Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-03-2002PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2002 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m., Monday, June 3, 2002, in the Council Chambers in said City. President Bruce Wissel presided with the following Councilmembers present: Howard "Jack" Elstro, Etta J. Lundy, Karl Sharp, Bing Welch, Larry Parker, Phil Dickman, Paul Combs and Sarah "Sally" Hutton. The following business was conducted: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRAYER BY COUNCILMEMBER ELSTRO ROLL CALL Nine present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES After a correction was made by Councilmember Welch, changing the name of Dickman to Combs on Page 5, the minutes of the May 20, 2002 meeting were approved on his motion, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a voice vote. PRESENTATION OF REMONSTRANCES, PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, INTRODUCTIONS, MOTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR Reading from a prepared statement, Mayor Shelley Miller addressed the general issues which included reminding Councilmembers that in January 2001 the oversight panel defined a list of eligible employees which excluded supervisors and she granted representation to those eligible employees. She also pointed out that nearly 75 percent of the workforce in Richmond does not utilize binding arbitration. She said that for more than 30 years City residents serving on local boards and commissions have resolved employee - grievances for the police officers and firefighters and with that knowledge she said she could not enter into a long term contract with articles for which the costs could not be estimated by either side. Alluding to the City's finances, Mayor Miller said that in 1996 the City had to borrow $1.5 million, between funds, twice a year, to make payroll, literally to pay its employees; payment of employee medical claims were delinquent, health insurance costs were skyrocketing, there were no City paid wellness benefits or life insurance, no optical or dental coverage and no long-term disability as is the case today. She also noted that local vendors were paid at net 45 days and the City was more than two months behind in paying RP & L for its streetlight bill. She said in 1996 and 1997 the City could not afford to purchase a police cruiser, fire truck or new snow plow and only $40,000 was budgeted to repair curbs and sidewalks. She pointed out that steady progress has been made on behalf of the City employees and the community, adding that there are capital replacement plans in every department to ensure the safety of the workers and enable them to work more easily and more efficiently. She said the flexibility of contracting out has NOT cost the jobs of the workers but has enabled the implementation of aggressive programs to improve the City's infrastructure, the curbs and sidewalks and the streets and sewer system. She stated that saying no to what has been requested by the union does not mean that the City does not respect nor appreciate nor care about the City employees despite what has been said in a major advertising campaign carried out by the union in the past eight weeks. She named several areas where the taxpayer dollars will be used which include the Southwest 4t' Street sewer project, the aquifer monitoring wells and creating new jobs for the nearly 6 percent of the community who are currently unemployed and uninsured. In conclusion the Mayor said the City has already agreed to conditions and terms that provide for a more than fair and equitable contract for the union and agreeing to the added articles would make local government more costly and less efficient. She said the City does have a responsibility to provide for its employees but it is also accountable to the 39,000 citizens that the elected officials took an oath to serve. FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY President Wissel said the minutes of the meetings of May 9 and May 16, 2002 were in their packets. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES REPORTS FROM ORGANIZATIONS Common Council Minutes Cont'd June 3, 2002 Page 2 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinances No. 48, 49, 50 and 51- 2002 by title only, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. ORDINANCE NO. 48 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 48 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 31.52 OF RICHMOND CODE REGARDING THE POLICE MERIT COMMISSION Explaining the background on this ordinance, City Attorney Bob Bever said it came about as a result of an extensive review done by the Police Department, the Police Merit Commission and the Law Department. He said that currently in the local code which deals with the Merit Commission as well as state law the Commission was authorized to change certain rules and regulations over the years. He said they have done that but in the recent accreditation program with the Police Department that some of the changes in rules and regulations went to a change in code. He added that the Commission cannot on its own change code, but that is a province solely of the Common Council. He said that being the case, this ordinance reflects those changes which include reference to gender, removal of some definitions pertaining to offices which are no longer in the department, and hiring out independent testers. Speaking to this ordinance was also Major Barry Ritter of the Richmond Police Department who p ointed out what s ome o f the changes have b een within the department and answered questions asked by Councilmember Welch. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 48 — 2002 to second reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 48 — 2002 on second reading. There being no comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Lundy moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 48 — 2002 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Elstro and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 48 — 2002 on third reading. Ordinance No. 48 — 2002 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO. 49 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 49 — 2002 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Councilmember Sharp said this is an abatement request made by Richmond Brick & Block to purchase new block manufacturing equipment which Councilmember Elstro will look into and report at the next Council meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 50 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 50 — 2002 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Councilmember Sharp said this is an abatement request which is also made by Richmond Brick & Block for the building they want to add to and Councilmember Elstro will also look into it. ORDINANCE NO. 51— 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 51 — 2002 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Councilmember Sharp said this is an abatement request made by BMW Realty, LLC for a complete renovation of an existing building into a Laundromat, adding that President Wissel will look into it and bring it back to Council at the next meeting. Common Council Minutes Cont'd June 3, 2002 Page 3 ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND ENGROSSMENT ORDINANCE NO.32 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 32 — 2002 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Councilmember Welch explained that at the last meeting the question was raised concerning this request because the company was attempting to buy the Fresh America building to use as a refrigerator storage facility for Smith Dairy. He said he and Tony Foster, the grants administrator for the City, talked with the County Auditor and found that the building was abated prior to 1990 when it was built for a chicken processing plant by a company out of Ohio. He said the abatement has expired and as a result, the building cannot be abated the second time. He said in talking to the Wayne/Smith Dairy personnel they were told that the company is buying the building and has gone ahead with the purchase agreement. He said he and Foster told the company that architectural and engineering numbers and data would be needed as to what they would be adding as well as the costs incurred to upgrade the building and then they could look at amending the request to include those dollars. So far, he said, that data had not come back. He suggested that the ordinance be held until that data is obtained. ORDINANCE NO. 33 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 33 — 2002 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING OF THE SE CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WOODSIDE DR. & HAYES ARBORETUM RD. President Wissel reported on the public hearing conducted on this ordinance May 23, stating that the request is to change the zoning from an R2 to C2. He said the vote was 6-0 to recommend the change. He declared the ordinance on public hearing. James Harlan of First Richmond Realtors and agent for the owners, Fredericka and Cathryn B. McKinney, explained the ordinance. He said Bernie VanMiddlesworth, owner of the Health Connection, came forward as a potential buyer and her plans were submitted to the owner who was very happy with the plans she had for the ground. He said the petition tonight is based on an accepted offer to purchase subject to the proper zoning being in place for the new and intended use by -the Health Connection. He pointed out that currently the five acre tract produces approximately $1,600 a year in real estate taxes and the Health Connection pays approximately $14,000 a year in real estate taxes. Van Middlesworth said she started the business in January 1992 and the mission of the Health Connection is to be an integral part of this community in demonstrating the role that exercise and fitness play in improving the quality of life. She said the land became available in March of this year, adding that she had been looking at it for the past 10 years but it had not been for sale. She said the expansion plans include building a state of the art facility which will include a recreational Olympic sized pool, a gymnasium and expanded spa services along with some professional health services. There b eing no further c omments e ither for o r a gainst the o rdinance, C ouncilmembei Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 33 — 2002 to third and final reading, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 33 — 2002 on third reading. Ordinance No. 33 — 2002 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. AMENDED ORDINANCE NO.35 — 2002 The Clerk read Amended Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL President Wissel pointed out that this is the first of nine ordinances concerning the fact finding panel and said he had polled the Councilmembers to determine how they wanted to conduct the meeting tonight. He said the decision was to leave this period (immediately after the reading of the ordinance by the Clerk) for questions by Councilmembers. Then, at the end of the questioning City Attorney Bob Bever and David Warrick, AFSCME representative, would each be allowed up to five minutes to make any statements or correct the answers of the other, then go to engrossment from there. He announced that this ordinance was open to questions by Councihnembers. There being none, Bever said he deferred to the comments made earlier