The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCCM-10-18-04 0{6cc o{ thc Clerk-Treasurer City of Carmel COMMON COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS~CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE 3. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. October 4, 2004 - Regular Meeting RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES Resolution No. CC-09-20-04-01; A Resolution Requesting the Plan Commission not to Approve any Additional Automatic Traffic Signals on IdS 421 (Michigan Road) Between 96th Street and 106th Street for Three Years (36 months); Sponsor(s): Councilors Rattermann, Mayo and Sharp. Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana by a vote of 7-0 on September 20, 2004. Presented to the Mayor for signature on September 21, 2004 (reference City Code 3-27), (reference Indiana Code 36-4-6-15 through 36-4-6-17). CLAIMS · Payroll · General Claims · Retirement ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2414 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 10. OLD BUSINESS Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1724-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing Limitations for the Introduction and Re-Introduction of Ordinances (Limitation of Ordinance Re-Introduction); Sponsor(s): Councilors Sharp and Glaser. Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1725-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article 1, Division II, Sections 3-21, of the Carmel City Code (Introduction of Ordinance - First Reading); Sponsor(s): Councilors Sharp and Griffiths. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1728-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Providing for An Additional Appropriation of Funds from Operating Balance of the General Fund ($1,210,000/Carmel Fire Department Item #120 Overtime); Sponsor(s): Councilors Sharp and Mayo. First Reading of Ordinance No. Z-444-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting Chapter 23F (Carmel Drive - Range Line Road Overlay Zone); Sponsor: Councilor Rattermann. First Reading of Ordinance No. Z-458-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending the Historic Structures and Sites Inventory in the Carmel Subdivision Control Ordinance (The Warren House, 1225 E. 116th Street)).; Sponsor: Councilor Rattermann. 12. NEW BUSINESS First Readint, of Ordinance No. D-1726-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Enacting and Adopting a Supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Carmel, Indiana (Second Quarter 2004); Sponsor: Councilor Glaser. First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1727-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article 1, Division II, Section 3-24 of the Carmel City Code (Amendment Notations); Sponsor: Councilor Kirby. First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1730-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 8-30 and Chapter 8, Article 9, Section 8- 120 of the Carmel City Code (Stop signs at Versailles Drive, and Shakamac Drive, Intersecting street Wyndotte Drive); Sponsor: Councilor Sharp. ! 3. OTHER BUSINESS ! 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1 $. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF CARMEL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2004 -7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor James Brainard, Council Members Rick Sharp, Kevin Kirby, Brian Mayo, Ron Carter, Joe Griffiths, Fred Glaser, Mark Rattermann, Clerk-Treasurer Diana Cordray and Deput3r Clerk- Treasurer Lois Fine. Mayor Brainard called the meeting to order at 7:03 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 October 4, 2004 meeting. Councilor Griffiths seconded. The Minutes were approved 7-0. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: Kase, y Kaaff'man, 10525 Power Drive, provided Council with an update on the Carmel Clay Public Libra{7. Joe IVuller, ! 1935 ?orest Drive, inquiffng about ! 16'~' O' west bound K~stone traffic prepared statement, attachment 1). SenatorJeff Dro~da, 533 1Vorth Court (Village I~arms), regarding an update of the lVestfield Annexation. Jerry Rosenberger, Town Manager of lVesO~eld, 70 Greyhound Pass (Village I~ arms), regarding an update of the W/es~eld Annexation, and presented documents to Clerk-Treasurer, Diana Cordray (Ordinance 04-27, attachment 2; Town of IVes~fleld, Annexation PTscal IZeasibili~y Plan Documents, attachment 3; Inter/ocal Agreement Between the City of Carmel, The Town of lVesO~eld, and Hamilton County, Indiana, Concerning 146'~ Street, attachment 4; ktter addressed to the Carmd Common Coundl, dated October !8, 2004, attachment 5). Brian Zaiger, Attorn~for Town of lVes~Teld, 938 Grace Drive, Carmeh Office located at 938 Conner Street, Nobksville, IN, update on IVes~ieldAnnexation (abatement of taxes issue) Joe Plank& 514 S/ockbridge Drive (Centennial), regarding lgfashington Township Annexation. Jack Bonham, 18!2 IV.. ! 56t~ Street, Ig/es~qeld, regarding [VesO~eld Annexation. John Dippel, 683 Piedmont Dffve (Centennial), ~eaking in opposition to the lVes~field Annexation. COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TRI~.^gURER COMMENTS{OBSERVATIONS: Councilor Rattermann raised the question as to who paid for the recent mailings to the residents of Westfield. Councilor Rattermann referred to Senator Drozda who stated that the Citizens for The Future of Westfield paid for the mailings. Councilor Rattermann also asked if Senator Drozda had access to any financial documents. Senator Drozda stated he did not have access to any fmancials. Councilor Rattermann asked for clarification from Jerry Rosenberger, Town Manager of Westfield, regarding the 1995 Interlocal Agreement. Jerry Rosenberger stated that he did not attend the Carmel Council meeting to debate the Interlocal Agreement issue. Councilor IGrby addressed the Westfield Annexation regarding the 1995 Interlocal Agreement. Councilor Sharp and Mayor Brainard added their comments. Council President Carter read into the record a copy of an email he had acquired regarding the Westfield Annexation (attachment 8). Mayor Brainard made a presentation regarding the Carmel tax rates in comparison with other cities similar in size to Carmel. Councilor Rattermann wanted clarification that the Washington Township Annexation was still on hold. Council President Carter affrrmed. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES: Council President Carter announced Resolution No. CC-09-20-04-01; A Resolution Requesting the Plan Commission not to Approve any Additional Automatic Traffic Signals on US 421 (Michigan Road) Between 96~h Street and 106th Street for Three Years (36 months). Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana by a vote of 7-0 on September 20, 2004. Presented to the Mayor for signature on September 21, 2004 (reference City Code 3-27), (reference Indiana Code 36- 4-6-15 through 36-4-6-17). There was brief Council discussion. Councilor Sharp read Indiana Code 36-4-16-15 through 36-4-6-17. There was additional Council discussion. Council President Carter read City Code 3-27. There was additional Council discussion. Councilor Kirby moved to overturn the Mayor's veto. Councilor Sharp seconded. Resolution No. CC-09-20-04-01 was again approved 7-0. CLAIMS: Councilor Mayo moved to approve the claims in the amount of $2,810,430.81. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Claims were approved 7-0. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Council President Carter reported that the Finance, A,tministxation and Rules cormmttee had met tonight and discussed two ordinances. Ordinance No. D-1724-04 will remain in committee until the next regular Council meeting on November 1, 2004. Ordinance No. D-1725-04 will be presented tonight. Councilor Rattermann stated that the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 12, 2004. The meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 14, 2004 was cancelled. The committee discussed Ordinance No. D-1686-04 (Mining) which will be placed on the November 1, 2004 Council agenda. Councilor Sharp reported that the Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee had met on Tuesday, October 12, 2004. Mark Westermeier, Director of the Parks Department, gave an overview of Central Park. The comrmttee also discussed the Park Impact Fees. Councilor IrArby reported that the Utilifes, Transportation and Public Safety. Committee had met. Councilor Mayo reported that Mike Fog-arty, Chief of Pol/ce, has an aggressive plan in place for the Keystone Avenue noise ordinance. OLD BUSINESS: Council President Carter announced the Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1724-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing Limirafons for the Introduction and Re-Introduction of Ordinances (Limitation of Ordinance Re-Introduction). This Ordinance will remain in the Finance, Admimstration and Rules Committee for further review and consideration. Council President Carter announced the Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1725-04: An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article 1, Division II, Sections 3-21, of the Carmel City Code (Introduction of Ordinance - First Reading). There was no Council discussion. Council President Carter called for the question. Ordinance No. D-1725-04 was approved 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Council President Carter announced the First Reading_ of Ordinance No. D-1728-04; An Orclmance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Providing for An Additional Appropriation of Funds from Operating Balance of the General Fund ($1,210,000/Carmel Fire Department Item #120 Overtime). Councilor Mayo moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Sharp seconded. Councilor Mayo presented this matter to Council. Councilor Mayo made a motion to amend the Ordinance to read Item #100 Ful/time. Councilor Sharp seconded. Council President Carter called for the question. The amendment was approved 7-0. Council President Carter opened the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. Seeing no one who wished to speak, Council President Carter closed the Public Hearing at 8:26 p.m. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Carter referred Ordinance No. D-1728-04 to the Finance, Administration and Rules Comrmttee for further review and consideration. Council President Carter announced the First Reading of Ordinance No. Z-444-04: An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting Chapter 23F (Carmel Drive - Range Line Road Overlay Zone). Councilor Mayo moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Rattermann seconded and referred to Mike Hollibaugh, Director of DOCS, to introduce this matter to Council. This Ordinance came from the Plan Commission with No Recommendation. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Carter opened the Public Hearing at 8:32 p.m. No one wished to speak in favor of this Ordinance. Several individuals wished to speak in opposition to the Ordinance: Dr. Ton~ Bu~eddi, l/eteffnarian in Carmel, 180 E. Carmel Drive. Gaey Linder, The L~der Compan~y, 2325 Pointe Parkma. y, #250, Carmel Dave Coota; Attorney at Law of Coots Henke ~;~ Wheeler, 255 E. Carmel Dtive Paul Rei~; _Attorney at Law of Dreuny Simmons Pitts ~ Vornehm, T ,[ ,P, 8888 Keystone Crossinga Suite 1200, read a letter from Kosene d~ Kosene, attachment 6, read a ktter from FaTe Real[y Group, attachment 7. Paul Zahner, Owner of Parljy Time Rental, 1212 S. Rangeline Read Mark I~inebe~ IZineberg (-~ ~tssociates, Inc., 116 E. Carmel Dffve Council President Carter closed the Public Hearing at 9:10 p.m. Doug Haney, City Attorney, verified the time frame on a No Recommendation vote from the Plan Commission. Mr. Haney stated that if the legislative body, in the case of either an Unfavorable/No Recommendation from the Plan Commission, rejects or fails to act within 90 days of certification, the ordinance is defeated. The date to vote on Ordinance Z-444-04 will be December 28, 2004. Council President Carter sent Ordinance No. Z-444-04 to the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development commattee for further review and consideration. Council President Carter announced the First Reading of Ordinance No. Z-458-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending the Historic Structures and Sites Inventory in the Carmel Subdivision Control Ordinance (The Warren House, 1225 E. 116~ Street). Councilor Mayo moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Glaser seconded. Councilor Rattermann referred to Mike Holllbaugh, Director of DOCS, to introduce this matter to Council. Council President Carter opened the Public Hearing at 9:18 p.m. Jack Edwards, 10475 Comell Street (Home Place), spoke in favor of Ordinance No. Z-458-04. Councilor Rattermann requested Mike Hollibaugh, Dizector of DOCS, to contact the owner of the Warren House to inform them of the October 28, 2004 LUAC meeting. Council President Carter referred Ordinance No. Z-458-04 to the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Commattee for further review and consideration. NEW BUSINESS: Council President Carter announced the First Reodlnff of Ordinance No. D-1726-04: An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Enacting and Adopting a Supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Carmel, Indiana (Second Quarter 2004). Councilor Mayo moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Glaser seconded. Councilor Glaser presented this matter to Council. Councilor Iadrby made a motion to suspend the roles and vote this evening. Councilor Griffiths seconded. The motion to suspend the rules passed 7-0. Councilor Rattermann made a motion to approve D-1726-04. Councilor Mayo seconded. Council President Carter called for the question. Ordinance No. D-1726-04 was approved 7-0. Council President Carter announced the First Re~dln? of Ordinance No. D-1727-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article 1, Division II, Section 3-24 of the Carmel City Code (Amendment Notations). Councilor Rattermann moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Councilor IC2rby presented this matter to Council. There was brief Council discussion. Councilor Mayo made a motion to suspend the rules and vote this evening. Councilor Glaser seconded. The motion to suspend the rules passed 7-0. Council President Carter passed the gavel at 9:27 p.m. to Councilor ICgxby to discuss the Ordinance. Council President Carter reclamied the gavel at 9:29 p.m. Council President Carter called for the question. Ordinance No. D-1727-04 was approved 7-0. Council President Carter announced the First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1750-04: An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 8-30 and Chapter 8, Article 9, Section 8-120 of the Carmel City Code (Stop signs at Versailles Drive, and Shakamac Drive, Intersecting street Wyndotte Drive). Councilor Rattermann moved to introduce this item into business. Councilor Sharp seconded. Councilor Sharp presented this matter to Council. Councilor Sharp made a motion to amend the following: line number 14, add thmuegh October 31, 2006; line number 27, add [until 11/1/06~, line number 28, add [until 11/1/06], line number 29, add [11/1/06~ and line number 30, add [! I/1/0~; add New Section 3, then renumber remaining sections. Councilor Kirby seconded. Councilor Rattermann pointed out that at the bottom of the page it says P_AGE TIVO OE T[VO, it should say PAGE ONE OE T~VO. The motion to amend passed 6-1 (Councilor Griffiths opposed). Councilor Sharp made a motion to suspend the rules and vote this evening. Councilor Rattermann seconded. The motion to suspend the rules failed 6-1 (Councilor Griffiths opposed). Council President Carter referred Ordinance No. D-1730-04 to the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety committee for further review and consideration. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Carter requested Doug Haney, City Attorney, to look into the issue of putting up temporary stop signs. Councilor Ydrby requested the Clerk-Treasurer's office to notice a Special Meeting for the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee for Monday, October 25, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: Council President Carter adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. pending execution of documents. Respectfully submitted, Clerk-Treasurer Diana L gordray, IAMC Approved,:/// /~__,.__,,..~ ' ~-~- yor J'~mest Brainard ATTEST: Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray, IAMC WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE WEST BOUND TRAFFIC PROBLEM ON 116TM APPROACHING KEYSTONE DURING THE MORNING RUSH HOUR. 1. A CONSULTANT THAT DESIGNS STREETS AND HIGHWAYS IN THIS AREA SUGGESTS A CHANGE THAT WILL RELIEVE THE CONGESTION WITH WEST BOUND TRAFFIC APPROACHING KEYSTONE IN THE MORNING DURING RUSH HOUR. THIS FIX WlIJ. COST VIRTUALLY NOTHING. SIMPLY CHANGE THE RIGHT TURN LANE EAST OF KEYSTONE TO A THROUGH LANE AND MOVE THE BIKE PATH TO THE RIGHT, NEXT TO THE CURB. THE EAST BOUND TRAFFIC AT THE HAT]~ DELL INTERSECTZN USED TO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. BUT THE RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE WAS CHANGED TO A THROUGH LAbIE AND IT GREATLY R~I.IEVED THE CONGESTION. IT PRESENTLY HAS A BIKE LANE ALSO, WHICH POSES NO PROBL~.M. WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WANTING TO TURN RIGHT (NORTH) ON TO KEYSTONE IN THE MORNING? THE ANSWER IS THAT THEY WOULD STILL MOVE THROUGH FASTER BECAUSE THE BUMPER TO BUMPER SINGLE LANE TRAFFIC EAST OF THE INTERSECTION (SOMETIMES IT RUNS ALMOST A MILE) PREVENTS THEM FROM GETTING TO THE RIGHT TURN LANE FOR A LONG TIME. THIS WOULD BE GREATLY RF.!.IEVED. ALSO, THRR~ IS VERY LITTLE TIME THAT IS AVAILABLE TO TURN RIGHT EXCEPT FOR THE GRP. I~.N WEST BOUND LIGHT DUE TO THE HIGH VOLUME OF NORTH BOUND KEYSTONE TRAFFIC. WHAT ABOUT BOTH LANES HAVING TO JOG TO THE LEFT TO MATCH UP WITH TIlE TWO LANES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION? THE ANSWER IS THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE A PROBI.EM SINCE BOTH LANES PRESENTLY JOG LEFT GOING EAST BOUND DURING EVENING RUSH HOUR AND IT WORKS FINE. IN FACT, THIS TRAFFIC MUST ALSO MERGE TO ONE LANE SOON AFTER CROSSING THE INTERSECTION AND IT ST~.L WORKS FINE. SINCE KEYSTONE IS A STATE ROAD, I SPOKE WITH ED COX STATE HE IT WO I, BE OK AS LONG AS CERTAIN CRITERIA WERE MET. DULY ENTERED FOR TAXATION Subject to final acceptance for transfer day of. OC.'r ,20 ,~ o./.'t~ ~ Audit'or of Hamilton Ceun~y Parcel # 200400071670 Filed for Record in HAMILTON COUNTY. INDIANA JENNIFER J HAYDEN 10-18-2004 At 11:59 am. ANNEXATION 19.00 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTFIELD, INDIANA, SETTING FORTH THE PROCESS FOR ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY CONTIGUOUS TO THE TOWN OF WESTFIELD, INDIANA, PLACING THE SAME WITHIN THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES THEREOF AND MAKING THE SAME A PART OF THE TOWN OF WESTFIELD WHEREAS, the Town of Westfield ("Town") has previously adopted Resolution 04-24, ("Resolution") which Resolution established a framework for undertaking the consensual annexation of certain properties within and proximate to the proposed Carmel annexation area within Washington Township, Hamilton County, Indiana (the "Annexation Territory"); WHEREAS, the Annexation Territory is depicted on the attached Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the framework provided residents within the Annexation Territory with a vehicle for choosing to be annexed to the Town, upon certain enumerated terms and conditions; VOtEREAS, the Town has now received the notice of signatures on written petitions fi'om residents within a substantial portion of the Annexation Territory requesting annexation to the Town in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Resolution so as to trigger the Town's obligation to initiate the annexation of the Annexation Territory; VOtEREAS, the Town anticipates that it will continue to receive petitions from the property owners within the remaining portion of the Annexation Territory to similarly trigger the Town's obligation to annex any remaining portion of the Annexation Territory by March 10, 2005; WHEREAS, the Town has further investigated and studied the implementation of the annexation terms and conditions as set foI~th in the Resolution and has prepared and adopted the "Westfield Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Plan" with resolution 04-29 evidencing that the proposed annexation is economically feasible and fair and equitable to residents w/thin the Annexation Territory and the citizens of the Town; WltEREAS, the Town has also determined to implement a timeline for the annexation of the Annexation Territory, which timeline is set forth herein; WHEREAS, the Town has determined to codify the terms and conditions contained in the Resolution and to set forth the annexation process set forth below, which process shall commence as promptly as possible; .e/o Coc r c; / NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Westfield, Indiana, as follows: 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein below. 