Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-03-19-01City of Carmel CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2001-7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS / CITY HALL / ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OF AI 1 EGIANCE 3. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS · Proclamation for Disability Awareness Month · Range Line Pioneer Award Presentation 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. March 5, 2001 - Regular Meeting 5. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL 6. COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS 7. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES 8. CLAIMS · Payroll · General Claims · Retirement 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS Administration Committee Annexation and Land Use Committee Economic Development Committee Finance Committee Parks & Recreation Committee Public Safety Committee Rules Committee Utilities and Transportation Committee ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL~ INDIANA 46032 317/571-2400 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC HEARING 12. NEW BUSINESS a. First Readin~ of Ordinance No. D-1505-01; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division III, Section 2-62(e) of the Carreel City Code (Credit Card Submissions); Sponsor: Councilor Koven b. First Readinl~ of Ordinance No. D-1506-01; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Cannel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division V, Section 2-81 of the Cannel City Code (Meeting Compensation); Sponsor: Councilor Wilson c. First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1507-01; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article 1, Division II, Section 3-25 of the Cannel City Code (Formatting of Ordinances); Sponsor: Councilor Koven d. First Readin~ of Ordinance No. D-1508-01; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division V, Section 2-81 of the Carmel City Code (Meeting Compensation); Sponsor: Councilor Wilson e. First Readin~ of Ordinance No. D-1509-01; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Ordinance No. D-1478-00 ....... (Purchase Orders); Sponsor: Councilor Koven f. Resolution No. CC-03-19-01-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Cannel, Indiana, Regarding the Establishment of the Parkwood Economic Development Area; Sponsor: Councilor Kirby 13. 14. OTHER BUSINESS a. Reoort on Outstandin~ Checks; Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray ANNOUNCEMENTS · Cancellation of April 2, 2001 City Council Meeting 15. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2001 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS / CITY HALL / ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor James Brainard, Council Members Kevin Kirby, John Koven, Bob Battreall, Norm Rundle, Luci Snyder, Ron Caster and Wayne Wilson; Clerk-Treasurer Diana Cordray and Deputy Clerk-Treasurer Carrie Gallagher. Mayor James Brainard called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Cotmcilor Ron Carter pronounced the Invocation. Mayor James Brainard led the Pledge of Allegiance. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS: Mayor Brainard read aloud a Proclamation declaring March Disability Awareness Month in the City of Carmel. Mayor Brainard presented the Proclamation to Robert H. Bill of Janus Developmental Services, Inc. Mr. Bill expressed his appreciation to the Mayor, Council and the community. Mayor Brainard advised the presentation of the Range Line Pioneer Award would not be made at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilor Rundle moved to approve the Minutes of the March 5, 2001 Regular Meeting. Councilor Snyder seconded. The Minutes were approved 5-0. Councilors Battreall and Carter abstained as they were absent from such meeting. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: Rick Roesch of 832 Spruce Drive and as a Cannel Redevelopment Commissioner, spoke in favor of the Parkwood Economic Development Plan and read aloud his position on the matter, a copy of which is made a part of the record and attached to the original Minutes of this meeting and referenced as Exhibit Mike Shaver of 4742 Bluffwood North Drive, addressed the Council and community regarding his personal opinion with respect to the Parkwood Economic Development Plan. A copy of his testimony is also made a part of the record and attached to the original Minutes of this meeting and referenced as Exhibit "B". COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Councilor Battreall responded to the public address regarding the Parkwood Economic Development Plan and presented his favorable position concerning the matter. Councilor Wilson commented on a recent article published in The Indianapolis Star conceming certain quotes made by Councilor Carter. Councilor Wilson further discussed his intentions as a Cannel City Councilman and his position with regard to matters of the article. Councilor Carter responded to Councilor Wilson's comments and restated his opinion of the conduct of the present Common Council. Council President Kirby expressed his disagreement with Councilor Carter's opinion of the Common Council. Mayor