Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-16-2001PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2001 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. Monday, April 16, 2001, in the Council Chambers in said City. President Karl Sharp presided with the following Councilmembers present: Howard "Jack" Elstro, Etta J. Lundy, Bruce Wissel, Phil Dickman, Bing Welch, Larry Parker, Paul Combs and Sarah "Sally" Hutton. The following business was conducted: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRAYER BY COUNCILMEMBER DICKMAN ROLL CALL Nine present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes were approved as corrected on a motion by Councilmember Parker, second by Councilmember Welch. President Sharp commented that it was incorrectly stated on page 3 of the minutes of April 2, 2001 that Walter Wagor of 3113 Weiss Road spoke in favor of Ordinance No. 83, noting that he spoke against the ordinance. Councilmember Parker moved to amend the minutes to reflect the change, second by Councilmember Wissel and the motion was carried on a voice vote. PRESENTATION OF REMONSTRANCES, PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, INTRODUCTIONS, MOTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS The Rev. Paul Mingus, president and executive director of Family First Inc., said he was here to publicly introduce the organization to Council to let the Councilmembers know of its existence and something of its mission. He said the organization is 75 strong and introduced several of the Board members in the audience. COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR Mayor Shelley Miller explained that several months ago a request had been submitted to the Department of Transportation to change the design of the Industries Road extension. She said the change was a substantial one and the increase to construction cost was also going to be substantial. She said the administration had received word that the design changes had been approved and the City would be receiving funding, with 80 percent of the construction cost, up $1.2 million, being paid by the state. Mayor Miller also announced that April 30 through May 5 would be Municipal Government Week with various activities being coordinated through the offices of the Clerk and Community Development, adding that Tuesday of that week would actually be dedicated to the Clerk's office. She said they hoped to involve the community and have some school activities going on that week. A booklet entitled "Frequently Asked Questions" was introduced to Council by the Mayor who explained that it had just been published and covers topics such as leaf removal and dog tags. She said these booklets would be distributed through the neighborhood groups and the library. President Sharp said he had some questions about the Clean Up, Pick Up, Spruce Up project, which is being organized, through the Chamber. Mayor Miller said this is going very well,, commenting that the first week of April more than 70 people participated in the Whitewater Gorge cleanup and there had been a very good response to the cleanup. President Sharp also commented that he had received a notice from the Chamber that Saturday, April 28, from 9 a.m. to noon, had been designated as a cleanup day. And, he added, that he received a call during which he learned that Council had adopted the cleanup of North West 5'' Street from Main Street to Indiana Avenue. He encouraged all Councilmembers to accept that challenge and show up during those hours on that day. Councilmember Elstro asked the Mayor who is monitoring the wells out in Industrial Park. The Mayor responded that there are no wells out there at this time because the applications for grants to install the wells in that area had not been approved. Councilmember Welch said there are some shallow monitoring wells around Southeast Wood Treatment Plant and they monitor and take samples themselves. He said Council had just adopted an ordinance recently asking for a grant from the U.S. Geological Survey organization and they are supporting the placement of monitoring wells in eight locations in the Southeast Industrial Park. The Mayor responded that the City had received notification that it had been turned down again for that grant and it is looking for other funding for that purpose. She added that those having questions about this topic could call the Mayor's office. REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY President Sharp said the minutes of the meeting of March 22, 2001 were included in their packets. Common Council Minutes Cont'd April 16, 2001 Page 2 REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES Councilmember Elstro commented that Councilmember Combs is on the Street Tree Commission and he wanted to compliment that group on putting in the most recent group of trees, stating that he had received two or three calls from citizens voicing their appreciation. REPORTS FROM ORGANIZATIONS MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinance No. — 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, 2001 on first reading by title only, second by Councilmember Lundy and the motion was carried on a voice vote. ORDINANCE NO. 15 — 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 15 — 2001— A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT 230 AND 234 SOUTH 5TH STREET, RICHMOND, INDIANA President Sharp announced that this ordinance would be referred to the Planning Commission and return to Council. ORDINANCE NO. 17 — 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 17 — 2001 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT 1828 EAST MAIN, RICHMOND, INDIANA Planning Director Bob Goodwin explained that this ordinance deals with a request by the owners of a property at the above location for a Special Use Designation to allow them to convert it to a tourist home after doing quite a bit of remodeling. Councilmember Wissel asked Goodwin to clarify the difference between a tourist home and a bed and breakfast or motel. Goodwin responded, saying that the City's ordinance for this defines a tourist home, but in conferring with legal counsel, he said it was explained that there is very little difference and that is why they have proceeded in this direction. President Sharp said this ordinance would also go to the Planning Commission. ORDINANCE NO. 18 — 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 