TOWN OF PLAINFIELD TOWN COUNCIL. April 25, 2005

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD TOWN COUNCIL April 25, 2005 The Plainfield Town Council met on Monday, April 25, 2005. In attendance were Mr. Gaddie, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Fivecoat, Mr. McPhail and Mr. Kirchoff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Brandgard said we have a bid opening tonight. If anyone has failed to turn in their bid, this is the last opportunity. With no one coming forward the last opportunity is closed. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the minutes of the regularly scheduled Town Council meeting of Monday, April 11, 2005. 2. Approval to recycle and/or dispose of, by the least cost method, the following laptop computers per the IT Director s Report dated April 25, 2005: Toshiba Satellite 4090x Toshiba Satellite 4090x Toshiba Satellite 4090x Toshiba Satellite 4090x Toshiba Satellite 4090x Toshiba Satellite 4090x Toshiba Satellite 4090x Toshiba Satellite 4090x Z9329529U Z9330393U Z9329130U Z9329901U Z9332973U Z9329816U Z9330586U Z9329967U 3. Approval of IT Director s Report dated April 25, 2005, Human Resources Director s Report dated April 22, 2005; Transportation Director s Report dated April 23, 2005; Utility Director s Report dated April 25, 2005 and the Town Engineer s Report dated April 23, 2005. 4. Approval of Second Readings of Ordinance No. 31-2005: Denison Partners Rezoning to OD, Office District and GC, General Commercial; Ordinance No. 32-2005: Town Center Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Ordinance No. 33-2005: Brunswick Park Annexation. 5. Approval of Change Order #2 to contract with Calumet Asphalt Paving in the amount of $18,674.93 for final adjustments of project quantities and resolution of utility conflicts for the Stanley Road Widening Project per the Town Engineer s Report dated April 23, 2005. 6. Approval to release construction retainage to Calumet Asphalt Paving in the amount of $20,459.20 for the Stanley Road Widening Project per the Town Engineer s Report dated April 23, 2005. 7. Approval to advertise for bid the following projects to be opened at a special Town Council meeting on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. per the Transportation Director s Report dated April 23, 2005: Reconstruction of Clarks Creek Road south of U.S. 40 and signal installation. Relocation of traffic signals at Hadley Road and Cambridge Way intersection, additional travel lanes on Hadley Road, and reconstruction of Clarks Creek Road connecting to Cambridge Way just north of the Holiday Inn Express. Metropolis Lifestyle Center construction of new east/ west road from Perry Road to just west of the new north/ south connecting street to Gladden Road and traffic signal at Perry Road. Reeves Road north around new Plainfield High School to SR267 and Red Pride Drive. 8. Approval of the following consultant agreements for the Plainfield High School project per the Transportation Director s Report dated April 23, 2005: Edwards and Kelcy Agreement for Reeves Road around the north side of the new high school to SR267 and Red Pride Drive not to exceed $333,700.00.! 1

Banning Engineering Agreement for Reeves Road from the new high school to Center Street not to exceed $108,000.00 Butler, Fairman and Seufert, Inc. Agreement for Hadley Road from Clarks Creek Bridge to Center Street not to exceed $160,500.00. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Second by Mr. Fivecoat. Motion carried. BID AWARD: Stafford Road Water Main Extension (Materials Only) Mr. Belcher said this particular bid was taken at the Public Works Department. Mainly the reason that we did that there instead of a meeting like this is because it is for materials only on water main. We were not sure the validity of water main prices whether this would even exceed the $75,000.00 dollar requirement. We opened it there and wanted to make it official by bringing it here to you and recommending an award. These three suppliers have typically bid all of our supply projects when we have gone out for major material purchases. I don t think there is any question about the bid and they had no problems with it but I wanted to bring it for formal approval in front of the board. My recommendation would be Hughes Supply with the low bid of $64,329.07 be awarded for the Stafford Road water main extension. It is approximately east of the Airtech Boulevard. Mr. Fivecoat made a motion to award the Stafford Road Water Main Extension, for materials only, to Hughes Supply in the amount of $64,329.07. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried. BID OPENING: Clarks Creek Interceptor Sewer, Phase 4 Mr. Brandgard said the first bid is from Eagle Valley, Indianapolis. Mr. Daniel said the Eagle Valley bid is in proper form. Mr. Brandgard said the base bid submitted by Eagle Valley is $529,325.00. The alternate bid is $249,296.00. The second bid is submitted by Atlas Excavating, Inc., West Lafayette. Mr. Daniel said the Atlas Excavating bid is in proper form. Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the base bid submitted by Atlas Excavating is $567,959.00. The total amount of the alternate bid is $238,516.00. The third bid is submitted by Fleetwood Contracting Corporation, Indianapolis. Mr. Daniel said the Fleetwood Contracting Corporation bid is in proper form. Mr. Brandgard said the total amount of the base bid submitted by Fleetwood Contracting Corporation is $760,834.00. The total amount of the alternate bid is $287,476.00. The fourth bid is submitted by Central Engineering and Construction Associates, Greenfield, Indiana. Mr. Daniel said the Central Engineering and Construction Associates on the financial statement on the signature page dealing with the financial statement the representative and the president of the company notarized the affidavit of the corporation but failed to sign the top part of this. Other than that the bid is in proper form. They have a notary but they just missed the signature on the top of that page. Mr. Brandgard said I believe when we have had this happen before we have accepted the bid but required the submitter to sign it the next day. Is there consent? Consent given. The total amount of the bid submitted by Central Engineering for the base bid is $543,298.00. The total amount of the alternate bid is $212,449.00.! 2

