The Common Council of the City of West Lafayette, Indiana met in the Council Chambers at City Hall on May 1, 2000 at the hour of 7:30 PM.

Mayor Margerum, who presided, called the meeting to order.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes called the roll:

PRESENT: COHEN, KEEN, MILLS, O'CALLAGHAN, SATTERLY, SPARBY, WINDLER

The Pledge of Allegiance was repeated.

ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Robert Bauman, Fire Chief Ron Ford, WWTU Director Mike Darter, Director of Development Andrew, Street Commissioner Downey, Parks Superintendent Payne, and City Engineer Snyder.

Councilor Sparby moved to approve the minutes of the March 30, 2000 Pre-Council Meeting and the April 3, 2000 Common Council Meeting as distributed. Motion was seconded by Councilor Keen.

Street and Sanitation: Councilor Satterly presented this report.

Mayor Margerum said there will be regular garbage pickup tomorrow, it was suspended for today, but the regular pickup will be tomorrow.

Planning and Zoning: No report.

Public Safety: Councilor Keen presented this report.

Councilor Keen said I have one other thing that I am somewhat hesitant to bring up, however, I think in the interest in public safety, I think it does need to be brought up. Several weeks ago we had a City department head who was stopped in a traffic stop and was deemed to have been drinking. I must reiterate here that this department head was not drunk and was not charged with drunk driving. I bring this up to point out that I see this as an extreme liability problem. I would like to know what, if anything, has been done or is going to be done, policywise, to insure that this type of behavior from any City employee would not happen again. I have talked with Lafayette. They have a zero tolerance policy on this type of thing. If we don't have one, I would certainly like to see one implemented.

Mayor Margerum said, in the first place, I don't think this is a proper discussion for something that has been well discussed in the press. But I do want to say that Mr. Downey has been one of our most reliable and hard working department heads. The reason he has a City car is because he has to come in many, many times in bad weather and on emergencies. He and I have discussed this and I have sent a memorandum to all the department heads that when they are using City vehicles, that they should refrain from using alcohol and if there is a social function that occurs after hours, they should be using their private vehicle. So I have full confidence that all the department heads will abide by this and I have spoken to them all. I think that it is important that everyone realizes that this has been discussed fully and that I think it should now be put to rest. So thank you.

Councilor Keen said I just want to reiterate, and again, I would like to see us establish some type of a policy that would regulate this.

Mayor Margerum said I established that policy with this memorandum.

Purdue Relations: Councilor Windler presented this report.

Parks and Recreation: Councilor O'Callaghan presented this report.

The next Park Board meeting is May 15 at 4:30 at the Lilly Nature Center.

Councilor O'Callaghan commended Parks Superintendent Payne and his staff for a wonderful job for the dedication of the Lilly Nature Center on April 30.

Mayor Margerum added her thanks to Eli Lilly Tippecanoe Laboratories who contributed the sculpture to the nature center. If you haven't seen it already, you should go out there, because it really is a lovely sculpture. We do appreciate it.

Department of Development: Councilor O'Callaghan presented this report.

The Redevelopment Commission will meet this week to close on the garage for Wabash Landing.

Mayor Margerum said we are very much looking forward to it. I also want to thank ahead of time Director of Development Andrew and City Attorney Bauman who have spent hundreds of hours working through all the very complicated financial details of this. I want to thank them for their work and getting to this point.

Personnel: Councilor Cohen presented this report.

Budget and Finance: No report.

Wastewater Treatment Utility: Councilor Satterly presented this report.

REPORT OF THE APC REPRESENTATIVE: Councilor Mills presented this report.

Councilor Mills reported on the APC April meeting. The rezoning, Z-1939, of 48 acres on the west side of CR 75 East, Morrissey property, from R1 to R1B. This is planned to be developed as 193 single-family lots. That was approved by the Area Plan Commission, 8-1.

Z-1941 and Z-1942 were together. Komark Development is asking rezoning on SR 26 West of 16 acres for 31 lot development and 27 acres for 90 lots. Those were R1 and R1B respectively and that was also passed by the Plan Commission, 9-0. The Komark Development will be followed by a planned development proposal in the future.

Inside city limits was a vacation of two lots on south Chauncey Street. It's a removal of two single-family homes owned by the people who requested the vacation to extend an apartment complex there.

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES: No reports.

PUBLIC RELATIONS: No report.

FINANCIAL REPORT: Councilor Sparby moved that the financial report be approved as distributed. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly and passed viva-voce.

Ordinance No. 8-00 An Additional Appropriation (Fire Department) (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer) Councilor Sparby read the ordinance and moved that Ordinance No. 8-00 be passed on second and final reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Keen.

There was no discussion from the public during the public hearing.

There was no Council discussion.

Mayor Margerum thanked the people who contributed to the fire prevention education program.

Ordinance No. 8-00 passed second and final reading, 7-0.

Ordinance No. 10-00 An Ordinance to Set Wastewater Treatment Utility Rates (Prepared by the City Attorney) Councilor Sparby read the ordinance and moved that Ordinance No. 10-00 be passed on second and final reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Mills.

Mayor Margerum said I would like to open this now for a public hearing which is required for the Wastewater Treatment Utility rate changes. I would like to ask Mr. Gary Malone from Umbaugh & Associates if he would review the wastewater rates and present some other scenarios and then we will follow it by anyone who wants to comment.

Gary Malone (Umbaugh & Associates) said I was asked to take a look at the effects on our calculations of some new information that was recently received by the City. As it turns out, the billings from the university, they are responsible for making some of the calculations themselves, some of those billings, were in fact erroneous, as we had noticed there had been some significant changes over the year. The impact of that is really two-fold. The first, during last year we looked at what their billings were and what they should have been and found that their billings should have been about $9,000 more than was actually recorded. As you recall, their billings were higher in 1999 as compared to 1998. Secondly, there was a check to be received by the City in the approximate amount of about $423,000 to correct those erroneous billings over the past few years. So we have modified our report to reflect those two facts. Those changes have been distributed to you. The effect of that is to reduce the rate increase from the 5% that is proposed for this year to 4% percent with the 5% increase in July of 2001 and July 2002 to remain unchanged. So you may be thinking well, that's $400,000, how can that only be 1%? Well, to understand that, we will probably need to revisit how we go about calculating rates and how rates have been calculated here for the City over the last few years. Then some of those answers will begin to fall into place.