Brainard announced that the 96th Street project was completed under the projected estimate and, as a result, the City of Carmel will receive approximately $226,042.00 from Hamilton County. Mayor Brainard reiterated his commitment to the Parkwood Crossing West project, while recognizing the concerns of the remonstrators and restated the position of the City to make the impact on the people in the Parkwood Development area as minimal as possible. CLAIMS: Councilor Snyder moved to approve Claims in the amounts of $263,438.53 and $806,937.82. Councilor Rundle seconded. Councilor Koven expressed his concern regarding a claim in the amount of $10,459.63 to Simon and Company. Mayor Brainard responded to Councilor Koven's concerns. There was Council discussion. Councilor Koven suggested the claim be deleted from the approval of claims and forwarded to the Finance Committee for further review and consideration and moved as such. Councilor Snyder seconded. The claim was sent to the Finance Committee by a vote of 7-0. Councilor Koven then addressed an additional claim in the amount of $53,077.46 to Kiefer & McGoff and recommended it also be excluded from the approval of claims and forwarded to the Finance Committee for further review and discovery. Mayor Brainard responded to Council's concerns for this claim and stated he had already paid his attorney fees. There was Council discussion. Councilor Koven moved to delete the claim in the amount of $53,077.46 from the approval of claims and forward it to the Finance Committee for review. Councilor Rundle seconded. The claim was sent to the Finance Committee by a vote of 7-0. Councilor Snyder moved to restate the approval of claims in the amounts of $263,438.53 and $743,400.73. Prior to the approval of claims, Councilor Snyder addressed an issue concerning a claim that was not included on the claims run for services by Campbell, Kyle & Proffitt for a former City employee. A copy of Councilor Snyder's letter addressing this issue and its attachments is included with the original Minutes of this meeting and referenced as Exhibit "C". Councilor Snyder moved to refer this matter to the Finance Committee for review. Councilor Koven seconded. The matter was referred to Committee by a vote of 7-0. Councilor Koven seconded the motion for approval of claims. The claims were approved 6-1. Councilor Carter voted in opposition of the claims. COMMITlEE REPORTS: Councilor Rundie reported that the Administration Committee met on March 19, 2001, at which time they discussed proposed amendments to the city's health plan. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for April 16, 2001. Councilor Wilson reported that the Annexation and Land Use Committee met on March 8, 2001. The topic for discussion was the fiscal plan annexation analysis provided by H. J. Umbaugh and included a presentation and proposed letter of agreement. Councilor Wilson moved to accept the letter of understanding between H. J. Umbaugh and the City. Councilor Snyder seconded. The agreement letter was approved and accepted by a vote of the Council 7-0. The next meeting of the Annexation and Land Use Committee is scheduled for March 27, 2001. Councilor Snyder reported that the Economic Development Committee met on March 29, 2001, at which time they discussed the office building for the new City Center and a possible diversity workshop presentation to be set-up by the Hamilton County Alliance. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for April 16, 2001. Councilor Wilson stated that the Finance Committee has not met since the last meeting of Council. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for March 23, 2001; however, that meeting will be canceled and rescheduled for a date yet to be determined. Councilor Carter stated that the Parks and Recreation Committee has not met. The next meeting of the Committee has been canceled. Councilor Battreall reported that the Public Safety Committee met on March 19, 2001, at which time they discussed the application for a federal grant under the COPS Program that would allow replacement of onboard computers in squad cars for the Police Department; the selection of the City of Carmel as the Beta test site for the new Surline Rescue System; the proposal for new emergency medical fees for the Fire Department; and, an update on the status of the new fire stations. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for April 16, 2001. Councilor Koven stated that the Rules Committee has not met. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for March 23, 2001. Council President Kirby stated that the Utilities and Transvortation Committee has not met. The next meeting is presently scheduled for April 13, 2001; however, it will be canceled and rescheduled for a date yet to be determined. OLD BUSINESS: There was none. PUBLIC HEARING: There was none. NEW BUSINESS: Council President Kirby announced the First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1505-01; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division III, Section 2-62(e) of the Cmmel City Code (Credit Card Submissions). Councilor Wilson moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Battreall seconded. Councilor Koven presented this matter to Council and proposed an amendment to the document. There was Council discussion conceming the amendment and possible additional amendments. Therefore, Council President Kirby referred Ordinance No. D-1505-01 to the Finance Committee. Council President Kirby announced the First Readin~ of Ordinance No. D-1506-01; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Cannel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division V, Section 2-81 of the Carmel City Code (Meeting Compensation). Councilor Wilson moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Koven seconded. Councilor Wilson presented this matter together with item 12d, Ordinance No. D-1508-01, to Council as they are both relative in nature. There was Council discussion conceming both items. Council President Kirby referred both Ordinance No. D- 1506-01 and Ordinance No. D-1508-01 to the Administration Committee. Council President Kirby announced the First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1507-01; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carreel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article 1, Division II, Section 3-25 of the Carreel City Code (Formatting of Ordinances). Councilor Koven moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Snyder seconded. Councilor Koven presented this matter to Council. There was Council discussion. Councilor Snyder moved to suspend the roles and not send this matter to Committee, but act on it tonight. Councilor Koven seconded and moved for approval. Councilor Snyder seconded. Ordinance No. D-1507-01 was approved 7-0. Council President Kirby reiterated that the First Readin~ of Ordinance No. D-1508-0k An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Cannel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division V, Section 2-81 of the Carmel City Code (Meeting Compensation) was done in conjunction with item 12b, Ordinance No. D-1506-01, and referred to the Administration Committee for further review and consideration. Council President Kirby announced the First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1509-01; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 2-131 of the Carmel City Code (Purchase Orders). Councilor Koven moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Snyder seconded. Councilor Koven presented this matter to Council. There was Council discussion. Council President Kirby referred Ordinance No. D-1509-01 to the Rules Committee. Council President Kirby announced Resolution No. CC-03-19-01o01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Regarding the Establishment of the Parkwood Economic Development Area. Council President Kirby moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Snyder seconded. Council President Kirby presented this matter to Council. Councilor Snyder read aloud a statement concerning this matter, a copy of which is made an attachment to the original Minutes of this meeting and referenced as Exhibit "D". Councilor Koven made additional comments. There was no further Council discussion. Resolution No. CC-03-19-01-01 was approved 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS: Council President Kirby announced a Memorandum to be referred to the Administration Committee for review and consideration and report back to Council regarding the interpretation of law as to claims. Clerk-Treasurer Diana Cordray presented a report on outstanding checks to Council and asked for approval of the Council to cancel those outstanding checks. Councilor Wilson moved to approve. Councilor Snyder seconded. The motion was approve 7-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Councilor Snyder announced the budget submission deadline of June 1, 2001. Mayor Brainard advised he will need to discuss that date with all department heads. Discussion concerning this deadline will continue at the next meeting of Council. Council President Kirby announced the cancellation of the April 2, 2001 City Council Meeting. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: Council President Kirby turned the meeting over to Mayor Brainard for adjournment, pending the execution of documents. Mayor Brainard entertained a motion to adjourn. Councilor Wilson so moved. Councilor Battreall seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Clerk-Treasurer D~'~C Approved, /yf jm; e s 3/19/01 Minules As a commissioner, I would like to explain a position I am taking in this matter before us. In a conversation prior to our public hearing that was cancelled, Mr. Greg Silver, The Headland Group/s attorney, threatened me, the other Redevelopment Commissioners and the Carmel City ~ouncilors. Mr. Silver said that the opposition to this project would cause anyone having anything to do with approval of this project to be "tainted". Mr. Silver said that if this project were approved, the opposition would use hundreds of thousands of dollars at their disposal to defeat the existing sitting Carmel City Councilors in the next election. He also said that the opposition was prepared to file five lawsuits against the city entities at $80,000.00 a piece. To be threatened before even making a decision is in my opinion an abuse of process. We have heard