HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC-08-18-03-03 Amend Fiscal Plan C-258 SPONSORED BY:
COUNCILORS KOVEN, SNYDER
AND WILSON
RESOLUTION NO. CC-08-18-03-03
AMENDING FORMER RESOLUTION NO. CC-05-19-03-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL~ INDIANA~ ADOPTING A FISCAL PLAN FOR THE
ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY
OF CARMEL, INDIANA
WHEREAS, well defined long term planning benefits the City of Carmel ("City") and the
community at large; and
WHEREAS, in recognizing the need and benefit of long term planning, the Common
Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana ("Council") is desirous of annexing a certain portion of
Clay Township into the City of Carmel (the "Annexation Territory"); and
WHEREAS, the Annexation Territory is contiguous to the existing city limits of the City
of Carmel; and
WHEREAS, a map describing the boundaries of the Annexation Territory is attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a legal description of the Annexation Territory is attached hereto and
incorporated heroin as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the Annexati. on Territory consists of approximately 625 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Annexation Territory is needed and can be used by the City for its
development in the reasonably near further; and
WHEREAS, responsible planning and state law require adoption of a fiscal plan and a
definite policy for the provision of certain services to annexed areas; and
WHEREAS, the Council is desirous of adopting a written fiscal plan for the Annexation
Territory;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Carmel of Carmel, Indiana, that:
Section One:
The Council adopts the Fiscal Plan and its Addendum In Response to
Comments Received at the Public Hearings for Annexation Ordinances C-
257, C-258, C-259 and C-260 (collectively, "Plan?) prior to the adoption
of the annexation ordinance for the Annexation Territory, a copy of which
is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C.
Section Two:
The purpose of the Plan is to confirm that the City is physically and
financially able to provide municipal services to the Annexation Territory
pursuant to the Plan.
SPONSORED BY:
COUNCILORS KOVEN, SNYDER
AND WILSON
Section Three: The basic services described in the Plan become effective pursuant to the
Plan upon adoption of Annexation Ordinance No. C-258.
Section Four: The City will provide a copy of the Plan immediately after adoption to the
landowner in the Annexation Territory who requests a copy from the
Clerk-Treasurer of the City.
Section Five: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from the date of passage,
and its publication, as provided by law.
PA~S~_ED by the Common of the City of Carmel, [~,~ay
Councii
Indiana
this
of
/~I,L.~7~ ,2003, byavoteof "'~ ayesand ~ nays.
A ~MMON ~OUNCILJOR THE CITY
/Ronald E. Carter
IN.I~ Rundle
Wayne Wilson
ATTEST: ~ ,O /
~ / 2 ( /._// //sa~dta~. jonson,
ASiana L. Cordray} Cl¢~reasurer
~~d by me to the Mayor of the City of C~eI, Indiana, the [~ay of
,2003, at ~0~ ~ .m. . ~Sandm M. Johaso~
~ Approv_~d by me, the Mayo_~ol~he City of Carmel,
~, 2003 at ~.m.
SPONSORED BY:
COUNCILORS KOVEN, SNYDER
AND W SON
Indiana this __ day of
ATTEST: /"Q
/~4/t-~4/~/~ /~L ~ ~' DePm~ Clerk for
/Diana L. Cordray, Cl~-~r
Prepared By:
803161
Sue A. Beesley
Bingham McHale LLP
10 W. Market Street
Suite 2600
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
EXHIBIT "B"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE C-258
96th and Westfield
A PART OF SECTION ONE (1), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE THREE (3) EAST AND A
PART OF SECTION SIX (6) AND SECTION SEVEN (7), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE
FOUR (4) EAST IN HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA, more fully described as follows:
BEGINNING at the intersection of the East Right-of-Way Line of Westfield Boulevard with the southern boundary
of Hamilton County (which is generally located at 96th Street), said point being coincident with the Southeast Comer
of the Corporation Boundaries of the City of Carmel as described in Ordinance No. C-215;
Then proceeding along the boundaries of said Ordinance No C-215 for the following two (2) courses:
1) proceed Northward along the east right-of-way line of Westfield Boulevard (a.k.a. Rangeline Road) to
the point of intersection with the north right-of-way line of 99th Street;
2) proceeding generally westward, across Westfield Boulevard to the point of intersection of the west right-
of-way line of Westfield Boulevard and the northern boundary of parcel number 17-13-12-00-00-003, as
shown on Hamilton County map number 13-12-00;
Then proceed northward along the west right-of-way line of Westfield Boulevard to a point directly west of the
southwest comer of pamel number 17-14-06-00-00-021.000, said point being the southwest corner of the
Corporation Boundary of the City of Carmel as described in Ordinance No. C-242 and more fully described in
Zoning Ordinance No. Z-397-02 rezoning the Woodland Country Club and approved by Carmel City Council on
October 21, 2002;
Then coincident with the southerly and easterly lines of said Ordinance No. C-242 for following thirty-six (36)
courses (the following bearings are assumed from aforesaid Zoning Ordinance No. Z-397-02):
1) proceeding eastward to the southwest comer of said parcel number 17-14-06-00-00-021.000;
2) proceeding North 89 degrees 56 minutes 15 seconds East a distance of 190.50 feet;
3) proceed South 00 degrees 28 minutes 42 seconds East, parallel with the West Line of the West Half of
