Town Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you for watching.

We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. And tonight we have a Boy Scout in the crowd. So we're gonna go ahead and ask Allen to lead us. Thank you. Julie, roll call please.

Robert Pope. Present. Bill Holland. Present. Greg Zuzan. Don Loudon.

Present.

Jason Puckett.

Moving on to the consent agenda. Are there any questions? And if not, we'll take a motion. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THE CHECK REGISTER.

SECOND.

JULIE, ROLL CALL, PLEASE. Next is public comment. The public may comment on the agenda that is not part of a specific public hearing or comment on any specific matter within the council's jurisdiction. If there's someone that would like to speak, please come forward. Make sure the green button is on at the microphone and state your name and your address, please.

My name's Casey Neiheiser. I live at 7764 Cobble Springs Drive. I'm here mainly so you can put a face with the name. I've already sent something online and I just got the acknowledgement, so I'm trying not to take too much time. I know I only have a few minutes, but my concern is the nuisance of the noise coming from Ale Emporium. I've lived in my home for 29 years and Never have I had that kind of noise coming from it. I understand it's a restaurant. I don't have a problem with the restaurant. It's the loud music that they play their live bands. And when they play their live bands, their bay doors are open. So that makes it even worse for me and my neighbors. And our concern is that we're kind of being left out because there aren't very many of us affected. There's just a few houses. But what happens is, is coming directly at our homes when it comes out of that Ale Emporium. It's actually even furled between two buildings coming across the parking lot right to our back doors. And I have triple pane windows in my home and I have my windows closed, doors shut in the evening, and I can hear the bass from that music beating on my house. And I'm coming now because I was just waiting to see if anything would change, if anything could be done about this. And because it's gonna affect property values. There's no way right now somebody would even think of purchasing my house and raising a family in there. Not with that sound coming. And at least right now, I mean, could we at least have them close their bay doors when they're playing their music? I mean, that would be a start if it works. I don't even know if that would work. But that's our concern. That's definitely my concern. that's why i'm here today i i just need to get that out there so that you understand where i'm coming from my house is just over 100 yards from this restaurant so that noise is loud i sit on i walk out my back deck and i sit down i can hear the songs i can hear every word they're singing i can hear everything and it's not going to help my home at all when it down the road when i'm trying to even when i'm trying to sell even when i'm trying to live in it now i mean and that's why i'm here today to voice my concern to let you know that me and my neighbors we're we're concerned that we're going to get left in the dust because us versus a business and there's only a few of us it's that's gonna be an issue and it already is an issue. So I just wanted to get that out there, let you know that we are very concerned over there in our homes and thank you for your time. I appreciate you listening to me and I hope we can get a resolution to this because right now it's not gotten any better.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Bob Culler, 1483 Laurel Oak here in Avon. As a member of the Redevelopment Authority and Redevelopment Commission, I'd like to thank Mr. Cannon for coordination of our pre-tour, private tour of the new Civic Center. I think we've come a long way. About 50% done and it looking great and I think it's going to be a excuse me. It's going to be a very model for the whole central Indiana. So again, thank you Ryan. And by the way, Anna didn't make it because it was raining that day. I don't want to mention any names or say anything bad, but Anna did not make it.

Thanks Bob. OK, moving on to Council comment and liaison reports. Okay, we'll move on quickly to new business then. Awarding the quote for the crack ceiling, Steve.

Steve Moore, Public Works Director. In our annual efforts to keep our good roads good, we do certain things and one of those things is crack ceiling our pavements. had budgeted more than what we got the bids for this year. So we have enough to do this work. The bid that we got from Howard Paving was 71,998.40. And I asked the council to approve that amount for correct ceiling.

Any questions, discussion?

We go through a lot of these. I don't remember Howard Company. Have we used them before? And what's that experience been?

So Howard Company is the one who built the roundabout at Costco. Yeah, we like those guys. They got done early and under budget.

Yeah, Roger. Thank you.

Would someone like to make a motion?

I move we award the quote for Crack Sling Project to Howard Paving for $71,998.40 as presented. Second. Thank you. Julie, roll call, please.

Next is awarding the quote for the Preservative Seal Project.