testimony, concerning this project, from remonstrators and from hired professionals. We should, as a legally appointed commission, be able to use that information to make decisions that are beneficial to the taxpayers of the City of Carmel free of the influence of threats on those decisions. I know that for some of us those threats are fearsome. We don't want our reputations besmirched or our personal finances attacked. I urge us all to put aside our fears and to vote to do the right thing for Carmel. I for one will not be intimidated. I will not let these threats influence my decision in this matter and would urge other commissioners not to let these threats influence their decisions. March 18, 2001 Members of the Cannel City Council RE: Public Testimony of a Private Citizen Parkwood Economic Development Plan I am here today to present some information that I fear might otherwise have been ove~ooked. I have deliberately chosen the public testimony portion of your meeting to present this information - which includes some fact and some opinion - because I stand before you as a simple member of the public. Although the City of Carmel and my company have a professional relationship, this information is specifically offered to you outside of that relationship. Therefore, it is presented without cost to you, and you may decide freely whether the information is of value to you, as well as what you do with it, but I want it to be part of the public record. On March 14, I witnessed an exhibition at a public hearing which was unlike any I had ever before witnessed. I witnessed a remonstrator - or more explicitly the lawyer for a group of remonstrators - attempt to usurp control of a public hearing from the Carmel Redevelopment Commission (CRC) over the Parkwood Economic Development Plan. I am not an attorney, and so much of what I offer you is purely opinion, and thus suited entirely to this part of your meeting. I fully believe that Mr. Deeb had a right to be heard, but his approach simply confused the situation and ultimately covered what I believe to be the material weaknesses in his presentation. But let the lawyers decide this matter. I would like to generally address some of the issues which Mr. Deeb presented regarding the ED Plan briefly at this time. LACK OF NEW INFORMATION First, let it be fully understood by everyone present that none of the information presented at that heating was fundamentally new, nor did it cover topics that had not already been discussed. Virtually every central issue that Mr. Deeb questioned had been previously discussed by the CRC or other public body in one form or another, and some discussed in multiple forms. The only thing new was Mr. Deeb's personal spin, on these issues. The statutory findings of fact are a routine source of questions and discussion, and those findings of fact were the main source of Mr. Deeb's questions. Therefore, Mr. Deeb's demand for a complete list of everyone's contact with everyone else, including a breakdown of those contacts by date, time and content appears to me to be somewhat silly, unless it is considered in the context of an overall strategy of obfuscation and delay. THE LAND USE DECISION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CRC First and foremost, everyone needs to understand that the land use decision (approving the zoning) is over. Mr. Deeb and the remonstrators don't like that decision, they have filed lawsuits in this regard, and they want it to disappear. But regardless of their preferences, that decision is done. Furthermore, if Messrs. Deeb, Lawson and Silver are truly interested in protecting the neighborhood from adverse impact, it seems to me that everyone should understand that their current tactics run the risk of actually harming their own clients. It is my opinion that Mr. Deeb and his fellows are adamantly trying to get the CRC to overtum the land use decision of the Plan Commission. It seems that these lawyers believe that the failure to declare the Economic Development Area (ED Area) would have the same impact as rejecting the zoning, because there could be no TIF financing. But there is significant risk in that conclusion, as I will explain. The issue of land use and development at Parkwood was not being decided by the CRC. That decision had already been made by the Plan Commission, even though Mr. Deeb disagreed with those findings. Therefore, the appralser's opinion that the presence of commercial land use across the street would cause adverse impact was completely moot with regard to the merits of designating an ED Area. It seems that the remonstrators' lawyers are so obsessed with the land use decision that they cannot put it aside, even in the interests of their clients. In fact, one of the reasons for the CRC to approve the ED Area is to provide financing for reasonable impact mitigation resulting from the development, if it occurs. If the CRC fails to designate the ED Area, it is still possible for Parkwood to be developed without the benefits of the ED Area. Mr. Deeb would apparently hope to simply bankrupt the developers by making them pay for extensive public improvements (including interstate reconstruction), thereby creating a whole new set of