Section Six, a distance of 312.52 feet to the North line and the extension thereof of Woodland Golf Club
Subdivision, Fourth Section, a subdivision in Hamilton County, Indiana, the plat of which is recorded in
Plat Book 2, Page 62 in the Office of the Recorder of said county;
4) proceed North 89 degrees 56 minutes 15 seconds East, on said North line, a distance of 1492.50 feet;
5) proceed North 89 degrees 56 minutes 15 seconds East, on said North Line of said Subdivision and on the
North Line of Woodland Golf Club Subdivision, Sixth Section, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 162 of the
aforesaid Recorder's Office, a distance of 968.47 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Woodland Golf Club
Subdivision, Sixth Section, said point being on the West Line of Jordan Woods, Fifth Section, as recorded
in Plat Book 2, pages 262-263 in the aforesaid Recorder's Office;
6) proceed North 00 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West, along the West Line of said Jordan Woods, Fifth
Section, a distance of 632.00 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Jordan Woods, Fifth Section;
7) proceed North 89 degrees 01 minutes 00 seconds East, along the North Line of said Jordan Woods, Fifth
Section, a distance of 30.80 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot #6? in Woodland Golf Club Subdivision,
3~d Section, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 22 in the aforesaid Recorder's Office;
8) proceed North 01 degrees 35 minutes 07 seconds West, along the West Line of said Woodland Golf
Club Subdivision, 3ra Section, to the intersection of said West Line of said 3rd Section with the northerly
boundary line of parcel number 17-14-06-00-00-020.000;
9) proceed westward along said northerly boundary of said parcel number 17-14-06-00-00-020.000 to the
Southeast Corner of Lot #51 in Woodland Golf Club 2n'~ Subdivision, as recorded in Deed Record 137,
page 274 of the aforesaid Recorder's Office;
10) proceed North 84 degrees 17 minutes 53 seconds West, along the South Line of said Lot #51, a distance
of 40.00 feet to an angle point in the South Line of said Lot #51;
1 i) proceed North 56 degrees 53 minutes 05 seconds East, continuing along the south line of said Lot #5 i,
a distance of 154.88 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot #50;
12) proceed North 82 degrees 43 minutes 05 seconds West, along the South Line of said Lot #50, a distance
of 65.00 feet to an angle point in said South Line;
13) proceed South 68 degrees 20 rrdnutes 45 seconds West, continuing along said South Line of Lot #50, a
distance of 106.90 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Lot #50;
14) proceed North 04 degrees 34 minutes 02 seconds East, along the West Lines of Lot #50 and Lot #49, a
distance of 356.50 feet to the Northwest Comer of said Lot #49;
15) proceed North 89 degrees 02 minutes 54 seconds West a distance of 125.00 feet;
16) proceed North 22 degrees 41 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet to the Southeast Comer
of Lot #35;
17) proceed South 32 degrees 09 minutes 23 seconds West, along the South Line of Lot #35, a distance of
106.16 feet to an angle point in the South Line of said Lot #35;
18) proceed westwardly, continuing along the South Line of Lot #35, to the Southwest Corner of Lot #35;
19) proceed North 03 degrees 21 minutes 23 seconds East, along the West Line of said Lot #35, a distance
of 140.41 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot #34;
20) proceed North 08 degrees 47 minutes 37 seconds West, aloug the West Line of said Lot #34 and along
the prolongation thereof, a distance of 133.28 feet to the intersection of said northerly prolongation of the
West Line of Lot #34 with the northerly right-of-way line of Woodland Drive;
21) proceed North 70 degrees 58 minutes 52 seconds East, along said northerly right-of-way line, a
distance of 105.39 feet;
22) proceed North 77 degrees 06 minutes 46 seconds East, along said northerly right-of-way line, a
distance of 75.00 feet;
23) proceed South 84 degrees 28 minutes 14 seconds East, along said northerly right-of-way line, a
distance of 50.00 feet;
24) proceed South 59 degrees 35 minutes 14 seconds East, along said northerly right-of-way line, a
distance of 50.00 feet;
25) proceed South 30 degrees 42 minutes 14 seconds East, along said northerly right-of-way line, a
distance of 40.00 feet;
26) proceed South 06 degrees 36 minutes 14 seconds East, along said uortherly right-of-way line, a
distance of 40.00 feet to the Northwest Corner of Lot #36;
27) proceed North 81 degrees 30 minutes 46 seconds East, along the North Line of said Lot #36, a distance
of 225.00 feet to the Northwest Corner of Lot #38;
28) proceed Northeastwardly, along the North Line of Lot #38 and Lot #39 to the Northwest Corner of Lot
#40;
29) proceed North 83 degrees 23 minutes 05 seconds East, along the North Line of Lot #40, a distance of
124.84 feet to the Northwest Comer of Lot #41;
30) proceed South 81 degrees 50 minutes 07 seconds East, along the North Line of said Lot #41, a distance
of 184.38 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Lot #41;
31) proceed South 03 degrees 03 minutes 23 seconds West, along the East Line of aforesaid Woodland
Golf Club 2na Subdivision to the intersection of said East Line with the southwest boundary line of parcel
number 17-14-06-00-00-001.000;
32) proceeding southeastwardly, along said southwest boundary line of said parcel number 17-14-06-00-
00-001.000, to the Northwest Comer of Lot #52 in aforesaid Woodland Golf Club Subdivision, 3rd Section;