Again, with our efforts to keep our good roads good, we preservative seal our roads as soon as we possibly can after paving, because they'll never get any newer than what they are. So if you seal when they're 10 years old, you're not going to get any better than what they are when they're 10 years old. So we try to seal our roads within a year of actual paving. This year, We put it out and we got a bid for $196,520.04, which is a lower price per square yard than we paid last year. So I'm happy about that. So I recommend that the council approve the bid of RejuvTech for 196,520.04.

They're still the only one who does this, yes?

Yeah, so there's a protected territory. Each state has a protected territory. There are some contractors that have multiple states, but they're the only show in town. So yes, it is protected territory and they are the only ones doing this product.

I don't know, they've done a good job.

Yeah, and it works.

We'll entertain a motion.

I move we award the quote for a preservative seal project to RejuvTech in the amount of $196,520.04 as presented.

Robert, do you mind amending that to a bid? Because this is not a quote. This is a bid because it's a public works project.

Forgive me. It says it on the agenda. I'm in my motion to award the bid for the preservative seal to RejuvTech in the amount of $196,520.04.

second thank you julia roll call please bill holland or robert pope four don loudon four thank you and the roads thank you moving on to tax abatements the 2026 compliance forms um i guess we'll do them individually avon logistics will be our first one Are you speaking to that, Ryan?

Yeah, I can speak to them. Do you guys want me to go through each of them, or how would you like me to proceed? Do you guys want details on each of them?

Well, I think they each have to individually meet the criteria, correct?

Correct, yeah. You want me to walk you through each of those? Okay. So on Avon Logistics, the first building is the Chicago Industrial. This is the million-square-foot building. So as you're driving on 100 South, it's the first building on 100 South. Again, we've reviewed these. Their original estimate for improvement value was 57 million, and they're currently at 64. So what they proposed is exceeding what they originally proposed. So we would recommend that you approve. Remember, these are compliance forms. So every year they have to show you that they've made the investment that they originally committed to. And so we would recommend you approve the CF1 for Avon Logistics. at 8598 East County Road 100 South. Happy to answer any questions.

Have they also met the hiring and payroll and

So you remember on some of, most of these, they didn't submit because they were spec buildings. So they didn't submit jobs. You'll notice on a couple of them, this one, because Lakeshore, this is the one that, or Lakeside Book Company is in, who just took, you should see the jobs show up, even though they didn't have a commitment. you'll still see them show up as people start hiring. Like you'll even notice that when we get to the High Street Yale one, they are showing that they have some employees there. It's not to the number yet because they're just occupying the space. But so some of them may show nothing and some of them may show a few as they start coming online.

Any other questions on Aval Logistics or if not, we'll entertain a motion.

We're going to do each of these individually. We can't do them together. Is that correct?

Well, I think he needs to speak to them individually so it's on the record and for the people at home. So we could maybe do one vote at the end. Anna, what do you?

Anna said that's fine if that's what you guys wanna do.

Okay, so go on then and move on to Avon Landings.

So yeah, then the next building would be the second building on 100 South, which is an 883,609 square foot industrial building. Likewise, they originally projected the improvement value at 43 million, and it's currently at 66 million. So again, they also exceeded that number. They, even though this is the building that Radial and Rider are in, and so uh it's not showing jobs at this point but we may see them on the radial and rider ones when we receive those on the personal property abatements but it's not reflected in the chicago industrial one because chicago industrial is the shell building owner so i'm happy to answer any questions on that one if you guys have any moving on to avon landings Avon Landing is, just as a reminder, is the project on Ronald Reagan Parkway. And so the first one that you have is 2516 Logistics Way. So you'll notice on this one, they did start showing some payroll numbers. 44 employees at a salary of $751,159. This one, their CF1's not showing the original. um oh they are the well the values before the project were 46 400 um and their investment is 18 million 265 and i can look at the sb1 give me a second disappointed jason's not here because he wants all the sb1s and then he's not here so um their original estimate IT'S NOT ON THE SB 1 EITHER. OH, WAIT, IT'S DOWN HERE. THE ORIGINAL ESTIMATE WAS 12 MILLION AND SO THEY'RE AT 18. SO YEAH, THEY EXCEEDED IT.

NEW SPEAKER AND THE SECOND BUILDING?

