

Mr. Carl Kincaid said I’m with Rundell Ernstberger Associates. The downtown overall plan covers to White Lick Creek to Avon Avenue. I wanted to point out that the design of the master plan really covered design guidelines, if you will, for the entire corridor. We didn’t break down the entire corridor in a plan for each individual case but we did typical cross-sections and typical plans that could be applied anywhere along the corridor. However, we did focus the majority of our time from Vestal Road to Carr Road, which was the oversight committee

! 12

area in which we felt Phase 1 would initially come out of. We felt time would be well spent in the downtown area. As Mr. Hamersley mentioned, we had a public meeting and originally proposed that East Street become one-way and Vine Street also become one-way. Vine would be one-way south and East would have been one-way north. Due to public comment we felt it was appropriate to not do that to either street. However, we are still proposing parking on both streets at this point as well as along East Street a trail connection to connect to the future Buchanan Street trail onto Dan Jones Road and connecting into Vandalia. This is a slightly enlarged area, again, White Lick Creek. This is the new proposed pedestrian bridge over White Lick Creek making a connection into the new proposed development area. As mentioned, we are proposing wider sidewalks and what we are calling amenity zones in which areas we can put plantings along here with street trees, low shrub plantings in areas which benches and trash receptacles can be placed. This is the increased width at Center Street, which accommodated a turn lane, which currently you don’t have. As Mr. Hamersley mentioned earlier, we had several meetings with INDOT and that is very important because obviously it is controlled by INDOT. We wanted to make sure all the way through this master plan process that we were proposing things that INDOT was going to approve once we get construction documents and get final approval. We didn’t want to propose something that we were going to have to stop and go back and rethink. So, we have done all of the early coordination that could be done to this point, not only with INDOT, but with DNR with the bridge location as well.

As mentioned, Axis Architecture looked at the facades on, not only the front facades, but the rear facades of the north and south from roughly Mill Street to East Street in that area, give or take a block or so. The above is the proposed location of the existing facades that you see below. They looked at it from, not just an historic standpoint, but also an economic standpoint as to what can be done economically to make it as historic as they can without completely blowing people’s budgets. That was the front facade of the north side of the road and the rear facade of the north side of the road. Again, parking facilities at the rear facades. So, just looking simply at cleaning up those rear facades and creating the alleyway that is existing there and making it a pedestrian access point to get to the front doors. We are not suggesting that all of these businesses along here are now going to have to have two doors, a front door and a back door, but suggesting that we give pedestrians access points to the front doors and also dress up the facades where the majority of the parking is going to be. Again, the south side facade and the existing below and then the rear facade of the south side. You can see simply dressing that up with, not only some tree plantings, but vines and really trying to make that attractive as well.

I’m going to briefly talk about Saratoga and Moon Road. This was one of, what we call, the gateway intersections into Plainfield. It is kind of the western border at this point. We are looking at a major pavement change in that area to signify that you are entering someplace different, some place special with median treatment along through here with a potential gateway structure. We have a suggestion of what it possibly might be but again it is a master plan quite a ways from needing refinement. It would be a typical median treatment and this says retail plan but this is also the suburban area as well. Both would fall under kind of the same guideline standards because of the right-of-way width, the access points and all of those features, trying to make something fairly standard that would work for both. And then Raceway Road, being the other anchor point, there would be a potential pavement change. We took a little bit of liberties here and actually relined the roadways potentially making this roadway go on but trying to clean this intersection up a little bit and making that a gateway center treatment itself.

And then we have a phasing plan. The phasing plan is just colors on the map. It is a recommendation at this point. It, obviously, depends on funding but we saw Phase 1 of the construction documents coming out of the downtown area, which is roughly White Lick Creek to SR267 or Avon Avenue with a few key points along the way that would also be Phase 1. We know Moon Road and Saratoga Parkway is under construction documents right now and SR267 or Quaker Boulevard as well as the Ronald Reagan Parkway and we don’t want to miss that opportunity to include some of these design standards within those projects. So, we have indicated those here as part of Phase 1 potentially as well.

