Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-09-20-04Office of the Clerk-Treasurer City of Carmel COMMON COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. September 7, 2004 - Regular Session 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 a. Finance, Administration and Rules Committee b. Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee c. Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee d. Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2414 10. OLD BUSINESS Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1717-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Fixing the Salaries of the Appointed Officers and Employees of the City of Carmel, Indiana, For the Year 2005; Sponsor(s): Councilors Carter and Sharp. Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1718-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana Providing For An Additional Appropriation of Funds From Rainy Day Fund And The Motor Vehicle Highway Fund Operating Balances (Litigation); Sponsor: Councilor Griffiths. Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1720-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting and Adding Chapter 1, Section 1-16 to the Carmel City Code (Second Class City Status); Sponsor(s): Councilors Rattermaun, Griffiths, Mayo and Carter. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1723-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana Providing For An Additional Appropriation of Funds From The Operating Balance of the General Fund ($70,000.00 Council Budget); Sponsor(s): Councilors Carter and Rattermann. First Reading of Ordinance No. Z-456-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Amending the Zoning Ordinance No. Z-289, As Amended, of the City of Carmel and Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana (Alexandria of Carmel/Edward Rose); Sponsor: Councilor Rattermann. Second Reading of Ordinance No. C-264; An Ordinance of the Common Council o£ the City of Carmel, Indiana, Annexing Certain Territory to the City of Carmel, Indiana, Placing the Same within The Corporate Boundaries Thereof and Making the Same A Part of the City of Carmel (Home Place); Sponsor: Councilor Rattermann. 12. NEW BUSINESS First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1721-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving Application for Community Revitalization Enhancement District (CRED); Sponsor: Councilor Carter. 13. OTHER BUSINESS 14. ANNOUNCEMENTS 15. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF CARMEL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 -7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Rick Sharp, Kevin Kirby, Brian Mayo, Ron Carter, Joe Griffiths, Fred Glaser, Mark Rattermann, Clerk-Treasurer Diana Cordray and Deputy Clerk-Treasurer Lois Fine. Mayor James Brainard was absent. Council President Ron Carter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilor Brian Mayo pronounced the Invocation. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS: There were none. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve the Minutes of the September 7, 2004 Meeting. Councilor Sharp seconded. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to amend the minutes. Under the section Members Present, add Councilor Mark Rattermann. Councilor Mayo seconded. The motion to amend passed 4-0. Councilor Glaser and Council President Carter abstained. The Minutes As Amended were approved 4-0. Councilor Kirby arrived at 7:03 p.m. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: There were none. COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Councilor Gnffiths discussed the Architecture Review Committee (Vinyl Siding) and referred to Mike Holhbaugh, Director of DOCS to update Council since the origmal resolution was passed for the Architecture Residential Task Force. The Task Force needs additional tm~e to fmahze their recommendations (sod treatment, chimney treatment, finish material & trim, garage design and landscaping and buffering). Council President Carter will announce this item under Other Business. Council President Ron Carter thanked the Parks Board and Parks staff for the recent Tour de Carmel Bide Ride that was held in the City on Saturday, September 18, 2004. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES: There were none. CLAIMS: Councilor Mayo moved to approve the claims in the amount of $1,102,352.62. Councilor Kirby seconded. Claims were approved 7-0. Councilor Mayo moved to approve the claims in the amount of $511,289.19. Councilor Kirby seconded. Claims were approved 7-0. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Council President Ron Carter reported that the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee met this evening to discuss the 2005 salaries for appointed officers and employees. Councilor Rattermann stated that the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development .Comtmttee met on Thursday, August 12, 2004. The committee would like to keep Ordinance No. D-1686-04 (Mining) until their next meeting which will be Thursday, September 23, 2004. Councilor Sharp reported that the Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee met on Tuesday, September 14, 2004. The Parks Director made a presentation on Central Park. Councilor IGrby reported that the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety. Comrmttee had not met. OLD BUSINESS: Council President Carter announced the Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1717-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Fixing the Salaries of the Appointed Officers and Employees of the City of Carmel, Indiana, For the Year 2005. Councilor Sharp presented this matter to Council. Councilor Kirby made a motion to decrease the Directors salary from 10% to 3%. Councilor Sharp seconded. Council President Carter called for the question. The motion to amend passed 6-1 (Council President Carter opposed). There was no Council discussion. Ordinance No. D-1717-04, As Amended. approved 6-1 (Council President Carter opposed). Council President Carter announced the Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1718-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana Providing For An Additional Appropriation of Funds From Rainy Day Fund And The Motor Vehicle Fund Operating Balances (Litigation). There was no Council discussion. Ordinance No. DA718-04 was approved 7-0. Council President Carter announced the Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1720-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting and Adding Chapter 1, Section 1-16 to the Carmel City Code (Second Class City Status). There was brief Council discussion. Ordinance No. D-1720-04 Failed 3-4. Councilors Sharp, Kirby, Mayo and Glaser voted in opposition. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Council President Carter announced the First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1723-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Providing For An Additional Appropriation of Funds From The Operating Balance of the General Fund ($70,000 Council Budget). Councilor I4Arby moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Sharp seconded. Councilor Rattermann presented this matter to Council. Council President Carter opened the matter for Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. Seeing no one who wished to speak, the Pubhc Hearing was closed at 7:22:30 p.m. There was no Council discussion. Ordinance No. D-1719-04 will return to the Council Meeting on October 4, 2004. Council President Carter announced the First Reading of Ordinance No. Z-456-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Amending the Zoning Ordinance No. Z-289, As Amended, of the City of Carmel and Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana (Alexandria of Carmel/Edward Rose). Councilor Kirby moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Mayo seconded. Paul Reis, (Attorney for Edward Rose Properties, Inc.) of Drewry Simmons Vornehm, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1200, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240, presented the specifics of this property to Council. Also in attendance was Steve Hormann of Edward Rose Properties, Inc. Council President Carter opened the matter for Pubhc Hearing at 7:31 p.m. Seeing no one who wished to speak, the Public Hearing ~vas closed at 7:32 p.m. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Carter referred Ordinance No. Z-456-04 to the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee meeting on Thursday, September 23, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. for further review and consideration. Council President Carter announced the Second Reading of Ordinance No. C-264; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Annexing Certain Territory to the City of Carmel, Indiana, Placing the Same within The Corporate Boundaries Thereof and Making the Same A Part of the City of Carmel (Home Place). Council President Carter opened the matter for Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m. The following persons addressed Council in opposition to Carmel's consideration to annex Home Place (C-264): ~chard Kel~ Maxine BretRman Lisa Clark Donald Penix, Jr. (prepared statement, Attachment 5)) Matt Mi/am (prepared statement, ~tttachment 2) Nellie Pipkin (prepared statement, Attachment 3) Mindy Earnhart Scott Scheid Dosv Brooker (prepared statement, ~tttachment 4) Ron Jon Vanderlaan Case~ Cammack Donna Mob/e,y l/ijay Narayanan ! 1006 N~ lg/illouamere Dffve, 46280 10805 Belmont Circle, 46280 505 ! 