33) proceed North 87 degrees 07 minutes 18 seconds East, along the North Line of said lot #52, a distance
of 202.83 feet to an angle point in the North Line of Lot #53;
34) proceed South 36 degrees 54 minutes 18 seconds East on and along the Easterly Line of Lots 53, 54, 55
and 56, a distance of 675.35 feet to the Northwest Corner of Lot #64;
35) proceed North 84 degrees 24 minutes I0 seconds East, along the North Line of said Lot #64, a distance
of 131.80 feet to the Northwest Comer of Lot #65;
36) proceed North 89 degrees 37 minutes 20 seconds East, along the North Line of said Lot #65, to the
intersection of said North Line of Lot #65 with the Westerly right-of-way line of U.S. #431 and the
Corporation Boundaries of the City of Carmel as described in Ordinance No. C-50;
Then proceed southward, along said westerly right-of-way line and coincident with the West Line of said Ordinance
No. C-50 to the Northeast Corner of the Corporation Boundary of the City of Carmel as described in
Ordinance No. C-166;
Thence along the northerly, westerly and southerly boundaries of said Ordinance No. C-[66 for the following eight
(8) courses (the following bearings are taken from said Ordinance No. C-166):
1) proceed South 62 degrees 30 minutes 03 seconds West a distance of 128.55 feet;
2) proceed North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, parallel with the South Line of the West Half of
the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, a distance of 563.05 feet to the East Line of Jordan Woods, a
subdivision in Hamilton County, Indiana, the plat of which is recorded in Plat Book 2, page 228, in the
aforesaid Recorder's Office;
3) proceed North 00 degrees 12 minutes 46 seconds West, along the East Line of said subdivision, a
distance of 23.50 feet;
4) proceed North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, parallel to the aforesaid South Line of the West
Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 6, a distance of 410.45 feet to the West Line of said West
Half;
5) proceed South 00 degrees 12 minutes 46 seconds East, along said West Line, a distance of 40.00 feet to
the Northwest Corner of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7;
6) proceed South 00 degrees 12 minutes 46 seconds East, along the West Line of the West Half of the
Northeast Quarter of said Section 7, a distance of 2673.03 feet to the Northwest Corner of the West Half of
the Southeast Quarter of said Section 7;
7) proceed South 00 degrees 12 minutes 46 seconds East, along the West Line of the West Half of the
Southeast Quarter of said Section 7, a distance of 30.00 feet;
8) proceed North 89 degrees 23 minutes 20 seconds East, parallel to the North Line of the West Half of the
Northeast Quarter of said Section 7, a distance of 1292.21 feet to the aforesaid westerly right-of-way line of
U.S. 431 as described in aforesaid Ordinance No. C-50;
Then proceed southward along said westerly right-of-way line of U.S. 431 and along the aforesaid west line of
Ordinance No. C-50 to the intersection of said westerly right-of-way line with the centerline of 96~h Street, said point
being on the aforesaid southern boundary of Hamilton County;
Then proceed westward, along said centerline and along said southern boundary of Hamilton County, to the PLACE
OF BEGINNING containing 625 acres, more or less, subject to all legal easements and right of way of record.
ADDENDUM
In Response to Comments Received
at the Public Hearings
for Annexation Ordinances C-257, C-258, C-259 and C-260
The public hearings for annexation ordinances C-257, C-258, C-259 and C-260 were held on
July 21, 2003. The pubhc hearings were held in close sequence. The Fiscal Plans were prepared
using the same basic format and the questions for each of the four were very closely related,
despite separations in geographic territory. We, therefore, offer the following as a proposed
addendum to the Fiscal Plans for each of the four annexation areas, as demonstration of the
testimony received and the responses thereto. The public questions and comments were
generally applicable to all of the annexation areas, and we would suggest that the only reasons
for the differences in the comments was the number of people testifying in each case.
Amount of the Property Tax Increase
The majority of the public testimony indicated substantial concem with knowing the exact the
amount of the tax increase, and the question was posed in multiple ways, most dominantly
asking the specific amount of the increase, along with the allegation that multiple officials had
offered multiple estimates of the amount of property taxes resulting from annexation.
The Fiscal Plan reflects a computed increase of 12%-15% in taxes which was based on pre-re-
assessment budget levels. We honestly stated the basis of the estimate in the Fiscal plan
document, and also noted that there were several reasons that a specific amount of the property
tax increase could be most honestly reflected in a reasonable range, rather than a specific
amount. The Fiscal Plan was prepared prior to release of 2003 re-assessments, and therefore
could not use 2003 figures as a means of fair comparison. The Fiscal Plan presented specific
percentages of the City's budget allocated to each department and attempted to show
approximately how each property tax dollar is allocated, as a matter of proportion. Those figures
were accurate at that time and we believe continue to represent the best method of estimation
available, especially based on a known budget and approved tax rates, prior to re-assessment.