2. Annexation Ordinances and Timeline. The Town shall prepare annexation ordinance(s) ("Ordinance(s)") anneiing the Annexation Territory promptly upon receiving petitions requesting annexation to the Town. The Ordinance(s) shall include the terms and conditions set forth below and shall implement the Resolution. The schedule for completing annexation of the Annexation Territory shall be as follows: The Ordinance(s) shall be introduced on or before March 10, 2005. The Town's Fiscal Plan shall be prepared, which Fiscal Plan (as defined below) shall reflect the policies and materials set forth in the Westfield Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Plan and be adopted on or before March 10, 2005. The notices for the public hearing on the annexation shall be published and mailed on September 10, 2005, in accordance with Indiana Code 36-4-3-2.2 and Indiana Code 5-3- 1. The public heating for the annexation of the Annexation Territory will be held on November 10, 2005. The Ordinance(s) will be adopted on December 10, 2005. The anticipated effective date of the annexation will be March 10, 2006 3. Tax Abatement. For the first three years following the effective date of the annexation, there is hereby established a property tax abatement program applicable to property in the Annexation Territory. Pursuant to this property tax abatement program, owners of all classes of property within the Annexation Territory, except as otherwise exempt from taxation under Indiana law and Section 4 below shall be provided property tax abatement as follows: Property taxes Due and Payable in 2008 (Based on 2007 assessment Seventy-five percent (75%) abatement Property taxes Due and Payable in 2009 (Based on 2008 assessment) Fifty percent (50%) abatement Property taxes Due and Payable in 2010 (Based on 2009 assessment) Twenty-five percent (25%) abatement 10/9/2004 4. Agricultural Exemption. Owners of property within the Annexation Ten/toW classified as agricultural under the Westfield Zoning Ordinance and who meet the requirements of IC 36-4-3-4.1 will be exempt from paying all municipal property taxes in accordance with IC 36-4-3-4.1. The Westfield Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to include terms and provisions for classifying certain property as agricultural. 5. Redistricting. On or'before January 1, 2006, the Town Council will redistrict and expand the Town or City Council, as applicable, from five members to seven members to be elected in the November 2006 elections in anticipation of the incorporation of the Annexation Ten/tory areas into the Town. The citizens of the Annexation Ten/tory who are eligible to vote will be provided the right to participate as candidates and voters in the 2006 Westfield municipal elections pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana. 6. Advisorg Board. In order to immediately provide more direct representation to those landowners petitioning to annex to the Town, the Council shall establish by ordinance an annexation advisory board to the Town Council (the "Advisory Board"). The Advisory Board will be comprised of three residents selected by the residents in the areas choosing to be annexed into Westfield as part of this process. The Town Council will seek input from the Advisory Board on matters coming before the ToTM Council and will provide members of the Advisory Board with informational packets and materials relating to agenda items in advance of meetings. The Advisory Board will remain in effect until January 1, 2007, at which time new members of the Town or City will have been elected in the municipal general election held in November 2006. 7. School Board. The Town Council shall seek advice and counsel fi.om the Westfield Washington School Board, or their appointee, as to the impact of proposed developments within the school district. 8. Land Use and Zoning. In order to provide the community with greater participation in land use and zoning decisions within the planning jurisdiction (Washington Township), the Town Council will adopt the following interim rules and procedures for any proposed rezone of properties fi.om one general land use classification to a different general land use classification. (i.e. from residential to commercial or industrial) This interim rule will remain in effect until the current comprehensive plan update is completed. a. The town council will hold a special public hearing at least 30 days pr/or to taking action on the application for the purpose of allowing the community a voice and the opportunity to participate in the process ofrezones as outlined above. This pubhc hearing will be in addition to the one required by Indiana state statute at the Advisory Plan Commission. b. Before applications for rezones as described above can be approved, any filing which is substantially different fi.om the comprehensive plan must be accompanied with >50% or a minimum of 50 supportive petitions of Washington Township parcel owners within a half mile of the proposed rezone within Washington Township. 10/9~2004 c. Prior to the recording of a plat of the development or the commencement of construction, the comprehensive map must also be updated reflecting the change in zoning.. 9. The Town shall prepare fiscal plan(s) (the "Fiscal Plan") incorporating the policies and provisions contained in the Westfield Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Plan. 10. The citiZens in the Annexation Territory will have and enjoy all privileges and rights as other citizens in the Town as of the effective date of this annexation. 11. All prior Ordinances or parts thereof which may be inconsistent with any provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. The paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance are separable, and if any portion hereof is declared unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance, which shall be severable and remain in full force and effect. 12. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and afler the date ofits passage and such passage of time and publication as is required by law. ALL OF WHICH IS HEREBY ADOPTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF WESTFI~a L~, HAMITON COUNTY, INDIANA xms / z/ DaY OF ~gt~ ,2004. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 10/9/2004 Ordinance04-37 Ooone ;I WESTFIELD TOWN COUNCIL Voting For ~O~s Ske~on' Ron Thomas Votin~ A~ainst Teresa Otis Skelton Jack Hart David Mikesell Bob Smith Ron Thomas Abstain Teresa Otis Skelton Jack Hart David Mikesell Bob Smith Ron Thomas Clerk-Treasu~}rer, Cindy Gossard This Ordinance prepared by Jerry Rosenberger, Town Manager 10/9/2004 Town of Westfield Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Plan Documents RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WESTFIELD ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBLITY PLAN WHEREAS, the Westfield Town Council ("Council") is charged with the planning for sustainable community growth, economic development and fiscal responsibility of the Town of Westfield ("Town"); and WHEREAS, the Council is determined to only move forward with annexations that do not materially fiscally impact the existing residents of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that there are situations that require the Council to move aggressively toward an annexation plan when an annexation is threatened by a neighboring municipality; and WHEREAS, the Council believes that residents within the unincorporated areas of Washington Township should be free to choose which community they belong; and WHEREAS, the Council believes that the Town can provide the best possible services to the residents in the proposed annexation territory at the lowest possible cost; and WHEREAS, the Council is committed to providing a thorough review of the fiscal impact of any annexation plan; and WItEREAS, the Council has prepared the Westfield Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Plan ("the Plan") to address the interest of all residents to understand the fiscal impact of the possible annexation of a large portion of Washington Township; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of Westfield, Indiana does hereby adopt the "Westfield Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Plan" that addresses the fiscal impact of a potential future annexation of a substantial portion of southwestern Washington Township. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the West field Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Plan is not a "Fiscal Plan" as defined in IC 36-4-3-13. A fiscal plan as defined in 36-4-3-13 will be prepared for each annexation proposal when appropriate. resolution 04~29 WESTFIELD TOWN COUNCIL Hamilton County, Indiana Voting For Teresa Otis Skelton Jack Hart David Mikesell Robert Smith Ron Thomas Voting Against Teresa Otis Skelton Jack Hart David Mikesell Robert Smith Ron Thomas Abstain Teresa Otis Skelton Jack Hart David Mikesell Robert Smith Ron Thomas ATTEST: Clerk-Treasurer, Cindy Gossard This document prepared by Jerry Rosenberger resolution 04-29 Westfield Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Plan General Overview Annexation Philosophy and Plan Fiscal Policy of The Town of Westfield General Annexation Philosophy/Plan Financial Incentives in Support of Annexation Request for Municipal Services through Annexation The Need for Consensual Annexations General Annexation Rationale Extension of Municipal Services Police Protection Service Provisioning Street and Road Service Provisioning Water and Wastewater Service Provisioning Utility Services - General Municipal Water Utility Fire Hydrants Municipal Wastewater Utility Fiscal Impact of Proposed Annexation Proposed Territory Identified Timing of Services Timing of Specific Services Anticipated Growth of Assessed Valuation Anticipated Future Property Tax Controlled Levies Anticipate Tax Rates Other Future Revenues General Summary Special Purpose Report - Fiscal Feasibility Analysis Otto W. Krohn and Associates Town of Westfield Westfield Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Plan General Overview The Town of Westfield has considered the issue of annexation in significant depth and has developed a set of general policies to serve as guideposts in evaluating and undertaking annexation within Washington Township, Hamilton County, Indiana. It is imperative that Westfield evaluate the annexation fiscal impact of any annexation and insure that the proposed annexation is economically feasible and fair and equitable to current residents within the existing community and for those in the proposed annexation territory. The Town of Westfield has worked extensively with multiple legal consultants to evaluate the town's legal