Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC-08-18-03-04 Amend Fiscal Plan C-259 SPONSORED BY: COUNCILORS KOVEN, SNYDER AND WILSON RESOLUTION NO. CC-08-18-03-04 AMENDING FORMER RESOLUTION NO. CC-05-19-03-03 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 herein as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the Annexation Territory consists of approximately 229 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-259. 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. PASS] by the Common Council of the City of/,Carmel' Indiana this (_2 day of byavoteof ~7 ayes and ,~ nays. Pres. e ed FOR THE CITY OF CARMI~L ~ ~ 1~Rundle V;yne Wbon by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, the I~%ay of ,2003, at 1~6 .4 .m. /Diana L. Cordray, C e~-Treasurer ., 2003 ati~.~[~_l~.m. ATTEST: ~z~ ~ ~y', Cl~/rrcasurer Prepared By: Sue A. Beesley Bingham McHale LLP 10 W. Market Street Suite 2600 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 803164 SPONSORED BY: COUNCILORS KOVENI SNYDER AND WILSON the City of Carmel, Indiana this ~ of Sandra M. ,lohnso~ EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION ANNEXATION ORDINANCE C-259 116th and Pennsylvania A PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (1/4) AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (i/4) OF SECTION TWO (2) AND A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION ONE (1), ALL IN TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE THREE (3) EAST, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA, more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at the ~ntersect~on of the southerly n~,ht-of-way of 116 Street a the centerline of Pennsylvania Street, said point also being the intersection of the Corporation Boundaries of the City of Carmel as described in Ordinance No. C-84 and Ordinance No. C-117; Then proceeding easterly, along the southerly right-of-way of 116rh Street and coincident with the southern boundary line of said Ordinance No. C-117 and with Ordinance No. C-213, to the west line of the Guilford Park subdivision (formerly parcel number 17-13-01-00-00-003.000 as described in Ordinance No. C-213); Then coincident with the Corporation Boundary lines of the City of Carmel as described in said Ordinance No. C- 213 for the following five (5) courses: 1) proceeding southward, along the western boundary line of the Guilford Park subdivision (formerly parcel number 17-13-01-00-00-003.000), to the southwest corner of said parcel; 2) proceeding westward, along the northern boundary of parcel number 17-13-01-00-00- 022.000 as shown on Hamilton County map number 13-01-00, to the northwest comer of said parcel; 3) proceeding directly westward to a point on the western right-of-way line of College Avenue; 4) proceeding southward,th along the western right-of-way hne' of College Avenue, to a point on the northern r ght-of-way line of 111 Street, directly across from the southeast comer of parcel 17-13-01-00-00- 022.000; 5) proceeding southward to a point on the southern right-of-way line of 111th Street; Then proceeding westerly, along the southern right-of-way of 111th Street, to the intersection of the west line of College Heights Fourth Section as recorded in Office of the Hamilton County Recorder; Then proceeding southward, along the West Line of said College Heights Fourth Section, to the southwest comer of said College Heights Fourth Section; Then proceeding westward, along the North Lines of Cornerstone Place Subdivision, Meridian Meadows Subdivision as recorded in Deed Record 139, page 191, and Meridian Highlands Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 184 and along the South Line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 2, tothe intersection of said South Line of said Quarter-Quarter with the East right-of-way line of Pennsylvania Street, said point also being the east line of the Corporation Boundary of the City of Carmel as described in Ordinance No. C- 178; Then coincident with the east line of said Corporation Boundary of the City of Carmel as described in Ordinance No. C-178 for the following three (3) courses: 1) northerly, along the east right-of-way line of Pennsylvania Avenue, to a point on the South right-of-way line of 111t~ Street; 2) continuing northerly to a point on the North Right-of-Way line of 111th Street; 3) continuing northerly about 1250 feet to a point on the present Corporate Boundary line of the City of Carmel as described in aforesaid Ordinance No. C-84; Then proceeding easterly, coincident with the south line of said Corporation Boundary, to the southeast corner of said Corporation Boundary; Then proceeding northerly, coincident with the East Line of said Corporation Boundary, to the PLACE OF BEG/INNING, containing 229 acres, more or less, sub.~ect to all legal easements and right of way of record. EXHIBIT C ANNEXATION FISCAL PLAN - 116th and Pennsylvania 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 public 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 ten'itory. 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 concern 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 taxes Will be received in May, 2005. The troth 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 I the property tax increase is not possible. 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. II. The legislature has changed the property tax laws in each of the last several legislative sessions. We further believe that the public and media uprear 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. III. 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. 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 school system. It is, unfortunately, common for people to be horribly mis-informed about fheir property fax 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. VI. 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. It 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. VII. 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 IX. push city tax rates 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 rate 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 C-210 and C-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. 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 are 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: 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 fom~. 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 armexations 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"joiner 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 annexation 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 concemed 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 armexation 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 wilt 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 Cannel. 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 joinder 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 plarmed 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 Thc 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 the aunexation area, it would be grossly unfair 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 50% of the total COlT taxes of Hamilton County, and that a substantial amount of those COIT revenues are re- distributed to other communities within the 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 COlT taxes paid by residents of Clay Township. We would consider it good fiscal management to reclaim a larger share of revenues paid, however, with the 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 TH commitments outside of the City, so whatever the problem might be, it is not to be hid 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 generally paid by the property owners of commercial or industrial property, therefore, we have found no TIF impact on any annexation area, since the armexation area is currently outside of the City's corporate limits, and since TIF 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 the 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 mmexation areas in question. The Police Depara~ent 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 between 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 the 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 already respond to emergency calls in the area, as we state in the Fiscal Plan. The 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, throug~ 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 armexation 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 IWC 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 Carmel 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 annexation. 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 CRWD 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 Cannel 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 cmrent time, CRWD is responsible for providing sewer service in a substantial portion of the armexation 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 siguals 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 he 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 Department 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 annexation, if not before that time. Question Regarding 'Needed & Can Be Used' Clause The public testimony questioned the validity of the statcnnent 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 annexation 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 Annexation 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 annexation 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 ofpohcies 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 of IWC, nor to consider merging with CRWD. (Please note that Hamilton Western Utilities and IWC are for-profit utilities, while Carmel 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 ~ 0 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 Cannel is engaged in an extensive annexation program. On July 21, 2003, the City Council held four public hearings 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 heatings 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