For the record, it is our honest belief that the actual changes in the property taxes for parcel
owners within the annexation area which are due to annexation will be between 12% and 15%,
based on our analysis. However, we also note that there are several forces at work which will
alter property tax rates and payments and that it is virtually impossible at this time to clearly
separate the specific causes, especially for the purposes of satisfying the public responding to
this annexation proposal.
If this annexation is immediately successful, the first property tax invoices containing city
property tax~s Will be received in May, 2005. The truth is that a lot of changes will take place
between now and then, and only a portion of those changes will be controlled by the City. The
outline below will attempt to portray some of the reasons that providing a 'specific amount' of
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments
the property tax increase is not possible.
II.
III.
We note that the impact of the 2003 re-assessment has been to create substantial confusion
related to property taxes. That confusion, and its accompanying frustration, has direct
consequences for annexation and the fiscal plan in several ways.
The legislature has changed the property tax laws in each of the last several legislative sessions.
We further believe that the public and media uproar over the disproportionate results of re-
assessment will likely generate additional changes in the system at the legislative level in 2004
and possibly beyond that. These state-level changes are wholly beyond the capacity of the city to
control. In fact, these state-level changes will also affect properties which are already within the
City, as well as properties throughout the State.
The new property tax figures have only been public for less than a month, despite the fact that the
Supreme Court's decision was rendered in 1998. These delays are squarely the responsibility of
the State Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF), and the City of Carmel is in no way
responsible for either the delay, or the chaos generated by the new system. It is appropriate to
note that only 10 of 92 indiana counties actually have sent invoices to property owners, and the
property tax bills for 2003 are actually still under consideration and subject to appeal and revision.
This means that even the current invoices that people hold in their hands may not be accurate.
IV.
At this time, it is not even c/ear if the property tax rates for 2003 for the city of Carmel have even
been certified by DLGF. It is the responsibility of DLGF to certify the property tax rates of every
taxing entity in the state on an annual basis, which then serves to validate the property tax
invoices. We have been unable to determine if the State has actually performed this function at
this time.
VI.
VII.
The property tax invoice contains the property taxes of every taxing entity with jurisdiction over
the property in the annexation area. The largest taxing entity in the area is the schoot system. /f
is, unfortunately, common for people to be horribly mis-informed about their property tax bills and
to 'blame' the wrong party for increases (usually also without compliment to any entity which
managed to cut taxes). Tax increase from the county, township, schools, library, city or any other
taxing entity will be reflected on the first invoice in 2005 and only a careful consideration of the
invoice will 'accurately reflect' which taxing entity was responsible for what part of the increase,
even before the impact of annexation is considered.
The request/demand for additional services which is implied in the query, 'what do we get for our
money,' is also a factor. The City has implemented approximately 40 annexations over the past 2
years and it has been vigilant in increasing municipal service capacity in order to serve these
areas. In addition, certain areas have a clear need for improvements and services which have
already been publicly discussed. As noted at the public hearing, the City is adding over 30 new
personnel in the 2004 city budget in order to assure that superior services are provided. The cost
of these personnel is obviously a factor in future tax rates, as well. /t is unreasonable and
conflicted to suggest that an annexation area is entitled to something more 'for their money' than
other citizens get, at the same time as complaining about the increased cost. The implication of
the comment can only be dispassionately viewed as a suggestion that these residents, 'get
something for their money' which is paid for by someone else. While we specifically wish to avoid
a contentious debate on the issue, we must honestly question the validity of the suggestion.
The responses to the public testimony also noted the cumulative impact of annexation throughout
Clay Township. The addition of new tax base actually creates downward pressure on property
tax rates, and that economic factor is accompanied by departmental economies of scale to help
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments 2
push city tax rotes down. At the same time, the addition of more city streets, and more property
for police to patrol and protect creates upward pressure on the city budget. In the end, the
balance of these to contradictory forces will be weighed by the annual budget process and a final
tax rote will be determined, which may or may not cause property taxes to increase for any
individual homeowner. In the end, with all things being relatively equal, it is our honest projection
that the final property tax bills for the residents of these annexation areas will result in a property
tax increase of 12% to 15% due strictly to annexation.
The ultimate property tax invoices for 2005 will also reflect the growth in Assessed Value (AV)
from all areas within the City, including major areas of development in western Clay Township,
such as the area included in Ordinances 0-210 and 0-260. Those areas will add significant new
AV to the City immediately upon annexation, and will continue to add new AV as new
development occurs. At this time, there are reportedly nearly 3,000 approved residential lots in
the C-260 area which will contribute significant AV to the city when developed. When this new
AV is balanced against the services which these parcels will demand, it is possible that the capital
contribution of the developers will actually offset a significant portion of the demand for such
things as new roads and road improvements, thereby reducing demand for municipal revenues
and creating downward pressure on the property tax rate.
iX.
