Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-07-18-77 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 18, 1977 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:30 PM by M~yor Pickett, who presided. All members except Councilman Garretson who arrived at 7:33 PM were present. Clerk-Treasurer and City Attorney were present also. Approximately 85 people were present. Councilwoman Doane gave the invocation. M~yor Pickett led the pledge of allegiance. Councilman Swift moved to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the last regular meeti~ and approve them as received, Councilman Meacham seconded it and it passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: AGENDA ITEM#l: PUBLIC W~.AWTNG: ORDINANCE AMENDING A-41: Mayor Pickett opened the advertised public hearing for second reading of ordinance amending Ordinance #A-41 cha~ing the equivalent user contribution from $75.00 to $450.00 and abolishing the availability contributions. Councilman Carretson stated he had received a call from Dr. Paramore, President of the Chamber of Commerce, who stated he hoped the Council were as informed as possible. He did want to bric, up the question - if we are to require new residents to pay for additional needed facilities caused by them, will they be allowed not to contribute for past expansion which they were not the cause of? M~yor Pickett stated in the past, everyone has contributed. Mayor Pickett read proposed ordinance again in its entirety. MayOr Pickett stated he would like to inform everyone that the study on this proposed ordinance goes back as far as 1974 and did not start recently. He stated he would also like to state that this is not a tap fee. It is an aid to construction fee. Dick Ta~lort Builder, stated he would like to take issue with the article in the July 13th issue of the Carmel Topics which quoted Mayor Pickett as saying the builders were stockpiling water tap-on permits to avoid th~ proposed increase and the City had lost $7,500.00 in two days last week. He stated $7,500 was arrived at by multiplying $375.00 proposed additional tap-fee by the number of permits. He stated he checked all the permits amd five permits issued did not need water tap-on permits because they were either for a house with a well, a swimming pool, or a room addition. This reduces the so-called "lost revenue" to $4,625. Upon checki~with each permit buyer, he found that every job for which a permit had been issued had been started already. These facts illustrate conclusively that the statements made in the Topics were not only misleading but incorrect. He stated that further, selling permits and taking money for that transaction and referring to it as losing money is a contradiction in terms. MaNor Pickett stated that first of all any figures he guve to the papers were figures passed on to him by various City employees. He stated the Steeg report prepared for the builders also came up with the recommended $450 fee. Don Swank: stated he was glad to see so many people present. He stated he would like to recommend that all expenditures be put out for competitive biddi~. He stated he understood the Steeg report projected the cost of added facilities to be considerable less~than the 3 million plus projection of the Clyde Williams report. He felt water expansion should be shared by Page everybody because everyone benefits. He stated he was wondering if the new residents were goi~ to be asked to contribute $250 for sewer expansion, new fire trucks, etc. M~yor Pickett stated all contracts are on a competitive basis and we couldn't wait until 1980 to expand the system. Mr. Ed Guntz of McCullough & Associates: stated in doing the fiscal study for ~e recent bond issue, every available source of funds were used for the project still leaving a balance of $520,000 needed for bond indebtedness. As indebted- ness gees up it requires a larger portion of money to be held in reserve. Don Swank: asked if engineering was competitive bidding. M~yor Pickett stated no - engineering firms are priced pretty much the sane and will not bid against each other. Sandra Johnson stated her father was out of town and had prepared a letter and she wanted it re~d in~8 the record on his behalf. (copy attached to minutes) Mayor Pickett stated he did not m~ke a statement that a rate increase would be necessary in a year~ It could not be determined at this time. Mr. Herb Zinsmeister of Clyde E. Willians & Assoc. stated the $250 fee is a cost of construction. As far as where this money comes from is a matter of discussion with the fiscal consultant and the' administration. The Steeg report was based on different service area and population projection and did relate very closely with their $250.00. Mrs. Squire of Cool Creek asked wkat the fee Clyde E. Williams was asking for the projects and why other engineering firms were not checked into. Mayor Pickett stated Clyde