11°' Street E., 46280 1963 Hill I/al/~ Ct., 46280 1443 Orchard Park N. Dr., 46280 954 E. 108°', 46280 10315 Broadway, 46280 1015 Birnam FFoods Trail, 46280 951 Che~7 Chase Lane, 46280 9840 Cornel/~lvenue, 46280 11075 Bee&wood Qr. E., 46280 10235 N. Broadway live., 46280 10854 N~ Come//, 46280 1092 Ar/inegton Ct., 46280 The following person addressed Council in favor of Carmel's consideration to annex Home Place: ]ack Edwarch O~mpared statement, ~4ttachment l) 10475 Cornell Street, 46280 The Public Heating was closed at 8:15 p.m. Council President Carter called for a recess at 8:16 p.m. Council President Carter reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1721-04: An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving Application for Community Revitalization Enhancement District (CRED); Sponsor: Councilor Carter. Ordinance withdrawn by Council President Carter. ADD-ON Councilor Rattermann moved to add Resolution No. CC-09-20-04-01: A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Requesting the Plan Commtssion Not Approve Any Additional Automatic Traffic Signals on US 421 (Michigan Road) Between 96th Street and 106~ Street for Three Years (36 months); Sponsor(s): Councilors: Rattermann, Mayo and Sharp. Councilor Mayo seconded. Council President Carter called for the vote. The Add-On of Resolution No. CC-09-20-04-01 passed 7-0. Councilor Sharp moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Rattermann presented this item to Council. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Carter called for the questions. Resolution No. CC-09-20-04-01. As Amended, was approved 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS: Councilor Kirby made a motion to grant Mike Hollibaugh, Dkector of DOCS, 44 additional days to complete the work on the Residential Architecture Committee. Councilor Sharp seconded. Councilor Rattermann confirmed that the mining ordinance 0D-1686-04) will remain in the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development ComnUttee. Councilor Rattermann would like to give both sides the opportunity to speak. Council President Carter stated that this ordinance needs to be completed as soon as possible. Councilor Kirby requested Doug Haney, City Attorney, prepare an ordinance that states that when any document is amended, that a version number be added to the document Council President verified with Councilor Rattermann that Ordinance No. C-264 would return for adoption on November 1, 2004. ANNOUNCEMENTS: There were none. ADJOURNMENT: Council President Carter adjourned the meeting at 8:41 p.m. pending execution of documents. Respectfully submitted, Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray, IAMC Approved, yor James Brained ATTEST: Cle~AMC To: Carmel Common Council September 20, 2004 From: Jack Edwards, 10475 Cornell Street, Home Place, Indiana I would like to say a few words this evening about the subject of annexation of the Home Place Area. There are two main views here this evening on this subject. And those two main views are made up of many different views. It is like the old saying "If we all thought the same, there would be no need for all of us to think." I am here to say what I think, but I am aware that others will not agree with me. When I have talked to someone opposed to annexation, I have tried to put him or her in touch with the group opposed to annexation. I think eye,one should have his or her say in this matter. I do not make decisions concerning my taxes lightly. I know of a number of people that share my view. They may not be vocal about it, because they do not want their neighbors' disagreement. I don't either, but I think people that know me, and my opposition eight years ago, know I don't make my decisions without thought. With that being said, and aware we don't all think the same, I think the City can and will provide services for us in the Home Place Area that the County can't and will not, due to different structures of government and the ordinances they have to work with. I will not provide a list of services to be argued about. I am sure other people have views different from mine and I will not try to change those people's views on this subject. I will state a major factor in my decision and that is; with all due respect for the job you do and time you put in, I would rather be a Voter for the City Common Council than a Subject of the City Common Council. To me, that is an important difference. So, I finish up with this statement; I am in favor of the annexation ordinance for the Home Place Area. Thank you for your time and consideration. September 20, 2004 Speech - Sept. 20, 2004 If the annexation of C - 264 were to go through the City of Carmel would receive the first tax payment on May of 2006. The city would receive the second tax payment on November of 2006. The city would receive the first C.O.I.T. County Optional Income Tax, fund payment on January of 2007. The City of Carmel has stated that the annexation of Home place C - 264 is going to cost the City of Carmel more money than the tax payments would bring in. The City of Carmel is projecting net revenue of $289,966.00 for 2006, net revenue of $500,629.00 for 2007, a loss of $590,468.00 for 2008. This is net revenue of $200,127.00. They are misleading the tax payers of Carmel. These borders on fraud. This is why I am not for the annexation of C - 264. I want my speech entered as public record. Matt Milam ['oust ~ I ~ ~' My n~_me is Nellie Pipkin. I live at 954 East 108~ Street. In the past the Mayor of Carmel and members