NEW SPEAKER THE SECOND BUILDING IS SEFORA. And so you'll notice on here, Sephora is just starting operations as well. So you'll notice they do show 11 employees in their current payroll. $1.6 million. So they're just starting to staff up as well. They are showing their current assessed value at $40 million. and their original sb1 so this one may be that they're not fully assessed yet because they showed their original estimated investment at 73 million And so it may not be fully assessed yet just because of where it was in the completion of construction. So it is under a little bit at this point. So we may keep an eye on that one for next year. We know they made the substantial investment in Sephora, obviously, but.

Moving on to Reagan Logistics.

REAGAN LOGISTICS, THEN THIS IS DOWN ON SOUTH ON RONALD REAGAN, BETWEEN 100 SOUTH AND 200 SOUTH. THEY ARE AT $22 MILLION OF INVESTMENT. AND THEY ALSO DIDN'T SHOW THEIR ORIGINAL. GIVE ME A SECOND HERE. THEY SHOWED 30 MILLION. SO THEY'RE SLIGHTLY UNDER AS WELL. THE SECOND REGION LOGISTICS BUILDING. It's showing the same thing, 22 million. They may have a mistake on their CF1, because both are showing the same assessed value amount.

That second one is showing employees, though.

So the first one's... Well, yeah, and that one's Hyster Yale. So, yeah, they're showing two employees with a payroll at $345,000. Did I just look at the wrong one twice? We got two at 345,000. Yeah, but they're showing the same assessed value as the first building, which I don't believe is correct.

In this instance, then, should we... You could not approve it. Suspend the vote on that one for this meeting?

Yes, you could make a motion just not to include that one, and I can work with them to make sure that's corrected. that building's much more than $22 million. The Hyster Yale building is the 700,000 square feet. So yeah, you could have, you could approve the other ones and not that one if so we can get updated information.

All right. And then Harlan bakeries.

Yeah. Harlan bakeries. Um, they, And you guys will recall they had come several times. They had originally estimated 700 jobs. They only have 461, but their payroll is 25 million, and their original estimated payroll for the 700 jobs was only 13 million. So even though it hasn't been as many jobs, the payroll is actually twice as what they expected. The investment they had proposed is also... You'll remember they actually originally did $10 million of new equipment, and I think it ended up only being $8,700,000.

And this is their last year, final year of abatement?

Correct, yes. Yeah, it started in 17. And then the last one you have is RISE. I'll remind you guys, you guys did request RISE to come in last year. They did it in phases where the original SB1 said that they were gonna do all the buildings at once, but then they only did a portion of them. So this is continuing to increase, but they're building out phase two now. So they currently have 204 employees They said they're expecting an additional 463 employees at a salary of 16 million. Their current payroll is 7 million. So they are short on jobs, but again, haven't done the whole thing. Likewise, their original estimate on the SB1 is 17 million and their actual is at 22. So they've actually exceeded their value at this point.

The values based on the buildings that they've already constructed correct yep. And they're only at phase 2 but they've exceeded they have exceeded the value already up.

They pulled permits and some of the buildings are up already so that's they they may have had some assessed value to them okay.

Any questions or discussion and do we want to vote individually since there are some that It's not clear on.

So I was going down through here. Which one are we talking about that didn't meet the requirement?

The one that we talked about was 10207, Veterans Way. So it's K on your guys' list.

Okay.

So I think if you guys made a motion to approve all of them except for that one, you'd probably be fine as long as Anna's okay doing a single motion.

Yes, and it's not that you're not accepting that, if I'm understanding correctly. It's not that you're saying that they're not substantially compliant. You're just saying that you're postponing that vote for a compliant form submitted to you.

Okay. Entertain a motion.

I'll give this a shot. I move we approve the tax abatement CF1 forms for the following, Avon Logistics Building 1, Avon Logistics Building 2. Do you need addresses or is this gonna be okay to list it as such? Avon Landings Building 1, Avon Landing Sephora. Reagan Logistics, the first one, 10-144 Veterans Way. veterans drive harlan and rise as presented intentionally excluding reagan logistics the second one at 10 207 veterans drive for a later date second thank you julie roll call please robert pope four bill holland four don loudon four

Next is resolution for public hearing and resolution 2026-16 confirming tax abatement and ERA Chicago Industrial. So we'll go ahead or do we wanna have an introduction to that before I open for public hearing? Let's just go ahead and open for public hearing at 724. There is no one coming forward. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 724. Are you going to speak to it?