The engineer s estimate for the bid submitted this evening, the base bid, was $751,000.00. The engineer s estimate for the alternate bid was $206,000.00. I would like to appoint a bid review committee of Council member Fivecoat, Town Engineer, Mr. Tim Belcher and Cecil Whitaker to review the bids and bring it back at the next meeting, if possible, with a selection. I would like to thank those who took the time to submit a bid. It is appreciated and I think we all appreciate the fact that they were all submitted in the proper form. The opening went smoothly and quickly, as they should. Thank you. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR Ms. Pat Stout said I live at 3714 S. CR1050E, Indianapolis, better known as Six Points Road. I don t have any business and I m not here to complain. On behalf of Knoll and myself I would like to take time to thank the members of the Town Council; Mr. Belcher; Mr. McGillem; Mr. Castetter and his crew; Chief Brinker and the Plainfield policemen that have been chasing people off the closed road out there. Thank s so much. Now we can live and get in and out. We have traffic but not anything like we did. When they opened that interchange down there, it wasn t safe for us to go to the mailbox and get our mail and it is on our side of the road, we didn t have to cross the road. One morning I sat at the breakfast table and our new house is opened all the way through and I can look out the front window. I counted 109 cars and five semis in 15 minutes. That is why I came in and said somebody has to do something about that road. Now we have very little traffic. Someone closed it totally over the weekend and that really helped because so many people had to turn around and go back. When it came time to go to work on Monday morning, they didn t try it. There are people who went through the wheat field and there are people if they had to go through the field all the way from Stafford and U.S. 40, they would do that because they don t know the meaning of the word local. They think it says, local only, no through traffic. If I can get on this road and get through, I m local but it is good now and we do appreciate it and we do want to thank all of you. Mr. Brandgard said we certainly appreciate your comments and we are glad that we were able to correct the problem. Now we need to keep it corrected. I know that we are out there watching. Mr. Don Roby at 229 Wabash, Plainfield said I m in here again about the Quaker Day Parade. This will be 26 years. It is scheduled for Saturday, September 10. We are having a little problem at Cinergy this year with security and the sale of the eastern part of the property so I m not sure how that is going to work out yet. We may have to find an alternate route but we need to nail down that date so that I can proceed. Maybe Mr. Kirchoff can work with me and see what we can get done. If that doesn t work out, I will get with Mr. Carlucci and the chief and work on an alternate. Mr. Brandgard asked, is there consent on the September 10 th date? Consent given. Mr. Roby said I ve lived on Wabash Street 28 years and I don t remember, I could be wrong, it ever having been repaved. With the cars going up and down the street and the rain the gravel comes down into our sidewalks and yards. I m constantly sweeping it back out. So, if somebody in Town could look into working on the street, it would be appreciated. The Town has been very nice in working on the alley. They spent more time and money putting gravel in that alley that by the time the trucks get out the opposite end the holes are back. I know you are working on paving some alleys and this one is pretty bad. You have spent enough time and labor and materials that you could have paved it a couple of times in the 28 years we have been there. I would appreciate somebody looking at the best that they can do. Mr. Brandgard said Mr. Castetter and Mr. Belcher can take a look at that and see what we can do when we put our yearly road list together. Before you get away I want to congratulate you for sticking with it for another year. I heard some pretty strong rumors that last year was the last for you. Mr. Roby said I said 15 and then 20 and then 25. keep going until I can t go. I guess I will Mr. Brandgard said we certainly appreciate your efforts.! 3

Mr. Bruce Felix at 233 Meadow Lane said I m here with several other residents of that neighborhood over a letter that we received on April 8 th concerning our mandatory connection to the sewer system. I know I don t represent everybody but I think I can generally speak in reference to some of what is going on in the Vestal Road/Meadow Lane area in the past 10 years. Back in 1994 when the Town of Plainfield started that project, the Hendricks County Health Department was involved in testing our homes. At that point and time many of the homes totally passed and they could remain on the septic system if they opted to and if we didn t have problems at that point and time, if the systems did not fail. Now 10 years later, according to this letter that we received, Plainfield is claiming that Hendricks County and the Town of Plainfield are claiming contamination and they are wanting a 100% compliance with that participation. A lot of us are here tonight to speak about finding out some of the do s and don ts where this all came about because January in 1994 concerning Ordinance No. 494 Mr. Belcher, in the notes that I pulled at the Town meetings, said when they want to hookup and Mr. Daniel stated whether or not they want to hook up, all of these words 10 years ago showed things that were optional. In your Town Council meeting of February 1994 Mr. Daniel again said, Those who do not have problems do not have to hookup. Some of us are still concerned because we do not have problems. No one has come to us in 10 years to point out that there is an issue that my home is a risk or anybody else to the left/right/front/or behind me is a risk. Like many homeowners here we are not objecting to having our homes tested, our septics, our sewers, whatever to find out where the problem is that everyone seems to be pointing to. To the one side of Vestal I guess we want to know why was the letter stating so strongly