authority that is being used through state statutes to proceed with this annexation opportunity. The town has also worked with multiple financial consultants to evaluate the fiscal responsibility of proceeding with the large annexation opportunity in southwestern Washington Township. The following comments reflect the Westfield Council's position on the provisioning of services in the southwestern Washington Township annexation opportunity. This document is not a fiscal plan as defined in state statute but represents an overview of the servicing policies that would be used to accommodate the annexation. It also represents a fiscal review that assures the Westfield council that the annexation opportunity that exists will be in the best interests of all the residents of the Westfield community. The following are both general comments regarding annexation and specific provisioning and fiscal impact comments. Page No. 1 Annexation Philosophy and Plan Fiscal Policy of the Town. It is appropriate to state that the annexation policies of the town are expected to correspond with the fiscal policies of the town. Therefore, it is the policy of the town of Westfield that annexation should only be undertaken under circumstances which are not adverse to the fiscal interests of the current residents and taxpayers of the Town of Westfield. General Annexation Philosophy/Plan "The philosophy/plan of the Town of Westfield is to annex real estate into its corporate limits which may be annexed in accordance with the terms of Title 36, Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Indiana Code and when the adoption of an ordinance authorizing such annexation shall: 1. Provide the residents of the Town of Westfield with a broad, stable and growing economic tax base; and 2. Plan for the quality and quantity of urban development in a coordinated manner; and 3. Preserve and enhance the public health, safety, and welfare, of all town residents." 4. Allow for the provision of services to the new area in a cost effective manner that will not significantly impact existing residents. FURTHER THE TOWN SHALL: First seek the voluntary annexations of new development contiguous to the current town boundaries. It is certainly the preference of the Town of Westfield to implement annexation action under the most amenable conditions possible, therefore in cases where it is practical/possible to achieve consensus the town prefers to precede with annexation under the "voluntary" provisions of the statute (IC36-4-3-5) Enhance the existing assessed valuation of our municipality through voluntary annexations such that future annexations of "built out" neighborhoods can be achieved without tax differentials being the overriding issue being debated; and 3. Consider any requests for voluntary annexation from existing neighborhoods; Consider any consensual annexations that will preserve and/or positively impact the future economic development opportunity or future viability of the community. Financial Incentives in Support of Annexation Aside from the issue of municipal services, the town has developed annexatiorffgrowth policies with support for the concept of applying economic incentives to the annexation policies as a basis for building public support and popular consensus. The financial incentives possibly considered by the Town of Westfield include tax abatement (IC36-4-3-8.5), delay of the effective date of the annexation (IC36-4-3-8), negotiation of supplemental services ( based on surplus tax revenues), elimination of utility/services surcharges, and other appropriate arrangements as provided by IC36-4-3-21, and agriculture tax liability exemption for municipal taxes provided by IC36-4-3-4.1. It is the fundamental position of the town, however, that the extension of suer financial incentives shall be made primarily in those cases where the extension of such financial incentives is appropriate to the fiscal and governmental interests of the Town of Westfield. Request for Municipal Services through Annexation The Town will continue to undertake annexations within Washington Township in response to requests for municipal services. The Town has undertaken annexations to date in response to requests for municipal services allowing the Town to extend municipal services, consisting of capital and non-capital services, to properties within annexation territories in an incremental fashion with those services coming on line in response to the gradually increasing needs of the area annexed. The areas annexed in this fashion have all been located within the Town's planning jurisdiction and have been undertaken on an agreed-upon basis between the Town and the owner(s) of the property to be annexed. The Need for Consensual Annexations The Town's prosperity depends upon aggressively pursuing annexation of all areas within its historic planning jurisdiction on a consensual basis where those areas are sought to be annexed by adjoining municipalities. Annexation is an important tool in responding to growth and, when structured correctly, can be pursued in a manner where the fiscal impact on the Town is fundamentally positive. In instances where a competing provider of municipal services seeks to annex territory within the Town's historic planning area, the Town must counter such efforts through the creative use of armexation incentives, including tax abatements and tax exemptions available under the law, as well as the creation of processes and advisory boards to promote increased public participation in Town proceedings of all kinds, including zoning proceedings and economic development. General Annexation Rationale In all events, the fiscal impact of any annexation, including any annexation pursued through the use of incentives, must be fundamentally positive for the Town in the long-term. In this way, the Town will extend municipal services to newly annexed territories in the following manner: Extension of Municipal Services The Town will extend capital services to newly annexed territories in the same manner that those services are provided to areas within the incorporated Town. The Town will extend non-capital services in the same manner that those services are provided to areas within the incorporated Town, so that those services are equivalent in manner and scope to areas within the Town. The Town has developed infrastructure and resources for efficiently providing municipal services, the foundation for which has been put in place through prudent planning and gradual growth. This infrastructure gives the Town flexibility in responding to changing needs within the community, including growth of the community through annexation. This flexibility drives a central feature of the Town's policy respecting the extension of municipal services: the Town will first seek to extend municipal services utilizing its existing resources and infrastructure before adding new resources or acquiring additional infrastructure. Citizens within the Town receive municipal services in a like manner, whereby the Town, through its departments, offices and agencies allocate, re-allocate and deploy municipal services in a mariner ~vhich meets the needs of the community as a whole with the minimal impact possible on the Town's tax rates. The Town will prepare and adopt fiscal plans outlining its plan for the provision of capital and non-capital services as required by Indiana law. In large measure, the Town is already providing all municipal services to the unincorporated areas of Washington Township. Accordingly, the Town will incorporate its existing policies with respect to police service, fire protection, street maintenance, sewer and water into the fiscal plans incorporating the following guidelines that currently apply. Police Protection Services Provisioning In the area of police protection, the Town meets and will continue to meet community needs based on historic call levels, trends in traffic flows and reported crimes and projected shifts in the needs for the community. This manner of providing police service has allowed the Town to meet the evolving needs of the community and to respond to growth within the Town, while adding human and capital resources in a gradual manner. The Town's experience in this area demonstrates that it is an efficient provider of police service caPable of adding territory with only marginal increases in cost to the Town. The Town regularly evaluates the needs of the community with regard to police protection services and, in response to the needs of the community, reallocates existing resources or adds additional resources in accordance with the community's standards for such services and best management practices utilized by communities generally. While the Town may determine to add resources in order to provide equivalent police services to new territories, this will be done in the same manner as it is now done for areas within the incorporated Town. As such, additional resources will be added in response to call levels, trends and projections and in an incremental and measured fashion. With these processes in place, the Town will assure that police protection is provided to newly annexed areas without any reduction in service from historic levels and in a mauner that is equivalent in standard and scope to the provision of police service within the incorporated Town. Street and Road Service Provisioning The Town similarly provides street and road maintenance and services to areas within its corporate limits on a need based system. All streets and roads within newly annexed territories will be added to the Town's street inventory and entered into the Town's maintenance rotation. This rotation is applied to all streets within the Town's corporate limits and is impacted by the age of the street, traffic volumes, general condition and other factors which evidence the need for maintenance and repair. Additionally, all public streets within newly annexed areas will receive snow removal service in the same manner and on a level on par with streets within the Town's corporate boundaries. Again, this service is provided to residents within the Town through a priority system which promotes the safe and orderly flow of traffic along major transportation arteries first and then down the line to lesser traveled roadways second. The same priority system will apply to all streets within newly annexed areas. Page No. 5 Water and Wastewater Service Provisioning The Westfield Public Works department is responsible for the operation of the Water and Wastewater works for the Town of Westfield. Services for both water and sewer are provided within the corporate limits and into