Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-05-05-08City of Carmel Office of the Clerk-Treasurer COMMON COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 - 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEETING CALLED TO ORDER INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. April 15, 2008 Special Meeting b. April 21, 2008 Regular Meeting 5. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL 6. COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS 7. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES 8. CLAIMS o Payroll • General Claims e 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 3 171571 -2414 10. OLD BUSINESS a. Fourth Reading of Ordinance D-1887-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Issuing City of Carmel, Indiana Waterworks Revenue Bonds of 2008, in one or More Series,.in an Original Principal Amount not to Exceed Eighty Five Million Dollars ($85;000,000); Sponsor: Councilor Snyder. b. Third Reading of Ordinance D-1889-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, for the Removal of the Carmel Water Utility From the Jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission; Sponsor: Councilor Snyder. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS First Reading of Ordinance D-1891-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Additional Appropriation of Funds from the Operating Balances of the Cumulative Capital Development Fund, The Motor Vehicle Highway Fund and The Local Road and Street Fund (51,300,000- Street Paving); Sponsor: Councilor Carter: b. First Reading of Ordinance Z-517-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Rezoning of 11.61 t Acres Located on the Southeast Corner of the Intersection of 146`h Street and Gray Road with a Common Address of 4927 East 146`h Street, Carmel, Indiana, from the S-I Residence District Classification to the B-I Business District Classification (Hearthview Residential, LLCIOjjice, Retail Development; Sponsor: Councilor Rider. 12. NEW BUSINESS a. First Reading of Ordinance D-1890-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division 11, Section 2738 of the Carmel City Code (Health Benefits far City Council); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Rider, Sharp, Carter, Griffiths and Snyder. b. First Reading of Ordinance D-1892-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Removing -Chapter 6, Article 4, Section 6-57 of the Carmel City Code (Height Regulations for Awnings); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Snyder and Sharp. c. First Reading of Ordinance D-1893-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Cannel, Indiana, Amending City Code Chapter 8, Article 3, Section 8-19, Establishing a 20 MPH Speed Limit on Certain City Streets; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Sharp and Seidensticker. d. First Reading of Ordinance D-1894-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending City Code Sections 8-21(a) and 8-23(a) Establishing Speed Limits on Certain City Streets (8-21; 30 MPH, 8-23; 35 MPFI); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Sharp and Seidensticker. e. First Reading of Ordinance D-1895-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 9, Section 8-120 of the Carmel City Code, Establishing Certain Stop Intersections; Sponsor: Councilor Sharp. f First Reading of Ordinance D-1896-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adding Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 8-48(a)(5) to the Carmel City Code (Limited Parking Areas; Old Town Shops Parking Lot); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Seidensticker and Rider. 13. OTHER BUSINESS 14. ANNOUNCEMENTS 15. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT Oilb?iloi CC Mecling Agcuda 1 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 - 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor James Brainard, Council President Richard L. Sharp, Council Members W. Eric Seidensticker, John V. Accetturo, Joseph C. Griffiths, Luci Snyder, Ronald E. Carter, Kevin Rider, Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray and Deputy Clerk-Treasurer Lois Fine. Mayor Brainard called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Councilor Seidensticker pronounced the Invocation. Mayor Brainard led the Pledge of Allegiance. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS: 1 There were none. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve the Minutes of the April 15, 2008 Special Meeting. Councilor Snyder seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Minutes were approved 7-0. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve the Minutes of the April 21, 2008 Regular Meeting. Councilor Seidensticker seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Minutes were approved 7-0. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: The following citizens addressed the Council in opposition to Ordinance D-1890-08 (Health Benefits for City Council): Bob Jochum 11764 Eden Estates Drive, Carmel, IN Jim Garretson 55 York Drive, Carmel, IN Charles Sampson 11716 Eden Estates Drive, Carmel, IN Sue Potasnik 12482 Cherry Cross Road, Carmel, IN Alan Potasnik 12482 Cherry Cross Road, Carmel, IN x! The following citizen addressed the Council in opposition to Ordinance D-1889-08 (Removal of the Carmel Water Utility from the IURC): Jim Garretson 55 York Drive, Carmel, IN The following citizen addressed the Council in favor of Ordinance D-1889-08 (Removal of the Carmel Water Utility from the IURC): Mike Shaver (attachment 1) 3799 Steeplechase Drive, Carmel, IN 117-1 1 Council President Sharp addressed the public and the audience regarding ordinance procedures. COUNCIL MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Council President Sharp addressed the Council and the public regarding letters published in the Carmel Star on Saturday regarding health care for the City Council. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES: There were none. CLAIMS: Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve claims in the amount of $1,828,131.64. Councilor Rider seconded. There was no Council discussion. Claims were approved 7-0. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Councilor Snyder reported that the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee had not met. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. Councilor Griffiths reported that the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee had not met. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. Councilor Carter reported that the Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee had not met. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. Councilor Seidensticker reported that the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee met and discussed Ordinance D-1889-08. OLD BUSINESS Council President Sharp announced the Fourth Reading of Ordinance D-1887-08 As Amended; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Issuing City of Carmel, Indiana Waterworks Revenue Bonds of 2008, in one or More Series, in an Original Principal Amount not to Exceed Eighty Five Million Dollars ($85,000,000); Sponsor: Councilor Snyder. (Remains in the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee). This item was not discussed. Council President Sharp announced the Third Reading of Ordinance D-1889-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, for the Removal of the Carmel Water Utility From the Jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Councilor Snyder referred to Councilor Seidensticker to provide the Council with an update from the Utilities, Transportation. and Public Safety Committee. Councilor Seidensticker informed the Council that this item was discussed in length at the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee and was forwarded to the Council with a negative recommendation. Councilor Seidensticker made a motion to amend Ordinance D-1889-08 to add lines 31-40 version SEIDENSTICKER.DOC 5/5/2008 5:15 p.m. Councilor Snyder seconded. Councilor Seidensticker informed the Council that he omitted adding line 46 which is Section 1, therefore pushing original Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 to new Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5. Council President Sharp informed Councilor Seidensticker that he would need to make a motion to amend the amendment. Councilor Seidensticker made a motion to amend the amendment. Councilor Snyder seconded. Council President Sharp informed the Council that the amendment to the amendment to add line 46 and move Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 to Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be discussed first. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. The motion to amend the amendment was approved 7-0. Council President Sharp informed the Council at this point they would now discuss the amended amendment to Ordinance D-1889-08. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Sharp passed the gavel to Clerk- Treasurer Diana L. Cordrayto address the Council. Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray called for the question for the amendment to the amendment of Ordinance D-1889-08. The motion for the amendment to the amendment of Ordinance D-1889-08 was approved 4-3 (Councilors Sharp, Carter and Rider opposed). Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray called for the question. Ordinance D-1889-08 As Amended was adopted 6-1 (Councilor Accetturo opposed). 1 Council President Sharp reclaimed the gavel from Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray. PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President Sharp announced the First Reading of Ordinance D-1891-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Additional Appropriation of Funds from the Operating Balances of the Cumulative Capital Development Fund, The Motor Vehicle Highway Fund and The Local Road and Street Fund ($1,300,000 - Street Paving). Councilor Carter made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Rider seconded. Councilor Carter presented this item to Council and referred to Dave Huffman, Carmel Street Commissioner, for clarification. Mayor Brainard addressed the Council. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Sharp opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. Seeing no one who wished to speak, Council President Sharp closed the Public Hearing at 7:06 p.m. Councilor Carter made a motion to suspend the rules and not send this item to committee and vote this evening. Councilor Rider seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. The motion was approved 7-0. Councilor Seidensticker made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1891-08. Councilor Carter seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance D-1891-08 was adopted 7-0. Council President Sharp announced the First Reading of Ordinance Z-517-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Rezoning of 11.61 t Acres Located on the Southeast 1 Corer of the Intersection of 146`h Street and Gray Road with a Common Address of 4927 East 146`h Street, Carmel, Indiana, from the S-I Residence District Classification to the B-1 Business District Classification (Hearthview Residential, LLC/Office, Retail Development). Councilor Carter made a 3 motion to move this item into business. Councilor Rider seconded. Council President Sharp presented this item to Council. Joseph Scimia, Attorney, Baker & Daniels, 600 E. 96`" Street, representing Hearthview Residential LLC, addressed the Council. Also present was Jim Thomas and Kelly Lawrence from Hearthview LLC. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Sharp opened the Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m. The following individuals spoke in opposition to Ordinance Z-517-08: Cesare Turrin (attachment 2) Steve Dauby Steve Steiner Dave Sicklesteel Jim Kraft Craig Booth Paul Schneider Barb Dauby Alexander Pryll Eric Clark 5436 Woodfield Drive, Carmel, IN 5151 Sue Drive, Carmel, IN 5163 Sue Drive, Carmel, IN 5164 Sue Drive, Carmel, IN 5187 Sue Drive, Carmel, IN 5176 Sue Drive, Carmel, IN 5152 Sue Drive, Carmel, IN 5151 Sue Drive, Carmel, IN 14417 N. Gray Road, Carmel, IN 14333 N. Gray Road, Carmel, IN Seeing no one else who wished to speak, Council President Sharp closed the Public Hearing at 7:54 p.m. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to suspend the rules. and not send this item to committee and vote this evening. The motion died for lack of a second. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Sharp referred Ordinance Z-517-08 to the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee for further review and consideration. NEW BUSINESS Council President Sharp announced the First Reading of Ordinance D-1890-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division II, Section 2-38 of the Carmel City Code (Health Benefits for City Council); Sponsor(s). Councilor Snyder made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Carter seconded. Councilor Snyder presented this item to Council. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Sharp referred Ordinance D-1890-08 to the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee for further review and consideration. Council President Sharp announced the First Reading of Ordinance D-1892-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Removing Chapter 6, Article 4, Section 6-57 of the Carmel City Code (Height Regulations for Awnings). Councilor Snyder made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Seidensticker seconded. Councilor Snyder presented this item to Council. There was no Council discussion. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to suspend the rules and not send this item to committee and vote this evening. Councilor Seidensticker seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. The motion was approved 7-0. Councilor Rider made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1892-08. Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance D-1892-08 was adopted 7-0. Council President Sharp announced the First Reading of Ordinance D-1893-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending City Code Chapter 8, Article 3, Section 8-19, 4 Establishing a 20 MPH Speed Limit on Certain City Streets. Councilor Seidensticker made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Rider seconded. Councilor Seidensticker presented this item to Council. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp referred Ordinance D-1893-08 to the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee for further review and consideration. Council President Sharp announced the First Reading of Ordinance D-1894-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending City Code Sections 8-21(a) and 8-23(a) Establishing Speed Limits on.Certain City Streets (8-21; 30)WPH, 8-23; 35 MPH). Councilor Seidensticker made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Councilor Seidensticker presented this item to Council. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp referred Ordinance D-1894-08 to the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee for further review and consideration. Council President Sharp announced the First Reading of Ordinance D-1895-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 9, Section 8-120 of the Cannel City Code, Establishing Certain Stop Intersections. Councilor Seidensticker made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Council President Sharp passed the gavel to Councilor Snyder to present this item to Council. There was no Council discussion. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to suspend the rules and not send this item to committee and vote this evening. Councilor Rider seconded. There was no Council discussion. Councilor Snyder called for the question. The motion was approved 7-0. Councilor Snyder called for the question, Ordinance D-1895-08 was adopted 7-0. Council President Sharp reclaimed the gavel from Councilor Snyder. Council President Sharp announced the First Reading of Ordinance D-1896-08; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adding Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 8-48(a)(5) to the Carmel City Code (Limited Parking Areas; Old Town Shops Parking Lot). Councilor Seidensticker made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Rider seconded. Councilor Seidensticker presented this item to Council. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Sharp referred Ordinance D-1896-08 to the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee for further review and consideration. OTHER BUSINESS There was none. ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilor Griffiths announced on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at the Gazebo, there would be a Hamilton County Law Enforcement memorial service Councilor Snyder reminded everyone to vote on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. Councilor Rider informed the Council and the Public that the Carmel Elementary school was having a fund raiser for the after-school tutoring program on Friday, May 16, 2008 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Council President Sharp reminded voters to vote. Council President Sharp made a personal appeal for citizens to vote in the party of their true allegiance and preference. Council President Sharp also informed Councilor Rider (City of Carmel Cable TV Advisory Committee) that the sound system in the Council chambers needs to be reviewed and requested that the Mayor have-experts evaluate the system. Councilor Carter requested a new overhead or require petitioners to use a hi-resolution computer file when using the overhead projector in the Council chambers. EXECUTION OF DOCUiNIENTS ADJOURNMENT Council President Sharp adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray, lA C Approved, Ir- Ma4or James Brainard ATTEST: Cl rk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray,I MC E 15!05111$ CC Meeting Minutes Consultants in City Planning And Economic Development Wabash Scientific, inc. Monday, May 05, 2008 Cannel City Council RE: Testimony in Support of IURC Withdrawal I am here tonight to repeat my full support of the withdrawal of Carmel Utilities from IURC jurisdiction. Some of you heard my previous written testimony in this regard at Committee. I hereby re-affirm the previous testimony and offer the.following additional matters for your consideration. First I wish to make clear that I am not denigrating the IURC. They perform a valuable service in regulating for-profit utilities. However, I respectfully suggest that their techniques for regulating municipal utilities are inappropriate and are based on seriously flawed regulatory policy. Please be assured that I have testified specifically before the IURC precisely with regard to these regulatory flaws, so 1 am not saying anything to you that has not already been said to them, as a matter of public record. If you choose to investigate my claim further, please review my testimony in cause no. 42779-SI in the Petitioner's exhibit, plus my Rebuttal. I am also not denigrating anyone who disagrees with my presentation here today. The information i present here is intended to be factual, and facts have no passion. They are simply facts. If other believe that there is value in the IURC regulatory structure, then you should review the facts presented by those.people which support their belief that the IURC provides value in excess of its cost. You should honestly weigh the testimony of both sides in making your decision, and even if 1 disagree with your final determination, I will respect your effort in making it. My reason for supporting the withdrawal is simple. The cost of IURC regulation of municipal utilities is seriously inflated, due to flawed regulatory policies related to regulation of municipal utilities. In my opinion, the value of the IURC oversight is not close to its cost. The result of these public policy flaws carries two dominant results: inflated time required to address the regulatory issues; and inflated cost for complying with regulatory requirements. Again, reiterate that 1 do not make the same allegation related to for-profit utilities. First, i note that previous discussion suggested that the cost of $300,000 `every 20 years' was a valuable service. I note that the cost of IURC regulation is likely to be far more frequent than every 20 years. And based on my experience with other municipal utilities, the minimum cost, even for the most elementary request can easily exceed $100,000, and after those expenditures are made, the IURC might still reject the request. This, of course, is simply conjecture at this point, but this conjecture has proven accurate in many other communities with municipal water ? hrne?f C'? C0LkrY '1 m_V ? 51s-/D y 3799 Steeplechase Drive Carmel, IN 46032, (Voice) 317-872-9529, (FAX) 317-872-9885, (e-mail) wabsd@aol.com utilities. Second i note that, under the IURC system, the Office of the Utility Consumer Counselor always serves the role of remonstrator, even if there is no remonstrance'in Carmel. As additional facts supporting my testimony, please consider the following, examples. The current South Bend case (42779) was filed in 2005 and remains open on this day. That's three years, and the costs borne by South Bend include two, separate and fully litigated hearings, in my opinion easily exceeding $300,000 in cost to the City ratepayers. It has been more than 15 months since the last IURC hearing and there has been no final decision from the IURC. The lesson here is that paying the money for regulatory oversight does not necessarily even get you an answer, as South Bend has found. There is no time limit for the IURC, and offending them