Finally, the Fiscal Plan considers only property taxes because of instability in the revenue
streams that are controlled by other levels of government. In the end, it was the determination of
the Fiscal Plan that the City would have to compensate for any deficit caused by increased
service to any area, regardless of the revenues generated, therefore, the Fiscal Plan would focus
on those revenues which are controlled specifically by the City (property taxes). However, other
revenue streams arc theoretically affected by annexation, such as local road and street funds,
which are supposed to be proportionate to the number of miles of roadway. It has been recent
experience that requests to increase the number of miles of roadway (due to annexation of new
roads) at the State level have taken several years to process. While the revenues do eventually
increase, they may or may not increase in direct proportion to the increase in roadway miles, and
the increase may or may not be received within the 3 year period for capital improvements
required by the annexation statute. Other revenue streams such as alcohol gallonage and
cigarette taxes have also been recently unstable due to manipulations at the state level which
interrupt revenue flows and projections.
The largest of the revenue streams which are not controlled by the City is COlT revenue. COlT
distributions, however, have become unstable due to a recent discovery by the State of Indiana
that the State has been making an error in distributing COlT funds to individual counties. The
State has publicly demanded that Hamilton County repay many millions of dollars in previous
"overpayments," which creates an obvious problem for the Fiscal Plan. We cannot solve this
problem, but we must honestly understand that the problem affects the revenues in the Fiscal
Plan.
In addition to the problems at the State level, however, it must be understood that COlT revenues
also are not controlled by the City, but instead, are distributed to taxing units within the County
based on the budgets of those taxing units. Therefore, COlT distributions to the City of Carmel
are affected by budget fluctuations at the County, each of the Townships, and at each of the other
municipalities in Hamilton County, thereby making the prediction of annexation's impact on future
COlT revenues very difficult.
In the end, only two things are absolutely clear with regard to property taxes:
a. That the City Carmel will be required to provide municipal services to the residents within
the annexation territory, regardless of revenue fluctuations, and
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments
b. That the only revenue stream which the City controls is property taxes.
This means that if other authorities continue to interrupt other revenue streams for whatever
reason, then the City will be forced to resort to property taxes to fill those gaps because that is the
only remedy available. The 12%-15% increase projected in the Fiscal Plan is a reasonable
estimate of the impact of annexation, and was developed as carefully as possible. We believe
that it is the best number available at this time, in consideration of the factors explained above,
and we offer it honestly to the residents of the annexation area as a fair projection of the property
tax impact of annexation.
'We Have the Municipal Services We Want'
Several citizens commented to the effect that 'we have the municipal services we want,'
generally accompanied by the assertion that annexation is inappropriate because those services
already exist in adequate form. Our respectful response would be that those services exist
largely because of the long-term visionary planning and execution which has been made possible
by the City of Carmel. In fact, in our experience with annexation throughout the state, it is
possible that there is no other municipality/community which has invested so heavily in planned
growth as the City of Carmel and Clay Township. It is because of this meticulous planning and
execution of municipal that property values in Clay Township (both inside and outside of the
City) are among the highest in the entire state.
In the case of the City of Carmel and Clay Township, the proposed annexations would basically
add only the services of the Carmel City Administration, Carmel Street Department and the
Carmel Police Department. As stated in the Fiscal Plan, the remainder of the municipal services
of the City are largely already provided through a series of"j oiner agreements" where the City
and Township have formally, legally cooperated to jointly fund and provide those services. In
fact, Township officials have largely cooperated with the City in the pursuit of aunexation, and
the joinder agreements even spell out the shifts in the fiscal burden for joinder services from
township to city as annexation takes place.
These joinder agreements did not take place in a vacuum, nor did they take place by mistake.
Although residents of the unincorporated areas often misunderstand the nature and purpose of
the joinder agreements, those joinder agreements represent a clear and formal attempt to insure
that high quality municipal services are provided in the unincorporated areas of Clay Township.
And the fact that these agreements were so carefully crafted is - in our opinion - a clear
indication that the leadership of both the City and the Township were considering the future
needs of a growing community...not an unincorporated township next door to a city, but a single,
growing community. Whether or not the various leadership directly considered the statutory
issue of armexation is a point of argument, however, there can be no reasonable dispute that the
leadership sought the creation of a single, growing community where good municipal services
supported a growing property tax base.
It is appropriate to note that the Township had the continuous capacity to attempt providing these
services on its own or through other arrangements, if the Township's goal was to remain distinct
and separate from the City of Carmel. Instead, we would suggest that it was clear to all
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments 4
concerned that the most effective provider of these services was the City of Carmel. We would
further extend this argument to suggest that the City of Carmel continues to be the most cost-
effective provider of these services, and that annexation is the logical next step in this evolution
of service. This is perhaps best exemplified by the provisions for the Clay Township sewer
utility to have the sewage it collects treated at the Carmel wastewater treatment facility. The
service charges of the Clay Township sewer utility, in fact, are higher than those of the City
sewer utility, further demonstrating the efficiency of the City in providing its services.
It is our position that the continuum of service for unincorporated Clay Township lies in the
direction of annexation. The City of Carmel carefully considered this matter for over a year in
crafting its annexation policies, which were considered, debated and passed unanimously by the
City Council several years ago. Those annexation policies specifically contain reference to the
issue of annexation by stating that it is the intent of the city to annex virtually the entirety of
unincorporated Clay Township as it continues to develop. To further underscore that intent, the
City has been requiring non-remonstrance agreements from developers as new land has been
developed over the last several years. Portions of the proposed annexation areas for C-257, 258,
259 and 260 are covered by some form of these non-remonstrance agreements.