by the Mayor that he felt were well taken in the position of the City in this and all ordinances. Common Council Minutes Cont'd June 3, 2002 Page 4 Warrick stated that he wished to clarify a few things said at the last Council meeting, starting with the statement made by Bever on this ordinance who said that it isn't fair to employees to be thrown into a union that were not able to vote. He said the supervisors did vote as did everybody who was eligible to vote. He said there is a procedure where the City could include the supervisors in the bargaining unit and could actually create a real supervisor position and to promote somebody into that position. Councilmember Sharp moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and advance Amended Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Amended Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 on third reading. Councilmember Lundy said it has been made clear to her that all the employees wanted to be in the union and she feels that those employees who are called supervisors are not actually supervisors, adding that the ratio of supervisors to workers is much too high. She said she feels there is a solution, if they would work on it that would be beneficial to both sides. Councilmember Elstro questioned the Mayor as to whether or not there are any plans to change the situation that exists there. Mayor Miller answered that Street Commissioner Gordon Moore had already begun conversations with the supervisors on the restructuring of the department and they are working with him on that. Councilmember Dickman said that prior to the comments above he was going to vote no on this ordinance, but after hearing that something is in the works on this one, he said he feels that in this situation it is hard to be a supervisor in the union and dictate the rules because you're basically on the same team. Councilmember Combs commented that he felt some self imposed pressure not to throw this back to the fact finding panel, adding that the information that they provided was a big help to him as a Councilmember. He said one thing that stands out in this ordinance is that there is no cost to it. Amended Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 failed on a roll call vote of 5 to 4, with Sharp, Welch, Parker, Dickman and Wissel voting against, and Elstro, Lundy, Combs and Hutton voting in favor. ORDINANCE NO. 36 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 36 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL President Wissel announced that this ordinance has to do with compensatory time and asked Councilmembers for questions or comments. Councilmember Lundy said she feels if they would realize that if they make the supervisors that should be in the bargaining unit, that should be there, it would be simple to work out. Bever gave an example of what can happen in a situation that nobody might think of ahead of time. He told the story about a saw horse that was left in the street after a parade which resulted in a grievance which was successful and when this situation occurred the next time several people became involved which resulted in a situation which he admitted was a ridiculous example. However, he said, it is an example of what can happen when things are not worded properly. He said the footnote on this is that the grievance was filed by AFSCME, adding that this is what the City might look forward to if things aren't kept under control. In his response, Warrick said he was not aware of any of the 83 locals he represents which allows a situation like this with a grievance of the kind stated by Bever in their contracts. He said that the ordinance that was just voted down and going back to the fact finding panel would have taken care of the situation, allowing the supervisors to be in the bargaining unit and continue to work alongside those employees that the union represents because they would also be represented. He said they're saying that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. If they are supervisors use them as that and if they're not, use them as bargaining unit employees and let them in the union. There being no further comments, Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried by a voice vote. Councilmember Combs moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 36 — 2002 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Amended Ordinance No. 36 — 2002 — on third reading. Councilmember Combs said he does not see a big cost factor in this ordinance passing and doesn't understand why it would be sent back to the fact finding panel. Common Council Minutes Cont'd June 3, 2002 Page 5 Councilmember Welch addressed the question of supervisors and using them as workers as they are acting either supervisors or crew leaders, saying that the classification is rather well known as working supervisors. He said if these individuals are drawing extra pay as acting supervisors or some extra benefits because they are a supervisor then he feels they should be classified as working supervisors because they are doing the same work as those people they supervise and direct. He added that generally there is one manager for a department and have crews working at all ends of the City and there has to be someone supervising those individuals doing that work. He said he feels the parties could come to some kind of agreement on the title of these individuals and their job description and when that description is a supervisor or they are a working supervisor then they answer to management and they are part of management and they are out of the bargaining unit. If they want to be in the bargaining unit then they lose their classification as supervisors and any extra benefits and someone else can