E. Williams has been doing the consulting work for quite some time. Every project we have had since he has become Mayor has been tied in with Clyde Williams from past projects. Councilman Coots stated that the consulting engineers a~e selected by the Mayor and Board of P~blic Works, and like the Police Chief, or ~uy City department head, they can replace them at anytime they see fit. Those professionals assist the Board of Public Works and the Council in planning for development required by expansion in the City. At a point when they determine that an expansion shall take place, state law requires the contracts to be publically bid. We are now at the phase of determining tkrough engineerin~ estimates when that development will take place and what its cost will be. Once those figures are accumulated, they are submitted to a financial consultant who says the price t~g is this amount of money and spread over the community it amounts to $450 in an aid to construction to have that facility and the question is whether or not that cost is the responsibility of those who live here presently or totally those persons who caused the need for the expansion. ~elenMovak, 602 Emerson Rd. stated she has lived here for l~ years and when they came here, one of the builders told them that the water bill was high but it would ge down, but it has not yet gene down. She stated the "old timerS" were getting tired of paying high rates. Tom Wilson stated he has been a resident of Carmel for a long lo~ time. He stated in 197~ Clyde Williams prepared a master plan for the Town projecting 27 million dollars to be the cost of the project. In 1976 the City get a new study from Clyde Williams and it was down to $16 million. In 1976, the Home Builders hired Steeg & Associates and they estimated a cost to be $~.27 million. The new 1R77 Clyde Williams study estimates cost to be $7.8 million. He felt everyone should share the cost as in most municipalities. Mayor Pickett stated the re~o~fer ~he~difference'in costs was the change in service areas. Dick Fu~stenau; ~02 Hawthorne Dr. stated he has lived in four communities in ten years and he works for a large corporation with engineers around him all day long and he has never once seen two numbers the sane. Engineerin~nanbers never agree or m~ke sense and he felt we were arguing about philosophy. He stated he didn't feel the current rates were realistic. He has never paid as high rates as he pays in Carmel. They do not add up to the service you get and half of it gees on the grass. Page 7/18/77 Joe Dawson stated he would like to welcome all the homeowners. He stated there was no way they were going to digest all the information and he would welcome the opportunity to go over all these things with the homeowners sometime. He stated he felt the well #8 was the big problem, since it was not pumping to capacity creating the need for another one. He read from a letter from United States Department of Interior Geological Survey; "In July of 1974, Carmel and the geological su~rvey entered into a formal agreement, whereby the survey would determine the amount of ground water available in the system associated with the course of the White River. The study area extended from 96th St. to l~6th St. Prior to this work, personnel from Clyde Williams & Associates and Layne Northern visited the office to discuss the desirability of locating large scale production wells on Clay Jr. High property. We (Bill Myers and Mr. Cook) advised against this as the well sites were probably close to the western edge of the aquifer and the yield of the wells would be affected by this boundary." Additional costs for a new well amounted to over $100,000.00 that would not have been necessary had the advice from USGS been taken. He stated if costs were cut and everything run in a more business like manner there would be no need for an increase. He felt City officials should press for an immediate cash settlement and apply that money towards the new facilities. ~eStated well ~8 was pumping about 200 GPM en stated before he moved to Carmel five years ago, he researched the water and sewer rates and found them to be rather excessive. He stated engineers were professionals who are interviewed for possible work as one would select a doctor and you don't particularly ask about fees; you base your selection on reputation, etc; however, if some place down the line you find the doctor has cut out the wron~ part of your body or the engineer has ill served you, you chao~e, He felt we should be talking about budgets before we become inoperative. Mr. Bad,er asked if this ordinance isn't passed, is it going to reflect back on present users. He felt there was an inequity of present sewer tax and in the present multiplier factors that should be studied before passage. Councilman Coots stated he had a request from Mr. Nelson who stated he represented several residents and members of the