! 13

Phase 2, again this was a suggestion, from Saratoga to White Lick Creek, that could be the rest of Vestal to Carr. It just depends on how you want to break that up. The one unique area phasing that we didn’t call out was this area where we have the yellow dots. All the area from Saratoga all the way to SR267 currently has some type of lighting standard, cobra heads mostly. We were looking at a phasing plan to come in with some type of lighting standard that could be put in from SR267 to Raceway Road that could be implemented right now for a lighting standard before doing Phase 3 and 4 or all of 3. So, that was one kind of unique item that we saw could happen separate from the other phase. With that this was a very brief version. We do have a hard copy here of the plan and we would be more than happy to answer any questions that anybody has.

Mr. Fivecoat said I think it is a very good plan. I think we just have to find the money to do it.

Mr. Kirchoff said as I read through it, my question was if we approve something tonight, we are basically approving it conceptually knowing that no dollars are committed. We haven’t necessarily agreed to the phasing as talked about. We basically agree on the conceptual plan and then we go from there.

Mr. Belcher said I felt like it was important to get to a point where we feel like we have the Council’s support of the concept. We can then begin to go to battle with all the things we have to do to get permits and get design documents prepared, etc. that come next. But it is a conceptual plan, almost like a comprehensive plan.

Mr. Richard Beaman with Land Sciences at 113 S. Center Street said for the last 18 months I’ve been chairman of the oversight committee. We have broken into task groups of architectural review and budgets. I just want to take this opportunity to say I want to thank the Town’s Staff and Mr. Carlucci. Mr. Higbee was instrumental in keeping the information flowing from the consultants to us. I would like to thank Mr. Belcher and Mr. McGillem and I don’t think Mr. McPhail missed very many meetings. I know Mr. Fivecoat was at most of our noon meetings throughout the period. It was very nice to share information with these people. The transfer was courteous and their reception of the public comments was very courteous throughout this whole thing. It wasn’t that it was a trying thing but it was a sharing of ideas. What came out of it we are all very pleased with. For instance, the dressing up of the rear entrances of the buildings, that concept is coming right through with the Town’s acquisition of parking at the rear of those buildings. We think that is really going to enhance our downtown and we are really pleased with the outcome and the efforts of everyone involved. This has been both the property owners and the business owners as well as many of the residential people through the area and adjoining the downtown.

Mr. Brandgard said I would like to thank you and your committee for the efforts that you put into it. For 18 months that is a big effort on anybody’s part especially when you are not being compensated for it. When you are being paid for it, it is a little different. To volunteer your time that is greatly appreciated and the results are showing that. Just overall I want to thank you for the efforts that you put into this. I think we have a good plan. As mentioned, we have a plan and now we just have to figure out how to get it implemented. Planning is easy, implementation is hard but we usually find a way to get it done. As Mr. Belcher has asked, do we have consent to move forward with the plan as presented?

Mr. McPhail said I would like to make one additional comment. Mr. Beaman has been 18 months so I think we have been 36 months in total and it is really hard to explain to the general public sometimes the wheels of government move very slowly. It has been an extremely long time for a lot of people but you see the quality of the project that resulted from it. I certainly think we need to move forward and approve the concept.

Mr. Brandgard asked, is there consent? Consent given.

Mr. Belcher said I would like to continue this process by getting your consent to move forward on getting a design concept scoped out for what we like to call Phase 1. You may disagree with this, but I would like to begin to obtain a design concept for Phase 1 being from Vestal Road to Carr Road. That includes some of the downtown, some of the residential areas historically. It also gets us started on some of the

! 14

business a little bit. That is the area that we focused on. There is a lot of development occurring in other areas that we may have to respond to with some of the elements that would be developed through a design contract in the downtown area, the other projects that were mentioned tonight. But with your consent I would like to begin that process and not wait for another meeting to ask that question because it has been a long time to get to this plan of having the plan approved. I think we need to find out what it will take to get the construction documents and I need to bring that information back to you to see if we can fund it and if we can go to that next step.

Mr. Kirchoff said you think Carr Road and not just Avon Avenue.

Mr. Belcher said right. That is what I would like to put in construction document Phase 1 scoping and see what that would take. If we can’t afford that, maybe we can go back down. We could phase the construction and if we can afford the design of that construction, we could always make the construction project smaller to get down to the downtown.

Mr. Kirchoff said I’m with you.

Mr. Brandgard said I would also like to add to that we need to get the street lighting accomplished from Quaker Boulevard east. That is certainly lacking. You can tell it at night out there.

Mr. Carlucci said it did take a long time. We have “x” million dollars of bond issue that was specifically meant to be put in to U.S. 40 east of SR267. We have never had lighting out east so we do have funds available. Shortly our lighting committee is going to meet. I did provide Councilor Fivecoat some more lighting information that I received last week so he has some additional stuff.