take the working supervisor position. Amended Ordinance No. 36 — 2002 failed on a roll call vote during which Sharp, Welch, Parker, Dickman and Wissel voted against, and Elstro, Lundy, Combs and Hutton voted in favor. AMENDED ORDINANCE NO.37 — 2002 The Clerk read Amended Ordinance No. 37 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL President Wissel said this ordinance concerns grievances and arbitration and asked for questions from Councilmembers. Councilmember Combs said that at the last meeting it was mentioned by the administration about an increase in the number of City grievances and he feels that is a concern for everyone, that if the number of grievances did increase dramatically then the thought that maybe more would go to arbitration would be a real concern. He asked Warrick if he would speak to that. Warrick said he is personally not aware of what grievances have been filed here in the City this past year. He said this ordinance sets a grievance procedure and the union currently does not have the ability until there is a contract to represent the employees and represent them in a way to saying what a grievance is and what it isn't. To go further, he said, the ability to file a grievance, whether there is binding arbitration or not, is still there and he added that he isn't saying there will be less grievances filed. He said the decision as to whether or not the grievance goes to arbitration does not rest with the local here but must be made by him in Indianapolis. He explained that the way that works is that the local goes to the staff representative and makes a recommendation and asks whether the grievance goes to arbitration or not and the staff representative listens to the local, gets to know the facts and the details of the case then comes to him. He said as a Council they pay for the arbitration and they try to make decisions based upon the merits of the case. Councilmember Welch said his information indicates that in the past two years 26 grievances have been filed out of the sanitary district and these have all been resolved without the aid or need of AFSCME. He asked if Warrick as AFSCME asked for this information or made any attempt to find out what was going on within the sanitary district as far as their grievances and mistrust of the administration. Warrick answered that he had not, saying that the union had been asked by the employees to represent them and it wasn't only the issue of the grievances not being settled but there were a whole number of issues there. Warrick said what the employees have told the union representatives is that they are not happy with those resolutions and did not feel they were fair. He said he is not going to go back and look at all the grievances to see if they were settled fairly, but is moving forward. Councilmember Welch then asked Warrick about dues charged the employees by the union, saying that if the union represents them at a fee and the binding arbitrator says he moves in favor of the City they are still not going to be satisfied. He said they don't have to do that now here in the City. Warrick said these employees voted and said they want the union here and want Io -pay the dues. He said if the grievance goes to arbitration and the union loses, having a third party outside person making that decision the employees feel that they had a fair shot and there was no bias. Councilmember Sharp asked how many cities represented by the union do not have binding arbitration and Warrick answered that there is only one and it has limited arbitration. Councilmember Lundy asked Warrick about the cost of binding arbitration. Referring to the last four arbitration cases, Warrick said that each showed the bill sent to the union by the arbitrator, adding that the normal avenue is that the bill is split and it states on the bill what was payable by AFSCME and payable by the City. He said it runs anywhere from $1,400 to $3,000 and this is the total bill with no additional fees or costs. The only reason he said he can see for the bill to be any higher is when a court reporter is paid and an outside attorney is brought in. He said the union never asks for that. Common Council Minutes Cont'd June 3, 2002 Page 6 Councilmember Lundy asked Warrick if he recalled that the last time he had said the union would go with loser pay. He answered that that was correct and the union had offered that to the City. She asked how many grievances were taken to arbitration by the union last year. Warrick answered that there were 12 and six of those were state arbitrations, which means they did only six out of the locals. He said arbitrators are selected from a list sent to them and also through the process of elimination. In answer to a question by Councilmember Sharp, Warrick said there is a potential cost if there is a split fee. He said what the union heard during the fact finding panel was never a cost argument from the City, but what was heard during the negotiations was no the Mayor doesn't want to do it. When the issue went to the fact finding panel, the City's argument was that the union is irresponsible and would be taking numerous grievances to arbitration. In answer to a question by Councilmember Sharp as to whether or not the City has anything in the budget that would cover costs of arbitration, Mayor Miller said there is not a line item in the current budget for those costs. Bever read from the City's presentation to the fact finding panel, then added that arbitration procedures are not i nexpensive a nd c an involve t housands o f d ollars i n a rbitrators' f ees a nd a xpenses in.1 egal fees f or representations as well as those of fees for transcribing the procedures. He said he did get a chance to call RP & L and their cost was