impact variables. No matter what the remonstrators may scream, however, it is not the responsibility of the City of Cannel to correct 5 0 years worth of bad planning by INDOT and the City of Indianapolis. The ED Plan expressly provides that one of the specific projects to be undertaken by the CRC is "Impact Mitigation." In other words, the issue of potential adverse impact on property value was expressly addressed within the ED Plan and a specific recommendation was made by the ED Plan for the CRC to take reasonable actions necessary to assure that adverse impacts were mitigated. The record absolutely cannot be made more clear. Mr. Deeb was so intensely focused on his mission of remonstrance against the land use decisions, which had already been made by the Plan Commission, that - in my opinion - he argues an irrelevant issue. In fact, Mr. Deeb was effectively attacking the work of the very commission (the CRC) and document (the ED Plan), which was attempting to assure that appropriate levels of adverse impact on his clients would be minimized, if it materialized. The CRC is actually Mr. Deeb's last, best hope of assuring that his own clients do not suffer harm. CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mr. Dccb challenged the conformity of the ED Plan to Carmel's comprehensive plan. He cited several instances which he alleged lacked conformity. In my opinion, the challenge 2 was baseless. I challenge every one of his assertions, but there is no need for me to argue with him. Mr. Deeb's allegation of non-conformity ignored the fact that the statutory process for designating an ED Area includes the specific finding of fact by the CRC that the ED Plan conforms to the comprehensive plan. The ED Plan states this clearly, despite the fact that Mr. Deeb is not satisfied with the answer. Let us itemize some of these official actions with respect to conformity of the ED Plan with the comprehensive plan: It is the responsibility of the DOCS staff to review the technical issues related to each development proposal within the context of the comprehensive plan and to make recommendations to the Plan Commission based on those findings. DOCS staff performed that review on the Parkwood proposal and found that the development proposal conformed to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan Commission then reviewed the DOCS staff recommendation and then undertook its own process of information gathering, including public input and discussion, and ultimately approved the development proposal by an overwhelming margin, thus affirming the DOCS staff finding that the development proposal conformed to the comprehensive plan. The City Council also reviewed the development proposal on at least one, and possibly two, occasions as well as reviewing the actions of the Plan Commission. The City Council also found the development proposal to conform to the comprehensive plan and took official action in affirmation thereof, The CRC reviewed the ED Plan to assure that it accurately conformed to the comprehensive plan and affirmed their finding of conformity by official action. The Plan Commission was asked to review the ED Plan and determine whether the ED Plan conformed to the comprehensive plan. Again, the Plan Commission found conformity with official affirmation by an overwhelming margin. The City Council, itself, reviewed the ED Plan after the sequential approvals of the CRC and the Plan Commission and concurred in the finding of conformity. All of this was appropriately noted to anyone paying attention. The ED Plan was found to conform to the comprehensive plan by official action of three separate government bodies, as well as professional staff. Even Mr. Deeb did not challenge these facts. In my opinion, unless his criticisms identify a material mason to overturn these previous judgements and official actions, the subject of conformity is not a topic for debate. LAND USE DAMAGE TO LOCAL PROPERTY VALUES Mr. Deeb also alleged that the project would damage local property values. He supported this claim by presenting a document from a real estate appraiser. The document, however, was not an appraisal, but some form of informal statement of opinion that a property would be negatively affected by the proposed commercial development across 96th Street (the same street that has increased traffic impact because of the elimination of the Spring Mill entrance). I not only disagree with that opinion, but I find it to be 3 idamentally irrelevant. The land use decision that approves commercial development is already finished and is not relevant to the CRC proceedings. OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT Mr. Deeb also alleged that the ED Plan failed to demonstrate that the proposed project would provide opportunities for employment. The exact nature of his contention is demonstrative of his effort to selectively "spin" an issue to his own purposes. Mr. Deeb carefully alleged that the ED Plan had to prove not that the jobs were created, but that those jobs would be filled only by Carmel citizens. His argument rested entirely upon the statutory presence of the possessive pronoun "its" (i .e., 'opportunities for gainful employment of /ts citizens'). His