Mr. Brandgard said dealing with Mr. Belcher’s question do we have consent to move forward? Consent given.

Mr. Jason Castetter said I wanted a chance to show you our surveillance stuff that we have at the Southwest Waste Water Plant. This is live footage. There are three different cameras out here. Two of them are a globe fixture. I’m trying to clear this up. It is a lens issue. I will show you another night view. This system is recorded to a hard disk. The third camera is a little different. It is capable of recording up to 73 days that I can go and retrieve at any time and copy over anything that I want to retrieve. I can narrow it down to an hour. Today I went out there and got three hours of recorded time. I’m still learning the process. You can see there is a lot you can add to it. There are 24 cameras that we could add to it. The Southwest Waste Water Treatment Plan has one that we can add to this system as well and view all of those at one time. There is a lot of footage. The guys worked hard on getting this one. This is actually a shot on top of the water tower looking down southwest of the building. The capabilities of this is really endless. I’ve heard talks among the Council about the vandalism that we have had in the past over the parks system over the years. I don’t know if this is something that the Council desires to go to that direction but this has that capability.

Mr. Brandgard asked, does anybody monitor this?

Mr. Castetter said it is only monitored by me. I think with the recording devices that we have if we have an event, we can record that event and download it. If the event has taken place at night, we won’t know until the next day. We talked about putting this at dispatch but being new and with the different technology compared to what the police department has at dispatch there is going to be a lot of technical issues that we are going to have to work out. So, as the plan came on line and tried to get this line, we chose this route first. If we add things to it, then maybe that is the direction we need to go.

Mr. Carlucci asked, does this have an alarm system?

Mr. Castetter said no.

Mr. Kirchoff said this may be some technology that we want to incorporate. We met recently with Fararr Garvey and they have given us some plans for our pedestrian underpass for SR267. They are going to wire it such that if we wanted to put surveillance cameras in there, we could.

! 15

Mr. Brandgard said being able to go back and see what happened is very good. If something happens and an alarm goes off and somebody needs to see what happened, I don’t know if that technology is there.

Mr. Castetter said when there is movement going on, it is recorded. If there is an event that happens, I would be able to go back and retrieve that in a three-hour period, I could see what time he showed up for this event and who it was. It narrowed it down and we finally found out who was out there.

Mr. Carlucci said he was supposed to be there.

Mr. Castetter said it was the contractor who was building the water plant but yes it does have some value there.

Mr. Carlucci said maybe this feeds into what Mr. McPhail is working with with Hendricks Regional Health. We are into a wide area network. This could have a great benefit to us because that then could be wired through the wide area network.

Mr. Castetter said the stuff that we copied in the daylight hours we were able to record that and put it on a disk and come back here and download it.

Mr. Bill Castetter said this is the 5th year, fifth month, 19th day. The time down at the bottom is at noon 12:31. That is what is going on there at that point and time. What happened here when we did it earlier in the day with Mr. Castetter, there is a 160-gigabit disk drive on this device that is recording this. So, at any point and time we can go and get data off that disk drive onto a CD. So, we went to that disk drive and pulled up these three hours and we can show up here and at any point and time you can stop this and capture a picture and that is what we did here. I think one thing that is important, for at least me to note here, is that you asked a question about monitoring and as we started to look at dispatch for monitoring, the system inside the police station is a closed system. This is an opened system. It is on our network. So, our task would have been to take a piece of technology that is four years past on our network and bring it down to a closed system, coax like is in your cable in your house verses category five cable, to push this across our network. Anybody with a terminal on our network on this piece of software could look at this whereas verses at the dispatch center you have to be in that closed network to see that. So, rather than trying to mesh those two we talked with Chief Brinker and we thought the best way to go about this was to move forward with this technology because at sometime the dispatch and the police department they will want to move up to this technology. Ms. Holland has difficulty sometimes getting the data off that system so that she can hand it to somebody for use because it is old VHS technology. Here we simplified that by putting it on a hard disk and you can take it off the hard disk and put it on the CD and pretty much do what you want to do with it. I think that is an important thing about the technology and the piece about putting it inside the tunnels if we can get cable to it and get it on our network, it is there for anybody. This one can move the playback controls a lot faster to get a clock going quicker. When you get it stopped here, this is like a camera taking a picture. If I say capture, it actually will ask me where I would like to store that. If I would like to store it on my “C” drive, here is where I can put it. What name would you like to give it and as soon as I do that, it is on my “C” drive. What I did today was stored it on that drive and the next minute I printed it on our colored printer and the next minute I handed it to Mr. Castetter. It was a matter of seconds. There are some more tools here. There are some more tools here. We are just learning about this. It is a pretty thick book but it is awfully good technology.