around $6,000. He added. that it would be tempting to think that no one would try to take advantage of this, but there is a track record by AFSCME and at the last meeting he expressed his disappointment at things that were being said. He said since that meeting the ads have continued, ads that, in his position, have inflammatory statements, have incorrect innuendo and basically have - misstatement of facts. He stated that this is a cost item and there is a system in place in the City with the Board of Works which has worked for years. In his response, Warrick said it may appear on one side to work but it may appear on the other side that decisions are biased. He said if a grievance goes either in front of the Mayor or the Board of Works and the decision is fair and in line with the collective bargaining agreement there is no reason to go to arbitration. But, he added, what the union wants is the ability to appeal the decision in case there is a biased decision made and wants arbitration to be there so both parties will be honest and adhere to the collective bargaining agreement without allowing one party to have total authority. He said in none of the other cities with whom AFSCME does business has cost been an issue. He pointed out that RP & L had two arbitrations in 10 years and if $6,000 was the cost it's because of so many people being there and charging for their appearance. He said arbitration keeps the parties working together to get things settled. He said the way the union looks at it is that it's either arbitration or confrontation because it's going to be biased. Councihnember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules, advance Amended Ordinance No. 37 — 2002 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Dickman and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Amended Ordinance No. 37 — 2002 on third reading. Councilmember Combs said he wanted to get more information about this issue because he was concerned about cost so he sought information from the administration which the Mayor talked about tonight and also made a call to RP & L because the bargaining agent for the workers challenged to see how many arbitrations RP & L had in the last 10 years and how much it cost. He said he received the same information that Bever brought before Council earlier, saying the exact figure was $6,695, then added that the fact that RP & L won in both those decisions, so under "loser pays," and had there been the same set of circumstances, the City wouldn't be out any money in those 10 years. He said averaging out the cost over 10 years is $695 and to him that seemed like a reasonable investment to prove to workers that they are going to be respected and to put all future Mayors and Board of Works on notice that if they push to fight a legitimate grievance they are going to lose. Alluding to the comments made about RP & L, Councilmember Welch said that what he thinks everyone should keep in mind is that RP & L is not operated with tax revenue dollars but is managed by a manager and the governing Board is this Council. He said the revenues generated off of the product that they produce are what are used for those employee benefits that may have to go to arbitration. But, he added, in this case, the union is asking for tax derived revenue off the property tax owners, residential owners and business operators within the City to pay for this action. He also asked the union to look at the history of the Sanitary District, stating that it had a union in the `60s and `70s and it was notorious as to the number of cases that went to arbitration. He said he felt it would not be too difficult to find the cost of those cases that were conducted under that previous union. He said he knows, having been in this City during those years, that it was a problem. i Common Council Minutes Cont'd June 3, 2002 Page 7 Councilmember Parker said one of the problems he has with these ordinances is that Council has no right to amend and has to either accept or reject them. He said he feels if Council does send this back to the fact finding panel he thinks it is the responsibility of Councilmembers to give some guidance as to what they would like to do if they could make amendments. He said if it goes back he would like both parties to work together to come up with some type of system similar to the Merit Commission which seems to work for the Police Department. He feels that if they could come up with a middle ground the City and the union could be served well, but if that does not work they could come back again for binding arbitration. President Wissel said he appreciated Councilmember Parker's input, adding that he felt that it was a good suggestion. Amended Ordinance No. 37 — 2002 failed on a roll call vote during which Sharp, Welch, Parker, Dickman and Wissel voted against, and Elstro, Lundy, Combs and Hutton voted in favor. .ORDINANCE NO. 38 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 38 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL President Wissel stated that this ordinance deals with time off from work. Councilmember Combs said he would like some kind of insight either from Bever or someone else as to why Council is unable to basically change these things in the ordinances. President Wissel explained that the original ordinance speaking to these issues was adopted nearly 15 years ago and only gives Council the authority to vote yes or no if there is a disagreement among the fact finding panel. There being no further comments either for or against the ordinance Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Lundy moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 38 — 2002 to third and final . reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Elstro