Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-11-19-90CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1990 ONE CIVIC SQUARE/COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Dorothy J. Hancock. Council members in attendance were Minnie Doane, Lee Lonzo, Alan Potasnik, Annabelle Ogle, Frank Fleming and Tom Irvin. David Adams was absent from the proceedings. The invocation was given by Councilor Doane followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to amend the minutes on MINUTES: page 3, paragraph 6 to read as follows: "Councilor Potasnik made a motion to suspend the rules to move items 6, 7 and 13 up on the agenda, and also to add an additional item relative to a property purchase agreement the city attorney wishes to present to council." Councilor Irvin made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Councilor Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. : Councilor Irvin made a motion to approve Resolution 11- TRANSFERS 19-90-1 which allows for transfers within the Court budget (General Fund) for 1990. The motion was seconded by Councilor Fleming. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to approve Resolution 11-19-90-2 which allows for transfers within the Street budget (MVH) for 1990. The motion was seconded by Councilor Lonzo. All members voted aye. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE C-148/AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF Councilor Lonzo THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SECOND STREET NORTHEAST: withdrew from the proceedings. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to introduce Ordinance C-148 and suspend the rules for reading of the same. The motion was seconded by Councilor Fleming. All members, except Councilor Lonzo, voted aye. Motion carried. Mayor Hancock opened the hearing to the public for comments, questions and or objections. Marshall Andich of 120 Sylvan Lane presented a petition of 56 signatures to the Council that supported the project but requested certain signs at various intersections. Mr. Andich stated he supported the project but several items concerning signs on the streets need refinement. There being no further comments from the public, the hearing was closed. Councilor Irvin made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance C-148 tonight and to have Mr. Andich's proposal studied at a later date. The motion was seconded by Councilor Fleming. All members, except Councilor Lonzo, voted aye. Motion carried. ANNEXATION/ ORDINANCE C-149/ANNEXATION OF TINGLE PROPERTY/14025 Councilor Potasnik made a motion to suspend the NORTH GRAY ROAD: rules for reading Ordinance C-149 and introduce Ordinance C-149. The motion was seconded by Councilor Lonzo. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to suspend the rules and act on C- 149 tonight. The motion was seconded by Councilor Doane. All members voted aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE D-678/AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF CARMEL, : INDIANA/ESTABLISHING STOP INTERSECTIONS AND YIELD INTERSECTIONS Councilor Lonzo made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-678 and suspend the rules for reading of the same. The motion was seconded by Councilor Tom Irvin. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Lonzo made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance D-678 tonight. The motion was seconded by Councilor Doane. All members voted aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE D-679/AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING INTERSECTIONS AT CARMEL CIVIC SQUARE CIRCLE AT ITS SOUTHEAST CORNER AND NORTHWEST CORNER INTERSECTIONS WITH CARMEL CITY HALL DRIVEWAY AND YIELD INTERSECTIONS AT GRADLE DRIVE AND CARMEL CIVIC SQUARE Councilor Lonzo made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-679 CIRCLE: and suspend the rules for reading of the same. The motion was seconded by Councilor Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Lonzo made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance D-679 tonight. The motion was seconded by Councilor Potasnik. All members voted aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE D-682/AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE D-654 TO ADD THE Councilor Potasnik made a POSITION AND SALARY OF A DEPUTY BAILIFF: motion to introduce Ordinance D-682 and dispense with the reading of the same. The motion was seconded by Councilor Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to table this item until the December 3, 1990 meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilor Lonzo. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Thomas Kendall of 11818 PURCHASE OF CIVIC SQUARE CENTRE BUILDING: Gray Road read a prepared statement to the Council objecting to the purchase of the Civic Square Centre Building and objecting to the way it was placed on the agenda. Councilor Lonzo addressed Mr. Kendall's concerns and stated, along with the City Attorney, that he felt the item had been placed on the agenda correctly. Councilor Lonzo stated that during the process of purchasing and financing the building there would be opportunity for public hearings. (See attached for total transcript.) Councilor Potasnik made a motion to COMMUNICATIONS CENTER CLAIMS: approve a claim for the Communications Center to TA Electronics in the amount of $1,932.00. The motion was seconded by Councilor Doane. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to approve a claim for the Communications Center to Ludlow Company in the amount of $653.20. The motion was seconded by Councilor Irvin. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to approve a claim for the Communications Center to Heath & Company in the amount of $804.87. The motion was seconded by Councilor Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to approve a claim for the Communications Center to GE in the amount of $1,389.60. The motion was seconded by Councilor Doane. All members voted aye. Motion carried. David Wilcox presented a survey of copier needs for COPIER SURVEY: the city. Councilor Lonzo directed the Board of Public Works to study the survey and come up with a plan. There being no further business before the Council the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Dorothy J. Hancock, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, Clerk-Treasurer Carmel City Council Meeting November 19,1990 Presentation Regarding Civic Square Centre By Tom Kendall Two weeks ago, this Council unanimously passed Resolution 11-S-90-7 authorizing the Mayor to enter into a purchase agreement to acquire a