Mr. Jason Castetter said the camera capabilities there are some stronger out there but for our purpose and our need at this time was to capture the event of people coming and going, who was out there. Not necessarily to catch someone doing a bad act but just to see who is in the plant, who is coming in and out. We have a six-foot chain link fence with barbwire and we have wrought iron fence across the front door. This is just another security issue to see what is happening out there. The capabilities of getting the resolution of the camera cleaner is there. I just chose not to go there with it at this time.

Mr. Bill Castetter said this is a preview of our new home page. Nothing is in concrete yet but we have a couple of pages up. I don’t

! 16

know if you can recall what the old one is but this is pretty much a technology change that we just saw. Obviously, you will be able to click on the parks and be able to go anywhere you want to. When you get to the departments, you will be able to go back and forth where you want. There is an Amber alert. The guys that designed this put that up there. There will be some scrolling areas where messages are scrolled on the front page. We have “today’s events”. I like the “I want to” piece. I don’t know which guy came up with that but being able to put the 10 most “I want to” in there so that a person can click on that and then they may know they want a building permit but they may not know if they are going to go to buildings and permits or if they are going to planning. But if they click on that, that will take them where they want to go. Obviously, the other questions could be answered too. But this is just the first crack of the first page. I think the guys have done a lot of work. I was going to try to bring up the old one and put it next to this but I think you all know what the old one looks like. The old one is pretty much old technology and this is much easier to work with and you will be able to do a lot more things with it. I told you that we have a loose date of November for finishing this and this is one of the first milestones to get this piece put together.

Mr. Prince asked, are you going to have the park’s webpage on there?

Mr. Castetter said not here. All I have are these two pages I’m looking at. This is rather than showing you two pieces of paper. It is not an actual website yet. We actually wanted to show the new projector and the new screen but I didn’t realize that Mr. Belcher had a handle on that already. Hopefully, you can see the clarity here that we didn’t have over here. I don’t think there is a bad seat in the house. I think everybody can read this. That is all that I had. That is where we are heading with the homepage anyway. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them.

Mr. Brandgard said I’m glad to see we are moving forward with the homepage piece. I think we all agree that it has been in need of some help for a while. I think you hit a homerun with the projector and the screen.

Mr. Castetter said I was amazed at the clarity.

Mr. Carlucci said when the post prom was being held, the gentleman across the street brought a lot of computer equipment and games over into the media room. Nate was telling us that the clarity looked a lot better on the big screen and we asked him about that and he said it was a different type of fiber that he was using. I think that message got back to Mr. Castetter and that was what was incorporated here because it was so much better. That gentleman does this all day long. I don’t remember exactly what it was.

Mr. Castetter said it is a component piece of technology that must exist in the projector as well as what you are using to project. In their case the DVD player that they had had that component piece in it as well as the projector so they were able to get that kind of clarity that we had here tonight. We have an old VHS player here that we will replace with a DVD player that will have that component piece. As long as the two both have them, then you can get that clarity and I think that is what you are experiencing. Most of it has it anymore but we have 14-15 months technology here on what the recreation has. As you know, in 14-15 months things change quickly.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. McPhail said earlier in the evening we talked about naming the roadway. I think it is an issue that is not going to go away from us so I’m going to bring it up and make a couple of comments. I’ve tried to give this issue a lot of thought over the last 30 days since we discussed it. I know that my follow councilman’s activity has a real strong position and I’ve tried to weigh that and tried to understand it and the other issues that are involved. I’ve been around Plainfield since 1989, as a citizen, and I couldn’t tell you today who Stafford Road was named after or Carr Road or Vestal Road or any of the others. I think the issue of naming a road after the citizen, unless it is a really well known name like a Washington or a Lincoln, etc., looses that value after a few years. Then I’ve also been listening to the developers and the concern that they have in marketing their project out here. I look at some of the shopping areas that are dying

! 17

around the metropolitan area and I don’t think it is because of the names of the roads but there are some areas that are dying.