that we have 45 days to hookup and then everybody was going to march down happily on August 1 and pay roughly $10,400.00, another number which nobody has ever been able to substantiate to this crowd that I know of. I guess we are looking for some answers tonight, if we can get it. In the conversation I had with Mr. Belcher, not too long ago in the past two weeks, I was told that it could run as much as $10,000.00- $15,000.00 per household to test. Again, I could not find anybody that could ever come back to me and substantiate anything, County, State or anywhere else that the figure was right or that there was a quick test or a long positive test that was going to rout out what one home or homes was causing this issue. I went back to our letters in 1995 that the Town put out. It had nice words like, If you decide, if you elect, you may elect. If I had known 10 years ago, as the 10 years approached, I was going to be forced to hook on, trust me gentlemen I probably would have paid 10 years to hook on. I probably would have said, I m going to have to bite the bullet and 33 other homeowners are going to have to bite the bullet and we will all jump on board. But again, like I said, the letters, the ordinance, the meetings I ve never seen anything that said I was going to ever hook onto until my system failed. I ve had my septic tank pumped three times in that 10 years, once when you were putting the sewers in, never have I had a problem, never have I had a sink that backed up, a toilet that backed up. Even my septic guy has said that he has come out and wasted part of his time by pumping it. I live in the newer section. I don t know if that is a good thing or a bad thing but again in your Ordinance No. 494 it stated 11 times in that ordinance, You may elect or whosoever desires. Never did it mention mandatory compliance 10 years later. We have elderly people in our neighborhood on fixed incomes. We have young couples that you see behind me who recently purchased the home. These were issues that were never brought to them in closing even. So, I don t know where we missed that boat but how can we go back to some of these people that have just moved in? I was there so, like I said, if I had known, I would have signed up too but how can we go back to somebody who has just moved in in the last two years and say, You are going to pay 10 years for a sewer system that you never had. Maybe we can do that but I guess what they are going to be looking for is answers in how that is going to happen to them. How we are going to hookup in less than a month and then we are going to come down here August 1 st and everybody is going to pay. I guess my concern is is the Town concerned enough about some of the other people as to how we are going to come up with the hookup, which is going to range anywhere from I ve been told $2,000.00 to $5,000.00 just to hookup. And again the issue of $10,000.00, or whatever it becomes, at the point and time. I guess the other thing is I have questions about whether the Town is going to guarantee us that if we get a 100% compliance, is this going to solve the problem? That is one of my issues. Supposedly two to three years ago the County came to the Town and said we have a! 4

problem. Nobody in my neighborhood that I can relate to, and I ve got quite a few behind me here, remembers seeing a letter that says, Seven years into this sewer system we have an issue. The clock is ticking. Never once did we see that. I guess what I m looking for is, is the Town going to give me some sort of guarantee or warranty or something if I hookup and 100%, 33 homeowners hookup, this problem is going to go away. Hopefully, you will address this issue tonight and let us know. Another question that was brought up was is this considered the Barrett Law where we are going to force 100% compliance? Mr. Daniel said the only Barrett Law project with the Town was Eldenwood. They did a Barrett project down there and they used the Barrett Law for that. The project law here was not a Barrett Law project at this point. Mr. Felix asked, can someone at some point and time give us a figure of what that number is going to be August 1 st if it does come to pass that we are going to be forced 100% compliance of the 33 homeowners? If so, how are we going to force 100% out of 33 homeowners when people sitting behind me can t figure out how to pay their bills now? You are talking about another $15,000.00-$18,000.00 per household. I also saw a couple of other things in the original, the connection fee and availability fee. Are those still in affect? So, there is another $1,000.00? Mr. Daniel said I don t know what Mr. Belcher has communicated with you as far as how his calculation is done or what the Town has communicated on that as far as connection fees. Mr. Brandgard said I wanted to address one of your issues. The Town still says it is not going to force everyone onto the system if they don t need it. The problem we have is the Department of Health has told us there are problems in that area and that we are to take immediate steps to require the connection of all residents in these areas to the available sanitary sewer. That is what is driving this. It is not because we are out there trying to get everyone to hook on. It is the Board of Health that is telling us that we have to do this. That is what is driving it. That letter was given to us a year ago. Mr. Felix said as far as the comment that you just made when you said the Board of Health, I talked to the Indiana Board of Health, the Hendricks County Board of Health and basically what they are saying is they passed it down through the chain of command to Plainfield. Basically what the County told me was it was your responsibility to either enforce it or not enforce it but they could not tell me if the problem, other than yes there is raw sewage and there is a smell on the east side of Vestal, but again they couldn t say it was 33 homeowners or one homeowner. Basically, what the young lady told me it was no longer their problem. Two or three years ago they basically washed their hands and handed it off to Plainfield. I could be wrong but that is what I was told. Mr. Brandgard said they did when they wrote this letter. put the responsibility on the Town. They Mr. Felix said that is what I was