of the Carmel City Council has made several statements. I have to ask the following: 1. The Mayor has said Carmel does things better. If this is true, someone needs to explain the sandbags on the East Side of the Police Station. They have been there for several years. My friends in Homeplace and Clay SW want to know if sandbags are available in designer colors and will we be required to use them? 2. The mayor has said Carmel is a good place to do business. If this is true why do we have over 115 open storefronts (Listing is available)? Why do we continue to build more? 3. The mayor has said The Clay Center project will be an asset to the community. When Westfield built the centers on Greyhound Pass. Several of the business moved their stores and taxes to Westfield. This was at the expense of the shopping center at 116th & Keystone. Are we not looking at a repeat of this experience? 4. The mayor has said Carmel is a good place to live. If this is true, why do we have over 1100 houses for sale with a Carmel address? This is about 9-10% of the housing in the Carmel area.(Check the Talk to Tucker web site) 5. The mayor and one councilor have said we can help with blighted areas. My husband and I took three hours and looked at several neighborhoods inside the city limits. We compiled three pages of inoperable cars, trash around buildings and homes, woodpiles, covered RV's, several fire hazards and high grass. We are here to tell you the grass police are not doing their job. If Carmel can not take care of these items in the city, how do they expect to take on additional responsibility? 6. The mayor has said ~We need housing for empty nesters and retired citizens." Homeplace and sections of Clay SW are full of empty nesters, retired citizens and single parents. How do you justify the burden of a 32% tax increase in taxes for the Homeplace and Clay SW? It has been reported that the Mayor of Carmel intends to spend $400,000 to $500,000 on improvements in the Home Place area with proposed grants. Would "improvements" include removing houses along owned along College Avenue just to stick business districts there? The City is so interested in raising property values because along with higher values come higher taxes, which I (as well as a lot of our neighbors) could do without. /Especially the elderly neighbors who have lived in Home Place for years - they cannot v'/~,af~ord a 32% tax increase on a fixed income. Personally, I grew up in the Home Place area and then my husband and I chose to move back to Home Place to start our family. We have seen property values increase on their own, particularly because this area is a desirable area to live - low taxes, yet Cannel schools. It is one of the last affordable areas within the Carmel-Clay School system. That in itself draws families to this area. It also seems that the Carmel-Clay Planning Commission has contributed to the over- development of various land parcels in Home Place, causing it to be overrun by renters instead of encouraging more moderately-priced, single-family homes. A prime example is a 3-parcel land space at the comer of 104tl~ and~where the plan commission heard a proposal to divide the 3-parcels into 9 parcels. Will that type of planning improve the condition of Home Place and increase property values? NO. There have also been references to Home Place being "blighted" - not in our neighborhood. Many areas of Home Place recently received newly paved roads (thanks to the Hamilton County Street Department) and our sewers and water systems are adequate in most areas. In addition, we are shortly going to benefit further by an improved intersection at 106th and College. Plowing in the winter is already paid for primarily by neighborhood funds. Annexation will not change these factors. The proposal to add sidewalks to Home Place neighborhoods would cut into property lines and reduce the large lots many of us enjoy, including many mature trees lining the streets. The proposal to add sidewalks, sewers and curbs would not be a benefit to most neighbors affected by the proposed annexation. Annexation into Carmel causing a significant increase in property taxes with no added services and, further, not even identifying our homes as part of Carmel on our mailing address is not an advantage from my point of view. If this is any indication of the kind of attention that Home Place will receive from the City of Carmel, ANNEXATION IS NOT FOR HOME PLACE. roo Donald L. Penlx, Jr. 1963 Hill Valley Court, Indianapolis, IN 46280 (Page 1 of 2) citizens o.,.f'Carmel, Can'ne Council members, and Citizens of Home Place: Thank you for giving me th~. opp(3rt~Jnity tn .