18 — 2001 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE FIXING CERTAIN BENEFITS UNDER THE POLICEMAN PENSION FUND FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND Explaining this ordinance was J.P. Lantz, secretary of the Richmond Police Pension Fund, who said that currently all widows or surviving spouses of police officers, by ordinance, receive 50 percent of a First Class Patrolman's wages. He said participants of the Pension Fund are retired and active police officers within the City and at the last annual meeting, those attending, voted to increase the widows' benefits to match those of the retired officers. He said an officer with 20 years receives 50 percent and receives 2 percent additional for each year thereafter, adding that 25 years of service would give them 10 percent extra, bringing the total up to 60 percent. He explained that this ordinance would raise the widow's benefits to the same that the officer was receiving atthe time of his death. He added that this would only affect five widows and would increase next year's budget by $15,025 and in 2003 would increase it by $15,975. Lantz explained that any new widows or surviving spouses would not affect the budget because that amount of money they would be receiving would have already been budgeted for the retired police officer. In response to a question by Councilmember Welch, Lantz said this only affects those who remain in the 1925 series and that is 75 at the most, with 64 of those at present being either retired officers or surviving spouses. Councilmember Wissel said he had some questions about the 1925 Police Pension Fund, stating that at one time there were some state limitations as to how this money could properly be set aside. Mayor Miller responded that there is much concern regarding the funding of these pension funds, stating that they are completely unfunded locally year to year. She said the state continues to look at giving additional funding but there is no long term solution and is from budget cycle to budget cycle. Common Council Minutes Cont'd April 16, 2001 Page 3 Following that response by the Mayor, Councilmember Wissel then commented that it appeared that the City is facing some inabilities of being able to meet the obligations needed in the future. The Mayor then said that in each state budget cycle the City hopes that it will receive the ongoing pension relief but there is no guarantee. She added that if for any reason some of that amount should fall away it would be incumbent upon the municipality to come up with that and as you go through the local budget process those are the first funds that you budget for. So, what you would be looking at, is a decrease in current services. She said that the City receives two types of payment and one is based upon lottery money and that is the one that is a little bit more controversial. Councilmember Wissel asked for a clarification of how many people they are talking about and asked if any policeman who started his career prior to 1977 is covered under the 1925 pension plan. Mayor Miller said that is not necessarily so because there are a number of "convertees." Lantz said that term refers to those officers who were hired prior to 1977 were given an option to be bought out of the 1925 act and join Public Employees Retirement Fund (P.E.R.F. or the 1977 Act). Lantz said the Pension Fund is responsible, financially, for the payment of their pension, however, their pension is paid under the guidelines of P.E.R.F. so when the regular officer gets a pay raise they don't automatically get it, they get whatever everybody gets. The Mayor said some relief was given by the state because as of July 1998 the state picked up the "convertees" who had retired before that date so the state is paying them directly under the formulas of the 1977 plan. That means, she said, that the City is still fully liable for the pension payments of those still under the 1925 plan without converting. Councilmember Wissel asked what the City is looking at as far as obligations that can't be met. Mayor Miller responded that these obligations are huge. She said that's why there is an ongoing debate at the state level. She said there are some figures in her office from a study that was made in 1996 that shows the numbers, adding that it is a "scary" situation that there is no long-term commitment that the state would continue to provide relief. The Mayor said if memory serves her correctly, the years of 2007, 2008, and 2009 are going to be the peak and then it would start to decline. She said some of the factors that allow the cost to increase are that this formula is based on negotiations as the current officers receive an increase and that is factored in. She said some money is being set aside, but the City budgets from year to year, so when it budgets for any retiree who is eligible at the end of the budget cycle it has to go through the whole budget process again. She added that the City has been able to build a balance in the police and fire operating balance but it is very minor compared to the City's long- term obligations. Councilmember Wissel said he would like to see those figures and asked if this ordinance could be taken to second reading tonight. In answer to a question by Councilmember Lundy the Mayor explained that the 1977 plan is run by the state and the City withholds from the City employees their portion and the City's amount and that is sent to the state and it is administered by the state with each employee paid directly by the state. In the majority of those who have retired under the 1925, 1934 and 1937 plans, these were not funded throughout the decades. Therefore when the City starts getting "payments due" there is no money set aside to meet those obligations so it is coming from the City's current property tax levy to pay for them. She said that starting in 1997, the City was able to set aside some money but trying to balance the need for ongoing current services with the amount that is unfunded it is very difficult and is an issue that the City will continue to pursue very aggressively at the state level. President Sharp said the ordinance would be held until the Mayor brings more information back to the Council with some estimated numbers so Council would have a better idea of what those figures show. ORDINANCE NO.19 — 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 