told but he said it could be one homeowner. We could be chasing this for one homeowner. That is why I kept trying to find out if there was a testing method to test each and every household like they did 10 years ago when they actually installed the sewer systems. At that point and time he said you are either good to go or you had to hookup, one or the other. Mr. Brandgard said again the Board of Health does that, we don t. So, they have taken care of the testing problem by coming to us and telling us to require everybody to hookup. Mr. Felix asked, is there not a test at this point and time short of just saying hookup? Mr. Brandgard said I would assume the same test that they ran 10 years ago can be run again. Mr. Belcher said I don t know what tests are available. That question came up. If there are 33 homes out there and you test 33 homes and you had to test them every year or every month, you could get into money like that. I had several people ask me that and my response was we wouldn t be able to give you a clearance anyway. The decision! 5

for that clearance would come from the Hendricks County Health Department and they have already told us that they want everybody to connect. It seems like it would be money wasted if you had your system tested and they said we want you to hookup anyway. That was what I was trying to get at. It seemed like that decision had been made. We know that there is a problem there. The other issue of the 45 days and the financial side I saw that as two separate issues. I felt like the Council could work with people on the timing and the financial side of it. How can we solve the needs of the community financially and otherwise? There are many people who don t have the financial needs right now apparently to do this. That is the issue of the August payment and the $11,000.00. The $11,000.00 figure can be calculated exactly. It is something our controller could tell you. I can t tell you because I could be wrong. Basically, it is the back payment of the nine years and the payoff amount. The connection fees are already in there. There is no other fee left other than the $25.00 fee. All the calls I had were broke down to two issues, some said I can t get it done by May 30 th. I told them to state that in a letter and I would go to the Council and address it because I didn t think it would be a problem if they were making a good faith effort. The next issue was I can t come up with that money by August so I told them to tell me the same thing in the letter and I will come to the Council and see if there are other solutions for that problem too. Ultimately, what we are trying to do is solve the sewage problem because in a nice area like that that problem should not exist. Even if they kept their septics today, two years from now they may fail, a year from now they may fail. Those are the kind of problems, if we don t get everybody connected, that we will continue to have this problem. I think that is why the Council came to the conclusion several months ago, when we came to this decision to send this letter, that is the first problem and biggest problem to solve. Seventy people have connected voluntarily. I don t know if there is a method of testing. Some lots are big and some are small and again we don t do septic permits in the Town of Plainfield. The Health Department does all of those so it would be their call. If they gave a clearance on a septic, I would be very shocked but I can t speak for them. There was not the intent to scare anyone or threaten anybody with that letter. That is what we are trying not to do but it is a serious problem and we need to get the people headed in the direction of connecting. Mr. Brandgard said Mr. Belcher said it very well. Again, we have a good history, from the Council s standpoint, of working with people to get things accomplished that is good for everybody. We have to look at it on an individual basis and not a group basis. As Mr. Belcher said, if you can or if you can t do it or if you can t afford to do it, we need to know that and then we will try to come up with a method to help. Mr. Belcher talked about the back charges and that is interest. As I recall, when we did that 10 years ago, we were up front saying that those who didn t hook on today are going to have that same cost plus interest that builds up over the years. That is how that number gets there. Ms. Tina (inaudible) said I live at 730 Hanna St. What about the people who didn t live there 10 years ago? Is it fair to penalize us? Mr. Brandgard said the issue goes with the house. Ms. Tina (inaudible) said I have four kids and I can t afford it. I think if you want us to hookup, you should draw us a brand new contract, start at ground zero. Mr. Brandgard asked, how is that fair to the 70 some people that paid up front to do it? Ms. Tina (inaudible) said that s what I m saying. A lot of people aren t paying a $1,000.00 house payment and raising four kids. I don t know about any of these other people but some are older people who are on fixed incomes. Mr. Brandgard said we understand that and that is why we said tonight to let us know where you are at and we will see what we can do. Ms. Tina (inaudible) said I also have another concern. I called quite a few years ago and inquired about hooking up to City sewer or even updating my septic system. I was told from the sewer company here that we weren t allowed to do that because the Town of Plainfield will! 6