There are a couple of methodologies that we've applied here in West Lafayette to the sewer rates. The most common method that rates are established for municipal run utilities is through a revenue requirement methodology. That methodology consists of developing a budget for certain types of costs. Those costs are lumped into three general categories. One, the cost to operate and maintain the facility. Two, to service any debt, including the funding of any reserves that may be required by the lender. And last, but not least, to set aside funds for ongoing replacements and improvements to the utility plant. In other words, capital expenditures. That was the first part of our analysis. If you recall, we projected those requirements over a four-year period. When all was said and done, we had projected a need for operating costs over the next four years to reach a level of just under $2.5 million. We had projected a need for debt service on the existing SRF loans at a little over $1.9 million and anticipated the debt service on an upcoming major project, which would require $7 million of loans, at least on an estimated basis, and that would require another $466,000 of cash needs. To fund the reserves of those loans would require $122,000 for the 1999 SRF loan and an additional $93,000 for the new SRF loan. A replacement allowance of $223,000 for equipment replacements and a budget of $785,000 annually for other forms of capital improvements. When we add this budget, we arrive at a total revenue requirement of about $6.1 million by the time we reach the year 2003. When we compare that budget or that revenue requirement to the revenues that are presently being generated under your existing rates, which is $4.8 million including your interest income, we find a shortfall in the revenues, under existing rates, of a little over $1.2 million. On a percentage basis, that is a percentage increase in your overall level of rates, to generate that level of revenue requirement of about 28%. That is simply one test and one method that we have used to calculate the rates. But that's the way that most cities and towns calculate rates in Indiana.

If we carry this out over the next few years, and we compare the revenues that we would anticipate with the rates that have been proposed, with the 4% increase this year, 5% in each of the subsequent two years, that's shown in the blue line, and if we compare that to revenue requirements that are projected over the next four years, we see a fairly sizeable gap. The revenue requirements that we are projecting are not sufficient, would not be fully satisfied with the revenues that we are projecting, even with the proposed rate increase. In the year 2000, we would have a shortfall or a gap of about $93,000 and that gap would grow to a little over $600,000 per year by the year 2002 and 2003. Most cities and towns would be unable to live in that type of environment and would have to raise rates 28% to close that gap.

West Lafayette is in a little different situation. There have been monies accumulated over the years and set aside in certain funds that are maintained by the City. Many of these funds' balances are regulated by the bond ordinance. It tells you what kind of funds you need to set, how much money needs to be in those funds, and what we can use that money for. At the end of 1999, the City had about $5.8 million in total in cash, investments, and sewage works. About $3.8 million of that cash and investment balance, though, is restricted by ordinances and by some other business judgements that we've made. So those are funds that need to be set aside for reserves and really shouldn't be used to offset that gap between the revenue requirement and the revenues. There is an amount over and above that minimum requirement, though, that could be applied to that shortfall in revenues or that gap, and that amounts to about $1.9 million at the end of 1999. Over the last few years, that is the approach the City has taken toward rate making. We've looked at the revenue requirements, but we've also considered the cash and investment balances and developed rates that would begin to reduce the amount of available funds over and above that minimum that is required. In 1998, you see a drop in the green, which is the available extra funds from 1996 through 1998. Those available funds increased in 1999. If you remember, we had the reimbursement from the sewage works that caused that increase. Secondly, in the year 2000 we are expecting another increase because of the $423,000 which will be received from Purdue. That's how the $423,000 is accounted for. But as we look into the future, with the rates proposed, we would expect that excess balance to again begin to be reduced each and every year. By the year 2003, that extra balance will amount to about a little over $700,000. But the trend would be in a downward slope.

The revenue requirement method is one method that is applicable and something we should take a look at. The other method is to look at what's called debt service coverage. When we borrow money from the State Revolving Fund or from any lender from that standpoint that loans monies to municipal sewage works, they are concerned about the security of those bonds. And those bonds are secured by what we call the net revenues. That's the revenues that remain after the payment of operating expenses. It uses the terminology we call coverage. Most lenders, including the State Revolving Fund, want to make sure that our revenues are at least sufficient to pay for our operating costs. In other words, about $2.5 million annually by the year 2003, to pay principal and interest on the two bond issues, and have an additional amount left over, which we call coverage. That additional amount left over needs to be at least 25% of the principal and interest payment on the bonds. So we say that in a lot of different ways, sometimes we call that 125% coverage, but in essence, that is what we're talking about, that there's enough revenues remaining, after we pay operating expenses, to pay the bonds one and a quarter times. Using that method as a test, we can see that we would need about $5,475,000 to satisfy that coverage test by the time we reach 2003. When we compare that requirement to our current revenues under current rates, we have a shortfall of about $643,000, which is about half of the shortfall that we saw when we analyzed the rates on a revenue requirement basis. So in our opinion, we would view this as the minimum amount of rate increase that is going to be expected over the next few years to maintain this minimum coverage. That's about 14%. Now, how you increase rates the 14% is kind of up to you. The method that we had suggested would be a method where that rate increase would be slowly phased in in equal amounts, roughly equal amounts over the next three years, 4% this year, 5% next year, 5% the following year. You can choose something different. You could choose a lesser percent increase this year, but realizing when it's all said and done, you still need to be at the 14% to have adequate coverage. For instance, if you were to select a 3% rate increase this year, you would likely be looking at a 6% increase next year, followed by a 5% increase the following year, because they all still need to add to 14%.

This further demonstrates the methodology that's been applied over the last few years looking at the coverage. Our coverage draw between 1997 and 1998 from was 170% to 150% and it was on a downward trend until we discovered that the bills to Purdue weren't quite what they should have been. After that blip, the rates were projected to reduce the coverage down to the 125% minimum by the time it reached the year 2002 and 2003.

The rates proposed aren't really much different than what we had discussed earlier. If you selected a 4% increase followed by two 5% increases, you can see that a bill for 5,000 gallons would increase from $13.35 per month to $13.88 per month in July of this year. Then it would increase again to $14.58 in July of next year, and to $15.31 the following year.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Mayor Margerum said are there any questions?

Councilor Satterly said what projects are you talking about on this proposed $7 million SRF loan?

Mr. Malone said there are two projects. Mike [Darter], you may want to explain those.

WWTU Director Darter said the two projects would be the Happy Hollow interceptor rehabilitation or replacement. The other one would be the wet weather treatment. One is projected at $4 million and one is projected at $3 million: Happy Hollow interceptor at $4 million and wet weather treatment at $3 million.

Councilor O'Callaghan said that doesn't include that western leg interceptor that you were talking about?

Director Darter said no, it doesn't.

Councilor Satterly said when you do you think the western interceptor would be in process?

Director Darter said currently we are running a study on feasibility, but we need to be with that pipe at the time that the State Highway is getting ready to put the next phase of their highway job in, up to SR 26 West, so that we can get in the highway easement when they are going back north.

Councilor Satterly said how many years are they talking?

Mayor Margerum said I think the Highway was talking about they would begin in 2003, that they would start the leg from River Road up to SR 26.

Councilor Satterly said you are talking about SR 26 North aren't you?

Director Darter said SR 26 West.

Mayor Margerum said no, he's not talking about north.

Director Darter said I'm talking about SR 26 on the west side of Purdue.

Councilor Satterly said where from? From South River Road up to SR 26?

Director Darter said generally, this stretch of pipe that we are discussing, runs from the entrance of the plant west along the railroad tracks, on the south side of the railroad tracks, through Purdue property, generally, I would say to what you know as Airport Road right now. That's the stretch we're talking about.

Councilor Satterly said that's 2003 then.

Director Darter said we need to be at that point when they are getting ready to cross the railroad, either above it or under it at that time.

Councilor Satterly said that proposed project is not in these figures?

Director Darter said no, it's not.

Councilor Cohen said Mike, are you saying that the $7 million is not in that?