could mean having your case rejected. If it matters to Carmel; I am also recommending that South Bend withdraw for this very reason. You might also be interested to know that South Bend's remonstrators filed for attorney fee reimbursement against the city of South Bend. Their filing effectively sought to have South Bend pay the remonstrators' attorney fees for remonstrating against South Bend's rate increase. The IURC rejected that claim in the South _Bend case, but in every IURC case, there is the potential that Carmel would have to pay not only for their own attorneys, but for the opposition's attorneys, as well. This further inflates the original estimate of $300,000 to participate in the iURC's regulatory process. It is my opinion that withdrawal from the IURC removes this liability from Carmel, but still allows remonstrators to file their case in court (where they have to pay their own attorney fees). Prior to South Bend, Evansville had a similar experience. The Evansville case went on for several years, and ultimately the IURC rejected Evansville's request, despite the expenditure of thousands of dollars for the regulatory process. As a side note, some of you might know that Evansville is not growing, but its wealthy suburbs are growing, and Evansville needed TURC approval to perform system improvements. At the end of the Evansville process, the IURC approved a rate increase that forced residents of Evansville to subsidize the cost of water services to outside-city residents, even though the outside-city residents are far wealthier than the increasingly-poor urban residents. Plus, after years of regulatory review, I believe that the IURC reduced the proposed amount of Evansville's $25 million bond issue by less than $100,000. The "savings"resulting front obtaining the IURC's allegedly objective opinion was less than 0.4%, while the inflation rate was more than 10 times that amount Per year for every year the case dragger/ on (not to mention $300,000 to $400,000 to pay for the IURC process, itself). In my view, this reality negates arguments that the IURC provides an objective outside opinion at a reasonable cost. The value ofa service must exceed the cost of that service before it can be considered an effective public service. In point of fact, the Evansville case demonstrates that the cost of the IURC process plus the cost of inflation over several years (resulting from the delays inherent in the process), raised the cost of the IURC regulation by more than 500% of the value of the costs which the IURC eliminated. COunCii m'fg' 3799 Steeplechase Drive Carmel, IN 46032, (Voice) 317-872-9529, (FAX) 317-872-9885, (e-mail) wabsd@aol.com You may already know that Carmel has been at this juncture of public policy before. 1 note that Carmel had the votes to withdraw from the iURC previously, but the Hamilton Western attorney opposed the withdrawal. After months of negotiation on the acquisition, their attorney mandated that Carmel not withdraw in order to close the purchase of the Hamilton Western water facilities. This negated the expenses paid by the city in preparation for withdrawal (though i hasten to add that this was not the fault of the iURC). However, I further note that, when Carmel finally purchased Hamilton Western water utility, the IURC specifically re used to approve and include the lanytrage ofthe akreement betnveem Carmel and flamilton Western. As a result, if the case would have received a remonstrance, the IURC was signaling that the fully-negotiated rate differentials as well as carrying charges on the acquisition would likely have become the full responsibility of the Carmel ratepayers. This means that millions more of the cost of the project would have fallen to Carmel citizens when those costs had already been acknowledged by both parties to the contract as belonging to Hamilton Western customers. In this case, all the IURC had to do was approve the language in the contract. Their refusal to do so could have resulted in a severe financial problem for Carmel residents. We were lucky that time. In closing I note that even if the Council chooses to withdraw at this time, the withdrawal can be reversed. (in fact, I would predict that the IURC will begin to become far more attentive to.their policy flaws in the coming years.) If you become dissatisfied with the Utility's performance post-withdrawal, the Council can request being returned to IURC jurisdiction with relatively nominal effort. Given the politics of Carmel, I suspect that I have just set out a future political campaign for Mayor. If so, I predict that candidate will lose by a wide margin. In my experience; once.a utility withdraws, there are no regrets. I am personally convinced that governing a municipal utility can be best done by the residents of that municipality, acting in their own collective interests, rather than asking for a blessing from a higher power. The communities that have withdrawn have had their disputes, but the beauty of the withdrawal is that the community can settle the matters internally, and local elections are often won and lost over these very factors, without the need for a state bureaucracy to referee, while adding its own burdens. I reiterate that I bear no malice to anyone who offers opposing views and the facts to support those views. ( have served two stints as a government regulator, myself, and i respect the folks who perform those services. But i enthusiastically suggest that.those supporting the need for government regulation simply be asked to provide facts similar to those above to demonstrate that the cost of the regulatory service is exceeded by its value. In either case, i respect the difficulty and complexity of your decision and trust that you will make the best decision with the information provided to you. /? ?FachmPnf i (_9 06 un ) slsla d'' /cannel lure Itr 080505 3799 Steeplechase Olive Cannel, IN 46032, (Voice) 317.872.9529, (FAX) 317-872-9885, (e-mail) wabsd@aol.com Z _S/'7-0V [lay 5, 2008 Subject: Rezoning of Undeveloped Lot at 146" and. Gray Road My name is Cesare Turrin. 