not allow it. They never once said anything about the Board of Health. Why is that? Mr. Brandgard asked, to allow septic systems? Ms. Tina (inaudible) said yes to have it updated like if I wanted to put in a new one. I was just kind of curious because we inquired about it about four or five years ago. Mr. Belcher said I can tell you probably what was said. Typically, you would go to the County to get a permit to upgrade your septic and if you had a sewer in front of your house, they would not give you a permit to do that. That is probably what they said. Again, the County would still have the call on that. But I have never seen them issue a septic repair permit when you have a sewer available. Ms. Tina (inaudible) said they just told me that the Town of Plainfield wouldn t allow it. They never once said that it had to be approved by the Board of Health. Mr. Belcher said we don t issue any septic permits in the Town. Mr. McPhail said for a number of years I was the Councilman responsible for the sewer department. Mr. Fivecoat now has that responsibility but I have been involved with this particular area for a number of years. There has been exhausted testing by the Health Department. They have been out several times and they have tested. I believe we had two that we forced to hook on and those were done by the sale of the property and that type of thing. I believe in that time period we still have a problem. I have no idea where it is coming from but the Board of Health has said that they are done. We have sewers there. We are not going to come and test anymore and they said this letter said we had to hook them up. There is a problem there. It is a health problem. It is a health problem for all of you. I don t know who is causing it but we need to get it corrected. We have a history of septic tanks and septic systems failing over the years. I think that is why we have a law today that says if there is a sewer close enough for you and you have a problem, you have to hookup. The Board of Health has put it back into our lap and I think it is imperative that we get all of the homes hooked up. I agree if you have individuals that have specific problems, I think we need to look at that and see if we can work something out. But I think for the health of our whole community we need to get all of you hooked up. You may have a septic system that will work for the next 100 years but the odds are it is going to fail pretty quickly if it hasn t already. Mr. Mike Williams at 345 Meadow Lane asked, can the Town charge us a sewer charge as of right now on our monthly water and sewer bill? Mr. Kirchoff asked, do you mean if you are still on septic? Mr. Williams said yes. Mr. Williams said I know back January 4, 2000 me and my wife bought our house. Ever since day one we have been charged a sewer charge. We knew that there was a sewer assessment on our property. That was all that was said. Being a first time homebuyer we didn t know anything different. We thought it was part of the sewer assessment. Where is all that money at that we paid in? Mr. Fivecoat asked, do you have a septic system? Mr. Williams said I have a septic system. Mr. Fivecoat asked, are you hooked to the City sewers? Mr. Williams said I m not hooked up to the City sewers. Mr. Fivecoat asked, are you being billed monthly? Mr. Williams said I ve been being billed monthly. And I have been billed from day one and I have all of my bills at home from day one showing that. Mr. McPhail said we need to fix that. Mr. Belcher said I offered, if there has been payment on a sewer bill that shouldn t have been paid, that we would be able to credit! 7

that to the connection charge, if that was the case. I haven t had time to get back and verify what he has told us. I believe what he is saying can happen but if that happened, that seems to be the logical way to apply the funds toward connection if he is already not connected. Mr. McPhail asked, did you buy the house in 2000? Mr. Williams said I bought the house in 2000. Mr. McPhail said I would assume the previous owner had the same. Mr. Williams said I don t know if the previous owner was paying it or not. Mr. McPhail said it sounds odd. Mr. Williams said from day one we have been paying a sewer bill. Mr. Kirchoff said we can go back and research that. Mr. Gaddie asked, does that include the trash pickup? Mr. Williams said it has everything. tonight. I didn t bring one with me Mr. McPhail asked, do you have water? Mr. Williams said we have City water and we are on a septic system but yet from day one that we bought our house we have had a sewer bill. I called a couple of times and could never get any answers out of anybody why we were getting that sewer charge on there but yet we have been getting it from day one. We assumed it was this sewer assessment that was on it. Being a first time homebuyer we didn t know any different. Mr. Kirchoff asked, was it the same amount every month or did it fluctuate? Mr. Williams said I think it fluctuates. amount of water usage. It depends on the Mr. Brandgard said at this point all I can do is apologize for you getting that bill. I would have to say a few months ago we went through and forgave some billings that weren t made over the years too where people should have been paying it but due to errors in the billing system they weren t charged for it. Again, we will get that corrected and make it good for you either way, if it is wrong. Mr. Williams said from this point forward how are we going to know exactly what the fee is that we are going to be charged for this sewer? Mr. Brandgard asked, the monthly fee? Mr. Williams said yes, putting the pipe in the street out there. Is it going to be different for every homeowner in the addition or is it going to be the same fee for everybody? Mr. Carlucci said the original contract was that you could have when it originally started nine years ago you could have paid it off all at once. A lot of people did that. A lot of people wanted to pay like you would for a car payment, the same amount every month. Mr. Belcher said it was $87.20. Mr. Carlucci said it was a monthly payment that had interest in it. That was going on for 10 years when it was paid off. I think what Mr. Belcher might have done is taken that $87.20 and to come up with that larger number that was in the letter there was an interest charge in there, I think it was a 6% interest charge, that was on top of the sewer bill and that was the monthly bill. That was an additional amount paid every month. A lot of times we have had people say I don t want to keep paying that or they want to pay it off or somebody would come on later and say four years ago I had a chance to get on and I didn t. They had to pay all of the previous, plus the interest and catch up, a catch up clause, and then they could start from there or they could pay the whole thing off. They still had the 6% interest for! 8