carefully constructed allegation was that the phrase "its" in the statute demanded that the CRC could only consider opportunities for gainful employment of citizens of Carmel, and no place else, despite the fact that the ED Area is adjacent to the Marion County line, in a metropolitan area of over 1 million people. The ED Plan clearly states that new jobs will be created and it is equally clear that some of those jobs will employ citizens of Carmel. Despite Mr. Deeb's allegations, the ED Plan addresses this issue without ambiguity. LACK OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Decb challenged the ED Plan's finding that the designation of the ED Area was necessitated by a lack of public improvements. Mr. Deeb's testimony was adamant in insisting that the ED Area be rejected because the developer must pay for public improvements (which begs the question as to why they arc called "public improvements"). The CRC members accurately reminded him that public improvements are the responsibility of the public sector, and offered several analogous examples of development opportunities where the public improvements were, in fact, financed by the public. Infrastructure costs arc a routine public expense, and the ED Plan proposes to protect the neighborhood's interest by providing funding to assure that developmental impact is mitigated. This issue was more than adequately addressed by the ED Plan and the CRC long before the public hearing, despite Mr. Deebs' lack of agreement with the final determination. THE PRICE OF RAW LAND Mr. Decb also insisted that the CRC was compelled to question whether the proposed development was somehow affected by the price of the raw land. I do not consider the price of land in an ED Area to be a relevant issue to an ED Plan. The CRC is not proposing to buy the land. Furthermore, the CRC is requiring the developer to dedicate the portion of the dcvcloper's land necessary for right of way to install adequate infrastructure. If the land is expensive, then the value of the land dedicated by the developer for infrastructure is expensive. The land price was privately negotiated and the only issues relevant to the CRC arc those of land use and infrastructure. Mr. Dceb's point is, therefore, irrelevant in my opinion. 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT Mr. Dccb also spent a great deal of time challenging the ED Plan on the basis of traffic impact. The traffic issue has been considered extensively, long before the development proposal was brought to the CRC. Traffic was studied by DOCS staff, by the Plan Commission, by the City Council, and by the City's hired professionals, all at the expense of the developer, I believe. I was personally impressed with the contradiction that the neighbors had actually required the developer to eliminate the entrance off of Spring Mill Road. This request effectively increases the traffic impact of the development on the properties along 964 Street. The elimination of an entrance forces the entire traffic burden from the development onto 96t" Street, thereby magnifying the traffic impact on 96th Street. It forces the Spring Mill traffic through an intersection, with a substantial percentage of left turns, and forces all traffic through a single entrance to the development, yet this whole scenario was generated from the express requests of the people Mr. Dceb alleges to represent, who complain about traffic impact. It appears to mc that the request of the remonstrators, themselves, has actually made their own situation worse. Let us be clear. I am not aware of any development in the State where a developer has been required to pay for an interstate highway improvement. US31 has had increasing traffic since at least 1982, when I first studied the traffic counts. Not a single one of the number of vehicles per day from 1982-2001 was caused by the Parkwood West development. No other developer has paid for interstate improvements, and none has paid for US31 improvements. Mr. Deeb's allegation simply has no support. If there are traffic impacts, the CRC is the last best hope of addressing those impacts expeditiously. Mr. Deeb's comments appear, in my opinion, to be severely ill-placed. IN CLOSING I want to compliment the CRC for its handling of the difficult situation which the plaintiffs attorneys heaped upon them. The CRC did a masterful job of being courteous in the face of a deliberate pattern of delay and obfuscation. In my opinion, the CRC gave the allegations of the remonstrators more than a fair and adequate heating at all levels. In this type of situation, delay is considered victory by the remonstrators. I recognize the nature of the task undertaken by Mr. Deeb and his associates, and I recognize his obligation to his client. Yet in my opinion, his effort was misguided and at times became careless. Sometimes there is striking evidence that lawyers are the direct descendants of the Visigoths, but I digress. But after having endured the performance of March 14, I personally felt that someone needed to step forward to restore some balance to this picture. The lawyers will argue over this in one form or another, and the outcome of those arguments will obviously have an impact on