Washington Township, Hamilton County. These services provided for the extended annexation area would be served as described in the policies below. UTILITY SER VICE The subject of utility service is commonly misunderstood, due largely to individuals making invalid assumptions with regard to the nature and context of receiving such services. Therefore, the Town of Westfield shall simply state the general policy, with additional detail provided below. That general policy is: The Town of Westfield will provide access to sewer and water utility service for any proposed development, with the costs for connecting to that utilitv service to be borne by the developer/owner, in accordance with the policies and fee structure set forth by the IYestfield Town Council. The development policies of the Town of Westfield and the Westfield Plan Commission have required developers to install sewer and water utilities within their developments for the vast majority of developed sites in the Township for many years. In most cases, the developer installs such infrastructure and then adds this cost to the price of the developed parcel, meaning that the cost of such infrastructure is paid by each individual property owner. However, in some cases, based upon the specific request of the developer/owner, the development was allowed to proceed without utility connections. Many of these decisions were based on the developer/owner being unwilling to bear the cost of the installation of said utilities. It is not the development intent of the citizens of the Town of Westfield to provide a monetary windfall to individuals who initially refused to pay the cost of utility connection by causing the Town of Westfield to provide such utility services when their private wells mn dry or their septic tanks malfunction. The Town's policy for utility connection shall be that the developer/owner may choose not to connect the proposed development to the municipal utility systems, and thus avoid the immediate cost of said connection. However, when utility connections are later required, for whatever reason, the system of fees and charges promulgated by the Westfield Town Council shall apply to that utility connection. In this manner, the cost of installation of utility infrastructure is equitable to all property owners within the service area of the utility, whether the owner decides to connect to the utility systems when the development first occurs, or whether the owner decides to connect at some later date. The Town currently has a method for allocating the cost of utility connections in a manner which is favorable to the property owners. The Town also reserves the right to consider other options for providing utility services when worldng with proposed annexation areas. Options which may be considered include, but are not Page No. 6 limited to: payment plans, enlargement of payment periods, discounts, Barrett law funding, bonds, interlocal agreements and BOT agreements. MUNICIPAL WATER UTILITY The municipal water utility provides potable water service to properties within the service area of the water utility, in many cases outside of the corporate limits of the municipality. The municipal water utility technically provides the service of pumping water from the water source, treating the water to some level, distributing the water into the system of municipal water lines, storing the water for peak demand and fire protection purposes, and maintenance of the system, in its entirety. This policy states that the water utility meets the parameters of providing access to water utility service to a property when a municipal water distribution line is within the distributive area of a main trunk tine or lateral line. When water lines are already developed with respect to a specific property, the water utility is made directly available to that property when a distribution main is located in a street, highway, or right-of-way which abuts the property to be served. Water utility service and connection costs are handled in a manner similar to that of the wastewater utility. In some cases, property owners have not connected their property to the municipal water system and use private water sources (primarily wells) instead. This election is made by the property owner in accordance with the development standards of the property at the time of the original development. The municipal water system also extends beyond the corporate limits of the municipality and service is provided to property in unincorporated areas. The water utility is administered by the West field Town Council which is responsible for recommending user charges. The legislative body of the municipality may consider changes to the user charge system to reflect special situations, as well as changes in policy with regard to the type of customer and/or the location (inside or outside of the corporate limits of the municipality). The policy of providing municipal water service is not to be construed as being "free" in any respect, and these costs are certainly not covered by property taxes. The water utility is supported by a system of user charges which is administered by the Westfield Town Council. In addition, the development policies and standards of the municipality require the developer/owner to pay any capital costs associated with the extension of water distribution facilities into any proposed development. The only major capital expenditures covered by the water utility (outside of the service extensions afforded by the developers) is the capital cost of constructing and maintaining water pumping, treatment and storage facilities, which are paid either directly or indirectly through the utility's user charge system. The cost of extending distribution lines is to be borne by the property owner/developer. Property tax revenues are not a part of the water utility budget. The water utility sets a system of user charges which are generally paid on a monthly basis. Those user charges cover both the capital and operating costs of the water utility. In addition to monthly service charges, the water utility may consider and/or establish a system of fees or other services such as various connection fees, and/or supplemental fees for special facilities installed to meet the needs/demands of various customers. The water utilityis also subject to some regulatory requirements which are administered at the state and/or federal level. As such, the system of fees and charges must be adjusted from time to time to remain current ~vith regulatory and other requirements. FIRE HYDRANTS Fire hydrants are generally supported by the user charge system of the water utility. As stated with regard to other services, the municipality may seek changes in the system of revennes used to pay for such services, however, at this time the policy of the Town is that the developer of the site - without regard to the nature of the development - is responsible for installing the fire hydrants necessary to protect the proposed development from catastrophic fire. MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER UTILITY The municipal wastewater utility provides access to wastewater collection, treatment and disposal service to all properties within the corporate limits of the municipality. This policy states that the municipality meets the parameters of providing access to municipal wastewater service when the parcel is within the drainage watershed of a major interceptor, trunk or lateral sewer which ultimately delivers wastewater to the municipal wastewater treatmentplant. In cases where sewer laterals are made available to developed parcels, the standard for service is met when a municipal sewer is located within 300 lineal feet of the nearest property line of the parcel. In some cases, property owners have chosen not to connect their development to the municipal sewer system and use private wastewater disposal facilities (primarily septic tanks), instead. This decision is based purely upon the owner's election and the development standards of the original property development. As noted above, the general.policy of the Town is that the developer pays the cost of installing wastewater utility service in accordance with the schedule of fees and charges in effect at that time, and then adds that cost to the price of the developed parcel. In this manner, the property owner ultimately pays for the cost of the wastewater utility connection. In the case of developers/owners who elect not to pay the cost of wastewater utility connections for whatever reason, it is the policy of the Town of Westfield to respect that decision. However, when those private wastewater facilities become dysfunctional, it is the policy of the Town of Westfield to provide such wastewater utility connections at the capital expense of the owner, and in accordance with the schedule of fees and charges set forth by the Westfield Town Council at Page No. 8 the time the work is undertaken. In this manner, the provision ofwastewater utility services is equitable to all property owners. The municipal wastewater system extends beyond the corporate limits of the municipality and municipal wastewater service is provided to property in unincorporated areas. The wastewater utility is also administered by the Westfield Town Council which is responsible for developing and recommending a system of user charges for implementation. These user charges must cover the cost of both capital and operations of the wastewater utility. The municipality may consider changes to the user charge system to reflect special situations, as well as changes in policy with regard to the type of customer and/or the location (inside or outside of the corporate limits of the municipality). The policy of providing municipal wastewater service is also not to be construed as being "free" in any respect, and the costs of such services are certainly not covered by property taxes. The wastewater utility is supported by a system of user charges which is administered by the Westfield Town Council to cover both capital and operating expenses, in cooperation with the municipality. Property tax revenues are not a part of the wastewater utility budget. The development standards of the municipality are such that the capital cost of wastewater utility services is afforded by the developer as part of the development of the property (and that cost is ultimately passed on to property owners). In addition to monthly service charges, the wastewater utility has established a system of fees for other services such as various connection fees, and/or supplemental fees for special facilities installed to meet the needs/demands of various