the years that they did not pay. I haven t checked with a lawyer but it could start new contracts with these people and go 10 years. The issue is getting them hooked up, which is the most important because it is a health issue. You would still pay what everybody else paid. If there are people that $87.20 a month is going to be a burden, there may be a way to put a lien on the property so that if the property is ever sold, that money comes due to the Town for the full amount. There are ways to work around this but we need to get the people hooked up and then start a contract for another 10 years for these 33 people. I don t see why we couldn t do that. They wouldn t be paying less than what the other people paid. They would be at least paying the same on a monthly basis. Mr. Williams said right now you are actually penalizing me and my wife. There are others in the neighborhood that have bought these houses and they were either told that there was a sewer assessment or wasn t told anything at all. So, you are actually penalizing us for something that we really didn t know anything about. Mr. Carlucci said the real estate people are required to divulge the fact that the assessment is out there. Mr. Williams said they told us that there was a sewer assessment on the property. That was it. They didn t tell us anything else about it. They didn t show us any paperwork on it or anything so we didn t know anything about it. We didn t know of any fees that would be involved or anything. So, if you don t give us a new contract, you are actually penalizing us for it because it isn t our fault that they didn t hook on 10 years ago. I m not opposed to hooking onto City sewer. I ve got the money to put the pipe in the ground right now. If I started a new contract today for 10 years, I m fine with that but paying this full back amount, whatever it might be $6,000.00-$15,000.00 a lot of us can t do it. We go month to month right now the way that it stands. Mr. Carlucci said that is why we are exploring these alternatives here so that you don t have to do that. Mr. Williams said I understand that but if you don t do that, there is no way a lot of people can do it and a lot of people are going to have to lose their houses because they can t afford to do it. I can t refinance my house again to pay this lump sum. I have tried everything that I can since I got that letter to come up with this money and there is no way that we can do it. We have the money to put the pipe in the ground but other than that that is it. We can t come up with anymore cash to do any of that. So, you have to come up with some way for the people who didn t buy their homes 10 years ago and knew about this sewer thing. We have to have something and not penalize the people like myself and a few others back here that have just recently bought their homes within the last 10 years that really didn t know anything about it. Mr. Gaddie said I think you are sincere on that because title insurance covers a lot of other things but it doesn t cover anything like that. Mr. Daniel said I don t know whether the title company would pick that up or not. The realtor of the title company, one of the two or both, when those homes are sold should tell the buyer that there is a sewer issue there. From that standpoint the Town is not trying to penalize anybody, it s lack of information from the title company or the realtor that is selling the house. Obviously, it is unfortunate that the word didn t get out. Mr. Fivecoat asked, can we enter into a new contract with these people? Mr. Daniel said we can look at the ordinance, what was done before, and come up with some alternatives. Mr. Fivecoat said I think that is what we need to do if we can and if we can, we need to get into a new contract with them and try to get this thing resolved the best way possible for everybody. We have been fighting this thing for a year and the Council didn t want to send that letter and we fought this and it was the last resort to send the letter because they are pushing us and their letter said to take immediate steps. They are saying immediate steps and this wasn t a pleasant decision by this Council. We are willing to work with you and! 9

that is one of the reasons that I m glad to see the group here tonight so we can sit down and talk about it. Mr. Williams asked, what are the next steps for us, as homeowners, that we need to do? Who do we need to contact to get this thing going? Mr. Fivecoat said give us a chance to get with the attorney to check the ordinance to find out if we can do this and then Mr. Belcher will be your contact person. Mr. Williams asked, what kind of timeframe are we looking at? Mr. Kirchoff said I think another discussion would probably be discussion around our deadline that we set out there. Mr. McPhail said I think each and everyone of them ought to respond to Mr. Belcher with your particular individual concerns and respond to him so that at least we have a record that you have responded. As he has asked, state your issues and we will try to figure out some way to work on it. I think the key issue is to figure out some way to get you hooked up and solve the problem and work that out. We will probably have to amend the ordinance. I think based on the data that we collect from the 33 people it will give us an idea how we need to do that. Mr. Fivecoat said the date on your letter I imagine we are going to waive that and give you more time to hookup on that. Mr. Williams said I know that is what a lot of homeowners here are asking. It s too soon for anybody. There are too many variables out there. Mr. Fivecoat said we had to come up with something so we started there and now we can sit down and negotiate. That is what the Council has talked about. We will negotiate that and extend it out for you to give you a chance to get things going and work with us. Mr. Williams asked, will there be something by the next Town Council meeting? Mr. Fivecoat said I would say by the next Town Council meeting. Mr. McPhail said I think you need to get a response to Mr. Belcher so that we will have something to work with. Mr. Brandgard said we need that and I think we will have some kind of direction formulated by the next meeting. It probably won t be the final one but we will have some idea of what can be done. Mr. Williams asked, is that May 9? Mr. Daniel said yes. Mr. Kirchoff said 7:30 p.m. here. Mr. Fivecoat said but get a hold of Mr. Belcher and get your responses of what you can do out there so we know which avenues to go through. Mr. Brandgard said we appreciate you coming in and expressing our concerns to us. Mr. Al Smith said I live at 725 Henley Street in the same area. The letter has no mention of unimproved lots. It strictly is focused on houses. In my case I have been paying the $87.20 but I haven t hooked on because I really don t have a septic problem. But I have an unimproved lot I would like to know about the situation on that, if you know that. Mr. Belcher said the only reason that it didn t include anything about the unimproved lot is because we didn t have any septic problems there. I think we need to respond to that specifically. I don t know exactly how to do that to be honest with you but the assessment is still like the others. I don t know how to answer you on that right now. Mr. McPhail asked, I believe there are two is that correct?! 10