19 — 2001— A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT 3401 EAST MAIN, RICHMOND, INDIANA Goodwin explained this ordinance, stating that recently an ordinance that had been on the books for awhile had been turned back in and it was a request for an apartment project immediately west and a little bit north of Walmart. He said that had not been pursued and that presented an opportunity to do a new Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) ordinance. He said the petitioners have come back now, under the P.U.D. ordinance, wanting to do something with that site that is a little more than 20 acres. He stated that they are looking at 21 plots, four units per structure, and that site is at the end of 34`h Street immediately west of the Walmart site. President Sharp said the ordinance would be referred to the Plan Commission. ORDINANCE NO. 20 — 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 20 — 2001 — 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 Common Council Minutes Cont'd April 16, 2001 Page 4 Explaining the ordinance was Councilmember Wissel who said it was a request for Sanyo Laser Products, for a 10-year tax abatement for new manufacturing equipment with estimated value of $1,660,000. He said the request would be reviewed by the Tax Abatement Committee and a report would be given at the next Council meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 21— 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 21 — 2001 — AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL, ACCEPTANCE, AND APPROPRIATION OF A GRANT FROM FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Tony Foster, the City's Grants Administrator, explained that the Richmond Fire Department is requesting $175,000, stating that $100,000 of that would be used to purchase a new emergency response vehicle. He said the remainder would be used to purchase and upgrade the department's 30 — plus - year -old radio communication equipment. He added that the new equipment would allow improved communication for the firefighters on the site of the fire to talk with the dispatch center. He said there was a 10-percent match for this grant program, adding that this is a very competitive grant program. In answer to a question by Councilmember Parker, Foster said it is possible that only the funds for the radio equipment might be what is received because there may be a greater demand from another fire department for a fire vehicle. And, another question by Councilmember Parker was answered by Foster, who explained the emergency response vehicle is one that can be used on the site of a fire, adding that there are only three ambulances on call that could assist on a fire and if all of them are busy, it would help if the department had one available. The Mayor said there have been a number of discussions about this and the fire department would like to become first responders and provide transportation for patients but there are a number of questions that have to be answered as far as liability is concerned. She proposed this ordinance be amended to read "capital equipment," and before the grant is accepted to have the answers to know whether or not this service is one to be expanded to. She added that the timing on this grant is May 2, which explains the lack of answers at this point. But, she said, those would be in hand by the time the grant deadline. Councilmember Parker moved to amend the ordinance to read "capital equipment" in the place of "ambulance," second by Councilmember Combs. Mayor Miller asked Foster if one of the steps of the grant application passage of this ordinance or is this merely to meet the City's procedures. He answered that it is the latter and the Mayor pointed out that the wording in this ordinance is more for the Council and this administration so that it is clear what responsibilities are being taken on. She said the amendment would allow the City to apply for a grass unit or another emergency response vehicle if after finding answers to questions about the ambulance it is decided not to ask for it. After questioning by Councilmember Wissel, it was decided that the actual amendment would change the language to read "new capital equipment," instead of "a new fully equipped life support ambulance." Foster said he would be happy to report to Council at its next meeting about how the application was submitted, explaining that he did not need a copy of the ordinance to send in with this particular grant application. A vote was taken on the motion and second for the amendment and was passed on a voice vote. Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and advance Amended Ordinance No. 21 — 2001 to second reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Amended Ordinance No. 21 — 2001 on second reading. There being no comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Hutton moved for engrossment, second.by Councilmember Elstro and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules on Amended Ordinance No. 21 — 2001 and advance to third and final reading, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 21 — 2001 on third reading. Ordinance No. 21 — 2001 was adopted on unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO.22 — 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 22 — 2001 - AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL, ACCEPTANCE, AND APPROPRIATION OF A GRANT FROM INDIANA CRIMINAL JUSTICES INSTITUTE'S JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Foster said this is a block grant which means the $24,845 is the designated amount that will be provided to the City which will go directly to the community and schools program that's being developed in the City. Common Council Minutes Cont'd April 16, 2001 Page 5 Councilmember Hutton commented that she sits on that committee which is comprised of about 50 people who meet each month. She explained that it is all the social services coming together to ensure that no child slips through the cracks in our schools. Councilmember Hutton moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 22 — 2001 to second reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 22 — 2001 on second reading. President Sharp declared Ordinance No. 22 — 2001 on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Wissel 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. 