and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Combs said this is an ordinance that has no cost involved and that is why he is in support of it. Councilmember W elch c ommented that h e knows that the C ity has an e mployee d epartment c ommittee working diligently to address issues such as this and a part of what they are working on is to try to develop an equitable and fair disciplinary policy which includes sick days, time off and unexcused absences. He said he is against granting any additional personal days because if you add the totals of what is currently given, it is 20 days out of the year, plus their vacation time. He added that if they are in a five to 10 year seniority base they have an additional 15 days vacation and all at once they are off for 35 days, which is seven weeks o f time o ff. H e s aid h aving b een i n a managerial r ole h e knows it i s d ifficult t o s chedule operations with that many people being gone for that length of time and it's hard to maintain services. He said the citizens demand that the City maintains services on a constant basis and somebody has to replace these people when they are gone and when they are gone it costs time and money because of shuffling and moving people around. Councilmember Lundy said that just as she had no problem with accepting the fact that the loser pays for arbitration she h as n o problem s aying that with this issue of time off s he could live with it as the City recommends. She said this is an example of what it is like when the two parties work together. Ordinance No. 38 — 2002 failed on a roll call vote of Elstro, Lundy, Sharp, Welch, Parker, Dickman and Wissel voting against and Combs and Hutton for in favor. AMENDED ORDINANCE NO.39 — 2002 The Clerk read Amended Ordinance No. 39 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL President Wissel said that this ordinance deals with contracting work out and asked for questions. by Councilmembers. Councilmember Parker asked if anyone had any idea as to how many jobs had actually been lost by contracting out. Mayor Miller answered that from her experience there had been none. Bever said the City has never tried to use this in a way detrimental to the City employees but for the betterment of the citizens in this community. He cited again the instance at the Sanitation District with the very large contracting out issue when it was resolved by the City. Common Council Minutes Cont'd June 3, 2002 Page 8 Warrick said all the union is asking is a commitment from the City in the collective bargaining ordinance that it will not contract out the jobs that the union's people do and put them out on the street, adding that all they are asking is for the City's support. Councilmember Parker moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Amended Ordinance No. 39 — 2002 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Elstro and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Combs stated that he feels that this type of safeguard that's being requested may not be needed in this ordinance as long as there would be trust on both sides. Councilmember Welch recalled that when under the previous mayor the decision was made to sign into contract the management of the Sanitary District to a private firm. He s aid it was s tated at the time by Mayor Andrews, and under the basic agreement that Council voted on, for that contract to move forward and that hiring that firm would not cause any employee in the Sanitary District to lose his or her job and as to date the City has held to that promise. He then talked about the problems experienced under the EA 2 management, stating that the City terminated that contract and they are gone. He pointed out that the employees are still there and it is the intent of the City that those employees will be there as long as they do their job. He said the City is open and fair with the employees and it expects the same of its employees. He said if the employees feel that something is unfair that they should give the City a chance to correct it. Amended Ordinance No. 39 — 2002 failed on a roll call vote during which Sharp, Welch, Parker, Dickman and Wissel voted against, and Elstro, Lundy, Combs and Hutton voted in favor. SECOND AMENDED ORDINANCE NO.40 — 2002 The Clerk read Second Amended Ordinance No. 40 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL President Wissel stated that this ordinance deals with compensation, specifically clothing allowance and the longevity scale and invited questions by Council. Councilmember Lundy asked whether or not longevity pay was an issue in this. Bever said that it is, but the City thinks it shouldn't be. He explained that the fact finding panel came back and said that longevity pay should not be included in this year's contract but should be included (and gave specific numbers that were in the amended ordinance) for what it should be for next year. Bever said the City believed that it was not even an appropriate response from fact finding because even though it is a two year contract, all monetary issues would be limited to one year. Therefore, he said, the City believes that all monetary issues before fact finding were for the year 2002 and that all the monetary issues would be for the contract in process for the s econd year of the contract. Therefore, he said, it is premature to say what monetary issues such as longevity pay should come out of the fact finding panel. Of course, he said, AFSCME differed with that interpretation and therefore they believe that the fact finding panel recommendation should be followed with that second year pay though the City says that has no meaning since this is just a one year financial contract though two years overall. Councilmember