business community in Carmel who had asked that the letter be attached to the minutes and made part of the record. (letter attached to minutes) Councilwoman Reiman stated that in all meetings she had attended, she had always heard this fee referred to as a "tap-on" fee and now suddenly, tonight, it is changed to an aid to construction. She felt.the Board of Public Works should consider getting presentations from other engineering firms. She also stated she had been mislead about a rate increase. She felt the increase would not be needed until 198~, but now is told no one knows when one might be needed. Councilman Ga~retson stated you have got to wrestle philosophically with the question that if we don't have enough water supply to handle expansion then its got to be paid for and you have to decide who is going to pay for it. Ordinance passed 5 ayes - 2 nays. Councilman Swift and Councilwoman Reiman voting nay. Meeting was recessed at 8:50 PM. Meeting was re-convened at 9:00 PM. Page NEW BUSINESS: AGENDA IT~#1: RESOLUTION OF PORTION OF CONKLIN REPORT: Mayor Pickett read proposed resolution supporting the executive branch in adopting various personnel policies and procedures as recommended by Phil Conklin, Consultant. Councilman C-~rretson stated he had expected something more specific. Council- woman Doane stated she felt it was too general. Mr. Kern stated he would prepare an ordinance if they would let him know what to put in it. Councilman Swift stated there were a number of things we as a City could establish by ordinance but hadn't done so because we haven't been a City very long. Council- man Dean stated he would like the record to show he felt the money spent for the Conklin report was a waste. Counci~m~ Garretson stated he felt the Mayor should bring an ordinance to them on committ~s if the Mayor felt that was what he wanted to do. Mayor Pickett stated he would do so and also the central purchasing system. Councilman Coots moved for adoption of proposed resolution, Councilman Garretson seconded it and it passed 5-2. Councilman Dean and Councilwoman Reiman voting nay. Councilman Coots stated he would like to recommend more study on the job descriptions, etc. before adoption. AGEN])A ITEM ~: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE ~D-~O(Mileage Re-imbursement Ordinance): Mayor Pickett read proposed ordinance amending D-50, increasing the mileage re-imbursement for employees using their personal vehicle for City business from 13¢ to 15¢ per mile. Councilman Meacham moved to adopt ordinance as read, Council- mau G~rretson seconded it. Councilman Coots~ moved to suspend the rules, Council- man Meacham seconded it and it passed unanimously. Motion to adopt passed 6-0. Councilman Dean abstaining. AGENDA ITEM#3: DISCUSSION OF 1978 BUDGET: Councilman Coots stated at the time this was placed on the agenda, it was hoped we would have requests in from the department heads to briefly go over them and compare them with last year, but a meeting will have to be scheduled Thursday evening. Councilman Garretson stated he would not be able to attend Thursday and Mr. Coots should pick someone else to be on the budget committee. Councilman Coots asked Councilwoman Reiman if she could attend. Cotumoilwoman Reiman stated she wasn't sure. Councilwoman Doane statedshe could attend, therefore she was placed on the committee in Councilman Garretson's place. Time of the meeting to be 7 PM. AGENDA IT~ #2: ORDINANCE DESIGNASrING METHOD 0P UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PAYMENT- CLERK-TREASURER: Mayor Pickett read memo from Clerk-Treasurer stating that a new state law requires all municipalities to be covered by unemployment compensation effective January l, 1978. Two options are available: (1) Contribution rate method, (2) Re-imbursement method. Clerk-Treasurer recommended the contribution rate me%hod, inasmuch as the rate obtained from the Indiana Employment Security Division calculates out cheaper than two claims could be. Mayor Pickett then read proposed ordinance designating the contribution rate method to be used in providing unemployment compensation for its employees. Councilman Swift moved for adoption of the ordinance, Councilman Meacham seconded it. Councilman Garretson moved to suspend the rules, Councilman Coots seconded it and it passed unanimously. Motion to adopt ordinance passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM~: A POINT OF LAW FOR LIBEL- COUNCILMANMEACHAM: Councilman Meachamread statement which he desired to have on record. Copy attached to minutes. Mr. Gus Hash was present and stated he was one of the neighbors mentioned. Mayor Pickett stated the City Attorney would have an official opinion by next meeting. Councilman Dean stated he had a copy of our insurance policy and we are covered but it has a $2,500.00 deductable clause. Councilman Swift Page 7/18/77 stated he felt we should have a State Attorney General's opinion also. He stated he thought you would find that public officials have quite a lot of latitude. He stated there is case law on that and suggested lookin~ at Bart vs. Matal. City Attorney stated he had done some research mud found that public officials do have qualified privilege when they are within their own group but that privilege is a limited one. If they make false statements they could be sued for malice. Councilwoman Reiman stated when she saw this item on the agenda she was aware of the.