CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
DECEMBER 16, 2002
The Honorable Council of the City of Evansville met on regular session at 6:30 pm on Monday, December 16, 2002 in the City Council Chambers, Room 301 Civic Center Complex, Evansville, Indiana with President Robinson, presiding. The following business was conducted.
These minutes are not intended to be a verbatim transcript. Audiotapes of this meeting are on file in the City Clerk’s Office.
ROLL CALL:
There being seven (7) members present and two (2) members absent and seven (7) members representing a quorum, the President declared this session of the Common Council officially opened.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilman Kiefer led the pledge of allegiance this evening.
COUNCIL ATTORNEY
John Hamilton is Council Attorney this evening.
RECOGNITION OF SCHOOLS
TEEN ADVISIORY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT
Member: Michelle Rietman
Member: Kevin Seitz
Member: Jason Nix
READING AND AMENDMENT OF MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETING
Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the December 9, 2002 meetings of the Common Council as written?
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Kniese seconded the motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of the Common Council held December 9th, 2002 be approved as written. Voice vote. So ordered.
REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
IN YOUR DECEMBER 13TH PACKET:
*City Council Agenda for December 16, 2002.
*Committee Meeting Schedule.
*Minutes of City Council Meeting held December 9, 2002.
*Rezoning Ordinance R-2003-3.
*Use and Development Commitment for Rezoning Ordinance R-2002-30.
*Area Plan Commission Staff Reports.
*Area Plan Commission Minutes of the December 4, 2002 meeting.
*Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda for December 19, 2002 meeting.
*Information regarding Rezoning Ordinance R-2003-29 from Greg Fehn.
*Ordinances G-2003-2, G-2003-3, and G-2003-4.
*Evansville Water and Sewer Utility Preliminary Refund Bond.
*Gartner Assessment of Computer Services – Key Findings.
*Evansville Redevelopment Commission Agenda for December 17, 2002 meeting.
ON YOUR DESK THIS EVENING:
*A revised copy of Ordinance G-2002-19.
*Miscellaneous letters to City Council.
*A Meeting Notice of the Vanderburgh County Convention and Visitors Commission.
*A copy of a letter from John Hamilton to Melissa Henson of the Indiana Department of
Government Finance.
*News release from Mayor Lloyd’s office concerning Casino Aztar and the City of Evansville
Lease Agreement.
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Angermeier seconded the motion to receive, file and make these reports and communications a part of the minutes of the meeting. Voice vote. So ordered.
CONSENT AGENDA
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE G-2003-2__ PUBLIC WORKS BAGBEY
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE OPERATION OF TAXICABS FOR THEYEAR 2003 (CHECKER CAB CO.)
ORDINANCE G-2003-3__ PUBLIC WORKS BAGBEY
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE OPERATION OF TAXICABS FOR THEYEAR 2003 (RIVER CITY YELLOW CAB CO.)
ORDINANCE G-2003-4___ PUBLIC WORKS BAGBEY
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE CERTAIN PLATTED ALLEY WITHIN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 602 EDGAR STREET THROUGH 622 EDGAR STREET
ORDINANCE R-2003-3 TO APC C-1 TO C-4
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2251 COVERT AVENUE
PETITIONER: DOROTHY MARKET
OWNER: MICHAEL J. MARKET
REP:
DISTRICT: STEVE BAGBEY, WARD 2
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Kniese seconded the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda as written. Voice vote. So ordered.
CONSENT AGENDA
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE R-2002-34 FROM APC C-2 TO C-4
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 201 & 203 E. FLORIDA STREET
PETITIONER: GARY L. & SHIRLEY S. HOPPLE
OWNER: GARY L. HOPPLE
REP: P.M. MITCHELL
DISTRICT: STEPHEN MELCHER, WARD 3
This petition was approved, having 12 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE R-2002-29 FROM APC R-2 & R3 TO R-4 with U&D Comm.
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 926, 928, 932, S.E. EIGHTH STREET; 935 JUDSON STREET; 200, 206, 210 WASHINGTON AVENUE
PETITIONER: STEPHEN M. COLLINS
OWNER: SAME
REP: LESLIE C. SHIVELY
DISTRICT: CONSTANCE ROBINSON, WARD 4
This petition was approved, having 11 affirmative votes and 1 negative vote.
ORDINANCE R-2002-30 FROM APC TO C-4 with U&D Comm. C-2
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 401-405 S. KENTUCKY AVENUE
PETITIONER: DAVID L. ADCOCK
OWNER: SAME
REP: WILLIAM P. TAYLOR
This petition was approved, having 12 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE R-2002-31 FROM APC R-2 TO C-2 with U&D Comm.
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 302 N. TEKOPPEL AVENUE
PETITIONER: STEVEN J. LANKFORD
REP: SAME
DISTRICT: B.J. WATTS, WARD 6
This petition was approved, having 12 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE R-2002-33 FROM APC CO-2 TO C-1 with U&D Comm.
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 18 S. CONGRESS AVENUE
PETITIONER: LISA HASTETTER
OWNER: SAME
REP: SAME
This petition was approved, having 12 affirmative votes.
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilwoman Walden seconded the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda Area Plan Commission Reports and move all the zonings to third and final reading. Voice vote. So ordered.
Council now stands at Third Reading of Zoning Ordinances, which is final action.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ZONING ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS:
ORDINANCE R-2002-34 FROM APC C-2 TO C-4
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 201 & 203 E. FLORIDA STREET
PETITIONER: GARY L. & SHIRLEY S. HOPPLE
Mike Mitchell: Ladies and gentlemen of the Common Council, City of Evansville, my name is Mike Mitchell and I’m representing the petitioners here and Mr. Hopple is in the back if you need to ask him any specific questions. This is coming to you with the unanimous recommendation from the Area Plan Commission at its last meeting. I would point out that if this were zoned R we would not be before you tonight, but probably before the BZA for whatever variances the Site Review Committee would decide when they meet. But, my client has several items that he needs to have under roof. And first I’d like to color these although you do have a location map you can see that sandwiched in…my client is in the middle of the Marathon Station, Mayhugh’s Used Car Dealership, Cheap Smokes, whatever that is, the little restaurant Country Skillet, and the North Side Radiator Shop. And he is C-2 but because of our Ordinance he has to get a C-4 for his garage. In addition to the pictures you see there he has a pop-up camper that he’s getting he also housed in the garage. I have a copy now of the garage which is 40x26 in this style right in the middle. So we’ve shown you basically, and this little shed will be removed that is there now. I had two phone calls before the Plan Commission meeting. One was from the lady next door and she…her only question was: “will my taxes go up?” And I said: “no they wouldn’t because of this”. Then a secretary to a gentleman that owns a piece of property across the street that is now for sale, wanted to know where when he got his registered notice where his property was. So I had to tell him the address. So that’s the last I heard from them. So those are the only two comments that I got before the Plan Commission had their meeting. I’m here to try and answer any questions that any Council Member may have and my client would also be glad, but I think we’ve got everything in front of you for this. And then obviously we’ll have to see what Site Review Committee says as far as the ground coverage and you know that type of thing.
