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