~insinu~tion. She stated she hoped she was wrong, but it sounded to her like his text is an attempt to censure or scs~re members of the Council. She stated as elected officials, they have as part of their official capacit~absolute privilege to question any person or company when they as individuals feel those questions pertain to the City of Carmel business and. she stated she would give Councilman Meacham a copy of the Bart vs. Matal case because she had sought the advice of an attorney over the weekend. Councilman Meachmm stated he didn't intend to brio~ Councilwoman Eeiman's name up. AGENDA IT~I#6: LYNIIWOOD WATER FACILITY PURCHASE: Councilman Swift stated he had decided to send a letter rather than discuss this item at tonight's meeting. ADDED IT~IS: SPECIAL COUNCILMEETING: Councilman Garretson moved to set a special meeting to act on the salary ordinance, Wednesday, July 2?th, at 7:30 PM, Councilman Swift seconded it and it passed unanimously. Councilman Swift moved to approve of the Mayor adding two items on the agenda, Councilms~ 8oots seconded it and it passed unanimously. DUMP TRUCK BID: Mayor Pickett stated bids for a dump truck had been let and inasmuch as part of the cost would be coming from the Utilities, he was requestin~ approval from the Council for the purchase. City E~ineer gave the details regarding the proposed purchase. Councilman Coots moved to approve the purchase, Councilman Dean seconded it and it passed unanimously. BRIAR LANE SUB-DIVISION: City ~lagineer briefed the Council on the Dick Fisher request for water service for the Briar Lane sub-division. Mayor Pickett instructed Mr. Hohl to put his recommendation and details of the sub-division connection in memo form to the Council so they could be prepared to discuss it at the Wednesday special meeting. There bei~ no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM. Approved: ATTEST: Peggy ~'ou Clerk-Treas~er HELMEI~ ~ NELSON July 18, 1977 To the Members of the City Council City of Carmel, Indiana Dear Members: Our office represents certain residents and members of the business community of Carmel, who are interested in and directly effected by the proposed ordinance to increase the Consumer Demand Charge (commonly known as the Water Tap On Charge). My clients relate that an investigation of the facts surrounding the proposed ordinance and the water and sewage functions of the City of Carmel reveals many unwarranted and unsupported actions of certain Carmel governmental officials or their designated appointees. The results of this investigation and the documentation relied on therein, are available for review by you or any other interested persons. Inasmuch as my clients are interested in the continued and orderly growth of Carmel, it is hopeful that you as members of the City Council will consider the following observations of my clients in your resolution of the matter. 1. Many questions have arisen regarding the design, pricing and supervision of some engineering work performed within the City of Carmel. Also, questions concerning the fairness and feasibility of Carmel taxpayers and water and sewer users paying for travel, lodging, meals, long distance phone calls, distance inconveniences, etc., because the consulting engineers working in Carmel usually are not based in Carmel. For your information, the present Carmel consult- ing engineering company has been paid approximately $700,000 over the past three years. 2. The Steeg Engineering Co., with several key employees living in Carmel, is located some eight miles and about ten minutes from downtown Carmel. The Steeg Engineering Co., is recognized over the state and country as one of the most ethical, competent and best qualified in the field of waterworks design. Their proposed water plan for the next expansion phase would require only about 50% of Page Two the total funds suggested by the Clyde Williams plan. The Steeg plan probably would eliminate the necessity for either an increase in builder tap on fees (Consumer Demand Charge) or a rate increase for present customers. The Williams plan calls for an expenditure of approximately $3,000,000, the Steeg plan approximately $1,500,000. The Steeg plan would provide capacity for growth until at least 1988. 