22 — 2001 to third and final reading, second by Councilmember Elstro and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 22 — 2001 on third reading. Ordinance No. 22 — 2001 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO. 23 — 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 23 — 2001 - AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL, ACCEPTANCE, AND APPROPRIATION OF A GRANT FROM INDIANA CRIMINAL JUSTICES INSTITUTE'S JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM Explaining this ordinance was Foster again, who said this particular block grant would be used for the community and schools program as well. He said the difference between this grant and the other is that the previous grant was a block grant and that amount was designated to the City if it was to meet certain criteria. However, he said, this grant for $20,000 is a competitive grant that the City is going to apply for and will come out of the Criminal Justice's discretionary funds. He said that once again, these funds would also be used to operate the community and schools program. Councilmember Dickman asked about matching funds and Foster responded that the local group has the funds to make the matches on both grants. Councilmember Combs moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 23— 2001 to second reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 23 — 2001 on second reading. President Sharp declared Ordinance No. 23 — 2001 on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Welch moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Wissel moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 23 — 2001 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 Ordinance No. 23 — 2001 on third reading. Ordinance No. 23 — 2001 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO.24 — 2001 , The Clerk read Ordinance No. 24 — 2001 - AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL, ACCEPTANCE, AND APPROPRIATION OF A GRANT FROM INDIANA CRIMINAL JUSTICES INSTITUTE'S VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT (VOCA) GRANT PROGRAM Stepping forward to explain this ordinance was the victim's advocate of Genesis at the YWCA who said this grant allows the victim's advocacy department to continue with the services offered in the community which include the 24-hour crisis call line to Reid Hospital, protective orders, crisis counseling and support groups. Foster said the total amount of the grant is $83,000, which is made up of the match with Genesis making the match through in -kind and cash. Common Council Minutes Cont'd April 16, 2001 Page 6 Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 24 — 2001 to second reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 24 — 2001 on second reading. President Sharp declared Ordinance No. 24 — 2001 on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Combs 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. 24 — 2001 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. 24 — 2001 on third reading. Ordinance No. 24 — 2001 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND ENGROSSMENT AMENDED ORDINANCE NO.83 — 2000 The Clerk read Amended Ordinance No. 83 — 2000 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 154.43 OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND CODE REGARDING SIGNS City Attorney Bob Bever explained that Councilmembers have the April 12 draft, which includes everything Council has previously amended on the ordinance. He said that means that the three items passed at Council's last meeting are also included. He pointed out that these are Amendments No. 3, 4 and 5 relating to markings on products located outside; a description of applicable zoning lots; and the situation involving a shopping center. He said that in addition to those three, he had also added two other changes that were discussed at the last meeting but not voted upon. Specifically, he said, the sentence is worded to say that no V-type "greater than 30 degrees" is allowable. Secondly, he said, he had added another sentence describing other areas which are `Billboard Restricted Areas." He said it states that even within the permitted C-4, N-1, or N-2 Districts, a billboard may not be erected within 300 feet of a Residential District or within 100 feet of an individual residence. He added that this is in response to Councilmember Hutton's inquiries regarding the M-1 "pocket" areas around town. He also mentioned that possibly it would be necessary to go ahead and add to the definition of "sign" and say that a sign does not include any written information which simply identifies a product or sets forth the price of a product which product is legally placed and located outside of building pursuant to the terms of the zoning code and which information is directly affixed to that product. Examples of this, Bever said, but not limited to, are price markings on automobiles for sale in a dealer lot, prices affixed to storage sheds for sale and legally placed on outside lot, or identifying markings on mulch or other saleable items placed on other outside areas. He stated that that is proposed amendment No. 3 for Councilmembers to think about. Councilmember Parker moved to include Amendment No. 3 in the ordinance, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Bever said that throughout the entire ordinance it is mentioned what may be located upon a property such as how much square footage and how many signs, but has it been clarified what constitutes a "property." He asked if it is one building and one common ownership. Therefore, he said, he has attempted to put in what the scope of limitations are with the following: "In all situations where in any section of this chapter places a limit upon the number of signs or size of signs which may be located upon any property, such limitations shall apply to each zoning lot. "For purposes of this chapter, a zoning lot shall be defined as a separately constructed building improvement or residence, including outbuildings or garages, upon a lot with common ownership. In the event there exists two or more separate building improvements upon a common owned lot, each building shall be entitled to its own separate limitations provided each building complies with its own zoning regulations including set back lines, site or width requirements, etc. However, if two or more businesses located within the same building, shall not each be entitled to