The other issue that has concerned me somewhat, and I don’t know if it was the lack of thought on our part, I don’t think there was any intention, but we have let this developer really promote that roadway for a long time. And either consciously or unconsciously bring up the name of the road and it has been on their promotional products for a long time, the name Metropolis Parkway. I just think we need to try to make a decision and move forward. I feel like that we have some responsibility to try to do what we can to try to make sure, from an economic standpoint, that this project is well received. I traveled to Tennessee a week or so ago and looked at roadways and names, as I was driving, and try to look to see if there was anything that indicates things to me. So, I don’t have any real strong feeling personally in how we ought to name a road but I do think we have a responsibility to make a decision on this thing and get it moving rather than dragging it out another meeting. I’m prepared to make a motion to see if I can get a second or a vote one way or the other. I would move that we name the east/west road Metropolis Parkway and move on. Second by Mr. Gaddie.

Mr. Brandgard asked, is there any further discussion?

Mr. Fivecoat said I have given a lot of thought to this and I also have done a survey since the last two weeks. Being a business owner I have quite a few people in my business. I brought this question up to my customers and our Plainfield residents. I gave them a two-part question on this, the first being the naming of the road from SR267 to Perry Road and then from Perry Road to Ronald Reagan Parkway. Should Premier Properties have the naming rights to that road? Everybody that I talked to was, “Are they paying for the road”? That is their first question. I said basically up front they are paying for the road but a TIF district has been set up and then we are going to reimburse them for that roadway, that TIF district. They said at that point no they don’t have the rights to name that road, as far as they are concerned. I didn’t have one person tell me yes on that question. The second part of the question I asked them on the naming of the road I gave them two names, which would they like to see, if they had a choice to name this road? One was Plainfield Parkway and the other one was Stout Parkway. I explained the situation with the Stout’s and their property being on the west end of it and their property being on the east end of it and everything that these people have endured from the County and the process on Ronald Reagan and it was hands down, they wanted to name it Stout Parkway. I’m talking 50 some people.

Mr. Kirchoff said I’ve had a couple of things happen in the last few days that stole my desire not to name it as the motion has been made. I was cleaning up e-mails and I found an e-mail in 2003, two years ago, and this project was called Plainfield Marketplace. Then I drive down Perry Road and I see that building that says One Galyan’s Parkway on it. We have no guarantees that this is going to be a Metropolis project that is going to stay that name one year, two years, five years. I think those two things indicated to me how flexible stuff is out there. Galyan’s had to have that name for that building and we know what happened there. While they were negotiating a buyout they still wanted us to name that road. My mother would tell me the first time shame on them but the second time shame on us. As I said two weeks ago, the mall is not the only destination point on that road. We heard there are apartments, there is a mall, there is going to be commercial, there are going to be office buildings, there is going to be industrial. It comes back to the same thing, they are not building this road. I feel stronger about it than I did two weeks ago. I don’t have strong feelings about what else we would name it. I’m sure they are professional business people but I don’t believe their arguments that it would impact the success of the project.

Mr. Brandgard said I agree with Mr. Kirchoff’s comment relative to the former Galyan’s building out there and the fact that it was called Marketplace and it was changed to Metropolis and things have a propensity to change as owners change. As we learn that even though there is not intent to sale, it happens. The other part is I agree partially with Mr. Fivecoat from the financing side of it but on the other hand the development is creating the funds to pay for it that wouldn’t be there otherwise. We already had some predetermination that we need a road there. So, with the mall we get the road paid for with the TIF out there that wouldn’t happen otherwise, at least at this point and time. So, it is kind of a two-way thing as far as who and how it is being paid.

! 18

Mr. Kirchoff said so when the name changes in two or three years, we are going to change the name of the parkway.

Mr. Brandgard said that is always a probability. At the same time two or three years from now we could change the name of the road ourselves. I will be up front. I understand the thinking on Metropolis, naming the road Metropolis Parkway. I’m not sure I like the name of a road named Metropolis. From a marketing standpoint it makes it easy but I think once a name is there and as far as saying Metropolis, whatever the name of the road is, I don’t think the marketing is much different than if it is called Metropolis Parkway.

Mr. Kirchoff said I don’t know any of the buildings that will be addressed off of Metropolis Parkway anyway.

Mr. Brandgard said I don’t think there are any buildings along there that will be.