It is appropriate to close this response with several notes regarding the municipal services that
will be provided as a result of annexation. First, with regard to services provided by the City
Administration. The fact is that many residents of unincorporated areas often request things
from the City, and these requests take place in multiple forms. The Mayor and members of his
Administration routinely meet with residents of unincorporated areas on various issues of policy
and service, and such requests are never rejected by the City due to the location ora person's
home.
Second, City Police routinely patrol various unincorporated areas for various reasons, most of
which relate to efficiency. Even remonstrators at the public hearing admitted that City Police
respond to emergency calls in their areas. In addition, City Police are routinely present in these
annexation areas because the area between Keystone and Meridian is largely unincorporated, yet
the areas on both sides are within the City. The simple fact is that the shortest distance between
1006th & Keystone and 106th and Meridian is through the unincorporated area, and therefore,
City Police have a strong presence in these areas. The 2003 and 2004 City Budgets both contain
allocations for new police officers to serve these newly annexed areas.
Third, the Carmel Street Department is among the very best Street Departments in the state.
Almost every year, there is a "contest" played where the public is challenged to find a pothole in
the City of Carmel. Various potholes are identified over time, but they are almost always located
in the unincorporated portions of the Township. This reality demonstrates two important points.
First, that the City does an excellent job of providing street department services, and second, that
citizens are often confused about where the City boundaries end.
Despite the assertion that 'we already have good services,' the troth is that a significant portion
of those services are being provided by City personnel, through j oinder agreements, and that
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments 5
other services provided by the City after annexation will also be of high quality. We do not seek
to disparage anyone believing that their services are fine as they are, but we do feel it is fair to
suggest that some of those assertions may be rhetorically self-serving. The City of Carmel has
carefully planned for its own growth, and it has publicly published its intent with regard to
annexation. The City provides many municipal services through joinder and will provide other
services through annexation, as required by statute.
Demand for 'Additional' City Services
The public testimony also included a demand for other or additional services. This request was
paraphrased in the question 'what do we get for our money,' which was followed by a suggestion
that the residents of the annexation area were somehow entitled to more or better services than
the residents of the rest of the city. We respectfully find this request to be unrealistic. The
functional purpose of creating an incorporated city is to provide a fair and equitable set of
municipal services that could not have been provided but for the incorporation. In our opinion,
the request for more or better services as a bargaining chip in the annexation process is
inappropriate. While it might resolve the dispute with a few hundred residents in thc annexation
area, it would be grossly nnfair to the 35,000+ residents of the incorporated city. This is a
statutory annexation of an area which meets all of the statutory requirements for annexation. It is
not a bargaining session. We respectfully suggest that requests for a 'better deal' cannot be the
basis for creating effective public policy regarding annexation.
'This is Just Pork Barrel Politics'
One citizen commented that the annexation was simply an exercise in pork barrel politics and
that it should be abandoned. We respectfully disagree. At this time, Clay Township is a net
exporter of COIT taxes. It has been estimated (by other parties for other purposes) that residents
of Clay Township (both inside and outside of Carmel) pay approximately $0% of the total COIT
taxes of Hamilton County, and that a substantial amount of those COIT revenues are re-
distributed to other communities within thc county (as well as the county and townships). One
of the fiscal benefits of annexation is likely to be that Carmel will receive increased COIT
revenues and will capture a larger proportion of the COIT taxes paid by residents of Clay
Township. We would consider it good fiscal management to reclaim a larger share of revenues
paid, however, with thc various uncertainties which are surrounding the COIT tax system at this
time, the city cannot be certain of any fiscal outcome.
'Do We Have to Pay the TIF Tax?'
I am not completely aware of exactly what the gentleman might have been referring to, but the
City has no authority to make TIF commitments outside of the City, so whatever the problem
might be, it is not to be laid at the feet of the City, under any circumstances. TIF is a
complicated concept and it is possible that there is some confusion in this regard.
Fundamentally, TIF is not implemented as a general tax burden of the city, and TIF is also not
allowed on residential property. Instead, TIF is gencraily paid by the property owners of
commercial or industrial property, therefore, we have found no TIF impact on any annexation
area, since the annexation area is currently outside of the City's corporate limits, and since
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments 6
can no longer be levied on residential property.
Question Regarding Police Patrols
A citizen suggested that the City was not patrolling the area and would not do so in thc future.
During the development of the Fiscal Plans, I have personally undertaken the task of asking the
Chief of Police whether City Police patrol the annexation areas in question. The Police
Department of the City of Carmel often sends patrol cars into the unincorporated areas for
various reasons, including emergency responses. In additional cases, the shortest route for the
patrol is through unincorporated areas, especially in the unincorporated areas be(ween US31 and
US431. For the Department to avoid these areas would require going around the unincorporated
areas, adding several miles to the patrol, several times per day. I have personally witnessed the
circulation of City Police patrols in thc unincorporated area on numerous occasions, yet I do not
choose to argue the citizen's assertion. However, it is noted that another gentleman admitted that
City Police akcady respond to emergency calls in the area, as we state in the Fiscal Plan. Thc
presence of City Police patrols in the annexation areas, in our opinion, demonstrates that the City
is providing some police protection in these areas, even now, and the addition of Police
personnel in the 2003 and 2004 city budgets indicates that the City is planning to enhance the
force to increase the patrol presence of the Department after annexation.