3. According to the official financial statement of Carmel, the total funds in the Carmel Water Company on December 31, 1976, amounted to $944,941, and has been increasing at an incredible rate average of $151,775 per year. Also, approximately $25,000 should be saved from the Williams estimate of $32,000 to inspect the three-month construc- tion of the one million gallon storage tank at ll6th and Grey Road. Also, Carmel should be receiving a settlement for the failed well #8 at the Junior High School site from the Clyde Williams Company and the Lane-Northern Drilling Company, according to the Williams letter dated June 16, 1977, and the Board of Public Works meeting of March 6, 1976. All of this money plus other possible savings could easily generate over one-half million dollars by the end of 1979 to apply to the next water expansion, again probably eliminating the necessity for increase in tap on fees or water rates. 4. If a water shortage should occur in Carmel in the future, the builders would suffer, not the present residents of Carmel, since building permits for new homes would probably be stopped until the problem was corrected. However, builders certainly cannot be held responsible for the mistakes in locating the well #8 which has failed. 5. In view of a recent opinion of the Appellate Court of Indiana, a strong possibility exists that the proposed 500% increase in the Consuraer Demand Charge from $75.00 to $450.00 is tainted with illegalities and the passage of same, without due consideration to the above, could result only in litigation. Therefore, my clients strongly recommend that the Steeg Engineering Co. be granted the right to meet with you and discuss the next ex- pansion phase of the Carmel Water System and that the proposed ordinance as presented be denied. ~y clients are ready, willing and able to cooperate with and assist you in the performance of your tasks. Thank you for your JJN/c consideration. Very truly yours, ~!~ ......... ~?~ ..... ~'~ ...... A CASE OF LIBEL ~ . I wish to have this on record A few neighbors visited with me to discuss the City of Carmel in general. What we were doing in getting Parks and the like, how meetings were ~rogressing, what we were doing for a new City Building. 3ome one then, brought up the contraversial issue on annexation of parts of Washington Township, the problems we seem to be having with the Regional Sewer Project, and Clide E. Williams Co. The subject got around the issue regarding a Council member and Clide E. Williams Co. I made it firm to those present, I was not interseted it the research of Clide E. Williams Co. by any Council member, unless it was brought before the full Council, then, I would register my vote. I considered all City reports proper, all monies paid properly to Clide E. Williams and other corporations. That all programs were generally on schedule, except the Regional Sewer Project, which is being held up by the Cities of Westfield and Fishers. To my knowledge, no wror~g actions were ~aken by the City of Carmel, in the Westfield matter. lso discussed, were we as a City properly protected against libelous.actions by an Elected Official of Carmel. This is in a form of any libelous actions Slanderous assult, to any individual, company or corporation, by an Official of the City of Carmel. These Officials Can by Elective or Non Elective. Therefore Nr Nayor, we individuals as part of the community need an Official Opinion, from the City Attorney or the Attorney General, if a suit is filed agaiHst an Official, can legal action be taken against, 1. the individual official perpetrating libel--- 2. all City Officials--- 3. the City of Carmel--- 4. or do we as City Officials have immunity from libel??? there a difference in legal action against our Elected Officials )n Elected Officials???? and our July 16~ 1977 l{embers Common Council City of Carmel Subject: Ordinance Amending A~I As a citizen and taxpayer of the city of Carmel~ it is my opinion after considerable investigation and inquiry of the subject ordinance that an affirmative vote to this issue would be an irresponsible acD to the interests of the citizens of Carmel. While I have no protective interest of the builders or future home buyers of our city~ I believe that the information avail- able today on which you must base your judgement is insufficient and inconslsten . So that you may understand the basis for such an opinion I have reviewed in part or in its entirety the following documents: (1) McCullough Reports a. Rate and financial report - 1976 for the Municipal Water Utility (not dated) b. Projection and application of funds through 1995 (February 14~ 1977) c. Projection and Application of Funds through 1995 - report 2 (May 2~ 1977) (2) Board of Public Works - Minutes of meetings (3) City Council - Minutes of meetings (4) Master Plan 3 - MAP - Clyde Williams and Co. (5) Master Plan - MAP - Henry Steeg Co. (6) Master Plan - Steeg (7) Misc. invoices to the City of Carmel I reviewed these to better understand the difficulty the Council and Administration