separate sign limitations." Councilmember Welch moved to include the proposed Amendment No. 4 as stated above, second by Councilmember Dickman and the motion was carried on a voice vote. 1 Common Council Minutes Cont'd April 16, 2001 Page 7 Bever then addressed the issue of a shopping center, explaining that to deal with that issue, he proposes the following amendment: "In a situation of a single building improvement containing multiple businesses which are directly accessible to the outside and are separated by permanently constructed walls or .partitions, the same number and size limitations for one zoning lot shall apply provided an additional 10 square feet for each business use within the center shall be allotted to be added as a tag to the one free standing ground sign allowed for the lot. In addition, each business located within the building improvement shall be allowed an additional one square foot in area for each lineal foot of building frontage it occupies for its own wall sign affixed to the building." Bever stressed that the above applies only to the outside access shopping centers which needs that outside visibility. Councilmember Welch questioned the one square foot, saying it seemed awfully small. Ed Thompson came forward and suggested two square feet per each lineal foot, which is what it is now, adding that he feels it seems a little fairer. In light of that suggestion, Councilmember Welch moved to amend the proposed amendment to read two square foot instead of the one square foot suggested, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Welch moved to include the proposed Amendment No. 5 as amended to the ordinance, second by Councilmember Dickman and the motion was carried on a voice vote. President Sharp declared a five-minute break prior to bringing those proposed amendments to public hearing. Following the break, President Sharp asked for those who are in favor of the changes in the ordinance which were made since the last meeting, to step forward. That invitation received no response from the audience and President Sharp asked those in opposition to step forward. However, before anyone could do that, Councilmember Hutton had a question of Bever. She asked if the M-1 "pockets" that she asked for and this ordinance is voted on will Council have to come back and amend this? Bever answered that this Council has that ability to add any of those areas to be a "billboard restricted" area any time they wish and he would draft an ordinance to that effect. She then asked if the ban on the new billboards would continue to stand for the 90 days that was voted on previously by the Council. Bever said it would not, because with the passage of this ordinance it would override any ban on billboards. Councilmember Hutton said she would have a problem with that because she wants to make sure there are no new billboards in neighborhoods and a lot of the M-1's are in neighborhoods. She asked about the wording on the ordinance and Bever said it was 90 days to give Council a time to pass a final sign ordinance, and of course the passage of this would do that. Bever said he had not understood that Councilmember. Hutton was conditioning the passage of this ordinance upon making those M-1 restricted areas a part of it. Bever said they would have to separately identify those M-1 areas. She asked if possibly they could wait another two weeks to act upon this ordinance. Speaking in opposition to the ordinance were Dave Bane with Tom Raper Inc., Russ Peterson of Porter Advertising and Walter Wagor. Councilmember Welch commented that this ordinance is not etched in stone and can be changed. With that comment, President Sharp said the ordinance would be held until those M-1 areas are identified. ORDINANCE NO. 12 — 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 12 — 2001 - A SPECIAL ORIDNANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Councilmember Wissel explained that this ordinance deals with a request by Purina Mills Inc. for a 10-year tax abatement on new manufacturing equipment with an estimated new value of $850,000. He said the jobs retained would number 48 and recommended approval of the request. President Sharp declared the ordinance on public hearing. There being no comments either in support or opposition of the ordinance, Councilmember Dickman moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Parker moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 12 — 2001 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. 12 — 2001 on third reading. Ordinance No. 12 — 2001 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. Common Council Minutes Cont'd April 16, 2001 Page 8 ORDINANCE NO. 13 — 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 13 — 2001 - A SPECIAL ORIDNANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Councilmember Wissel explained that this ordinance also deals with a request made by Purina Mills Inc. for a 10-year tax abatement for new manufacturing equipment with an estimated new value of $135,000. He said this new equipment would be located in the company's testing facility on Progress Drive and there will be five jobs retained. He recommended approval of the request. President Sharp declared Ordinance No. 13 — 2001 on public hearing. There being no comments either in support or opposition of the ordinance, Councilmember Welch moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Dickman and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Dickman moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 13 — 2001 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. 13 — 2001 on third reading. Ordinance No. 13 — 2001 was adopted on a unanimous voice vote. ORDINANCE NO. 16 — 2001 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 16 — 2001 — A SPECIAL ORIDNANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Councilmember Wissel explained that this ordinance deals with a request by Amcast Automotive for new manufacturing equipment with an estimated new value of $2,189,250 and asked that it be held on second reading until the next Council meeting. ORDINANCES ON THIRD READING There were none. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CALL FOR ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, on a motion duly made, seconded and passed, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ATTEST: Norma Schroeder, Clerk Karl Sharp, President