The formal addition of City Police service to the annexations areas is a clear and distinct increase
in the municipal services provided as a result of annexation.
Questions Regarding Water Service
Several citizens questioned the issue of water service. Much of the territory being annexed is
located in the IWC service area. The City of Carmel is in the process of acquiring IWC assets in
the entire Clay Township area, pending the outcome of an engineering study. That engineering
study is now overdue, through no fault of the City of Carmel, however, there has been no
information circulated by any party that would indicate that Carmel will not be able to
implement the acquisition, once the study is complete. We consider that the existing delays in
implementation of this change in water jurisdiction will be concluded within the 3-year period
after the effective date of the annexation and that the City will be providing capital water service
to these annexation areas within that time.
It has also been projected that water utility rates would actually drop after Carmel acquires the
lines, but we specifically avoided that assertion in the Fiscal Plan, because the amount or the
surety of such a decrease is unknown at this time. It is true, however, that if the IY~C water lines
were converted to Carmel control at this time, there would be a substantial reduction in the
monthly water bills to residents in these areas.
It is possible that the prospect of reduced water rates could be considered a part of the 'additional
services' that were referred to, above. The City had expected to have the IWC deal
consummated already, and if that had happened, it would be more appropriate to show reduced
water rates as a partial offset against higher property taxes, but that is not the case at this time.
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments 7
At the time that the City of Cannel acquires the water line assets inside of Clay Township, the
City will be able to unilaterally provide water service to any areas currently unserved and will do
so in accordance with the utility's policies for extension of such service (which have been
recently modified to be more favorable to the residents). Unless the fiscal situation changes
dramatically after the IWC assets are acquired, however, it is likely that the annexation will
result in reduced water rates for customers in these annexation areas.
Questions Regarding Sewer Service
Several citizens also questioned the provisions for sewer service in the event of armexation. At
this time, the annexation areas are mostly within the sewer service area of the Clay Regional
Waste District (CRWD), however, CRWD is authorized only to provide sewage collection,
without sewage treatment and discharge. The City of Carmel provides sewage treatment and
discharge for CRWD in these annexation areas. It is clear that without the provision of sewage
treatment and discharge, CRWD could not provide services in these areas. It is also clear that
CR FP'D monthly sewer charges are higher than those of the Carmel Sewer Utility.
We wish to note that the City of Carmel has made overtures to the CRWD regarding both
outright acquisition of CRWD and also regarding a merger with CRWD. It has been the publicly
stated intent of the leadership of Carmel that the combination of the two corporate entities would
result in "the best possible service at the lowest possible cost" to residents of these areas.
Currently, sewer charges within CRWD are 15%-25% higher than the charges of the City of
Carmel. The City continues informal discussions in regard to some form of combination of the
utilities.
However, at the current time, CRWD is responsible for providing sewer service in a substantial
portion of the annexation areas, and within these areas, the City has no authority to provide such
service. Such is the nature of legal jurisdiction.
We fully expect that the issue of combining the two sewer service utilities will ultimately
become reality. The merger simply makes too much sense to be rejected, and it is in the best
interests of the residents served by both utilities. However, until that takes place, the City of
Carmel will continue to treat the sewage that is collected by CRWD, but it will not be in a
position to provide sewage collection in these areas without the permission of the CRWD.
Regarding sewer/water fees on unimproved land: I believe that it is the policy of the city that the
sewer and water fees accrue to those receiving service.
Regarding Street Services: City will attempt to address street issues in each of the areas and
develop comprehensive answers, such as the improvements proposed for US highways such as
Meridian and Keystone. These services are important, although the importance of them can
easily be dismissed. Highway and street improvement funding is a top priority of the City, and it
is important to have legal jurisdiction over the streets which the City is requesting funding to
improve. However, I can personally tell you that I have often traveled from my home in
Indianapolis to Carmel and Westfield, and I can tell you that the Carmel Street services are the
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments 8
best in the area. The guy responsible for that superior performance is named Dave
Klingensmith.
Questions Regarding Street Lights & Traffic Signals:
There was one question regarding the provision of street lights and the possibility of installing
traffic signals at one location in the annexation areas. This represents one of the lesser
understood benefits of armexation. The City does not offer street lights as a capital service of the
City. The city's annexation policies clearly state that street lights in Carmel have been provided
as development standards, and vary from subdivision to subdivision. In some cases, however,
the city does consider specific petitions from residents with regard to street lights in situations
where there is a question of public safety. This service must be understood as being extremely
limited. The County does not provide street lights, at all, except in the case of major
thoroughfare projects.