President Robinson: Are there any questions of Mr. Mitchell? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in support or against this zoning? Can I have a motion to adopt Ordinance R-2002-34.
Ordinance R-2002-34 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, Robinson
Absent: Bagbey, John.
There being seven (7) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2002-34 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE R-2002-30 FROM APC C-2 TO C-4 with U&D Comm.
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 401- 405 S. KENTUCKY AVENUE
PETITIONER: DAVID L. ADCOCK
William Taylor: Good afternoon. My name is William Taylor. I’m representing Mr. Adcock in this petition. Mr. Adcock owns AAA Services and they are a company that services the entire tri-state. Mr. Adcock has been in business for some twenty something years here in Vanderburgh County and what he wants to do is take this piece of property and put a used car lot there. He’s invested in several used car lots in the city and have had good…pretty good luck so he’s trying to do it again in the inter city to try to help make that property productive. He…this zoning passed the Area Plan with a 12-0 vote and feel like that it would be an improvement to that area. Would appreciate your vote.
President Robinson: Are there any questions of Mr. Taylor? Can I have a motion to adopt Ordinance R-2002-30 and call the roll? I’m sorry, I forgot to ask if there anyone in the audience that’s for or against this, I’m sorry Mr. Shively.
Les Shively: Just real quickly for the record my name is Les Shively representing Jesse Stock Insurance and Mr. Taylor and his client have worked with us and that’s how we ended up with the use and development, which also addresses all the concerns of the church. And so we are in favor of the rezoning as it is now. We ask for its adoption.
President Robinson: Okay, is there anyone else in the audience? Now can I have a motion to…?
Ordinance R-2002-30 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, Robinson
Absent: Bagbey, John.
There being seven (7) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2002-30 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
ORDINANCE R-2002-31 FROM APC R-2 TO C-2 with U&D Comm.
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 302 N. TEKOPPEL AVENUE
PETITIONER: STEVEN J. LANKFORD
Steve Langford: I’m Steve Langford. We are wanting to rezone this piece of property to put in an antique shop. It’s as simple as that. We were approved by the Area Plan and hopefully approved by you.
President Robinson: Are there any questions of Mr. Langford? Is there anyone in the audience for or against this zoning that would like to speak at this time? Can I have a motion to adopt?
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Watts seconded the motion to adopt
Ordinance R-2002-31 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, Robinson
Absent: Bagbey, John.
There being seven (7) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2002-31 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ZONING ORDINANCES
ORDINANCE R-2002-33 FROM APC CO-2 TO C-1 with U&D Comm.
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 18 S. CONGRESS AVENUE
PETITIONER: LISA HASTETTER
President Robinson: Do I have anyone to speak tonight on behalf of 2002-33? Steve that’s in your ward have you heard from anybody?
Councilman Melcher: Les is coming. You got two tonight right?
Les Shively: I apologize for the distraction. My name is Les Shively representing the petitioner. This is the former Royal Travel location. The request is to go to the C-1 with a use and development commitment, which basically only allows under the use and development commitment the uses that we’ve set forth in the petition. The Nail Salon Beauty Shop type facility. We met with the Iroquois Garden Neighborhood Association and this use and development commitment is a result of those…of that dialogue and that discussion and they are well satisfied. They were at the Plan Commission meeting and they voiced their approval of the request. I don’t know if they are here this evening or not. But I think it was approved
unanimously at the Plan Commission meeting. Will be happy to answer any questions you have at this time.
President Robinson: Councilman Melcher.
Councilman Melcher: Is the owner here?
Les Shively: No sir.
Councilman Melcher: The only reason why I was asking….she wasn’t in there? And you know this has been a hot corner. Across the street we turned one down and it’s because of all the traffic and everything and I’m glad the special use is in there, that’s how you got the neighborhood. But the one think that I just wanted her to know, and I think EUTS kind of said it. The State and everything is looking at that road going into there.
Les Shively: Right.
Councilman Melcher: And that might be eliminated That’s part of the talk to eliminate the road from that corner down to where here business is and that….down there where her business is going to be is going to be a cul-de-sac maybe. If they move the road, which might not happen, but right now we’re looking at having the road go behind that Stepping Stones and go into the neighborhood that way. I just want her to be aware of that.
Les Shively: She is aware of that and I believe the way that will have to be addressed is any kind of lease she has with people that are actually be operating the business. The arrangements she will have to be aware of that and like any anticipated project one is aware of those situations and if the State comes through there and changes that access that’s…..
Councilman Melcher: I just know there’s a lot of traffic there and that’s coming up and I just want her to know that because I’ve had people call me about that. You asked me and I’ve been truthfully with them too. Just like I am tonight. Okay.
Les Shively: I think she is aware of that Councilman Melcher, and I think that’s why this use is being somewhat limited in it’s utility.
President Robinson: Are there any other questions of Mr. Shively? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this zoning? Can I have a motion to adopt?
Councilman Watts moved and councilman Kniese seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance R-2002-33 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, Robinson
Absent: Bagbey, John.
There being seven (7) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2002-33 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ZONING ORDINANCES
ORDINANCE R-2002-29 FROM APC R-2 & R3 TO R-4 with U&D Comm.