have had in arriving at a conclusionto this matter. The projection reports~ I assume~ were prepared at some cost to provide yourselves and the administration with an idea of how revenues will be generated by the increased user~ and connection charges. The following represents a summary of assumptions and facts from these reports that demonstrate the inconsistencies I Page 2 spoke about. Notice the actual growth of 261 EDU's in 1976~ which the City Engineer stated in the Council Meeting July 6~ 1977~ was the year they used to determine future growth. Also notice the average usage assumption increase from 10~000 gallons to 12~000 gsllons or 20%. I have not seen a copy of the new projection using ,~i;~50~000. Is there one? Nobody has come forth with a breakdown of how ~450 was determined. It is obvious without this~ that you do not have the information necessary to protect the interest of the citizens. The figure of /,~1,~0 may be twice too much~ or half as much neededs you do not really know. Report 1 Report 2 Starting EDU, 1977 4803 EDU Growth~ ~976-1995 10207 1 2786 Total EDU by 1995 15~010 Avg. EDU Annual Usage 10620 gal 12000 gal Avg. EDU Annual gro~,~th 324 'to 680 444 l~ate Increase None 1988-1991 Added hydrants to 1995 286~ 1140 0 & M Expense 10% Avg. EDU Annual Charge ,:~12p.62 Connection Charge-%Inflation O Connection rate asked ,i~620.0 ~470 - ~600 It appears that the whole program from the Master Plan to the ora]inance has been prepared with insufficient documentation. The Mayor himself said that within the year a rate increase will be necessary to pay for the planned construction. No projection offered to date has stated the necessity of a rate increase for at least ten years. Just prior to that statement he said that m~rrent users ~,rill not pay for future plan expansions. The two statements are inconsistent. (City Council Meeting~ July 5~ 1977) There was an independent stndy of future water requirements prepared for evaluation of comparison. This plan indicates something different from the city's own plan - both were done by reputable firms~ one has been ignored because it was paid for by a special interest group - the builders. You may find that even with this plan revenues will not be sufficient~ or you may find this is · the answer or a combination is the answer. Whatever is necessary to nrovide good water to the citizens and businesses in Carmel~ at ~he lowest possible cost and at a reasonable pressure without 8etering growth is the responsibility of yourselves and the Carmel Water Company. If the Ordinance you pass does not insure those requirements~ then you are negligent in your duties to the citizens. 1976 Final Report 4222 Not Available Not Available Approx 10~000 gal 261 Not Available Not Available Down ? ~I Oo. 68 Not Available Theodore E. Johnson 317 Concord Lane Carmel: Indiana CITY OF CARMEL OFFICE OF THE CLERK-TREASURER 844-1811 40 East Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032 COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR: A new state law as contained in House Enrolled Act 1589 effective January l, 1978, requires all municipalities to be covered by unemployment compensation. The Utilities have been covered in the past, but not the City employees. We have 'bw'o options as follows: (1) Contribution P~te Method (Traditional Insurance Program) This is a percentage factor based on experience. Attached is a letter projecti~ the 1978 rate as .3%. This percentage is based only on the first $6,000 of an employee's salary or $18.00 per yea~ per employee. We currently have 109 employees, excluding elected officials who are not covered. (2) Re-imbursement Method: This involves payio~ the state for all benefits paid to former employees. This method would be very difficult to budget for. If we are lucky, we might not h~ve to pay anything at all. However, one claim could exceed the above insurance cost. For sake of illustration, below shows the maYimm~mweekly benefits a former employee can collect for six months: No dependents $?~.00 week One " 87.00 " Two " 99.00 " Three " ll2.00 " Four " 12~.00 " It would be my reconmaendation, therefore, that the Council pass n adopting the traditional insurance option #l method. PJ-gg~ Lo~ Smit~n ~ ' Clerk-Treasurer - PLS/dc OTIS R. BOWEN, M.D. GOVERNOR INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION INDIANA STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 10 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 JOHN F. COPPES DIRECTOR July 8, 1977 City of Carmel 40 E. Main St. Carmel, IN 46032 ATTN: Peggy Smith Clerk Treasurer Dear Ms. Smith: We have projected the 1978 contribution rate for the City of Carmel to be .3%. This matter was discussed in our telephone conversation on this date. Very truly yours, INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION Donald E. Land Chief of Tax Administration DEL: mlp An Equal Opportunity Employer