customers. The cost of extending distribution lines is to be borne by the property owner/developer. The wastewater utility is also subject to regulatory requirements which are administered at the state and/or federal level. As such, the system of fees and charges must be adjusted from time to time to remain current with regulatory and other requirements. · Wastewater utility services which are within the wastewater service area of the Town of Westfield will be extended to any property desiring wastewater services and charges for the capital and non-capital cost of extending these wastewater services will be paid by the property owner in accordance with the approved schedule of rates and charges of the wastewater utility, and in accordance with approved annexation policies of the Town. Currently, private developers install the local collector sewers as part of their development cost and pay access/capacity fees for the interceptor and treatment plant costs. Fiscal Impact of Proposed Annexation Proposed territory identified. For purposes of this Westfield Fiscal Feasibility Plan we have identified the area for annexation as those parcels south of SR 32, west of the existing town boundaries west of US 31, north of 146th street, and east of the Little Eagle Creek. This represents approximately 2900 parcels with a net assessed valuation of $462,000,000. This area is depicted on the attached map. Page No. 9 /:9r TT'-t4 01-t--,,,77 ~-,cr'r ~ I, t ~ ) Timing of Services for this Annexation The fiscal analysis is based upon the annexation of this area on March 10, 2006. This timing would provide for the newly annexed parcels to be placed on the Westfield town tax roles on March 1, 2007 that would result in taxes accruing to West field beginning in 2008. Timing of Specific Services. Fire services that are provided today would continue to be provided by the Westfield Washington Township fire Department. There would not be any change in this service Police services would be provided by the Hamilton County Sheriff department through 2006 with the Westfield police beginning activity in January 2007. Street Services would be provided by Hamilton County Highway Department through 2006 with the Westfield Street department beginning activity in January 2007. Water and Wastewater services are provided today and would continue to be provided by the Westfield Public Works Department Anticipated Growth of Assessed Valuation for the Town of Westfield The anticipated growth of the town's assessed valuation is calculated as a 6% annualized growth factor with the newly annexed area being added in 2008 reflecting the tax abatement and agriculture exemption impacts. This results in a 2005 assessed valuation of $800,000,000 and a 2011 assessed valuation of $1,597,708,290. These values are used to calculate the tax rates for all years. Anticipated future Property Tax Controlled Levies Controlled property tax levies are calculated by the Department of Local Government and Finance and the expected growth in this number would grow from $2,496,061 in 2005 to $3,231,902 in 2011. This is the property tax revenues that can be raised through the property tax applied to the assessed valuation. This growth in controlled levy is the result of a 4.4% annualized growth coupled with an annexation factor added in 2008 of $950,000. Anticipated tax Rates The current municipal tax rate for the town of Westfield is $.425 per $100 assessed valuation. The pro forma tax calculations with the proposed annexations shows the rate decreasing in 2006 and 2007 to a value of $.3928. In 2008 the tax rate would be $.4385 an amount nearly equal to the current tax rate in 2004. After 2008 that tax rate would continue to fall with the addition of the assessed valuation of the tax abatement parcels. The tax rate would fall to $.3366 per $100 assessed valuation in 2011. Other Future Revenues. 1. COIT revenues are expected to increase to former levels such that the COIT revenues will begin to equal the levy increases. Initially in 2009 additional COIT revenues would be app,roximately $540,000. 2. Population changes because of the significant annexation will impact the state distributed revenue of CCI (Cum Cap Improvement Fund), the Alcohol Gallonage Tax, and the Cigarette Tax. It is anticipated that a special census will be performed in 2006 or 2007 to achieve these additional revenues. 3. CCD (Cum Cap Development) revenues will increase from approx. $209,000 per year in 2004 to $463,000 per year in 2011. These funds are available to pay leases on capital purchases. General Summary The Town's fiscal plans, when prepared for specific annexation areas, are prepared in accordance ~vith these policies and shall be more than mere recitations of the legal requirements for such plans. Rather, these plans shall contain sufficient information so as to inform residents of the annexation areas with quantifiable evidence of the Town's ability to provide municipal services to the newly annexed areas in the same manner that those services are provided to citizens of the Town. Page No. 11. Special Purpose Report Fiscal Feasibility Analysis Of Proposed Annexation Area O.W. Krohn & Associates LLP Otto W. Krohn, CPA CMC James VZ Treat, CPA 231 E. Makn Sereet, Westfield, Indiana 46074 American Institute of CPA's Indictnc~ CPA Society October I 1, 2004 Mr. Jerry Rosenberger, Town Manager and Members of the Town Council Town of Westfield Town Hall Westfield, Indiana Re: Special Purpose Report Fiscal Feasibility Analysis - Proposed Annexation At your request, we have compiled the attached summary of the potential financial impact of the proposed annexation of certain ~reas within Washingtun Township. The proposed annexation area includes approximately 2,611 parcels of developed property along with approximately 288 parcels of agricultural property. The purpose of this report is to quantify the estimated fiscal impact that the proposed annexation area might have on the Town's financial resources and, more specifically, the Town's projected property tax rates. This is not a fiscal plan as tha specific annexation area may be modified or revised in some form. However, the report does illustrate the significant changes in the Town's budget that could be expected if annexation occurs and identifies the primary sources of funding these additional budget responsibilities. The estimated property tax rote impact related to the proposed annexation is the focal point of our fiscal feasibility analysis. Proposed Annexation Plan Under the proposed plan for annexation, the Town would exempt agricultural land and provide a four year phase in of the Town's property tax rate for the existing non-agricultural parcels. The Town would begin providing comparable levels of service in 2008, but would not realize the full tax base benefit of the annexation until 2011. The annexation area has been a part of the Town of Westfield's planning area for more than 20 years. The Town already provides water and wastewater service to the annexation area. The Westfield- Washington Township Fire Department provides fire and EMT services and the Westfield Police Department is officially the No. 2 responder for other public safety needs. Quite often, Westfield Police Department personnel are first on the scene for emergency calls. Therefore, the only significant change in responsibilities for the Town, if annexation occurs, is the assumption of the funding responsibilities for the Fire Dept. contracts, the addition of a few policemen and the assumption of responsibilities for maintaining roads and streets. Ph0ne:317-867-5888 Facsimile: 317-867-5895 www. owkcpa.c0m Utility Services The Town provides water and sewer service to the proposed annexation area and plans to continue its utility extension policies to enable the orderly development of the undeveloped parcels. The Town situated its wastewater treatment plant strategically in the southwest quadrant of Washington Township with the assumption that the Town wood eventually provide service to the entire Township. An expansion of the wastewater treatment plant is currently under construction. Similarly, water utility services and main extensions are al so being provided under the Town' s utility extension programs. Because utility services are already provided by the Town, annexation should not have any impact on the Town's responsibilities. Further, the utilities operate independently from the Town' s tax-supported activities and will, therefore, not impact the Town's tax-supported budgets or funding requirements. Fire Department The Westfield-Washington Township Fire Department already serves the proposed annexation area. However, annexation would shift the financial burden of the Fke Department away from the Township and onto the Town in 2008. For 2005, the portion of the Fixe Department budget for the annexation area amounts to approximately $800,000. Our feasibility analysis assumes that the Town would take on an additional $900,000 of the Fire Department budget in 2008 and that amount would graduate to about $1,050,000 by 2011. The Town proposes to fund these additional budget responsibilities with a special annexation appeal to the DLGF for the 2008 budget year. In future years, COIT will become an additional source of revenues to fund opomting costs within the annexation area. The annexation appeal would produce a sufficient amount to cover the additional Fire Department budget requirements attributable to the annexation area. Again, the Westfield- Washington Township Fire Department already serves this area. In fact, the very location of the existing Westfield Public Safety Building was deliberate in anticipation that the proposed annexation area would one day become a part of the Town of Westfteld. No additional fire stations or equipment are needed to serve the annexation area. Police Department The Westfield Police Department is also located at the Town's Public Safety Building and is in close proximity to the annexation area. The Town is officially the No. 2 responder for the annexation area and is quite often the first on the scene after a 911 call. The Town proposes to phase-in the addition of 4 policemen during the years following annexation at an estimated cost of $80,000 per year per policeman to equip and cover additional payroll costs. Because the annexation area has always been a part of the Town's planning and service area, Westfield will have economies of scale from the proposed annexation that may not exist under any other alternative to annexation by the Town. The additional budget requirements will be funded from the annexation appeal and future COlT distributions. The Town