Dickman asked where the negotiations are in the subsection which addresses time working in a higher pay classification as far as the number of days set right now and after so many days a higher pay kicks in. Bever said that the proposal from AFSCME had no time frame involved, but in his letter he talked about seeing an earlier recommendation from the City which was requiring at least two weeks before that higher wage increase goes into effect. He said he understands that if it goes back into bargaining that the City is willing to drop that to one week. Councilmember Combs asked the Mayor to re -state the information she gave him earlier and the Mayor said the City is looking at ways for better structure of the organization so employees can advance. She said that one of the proposals that the City had earlier on the table was to split the Street Department so there would be different levels and skills could be obtained and the employees could move up. She said those are the types of programs the City is trying to work with the department heads on so there can be that opportunity of employee advancement. Councilmember Lundy said the problem she has with this ordinance is that she agrees with two out of three of the issues and she hope that if it goes back there is some way they can work out putting some of these things in a separate category so they can be considered separately. Common Council Minutes Cont'd June 3, 2002 Page 9 As a follow up to the comments made by Councilmember Lundy, Bever said the City would appreciate comments of Councilmembers saying what they would or would not be in favor of. He added that on this particular ordinance, that even in its three sections it requires rejection. He said they had talked earlier of the clothing allowance, which actually is a cleaning allowance because they are granted clothing and uniforms; and the problems that perhaps can be resolved about how long an employee has to be in a higher pay grade job before they get the higher pay; and, of course, the financial impact of longevity if this is required to be put in. He said it would be appreciated to have the chance to implement this in some way so that people can get compensated in some way because of the years they put in, weighing that in conjunction with equal treatment and qualifications. And, because of those reasons, the City remains very adamant that this ordinance in its present form be rejected. Warrick said that the union is trying to build equity toward what other employees of the City have bargained for and are provided. He said when you talk about the longevity, it is, in some cases, not even half of what some other City employees receive. As far as the clothing allowance, in reality, he said it is one fourth of what other employees receive. He said looking at the recommendations of the fact finding panel they saw that and saw that other individuals in the City are provided with these benefits and why not these employees. He added that it is not the same as what they have, but they're looking for a beginning to differentiate between that equity. In answer to a question by C ouncilmember Parker about clothing, Mayor Miller answered that the City supplies the uniforms to the street department and sanitation but does not provide for cleaning at the street department but does at sanitation. Street Commissioner Gordon Moore said it is his understanding that of the 27 employees who receive uniforms they get to elect whether they want shirts and pants and the majority of them take the shirts and some of them do not take the pants. He added that cleaning services are provided for three o f the employees and how that c ame about, he s aid, one o f them is a mechanic and because of an O SHA ruling, the two of them who are involved with handling hazardous material (lead based paint) elected to have the cleaning services. He said he didn't know the background on that. Bob Wiwi, Chairperson of the Sanitary Board, said that all of the employees of the Sanitary Department who want the uniforms that are provided get the cleaning service. Councilmember Sharp moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councihmember W elch moved t o s uspend the rules and a dvance Second Amended O rdinance N o. 4 0 — 2002 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Second Ordinance No. 40 — 2002 on third reading. Councilmember Lundy commented that she is in favor of the $250 clothing allowance; being paid anytime they do jobs in a higher pay classification right on the spot such as for a week or two weeks; but not in favor of longevity because of the uncertainty of the state monies and the City's budget. Councilmember Combs said what Council needs to keep in mind is that the fact finding panel operated under the information they had available and he added that he was not in any way criticizing the administration or the bargaining agent. He said he felt the panel did do an extraordinary job. Councilmember Welch said he felt this is another issue on which he feels the negotiators could meet at a middle point and it could be settled without this being a part of the contract. As for the longevity pay, he said this could take the City down the road toward bankruptcy because it could get very expensive very quickly. Second Amended Ordinance No. 40 — 2002 failed on a majority roll call vote. AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 41— 2002 The Clerk read Amended Ordinance No. 41 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL President Wissel said this ordinance deals with the language of parity. Bever stated that this is the one the administration is in favor of and is willing to go along with the fact finding panel because of its understanding that the union had backed off of even asking for this paragraph. He said the City feels that this paragraph would be very troublesome if put into the contract. Warrick stated that the fact finding panel erred in its decision and it is still an issue with the union. He said the intentions there is to say that if someone receives a larger pay increase or larger increase in benefits the union members should also get that. He said that addresses the equity issue that is important to the union. Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Common Council Minutes Cont'd June 3, 2002 Page 10 Councilmember L undy in oved to suspend the rules and advance A mended Ordinance N o. 41 — 2002 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Amended Ordinance No. 41 — 2002 was adopted on a roll call vote of eight ayes and one no, with Councilmember Hutton voting against. ORDINANCE NO. 42 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 42— 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL Bever said that he and Warrick had agreed to a settlement of both Ordinance No. 42 — 2002 and Ordinance No. 43 — 2002. He said Council could vote to strike both since those issues have been resolved. Councilmember Welch moved to strike Ordinance No. 42 — 2002 and Ordinance No. 43 — 2002, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote. ORDINANCE NO. 43 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 43 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL ORDINANCE NO. 44 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 44 — 2002 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 President Wissel explained that this ordinance is an abatement request made by Carlos Casket Shell Inc. which is the holding company for J.M. Hutton. He said they have been in business in Richmond since 1845 and since 1984 have been at the same location. He said they are looking to increase new manufacturing equipment in the amount of $1,400,000 for a 1,400 ton hydraulic press used for stamping, stating that it will make them more efficient and allow them to retain the 120 jobs they n ow have. H e recommended approval of the request for a 10-year abatement. President Wissel declared Ordinance No. 45 — 2002 on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against, Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 44 — 2002 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 44 — 2002 on third reading. Ordinance No. 44 — 2002 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO. 45 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 45 — 2002 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Councilmember Sharp explained that this ordinance deals with a tax abatement request made by Benchmark Graphics, stating that he had spent some time with Jay Cobb, a representative of the company, who said they plan to add equipment at a cost of $385,000 and will retain 34 people and add one person. He recommended the request be approved. President Wissel declared Ordinance No. 45 — 2002 on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against, Councilmember Parker moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Parker moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 45 — 2002 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 45 — 2002 on third reading. Ordinance No. 44 — 2002 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. Common Council Minutes Cont'd June 3, 2002 Page 11 ORDINANCE NO. 47 — 2002 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 47 — 2002 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Explaining this ordinance was C ouncilmember Welch who s aid this i s a new c ompany by the name o f Synka, Inc. being formed by Michael Allen of Manpower Inc. He said he and his wife, Denise, would be principal owners and directors of the company and it is being formed in order to diversify Manpower so it can assume light manufacturing or contract work from existing customers. He said they propose to build two buildings on North West N Street just to the north and west of the grocery and convenience delivery system. He said it is anticipated that they will generate contract work in those buildings from existing customers which they will be capable of handling. He added that the intent is to add five jobs and the tax abatement request is for real estate and property improvement. He recommended approval of the request. Councilmember Hutton asked what would happen if these plans for this company would not come to fruition and Councilmember Welch answered that the Allens feel strongly that this could have been a part of their business now if they had had such a place in which to house it. Councilmember Welch said it will be an existing business and will be in that building. Councilmember Sharp said he had attended an Economic Development Commission meeting that afternoon and evidently there is some joint effort by EDC and the City in the area of North West N Street. He said there was a request of the City to do some additional paving in that area also. He added that with that kind of activity in that area he felt it was going to be a good investment. President Wissel declared Ordinance No. 47 — 2002 on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against, Councilmember Sharp moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 47 — 2002 to third and fmal reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 47 — 2002 on third reading. Ordinance No. 47 — 2002 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCES ON THIRD READING UNFMSHED BUSINESS CALL FOR ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, on a motion duly made, seconded and passed, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. ATTEST: Norma Schroeder, Clerk Bruce Wissel, President