Director Darter said the $7 million is in that. The project that I was talking with Councilor Satterly about was the western interceptor. That would be the first phase of the western interceptor. Actually, that would eventually end up going, from the [19]93 report, would move and end up just south Cherry Lane on McCormick Road.

Councilor O'Callaghan said so that kind of planning that you are thinking now, about that western leg interceptor for the pipe to be ready when the highway is ready, is an example of the kind of planning that I really have appreciated that you've been able to do as our supervisor of the Wastewater Treatment facility. We really appreciate that, Mike.

Director Darter said we try to coordinate those things so we don't have to do work twice and don't have to disrupt everybody's lives a number of times. We try to make it so it's the least disruptive as we can. A lot of times some of the projects get driven by forces outside of the City or the Utility. In this particular instance, what's driving that, would be State Highway.

Councilor O'Callaghan said that was similar down in the Levee. That was a State Highway project and you were able to coordinate our sewers with that.

Director Darter said that's correct, the US 231 that moves through the intersection of State and South River Road.

Councilor O'Callaghan said having the money on hand to be able to do those projects when it is the best way to do it, the best time to do it, has been something that's saved the City money, saved the citizens more hassle by being able to coordinate those. So we really do appreciate the planning, the way you have saved a lot of money so that we do have this balance, the way you have been able to use some money from State Revolving Fund project, a project that's slated ahead of time, but you are able to use that money. So we really appreciate the fact that you've been able to do that. As long as I'm saying we appreciate things, we certainly also appreciate all your efforts, Mr. Malone, and that you're an expert in this field and we appreciate your expertise. You very clearly stated how you figure out the rates and what you feel that we need. And so I hate to not go along with what you are suggesting, but it just seems to me that with this $423,000 from Purdue that we might use this opportunity to make the percentage a little bit less this year. So I might suggest that we amend it to 3% this year and then still 5% and 5%. We revisit it each year, so we can be able to see if we are on track. I know that you think that we need to have 14% by 2003, but that's not that far off. If we do 3%, 5%, 5%. I think it is very helpful to have the rate increase spread out over a number of years, especially for big customers to know, to plan in their budgets from year to year that what the rate increase will be, rather than have 0%, 0%, and then 12% or 14%. So that's what I might suggest. I don't know what's the proper to make an amendment to the proposal.

Councilor Sparby said I think a point of order. I don't believe an amendment can be make during a public hearing. Is that correct?

Mayor Margerum said I think she was suggesting that we consider that. She hasn't made an amendment to that.

Mayor Margerum said are there any other comments during this public hearing phase?

Councilor Sparby said I have some questions for Mr. Malone. When you said we need a 14%, you are not taking a cumulative affect of the rate though, right? You were using an additive rate.

Mr. Malone said that is correct. If you simply compare the total revenue requirement with the revenues being generated under the current rate, it's about a 14% gap based upon our calculations.

Councilor Sparby said so to get to 14.4 it would not need to be 4, 5, 5, because it would actually be less than that because of the cumulative affect.

Mr. Malone said I think the number is 14.4%, so I think that is the cumulative affect built into that.

Councilor Sparby said could give me an idea of what current interest rates are in the public market?

Mr. Malone said we had built in an assumption of 4.5% in our calculations. Our reserve system has increased the discount rate to member banks lately. Actually, the interest rates really have what is called an inverted yield curve, where short-term interest rates are even higher than long-term interest rates, so it's kind of an unusual situation. I suspect that you earn at least 5% on short-term interest rates today. Our calculations, we tried to be conservative.

Councilor Sparby said what about on long-term.

Mr. Malone said long-term interest rates probably wouldn't be a good investment vehicle for a municipal sewage works, short-term being a three to six month period.

Councilor Sparby said so you don't think a 12 month would be . . .

Mr. Malone said no, that's more of an intermediate term.

Councilor Sparby said what would an intermediate term rate be?

Mr. Malone said I don't recall.

Councilor Sparby said also in your calculations, you did not take into account any increase as far as annexation or any increase in flows that we might see with completion of the Wabash Landing project, the River Market project. Is that correct?

Mr. Malone said that is correct.

Councilor Sparby said so your figures are extremely conservative?

Mr. Malone said I hope they are, yes, with the idea that these rates will be reviewed each year. There are a lot of assumptions that have to be made in the rate making process. It is hopeful that we'll be able to come back and say maybe these rates aren't needed in a couple of years to the fullest extent, but we don't know that today.

Councilor Sparby said but we could easily meet our debt service coverage with no increase this year and as long as we had left a 5% out there in 2001, 2002, and 2003, which would be revisited on an annual basis and include any projects that might be rolled in such as the western leg.

Mr. Malone said I think as I mentioned earlier, we looked at the next three years for increases. We needed a total of about 14% increase and how that is distributed there is some flexibility. We caution that you do need a rate increase. If there was no rate increase this year, there would certainly be a rate increase necessary next year.

Councilor Sparby said unfortunately, you were not here last month when we talked about the rate increases. You have, over a number years, have come and given us different scenarios. We've been very fortunate in that what was anticipated out in the future has not come to be. We have not needed the substantial increases that have been projected if we had not done increases in the current year. I just think there's so many unknowns out in the future as far as what our flow is going to be, that I just see absolutely no reason why would increase them this year and we can address this issue next year and we're not actually restricted to increasing rates in July. We can do it anytime during the year, probably over a three to four month period would be the reaction time for the Council to increase rates if we saw there was a problem. Based on what I've seen tonight, no increase this year is not going to jeopardize any of the projects that are on the books right now, which would be the wet weather treatment and the Happy Hollow interceptor project or our bonds.

Mr. Malone said as I mentioned, you could defer a rate increase this year, but you would have a larger rate increase next year.

Councilor Sparby said we would evaluate next year and we may, at that time, see that we don't need . . . I mean, let's say we went 7% in 2001, 7% in 2002. We could be looking at these a year from now and may not need the 7% in 2001. It could actually be down to 5%. It could be 3%.

Mayor Margerum said I think one of the important things that we do need to keep in mind is that large users, Purdue University, pays half of the cost, it's very difficult if you have zero, then it jumps up and goes down, for them to do their budgeting. There also some other large users. It's easier for them to budget if you have a constant.

Councilor Sparby said excuse me, but as Councilors, our responsibility is to the citizens of the city, not to Purdue University.

Mayor Margerum said I think it is important for us to think about how it affects our users. I think that is a legitimate question.

Councilor Windler said at the last Council meeting, Councilor Sparby brought up that Purdue students would be adversely affected by this rate hike in that they would be paying for things that they wouldn't necessarily see the end use of. However, a large majority, in fact I would say well into the 95 percentile range of Purdue students, have already signed their leases for next year. A lot of those leases included at least a $20 per person per month increase. They vary usually between anywhere from $5 to $20. So the student population, which does constitute a majority of the population in West Lafayette, about 54%-55% of the population, is already planning on paying this bill. They have already signed the leases for this bill. So by passing a small rate increase this year, we are not affecting too many people and it does help Purdue University in their budget process and the students are already paying for this increase. So it only makes sense that we have a moderate, fiscally conservative increase.

