The Town Council of Winona Lake, Indiana met in a regular session on Tuesday, December 8, 2009 in the Town Hall at 6:00 p.m.

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Joy Lohse, Sue Gooding, Jim Lancaster, Terry Howie, Randy Swanson and Retha Hicks

ABSENT: Larry Long and Paul Schmitt

OTHERS PRESENT: Craig Allebach, Pete O’Connell, Mitch Titus and Jim Walmer

Opening

Hicks opened the meeting with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of minutes – Lancaster motioned to accept minutes, motion was seconded by Swanson. Minutes were approved as written.

Floor Topics: There were no floor topics.

Ordinance 2009-11-1 Tree Ordinance – Walmer made some changes from the original ordinance including the responsibility of appointing the “Tree Commission” and Town Forrester by the Town Council. The ordinance states that only the Town Council can assess penalties. Lohse brought up an issue where developers are required to replace trees removed for development or contribute to a fund for that purpose. Walmer had changed this area and Lohse did not have the change. Lohse also questioned the change under the “penalties claims and appeals” and Walmer explained we were not allowed by law to have a penalty of more than $2,500. Damage to a tree should be assessed according to fair market value. Swanson asked if he bought a lot, does the ordinance disallow removal of trees to fit the footprint of a newly constructed house. Walmer responded that if you remove trees you have to replace them or pay for the loss of the trees, the ordinance does not distinguish just trees in the right-of-way. Lancaster asked if this ordinance would have jurisdiction over tree removal in the mountain bike trails. Lohse responded that it would go before the Tree Commission and they would decide if it was a necessary action. The ordinance is for the protection of trees in our community in the future and we want you to replace the trees you remove. Dave Wolkins expressed concern about having to replace every scrub tree he removes on his property and is concerned about policing this on private property. Lancaster brought up the issue of trying to “balance” the issue of trying to protect the community as a whole and yet not infringing upon the rights of the property owners. We have a sign ordinance that protects against someone putting up a large flashing neon sign and we want a similar type of protection for our community with the tree ordinance. Allebach felt this went to the role of the Forrester – the decision to allow a tree to be cut down. Gooding felt that it would become a hassle for residents. Swanson wanted to know if there had been irresponsible removal of trees. Multiple individuals responded: NIPSCo. Swanson asked if the ordinance would affect their rights. Swanson then asked if the Council was addressing a problem that does not exist. He was concerned about requiring someone to replace every sapling they remove. Walmer also felt there was an issue with possible lawsuits if the Town would not allow a property owner to remove a tree – it would become an imminent domain issue or a violation of civil rights. Allebach asked if the ordinance could be changed to just addressing the town right-of-ways. It was discussed that a developer could remove all the trees before he came before the Plan Commission. Wolkins stated that people want trees on their property and they are an important asset. Gooding felt we needed to look at some other examples of ordinances.

Titus asked if fire hydrants could be added to section 6 Public Nuisance regarding obstructing street lights, etc. The Council wanted to send the ordinance back to Walmer to make changes regarding balance between private and public property and include fire hydrants. Lancaster motioned to table the Tree Ordinance and Gooding seconded. The motion passed. Lancaster asked that the Council set a date where ordinance will be approved and make sure the Council has copies ahead of time and issues are addressed. Walmer stated that he would have the information for the December 22 meeting and he would attend.

Ordinance 2009-11-2 - Amending Section 1-61 Prohibited Discharges. The first reading of this ordinance was at the November 24^th Town Council meeting. Gooding made a motion to approve the ordinance and Lohse seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Ordinance 2009-12-1 – Fixing Salaries of Certain Employees. – Swanson stated that he was not in attendance for the budget meeting, but he understands that the increase is included in our budget. He felt in light of Jerry Nelson’s comments at the last meeting regarding our economy that we need to discuss the viability of this increase. Howie agreed and felt we would receive criticism if increases were given. Lohse asked what was done last year in preparation for this year. Allebach responded last years raise was 3% and we would not have known when the budget was done for 2009 what would happen with the economy. Gooding stated that 3% was a good rule of thumb for the cost of living increase. This year there is no cost of living increase and that is why social security is not increased. Lancaster asked if all the salaries were always covered by one ordinance and Hicks responded yes, but added that the State Board of Accounts wanted to know why we have an ordinance and a resolution. Walmer responded that elected officials had to be ordinanced and ordinary employees could be added to the ordinance. We could also just have the Council do regular employees through a motion and have the Council approve. Lancaster wanted the option of changing or rewarding someone during the year and Hicks responded that we could do that presently by an additional ordinance. Gooding pointed out that Hicks’ salary reflects a 1% increase. Hicks noted there was a problem there and she would rework it. Swanson stated again that in light of the economy he felt everything should be held at the 2009 rates and made a motion as such.