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 926, 928, 932, S.E. EIGHTH STREET; 935 JUDSON STREET; 200, 206, 210 WASHINGTON AVENUE
PETITIONER: STEPHEN M. COLLINS
Les Shively: Madam President, Members of the City Council. My name is Les Shively representing Steven Collins. Mr. Collins is here as well this evening, sitting over there. This request involves, let me show you a photograph to better identify the property because these are properties that are somewhat connected but not necessarily directly connected. See the photograph that is the aerial photograph that is up there right now. This is an aerial photograph identical to that along with the pictures of the two existing structures as well as photographs of the vacant property. I’ll start this with Councilman Angermeier. The area in question involves the area on Washington Avenue to the south, Eighth Street to the west, Judson Street to the east. Essentially we are taking two properties, 210 Washington and 932 Southeast Eighth Street which are existing structures, and bringing them into the proper zoning classification. They are legal non-conforming uses at this time. The vacant properties are located at 200 through 208 Washington Avenue, and 926 and 928 Southeast Eighth Street. If you will look at the Stat Field Report, this area is bounded by a variety of mixed uses. Immediately to the north is R-3 multi-family, by the way, the only difference between R-3 and R-4 has to do with height of buildings it doesn’t have to do with intensity or anything of that nature. To the south is R-2, R-3, R-4. To the east is R-2 and C-4. To the west is C-1, R-2 and C-4. When the staff of the Plan Commission review this request they noted that this is a zoning request that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and noted further that multi-family development is considered a residential use and therefore compatible with comprehensive plan and uses in this area. When we originally filed for this rezoning request back in August, first came to be heard by the Plan Commission at it’s October meeting. At that time there were several residents in the area that had some concerns about this project. We requested a continuance at that time so that we could sit down with the residents, access their concerns, and see if we couldn’t find a middle road and do this project in a manner that would be pleasing to them and embrace a lot of their comments. As a result we had a meeting, a very lively discussion on October 9th in the neighborhood. We heard about their concerns and from that meeting we engaged H.G. McCullough Design Service’s an architectural firm there in Evansville that is specialized in residential design. And in fact they are the architect’s that designed the Presidents home on USI campus. We asked Mr. McCullough to not only develop a rendering of how this facility would look, but also to design a elevation drawing, a site plan, and a proposed floor plan. Also we picked up from the residents and was talking to Greg Fehn with the Goosetown Neighborhood Association. The comments that they would like to see a Victorian scheme. A Victorian scheme that would be consistent with some of the homes and the properties have been adapted for single-family use in the area. And this is the color rendering of the proposed new structures. Councilman Angermeier and one with Councilwoman Koehler Walden. After we had Mr. McCullough complete his plans I met again with Greg Fehn with the Goosetown Neighborhood Association, showed him these plans. What I’m passing out to you now is another black and white copy of the rendering along with the proposed conceptual site plan and conceptual interior floor plan. From the discussion Mr. Fehn we developed a use and development commitment, which not only incorporated Mr. McCullough’s design into the use and development plan to make it part of any zoning
Ordinance. But also attempted to address concerns about the existing structures as well as concerns about off street parking and how we would do our parking facilities. If I could highlight the use and development commitment as far as the existing structures are concerned we agreed to place shutters on the windows at the property at 932 Southeast Eight Street, and 210 Washington Avenue. We also agreed not to expand the number of units that presently there. We also with regard to the new structures we had originally proposed ten units per structure. We also agreed to pare that down from ten units per structure to five units, and do it in a town house configuration. We also agreed at the urging of the Goosetown Neighborhood Association to orient the new structures to Washington Avenue and to locate the parking lots in such a way that they weren’t facing Washington Avenue, and to provide appropriate screening for those parking facilities. From that information as I said we amended the use and development commitment to incorporate plans by H.G McCullough, as well as the other commitment concerning the existing structures. This went before in this format went before the Plan Commission earlier this month and was approved 11-1. There are several folks you will hear this evening that still express some concerns about this particular proposal. And there is some confusion….and we talk about downtown areas there are so many overlapping jurisdictional bodies. What’s in a preservation district, what’s not. If it’s in a district, what does that mean. And so with the help of the staff at DMD I did a little additional research and I want to clarify that for the record. First of all this is in the South Governor redevelopment area. And so not withstanding what happens here this evening before we start building, if we see favorable recommendation from you folks. Before we start building we would have to have all of our plans approved by the Redevelopment Commission because it is in this district. Here is a memorandum of…from September 26th, 2002 from the staff of the Redevelopment Commission. And I’ll start this with Councilman Angermeier. At that time we had not engaged Pete McCullough, did not have any drawings, but there’s interesting things that I think should be noted in the comments made by the staff of the Redevelopment Commission as they looked at this preliminarily from a land use perspective. First of all they noted that quote; apartment buildings are permitted land uses within this district provided that the density is no more than twenty dwelling units per acre. The total acreage involved in the rezoning request of all these addresses is slightly under an acre and with paring down the two new buildings to ten units total, that is five per building. The total number of units would be seventeen units well within the density limitations imposed by the Redevelopment Commission. As far as the land use aspects of it this particular project now only conforms to the comprehensive plan of the City of Evansville, but also conforms to the specific development plans for this particular district. The only thing left to be considered by the Commission would be the actual buildings themselves and how they are laid out on the particular property. The subject property, it was noted at the Plan Commission meeting earlier this month, is located in an area known as the Washington Avenue Historic District. Now let me tell you what this means. This simply means that this district is on the National Register. There are no local Ordinances or State Statutes that regulate the use or development of this property as a result. All this means is that if Federal money is utilized for anything on this area it has to pay deference to the fact that it’s on the Historic Register and certain Federal requirements have to be satisfied. This is not true in…it does not apply to this particular project because this is all private money. In fact I would also note that there is not going to be any tax abatement, no special financing between Mr. Collins and his barker, it’s a straight up private sector project. I know I’ve covered a lot of material here this evening, but let me say this in summary before you hear from some other folks. We believe this is a very positive project and we have crafted this project and amended it to meet the concerns that have been raised by certain folks in the area as those concerns have been articulated to us. You will hear this evening from the residents concerns about 210
Washington, which is an existing structure. We had indicated our willingness to drop that from our petition entirely if that would satisfy the concerns of the residents. But there’s not….seems to be consensus on that issue. All I can say is that if this request this evening does receive a positive vote the dialogue doesn’t stop there, we will continue to work with the residents. We believe that we can first of all incorporate many of the changes and the exterior features of 210 Washington that we think that would satisfy some of their concerns some of which are already on our use and development commitment. And also we welcome their participation as we prepare our submissions to the Redevelopment Commission for approval, which will be done in a public hearing for which they will have input. Tonight however, we ask you to look at this request from a zoning and land use perspective and you will see that we have met all of the requirements, and then some. It is good land use, it is a positive project, and it’s a project that’s going to result in private investment in housing in an area of downtown Evansville where such projects, with the exception of those with special financing as such, are few and far between. We thank you for your consideration this evening. I’d be more than happy to answer any questions you have at this time. So would Mr. Collins.
President Robinson: Are there any questions of Mr. Shively from any Council Members?
Councilman Angermeier: Madam Chairman.
President Robinson: Yes Councilman Angermeier.
Councilman Angermeier: We reserve the right to question the Councilor after the people who are representing the area.
President Robinson: Yes we will be able too.
Councilman Angermeier: Thank you Madam Chairman.
President Robinson: Okay, so we want to hear from anyone in the audience that wants to speak at this time on behalf of this rezoning.
Rick Smith: My name is Rick Smith and I’m Culver Neighborhood President. Several of the neighborhoods are involved in this because it effects all of us in the area. We all do converge right there in that section so we’re all involved, we all have a lot of concerns about what happens here will soon be moving in other directions. I wanted to talk to you about the photos, I hope that all of you took a chance to look those over. These are folks that have come into the Washington area; all these homes were located on Washington Avenue, all of them within a two…two and a half block area. Not all of them are single-family, one or two, maybe three, duplexes. That is the way to go with the downtown is to help preserve our heritage by putting homes down there that fit the neighborhood. Who need the population duplexes, single family, this neighborhood has turned almost all to single family homes. As you can see I did not take all the photos of every home down there. These are the ones that people have spent lots of money. If you look at the one at 216 Washington, Donald Suggs and his family, Tori, have put together a nice home that they just bought last year. They paid $105,000 for that home. Now then they have dense population problem that’s about to occur because we’re going to put not just the four units in that one building that they have put in, but we’re going to put in ten new units. We’ve gone through that years ago. We’re in the process of trying to take Washington,
Culver, Goosetown and Wheeler neighborhoods back to single family homes or as reduce them down as much as possible. It helps to create a better living standard for the people that are there. It also helps to increase our tax base. Not just one or two buildings, but all of them. There are a lot of vacant buildings down through there that need rehabilitation. That would be a much better project than building two new ones that adds so many apartments. Take some of the older homes and make them duplexes, spend the money wisely. The neighbors are doing it, they are investing their money. There are some neighbors that are now concerned. We have the folks that just bought 213 Washington that’s almost across the street. They are in the process of spending money on that home. Now then they are concerned are we going to lose our investment by putting this money into this home. There is a good chance they will because the first thing people start saying is well there is an apartment complex that’s going in. There’s a bunch of apartment buildings going in. It’s single family that’s where we strive as a neighborhood. If there’s any questions that I can answer for you I’d be glad to answer them. I just want to point out that one of the things about zoning is that it protects land values. Now that doesn’t mean it protects commercial land values, it protects all. And you need to think about the individuals who are putting their hard-earned money into this neighborhood because they love it. They love the neighborhood; they don’t want to see it torn apart again. We’ve gone through it once before and now we’re headed down that road again. So please understand that we in the neighborhood want to protect our neighborhood and make it a safe neighborhood. We’ve come to have a lot of pride in our neighborhood and pride in our home ownership. A lot of homes, people are buying. I toured people that just….over Thanksgiving weekend that were coming into Evansville they wanted to live in the downtown area. These are people coming into this town that are looking to buy homes here. We need to make it where they will want to buy homes.
President Robinson: Thank you Mr. Smith. Are there any questions of Mr. Smith? Next speaker please.
Greg Fehn: I had an awful lot of comments that I wanted to make tonight, and I realize there is a huge agenda tonight so I’ll be brief. And you know Les is right.
President Robinson: I’m sorry Greg some of us might not know your name, but could you state your name.
Greg Fehn: I’m sorry. My name is Greg Fehn; I’m President of the Goosetown Neighborhood Association. And I am also a resident within a block of this development.
President Robinson: Thank you.
Greg Fehn: Well, you know, I can’t do all the comments that I really wanted to make this morning, because, you know, I got up and I read the paper, and that’s not that big of a feat for me, but I did read it and it said that ECHO out to end local homelessness. They want to partner with the City to develop a ten-year plan to end homelessness in this area. And I started thinking haven’t we been doing that. Haven’t we been doing that for the last 15 or 20 years? This City and the County Government have put an awful lot of resources towards supporting an organization, which has become one of the most successful, one of the largest not-for-profit housing corporations in the country. And they have almost single handedly redeveloped the South Governor Redevelopment area know as CCIA, Central City Improvement Area. And what they have built in that area is single family housing. Because that is part of the American dream
isn’t it? Haven’t we realized as a community that one of the most important features of the American dream is to raise your children and have a family in the privacy and the comfort of a home that you own. And if you believe that part of the American dream then you’ve got to believe the second part of the American dream. And that is that once your family begins to grow and your needs increase, and you make that decision that you want to move from the home that your in into another home, you want to be able to sell your home for more than what you purchased it for. That’s the second part of the American dream. And as this community has learned, and communities all across the country have learned, that the way you stabilize and secure a neighborhood is owner occupied single family housing. You realize that, that’s why we have allowed a proliferation of that development in this area. So I don’t understand why Washington Avenue would be excluded, but then I also kind of understand….it’s real confusing. The only vote that we got in dissension the other night was Bill Jeffers. And he said and I quote: “Only reason I didn’t vote for the plan is because that area is too confusing. They have no plan.” But we have plans but we’ve got a couple of plans and they call for two different things and it is confusing. And the point is if you take away anything from what these people say here tonight is that we need a new plan, and we need a plan that meets the needs of the individuals, the residents, the taxpayers, and the voters that live in that area. Because I think if you look at zoning I think you’ll find that the most important feature of zoning is to per…is the preservation and the protection of private and personal property values. You know it’s about, it’s what prevents someone from building a Thornton’s gasoline station in the middle of Thornbrook Subdivision. It’s probably convenient, people might actually use it, but it’s highly inappropriate. And it doesn’t do the value of the residents and the taxpayers that live in that subdivision any good. And it doesn’t allow them to realize what we all hope to realize eventually, like I said before, is to sell your house for a little more than what you bought it for, because of your time, your effort, your money. But these people behind me represent is actually what I thought has been lost in the area, and that was hope. And I’m actually excited. I’m excited for two reasons. One, as I’ve told Les before I’m excited someone actually wants to build on Washington Avenue. That’s exciting, you know why? Because an individual sees improvement on Washington Avenue, he sees what’s happening in the center of the city, and I’ve watched it happen. I grew up….my family owned for decades a home at 602 Southeast First Street. We moved out of that area when it was popular to buy big homes and cut them into twenty apartments. But a few people a long time ago got together and they decided: you know what we need to do? We need to develop a plan, a plan that protects this area that we feel is valuable, and they did that. And now look what they have. They have homes that are worth $350 - $400,000. A young couple, like myself, can’ even buy on First Street in the Preservation area, an area where I grew up. You can’t get in there anymore; it’s locked up. But where you can get is in the areas near it. I invite you to drive through the area, drive through the extra part of First Street the additional part, the part that runs from Adams to Riverside. Look what’s happened. Look at what’s happened between on Second Street between Cherry and Blackford. And one of the best examples is what’s happened between, excuse me, Chandler and Blackford on Third Street. It’s beautiful now; the whole block face is incredible. One of the best examples is Chief Jarboe’s home which he’s put a lot of time and a lot of money into developing, and it’s gorgeous now. And the point of my conversation is it’s heading towards Washington Avenue. There are young people that want to move into this area and call that home and spend time in their homes, and they deserve to have the value of their blood, sweat and tears protected, and it’s that simple. What we need to do is develop a plan that protects that historic part of the Washington corridor and that includes working with individuals who want to do development there. So I guess if you take, again if you take anything else away from this conversation, please take away the fact that
these people behind me want to have the availability to participate in the planning and the destiny of the neighborhood that they call home. That ends that speech, but I do have two things that I want to show you. Why would the people oppose an apartment building? Why would they oppose taking a historic building and cutting it into a bunch of small apartments? We’ve seen it happen, we’ve seen it happen over and over, and over again, and it just leads to devastation. And I’ve got two recent examples that weren’t in your packet that I’d like to show you tonight. One is 305 Washington Avenue, which was recently converted to four units. I’ve got pictures of it and a list of the police runs to that area over the recent period. I also have photographs of 18 Washington that was converted as well, and a list of the police runs to it. Quality of life to the people behind is an important issue. And I really thought that the time of cutting these buildings into small units had passed but it hasn’t. We don’t oppose duplexes because we believe that the living space in duplexes in these large homes still affords a quality of life issue. So please.
President Robinson: Are there any questions from any Council Members for Mr. Fehn? Thanks a lot. Next speaker.
Donald Suggs: Good evening. I’m Donald Suggs; I live at 216 Washington Avenue with my wife and two children. I bought my house for three reasons. My family at the time was growing, my wife at the time was pregnant or just had our second child. I have a love of these big houses and I also purchased it for the investment. Now we could have moved anywhere in the City on the eastside, westside, but we chose to stay downtown for a number of reasons. The cost of living was not bad for the homes that we were looking at in that area. We researched the neighborhoods; we found that most of the homes in that area were single family dwellings. We knew that there were a lot of folks in the neighborhood that had children and the main thing we knew that there were a lot of folks in that neighborhood by walking through the neighborhood and talking to them, they shared the same vision of those big homes. You see as a child growing up in Evansville a lot of times on Sunday evening after going to the Museum we would walk back through the neighborhoods downtown, Riverside, First Street, Second Street, Washington Avenue and look at those big homes and dream of someday owning one. Well my dream was fulfilled last year. These homes were designed for families. People can come over and enjoy the big rooms, do things in them, entertain, and have a good time with their loved ones. I feel that if you change the zoning you will hurt a lot of the people that live in this area. Me for example, if I could. This is the area where I live; this is my home right here. I have a fairly large back yard. this has become important to me. What’s that going to do to my property value? I think it will take it down, think it will decrease it tremendously. If you rezone this to what they are asking you to rezone it too, the folks in this area who have invested their money, myself included, and a lot of my neighbors, they are going to lose that value that they put into those homes. And I’m asking you to please do not allow this to go through. Thank you. Any questions?
President Robinson: Yes Councilman Angermeier.
Councilman Angermeier: Madam Chairman, I applaud you for the work that you have done and I recall going into that home when the City and this redevelopment and everything did an excellent job. I complement you on the beauty of it. And the other pictures that I’ve been looking at I think you’ve done a marvelous job. To make myself believe that your single home would be obliterated by multi-residence would be short of being criminal. I too would gather that the complexion that all the homes in that area, and I thought that we were going to have a movement. Not so long I got the Chief joined with the Mayor went down Washington Avenue a
few years ago and we were going to rehab that Washington Avenue and bring back those homes. What’s happened to the idea that individuals now are involved and they are rehabbing it without the federal money and I compliment you, and I applaud you for your work, and in know what that means, you’ve done a good job.
Donald Suggs: Thank you.
President Robinson: Thank you Councilman Angermeier. Are there any other questions of Mr. Suggs? Thank you. Is there any other speakers in the audience?
Richard Jewell: My name is Richard Jewell, I live at 212 Washington. I want you to know that I’m vehemently opposed to this. I feel it’s going to decrease my property value. I’m not happy with the unauthorized changes that have already happened at 210 Washington, where it’s been changed from three units, which was what it was when I purchased my home in 1984. And it’s now currently been changed to four units, which is per Mr. Collins statement at the Area Plan commission. And the comment made by Mr. Shively at that same meeting that they no warnings or citations issued for 210, and there have been. And I’ve got another problem with the lack of complete and exact plans regarding changes that they have made to the existing property and the proposed new construction regarding financing, site drawings, and the type of building materials to be used in the new construction. This 210 Washington is being purchased on contract it’s not owned by Mr. Collins at this point in time. You know it bothers me…you know who’s going to come in if he gets it rezoned what’s going to happen to it….what somebody else is going to…he’s going to sell it to someone and then it’s just going to be turned into God only knows what. And I want to protect my property and I’m opposed to this rezoning.
President Robinson: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions or comments for Mr. Jewell? Thank you.
Keith Jarboe: Good evening, my name is Keith Jarboe. I do live in the area. I live in Wheeler Neighborhood Association, which is right next to Goosetown, so these are all my neighbors. We all live in the same area, we live in the same neighborhood. The amazing thing that I have found since I have lived downtown the last five years is how it’s changed. When I first moved my wife and I first bought our home there were four vacant homes in our block. Today there are none. They are either being worked on or they are inhabited. As Mr. Angermeier said there was a ground swell a few years ago to get this area back to what it once was. To get this area back to homes, back in the hands of families to develop new homes. We’ve seen in the media about Fall Creek, what a great project. Indianapolis has gone in and not only rehabbed homes, but in-filled with homes. Not apartment buildings, not multi-family, but homes. They have made them available to do exactly what the Housing Authority has said they want to do with their new project. Take neighborhoods and have mixed incomes, mixed neighborhoods. And that’s exactly what we are here today. My neighbors, my friends, this is where we live, this is what we want to accomplish. First of all I’d like to thank Les and Mr. Collins because of what has happened with this. If nothing else our three neighborhoods have been mobilized together. We have commitments from Culver, Wheeler, and Goosetown that at the first of the year we will be forming a committee to get that plan together. To formulate a plan, put it together to find a direction that we’re going to go to get this area and all the areas redeveloped. We have a plan, we have a vision, we are going to in the right direction. I want to finish up and luckily for you I’m the last speaker from our group. In my hand I hold a 120 names. 120 names of once again my neighbors that have signed a petition opposing this rezoning. Along with the people that are in the audience tonight over 120 names on this petition. I think that’s government in action. I think it’s the people taking back what they want and what they need to have. Hopefully tonight you will not accept this rezoning. Thank you very much.
President Robinson: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Jarboe?
Councilman Angermeier: Madam Chairman.
Keith Jarboe: Yes sir.
Councilman Angermeier: Several of the homes that we have in that area are right there, are those people present here tonight?
Keith Jarboe: Some of them.
Councilman Angermeier: Please stand up. I applaud you and I mean that sincerely. I owned 111 Washington a few years ago and I spent a lot of time over there and I know what it is and I’m so pleased to see the development and the recovery. And I was over there today looking around driving up and down Washington, and I’d like to tell all of you that you have done a great service to the community and I openly applaud you, keep up the good work.
Keith Jarboe: Thank you. Councilman Angermeier and Members of the Council one last thing. I’m proud to call these people my friends and neighbors. Thank you.
President Robinson: Mr. Shively it’s time for you to come up here now. I guess the first question that I want to ask you. It’s five units per building, is that correct?
Les Shively: Yes ma’am.
President Robinson: What’s the total….what’s the square footage?
Les Shively: Total square footage.
President Robinson: Each apartment, each town house?
Les Shively: Have to look at the…. There are two styles one is a town house configuration. It varies between 1,200 square feet and 1,300 square feet.
President Robinson: And each ones going to have two bedrooms?
Les Shively: Yes Ma’am. You’re talking about the new construction?
President Robinson: Yes.
Les Shively: Yes Ma’am.
President Robinson: Would you like to respond to some of the concerns that the neighborhood addressed?
Les Shively: Yes Ma’am if I might. Let me respond to the specifics concerns that were raised. First of all in talking about the uses in the area. Again I join with everyone here applauding those folks that have taken the challenge to buy these older structures, to rehabilitate them and to make them what they are today. I applaud all of them. But the fact of the matter is the area is not 100% single family, it’s not even 50% single family it is mixed uses. It is in fact mixed uses. You look at the properties in close proximity to the subject property is commercial, it’s multi-family, in fact right next door is R-3, which is the same classification this property. In fact the only reason we didn’t pare it back from R-4 to R-3 was at the request, and the suggestion I should say, of the Goosetown Neighborhood Association so that we could have taller building, higher pitched roof because of the height situation. I think it was just about a year ago within the same neighborhood you all approved a rezoning for very good purpose and a very good use a shelter, a woman’s shelter. A very good use, a very good purpose, but certainly not single family. Now, we are here this evening to talk about what is good zoning, what is good land use? We are here this evening also recognizing the fact that this is the South Governor district jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Commission and whether it meets those concerns and make those guidelines. But as you look at this no matter what you do here this evening the existing structures are going to legal non-conforming structures that will be allowed to have at least three units in them. If this rezoning is turned down those legal non-conforming units will remain legal non-conforming multi-family, not R-2. Moreover, no matter how you vote here this evening across the street is an apartment building that will remain and always be in this neighborhood. I want to start with Mr….Councilman Angermeier a photograph of that building along with other photographs, other properties in the immediate vicinity.
President Robinson: You talking about Washington Court, is that what your….
Councilman Angermeier: Yes, 111.
Les Shively: The concerns, many of the concerns that have been raised here this evening for the most part have to do with 210 Washington. And again my client has already invested $125,000 in that property. And I would also note despite the fact that someone alluded to the fact that he’s buying it on contract. Buying on contract is no different than going to the bank and getting a mortgage. And I will say that his mortgage, his contract will be paid off at the end of this month and he will own it free and clear. The comment about Mr. Suggs made the comment about the parking and his comment is well taken and that’s why the use and development commitment we have provided a requirement, imposed a requirement and it becomes a part of the Ordinance. It requires all the parking areas to be appropriately screened. Screening of parking areas is what reduces any kind of possible negative impact could be on surrounding properties. You were given this evening some information concerning 305 Washington Avenue. Again ladies and gentlemen we are not here on 305 Washington; we are here on the properties of this particular landowner. You heard about the tax base. The tax base of property increases in value when there are improvements put on that property. Half of this property is unimproved, it’s vacant, and I would submit to you if this rezoning is not approved it will remain vacant, unproductive. All the discussion I’ve heard up here this evening, I didn’t hear anybody come forward and say: “there’s a proposal from XYZ to buy that land and put single family homes there. Whether we like it or not if we want the private sector to work, the private market to work, you got to let it work. And these vacant sites are not conducive to single family residential. Why do I say that? Because they are still sitting there vacant, and if they were prime single family residential lots they would have been purchased long ago for that purpose. We also offered to remove 210 Washington
from our petition, no response to that. We are still willing to sit down with these folks, not withstanding what the vote is here this evening. Also understand that we have to go before the Redevelopment Commission to take any additional input on the final look of 210 Washington to the existing structure. But if you look at those renderings done by Pete McCullough. This is not…this is not some type of aluminum siding throw it up quick proposed project. It’s very ambitious. It’s very unique. And if it is successful it will be the catalyst for other types of private developments down here. Private developments that will happen with private money they won’t need Federal money or State money, or local money. It will drive a market spontaneity that will cost this community nothing, and will not impact the homes that have been conver…. structures that have been converted to single family homes, because they are already in a mixed use area. You heard this evening about the American dream. Is to be able to own property free and clear of Government intervention except that which is absolutely necessary for the protection of the public at will. You…when you consider rezoning requests, pursuant to statute, what you are asked to do is to consider four very basic criteria. The comprehensive plan, we’ve already shown this meets the comprehensive plan, and it meets the Redevelopment Commissions more specific plan. And let me also add to this, you know why the Redevelopment Commission, if you look at that memorandum that was sent around, you know why they originally….the original plan was to make this all R-2 and then they changed and said: “you know as long as apartments will work as long as the density is kept under control”, which this meets that requirement. You know why they did that? Because nothing was happening to the satisfaction of the Commission, and they did that to encourage developers and private investment just like Steve Collins is wanting to make. The second criteria you are to look at when you consider rezoning requests current conditions, and the curator of currant structures, and uses in each district. This request pays deference to the existing uses, it incorporates the Victorian design compatible to the existing structures and it’s consistent with the mixed uses in this particular area. Three, the most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted. The market has shown that this…these vacant lots are not adaptable to single family residential, in fact this whole area doesn’t even have a single-family residential classification, which was long ago recognized back in 1956. And fifth, responsible develop…..fourth, responsible development in growth. The American dream, there’s been nothing shown here this evening that Steve Collins can’t realize his American dream of taking the real estate that he saved money for, purchased on contract and now wants to develop into a quality, unique housing project in downtown Evansville. There’s nothing that says his American dream can’t be set within the same proximity of the American dream of those who choose to use their property for single-family residential purposes. I’ll wait until the National Anthem stops here . Thank you Mr. Marynell. I realize that these are tough decisions and these folks have come to you this evening with their concerns. But approving this rezoning based upon the evidence before you, that is the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the vote of the Plan Commission, the memorandum of the Redevelopment Commission and knowing that the final plans for the structures there will have to be scrutinized by that agency. Voting to approve this rezoning request will not detrimentally impact these land owners one iota. But it will, if you approve it, it will send a signal. It will send a signal that this Council looks at the big picture, not just Steve Collins, not just the folks that are here this evening, but all of Evansville and makes these decisions on what is good for Evansville. What is good for encouraging investment in the core of the City of Evansville, and that message will get out. A vote no here this evening though sends another message. And sends a message that those lots will remain vacant. The legal non-conforming uses will remain as they are. And there’s a lot of talk this evening about planning; there is a plan in place. The South Governor Plan and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Evansville, and every citizen has an opportunity to participate in that plan. It comes before you annually for review and this proposal needs that plan and then some. It’s a good project and we respectfully ask for your favorable action this evening. Thank you.
President Robinson: Mr. Shively I don’t know if this question should be directed to you or to Mr. Collins. Have you looked at the feasibility of building a duplex on…duplexes on that property or single-family units?
Les Shively: It might be that my client has, yes ma’am. Mr. Collins I don’t know if you specifically addressed that, but he’s indicated to me that he has looked at the feasibility. You want to address that?
Stephen Collins: For as investment is concerned it is more economical to have apartments there then a single-family home or a duplex.
Les Shively: Let me also add to this too. As indicated before there is no tax abatement, there’s no Federal money, there’s no Government program underpinning what Mr. Collins does and again we think it’s been a positive experience, but originally our hope and his financing plans were all based upon this all being done in October. We filed this back in August. The reason it’s taken us to this point in time is because we wanted to work with the neighbors. In fact even though there is a 11 to 1 vote the Plan Commission on December 4th, I stayed out here and met with some of the residents and met with Mr. Fehn and another gentleman, who owns a home close by. And I asked them specifically, get something to me in writing by the 9th to tell me about what your specific concerns are because we still want to work with you. Never heard from them and I hear again new information here this evening. We have endeavored at great expense and delay and actually putting in jeopardy Mr. Collins’ financing plans. Please carefully consider this under that criteria which I just set fourth a moment ago and do the right thing for all of Evansville.
President Robinson: Councilman Kiefer.
Councilman Kiefer: Thank you Madam President. Councilor can you tell me what’s his total investment, I mean is that information, can he share that…I mean like how much are these…what’s this going to cost…what’s the value of this property I guess? Of this construction after it’s developed.
Les Shively: Assuming that we get to the land use phase we would then work with Mr. McCullough to help get bids and such, but the overall project would be in excess of a million dollars Mr. Collins tells me.
Councilman Kiefer: Okay.
Les Shively: That includes completing the work to the existing structures and establishing the new structures.
Councilman Kiefer: Okay, thank you.
President Robinson: Councilman Angermeier.
Councilman Angermeier: Councilor, being a member of the Area Plan Commission for three years now and by the wishes of the care I’ll be there next year. You did a super job you paint the picture very well, you tell the story very well. I complement you and I think I told you that from time to time.
Les Shively: I appreciate that sir. Thank you.
Councilman Angermeier: I’m compelled to answer to the dictates of the people who are in council with the President of the Council said why can’t you build single-family or duplexes serve the same purpose except one thing. Out of courtesy and respect for the neighbors who have invested very heavily who have provided the environment for you to locate that particular corner would that not be a detriment to their property and devalue their property? I think that that corner is a very valuable corner and having been there many times over, many times over and about the four years that I went to 111 Washington. And that was built….that one time and I head it over the weekend that was probably one of the finest apartment buildings in the whole county. It was built very expensively and it is today except Federal money came in and they bought it and they’ve rehabbed it. But that’s not an encroachment upon these people that have spent all the time and money to do the improvements that they have had. And now most importantly it is the American dream to come to the City Council and ask that Members of the Council to respect their rights of ownership and ask for their vote accordingly just the same as you represent the petitioner. And I applaud these people who come down here and I apologize that I was not at the Area Plan Commission meeting the night that this took place I would have said the same thing that I would have been opposed to it as much as the other guy was. And again thank God I’m on the Council because this is the place that they will be heard and be respected and I respect you Counsel.
Les Shively: Thank you. I suspect there’s a question there someplace if I could respond to that Mr. Angermeier and I do respect your service to this community in so many ways that you’ve served Evansville, And you’ve taught me a lot over the years, we’ve had some nice discussions, but if I could respectfully disagree with you and maybe my response we will find more agreement than disagreement. And that is this; the fact of the matter is, this landowner is a landowner just like any other landowner in this room. And all….when a person petitions for change in zoning classification they have to show that they have met the criteria and most importantly in conformity with the comprehensive plan. In this particular case this landowner also has to show that he’s in conformity to what those people, the agency Department of Metropolitan Redevelopment…Redevelopment Commission have envisioned for South Governor Redevelopment Area. But the South Governor Redevelopment Area criteria says, and what they’ve realized, is to develop this and get in place the housing through private sector incentives they changed their building guidelines to say apartments are acceptable providing they meet the density requirement. That is no more than twenty units per acre, this meets that criteria. And what they have in fact determined is that you can have low-density multi-family and will not detrimentally impact the other uses in the area, which includes single-family. And so he’s met that criteria and there is nothing that has been shown here this evening and I don’t take anything away from these folks. There’s been a lot of emotion, a lot statements made, but the only information that’s presented that shows that according to the analysis by the experts that are charged with guiding this community and land use. This is a good plan and by definition it’s not going to detrimentally impact these folks especially with use and development commitment. And especially in view of the fact unlike any other rezoning request. If this is proved here this
evening it doesn’t stop here. The Redevelopment Commission will pick this apart especially with the design of not just the two new buildings but the existing buildings as they stand. And so I think that’s good and I think the concerns that you raised Mr. Angermeier can and will be addressed and have already been addressed, but I certainly respect your input sir.
President Robinson: Mr. Shively we always ask the people that stand in the audience that are for this project. Thank you. The people that are against this rezoning. Okay thank you. So what we’ve heard tonight is that we take representatives from Culver Neighborhood Association, Goosetown Association, and Wheeler Neighborhood and is it fair to say that those three neighborhoods are against this rezoning? Are there any other questions of Mr. Shively? Any Council Members have any questions? Can I have a motion to adopt Ordinance R-2002-29 and call the roll?
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Kniese seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance R-2002-29 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Koehler Walden, Kiefer.
Nays: Melcher: I voted against the shelter in this area because I believe that that was the proper thing to do at the time and I vote no tonight.
Watts, Angermeier, Robinson.
Absent: Bagbey, John.
There being three (3) ayes and four (4) nays, Ordinance R-2002-29 is hereby declared NO ACTION TAKEN. HELD UNTIL NEXT REZONING JANUARY 27TH MEETING.
President Robinson: And Council you might want to explain to them what that means.
John Hamilton: It takes five votes either to adopt it or to defeat it. No action the Council has ninety days in which to take action. If it does not take any action then the vote at Area Plan becomes passage since they approved it by majority there. So it can come back on third reading for another vote or if there is no action it’s going to be enacted by reason of the Area Plan vote.
President Robinson: And then what?
John Hamilton: You have ninety days from Area Plan action in which to take action.
President Robinson: Does it have to be brought up by a Councilman?
John Hamilton: Mr. Shively do you want to comment?
Les Shively: Mr. Hamilton as always you are correct. I have a question though. I guess I’ll direct this to Madam President. When does this come back?
President Robinson: You have ninety days to petition for a….
John Hamilton: No he doesn’t petition. You can decide right now to bring it back on the agenda. any Council Member can do it.
Les Shively: You want to do it the next rezoning Council meeting in January? Is that…
John Hamilton: We’ve got plenty of time under the ninety days don’t we?
Les Shively: Right. Sure. It would be ninety days from December 4th. Keep plenty of time.
President Robinson: So we’ll have it the third week of January.
Les Shively: Let me say this for the record for Members of Council and those here this evening. Between now and then my telephone number is 867-1351 so there’s no mistake about it. Anyone in that area that would like to call us we’ll be in touch with you as well. Thank you.
John Hamilton: I wonder if I can get the dates so that…..
President Robinson: And then at that time also Mr. Shively should be operating with a full Council with nine Members. January 20th. Okay the 27th, January 27th.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE G-2002-19 FINANCE JOHN
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE CURRENT REFUNDING BY THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE OF ITS SEWAGE WORKS REVENUE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1993; THE ADVANCE REFUNDING OF ITS SEWAGE WORKS REVENUE BONDS OF 1997, SERIES B; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS SEWAGE WORKS REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS OF 2003, SERIES A FOR SUCH PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION, SEGREGATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE REVENUES OF THE SEWAGE WORKS AND THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTERESTS OF OWNERS OF THE SEWAGE WORKS REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS OF 2003, SERIES A; OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH; AND REPEALING ORDINANCES INCONSISTENT HEREWITH
RESOLUTION C-2002-41 FINANCE (JOHN) KNIESE
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, INDIANA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF LEASE AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION C-2002-42 FINANCE JOHN
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, APPROVING SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR BERRY PLASTICS CORPORATION LOCATED AT 101 OAKLEY STREET
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN MELCHER: Yes Madam President the Finance Committee met earlier this evening on Ordinance G-2002-19 and amended it. Resolution C-2002-41 and C-2002-42 and they come this evening as a do-pass recommendation. And with that I’ll move to ascend this Ordinance and Resolutions to third and final reading.
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Kniese seconded the motion to adopt the Committee Reports and move these Ordinances and Resolutions to Third Reading. Voice vote. So ordered.
There being no further motions, these Ordinances and Resolutions are hereby moved to Third Reading.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS (AS AMEMDED)
ORDINANCE G-2002-19 (as amended) FINANCE JOHN
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE CURRENT REFUNDING BY THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE OF ITS SEWAGE WORKS REVENUE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1993; THE ADVANCE REFUNDING OF ITS SEWAGE WORKS REVENUE BONDS OF 1997, SERIES B; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS SEWAGE WORKS REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS OF 2003, SERIES A FOR SUCH PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION, SEGREGATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE REVENUES OF THE SEWAGE WORKS AND THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTERESTS OF OWNERS OF THE SEWAGE WORKS REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS OF 2003, SERIES A; OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH; AND REPEALING ORDINANCES INCONSISTENT HEREWITH
Councilman Kniese moved and Councilman Watts seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance G-2002-19 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, Robinson
Absent: Bagbey, John.
There being seven (7) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance G-2002-19 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION C-2002-41 FINANCE (JOHN) KNIESE
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, INDIANA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF LEASE AGREEMENT
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilwoman Walden seconded the motion to adopt
Resolution C-2002-41 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, Robinson
Absent: Bagbey, John.
There being seven (7) ayes and zero (0) nays, Resolution C-2002-41 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION C-2002-42 FINANCE JOHN
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, APPROVING SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR BERRY PLASTICS CORPORATION LOCATED AT 101 OAKLEY STREET
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Kniese seconded the motion to adopt
Resolution C-2002-42 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, Robinson
Absent: Bagbey, John.
There being seven (7) ayes and zero (0) nays, Resolution C-2002-42 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
RESOLUTION C-2002-36 FINANCE JOHN
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE CONFIRMING THE DECLARATION OF AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PROPERTY TAX PHASE-IN FOR REDEVELOPMENT OR REHABILITATION OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES (HABITAT OF EVANSVILLE)
Councilman Kiefer moved and Councilman Watts seconded the motion to adopt
Resolution C-2002-36 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, Robinson
Absent: Bagbey, John.
There being seven (7) ayes and zero (0) nays, Resolution C-2002-36 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
RESOLUTION DOCKET
RESOLUTION C-2002-43 DOCKET (MELCHER) COUNCIL AS A WHOLE
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY FOR CITY PARKS
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Kiefer seconded the motion to adopt
Resolution C-2002-43 we can have a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Voice vote. So ordered.
There being seven (7) ayes and zero (0) nays, Resolution C-2002-43 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
President Robinson: There will not be a City Council meeting on December 23rd or December 30th. The next City Council meeting will be Monday, January 6th, 2003. At that time we will elect new officers. Do any Committee Chairmen have any Ordinance or Resolutions from 2002 that need to be carried over to 2003? I think you are okay Councilman Angermeier.
Councilman Angermeier: I’m fine.
President Robinson: Okay thank you. Rezoning Ordinance R-2003-1, R-2003-2, and R-2002-3 were on First Reading and 2003-2 will be on the Second and Third Reading, and 2003-3 and then our zoning Ordinance tonight from 2002-29 will be carried over until January. Ordinance G-2003-1, 2003-2, 2003-3 and 2003-4 were heard on First Reading in 2002, and going to be heard on second and Third Reading in 2003. They are all in Councilman Bagbey’s Public Works Committee and he should be able to be back by that time. Councilman Melcher. Executive summary.
Councilman Melcher: Well, I’ll just make this pretty quick then. After reading the paper and finding out that there was a $74,800 worth of money that…it says that the City could get to go back into the General Fund, I’ve had the Attorney try to figure out what that law is and many conversation, many faxes back and forth it..my understanding is not exactly that way. It’s….of the $600,000 that the City has asked for $74,800 or something like that figure they have to try to ask for. And if they don’t get it I guess it doesn’t come back out. But then I guess the other thing is that I thought that we could get the money back into the General Fund, but according to the Attorney we can’t get that money back into the General Fund it’s just money that won’t be collected. So we…I still don’t understand how this is all working so I’ve asked the Attorney to send a letter to the Department of Finance in Indianapolis. Because my understanding is they have to reply be a certain time back to the Redevelopment Commission and you know our odds of getting information out of the Redevelopment Commission is zero. So..
President Robinson: Well, now we have a new Director coming on.
Councilman Melcher: Haven’t got em yet. Anyway so what I’ve said was hopefully we would get notified at the same time. Mr. Hamilton you might want to jump on what I’ve just said.
John Hamilton: Yeah, there’s been a couple of new statutes enacted. The first one was a tax restructuring and the practical effect of that is that because of some different school tax restructuring the TIF area that Redevelopment is allocated will collect less money by the same tax rate. And I think under their calculations they will collect $74,000 and some odd dollars less. To make up for that the Legislature passed a second statute that’s called a Recapture Statute where the Redevelopment Commission can apply to the Department of Local Government Finance, the State Tax Office, and asked to recapture that amount that they would have captured had not this Restructuring Statute been passed. They do that by filling out a work sheet and submitting it by the end of the year. And the way it’s structured then the State Department sends a certification and they say whether they agree with that figure or not. And basically if it’s passed then it allows the Redevelopment Commission through TIF to collect that extra 74,000 that they otherwise are going to be shorted from the Tax Restructuring Act. The City Council’s involvement is that after that first stage is completed the part one and Redevelopment receives
notification of that City Council has a very limited time in which if it wanted to it has an opportunity to either reduce or determine that that 74,000 is not needed.
President Robinson: So can we do something with the 74,000 if we…or does it just revert back to the Redevelopment….
John Hamilton: It’s either collected or it’s not (INAUDIBLE) either in TIF or its not. In other words you are saying that you agree that they need to collect that extra 74,000. It’s not extra it’s to make up for what they are losing through the tax restructuring. Or else if you say that they don’t need it it doesn’t go anywhere else it’s just not collected.
President Robinson: Has anybody read the…do we know how that would effect any projects in that area, that 74,000?
Councilman Melcher: No, I just felt like that we need to find out what that was. We need to stay on top of it so when that decision has to made earlier we have enough notice.
John Hamilton: It’s triggered by the notice to the Redevelopment Commission after they do part I, so…
Councilman Melcher: By that time maybe the Redevelopment Commission needs to come to us ASAP and tell us yes they need it, or no they don’t need it, or maybe by that time we’ll find out by that time if we can get it..
John Hamilton: I’m going to get a second opinion because Herb is shaking his head no out there.
Councilman Melcher: Well, I just wanted us to be on record that there’s money out there that could be had.
President Robinson: Do you have any input Mr. Herb? Is there anything else under Miscellaneous Business? Committee Reports.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
President Robinson: Nothing scheduled for Finance.
PUBLIC WORKS CHAIRMAN: Ordinance G-2003-2 January 6th at 5:35. Ordinance G-2003-3 January 6th at 5:45. Ordinance G-2003-1 January 6th at 6:15. Ordinance G-2003-4 January 6th at 6:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Kniese seconded the motion to adjourn. Voice Vote. So Ordered. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
PRESIDING OFFICER
CITY CLERK