Yeah, I'll speak to it. Um, so this is for a new building that Chicago industrial is proposing to build on county road, 100, 100 South. This will be their third building. Uh, it's a 613,000 square foot speculative, uh, industrial building. And, um, the town council saw this, the declaratory resolution for this, uh, in late April. And so obviously you have to conduct a public hearing before actually approving the tax abatement. The tax abatement committee did review the abatement and recommends the town council approve it. Mr. Taylor is here and I'm here if you have any specific requests or questions about the abatement, but we would recommend approval. Happy to answer any questions.

Is this one tiered on the same scale that we normally see the 10 year?

Yes. No, it's a little odd. 5%, then 15%, 15 drops, but it's 10 years comes down to zero. It's in the form. It's 195, it's on the form. 195, 80, 65. Yeah, it's a little odd, but it seems like it's a little front loaded. No, it's carried out throughout the whole thing and ends 5% off. It's... It's tiered, but it like takes some chunks and then little, it's just odd. I mean, they're allowed to, right?

Well, so I noticed that too. And I had a conversation with Chicago Industrial about it. They said their intent was to do a standard abatement. The standard abatement schedule was a certain way at one point, and then the state went away from that. And so I would tell you guys that upfront is actually better for the town. So the 100% and then to the 95% is actually better for us. The calculation that they presented was based on that analysis. And so I don't have an issue with it. Luke and I talked about it. I actually had a conversation with John about it. We can do whatever we want. for that schedule again the calculations that they presented we still typically end up with better than 50 of the taxes over the 10 years and in this situation we still end up with better than 50 of the taxes over 10 years so if we want to change it i don't think chicago industrial would be against it i just didn't make them change it because that was what they did their calculation based on And we have done that schedule for some other of the developers. When I went and looked at some of them, we had done that for some other ones.

How does the council feel? Do you want to keep it with the way they've proposed it? Or do we want our standard one? Or what are the thoughts?

Again, if it's front loaded on the higher side, as the value matures and the smaller amount of taxes come off of it we will gain more taxes through this if we're doing the abatement we would gain more taxes with it front loaded than rear loaded so if this is what they want go for it i just i only brought it up because it was just it was just unique it was it's i hadn't i didn't remember this all right we'll go ahead and entertain a motion Before we do that, I just wanted to make a note. The resolution on this is a little old. It's, I think, from 2022. It still has Aaron Tebebaugh and Steve Eisenbarth on the council.

Oh, geez.

I mean, it's just the paper, right? That can be fixed. It's my fault. Sorry. With that said... I move we adopt Resolution 2026-16, confirming the tax abatement and ERA as presented.

Second.

Thank you, Julie. Roll call, please. Don Loudon? For. Bill Holland?

For.

Robert Pope?

For.

Moving on to Resolution 2026-17, declaring police vehicle as surplus property.

Good evening. Uh, Steve Barton, deputy chief Avon police department. Um, so the police department's proposing to dispose of a 2016 Ford fusion. Uh, the vehicle is in our unmarked fleet, um, that's being used for, um, just as an extra vehicle. Um, so if one of our vehicles goes down, uh, for both admin, or for detectives, or if we need to put someone in an unmarked vehicle for some reason, that's what this is being used for is just as extra vehicle in the pool fleet. um currently the miles are just shy of 90 000 but the big thing is that we're finding it more in the shop than not and so we have four other unmarked vehicles in the pool fleet right now and so this is the one that i would propose that we dispose of the big thing is that we'll just save money on maintenance more than anything um even right now it's currently at the shop so um so that's that's the proposal any questions no so we'll entertain a motion i move we adopt resolution 2026-17 declaring a police vehicle surplus property as presented second thank you julie

Bill Holland? Four. Don Laudan? Four. Robert Pope?

Four. All right, thank you.

Thanks.

Okay, moving on to final reading of ordinance 2026-07, the Riverwalk District.