Mr. McPhail said I don’t think there is anything currently planned. Certainly, I suppose sometime there will be some along there, maybe not. Maybe all of the addressing will be done by the side roads. I have to be optimistic to think that at least in my lifetime it is not going to change names. It is a huge investment from, not only the developer’s standpoint, but for the community. When we create a TIF district and commit that many dollars up front, we need to be right. There is a lot of excitement in the community about the shopping mall. We need a department store anchor really bad from you folks from Premier for the ladies in our community. They ask me everyday multiple times, when I run into them. The success of this endeavor is really important to the whole economic future of our retail area. You only get one chance at something like this. Castleton has been pretty successful. The Greenwood mall has been pretty successful and has sustained over the years. I look at Washington on the east side and it is dead and I really don’t understand the demographics but I know the demographics around Lafayette Square has changed a lot and that area is dying. We are going to have change in the future. I certainly respect the positions of everyone and understand those positions. But I do feel that if we are going to address this issue, I wish we had addressed it early on from at least my standpoint.

Mr. Kirchoff said it has been several months I have put them on point that they should not be using that name. So, it has not been the last couple of weeks.

Mr. McPhail said I understand that.

Mr. Kirchoff said they were very aware that it was an issue. Mr. Brandgard said hindsight says we should have addressed it. It should have been addressed at the Plan Commission. That is water over the dam.

Mr. Gaddie said I hope the shopping center would survive no matter what we name the parkway but this is a big investment for the developer and the Town of Plainfield. We are putting a lot toward this development and when you look at it now, it looks huge. The other streets in Town we have Gibbs Road, Moon Road and all of these and people now say where did those names come from? The new generation goes by the number and the older generation still uses the name, which this will be in the Town so it won’t be a factor, street name verses numbers. But I’m just looking at it from the standpoint of making this shopping center 100% chance of developing bigger than what the competition around is.

Mr. Brandgard said we have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by aye. Mr. McPhail and Mr. Gaddie – aye. Mr. Fivecoat and Mr. Kirchoff – no. Mr. Brandgard – aye. I understand the arguments but I think on the other hand if we can put things in place to help it a success that is important. I know there are some demographic issues that have to be overcome that are difficult. Motion carried.

Mr. Fivecoat said I will be behind the project 100%. There are certain issues that I took. I still don’t think they have the right but that is fine. I will go by the vote and I will back it.

! 19

Mr. Kirchoff said I spent hours on this so you know that I’m going to.

Mr. Brandgard said maybe we need to look at things differently but when the developer brings his plans in and it goes through the Plan Commission, we don’t name the roads, the developer names the road.

Mr. Kirchoff said and builds them.

Mr. McPhail said I agree with that.

Mr. Kirchoff said I took it personally. I feel like they are kicking dirt in our face when they said they would build the road and then they reneged. I think it is arrogant on their part and I’m offended by that.

Mr. Brandgard said I appreciate those comments.

Mr. Isaacs said I just have a quick comment on the fixed assets. We have met a couple of times and hopefully we will have something in the fall.

Mr. Gaddie said talking about the downtown area what most people are talking about, a turn lane and no parking. I think that ought to be one of our big projects because when you go downtown in the evening, the left turn on Center Street gets backed up two or three blocks. I saw INDOT was doing a core sampling on the bridge this weekend.

Mr. Brandgard said I saw it yesterday. It looked like core sampling to me.

Mr. Carlucci said INDOT is doing that for the White Lick Creek. They were working Sunday too out there.

Mr. Brandgard said they were working on both sides of the street.

Mr. Fivecoat said Friday they were drilling below the bridge. To make a comment on Mr. Gaddie’s comment is there any way we can work with the State to expedite the turn lanes in the downtown and do away with the parking on U.S. 40 without going through our streetscape? I think they would work with us to get that done.

Mr. Brandgard said I think in the past the State has agreed to put a turn lane in if we take the parking off but we had a lot of complaint in taking the parking off.

Mr. Kirchoff said our game plan was to put a whole plan together for downtown and that was including the one-way streets. Now that the one-way streets are gone we need to revisit that and come in with a total package. I don’t want to piecemeal it.

Mr. Brandgard said I don’t want to piecemeal it but if we can help the traffic flow, that might be something that we can do.

Mr. Fivecoat said we can still come through with the streetscape and do the beautification but the turn lanes are already there.