will utilize its CCD Funds to purchase additional vehicles for the new officers. Street Department The Wesffield Department of Public Works will experience a need for additional personnel and equipment as a result of the proposed annexation arem The single, most significant responsibility will occur during winter storms - plowing snow and salting roads. The armexation area would add approximately 55 miles of roads to the Town's existing road inventory. Under the Town's annexation plan, the addition of 4 employees and related equipment is anticipated. The Town would propose to conduct a special census in order to maximize its MVH and LRS distribntinns from the State of Indiana. Aa additional $150,000 to $200,000 of MVH distributions are anticipated to be made available to defray the additional stuffing requirements for the Street Department. The rem~irfiag iacremenml labor and equipment costs are contemplated ia the Town's proposed tax levy calculations. CCD funds will be utilized for additional equipment needs. The Town anticipates spending approximately $320,000 for 4 additional pick-up trucks (with snow plows) and 2 additional tandem axle trucks from CCD funds. During winter storms, the Town utilizes personnel from other City Departments, including the Westfield Utilities, to help salt and plow roads. This practice will continue ia the future and will continue to enhance the Town's ability to fulfill its responsibilities, particularly during severe weather conditions. Tax Rate Impact Calculations The estimated property tax rate calculations are summarized at the bottom of the attached fiscal feasibility analysis and assume that the Town's controlled levies increase at a rote of 4.4% while the Town's assessed value increases at a rate of 6%. Existing debt levies remain unchanged ia our fiscal feasibility analysis as no bond issues or building projects are necessary to serve the annexation area. The Town will, at some point, construct an additional fire station in the northeast area of the Town. However, that project will be independent of the proposed annexation area which is southwest of the Town's current corporate bonndaries. Based upon these key assumptions, the snnexation may create a slight increase ia the 2008 tax rate ($.438 / $100). However, as the tax base phases in, the annexation of this area should create additional economies of scale. Tax rotes should actually go down from 2009 thru 2011. The computed tax rote for 2011 is approximately $.335 as compared to a high of $.438 in 2008. The pay 2004 property tax rate for the Town is $.425 per $100. The assumptions contained within tiffs financial feasibility analysis is based upon information provided by the Town of Westfield and their Department Heads. This is not a financial forecast. Events and circumstances do not always occur as expected. Variations between the financial feasibility analysis and actual results are likely and the variations could be material. We are not responsible for updating the fmancial feasibility analysis for events occurring after the date of the report. TOWN OF WESTIELD Feasibility Plan Impact Analysis Summary Gross Assessed Homestaad Net Assessed Less AG Net AV Less Ag $6,666.300 ($1,055,800) S$,6~0,700 ($5,010,700) $0 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL. THE TOWN OF WESTFIELD~ AND ~AMILTON COUNTY. INDIANA. CONCERNING 146TH STREET WITNESS THAT: WHEREAS, Hamilton County, Indiana, Commissioners (hereinafter referred responsible for maintaining the roads, acting through its Board of to as "the County"), is and road rights-of-way, for all unincorporated areas within Hamilton County, Indiana; and, WHEREAS, 146th Street is one of the roads within Hamilton County which the Board of Commissioners of Hamilton County have maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Carmel (hereinafter referred to as "the City") has, and will in the future, annex certain areas along the southern boundary of 146th Street; and, WHEREAS, the Town of W~stfield (hereinafter referred to as "the Town") has, and will in the future, annex certain areas along the northern boundary of 146th Street; and, WHEREAS, Indiana Code 36-4-3-13(d) (4) requires a municipality to maintain streets and roads within the areas which it annexes; and, WHEREAS, notwithstanding the terms of 36-4-3-13(d) (4), the City, the Town, and the County are desirous of entering into an agreement whereby the County will continue to be responsible for the construction, improvement, and maintenance of 146th Street for the portion of 146th Street which is contiguous to or within the boundaries of the City and the Town. IT IS THEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Hamilton County shall continue to maintain, improve, and construct the improvements for 146th Street throughout Hamilton County, including areas which have been heretofore annexed into the City of Carmel and the Town of Westfield. 2. The City and the Town agree to de-annex any portion of the right-of-way of 146th Street annexed up to this date and agree not to annex any part of the existing, or proposed, right-of-way in the future. 3. In the event the land, either contiguous to, city or the Town annexes additional or co-terminus with, the 146th right- of-way, Hamilton County shall continue to be responsible for the maintenance, construction, and improvement of 146th Street. 4. The County will retain the authority to control all work in the 146th Street right-of-way through its permit process, including, but not limited to, drive ways, road cuts, parallel work in the pavement, pole line installation, utility work, house moving and construction of the road. 5. Neither the city nor the Town will claim any existing road mileage which they have annexed for 146th Street nor any additional road mileage for 146th Street, and shall advise the State of indiana to return all sections of 146th Street currently in the inventory of the City or Town to the County's inventory. 6. The Thoroughfare Plan of the city and the Town shall defer to the Hamilton County Thoroughfare Plan, for purposes of road classification and Street, unless the City higher requirements. right-of-way requirements, for 146th or Town's Thoroughfare Plans indicate The County will be the authority to establish traffic control devices and signage on 146th Street. 8. Nothing herein shall be construed to impose a duty upon Hamilton County to construct any additions or improvements to 146th Street. 9. Nothing herein shall entering into agreements with the municipality to participate in improvements for 146th Street. 10. This Agreement shall approval by the Board of Works Council of the Town of Westfield, prevent Hamilton County from city, the Town, or any other the costs of constructing be in full force and effect upon of the city of Carmel, the Town and the Board of Commissioners of Hamilton County. Dated: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HAMILTON~UNTY Steven C. Dillinger ! ~ St ev~P~A. HoC - ~haron R. Clark Jon M~Ogle, ~ditor Dated: ATTEST: CITY OF CARMEL BY THEIR BOARD OF PUBLIC WOI%KS ATTEST: Cl~rk-Treasurer TOW19 COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTFIELD October 18, 2004 To the Carmel Common Council: Town of Wesffield 130 Penn Street Westfield, IN 46074 Phone: 317667-2222 ww, v.westtieldtowe.o rg The Westfield Town Council is well on the way to completing a consensual annexation of the Washington Township area once targeted by Carmel involuntary annexation, In a rapidly progressing chain of events, the Wesffield Town Council has made major pmgmse roaching its final goal of consensual annexation for Washington Township. In the beginning, Carmel claimed it started annexation proceedings because some Washington Township residents initially requested it from the City Council. And Carmel Mayor Jim Bminard promised that, if enough people did not want to join Carmel, they would back off. A sometimes bitter dispute in the media between Carmel and Wesffierd then followed. On July 28~', the Westtield Town Council passed the "Resolution for the Futura of Wesffield" which promised a fdendly consensual annexation for those in the Washington Township ama already affected by Carmel's involuntary annexation. The Resolution outlined a consensual annexation plan, improved land use, mom participation in governance, and the opportunity for Westfield to become a city. Westfield's consensual annexation plan included an attractive package of tax savings, tax abatements, and the ability to retain existing relationships within the community. Wesffield has succeeded in every step towards its final goal. As Washington Township residents educated themselves with the help of homeowner associations, non-profit groups such as the Citizens for Responsible Annexation (CPA), the Citizens for the Futura of Westfield (CFW), and othem, support continued to quickly grow much stronger for the popular Westfleld plan. On September 7, 2004, The City of Carmel officially relented and gave public consent for Westfield to go forward in pursuing its consenseal annexation if certain criteda were met. Since that time, a number of milestones have been met that have solidified Westfield's position as clearly the best and most appropriate alternative for annexation. While Westfield lawyers researched the legal documentation of Carmel's annexation effort, a contractual legal agreement disclosed commitments made between Carmel, Wesffield and Hamilton County which all parties must honor. This signed agreement specifically limits each municipality in its ability to annex amis of Hamilton County. The legal agreement acknowledges and gives written consent to Westfield to annex land to and along the northem boundary of the 146· Street right-of-way. It clearly commits Carmel to not annexing land north of the southern right-of-way boundary of 146u' Street. In addition, the document prevents Carmel from having the statutorily required contiguity to annex land north of 146~ Street. Further investigation into the matter has shown that Carmel has acknowledged and honored this agreement through subsequent actions and annexations as recent as last year. In about 30 days after Carmel consented to allow residents to choose the community in which they preferred to live, volunteers collected over 1,300 signatures from land owners. And we understand them am many mom signatures coming in every day. Nearly the entire ama targeted by Carmel has been committed under the 51% requirement to be annexed by Wesffield instead of Carmel. People have gone door-to*door to help their neighbors by answering questions and providing information to educate those who were unaware of the