Lohse wanted to express support for the Town employees. Walmer stated that the Council could give bonuses at anytime so long as the funds were available. Lancaster stated that goals and objectives should be in place for the Town employees. He feels that the approach needs to be a little less broad and be more specific to expectations. Lohse lauded our supervisors and what they have done this last year and then you compare this to other municipalities and the State and how they are performing. There are a lot of variables to consider. Ultimately you just have to make a decision and live with it. Lohse asked if we have to do 3% or nothing – is it all or nothing? Gooding responded that the motion is to keep everything at the 2009 rate including the HSA and deferred savings. Lancaster stated if we keep the HSA the same this does not take into account the health insurance. Hicks responded the deductable and the out of pocket for the employee has increased. The monthly premium has also increased which the employee pays 20% of the premium. Gooding stated that the Council could not know if an employee expended the deductable. Lancaster made a motion to approve the Ordinance 2009-12-1 keeping the salaries, deferred savings and HSA at the 2009 rate on the first reading. Lohse seconded the motion and it passed. Swanson made a motion to pass the Ordinance 2009-12-1 and Lohse seconded. The motion passed

Resolution 2009-12-2 – Fixing Salaries of Town Employees. Gooding made a motion to pass Resolution 2009-12-2 with no increase in pay, HSA or deferred savings. Randy seconded the motion and it passed.

Lancaster asked the Council to set goals and expectations for the employees just as the Council has for them selves. Gooding felt that it would be difficult to establish such goals. Lancaster responded that the Council would not set the goals, but be able to see the goals and what has been accomplished toward them. Swanson shared that this would be standard practice in private industry. Hicks reported that she does employee evaluations annually. Swanson asked if this evaluation affects whether the employee receives a pay increase for the next year. Hicks responded that is does for her employees. Lancaster stated that he did not want to make the increase universal, that it would be based on performance. Lohse stated the hospital has gone to a system that either you perform well and receive the increase or you do not. Why would you want someone who does not perform well?

Fire Department Presentation and Request for SCBA Breathing Apparatus. Kevin Bell presented an update on the new ladder truck. The department is requesting approval to purchase five self contained breathing apparatus. One quote from Nowak is for $26,765 and the other from Hoosier Fire Equipment is for $26,960.75. Hicks reported the Fire Department has $14,000 in their capital budget. She feels there will be enough of a remaining balance in appropriations this year. We are contributing $20,000 to $40,000 a year to the rainy day fund for capital expenditures and she believes we will be contributing about $20,000 in 2010. So we will increase the contribution to $40,000 to cover the additional amount. Gooding made a motion to approve the Fire Department’s request for the breathing apparatus to be purchased from Nowak for $26,765 and Lancaster second the motion. The motion was passed unanimously

Report from Supervisors

Pete – The Street Department is currently out salting. The Department is ready for winter.

Titus – Is requesting permission to go ahead and order bunker gear before the 10% increase of January 1. Gooding made a motion to approve this. Lancaster seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Council

Gooding – The paving is looking good.

Lohse – She is going to send a letter to Warsaw thanking them for the paving on Winona Ave.

Craig – The dredging is complete and it came in under the estimate.

Lohse made a motion to adjourn and Lancaster seconded. The motion passed.

Meeting was adjourned

_________________________ ___________________________

TERRY HOWIE RETHA S. HICKS

PRESIDENT CLERK-TREASURER