Common Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening everyone. Welcome to a special called session for the city of Charlestown common council. Today is September 22nd, 2025. It is 6:30 p.m. This meeting is being live streamed by Under Production Multimedia. We'll begin with the pledge of allegiance of everyone. Please join to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Have our roll call. Bill Bertram here. Ronnie Gleven here. Shannon Elder here. Brian Hester, Jeff Deon

here. The record show mayor Hodgees and clerk treasurer Donna Kumer are also present as well as both attorneys, city attorney Perry McCall and council attorney Michael Wilder. We have an agenda that's been provided. Entertain a motion to approve. I make a motion. Ryan Leven makes the motion. Second. Second by Shannon Elder. Any edits or questions? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Do we have anyone sign up for general public comments? It's not related to the public hearing. Just general public comment or public hearing? Uh public hearing. Okay. Um I have no special comments. Does the council have any comments? Uh, I want to congratulate our football team. I know this is a special meeting, but yeah,

if you wasn't at last Friday's game, then you're you're missing out. Uh, I know Mr. Hester signed back on the field and there's a lot of people on the field and they played extremely hard. So, yep, great win. A lot of good things coming out of the football team, new coach. So, I just want I just want to congratulate them. It was a big win. That was one of the things we tried to celebrate in the drone show for Community Days this weekend was by putting the pirate logo and that was our own band playing the fight song uh during that that part of the show. So that was kind of a special addition that they added for us and we really like that. So last thing I had you all done a great job as far as city city workers, officials, everybody putting in their part with the community days look really good and I want to thank those gentlemen out there for being such a big sponsor for us.

Yes, it's great. Um all right, anything else from council? So, I will officially open the public hearing for the annexation of the Walnut Creek subdivision. Um, it's been properly advertised. We confirmed that this morning with our building commissioner, Tommy Jackson, um, with the newspaper uh, publication that was that was out in those. So, at this time, if anyone has any comment to make about the annexation of the Walnut Creek subdivision, you can come forward, state your name and address, and make your comment. I think that's me. I think that's you, Mr. Reed.

Like I was the only one on the list. Uh David Reed, 8609 Red Bud Drive, Charles Charletown, Indiana. I live in Lake View subdivision. As uh you guys evaluate this annexation and uh its implications and complications that it's going to provide for the city, I just wanted to highlight a couple of things on my mind. as we get forced to accept things from the county. Namely, they're the ones that allow for the development and the changes that are going on in out in the county, which transmits it's uh to the cities that are adjacent to it. So, all that being said, what I'm concerned about is the safety of the people in the city of Charles Town. As you annex more and more properties and more and more developments, what considerations are we or you are the city for safety? Namely, this one development we're talking about tonight is going to generate uh substantially more uh vehicles on State Road 160 with its intersection with 403. And I've kind of mentioned this at the county as well as with the city. And uh when I talk about it at the city, they say we can't do anything because it's county roads. Well, the county's in they're basically forcing this into the city. If we accept it, we are accepting all the complications it develops. So only thing I and I'm, you know, I've talked about this and it's kind of a dead issue. It's going to get accepted, but we need to really consider not only this, you know, acceptance of this, but

other developments. What are we going to do for safety of our our people? And the 160 is bad enough as it is now. And when that development gets done, there's going to be a a portion of probably 300 additional cars going somewhere. And most of them, a good portion of them are going to come down 160. And if everybody's trying to go to work at the same time, that's going to be a major problem. So that's one. The other is when it comes out the other group of people that come through my subdivision end up on 403 out of Lake View. That's a consideration too. I've heard certain things that may be in the works for that reduction in speed on 403 left hand leftand turns. But those are things that we need to in we need to somehow I don't know how you guys do it. We need to get the county rope and tied somehow to as they make these developments. Hey, help us out. I mean, 160 intersection 403, a red light that coordinates with the other red lights would be ideal. That's just a suggestion. So, thank you for listening. I hope we end up in a safe environment out of this.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Are there other commenters during the public comment period? I mean the public hearing period.