building known as Civic Square Centre for the price of $1.1 Million. Within seconds of receiving approval, Mayor Hancock signed her name to the purchase agreement which had already been negotiated and signed by Ash Realty, then asked the Clerk Treasurer to attest to the signature virtually completing the purchase of the building. Though there are a few procedures that must be completed prior to a closing, none of those procedures include receiving public input regarding the purchase of the building. I was very surprised as a member of the audience to hear the item even come up at this meeting as I had no opportunity to prepare for it since it was not placed on the meeting agenda. City Ordinance D-362 specifically states that ". .all agenda items must be received in the office of the Clerk-Treasurer by noon on Wednesday immediately preceding the Council meeting". It also provides for a procedure to be followed in the event an item must be added to the agenda at the last minute. Addressing this, Ordinance D-362 states: "Any additional items to be added to the agenda requiring action by the Council which are not included in the prepared agenda must be typed or written in memorandum form along with a brief rationale for inclusion on the agenda and distributed to each Council member, the Mayor and Clerk-Treasurer prior to the start of the Council meeting. When the Council has concluded its New Business, the Mayor shall ask if any other business is to come before the council, whereupon any Council member wishing to add an additional item to the agenda and who has first submitted the title and rationale for the item to Council members prior to the start of the meeting, shall move to add said item to the agenda. Following a second by one other Council member, the presiding officer shall immediately call for a vote on the question of adding such item to the agenda, without first allowing any discussion and/or debate on the content of the proposed agenda item. A 2/3 vote of Council members must be received in order to add the item to the agenda. No other items may be added to the agenda without the Common Council suspending its rules which shall require a unanimous vote of all those present." I asked for, and obtained, these sworn statements from both the Clerk-Treasurer, Susan W. Jones, and her deputy Janet Rogers, that the City Attorney, Steve Andrews, had not called or asked for anything to be added to the November 5,1990 Council agenda by the 12:00 pm deadline. In Ms. Rogers statement, she says: "On October 31, 1990 (Wednesday) at approximately 1:30-2:00 P.M. City Attorney Steve Andrews called the Clerk Treasurer's office and asked me to add the item of the Purchase Agreement between Ash R ealty and the City of Carmel to the City Council agenda for the November 5,1990 meeting. ~ "I had informed him at that time that it was past the 12:00 P.M. deadline for the Agenda and he told me to add it on as an additional item." The Clerk-Treasurer's statement further stated: "At no time, was any back-up sent to the Clerk-Treasurer's office nor was any distributed to the Clerk-Treasurer before the start of the Council meeting on November 5, 1990. Until the item was presented for action, I (Susan Jones) had absolutely no knowledge of this item, no back-up and no documents for review. During the discussion of that item on the agenda, I asked for a copy. The Mayor handed me a copy of Resolution 11-5-90 7 but I never received a copy of the actual purchase agreement until after final action was taken and I attested to the Mayor's signature." I believe this scenario clearly shows that proper procedures were ignored with regard to this item. I also believe that because of these improper actions, Resolution 11-5-90-7 should be invalidated, consequentially invalidating the Purchase Agreement that was signed between Ash Realty and the City of Carmel. After receiving the documentation I requested, I investigated how I, as a citizen of Carmel, could go about enforcing this ordinance. I sought the advise of the County Prosecutors office and was told that since it was not a criminal matter, they could not assist me and that I should seek the advise of my own attorney. I questioned why the system does not provide for a citizen to bring about an enforcement action against a public official or entity when a civil law is clearly broken. Public funds are routinely spent to enforce laws against the citizens but there seem to be no provisions to fight the system except to finance the action out of you own pocket. I did seek the advice of private counsel and was told I probably have sufficient grounds to seek a restraining order against the execution of this agreement. However, I was also told that all the City Council would need to do would be to put it back on the agenda in a proper way, vote again and my action would be moot. Therefore, it seems we have reached the proverbial "Mexican Standoff". Though I am willing and prepared to do whatever it takes, we could save a lot of time and expense by properly placing this item on a future agenda and have the Council vote on it again. However, before you vote on this item again, I would hope that the Mayor, and each member of the Council look around the Council chambers tonight and see the people who believed it necessary to take the time from their own busy schedules to come here tonight for the purpose of conveying the message that we do not want you to spend $1.1 Million of our money on this building. The Council may be wondering why we feel this way since you seemed to feel $1.1 Million is such a bargain for this building, and that so many members have such great plans for it once it belongs to the City. Let me submit to you some of the reasons why the people want you to Just Say NAY" the next time you vote. 1.Reports from several people who watched the construction of this building indicate that it was poorly built. My inquiry at the Department of Community Development uncovered that there was never a Certificate of Occupancy issued for the building, only a temporary certificate covering the period of May 12, to June 15,1989. This was due to incomplete conditions which may or may not have been completed to date. A letter from the Department of Community Development dated May 11,1990 to Mr. Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger, indicated 7 items that needed to be addressed before an inspection could occur which could further uncover other required work. In addition, 10 fire and safety violations were cited in a letter from the Carmel Fire Department, dated May 9,1990. 