Mr. Belcher said this is the second one I m aware of. There might be others I don t know. Mr. McPhail said I think there are only two unimproved lots that I m aware of. Mr. Kirchoff said we had a lady come in here a few months ago about that. Mr. Smith said there should be at least four that I know of. Mr. Daniel asked, is this a single lot that there are no improvements on? Mr. Smith said correct. Mr. Daniel said it seemed to me that there were some people who had two lots that they bought side by side and a house on one. I didn t know if septic was on both of them or not. Mr. Smith said yes there are some areas in the neighborhood where people split lots or something but I assume that those would be treated as one. These are truly unimproved lots. I m aware of four in the addition that we are in and then there are at least one or two on the east side of Vestal Road that I m aware of. Mr. Kirchoff said I used to live on Meadow. empty lots out there. I can t place four Mr. Smith said there is one that I know of on Meadow. I live on Henley Street but my lots are not on Henley Street, they are on Beverly Lane, it s a cul-de-sac. Actually, there is another one on Meadow Lane because I forgot that Meadow Lane goes east and west from Vestal Road. So, there is one there on that and there is another one on the north and south section. Mr. Daniel asked, have you been paying on your contract all along? Mr. Smith said on my residence but not on the unimproved lots. That is why I was interested in that. On the septic system, just something for you to think about, you are aware that the problem is on the east side of Vestal Road and north of Henley Street. You are also aware that the drainage from Henley Street would be south so I feel very confident that there are no problems coming from any of the residences that are south of Henley Street. It is just something for you to think about. Lady from the audience said since those are empty lots and we are not using them I see no reason why we should have to pay for those until such time we do. Mr. Daniel said we will look at that as a separate issue. Mr. Smith asked, should we send a note to the Town to document the fact that we have these? Mr. Brandgard said that would be good. Mr. Belcher said I m sure the ownership would help me a lot. Mr. Phil Garrett at 237 Meadow Lane said I never heard directly are you going to force the issue? And also are there other neighborhoods in Plainfield that will be forced to switch over from septic? I was not a resident here in Indiana for the 10-year period and I disagree with you gentlemen that we should be forced to pay for a part when we didn t live there. The realtor told me about it but at the time they told us it was optional and that I was on two lots and with three people in the residences there would be no way that we could overdo the septic system. Mr. Isaacs asked, Mr. Belcher could you address what this amount is? It is not just for the lots but the sewer getting there. Mr. Belcher said the project started out we built the mains in the streets, all the manholes and the lateral that goes from the main out to the property. Each property has its own lateral setting ready! 11

for the home to connect to so it is back out of the street and all of that. And pay for every other thing that went on with that project, some street resurfacing, things like that because we tore everything up. The project cost I think $7,855.00 per house, something like that in 10 year payments at 6%, fixed interest was the $87.20 that Mr. Carlucci was talking about. What people have done, as Mr. Carlucci said, they have come in in mid-term in that contract, they paid the back five years of payments. At that point they can look on the schedule of the payment and if I want to pay it off, it is this much more or continue to pay the $87.20 to the end. That is the simplistic way in what we have done from the beginning of this project until now. So, there is some cost in there for the actual treatment plant and the mains that go from the neighborhood to the treatment plant. All those things are in that fee too. The only thing that is not is the $25.00 inspection fee, which is the fee that was in place at that time. Now it is $375.00. We are sticking with the $25.00 that we had in place at the time the project was done. Mr. Kirchoff said in response to his first question I m not hearing any of us saying we are not going to go forward with the requirement to connect. We are simply going to talk about the timeframe and financing. Mr. Brandgard said that is correct. Mr. Kirchoff said if you are asking if we are still sticking to our guns, I think the answer is yes. We are still going to require it but we are going to try to work with you in how we are going to get that done. Does that answer your question? Mr. Garrett said yes. Mr. Brandgard said the decision to do this was not ours but it was given to us. Gentleman from the audience said but all along it has been in the reading that we can get our hands on is if you need to and when you need to. Mr. Brandgard said that is our position but that position has been overridden by the Department of Health s directive. Lady from the audience asked, can we see a copy of that letter? Mr. Brandgard said certainly. Gentleman from the audience asked, are you going to look at the homeowners like myself, this gentleman, this lady right here and Tina and I believe you guys right here and there are probably a bunch