Greg Viper here. Perhap the applicant Scott's here tonight. He can answer any technical details, but I would say a couple things about annexation. Generally, uh I'd be surprised if there's any other potential subdivision projects that the county has has approved that would then be annexed into the town. Um for a couple reasons. One, uh this was planned years ago. Um it was uh done under county standards, which are different than city standards. Not by a lot, but there's some changes over it. So developer preference is to not have to make changes and incur a lot of additional cost to do that. Um secondly, oh I'm going to say in the last 10 years, the Indiana legislature has all but killed involuntary annexations. They made it to the point that if if 51% of the residents in the in the area to be annexed sign a petition, it's over with. It can't be annexed. So it's it's they're they're virtually not not not around anymore. So So what you're left with is voluntary annexations like the one you have tonight. And um from a municipal policy standpoint, uh since you can't do involuntary annexations, you can't change your boundaries, you can't grow in that manner. Um it is one of the tools you have is to say if you're contiguous to the municipality and you want our sewer service you have to come petition for this. So, for a lot of reasons, that's why Scott feels like it's the right thing to do if the city wants him. But if the city doesn't want to do this, um, basically, it is an approved development and it's going to

you're going to get the same number of houses, same traffic, same everything. It's just you're going to get your tax rate out of what gets built new and be able to control things more than you will in today's climate. So with that, again, Scott's here be glad to answer any technical questions. I'm glad to answer any other legal questions, but from my perspective, this seems to me to be a wise thing to do. Thank you, Mr. F. Thank you.

Are there any other petitioners who want to speak during the the public hearing portion? Final call. We'll officially close the public hearing on this issue. I will say a couple of things. Um, specifically since we just had one one resident who was very concerned about safety, I think it's important to address those things. Um, and to reiterate conversations I've had with Mr. Reid. Um, so that again he knows that we're serious about following up on these things. Um, as Mr. Fifer pointed out, the subdivision itself has already been approved by the county. So, the fact is that these homes are coming and it's already been approved. So, they're going to be driving on 160. you're going to be driving on 403. 116 and 403 are county roads and that is a challenge for us in all. One of the things that the city did through the redevelopment commission this past year or 23 I think it was um was they did a corridor study on 403 as kind of a gift to the county to say here is our recommendation from engineering from engineers um on how to make improvements on 403 from that corridor study. The takeaways were that the roundabout that is currently under construction at Stacy Road was a good idea because it slows traffic through there. They recommended an intersection improvement at Bethany, either a traffic light or a roundabout. And the county is moving forward with a traffic light in the spring and looking at a further study to consider a roundabout for I think 2030, 2031, so down the road. Um, no pun intended. Um, eventually we know that there are plans to bring Christian Parkway all the way across where we meet in at Danbury Oaks and this corridor. study recommended a roundabout at that location because the roundabouts keep traffic flowing but they calm the traffic. They slow it down. That corridor study also recommended a center turn lane starting at Popler which is right there at Lake

Behive going up through so that there would be a dedicated center turn lane. And it did recommend Mr. Reed that study did also recommend a traffic light at 160 to be properly timed with the light at Market Street and the light at Cardinal. Um, it's my great hope that we can continue to encourage the county to fund and budget for those improvements. They've been receiving money from the taxes on that road for a while, many years, and we hope that they will invest them back into that road for these things. I do have a letter drafted to them to recommend a reduction of speed. Um, it's been brought to everyone's attention pretty regularly that the speed on 403 is faster than the speed on Highway 62 at this point. And that seems a little off when you consider the density of the the residences there. So, we are recommending um I've had our street crew look into that and they've made a recommendation for a reduction of speed on 43 as well. So, we have that going to the county this week. And along with that recommendation, we are encouraging them to move forward, Mr. read on those turn lanes outside Lake View High View and pointing out the density of traffic that's beginning to use that area and the safety factors. We also have crash data that we're using to back up these requests. So, CHPD has provided us with that crash data to include from a factual standpoint. So, we are trying to be as proactive as possible to encourage them um to take those action and spend the money from that road on making those enhancements on that road. Um that's where we are on all of that. Um, considering that there's no questions on any of that, we'll move into new business items. All right, Mr. Jake is here if we have any questions on the annexation. Um, but the first ordinance before you is ordinance 2025 R15 for the actual annexation. You would be considering this tonight only on first reading. I will note that you have received a

timeline and there is one inaccuracy in this timeline. In this timeline, it references three readings. This is in our community, we do two readings on an ordinance. So where tonight it has listed on tonight's council meeting that it would be considered on first and second reading, that is inaccurate. It should be first reading only. You cannot legally, by the way, this is advertised make final adoption of this ordinance until the October 6th regular council meeting. So tonight, you would only be voting on this on first reading um and move forward with final reading. Close the public hearing. Thank you. I will officially close the public hearing. It is closed. That's why we paid you big pair.

Yeah.

Um so you're only ask asking to vote on that on first reading tonight. It will come back before you for final adoption at your October 6th regularly scheduled meeting. Also, at your October 6th regularly scheduled meeting, you will be considering the plan unit development that comes with a recommendation from the advisory plan commission that has met on this issue. So, it's two different things. It's actually three because tonight you're also being asked to vote on the resolution for the fiscal plan. So, let me explain that. If I mess it up, Mr. Ven, you can correct me. So, the annexation simply accepts the property into the city limits and makes that official and allows us to enforce and receive the tax revenue from that. The fiscal plan is an essential part of that because it talks about the impact on the other taxing units of us adopting this into the into our municipality um and sets those standards. It's actually a very low fiscal impact for any other taxing unit. Um and since Charleston has a volunteer fire department, it's already covering that area. There's no real impact. But what it does allow us to do is um make an appeal at some point. And so this is where I will explain why I as mayor am supportive of this annexation. The fact is the neighborhood's coming. It's already been approved by the county. So, it's not a question at this point of whether the houses are going to be built or whether the traffic's going to be driving. But since it is adjacent to and since it they are amenable to coming into the city limits, I think it does us a benefit for two reasons. One, they would be able to be on the city of Charletown sewer service. And what that does is it allows us to collect the capacity fees for every one of those houses, which helps us build and maintain the additional capacity we need in our system. It also helps spread our rates across a wider network of people, which ultimately helps us keep our sewer rate down because it helps us receive more revenue for our operations. So, it's a benefit to the sewer existing sewer customers in the city of Charleston. The other thing that I think

it does for us is with Senate Bill One and the impacts from Senate Bill One, we know that the next couple of years are going to be challenging years. The one thing that the Senate Bill one did not take away is our ability to make an appeal based off of annexations. Since this land currently is undeveloped, we will be able to make an appeal down the road to capture a little bit more revenue growth that we would not be able to capture otherwise. That has not been taken away from us. So, those are my justifications. We get more tax revenue. And to speak to Mr. Reed's concerns, it's my belief that if we're going to have the headache of the extra traffic and providing the services for the people, we should at least be receiving the revenue that goes along with it. So, for that reason, I do support this annexation. And with that, I would open the floor for make a motion to put on the table the ordinance 2025 on the one annexation.

Make a motion. I have a motion by Ronnie Leven. Is there a second? Second. Second by Shannon Elbert. Open for questions.