differences. Cleariy, the residents affected have made a choice for the kind of community in which they want to live. At a special meeting called by Westfield on Thursday, October 14, 2004, Town Council members passed Ordinance 04-37 that establishes an annexation process in the Washington Township area once targeted for involuntary annexation by Carmel. In parallel with the huge mandate and public reaction, the Westfleld Town Council worked hard to prepare a way to meet the needs of their growing community. After weeks of planning and preparation, Westfield succeeded in developing a multi-faceted plan to meet the needs of current and futura residents. We did our homework. Legal and financial experts have helped the Town Council make sum the ordinance will be fiscally feasible and legally sound. At the special Town Council meeting, experts Greg Guermttaz from Financial Solutions Group, Inc. and Jim Treat of O.W. Kmhn Associates validated the Westfleld Town Council's consensual annexation offer through the preparation of an extensive annexation feasibility plan that shows that current residents will not bear the burden of the cost of annexation. Lawyers from the law firms of Church Church Hitfie & Antrim, Krieg Devault and Bingham McHale have worked together and developed the thoroughly scrutinized legal procedures which we am utilizing to bring all citizens the maximum benefit and level of services promised in our eady town resolutions and ordinances. The 04-37 ordinance has legally bound the town to begin the consensual annexation pmcese according to a specific timeline which will commence in Mamh of 2005. Respectfully, Teresa Otis Skelton President, Westfield Town Council Jerry Rosenberger Town Manager, Wesffield 0CT,10.2004 5:21Phl ere N0.190 P.2/4 October 18, 2004 Mr. Ron Carter President Common Council City of Carmel, Indiana 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Carmel Drive-Rangeline Road Overlay Zone Ordinance Dear Mr. Carter: Kosene & l<o~ene is a part owner and landlord of the retail shopping center known as The Centre, located at 116m gt~'eet & Rangeline Road. Following our review of tlxe proposed ordinance we feel that there are certain issues which need to be more fully discussed amd reviewed im the establishment of this overlay district. Due to prior commitments I am unable to attend the meeting this evening, but have prepared certain comments concerning the proposed ordinance for your consideration this everung. 1. The proposed district stretches from 1~ Street South to 116u~ Street along Range Line Road and from Gradle Drive to Keystone Avenue on Carmel Drive and is being proposed as a precursor to a central business district. If adopted the district would run almost a mile and a half from North to South and a little over a mile from East to West. Based upon our knowledge of and experience in the retail market along Range Line Road as mx owner and developer of retail properties in this proposed district, we would like to discuss the viability of a development plan for a central business district of this size and the prospects for redevelopment of the existing properties according to the proposed design criteria. This area provides the Cannel community with most of the basic retail services. Many of these services may be negatively impacted by the proposed design standards imposed upon redevelopment. With relocation options 0CT.~8.~004 S:2~PH H0.190 P,3/4 being very limited, this impact needs to be very carefully considered. Redevelopment costs will be significantly increased, potentially causing the pace of natural redevelopment to be slowed. The proposed ordinance allows for residential uses where residential uses are not permitted in the underl}dng district. This could impact the expansion of certain busLr~ess in districts where residential interaction was previously not a concern. Lighting, noise, traffic and parking for business uses have considerable impact on residents and must be carefully considered in any mixed-use development. The forced redevelopment of a site upon destruction of the improvements is problematic. Leases with major tenants generally require the landlord to rebuild the building in accordance with the design existing as of the date of the damage. At best the landlord may be able to rebuild with a different site plan and design if the tenant agree~. If d'~e '~az~Zlord is reqmred under the ordinance to rebuild in accordance with the design and development criteria set forth in the proposed ordinance and the tenant does not agree, the landlord could face significant legal liability for breach of contract. This coupled with the potential loss of a major tenant is a huge issue for owners of developed and occupied properties. The insurance that is carried for the properties insures the rebuilding of the current premises and may not be sufficient to rebuild in accordance with the new standards. The final potential problem could occur with lenders that must approve the use of the insurance proceeds to redevelop rather than Just rebuild the improvements following damage. Further discussion and consideration of these factors should occur. Prindpal buildings must have at least two floors of occupiable space. This requirement is sigrdficant w~th respect to cost and with respect to the effect that the requirement will have on certain uses currently located in the area. This requirement and the smaller building fooL-print size should be reviewed to determine the impac~ it ma7 have on existing successful businesses and services. Uses such as gasoline stations and large stores will struggle to remain in tke area. This may suggest an alteration of the plan to address these uses within the district. Is there enough retail market demand for the permitted uses and services foreseeable for this very large area to sustain this redevelopment effort? 0CT.1~.2004 5:22PM H0.190 P.4/4 The proposed ordinance also imposes significant landscape requirerr~rtts, which may have a significant impact orL the size of the parking areas, which i.n turn will affect the uses of the properties. This new urbma design promotes and encourages demit% What will be the traffic impact to this and the surrotmd~g areas? I look forward to working with the Land Use an~ A?ne×afion Committee to more fully discuss and review these issu~ ''~' - -~' ......... "' ....... , ....... ) much for your consideration. Sincerely, David H Kosene~ DHK/acg KITE R~ALTYGROUP October 18, 2004 Carmel Common Council Carmel City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Ordinance No. Z-444-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting Chapter 23F (Carmel Drive - Range Line Road Overlay Zone) Dear Council Members, I am writing today on behalf of Kite Realty Group ("KRG") to express our concern about Ordinance Z-~.~,~. .04 and the impact that it will have on two retail centers that KRG owns interests in, The Centre and The Corner Shops, both at 116'a and Rangeline Road. Although I am unable to appear in person, I appreciate the opportunity to present you with KRG's concerns via letter. We have a longstanding history in this area - we participated in the development of these centers twenty years ago and have held ownership interests since that time. Although we share the City's interest in encouraging high quality development and redevelopment, we have strong concerns that Ordinance No. Z- n.n.a.-04 will not facilitate this outcome and will put existing landowners in the affected area in difficult economic and legal positions. Specifically: 1. The proposed development standards may not match what either area residents (our customers) or current and prospective tenants desire. We are concerned that no market studies have been conducted by the City to support the dense urban commuaity envisioned by the ordinance. Our gravest concern is that we currently have two vibrant centers that offer a strong mix of goods and services that are desired by area residents. If a casualty or major redevelopment plan required us to conform to the standards in the ordinance, we do not have confidence that our tenants or our customers would follow us. For example, a two-story drug store without parking in front of the store may do well in downtown Chicago or New York City, but it is not clear that this concept would work in a suburban car culture where consumers are accustomed to a different model. Page 2 Carmel Common Council Letter October 18, 2004 2. Even if we were able to attract retailers and other users to these new structures, we are concerned that the landscape requirements and increased parking requirements due to greater density will make it difficult to design economically viable uses that conform to the proposed requirements. 3. The ordinance would place us in an immediate precarious position with existing tenants and lenders. In the event of casualty or condemnation, we have standard contractual obligations to our tenants and our lenders to rebuild the centers in substantially the same condition as they currehtly exist. However, the ordinance would require, in the event of a major casualty or significant condemnation, that we rebuild in accordance with the proposed standards. These inconsistent requirements will force us to either break our leases and/or default on our loans, or violate the law. 4. Our most immediate concern about the ordinance is that it may undermine quality redevelopment of existing properties in the overlay district. As mentioned above, our affected centers are twenty years old. We routinely update and renovate these properties to continue to deliver a high quality product to our customers and our tenants. We are concerned that the ordinance may be read to require us to conform to the proposed standards if we undertake routine renovations of the fa~jade of the centers, in which case we would be caught in a Catch-22 - it would be economically unviable for us to redevelop the existing property, but if we forgo scheduled updates, the centers will decline in quality and we will lose tenants and customers. We appreciate the opportunity to testify to you via this letter about this important ordinance. Although we share the City's commitment to high quality development standards, we hope that you will consider our concerns about Ordinance 7~ ~.n.~.-04. The bottom line is that we believe that Ordinance Z-n. 4n. 04 is putting the cart before the horse - it presumes that market conditions will support the ambitious development standards that it wishes to impose upon landowners. If that presumption is incorrect, landowners, tenants, and area residents will be adversely affected. ours, Tanya D. Marsh Real Estate Counsel Kite Realty Group