~pe~k tonight at your city council meeting. The several months rye spent researching the complex issues of annexation have been very insightful. I have had a chance to meet many extraordinary people living in the Home Place territory. Some of these residents have lived in the area for a great number of years. I find it truly fascinating to discuss with them what the community looked like at a time when I wasn't even born yet. I myseff am a relatively new home owner in the Orchard Estates neighborhood. I have only lived here for about 3 years. The small urban feel of the locality is what attracted my family t¢ the community. We looked at living in the city of Carmel however we made the choice not to live there. My son was born shortly after we moved in and although I'm sure he doesn't understand any of the impact of annexation, he reminds me of the core principle of the debar at hand. You see, my son has deveioped a very tonal liking to one of our neighbor girls, Although he only 2 % years old, he is constantly asking to go out of the house to see if she is out there. She will sometimes stand in between our two yards, with her hand extended out to him. He will run as fast as he can and then they go together to play. For such a young boy, it is incredible that he already understands the basic foundation of~-elatienships. All he wants rig~ now is someone to extend an inviting hand rather than a forceful insistence of seizure. What do you think his response would be if the little girl next door demanded that he play with her'., Do you think he would understand if she told him that by being forced to play with her that it was "for his own good"? Despite all of the numerous issues, I often find it difficult to respond to a fellow neighbor whe they ask "why does Carmel want to annex us in a forceful manner?" The most appropriate answer I can give them is "because they can". The Indiana State Law provides an easy mechanism for cities like Carmel to annex neighboring communities, This places a tremendous burden on the affected annexing territory to fight against it. Rather than extendir your hand and asking the Home Place community what they want or what each of us could to have a mutually beneficial relationship, you chose to force this annexation on us, We have previously heard from the Mayor that the reason the City of Carmel is forcing the annexation is because there are no other mechanisms for a land-owner initiated annexation to occur. In 1997, the Indiana General Assembly, recognizing the complexity of the annexation debate, directed the Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (IACIR) to undertake a study of options for governing thc process of annexation. oun , l Donald L. Penix, Jr. 1963 Hill Valley Court, Indianapolis, IN 46280 (Page 2 of 2) . In their findi"~gs "Researchers were able to classify who initiated annexation for 89 percent and 74 percent, respectively, of the annexations occurring in 1996 and 1997. Among these cases, a majority appears to have been initiated by property owners. The best current estimate is that in 1997, approximately 60 percent were initiated by property owners. In 1996, the best estimate is that 67 percent of the annexations were initiated by property owners." Although the study was conducted back in 1997, it is reasonable to assume that there are indeed other alternatives to a forceful annexation. The fact is that the City of Carmel has very little to offer our community in return for the higher financial burden imposed on our community and you have no other choice but to force this annexation upon us. Obtaining consensual agreement on the annexation has no chance of obtaining popular support. So, where does that leave the citizens of Home Place? We are going to fight the annexation and we are gning tn win_ Why wotJId we do this? We'll do it because it is in the best interest o' Home Place landowners. And we'll do it because we can. We are proud of our community and Home Place IS worth fighting for. Assuming your council supports Ordinance C~264-04 our steps will be as follows: We will obtain the necessary signatures to file a remonstrance with the State of Indiana. At that point, the burden will now be on the City of Carmel to prove to the courts that the annexation is in the best interest of Home Place. It will be a dismal outcome for the City of Carmel. Carmel will need to prove to the courts that we am not receiving adequate services in the form of police and fire protection and street and road maintenance. Carmel will lose this argument. Carmel will need to prove to the courts that Home Place will not have significant financial impact on the landowners. Carmel will lose this argument. Finally, Carmel will need to prove to the courts that the annexation is in the best interests of the Home Place landowners. Again, Carmel wi//lose this argument. It is not in the best interest of Carmel to support Ordinance C-264-04. The prospects of you succeeding are not likely. The existing landowners living in Carmel deserve to have their council leaders focusing their attention on issues to further help your community. Why waste your budget dollars and efforts on establishing a hostile relationship with your closest community when they have adamantly opposed such gestures? Dropping the ordinance is th, best way that Carmel can extend its hand in friendship to our community. Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight.