Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2000COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA OCTOBER 10, 2000 The Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville met in special session in the Mayor's Conference Room in the City County Building, Jeffersonville, Indiana at 6:00 P.M. on the 10th day of October 2000. Councilperson Les Merkley, who was chairing the meeting due to the absence of Mayor Galligan, with Clerk Treasurer Peggy Wilder and Chief Deputy Suzy Bass at the desk, called the meeting to order. The roll was called and those present were Councilpersons Barbara Wilson, Denny Frantz, Vicki Conlin, and Rob Waiz. Absent: Councilperson Ron Ellis, and Ron Grooms. Also present was City Attorney Anne Marie Galligan and City Council Attorney Shon Leverett. Councilperson Merkley welcome all present and stated that this was a public hearing on the annexation of Area 7. Attorney Gordon Ingle, representing residents affected by the annexation, spoke in opposition of the annexation. City Attorney Galligan explained the area affected by the annexation. She said the annexation ordinance has already passed on the first reading. Councilperson Merkley recognized those who signed in to speak. Laverne Williams, 3719 Charlestown Pike, asked if farm ground would be subject to taxation at the City's tax rate. Attorney Galligan said yes. Alma Henley, 3607 Lindy Trail, asked if there would be a light put up at the intersection of Holmans Lane and Charlestown Pike if the annexation goes through. John Toombs, Jacobi, Toombs, and Lanz, told her that the work is already under construction and a light will be installed at this intersection. Bobby Hobbs, 3608 Lindy Trail, said that the paper he signed five years ago has nothing to do with the annexation. He worries about the people on retirement that can't afford higher taxes. He wants no part of the City. He feels the City is greedy and just wants to get as big as it can. William Cundiff, 3434 Charlestown Pike, spoke against annexation saying that he likes the way things are and can afford his own garbage pick-up. Steve Mason, 3703 Alvin Dr, joined in and asked why the City doesn't annex Evergreen Circle. Attorney Galligan said that the City took a long time deciding which area needed to be annexed. Sue Markam, 3607 Nicholas Trail, wants to be on record as opposing annexation. She believes what they pay for now is nothing compared to what they will pay in new taxes. Michael and Judy Hay, 3402 Charlestown Pike, can't see how annexation will help. There are a lot of elderly people who can't afford the taxes and they are completely opposed to annexation. Diana Purcell, 2928 Sellers Ct, has been a resident for 26 yrs and she has no problem with the police and fire protection that she now has. She asked how this annexation would benefit the residents. Attorney Galligan said that they would receive more police protection, full-time fire protection, which could lower their insurance premium, free garbage pick-up, and city sewers. Steve Mason claimed that taxes will go up $600.00 and he will only receive $300.00 worth of services. He wonders if the City is leaving out Evergreen Circle because that is where Roger Schmidt lives. Attorney Galligan said that the annexation area has nothing to do with where anyone lives and that Evergreen may be annexed at a later date. Mason said that he doesn't want to be annexed. Attorney Galligan feels the increase will be minimal. Mason asked what is the benefit of annexing the ammunition plant. Attorney Galligan said that the City is hoping to build up industry to this area, which eventually will help to keep the City tax rate down. Bobby Hobbs believes business in the Maritime Center get a free ride while homeowners pay the bill. Attorney Galligan said that while it is true that companies get tax abatement, as it wears off, the City will start to map the benefits. This is now starting to happen. Jan Combs, 2821 Sellers Ct, said that her family has lived at this resident for 50 years and she likes things the way they are. David Elm, 3612 Nickolas Trail, said that others have already expressed his opinion. Delbert Baker, 4118 Charlestown Pike, said that his house is on a gravel lane with five other homes on a ten-acre tract and he has just spent $6,700.00 on a septic system. Is he going to have to tear is out in a few years? He wants to go on record as being opposed to annexation. Mr. Wanger wants a guarantee that taxes will come down if business comes to the area. He also does not want to be on City sewers. Attorney Galligan said that if people have new or good septic tanks, exceptions could be made to leave these individuals on septic. Mr. Wanger wants the City to pay tap in with the new taxes collected. He also wonders about gas lines and city water. Attorney Galligan said that the City does not have their own gas and water but the service will be offered to all newly annexed residents. Attorney Ingle asked if there is a requirement that taxes assessed in newly annexed reuse area, have to be spent in that area? Glenn Murphy, Utica Town Board President, said that he is in favor of the annexation. He feels that it will be a protective situation for Utica. All the residents are in support of the annexation. As far of the septic tank situation, the study in Indiana shows that 50% of the septic tanks are not currently working. He feels that running sewers is actually a positive for residents. Attorney Ingle reiterated his position in opposition to the annexation proposal. There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilperson Waiz made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 PM., seconded Councilperson Frantz and carried unanimously. ATTEST: CLERK ~RE~URER PEGGY WILDER We, the undersigned, do wish to express our concerns to Mayor Galligan-Mayor of Jeffersonville, City Attorney-Anne Marie Galligan, Street Commissioner-Marvin Grant, City Engineer-Bob Miller, City Council Members-Les Merkley, Rob Waiz, Barbara Wilson, Dennis Frantz, Ron Grooms, Ron Ellis, and Vicki Conlin regarding the Perrin Lane project. We feel the Perr/n Lane project has been ii~itiated without the proper notification of the citizens involved. We had no prior knowledge of the plans for cutting the trees and widening the road. On Friday, September 8th, red tape was tied around the trees. 'This was our first notification that something was going to happen, and the first tree was cut on the following Monday, September 1 lth. An additional tree was cut each day of that week. We feel we should have been given the opportunity, in a public forum or survey, to express our desires concerning the Lane onwhich we live and have invested our money. In addition, we are concerned about the lack of final plans being ch'awn up for this project. It is our understanding this has not been done. How will individual homeowners be effected? Will fi-onts of yards be taken? Will additional trees be removed? Will properties be damaged in proximity to the new road? Will right of way need to be purchased from the homeowners? If the majority of the homeowners feel that these improvements are not needed, will that be taken into consideration? Will t~he plans include landscaping to make our lane tree-laden as it was previously? We feel that we should be included in the planning process. We feel the final plans should be in place now mad residents should be aware of and have access to them. Furthermore, we did not wish that the trees be cut or the road widened. We recognize that the Lane certainly needed to be paved and any dead trees removed, but the charm of Perrin Lane was found in the majesty of those beautiful old oak trees. We live on the Lane because of its' uniqueness. Our final concern regards the time line and lack of a formal plan. Since the Mayor stated it was his proposal that the trees be cut, power lines moved, drainage addressed, Lane paved, sidewalk, curbs, and lights added, and new trees planted, we strongly urge that a complete engineering plan be developed immediately and put into ~xiting. The Mayor further stated this would be a two to three year project. Our concern is that some other pressing issue would take precedence over the project on Perrin Lane. Would this project continue if something were to happen to the Mayor, since he is making the decisions? It is only good business sense that this entire project be finalized on paper. All of the trees have now been eliminated. Will the work stop with only the tree removal? When can the residents expect Perrin Lane to be returned to its natural beauty? In closing, we are requesting that our issues be addressed in a proper time frame and information returned to the residents on Perrin Lane. We are deeply concerned that the City would come into our neighborhood and destroy one-hundred-fifty to two-hundred year old trees without regard to how we might feel about it. What you have done can never be replaced. In our opinion, it seems you have no respect for us and any ideas we may have for the place in which we live. We say these things with respect for you, our leaders, and hope that this will never happen again, and in some way, you can help us rectif,v this situation.