Recently, Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard announced a list of infrastructure projects he would like to see complete and one that seems to be getting the most media attention is a potential roundabout interchange at 96th Street and Keystone Avenue.
It’s an idea that’s been discussed for years — since before the last election — and both sides are accusing the other of “playing politics” when it comes to finding a solution for this intersection. Who are the two sides? One side is Brainard and the members of Carmel City Council that generally back his ideas. The other side is made up of councilors who often oppose Brainard’s plans because they question his spending habits and the level of debt Carmel has accumulated, often led by Carmel City Council President Rick Sharp who is also running for mayor against Brainard.
First off, both sides agree that there’s a problem that needs to be fixed: you can end up waiting a long time at this intersection during several times in the day, leading to delays and sometimes backups. There’s no debate about that really. Everyone agrees that there could be a better solution on how to effectively have traffic flow through this area. Although to be fair, Sharp said that there’s always going to be some traffic congestion in that area and that many of the business struggles along Keystone have had nothing to do with traffic flow.
But what they don’t agree on is how to pay for this project and the urgency.
Why hasn’t this problem been solved sooner?
Both sides tell a different story there. Sharp strongly disagrees with the idea that a lack of support from the Carmel City Council led this project to be placed on the backburner. He said the council supports the project but wasn’t going to pay for it through the city’s annual street department budget or through bonding it out. Sharp said those options weren’t even seriously suggested and that the real reason the project was put on a shelf is because a Tiger Grant fell through and that it was downgraded on the list of the state’s priority road projects. This is backed up by a 2012 Indianapolis Star article which states that, “Metropolitan planners have decided to drop it from a list of fast-track projects, after city and state negotiations failed to produce a financial commitment to fund the $37.6 million project.”
Brainard suggested that the roundabout interchange could have been accomplished sooner if there was a council who was open to the idea. He said some people opposed the project not based on cost but because there was public concern over how construction might affect local businesses, which is an argument he disagrees with because if you follow that logic then no projects would ever get built because of fears of construction. Furthermore, he said the option to do nothing and maintain the traffic backups is actually more harmful to local businesses in the long run because people will start to avoid the area or make no attempt to turn off of the road to stop at a convenience store if they are already running late due to a long stop at the intersection. He advocates for easily flowing traffic because it brings more people in and out of an area in a timely manner which means more customers and happier customers. He said the lack of funding isn’t a fair argument because the project can be done in pieces and if you really want to get a project done then you can find a way to fund it, but some city councilors appear to have been fighting him on this project just to be contrary to gain political points.
Sharp disagrees with that assessment saying he feels his colleagues on the council are just as dedicated to finding a solution but that he feels there’s a responsibility to the taxpayers to minimize risk and be responsible with a spending plan.
Why is this being brought up now?
Sharp and Seidensticker said Brainard is only mentioning this long dormant project now as an election ploy. Of course, everyone would like the roads to be instantly fixed so candidates will make promises that they can fix everything even if they don’t have a plan to pay for the promises. (Something like a class president promising Coca-Cola in the water fountain right before the election.) And his opponents can’t come out and say they don’t want the projects because then they are painted as against progress, even if that’s not the case.
Brainard contends that he doesn’t let elections dicate his policy and that it’s time to move the attention to these projects. He has said though that he thinks elections can actually make it easier to accomplish projects and achieve change because all of the members of the City Council are responsive to the needs of the electorate and are “on their best behavior” when it comes to fighting about petty issues. He said the election has nothing to do with him proposing these projects but he does feel the election might be part of the reason why some people are being so negative about paying for the project. He said he doesn’t understand why people want to constantly say Carmel has a debt problem because he doesn’t believe that to be factually true and it damages the city’s reputation and people’s perception of Carmel when you say that.
Why don’t we have an exact figure on how much this costs?
Brainard said he’s reluctant to name exact figures for the cost of the Keystone project because of past experiences. He doesn’t want to get caught saying an estimate and then find out it would cost more because then he would be accused of not being truthful with the public.
That’s exactly what happened back in 2008. Brainard was quoted in media outlets that a Keystone renovation called Project CarmelLink could be paid for with the $90 million Carmel received from Indiana’s $3.8 billion Indiana Toll Road lease. The total expense was quoted at $112 million early on. Later, Brainard predicted costs from $130 million to $142 million, using other funding sources to pay for it.
Brainard said that story got twisted by the media. He said his first number was only an “early estimate” and that reporters somewhat misquoted him. He also said there were some cost increases due to rapidly rising gas prices, but that was out of his control.
“The council got upset, but there’s nothing we could do about it,” he said. “We made some changes and in the long run we actually came in under budget.”
Sharp remembers the situation differently, saying it was poor planning.
“You need to thoroughly understand the project costs before you start a project,” he said.