Councilor Keen said I think also at last month's meeting the concern was whether or not the flow rates from Purdue would be maintained at the increased level which they have been. Given the new information that we've received from Purdue and the fact that that unknown has been somewhat removed, in that we know now that the rates probably will be maintained at an increased rate, that even more tells me that this rate is not necessary for an increase at this point in time.

Councilor O'Callaghan said your calculations include that rate increase from Purdue?

Mr. Malone said that is correct. The revised calculations show the current level of consumption for the university.

Mayor Margerum closed the public hearing.

Mayor Margerum said if you [Councilor O'Callaghan] wish to make an amendment, this would be the appropriate time.

Councilor O'Callaghan moved to amend the proposed rate increase to 3%, 5%, and 5%. Motion was seconded by Councilor Cohen.

Councilor Sparby said I would like to make a motion that we postpone any vote until the June Council meeting to give us a chance to study this issue more and perhaps have Mr. Malone provide additional information that Council people might have since we just saw these figures this evening. It has not given us much chance to study them. Motion was seconded by Councilor Keen.

Councilor Cohen said I think we've seen these figures enough. I think we ought to vote on it.

Councilor O'Callaghan said there was some new information tonight, but it wasn't that new and it does include the money from Purdue and that's why I suggested decreasing it to 3% instead of 4% or 5%. I feel like we've had enough information long enough.

Councilor Keen said I think the information received tonight, to say that it is not that much of a deal, we are talking almost just under a half million dollars. I think that is a big deal.

Mayor Margerum called for a voice vote on postponing this discussion for another month. The vote was NAY.

Mayor Margerum said it looks like the motion dies. Is there any discussion over the proposed 3, 5, and 5?

Councilor Windler said I would say that the small rate increase right now gives us a little bit of flexibility in the future. You never want to assume that you are going to get revenues that aren't even constructed yet. Wabash Landing, River Market, we have no idea what the flows are. What if some those apartments don't get rented out? You have unknowns. If those apartments don't get rented, there's no flow, there's no revenue to the sewer system. What do we do then? I think a moderate increase now gives us the flexibility to cover all of our bases in the future. So I would suggest my fellow councilors vote in favor of this.

Councilor Sparby said I would like to make an amendment to Ordinance No. 10-00 that the wording in the last paragraph of the ordinance be changed and that the original wording that the Common Council will review . . .

Mayor Margerum said there is a pending amendment here. If that isn't pertaining to that, I think we need to vote first on this. Any further discussion?

Councilor O'Callaghan said when I suggested 3, 5, 5, I didn't realize there are specific rates in here, so the numbers will have to change to reflect those percentages.

Councilor Sparby said can we have the specifics of what we are voting on the amendment? The exact numbers in order for us to make . . .

Mayor Margerum said do you have any numbers [referring to Mr. Malone]?

Councilor Sparby said you have the 3% calculation already? What he presented to us was 4%.

Mayor Margerum said I asked him if he would do 3 also.

City Attorney Bauman said the details that were requested, if you'll look at section 30.09.3.1, beginning in the second sentence it would read with that amendment "For service rendered after July 1, 2000, two dollars and seventy-five cents per one thousand gallons. This includes $1.42 per thousand gallons for operations, maintenance and replacement and $1.33/1,000 gallons for debt service. For service rendered after July 1, 2001, two dollars and eighty-nine cents per one thousand gallons. This includes $1.47/1,000 gallons for operations, maintenance and replacement and $1.42/1,000 for debt service. For service rendered after July 1, 2002, three dollars and three cents per one thousand gallons. This includes $1.51/1,000 gallons for operations, maintenance and replacement and $1.52/1,000 for debt services." Did I get those in the right places?

Mayor Margerum said we would need to amend this portion of it also to reflect those new numbers, correct? So we need to vote first on the first amendment which was to change it to 3.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said I'm sorry, I'm unclear. The amendment has been proposed to the first section of the rate schedule.

Mayor Margerum said right.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said I wasn't quite sure if you were referring to the section that refers to the Purdue charges. Is that going to be amended at a later time? Or how are you handling that?

Mayor Margerum said do the Purdue charges reflect the changes or not?

Councilor Sparby said we could leave Purdues in place since they've already budgeted for it.

Mayor Margerum said I don't believe you can charge different customers different rates.

City Attorney Bauman not without a cost of service study.

Mayor Margerum said in deference to Mr. Malone, I called him this afternoon and said that some of the Council members had expressed an interest in a lower rate, so I asked him to calculate 3%, that's why he has had about two minutes to change these numbers.

Councilor Sparby said had some of the Council members seen this information prior to tonight's meeting?

Mayor Margerum said no, I haven't seen it.

Councilor Sparby said then how could they have asked for lower rates to be calculated?

Mayor Margerum said because they asked that we have, I think you had asked for zero, and the Council after this number was 4%, so I thought maybe 3% was a good number.

City Attorney Bauman said in the second paragraph then, concerning Purdue, picking up at the third sentence "For service rendered after July 1, 2000, a billing charge of $2.50 per month plus a usage charge of two dollars and sixty cents per one thousand gallons. This includes $1.27/1,000 gallons for operations, maintenance and replacement and $1.33/1,000 gallons for debt service. For service rendered after July 1, 2001, a billing charge of $2.60 per month plus a usage charge of two dollars and seventy-three cents per one thousand gallons. This includes $1.31/1,000 gallons for operations, maintenance and replacement and $1,42/1,000 gallons for debt service."

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said Mr. Bauman I'm trying to take this down for the record, could you slow it just a little bit please?

City Attorney Bauman said "or service rendered after July 1, 2002, a billing charge of $2.65 per month plus a usage charge of two dollars and eighty-seven cents per one thousand gallons. This includes $1.35/1,000 gallons for operations, maintenance and replacement and $1.52/1,000 gallons for debt service." Those would be the numbers for the amendment of the 3%, 5%, and 5%.

Mayor Margerum said so the amendment then would be to change those numbers and then the final paragraph would then say instead of 5% rate increase on July 1, 2000, it would be a 3% and then 5% in subsequent years, right?

City Attorney Bauman said well I don't think that's what the financial advisor determined. I think the financial advisor determined that it should be 4%. I think the change is the two parts I just read.

Mayor Margerum said do you understand those numbers? We'll get those to you in a little bit different form. But the ones he read out reflected the 3% increase, instead of 4%.

Councilor Satterly said 3, 5, and 5 for the general users and for Purdue is there a different rate set?

City Attorney Bauman said there is a slightly different rate structure based upon the cost of service determined years ago, but the percentage increase is the same.

Councilor Satterly said 3, 5, and 5, OK.

The amendment to change the rate increase to 3%, 5%, and 5% passed, 6-1

Councilor Sparby moved to amend Ordinance No. 10-00, at the paragraph on the top of page three, to leave in the wording that was crossed out at the end of the sentence and then the change that proposed to take it out. It would read "On or before June 1, of 2001, the Common Council will review the wastewater utility revenues, expenses and rates and take any necessary action to provide financing for the wet weather treatment for combined sewer overflow."

City Attorney Bauman said I would observe, I mean you can make that change if you want to, but what Mr. Malone has reported is that these rates already do that. At the time this was placed in the ordinance, that was a future requirement which was not in the previous projections. Factually, changing it back is kind of a nonsequitur.

Mayor Margerum said this is in the new projections.

Councilor Sparby said I realize that. Where I struggle with the wording that was proposed is in the change would say that "the Common Council will review the wastewater utility revenues, expenses and rates and take necessary actions to maintain rates as required by applicable bond ordinances and as recommended by the utility financial advisor." I object to the wording in "as recommended by the utility financial advisor." I believe this is the responsibility of the Council to take under advisement any recommendations, but the ultimate decision resides with us.

Mayor Margerum said I think that's correct, but there is, I think, he would be the first one, I certainly would, that it would be very difficult for the Council to do the rate calculations. A financial advisor is critical to do that. So maybe you can find a different way of saying that of maintaining rates as required, but applicable bond ordinances and as presented or some other fashion. That's up to you.

Councilor Keen said I will second the motion as presented.

Mayor Margerum said then just drop the whole thing that's underlined. Is that the idea? Not to maintain the rates as required, you don't want to leave that?

Councilor Sparby said just leave it the way it was, other than changing the date from June 1, of 1998 to 2001, even though, as Mr. Bauman pointed out, the wet weather treatment is included in this rate.

Councilor O'Callaghan said I guess I would like to have us take necessary action to maintain rates as required by the applicable bond ordinances, not just to provide financing for the wet weather treatment facility. So I see that the replacement language being more general. The other language was specific to when you did not have money in there for the wet weather treatment. So I would like to maintain the language that says maintain rates as required by applicable bond ordinances. But we might want to say something like "and utilizing the information provided by the financial advisor," or something like that.

Councilor Sparby said if Mr. Keen is willing to withdraw his second, I would remove my amendment and propose instead that we just strike the last few words and just end it with "maintain the rates as required by the applicable bond ordinance."

Councilor Keen said I withdraw my former second and second the current motion.

Councilor Cohen said we still have to have somebody who knows what they are doing to make a recommendation.

Councilor Sparby said it has never been included in the ordinance before, Mr. Cohen. So it's just understood.

Councilor Cohen said that doesn't mean it can't be done now. I couldn't face those figures alone. I sure would need a recommendation by someone who knew what they were talking about.

Councilor Sparby said well, you did adjust them very quickly this evening.

Councilor Windler said perhaps the amendment should read something like "maintain rates as required by applicable bond ordinances mindful of the advice provided by the utility's financial advisor."

Mayor Margerum said is that all right?

Councilor Sparby said that would be fine.

Mayor Margerum said the new wording. Mr. Keen would again withdraw and second the second one.

Councilor Sparby said Councilor Windler would you, for the record, reread that so to make sure they have the correct wording.

Councilor Windler said the paragraph will read "On or before June 1, 2001, the Common Council will review the wastewater utility revenues, expenses and rates and take any necessary action to maintain rates as required by applicable bond ordinances, mindful of the information provided by the utility's financial advisor."

Mayor Margerum said is there a second to that?

Councilor Sparby said second.

The amendment to change the wording in the final paragraph of Ordinance No. 10-00 passed, 6-1.

Ordinance No. 10-00 (Amended) passed second and final reading, 5-2.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said there is one error in the ordinance which I have mentioned to the Attorney which we failed to correct. Pardon me, but I need to bring it to the attention of the Councilors. I spoke to two of the Councilors about the need to fix that. In the first sentence of section 1, 30.09.3.1 there is a typo. It reads "Two dollars and sixty-seven cents per one thousand gallons." The next sentence should be "This includes $1.40/1,000 gallons for operations, maintenance and replacement and $1.27/1,000 for debt service." I know the Attorney and I have talked about that a couple of times and we just omitted to mention that. It was a typo and since we've had final action, I would like to see it somehow corrected so when we enter it into the City Code, it's correct.

Mayor Margerum said may I have the approval of the Council to just correct that clerical number.

Councilor Sparby said so moved. Motion was seconded by Councilor Keen.

Mayor Margerum said if you all agree to it, I don't think we need to have an amendment.

Ordinance No. 11-00 An Additional Appropriation (Mayor, Kalberer Road Improvement Fund) (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer) Councilor Sparby read the ordinance and moved that Ordinance No. 11-00 be passed on first reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum said this is for the City contribution to the July 4, 2000 Stars and Stripes event, in which all the governmental units participate financially. The second is the improvement of Kalberer Road, appropriating payments in lieu of improvements and interest earnings. The next ordinance will provide for the establishment of the road improvement fund.

There was no discussion.

Ordinance No. 11-00 passed first reading, 7-0.

Mayor Margerum said that will require a public hearing next time.

Ordinance No. 12-00 An Ordinance Providing for the Establishment of the Kalberer Road Improvement Fund (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer) Councilor Sparby read the ordinance by title only and moved that Ordinance No. 12-00 be passed on first reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum said this includes Greenwalt development, Calvary Baptist, and Purdue Research Foundation, who are property owners that abut Kalberer Road. They are obligated to improve half-widths of that road. When those funds come into the City, they will be put in this Kalberer Road Improvement Fund in order to make those improvements in the road.

Councilor Sparby said this is paired with Ordinance No. 11-00.

There was no discussion.

Ordinance No. 12-00 passed first reading, 7-0.

Mayor Margerum said do you want to suspend the rules and pass this tonight so that any money is received, we can go ahead and set that fund up right away on just the establishment of the fund. We can't pass the additional appropriation.

So moved by Councilor Keen. Motion was seconded by Councilor Sparby. The motion passed vive voce.

Councilor Sparby read the ordinance by title only and moved that Ordinance No. 12-00 be passed on second and final reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

There was no discussion.

Ordinance No. 12-00 passed second and final reading, 7-0.

Ordinance No. 13-00 An Ordinance to Amend the West Lafayette City Code on Wastewater Treatment (Prepared by the City Attorney) Councilor Sparby read the ordinance and moved that Ordinance No. 12-00 be passed on first reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum asked the City Attorney to explain the first part about the former facilities, formerly a part of the West Lafayette Regional Sewer District, and what the purpose of that is.

City Attorney Bauman said at the time the sewer use ordinance was passed by the Council, that service was covered under subsection 1, that is "Connection of services under the terms of a valid agreement or contract with the city and in force at the time this ordinance becomes effective." At that time there was a contract which dated back to the 1970s between the West Lafayette Regional Sewer District and the City of West Lafayette to provide treatment service. Since that time, the trustees of the Regional Sewer District determined that they were going to go out of business and quit functioning as that entity and did in fact do so. That service is now provided directly by the West Lafayette Wastewater Treatment Utility and so it would no longer directly be under subsection 1. So subsection 3 as drafted addresses that and subsection 4 would address also any new developments which could be the subject of annexation into the City in the future. I think as I pointed out at the Pre-Council, any decision to actually annex such a project in the future would have to be made by the Council.

Mayor Margerum said I would like to ask Scott Snyder [City Engineer] if he would show what the outlines of this area that were talking about and maybe it would help people to understand where it is.

City Engineer Snyder said I will try to show you some of the boundaries that are shown on this map. The red line at 500 West around to 600 North is the current boundary of the CTA (Certificate of Territorial Authority), which is Suburban Utilities franchised area for sewer service. The light orange boundary is the City limits. The important of the orange boundary is darkened here where there is a certain amount of overlap of West Lafayette annexed property over the CTA boundary, such as Blackbird and the Seifer's property and some others along that boundary. The green boundary represents what remains of the West Lafayette Regional Sewer District, which was formed years ago and was taken into the City sewer system. The two yellow boundaries indicate a Komark request to transfer some property here out of the district in favor of transferring this property into the district. The overall service to that area will not increase, the gallonage will not increase. The boundaries, to my knowledge, will not increase. The white boundary is the separation between Wabash Township and Tippecanoe Township which shows that a portion of that CTA is outside of Wabash Township and actually takes in part of Tippecanoe. This other yellow boundary here is another piece of property under discussion, the Morrissey property, who has requested consideration of allowing their waste to be brought into the City sewer system. If you have questions, you can come closer and look at the map afterwards. Anything I can answer now?

Mayor Margerum said I wonder if the City Attorney can clarify the question of the boundaries of the American Suburban Utility, that the City could not serve any area unless it were annexed. Is that correct?

City Attorney Bauman said yes. At the time that Great Lakes built their new world headquarters they wished to become a part of the City of West Lafayette and to receive wastewater utility service from West Lafayette and that did occur. The owners of American Suburban Utility at that time challenged whether West Lafayette was legally entitled to serve that property since it was within the CTA of the American Suburban Utilities. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission interpreted an Indiana statute to say exactly what it means which is that yes, we can serve that territory within the City limits even if it is also within the CTA of a private utility. Otherwise, the City of West Lafayette would have extra territorial authority to provide wastewater service beyond its borders under state law but that is restricted where the IURC has granted a regulated utility franchise to do that.

Mayor Margerum said I wasn't sure whether that had been clearly stated at the Pre-Council meeting. Are there any questions from the Councilors?

Councilor Keen said I'd like to make one motion to amend this ordinance. Line 3 of section 30.06.9.4, I would like to replace the words Board of Works with the Common Council.

Councilor Sparby said I would like to ask a question before I consider seconding that.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said you need to second so we can have a discussion.

Councilor Sparby said then I'll second it so we can discuss it. There was a point brought up Pre-Council meeting concerning the legal responsibility over the wastewater treatment utility. What the Council had authority over and what the Board of Works did. If this is changed to read Common Council, does that fall within Indiana Code?

City Attorney Bauman said I think there is potentially a conflict. Under Indiana Code the Utility Board is charged with the operation of the utility. Other than setting the rates or determining to issue bonds, all of the rest of the management of the utility is the charge of the Utility Board. Similarly, under Indiana Code, even if the Board would determine that this property might be annexed some time in the future, that in no way binds the Council, which has the sole charge of deciding whether to annex territory.

Councilor Mills said so it's going to come before us regardless, is what you are saying?

Mayor Margerum said yes.

Councilor O'Callaghan said then it says Board of Works in here just as it pertains to the utility because that's what they have authority over.

City Attorney Bauman said that is correct.

Councilor O'Callaghan said not as it pertains to annexation, just as it pertains to the utility.

City Attorney Bauman said that is correct.

Councilor Satterly said just because the sewer department provides sewer service doesn't mean that land has to be annexed.

City Attorney Bauman said again, correct.

Mayor Margerum said Lafayette for many, many years has extended sewer service outside the City limits.

City Attorney Bauman said most communities in Indiana do.

Councilor Sparby said I guess my confusion arises from if this was always the statutory responsibility of the Board of Works why was it not already included in the ordinance? That they made decisions as far as who got connected and who didn't, why are we adding it? That's where I'm really. . .

City Attorney Bauman said I don't know.

Mayor Margerum said it just wasn't in there before because we had, in the past, just provided sewer service to requested parties.

Councilor Sparby said then each decision to provide to a particular project was brought then to the Council so the ordinance could reflect that.

City Attorney Bauman said I don't think so. I don't think you need a decision on a particular project that's been brought to the Council.

Councilor Windler said I think what the Mayor is trying to say is the only time we've had to deal with this situation in the past, somebody wanted to be voluntarily annexed, so we were providing service to them anyways and they were coming within the City, right, Mayor?

Mayor Margerum said yes, in fact, this particular property also wanted to be annexed, but the intervening property owners who didn't want to be, and in the spirit of not annexing property owners that don't want to be annexed, this was considered a way to provide sewer service in the future. If there is a change in the property owners' feeling, then that could be included.

Councilor Satterly said also one of the provisions there is if the sewer service is provided to land that is not being annexed, the developer agrees to develop that land according to our standards so that if, only if, sometime in the future that land is annexed, we are annexing property that has been annexed to our standards.

City Attorney Bauman said I had a call from the engineer doing the design of that project today confirming that yes, they would need to design to, for example, the City street standards.

Councilor Sparby said could I call the question on that amendment?

Councilor Keen said I would like to explain, quickly, my intent in making this motion was simply to ensure that the Council retains the authority over annexations. Since it appears that this would not change that, I would withdraw my motion, if that is in order.

Mayor Margerum said all right, you are withdrawing that.

There were no further questions from the Council. Mayor Margerum opened the floor for questions from the audience.

Patricia Mason (Wabash Township Trustee) said I'd like to address the portion that deals with the West Lafayette Regional Sewer District boundary flip-flop. Wabash Township was one of the founding entities in the establishment of the West Lafayette Regional Sewer District in the early 70s. Wabash Township has had an appointment to the Board of the Regional Sewer District. Right now, when the sewer district disbanded in 1995, the agreement that was signed with the City of West Lafayette was that there could be only subdivisions within the legally constituted boundaries of the Sewer District. The Sewer District disbanded, but it still has boundaries. By doing this flip-flop of land, you are taking land that is soccer fields and trading it for land that we are going to put houses on. You may be keeping the area the same, but you are not keeping the boundaries the same. And that is not what the agreement you signed was. The agreement signed says within the legally constituted boundaries. It also appears tonight that the area that you flip-flopped in and out was American Suburban CTA and I haven't heard that anything has been discussed with American Suburban whether they agreed to this flip-flop, taking land that's in their CTA and putting it in some gerrymandered boundaries of the West Lafayette Regional Sewer District, which doesn't exist anymore. I would like to know, you say the total number of houses is not going to be changed. I'd like to know the number of houses that were served at the time the West Lafayette Sewer District was disbanded. I'd like to know the total number of houses or units, let's put units, because there's some duplexes in there, the total number of units that are currently being served and the total number that are going to be allowed, the maximum number allowed within that. I think that's only fair to know that. The reason I need to know this is because by your extending sewer service out into the Township and providing only sewer service and no other community services, you are not providing roads, you are not providing fire protection, you are not providing emergency services, or you are not providing snow removal or sheriff's protection. You are increasing the taxes on the Township residents in the unincorporated area of the Township. Quite frankly, we don't think that's fair for you to do that. So, I would like to see something in writing as to those numbers when you go ahead and do that.

Councilor Windler said Madam Mayor, she said we never said we would change the number of houses. What we said is we were not changing the physical volume, the number of square miles within the Western Regional Sewer District . We still have a limit on gallons per day that we can treat, so we never said we would not increase the number of houses. In fact, we don't have the power to do that. That resides with the County Commissioners. They approve the developments out there and I believe they just discussed this this morning and approved it.

Ms. Mason said but the Mayor told me that there would not be any increase in the number of units served. You told me it was going to be the original.

Mayor Margerum said I said the acreage doesn't change. They rezoned that. We don't have any power over the rezoning.

Ms. Mason said when you signed the agreement to end the Sewer District, at point X a hundred units were going to be put on when so many disconnects were done. And then another hundred units, and then another hundred units. I guess I'd like to know the total number of units within the District that you said that you would provide sewer service for.

City Attorney Bauman said I think you are confusing apples and oranges here. That agreement had to do with the staging of allowing additional units to be built as deficiencies in the system were corrected. It didn't have anything to do with limiting the total number of units.

Ms. Mason said but it says you will serve all additional subdivisions within the legally constituted boundaries.

City Attorney Bauman said that was when there was an agreement between the City and the Regional Sewer District. Each agreed to take on certain roles in terms of correction of the deficiencies. That agreement doesn't exist anymore, because the Regional Sewer District doesn't exist anymore. But the agreement was for the purpose of setting a schedule of when additional units would be allowed to be connected as deficiencies in the system were addressed. It has nothing to do with this at all.

Ms. Mason said so the agreement that was signed that says that the Sewer District is being disbanded does not say anything about the legally constituted boundaries?

City Attorney Bauman said there is no agreement anymore. There's no party with which there is an agreement, because the Regional Sewer District doesn't exist.

Ms. Mason said so why did you flip-flop equal amounts? Why didn't you just say we're going to serve this? Why did you made the effort to get equal areas?

City Attorney Bauman said because there is a finite capacity which can pass through that lift station.

Ms. Mason said so it's capacity that is defining it now?

Mayor Margerum said well, there always was. It was 700,000, I believe.

Ms. Mason said what does that calculate for total number of units then? Because you have a complete . . .

Mayor Margerum said it's gallonage flow.

Ms. Mason said I know, how much do we have? What's the estimate per unit, per day, per house?

Mayor Margerum said I don't know. We'd have to . . .

City Attorney Bauman said it varies according to the different uses which might be allowed, which again, is up to the County Commissioners.

Ms. Mason said I think there is a standard that the wastewater treatment uses per household per day.

City Attorney Bauman said there would be a standard for new uses, but that won't necessarily apply to parts of the existing system. But the standard for new uses varies by the type of use which is determined by the County Commissioners.

Ms. Mason said the type of use meaning, since it's not residential?

WWTU Director Darter said if it's R1, R1B, R2, R3, R4. There's a finite amount of gallonage that can go through there.

Ms. Mason said and what is that?

Director Darter said 500,000 gallons per day.

Ms. Mason said 500,000. Can that be upgraded? That lift station?

Director Darter said no.

Ms. Mason said not even by putting another impeller in there?

Director Darter said no.

Mayor Margerum said that pipeline is also sized for that amount, purposely, that was kept.

Ms. Mason said 500,000 gallons per day.

Councilor O'Callaghan said was that part of the agreement? That is would be a geographical boundary and a 500,000 gallon limit per day?

City Attorney Bauman said no. That was part of the original agreement. That agreement doesn't exist anymore, but the physical constraints of the force main and how much sewage you can pump through it is still a physical reality.

Councilor Sparby said what is the advantage or the reasoning behind the flip-flop?

City Attorney Bauman said you are going to have to ask the developers that were involved in that.

Mayor Margerum said Purdue University owns both of those parcels. They could have developed either one.

City Attorney Bauman said I assumed they wanted to allow children to continue to play soccer on the one, while the other was developed, but that is speculation.

Councilor Sparby said the way it stands right now, granted this is a Board of Works decision if this is passed, but we would be providing a connection for the soccer fields as opposed to the housing development if the Board of Works does not approve the switch. Is that correct?

City Attorney Bauman said well, Purdue would have the option of developing that area where the soccer fields are instead of the other area where they are not.

Councilor Sparby said is Purdue developing this or is Komark?

City Attorney Bauman said they have sold it to Komark to develop.

Councilor Sparby said OK, but the soccer fields they still retain.

City Attorney Bauman said yes, otherwise they could have sold, for instance, the area where the soccer fields are to Komark to develop.

Councilor Sparby said what happens when, let's say the area of the soccer fields are on, if that would be sold to a developer. Then that could not connect?

Mayor Margerum said they have given away their sewer rights to that.

City Attorney Bauman said Purdue waived their sewer rights in the agreement for switching that.

Mayor Margerum said because we didn't want to overload that and did not want to create more housing than could already be on that or allow that to happen. They gave up their sewer rights to that land. That was the geographical.

Councilor Sparby said with the flip-flop, and if we provide connection to Komark, they have waived their rights to fight annexation. Is that correct?

City Attorney Bauman said correct.

Ms. Mason said I think that another question needs to be answered and I didn't get that about American Suburban. Was there any discussion about taking this out of their CTA?

City Attorney Bauman said it's my understanding from the developer, that they were willing to waive that out of their CTA. I did not have any direct discussion with them, no.

Ms. Mason said you don't have that in writing?

City Attorney Bauman said I may have.

Ms. Mason said OK.

City Attorney Bauman said but I didn't get it directly from them.

Ms. Mason said this discussion is nothing new. It has been going on about this flip-flop now since before the District was dissolved. I guess I don't understand why, if it was so important to do the flip-flop, it wasn't done before the District dissolved.

City Attorney Bauman said you will have to talk to the people who were running the Regional Sewer District at that time.

Ms. Mason said all right, thank you.

Councilor Windler said I do have an additional comment. Wasn't it at our last meeting that we passed a resolution about supporting a land use plan for Wabash Township? I think this very incident goes to reinforce the need for a land use plan because this is what can happen when you have, I'll call it, spontaneous growth, for lack of better terminology. So once again it is referenced back to the County Commissioners that we really need to have a land use plan so that different area agencies aren't tripping over each others' feet like this in the future.

Mayor Margerum said I believe the County Commissioners also passed the same resolution for APC to do this.

Councilor Sparby said I would just like to say that I have my own reservations about the flip-flopping of the land, but the way this ordinance is written is we are not really dealing with that particular issue nor are we dealing with a particular issue of the Morrissey property. This is more of a general change to the ordinance. I guess because of that I am going to vote for this.