1 live at 5436 Woodfield !Drive, Carmel. 1 am the President of the Woodfield Homeowners Assoc. 1 represent 186 homes in the Woodfield sub-division that is located on the northern edge of Carmel with entrances on both 146th St and on Gray Road. The property we are here to talk about was zoned S-1 residential as part of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. The developer requests a B-1 zoning which is a drastic change for the surrounding residential property owners. first-spoke to the. Plan Commission about this rezoning proposal at their Sept 189 2007 meeting. At that time, I and several Carmel residents brought up numerous objections to this development. Since then, the developer and the Woodfield residents have met 10 times both privately and during Plan Commission or Special Studies Committee meetings. 1 will say that Jim Thomas and the Hearthview team have worked hard to address most issues. However some issues still remain. The surrounding residents are very concerned about their safety if a bank branch were to be built nearby. As you know, criminals are attracted to banks and many times injury and death occur during robberies. I'm sure you recently heard about the shooting of a bank teller in Indianapolis. In the past, Carmel has also experienced at least two tragic events at local banks. suspect that your likely reaction to this risk is "tit won't happen here because the probability for a tragic incident is very low". Please bear with me as 1 tell you a short story. My daughter attends a fairly large university in Virginia. It is about the size of Purdue and its primary purpose is to educate engineers and agro-scientists. It is located in a very small town, a college town, much smaller than Carmel. 1 thought the bucolic atmosphere was very safe and free of criminal activity. The small town is Blacksburg Virginia, site of the Cock ; T7?7c#1)7 Eiv7- Z C,? GIs r17 largest student mass murder in history. I thought nothing would ever happen in sleepy Blacksburg. The odds were very low. 1 guess 1 was wrong. Please don't believe that criminal and life threatening activity will never happen at this proposed bank. The nearby Woodfield residents do not deserve this risk. They should not be asked to assume this risk. In addition to the safety concerns related to the bank, the nearby residents do not believe that another neighborhood bank is required to serve our community. Currently, there are 10 other banks within a 2 mile radius of this site. It should be noted that those other banks are all located in or next to retail developments and they are a distance from residences. As I mentioned earlier, the Hearthview team and the residents have worked hard to arrive at a compromise. Over time, the plat, the building elevations, permitted uses and the building materials have improved. However, the size of the development has grown from 6 buildings to 8 and the. square footage has grown from 75,000 sq. ft. to 80,000 sq. ft. Further, as the proposed development grew, it moved closer to the surrounding homes. When the surrounding residents complained, the developer resisted changing his development proposal. He told us that the bank had to remain and the increased size of the development was required to make the project economically feasible. Finally, there has been much talk about the traffic congestion on 146"' Street. 1 will tell you that the traffic study related to this intersection and the subject development concluded that the 146"' and the Gray (toad intersection could handle the additional traffic. But is that the real issue here? My understanding Is that the original intention of developing 146"' St. into a 4 lane road was to carry traffic efficiently from 1-69 to 1-65. 1 also understand that there was to be minimal retail along this highway to facilitate traffic flow. Apparently our neighboring communities to the North reneged on an agreement to minimize retail. 1 guess the temptation for tax revenue was too much for their leadership. However, does this mean that Carmel should now start COUP, ??T?CH-mu, Q 1 2 [z) Ss permitting multiple retail establishments along 146th because our neighbors are doing the same. Trust me, the nearby subdivisions of Ashton, Cherry Creek, Avian Glen, Woodfield and several others don't need additional retail. After all, we already have it across the street. Currently, the homeowners and the developer are at an impasse. The development is too big and the bank poses unwanted risk to nearby homeowners. As the HOA president, 1 cannot support the developer's current proposal and neither should you. Next, Steve Dauby, a Woodfield resident who lives adjacent to the proposed property, would like to address the Council. Thank you for your attention. Cesare Turrin President Woodfield HOA 0-4t_,krC;l V(\-? 4+t-achxYer\A- Z CO s/S /ob'