Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-12-17-79 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 1979 The meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Pickett, who presided. All members and Clerk-Treasurer were present. Councilwoman Doane gave the invocation, Mayor Pickett led the pledge of allegiance. Councilman Swift moved to approve the minutes of the last regular meeting, Council man Meacham seconded it and it passed unanimously. Old Business: Agenda Item #1: Report from Committee Chairmen: There were no reports. Agenda Item #1: Sewer Rate Increase : Mr. Jeff Laslie and Ed Guntz, representatives of & Associates appeared before the Council McCullough and reviewed theIr letter which hAad been mailed earlier to the Council members and attached to the minutes. Councilman Garretson suggested the consultants revise the proposed seller rate increase to reflect the effect of adding interest earned on income. Consul~ants to present a revised exhibit to the new Council the first meeting in January. Council man Garretson moved the item be tabled until theAfirst meeting in January. Council man Horvath seconded it and it passed unanimously. Agenda Item #3: City Ordinance Re-Codification-Second Reading: Councilman Garretson moved to amend the proposed code by repealing 32.05 regarding bowling lanes. Councilwoman Reiman moved to adopt the code as amended, Councilman Swift seconded it and it passed unanimously. Agenda Item #4: Blue Creek Woods Annexation-Second Reading: Councilman Garretson questioned if there were any roads in the area which the City would take a liability. Councilman Swift stated the County had passed an Ordinance which states that when cities and towns annex territory, they shall accept the responsibility for the entire road that divides the City from the Township. The road affected by the proposed annexation is 106th Street which is graveled. Mr. Hohl stated there should be a three-way agreement-City, County and Mr. Eisher, the developer, and there is no such agreement at this time. Councilman Garretson moved that this annexation be tabled and that the ordinance Clerk-Treasurer send Mr. Fisher a letter asking him to bring to the Clerk-Treasurer's office a letter of understanding with the County before this item will be considered again. Councilwoman Doane seconded it and it passed unanimously. re-cessed at 8:40 p.m. Meeting was Meeting was re-convened at 8:45 p.m. New Business- Agenda Item #1: Public Hearing- Zoning Control Ordinance and Sub- Division Regulation: Mayor Pickett opened advertised public hearing for consideration of new Zoning Control Ordinance and Sub-Division Regulations. Councilman Garretson stated that in order to have something specifically to discuss, he would move to amend those ordinances to provide for the former language which is the 120' building setback and nothing between. Councilwoman Reiman seconded it. Councilman Garretson stated they were all in receipt of a memorandum from an ad hoc Committee, called the Entrance Corridor Study Committee and which attached to original minutes, recommending we 12/17/79 Page two go back to the old language to provide time to get a more exacting language and he felt that would be good. Councilman Coots stated one of the threshold questions the Council was going to have to determine was where did they want the ultimate authority to rest for the over-all planning along the corridor - either with the BZA via the variance route or in the Plan Commission via proposed section 23. City Planner, Ann Chapman, stated she felt the committee could have their study done in 60 days. Councilman Meacham stated he felt 120' setback with nothing there was too restrictive. Virginia Kerr, Plan Comm;ssion member and Council woman - Elect, stated it had been her recollection that when any developer comes before the Commission, if the development meets the requirements, the Commission has approved it. Very few times have they restricted any application to be more definite than what the requirement is and as it stands now she lelt the Commission could not deny letting the developer do what he wanted to with the remaining 90 feet, after the 30 feet setback met the requirements. She stated that she felt the amendment would benefit the entire community of Carmel Mr. Steve Claffey, 3812 Brian Place, Carmel, stated he and eight others had acquired a three acre tract of ground on U.S. 31, immediately south of the Aero Drapery Building. He stated it was their intention to engage in a quality development on that tract. He stated he felt what should be known is that with a 120 foot restrictive set back, the only thing that could be put on acreage along Meridian would be a Wendy's type development in order to justify the cost of the land. He stated if quality type of office building, etc. had to go through approval after approval after approval the development in the community would be slowed down considerably. He stated he felt zoning regulations were never definite. Perhaps more precise, but never definite and urged the adoption of the ordinance as proposed rather than amending it. Terry Litvan, 1215 Fairbanks Drive, stated she had looked at the tax map which showed the property lines of the properties in that area. Not all property is 400 feet deep as Mr. Claffey's. She stated she sympathized with his financial reasons for not waiting, but she felt we had to think of the good for the City of Carmel and not just for the individual landowners. Mr. Ted Johnson, 317 Concord Place, stated he did not like the cloud of doubt hanging over this item and felt it needed more study. Councilwoman Reiman stated she felt good development would move through approval from the Plan Commission quite smoothly. Mr. Jim Snith, member of Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, stated that four years ago there was dis-satisfaction with the zoning ordinances and years of study along with guidance from a city planner was put into the draft before the Council tonight and he felt by listDning to the discussion, it saunded like we were starting all over again. He stated you can't satisfy everyone. He also statedA he felt the Plan Commission Comm;ttee voted 7-1 in favor of the ordinances with the 120' setback with 30' greenbelt with the thought the Plan Commission was to have the discretion as to what went into that 90' area. Mayor Pickett stated he felt the study had gone on too lang. Mayor Pickett closed public hearing and called for the question. Motion to amend failed 3 ayes, 4 nays. Councilmembers Horvath, Doane, Meacham and Coots voting nay. Counci1man Coots moved to adopt the sub-division control ordinance and the zoning control ordinance. Councilman Horvath seconded it and it passed unanimously. Meeting was re-cessed at 9:~0 p.m. Meeting was re-convened at 9:55 p.m. Agenda Item #2: Proposed Plan for Advanced Life Support System for Carmel/Clay : Councilman Coots reviewed proposed plan for implementation of an advanced life support system for Carmel/Clay as attached to minutes. Councilman Coots read proposed resolution to commence review of proposed plan. Councilman Swift seconded it and it passed unanimously. Page 3 12/17/79 Agenda Item #3: Amendment to 1980 Salary Ordinance: Mayor Pickett read proposed Ordinance D-231, amending the 1980 Salary Ordinance to correct errors on two positions and adding three new positions. Councilman Swift stated the Budget Committee had reviewed this and recommended it. Councilman Horvath moved to amend the ordinance by striking the positions of Electronic Technician and Accounting Clerk I, Councilman Coots seconded it and it failed 3 ayes, 4 nays, Councilmembers Garretson, Doane, Swift and Reiman voting nay. Ordinance was shown as being introduced. Item #4: Transfer Funds Ordinance: Mayor Pickett read proposed ordinance B-156 transferring funds within the Fire Dept., Clerk- Treasurer Office, City Court, Building Commissioner, City Attorney, Board of Public Works, Plan Commission and MVH Budgets. Councilman Meacham moved to approve ordinance as read, Council woman Reiman seconded it. Councilman Garretson moved to suspend rules, Councilman Swift seconded it and it passed unanimously. Motion to adopt passed unanimously. Agenda Item #5: Water and Sewer 1980 Budgets: Mayor Pickett read proposed Ordinance DL232 budgeting the Water Utility for 19 O. Councilman Garretson moved for adoption, Councilwoman Reiman seconded it. Ccuncilman Swift moved to suspend the rules, Councilman Meacham seconded it and it passed unanimously. Motion to adopt passed unanimously. Mayor Pickett reviewed proposed Ordinance D-232 budgeting the Sewer Utility for 1980. A discussion was held regarding the fact the budget reflected the increase in rates which had not been passed. Councilwoman Doane moved for adoption, Council man Coots seconded it. Councilman Garretson moved to suspend the rules, Councilman Meacham seconded it and it failed 6 ayes, 1 nay. Councilman Horvath voting nay. Ordinance was shown as being introduced. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Approved Attest TO The Carmel City Council FROM The Entrance Corridors Study Committee (Virginia Kerr, Terry Litvan, George Sweet, Dorothy Smith, Jerry York, Ann Chapman) SUBJECT Continued, detailed study of entrance corridor land management DATE December 12, 1979 ...The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive.... The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to_determineithat the community should be beautiful.... U.S. Supreme Court, November, 1954 At the present time and in the future, United States Highway 31 and StateA Highway 431 will serve as the principal entrance corridors into our city.i The maintenance of the aesthetic qualities these areas possess is of prime importance to each of us. To insure proper development of these areas, detailed study determining policy and establishing standards is required. The Entrance Corridors Study Commltte is attempting to complete this task -- we are creating a plan for the City's entrance corridors. The Entrance Corridors Study Committee is, at this time, an informal committee consisting of people who are concerned. We represent first and foremost the public, but ollr members include a developer, a Meridian corTidor landowner, a Chamber of Comme me representative, a Plan Commission member, a Board of Zoning Appeals member, and a planner. Although we feel Section 23.0 of the proposed zoning ordinance is an adequate interim measure, the lack of an overall policy or plan, the vagueness and possible arbitrariness of standards, and the inflexibility of requirements causes concern, The significance of the entrance corridors suggests to us that additional study is essential. Our planning method includes the development of an overall goal, the determination of specific objectives, and the implementation of this policy through specific, flexible standards. The formulation of a goal and the objectives has occurred with the followlng resultss MERIDIAN CORRIDOR GOAL: To plan for the orderly development-of an overlay zone on the Merldian Corridor protecting and enrlching the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. Enhancement of the foregoing will be achieved by treating lands bordering limited access highway U.S. 31 in a consistent manner, by insuring the aesthetic qualities of these properties, by promoting efficient land usage, and by encouraging development of a significant and monumental nature. - M E M O R A N D U M MERIDIAN CORRIDOR OBJECTIVES 1. Promote coordinated development which is aesthetically pleasing. 