Yes, I'll take this one. So this ordinance before you does a couple things, but what it primarily does is it's establishing a municipal riverfront project or district. These sorts of districts are authorized by statute, and they're designed to promote economic development in and around riverfronts. In this case, that would be Whitelich Creek. Essentially how it works is that it allows you to recommend the issuance of alcohol permits to different proprietors, and when those are approved, essentially Alcohol and Tobacco Commission do not have to look at standard population-based quotas that are usually applicable. So your recommendation supports their ability to go into that area, and there theoretically could be more than would normally be allowed due to those quotas. So it would establish that district. What it would also do is it would authorize the town manager to set up a process for the application. So essentially what they'll do is they'll submit an application to the town, and you'll eventually consider that application and then make a recommendation to the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission as to whether or not you believe they should be issued a permit. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

If no questions or comments, we'll entertain a motion.

I move we accept the final reading of Ordinance 2026-07, the Riverwalk District.

Second.

Thank you. Julie, roll call, please.

Robert Pope. For. Don Loudon. For. Bill Holland. For.

Next is final reading of ordinance 2026-08, the building permit fees.

Yes, as you guys are aware, we talked about this at our work session. You guys introduced it at the last meeting. This is adjusting our building permit fees. We hadn't previously adjusted them since 2019. I did provide you guys a copy of a letter from Beggy at the last meeting. Beggy also apologized and said they weren't able to be here tonight. And they asked that I distribute an article to you guys. I put that in all of your mailboxes about housing and development. But again, I don't think it changes anything here. We followed the statute and we amended our fees based on our actual costs for us to be able to provide these services, which is what the law requires of us. And so we would recommend that you approve this tonight. It does have to wait 90 days to let the development community know so they have time to adjust. So there will be a 90 day waiting period before they go into effect. I'm happy to answer any questions.

and we did talk about so that we don't have such large increases addressing or reviewing our fee structure every couple of years um we did i will probably delay that discussion further because

The new law doesn't allow us, we're only allowed to do it once every five years. And so Anna will walk you guys through that or Anna and Dan will walk you guys through that when we talk about the new legislation at your June work session. So we won't be able to do that because of that bill.

So it's really even more important that we're covering our fees for our community and our taxpayers and getting them to where they need to be at least for what our costs are as of today.

That's correct.

Yep, alright. If there's no more discussion, then will entertain a motion.

I move we adopt ordinance 2026-08 amending building fee building permit fees as presented.

2nd thank you. Julie roll call please.

For Bill Holland for Dunlap for.

Legal counsel report. SECOND, PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY. COUNCIL COMMENTS. COUNCIL CALENDAR.

So I did want to, some of you may have noticed on social media, and if those of you who know Mike Tully, you know that he doesn't particularly like to be in the limelight, but last week the staff celebrated with Mike, Mike's 30th anniversary here working at the town. Mike Tully was the first employee of the town. Again, has just been a solid performer for the town, very knowledgeable. He's one of the most qualified inspectors in the state of Indiana. The town is one, just fortunate to have him, and two, fortunate that he stayed here as long as he has. And I think he loves working here. We joke about having to take him out on a gurney one day that he'll still be working. So thank you, Mike, and congratulations to him on his 30th anniversary. Your next meeting is June 11th. We do have a work session at 5.30 p.m. So work session at 5.30 and regular town council meeting at 7 p.m.

I should have said this during my council comment, but addressing the person that came forward during public comment period, I know that at our last meeting we had someone come forward with the same topic and we were ordering something that measured decibel levels. Has that come in yet or...

I haven't, I think Drew does have it. I know I did reach out to that property owner to see how things went over the Memorial Day weekend. He said a couple of days were better, a couple of days were the same. And again, we did get the request, came through our complaint system today, and I think Drew was gonna reach out to Mr. Neuhauser as well. So we'll communicate to them and work with them. Mr. Neuhauser's right, there's about five property owners there who are impacted. and certainly we'll try to find solutions to work with the property owners and Ale Emporium to try to remedy the situation. But I don't have specifics on whether Drew got readings that exceeded what our decibel readings are for our ordinance or not, but I'll follow up with them and find out.

Okay, thank you. Meeting adjourned.