Mr. Kirchoff said I think we addressed the transportation before we get the other done.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. McPhail said I have a request from one of our County commissioners. It was sent to me from Phyllis Palmer. It is a statement of support for the guards and reserve. The County commissioners approved this statement and I would like to read this and recommend that we adopt it. It is a statement of support for the guards and reserves. It says, “We recognize the National Guards and Reserves as the central to the strength of our nation and the wellbeing of our communities. In the highest American tradition the patriotic men and women of the guards and reserves serve voluntarily in an honorable and vital profession. They train to respond to their community and their country in the time of need. They deserve support of every segment of our society. If these volunteer forces are to continue to serve our nation, increased understanding is required of the central roll of the reserves in preserving our national security. Their members must have the cooperation of all American employers in encouraging employee participation in the guards and reserves.

! 20

Therefore, we join employers in pledging that employment will not be denied because of service of the guards or reserves; employee job and career opportunities will not be limited or reduced because of the service in the guards or reserves; employees will be granted leaves of absence for military service in the guards or reserves consistent with laws without the sacrifice of vacation; this agreement and its resulted policies will be made known throughout our organization.” I think that is just reaffirming our position we have taken in the past. They are recording these. It’s a national committee for employer’s support of the guards and reserves. This is sent to us from the Department of Defense.

Mr. Brandgard said I think that is a good statement. As you mentioned, we have already gone past it with what we do here. Is that a resolution?

Mr. Daniel said a resolution is probably as close as you are going to come to give a name to that document.

Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve a resolution for the statement of support for the guards and reserves as has been read. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Motion carried.

Mr. Prince said at the last meeting I passed out this kind of unusual situation that we had run into. We had approved a master plan for a park and through a misunderstanding with Banning I thought we came up with a much better plan. When we looked at the cost of this plan and asked them to go back and check, they assured us that this price, which was significantly cheaper than the engineer’s estimated price on the last plan, it looked so much better that I thought this plan was worth looking at. I asked the Council if you could take some time to look at that plan and we would come back and discuss it tonight. I wonder if you had the time to do that and if you had any questions or comments, we could discuss them.

Mr. McPhail said I think we have set there with vacant land there long enough. We need to start making some improvements. I, obviously, feel that the new plan to me is probably as good and maybe a little better layout than we saw before. I would like to see us move forward, if the funds are available.

Mr. Carlucci said I need to talk with Mr. Prince and how we are going to phase this. If you wouldn’t mind, it might be best if the liaison, Mr. Prince and I and whoever else wants to meet with us, could meet. But I would like to see what the phasing is going to be because I don’t think we can do it all at once. This shows about cost but not necessarily the phasing in how we are going to get there. If the Council wants this this year, we need to know that now so that we can go forward under that assumption.

Mr. Brandgard asked, what was the total cost?

Mr. Carlucci said $157,000.00.

Mr. McPhail said I wouldn’t suggest, if it strains our funding, that we get it all done at once but there are surely some things that we can make some improvements. If it takes a couple of three years to get it done, that doesn’t bother me. If we have the money, I would like to see us get it done.

Mr. Brandgard said looking at it from the standpoint we said we were going to create that ground as park several years ago. I would like to see us get it done this year, if funding allows. But if the funding doesn’t allow it, then come back and tell us what we can get done but we need to do something rather than letting it lay.

Mr. Fivecoat said driving by there it is kind of a disgrace to see that property like that.

Mr. McPhail said it is better than it was.

Mr. Brandgard said but not as good as it could be.

Mr. Fivecoat said everybody knows that is going to be Bob Ward Park and I think we need to do something there. Bring some topsoil in and plant some grass or something.

Mr. Carlucci asked, where is the parking?

! 21

Mr. Prince said the parking would be off of North Street. There is a recessed area for parking. That is going to hold about six or seven cars and the idea was back in the original master plan that this was to be a neighborhood park. We certainly didn’t want to preclude some people from parking there but we didn’t want to see this parallel or diagonal parking around the entire perimeter. But we wanted to give space. The trail is going to go through there as well and you might want to pull off and use that as a trailhead as well.

Mr. Carlucci said the trail will run up East Street to the railroad right-of-way. I don’t know if you need it necessarily as a trailhead because you have Franklin Park as a trailhead.

Mr. Prince said if you were to go to Friendship Gardens Park at “x” hour of the day, you will see that there are six or seven cars parked there. They are using the trail system. This was kind of the same thing. You might pull over for a picnic there or whatnot but we didn’t burden it with parking. Along Ellis Street I have talked with them and we could do the same thing. We could take that in and park a few more cars but I don’t know.