Councilor O'Callaghan said I guess I would like to say about the area in the north, this isn't a discussion about annexation, but what doing this would allow us the flexibility in the future to be able to, if some future Council wanted to annex land, it would be land that had a proper sewer system and that was developed to City standards. So I think what it does is it just allows us as much flexibility as possible and I think as a representative of the City, we want to have as much flexibility as possible for the City. In terms of the land to the west, it seems to me that the concerns of the residents in Wabash Township was that by providing sewer service and some of the language in the service agreement that perhaps the City was trying to circumvent the annexation process. Annexation is an important issue. It is important to cities, it is to property owners, and it's a legislative issue. I am convinced that this is not attempt on the part of the City to circumvent that process. I went out and looked at that land as well yesterday, and it seems to me that the concern is a reasonable concern that the City is coming out to where people built their houses way out of town because that is where they wanted to be and then the City grows to it. That is historically what happens to people. I can see the concern because the City is getting close that way. Actually, it's closer on Lindberg Road. It's closer if it was the land by the soccer fields. That's actually closer to the city limits than the Komark development. It seems much less likely that the City would want to annex the Komark area than the soccer field. So, I think it's actually better off for the Wabash Township residents. So it is an issue that we have thought about a lot since it was presented to us. I did appreciate the comments from the residents of Wabash Township. That was something that I needed to find out for myself whether it was some kind of underhanded attempt to circumvent the annexation process and I'm convinced that it's not.

Councilor Sparby said just as a point of clarification, Mr. Darter, I think you said or maybe it was Mr. Bauman at the Pre-Council meeting, that any areas that do connect to our sewer lines that are outside the City are responsible for any construction costs to bring that line. . .

City Attorney Bauman said that's how we've done inside the City as well. It's really not any different.

Councilor Sparby said so there is no cost to the City.

City Attorney Bauman said no.

Councilor Sparby said the developer absorbs it all.

Councilor Keen said I would like to point out, at least on the Morrissey property, and it appears on the Komark property as well, that the Komark people are not anticipating fighting any kind of annexation in the future, even though we wouldn't allow this to happen. I know for a fact that the Morrissey property development has stated to me personally that it will be written in their covenants and agreements that in a future date this area will be annexed to the City so that anybody that moves into that area would go into it with eyes wide open as far as annexation goes.

There was no further discussion.

Ordinance No. 13-00 passed first reading, 7-0.

Ordinance No. 14-00 An Ordinance to Annex Certain Lands into the City of West Lafayette (McAlister) (Prepared by the City Attorney) Councilor Sparby read the ordinance by title only and said by a vote of 7-0 the Council approved the petitioners request to postpone consideration of this ordinance until the June 5 meeting.

Councilor Keen said is there way to get a copy of the map of this area?

Mayor Margerum said we will make sure they provide it.

Ordinance No. 15-00 An Ordinance to Vacate Utility Easement (DeSilva) (Prepared by Paul J. Couts, C&S Engineering) Councilor Sparby read the ordinance and moved that Ordinance No. 15-00 be passed on first reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Keen.

Mayor Margerum said I believe the City Engineer has said that there is no objection to this. There are no utilities in there.

There was no discussion.

Ordinance No. 15-00 passed first reading, 7-0.

There will be a public hearing at the June 5 meeting.

Resolution No. 10-00 A Resolution Appropriating Insurance Recovery Received for Damage to City Property (Police Department) (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer) Councilor Sparby read the resolution and moved that Resolution No. 10-00 be passed on first and only reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Cohen.

There was no discussion.

Resolution No. 10-00 passed first and only reading, 7-0.

Resolution No. 11-00 A Resolution Appropriating Code Enforcement Revolving Fund on Hand Resulting from Payment of Inspection Fees from the West Lafayette Target Area (Prepared by Department of Development) Councilor Sparby read the resolution and moved that Resolution No. 11-00 be passed on first and only reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Keen.

There was no discussion.

Resolution No. 11-00 passed first and only reading, 7-0.

Resolution No. 12-00 A Resolution Appropriating Housing Rehabilitation Revolving Loan Funds on Hand Resulting from Repayments of Loans Previously Made by the West Lafayette Housing Authority (Submitted by Department of Development) Councilor Sparby read the resolution and moved that Resolution No. 12-00 be passed on first and only reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Keen.

There was no discussion.

Resolution No. 12-00 passed first and only reading, 7-0.

Resolution No. 13-00 A Resolution Requesting the Transfer of Funds (Mayor, Engineering, Economic Development Income Tax, Cumulative Capital Improvement) (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer) Councilor Sparby read the resolution and moved that Resolution No. 13-00 be passed on first and only reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Mills.

There was no discussion.

Resolution No. 13-00 passed first and only reading, 7-0.

Resolution No. 14-00 A Resolution Ratifying an Interlocal Agreement Between the Cities of West Lafayette and Lafayette Concerning the Maintenance of the John Myers Pedestrian Bridge (Prepared by the City Attorney) Councilor Sparby read the resolution by title only and moved that Resolution No. 14-00 be passed on first and only reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum said this interlocal agreement is somewhat of a change from the original one which had been done in conjunction with the County. When the County backed out of that, then the new agreement was entered into. This interlocal agreement states the daily maintenance of the bridge will be performed by the DBC (Downtown Business Center). We will pay the City of Lafayette $5,000 for our share of the maintenance duties. City of Lafayette will provide insurance, inspection, although the cost will be shared, and the cost of repairs, which we hope will not be for 15 or 20 years, will be shared equally. The events will be scheduled by DBC. I think this will work out better than trying to get equipment on and off the bridge. The DBC has done a very good job of doing it. So I recommend that we pass this. The bridge is heavily used.

Councilor O'Callaghan said I just really appreciate having that pedestrian bridge. It was a forward-looking concept to do that and to have Riehle Plaza and have neat events there. It will tie in very nicely with Wabash Landing.

Mayor Margerum said yes. We have worked very well with Lafayette in coordinating those efforts.

There was no further discussion.

Resolution No. 14-00 passed first and only reading, 7-0.

Mayor Margerum said I would like to recognize Scott Schroeder [Insight Communications] who has been our camera man for the televising of all these programs, and in fact, has put together many of the programs that were done during all these last 7 1/2 years. So he is leaving and I'd like to wish him good luck and thank him. I think the citizens do approve and enjoy having the sessions being televised. Thank you for all your good work.

Councilor Sparby said I would like to add my thanks to Scott. I know there isn't a member on this Council that has served when you have not been here, so it's going to be really hard next month to look out and not see your face. But I feel that Insight's loss is Purdue's gain and I wish you the best of luck with your new career at Purdue University.

Mr. Schroeder said I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Councilor Mills announced that the second rezoning meeting for the New Chauncey Neighborhood Association will be next Monday, May 8, at 7 p.m. at the Morton multi-purpose room. The second item is just to remind everybody, all the citizens in town, that West Lafayette Public Library is still currently soliciting input on the future expansion location of the library. The Library Board met last Thursday night in a public meeting. The Mayor and I both were there, to present just some preliminary sketches of plans, and very preliminary plans, of what the library might look like if it were to stay at the same site or be moved to another site and just give some statistics that they've gathered from citizen input to this point. But they do want and need input from everybody in West Lafayette to help them make a decision about the future of the library. They encourage you to call any of the Library Board members, Jill May, who is the chairman of that Board, or Nick Schenkel, who is the director of the library.

There being no further business at this time, Councilor Sparby moved for adjournment. Motion was seconded by Councilor Windler and passed viva-voce. The time being 9:20 P.M.

Office of the Clerk-TreasurerJudy Rhodes