I listened to the meeting and I heard a lot of people talk and uh you're absolutely right. I've talked to a couple people out here, but it it's not a question of whether it's coming. It's just how much do we want to do? And I think if we do the annexation, I think we've move moved forward. We got an opportunity to play in with help out with the roads later. Uh not just the roads in that neighborhood that'll probably be good for 20 years or more. They're going to help the roads in Lake View and other places where they will be traveled. So I think that's just one thing we need to consider. Uh just going back to what Mr. Reed was talking about, but you know, we got to we got we just got to look at I mean traffic in that area. I know a lot of people going to get used to Charleston Memphis pretty quick. I think a lot of people will figure out that Sersburg is not the way to go to the interstate Memphis is probably closer. So hopefully the traffic kind of diverts a little bit that way, but um I think the plan for Lake View subdivision get ready for those city roads. I think that's going to be it's going to be a must with that much traffic coming in. So I understand it. I think there's a lot of good plans in place. Um and I did talk to you and I talked to Brian Glover as well. So there's a lot of things in place and it takes time but I think we're going to get there.

I think if we're going to do it then we might better do it with Christianity. They have always been good steers of the city and have helped the city and and they want nothing but the best for the city of Trust. So if we're going to do it no other discussion I'll call for the vote. All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? That's unanimous. So it's been approved unanimously on first reading. We will come back for second and final reading and adoption at your October 6th meeting. The second thing you're being asked to take action on tonight is resolution 2025 R11. This is the fiscal plan. Now, this is a resolution that only requires one vote. Um, so fiscal plan has been provided to you. It shows you the overall impact which is very minimal on the other taxing units um by adopting this and taking this into the city. And we need a motion to put that on the table. I'll make a motion. Motion by Chuck Eaton. Second, second by Ronnie Levens. Any questions on that one? Hearing none. I'll call for the vote. All in favor say I. I. Any

opposed? That's unanimous. So that one will not have to come back because it is approved on one vote as a resolution. And that concludes the annexation business. The other item I tacked on because it's something that we need to take um action on. I did not want to have to wait until your regular meeting. This is an interlocal agreement um with the uh joint purchase of aerial photography services for GIS mapping. GIS mapping is what our building commissioner uses um for permitting and our code enforcement uses it. Our sewer department uses it. We use it for MS4. It's it's just the overall mapping system. And previously Charles Town has not committed to paying for this. I don't know how we've had access to it, frankly. Um, and so they've reached out and they have asked us, the county has asked us to come online with this interlocal, but we would be paying a reduced rate compared to everyone else. We would be, Serberg pays a reduced rate, too. So, um, equivalent to Sellersburg, we would be paying $4,000 a year. This comes out of Tommy Jackson's fund that he gets permits from. So, it's self

generating. Um, he pays right out of the permit fee that he gets by using the the software. So, I just need your um I need a motion to put this GIS local on the table. Motion by Chuck Deon. Second. Second by Shannon Elder. Any questions on that one? All in favor say I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Okay, that is all the business we have to conduct tonight. Our next meeting is we're going to reschedu for October 6th. You'll have the annexation for its second and final reading and adoption. And you will have the plan unit development proposal that came with advisor advice on the plan. And you're just so eager to say it. You're literally leaning forward. I'm waiting. I just need a motion. I'll make a motion.

Wait, wait, wait. I just have one request. Mr. There's There's one more wrinkle.

Sorry, Chuck. There's one more wrinkle with respect to this process and that's that the annexation uh statutes require the annexation ordinance that you adopt to assign zoning to the property that's being annexed. Uh we went before the plan commission two weeks ago I think and received a favorable recommendation to you for um adopting a PUD zoning. basically take the county B2 and adopt it as the zoning. So, and that avoids the the design changes that would be necessary to meet your ordinance. Um, I don't care. We don't have to do that tonight. That's fine. But I would like to have the re the reasonzoning or the yeah the uh the reasonzoning the PUD ordinance on the agenda before the final reading of the annexation so that that is determined and you have a complete package.

Okay. We were going to bring it up next week. So when Lacy makes the agenda, if you can just have her put the PUB um listed before the annexation, we'll do it that way. I think that ordinance is a is a higher is a lower number. Yeah, I think it's 14 or Yeah, it's 14. It's or it's O4 anyway, so it'll be on the agenda before. All right. Okay, Chuck, I make a motion to journ. Thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Shannon Elder. All in favor say I. I. We return.