Mr. Carlucci said if you keep it to a minimum, people just won’t park their cars there.

Mr. Brandgard said the intent was for this to be a neighborhood park, which suggests you shouldn’t have a lot of vehicle traffic getting to it.

Mr. Fivecoat said when you start putting a lot of parking spaces, especially in neighborhoods like around that area, they are going to use it for private parking.

Mr. Carlucci said it is also nice for a neighborhood park because, not only will it be a neighborhood park, but the trail people can rest and take a break there. There will be a water fountain somewhere and then they can move on. It may seem close to Franklin but if you are coming all the way down Vandalia from U.S. 40, you will be looking for a break there pretty soon.

Mr. McPhail asked, how are we going to get to Franklin?

Mr. Carlucci said we are going to come out of Franklin by putting covering that ditch. We are going to put pipe in there and put the trail on top of it. It gets them off the roadway. We will take those abutments out on Mill and Center. Those will come up so we will dress that up nicely as we come through there.

Mr. Fivecoat said I talked to the compliance officer the other day and had her to go in that area. I was driving in that area and that is looking pretty bad. There was one house that I told her about with an old car sitting on blocks. It had trash stacked up as high as the top of it and the porch was stacked with trash. So, I had her go up in that area and do some work. It is starting to look real shabby and that is right around the corner from the park.

Mr. Carlucci said if you want to do it now and try to do it this year and we can find the funding and come up with some phasing and keep the parking to a minimum, we will bring something back to you as soon as we can.

Mr. Fivecoat asked, have we come up with a date for a work session for the parks?

Mr. Carlucci said we will get you some dates. I will send some out via e-mail.

Mr. Brandgard said I think we want to get by the Splash Island opening. Mr. Prince was beginning to squirm a little bit trying to do it all.

Mr. Prince said with the opening of Splash Island I was thinking near the end of June but certainly before we start thinking about the budget. We have that window in there. It will be budget time before we know it and I thought about hitting it in the middle. When we get Splash Island up and running for a couple of weeks and between that period and the end of June and the start of July, we can offer you some

! 22

dates and maybe put it together then, if that would be okay with everybody.

Mr. Brandgard said it’s not that we think you will forget it. We just want to make sure you don’t forget it.

Mr. Carlucci said the reason that we couldn’t have it was Mr. Prince had a conflict he wasn’t counting on that night and I was at the Spring Leadership Conference that IACT had. It just looked bad at that point.

RESOLUTIONS

Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2005-11: Becton Dickinson Company Confirmatory Resolution for 10-year real property tax abatement. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.

Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Fivecoat – yes Mr. Gaddie – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2005-12: Additional Appropriation Town Road Fund. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Roll call vote called.

Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Fivecoat – yes Mr. Gaddie – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Fivecoat made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2005-13: Duke/Brunswick Park Annexation Fiscal Plan. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.

Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Fivecoat – yes Mr. Gaddie – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2005-14: Panattoni Building #2 Real Property Tax Abatement. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.

Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Fivecoat – yes Mr. Gaddie – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Fivecoat made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2005-15: Panattoni/Fulkerson Real Property Tax Abatement. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.

Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Fivecoat – yes Mr. Gaddie – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

ORDINANCES

! 23

Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 33-2005 on its third reading and adoption. An ordinance for the Duke/Brunswick Park annexation. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.

Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Fivecoat – yes Mr. Gaddie – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. McPhail made a motion to waive the rules to allow for the third reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 34-2005: Duke Rezoning to I-1, Office Research District and I-3, Office Warehouse/Distribution District and No. 35-2005: BW Partners, LLC from R-4, Medium-Density Residential to OD, Office District. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.

Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Fivecoat – yes Mr. Gaddie – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 34-2005 on its third reading and adoption. An ordinance for the Duke Rezoning to I-1, Office Research District and I-3, Office Warehouse Distribution District on its third and final reading. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.

Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Fivecoat – yes Mr. Gaddie – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 35-2005 on its third reading and adoption. An ordinance for the BW Partners, LLC from R-4, Medium-Density Residential to OD, Office District. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Roll call vote called.

Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Fivecoat – yes Mr. Gaddie – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to sign the necessary documents and adjourn. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned.

______________________________________ Mr. Robin G. Brandgard, President

! 24