However, the municipal services of the Carmel Street Department do specifically include the
monitoring of intersections and the planning, design and construction of roadway improvements,
including traffic signals, in warranted areas within the city. Therefore, one of the non-capital
services provided through annexation will be the consideration of the various intersections within
the annexation areas and to initiate the planning, design and construction of traffic signals in
areas which meet the requisite criteria. This is a service that the county does not provide in
developed subdivisions.
This should not be construed as a guarantee that a traffic signal will be installed at any location.
However, it is a commitment that the City of Carmel Street Departrnent will consider installing
traffic lights where conditions warrant such an installation, as a non-capital service of the City.
Therefore, the consideration of a traffic signal in any location will be a service provided within
the first year after the effective date of armexation, if not before that time.
Question Regarding 'Needed & Can Be Used' Clause
The public testimony questioned the validity of the statement contained in the Fiscal Plan
asserting that the annexation territory is 'needed and can be used' for the growth and
development of the city in the future. This statement was made in direct response to statutory
requirements.
In the cases presented by the armexation areas of C-257, 258, 259 and 260, each territory is
already largely developed, and the city is either providing services to the area, or is capable of
providing services to the area. As explained extensively in the Fiscal Plan and in the Armexation
Policies, the City of Carmel and Clay Township have long cooperated in funding and providing
municipal services, with the specific intent of the City to provide for orderly growth by sharing
services through formal joinder agreements. The Annexation Policies state clearly that it is the
intent of the City of Carmel to incorporate virtually the entirety of Clay Township, eventually.
The fact is that these annexation areas were anticipated for armexation long before the Fiscal
Plan was written. The intent of the joinder agreements was to enable growth and development to
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments 9
be of exceptionally high quality over a long period to assure that the entire Carmel Metropolitan
Area would grow effectively.
This intent has largely become reality. The City Council now feels it is time to bring these older
areas, as well as newly developed areas in western Clay Township, under a municipal
government jurisdiction. Commensurate with that course of action, the City and the Township
have begun to make changes of policies with regard to joinders which will eventually enable the
joinder agreements to be phased out (when the entire area is incorporated into the City of
Carmel). Without the intent to make the entire area part of the City, there would be little
practical use for the City's action to acquire the assets of Hamilton Western Utilities, nor to
acquire the assets oflWC, nor to consider merging with CRWD. (Please note that Hamilton
Western Utilities and IWC are for-profit utilities, while Cannel Utilities is a public utility, which
is constrained from for-profit operations and billing systems. Therefore, if Carmel were to refuse
annexation of these areas, the water revenues would be higher.) All of Carmel's actions are a
part of the same central motive, to integrate the whole of Clay Township under one local
government. As such, considering the planning, administration, services provided, and capital
investment made by the City, it is clear that the annexation areas are 'needed and can be used' by
the city for its growth and development.
Questions Regarding Sidewalks
The City of Carmel specifically defines sidewalks as a 'development standard,' rather than a city
service because when new developments were approved in the past, some subdivisions were
approved with sidewalks and some were not (at the option of the developer and the homeowner).
In both of those cases, the homeowner was responsible for paying for the sidewalk, and even
now it is possible for homeowners to obtain sidewalks through Barrett Law. In all cases, it is the
responsibility of the homeowner to pay for such improvements.
The City has no interest in creating bad will by condemning land for sidewalk construction, and
by disrupting areas with long term construction projects. However, there are certain limited
situations where the City will consider adding sidewalks in certain areas with a special need, and
once the annexation is complete, residents will be eligible to avail themselves of this service.
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments 10
Mr. Mark Ratterman
Clay Regional Waste District
10701 North College, Suite A
Indianapolis, IN 46280
Dear Mr. Ratterman:
RE: Sewer Service to Annexation Areas
In connection with your service as a City Councillor-elect, as well as a Board Member of the
Clay Regional Waste District, you are no doubt aware that the City if Carmel is engaged in an
extensive annexation program. On July 21, 2003, the City Council held four public heatings on
the annexation of four separate areas, with several of the areas being located south of 116th
Street, between Keystone and Meridian.
There were several comments/questions offered at the public hearings related to sewer service in
these areas. In further review of the sewer service situation inside of these areas, the City
Council would like to know if the CRWD is interested in discussing the development of some
special policies for providing sewer service to some isolated subdivisions within these
annexation areas, which heretofore have not availed themselves of sewer service. If there is
interest on the part of CRWD to provide sewer service in these areas, the City would appreciate
clarification of that interest.
Otherwise, the City would like to discuss the possibility that the City would construct collection
sewers within the areas which are currently unserved by CRWD, under City sewer utility
policies. Further, the City would propose that CRWD allow these homes to become part of the
Carmel sewer utility, meaning that the City of Carmel would be responsible for billing these
customers, and for maintenance of the lines constructed by the City.
We fully realize that such an arrangement would be a departure from the normal policy of either
utility, but we feel that such discussions are necessary to resolve issues introduced during the
annexation process. We feel that we owe it to our constituents to be creative in this matter.
Please feel free to call me in this regard with any preliminary questions or comments, but our
true intent is to determine whether the CRWD Board would consider such a proposition.
Sincerely,
Addendum to Fiscal Plans in Response to Public Hearing Comments