the Parkwood project. The lawyers 5 will still dance their socio-pathic mambo before this is over, and somehow, no matter how ludicrous the situation, we will probably end up paying them for it. But that just gives me more reason to appreciate the timeless wisdom of Shakespeare. For this specific moment, however, it is my personal message as a private citizen that the Carmel Redevelopment Commission handled a deliberately ugly situation with grace and decorum and reached a fair and reasonable decision. A decision which is consistent with previous decisions by other agencies and bodies of the City, as well as being consistent with the body of public policy of Carmel. And more than anything else, the CRC's decision is in the best interests of the neighbors, no matter how much the remonstrators might snort. Thank you for your patience. Very truly yo , Indianapolis, 1N 6 c CityofCarmel March 19, 2001 Mr. William Wendling, Esq. Campbell, Kyle and Proffitt 650 East Carreel Drive Cannel, In. 46032 RE: Invoice to the City of Carmel Dear Mr. Wendling: The City Council has before it an invoice from your fm relating to an audit by the State Board of Accounts. There appears to be some discrepancy as to the date and also a lack of detail necessary for us to approve payment. Please furnish us with the necessary background and details in this matter to enable us to fully understand this invoice. Sincerely, ~;der " ~' City Council, District 5 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46031 317/571-2400 IOHN M. KYLB JOHN D. PROFFITT ROBERT F. CAMPBELL JEFFREY S. NICKLOY DEBORAH L. FARMER WILLIAM E. WENDLING, IR. ANNE HENSLEY PO1NDEXTER ANDREW M. BARKER TODD L RUETZ MICHAEL A. CASATI JOHN S. TERRY RODNEY T. SARKOVICS CHRISTOPHER 1. BARROWS CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFrrr ATTORNEYS AT LAW March 19, 2001 FRANK S. CAMPBELL (1880-1964) FRANR W. CAMPBELL THOMAS D. TITSWORTH O{ Counsel Ms. Luci Snyder Cannel City Council One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46032 Re: Invoice to City of Carmel Dear Ms. Snyder: In response to your request, I am enclosing a copy of my billing from my representation of Faye Graham. As you can see, I did redact parts that I thought were confidential. Also, enclosed is a message from Doug Haney that my assistant, Marcy Walls, took off my voice mail, in which Mr. Haney instructed me how I was to format my bill. Sincerely, CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT WEW/mew Enclosures 650 East Carmel Drive Suite 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 846-6514 FAX (317) 843-8097 Voice Mail to WEW from Doug Haney on February 1, 2001: Hey, Bill, Doug Haney. Uh, hope you're feeling better. I heard a rumor that you're already back to playing basketball so, uh, you~e outdid me already. Urn., on Faye Graham's bill, uh, I need it rewritten. Uh, I don~ think I can--it's a public document once I submit it and there's all this stuff about the Grand Jury which is supposed to be confidential. What I'm gonna suggest is that you address the bill to the City of Cannel, Cannel City Attorney, rather than the Faye Graham. Urn, the re: line looks fine and simply give me a non-detailed bill. Just put, "This statement reflects services from November 15, 2000 through November 30, 2000", and your standard language. Uh, and I guess the only other thing is the City pays photocopying charges at 10 cents a page. I know ifs not a big thing, but just so I don~ have to swim up stream with counc'~ on this, who has to approve this eventually. To the extent that $18 does not represent a dime a page, would you be kind enough to recalculate that at a dime a page. And resubmit it and I will inunediately, uh, get it through the system and get it paid. If you have any questions, give me a holier, but I just--this detailed bill I think is problematic. Thanks, Bill. My number is 571-2472. Appreciate it. Bye. C~PBELL KYLE PROFFITT Attorneys at Law 198 South 9th Street P.O. Box 2020 Noblesville, IN 46061-2020 November 30, 2000 FAYE N. GRAHAM 11810 NORTH GPJ~Y CARMEL IN 46032 Statement No. 117689 WEW Our File No. 10885 -001 Re ardin: AD~. STA~E OF INDIANA Our Federal ID #: 35-1331092 This statement reflects services through November 30, 2000 and may include payments-and/or adjustments subsequent to November 30, 2000 Previously Billed ............. $ .00 Net Prior Balance .................. $ .00 Current Services and Disbursements ......... $ 2,818.00 TOTAL CURRENT DUE .................. $ 2,818.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: DATE INIT HOURS 11/15/00 WEW 3.10 11/16/00 WEW 2,70 11/17/00 WEW 2,80 SERVICES RENDERED Meet with client. )hone call from with Mike Kiefer regarding Ma or's osit!on. 0 en file. Mee~ Wit~ Mike Mackey and Mark Boetting re ardin information for client and 8rand ~ry. fluestions for Sonia Leer~a~p. Telephone calls fro~ client regardin press on husband's situation. Telephone fr~ AMOUNT 542.50 472.50 FAYE N. GRAHb~i November 30, 2000 'Statement No. 117689 WEW Our File No. 10885 -001 Page 3 Please enclose this page with your payment and send to: Cb~IPBELL KYLE PROFFITT 198 South 9th Street P.O. Box 2020 Noblesville, IN 46061-2020 Payment Enclosed Thank You For Your Prompt Payment CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT Attorneys at Law 198 South 9th Street P.O. Box 2020 Noblesville, IN 46061-2020 December 31, 2000 FAYE N. GRAHAM 11810 NORTH GRAY CARMEL IN 46032 Statement No. 119389 WEW Our File No. 10885 -001 Re ardin: AD~. STA?E OF INDIANA Our Federal ID #: 35-1331092 This statement reflects services through December 31, 2000 and may include payments and/or adjustments subsequent to December 31, 2000 Previously Billed ............. $ 2,818.00 Net Prior Balance .................. $ 2,818.00 Current Services and Disbursements ......... $ 1,365.00 TOTAL CURRENT DUE .................. $ 4,183.