2. I have asked myself, if this building was such a good deal,why doesn't some developer want to buy it for $1.1 Million instead? I did speak to a person in the property management business who was interested in the building and made Merchants National Bank an offer. His offer was less than the $1.1 Million. In fact, he commented he believed the current market value of the building, considering its present condition and the state of the soft real estate market in Carmel, is around $950,000 and that the bank should consider themselves lucky to get that much for it. As a professional in that business, he also estimated it would cost him at least another $150,000 just to do just the items necessary to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy. This does not include the cost of finishing the interior of the building to make it leasable for future tenants. If the City were to purchase the building, we would also have to consider the cost of paying the City Attorney for the bond issue, taxes, utilities, custodial services etc. not to mention the cost of the interim financing which would likely be at about 12% per annum. Taking all of these additional costs into consideration, it could easily end up costing the citizens of Carmel $1.5 to 2 Million to own this building. 3. One of the suggested applications for the building was to build a recreation center for our teenagers so they could "hang out" there instead of Civic Square. Based on the comments I received this week when I asked some local teenagers, I doubt that anyone on the Council ever bothered to consult with them as to whether or not they even want a nice place to "hang out" where there would be plenty of adults to supervise. My informal survey indicated that they though I was crazy for even asking. 4. If the Council believes our teenagers really need more to do, I suggest you consider the $90 Million we are in the process of spending on our High School, most of which is going to enhance the sports and recreation facilities available at the school. Perhaps in the near future, our teenagers will all be so busy using these facilities that there will not be such a pressing need to have another place to "hang out" at any time in the foreseeable future. 5. Many of us believe that it is not the business of the City to own and manage commercial property. Though it would be a nice gesture to offer low rent office space to some of our fine community service organizations, it is not the duty of the City to provide for them in such a way as to force every taxpayer to contribute through their tax dollars. We all have opportunities to make tax deductible contributions to these organizations and should continue to be given the option as to whether or not we choose to support them. If we begin subsidizing one not for profit organization, as a public entity, we would not be able to discriminate against any others that may also want bargain rent and I can think of many organizations which I would not care to see and support in Carmel. 6. The people of this community want to start seeing this administration and this Council show some concern for the taxes you are asking us to pay to support all of your visions. It seems every time someone on this Council has a dream for our future, we all have a nightmare about taxes. I personally encountered a 70% increase in my property taxes last year of which about 38% went to pay for Civic Square. We are about to get the first of the $90 Million school project to hit us next year and you recently voted to establish our own city park commission which will have its own taxing authority. In the near future, there will be many road improvements required which will require our tax dollars as well as a significant investment into the City's other infrastructure items required to support the rapid growth this administration is so eager to foster. This City's economy has been leveraged with the thought that the growth itself will add enough to the tax coffers to pay the bills. We are already at the beginning of what could be a very severe recession. Such a recession could bring about conditions which make growth either impossible or impractical. If we become complacent and count on that growth to offset our long term obligations, we, as a City, could be headed for economic disaster. Now is the time to stop spending money on things that are not absolutely essential for the welfare of this community. Instead of finding new ways to spend our tax dollars, let us find ways to be able to retain as much of our own money so we can support our families through this recession instead of being forced to pay higher taxes to pay for a lot of unnecessary bilge like Civic Square Centre. 7. Finally, there seems that there might be some degree of conflicts of interest regarding the purchase of this building. First of all, Mrs. Ogle voted in favor of the resolution and she is an employee of Union State Bank, a Merchants National subsidiary. From this point on, I believe it would be proper for Mrs. Ogle to not participate in any further discussion of this subject or to vote on this matter. There may even be an additional conflict with Mayor Hancock negotiating and executing an agreement with Merchants National Bank since the treasurer of her last campaign committee is also the President of Union State Bank. Since Mayor Hancock just recently announced her intention to seek a second term, I do not know if this gentleman will again be involved in her campaign. However, even though this relationship is probably purely coincidental, it could make one wonder why the City may be paying a higher price than those in the private sector have been willing to pay for the building. Therefore this relationship should be sufficient reason for the Mayor to remove herself from further involvement in this matter. I have spoken out on several occasions now on a variety of subjects and hope, if nothing else, even though you don't seem to agree with me on many of them, you will at least believe I am as sincerely interested in the quality of life in Carmel as you are. If you look back on all of the issues I have taken a stand on, I have never asked you for more than two things: 1. Listen to the people of this community, not just the developers. Hear the people's concern for fiscal responsibility a good living environment with reasonable growth and taxes. 2. Follow the rules. Again, that is all I am asking of you. Put this item back on the agenda properly and vote on it again. However, the next time this appears on the agenda, remember the message that the citizens of Carmel have conveyed tonight. Its your turn to vote next, then it will be our turn next year.