2, Provide flexible use of the land to allow for innovative site design and efficient land usage. 3. Set specific standards to establish consistency. 4, Insure Plan Commission approval of projects. 5. Encourage large-scale developments in the ~-5 and B-6 districts. 6. Encourage free enterprise investment in the Meridian Corridor. Corresponding goals and objectives will be developed for the Keystone Corridor. Currently, we are obtaining background data and materials concerning the establishment of standards. At their December meet1ng,Awe will ask the Carmel Plan Commission to adopt us as anlofficial study committee. Regardless of whether we are accepted or not, it is our feeling that the Plan Commission and the City Council should favor the entrance corridors with furth~r study.i-We ask you to utilize the power granted to you in Sec. 511(a) of IC 18-7-4: After the adoption of'a comprehensive p lan and ordinance, each amendment to it shall be adopted according to the procedure set forth in sections 507(a), 508(a), and 509(a) of this chapter. However, if the legislative body wants an amendment, it may direct the advisory plan commission to prepare the amendment and submit it to public hearing within sixty(60) days after the formal written request by the legislative body. The Meridian and Keystone corridors will play an important role in Carmel's future. Let's plan for that future now. PU B L I C ACCO U NTANT S × × 9000 North Keystone, Suite 230 Indianapolis, Indiana ~.6240 317 December 14, 1979 Common Council City Hall Carmel, Indiana Dear Council Members: At the public hearing on proposed held at sewer rates the regular Council meetin~ on December 3, 1979, some questions were again raised by the Council and the public to which we will respond in this letter. Question: Councilman Meacham raised the question of why the difference between our first report (yellow cover) and our second report (beige cover)? Answer: First, we reduced the amount of money needed from the proposed rates by $22,000 annually. Second, we reallocated the cost where permissable under the guidelines of EPA to place more of the burden of the increase in rates to those customers whose monthly consumption exceeded approxi mately 15,000 gallons per month. The only reason this was done was at the Council's direction due to concern over the magnitude of the increase in the minimum rate. Question: The second question concerned itself with using the base period numbers for revenues as identified on page 4 revised when the year 1977 was higher. Answer: The decline in system revenues between the year 1977 and the year 1978 is basically due to the application of the sprinkling provision in 1978 and not in 1977. While recognizing the severe deficiencies in the utility's present billing system which we understand wiil be corrected, the results of the correction will not be available for a long period of time; we are of the opinion that our base period is materially accurate and therefore provides a firm foundation on which to make our projections. Question: Why isn't projected growth used in the determination of proposed rates? Answer: While we have no reason to doubt that your present system will continue to grow, we do feel that there are different opinions as to the proposed rate of growth of revenues and expenses. Therefore we feel that additional revenues from growth will go a long way to offset the inflationary trend in the economy which we also have not considered in projecting require- ments for proposed rates. Common Council City Hall Carmel, Indiana - 2 - December 14, 1979 Question: The third question pertains to the large amount of the increase and the reasons why this rate increase was not initiated sooner. Answer: This is entirely a matter of choice of the Board of Public Works members and the common Council. Some municipalities quite successfully have reviewed and increased their rates incrementally on an annual basis. Others, such as Carmel have deferred this decision until the rate increase becomes essential, and usually the longer the deferral the larger the increase. Question: What are the consequences of deferring a rate increase over a prolonged period? Answer: Normally some or all of the following occur: 1. The rate increase becomes larger or more material in nature. 2. There is an erosion of working cash and investment funds generated by utility rates. 3. There is a deferment of system additions and improvements and possibly preventative maintenance programs because of a scarcity of funds. 4. There becomes a reliance on outside source of funds which may not be reliahle, to offset normal operation and maintenance expense. 5. Lastly and perhaps the most costly consequence is that the bond rating agencies could lower the bond rating on revenue bonds which could also affect the credit rating of the City in general, and the school district. We have received such inquiries concerning Carmel and also if any action will be taken on a sewage works rate increase. In conclusion our recommendation remains as we have previously stated two months ago to the Common Council and over one year ago to the Board of Public Works which is that a rate increase of the suggested magnitude be enacted. We are cognizant that a new administration will be taking office on January 1, however we hope the suggested ordinance will be introduced on December 17 so that final action can be considered at the January Council meeting. We will be at the December 17 Council meeting to answer questions, and we will make ourselves available if additional discussions are needed. We are concerned and sincerely hope that you are. Sincerely, McCULLOUGH & ASSOCIATES Edward W. Guntz ewg:nr cc: Honorable Albert B. Pickett Ms. Peggy Lou Smith Mr. James Dougherty