of others of when you do our contract starting it over from the fee that was originally started? Mr. Brandgard said like I said we are not going to make the decision this evening. It is something that we are going to look at. Mr. Isaacs said I m not a Council member, I m the Clerk/Treasurer and I take care of the finances so I don t have anything to do with the decision, however, as I listen, I think there may be some confusion. The cost of putting the sewer in, getting it to that point that it could hook on, was a bond that was issued based on the number of lots that were there or homes that were there and that is the total amount for each lot that was assessed. So, whatever this is that it amounts to now, around $9,000.00, that is what it cost to get the sewer to that point so that it could be connected. So, as far as penalized because you didn t live there before, that s really not the case because each one of the houses are sharing the cost of that sewer getting there. Mr. Daniel said that was not in the Town when that subdivision was approved. It was approved by the County and some of those lots over there are less than a quarter of an acre. That is primarily clay type soils, which doesn t percolate sewage very well. Mr. Belcher knows more about that than I do but when that problem first came up in the early 90s, it was the Hendricks County Health Department that required the Town to solve that problem. As Mr. Isaacs has already mentioned, all the Town did was put that system in and tried to get as many people as they could to hookup because the Town made up the difference and the shortfall on the money. Not enough people hooked up to pay the per lot cost to put that system in and the Town fronted! 12

the rest of that money. So, every lot out there has received the benefit of whatever money the Town advanced. That is why the Town came up with the system that we have in place here that you either pay it up front at that time or you could make it on a monthly installment and pay interest because the Town is paying interest on the money that they borrowed to make up the difference for those people who didn t hook on. But every lot there was assessed the same amount of money to put that entire system in. So, nobody is penalized. Everybody is paying the same. It is the question of how you get paid. And at the time it was done, as Mr. Felix as already mentioned, the Town made it clear that they were not going to force anybody to hookup at that time if they did not have a problem with their septic. They encouraged everybody to go ahead and hookup because everybody knows on that kind of soil and the small lots those systems are going to fail, it is just a matter of time. But nevertheless the Town went ahead and put the system in and divided the total cost of the system by the number of lots out there. That is how the amount was arrived at. Some paid everything up front. Some were on contracts. Some have come in later and bought lots and walked in the Clerk/Treasurer s office and they have made up the two or three years difference and paid off those amounts. Apparently we have 33 lots that are still not hooked up. But as Mr. Isaacs has already pointed out, each one of those lots have been assessed the same amount for the cost of the system as the people paid 10 years ago. From the standpoint of the Town, once again, the County asked the Town take over a problem, which was a problem in the County. The Town annexed the area, put the system in, got as many people to pay it that could and now we are down to 33. Now the County has once again come to the Town and said solve this problem that the County created to begin with. That is not the first time that the Town has been asked to solve problems created by the County. Mrs. Felix said the only thing I want to say is if 10 years ago you had worded the letter that at some point we were going to have to hookup, Bruce and I would have hooked up. We didn t look down the road 10 years and say oh boy we will wait 10 years and jump in then. Whatever kind of soil is up there we have never had one minute s problems out of our septic. I just wanted to say that. Mr. McPhail said I might add one bit of recent history. This figure was $7,800.00 or whatever it was 10 years ago. We have done some recent studies in the last couple of years in other neighborhoods. The cost today, the engineer s estimate, is anywhere from $12,500.00 to $15,000.00 going into a neighborhood such as yours to put that in. The cost to do that today is considerably higher than it was 10 years ago. We have honestly looked at a half dozen neighborhoods in the last four years and it s pretty expensive to go in and put them in. Gentleman from the audience said the cost for us is considerably higher for us than 10 years ago to tear up our front yard. Gentleman from the audience said the cost of living as gone up for everybody. Just look at the fuel prices today. That s killing a lot of us driving back and forth to work. Mr. Brandgard said we understand that so that is why we are going to attempt to work with you on it. We understood when we put the letter out, there were going to be problems. We deliberated for quite awhile before that letter went out, obviously, because we had this letter for a year. We have to come to a solution and we are going to attempt to see where we can go to help you with the problem. As far as the area goes, if you get the information to Mr. Belcher, we will try to come up with something that will help make this work and ease the burden some. Thank you. TOWN MANAGER S REPORT Mr. Carlucci said this last Friday I attended a luncheon of a one-day meeting of the Indiana Planning Association. The reason I attended that meeting was the Town of Plainfield was nominated for an award for our Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in December 2004. Although we did not win the main award we did receive an honorable mention in the American Planning Association. It is called the Hoosier Planning Award for the Plainfield Comprehensive Plan update. I received that on behalf of the Town. On top of that they asked me to speak. I wanted to present this to the Council. You may have noticed some articles in the paper just recently but within the last two weeks we had a lot of groups in the community! 13