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: DATE INIT HOURS 12/01/00 WEW 2.80 12/07/00 WEW 4.30 12/08/00 WEW .70 Total Hours: 7.80 SERVICES RENDERED Faye called to Grand Jury. Not interviewed. Meet client ~rior to Grand Jury Hearing. Meet with client and Grand Jut . Extended tele hone calls from Sick Kiefer. Note ~hat conversations had to do with issues raised by and Faye's position )riot to Grand Jur_Z_heariqg. Current Fees: $ AMOUNT 490.00 752.50 122.50 1,365.00 FAYE N. GRAHAN December 31, 2000 Statement No. 119389 WEN Our File No. 10885 -001 Page 2 Current Month's Fees and Disbursements: $ 1,365.00 FAYE N. GR~AM December 31, 2000 S t No. ta ement 119389 WEW Our File No. 10885 -001 Page 3 Please enclose this page ~th your payment and send to: CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT 198 South 9th Street P.O. Box 2020 Noblesville, IN 46061-2020 Payment Enclosed Thank You For Your Prompt Payment COMMENTS - PARKWOOD WEST- MARCH 19, 2001 AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, FORMER MEMBER OF THE PLAN COMMISION AND MEMBER OF THE MERIDIAN CORRIDOR COMMITTEE, I HAVE BEEN STUDYNG THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY ON AND OFF FOR FOUR YEARS. CARMEL WORKED ON A 2020 VISION PLAN AND AN UPDATED MERIDIAN CORRIDOR OVERLAY PLAN TO HELP MOVE OUR CITY IN TO THE 21s'r CENTURY. WE DECIDED THAT WE WEE AN EDGE CITY WITHI{ALL THE ATTENDANT PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES. WITH OUR GENERAL VISION IN PLACE, THE CITY COUNCIL RELIES LIPON THE PLAN COMMISSION TO HONE A PROJECT FOR DESIGN, LAYOUT AND MATERIALS ..... AND THEN WE LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE ...... WHAT IS OUR GOAL FOR GROWTH, ROADS, PARKS AND ..... TAXES. THE CITIZENS OF CARMEL EXPECT EXCELLENT SCHOOLS, MODERN LIBRARY, FUNCTIONING ROADS, PARKS AND TRAILS ..IN SHORT, ALL THE AMENITIES OF A OF A TRULY EXCEPTIONAL PLACE TO LIVE..BUT.. THEY ALSO WANT TO KEEP TAXES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE...THAT IS OUR JOB. WE HAVE DEFINED COMMERCIAL AREAS AND IN THE MERIDIAN CORRIDOR, WE DEMAND THE HIGHEST QUALITY DEVELOPMENT ~'~ldlb~T ~ btt TO ASSURE THAT IN 20 YEARS THE QUALITY WILL STILL BE THERE AND THE TAX FROM THAT COMMERCIAL ENGINE WILL POWER THE CITY AND HELP TO KEEP OUR PROPERTY TAXES LOW. THE CITY PORTION OF OUR PROPERTY TAX BILL BUYS A GREAT DEAL: FISHERS: WESTFIELD: NOBLESVILLE: WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP: CARMEL: ~'C3.46~ WHY? BECAUSE OUR RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS ARE WELL DESIGNED AND THEREFORE DESIRABLE AND THOSE THAT WERE NOT PERFORMING ( THE OLD KEYSTONE SQUARE) WERE PARTNERED BY CITY AND DEVELOPER TO AGAIN BECOME A REVENUE PRODUCER. AND SO, WE ARE AT PARKWOOD WEST....37 ACRES THAT ABSOLUTELY NO ONE COULD EVER ASSUME WOULD BE U~SED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS THE REMONSTRATORS SUGGEST....WHO WOULD BUILD THERE? WHO WOULD LIVE THERE? THE MERIDIAN CORRIDOR COMMITTEE PLACED THIS LAND IN THE OVERLAY ZONE WHICH EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.. THE HISTORY OF THIS PARKWOOD PROJECT BEGAN IN , DENSITY TOO HIGH AND DENIED IN IT WAS REDESIGNED WITH REDUCED DENSITY AND EMERGED FROM THE PLAN COMMISION WITH A 11 TO3 RECOMMEMDATION CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMED THE DESIGN AND REZONE 5 TO 0 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVED THE FINANCE PACKAGE 5 TO 0 AND NOW THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES A FINAL LOOK AT THIS FINANCE PACKAGE TO SEE IF IT WORKS FOR OUR CITY....DOES IT PRODUCE A HIGH QUALITY PRODUCT WHOSE PROPERTY TAXES WILL IMPROVE 96TM STREET AND HELP TO KEEP INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY TAXES LOW? IF SO....IT HAS PASSED A RIGOROUS TEST AND DESERVES OUR VOTE. FINALLY, A WORD ABOUT THE PROCESS. CITIZEN 12qPUT IS AN EXCELLENT THING ..... IT MAKES FOR BETTER ]~OJECTS....IT BRINGS TO LIGHT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ....... IT DEFINES OUR COMMUNITY. BUT WHEN, AS SET FORTH BY MR ROESCH, PERSONAL THREATS ARE LEVIED AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIALS....BOTH ELECTED AND THOSE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO COMMISSIONS ....... THEN THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR MUST BE PUBLICALLY EXPOSED AND PUBLICALLY CONDEMNED. IF THESE THREATS WERE TO BE SUCCESSFUL..THEN IT WOULD MEAN THAT A SMALL GROUP OF WEALTHY PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO SUBVERT THE PROCESS FOR THEIR OWN ENDS. I FIND THAT TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.