Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-17-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,INDIANA,MONDAY,JULY 17,2000 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. Monday,July 17, 2000, in the Council Chambers in said City. President Larry Parker presided with the following Councilmembers present:Howard"Jack"Elstro,Bruce Wissel,Karl Sharp,Bing Welch,Paul Combs,Phil Dickman and Sarah"Sally"Hutton.Etta Lundy was absent.The following business was conducted: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRAYER BY COUNCILMEMBER WISSEL ROLL CALL Eight present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the July 10,2000 meeting were not available. PRESENTATION OF REMONSTRANCES, PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, INTRODUCTIONS, MOTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR Mayor Dennis Andrews said his comments would be on the issue of the Main Street Bridge. He said the plan for some time,dating back at least 10 years,has been for the old bridge to come down at the time the new bridge was opened.However,he said,last year in anticipation of the completion of the new bridge and some question being raised again about the potential use of either the existing old bridge or another structure at that site,the City engaged a firm of bridge engineers to look at the old structure again. He said those experts were asked several questions, not the least of which, what it would cost if after the new bridge was completed there was a finding that some bridge at that location was necessary, what it would cost to refurbish that old bridge. He said the cost figures that firm came back with were astounding, adding that they said the cost of refurbishing the old bridge to a four-lane bridge would be$4.5 million.He said the cost for refurbishing the old bridge to a two-lane bridge was only $4.3 million. The next cost,he said, was what it would be in the event the City, after the opening of the new bridge and the additional traffic would decide that a new two-lane bridge would be necessary. He said that cost estimate was $2.1 million.He said there was an astounding difference between the cost of the two lane bridge which would be new which the experts told us would last twice as long for half as much as the old bridge being refurbished. He added that those figures were hard to digest. The Mayor said the timetable for the City is when the old bridge closes. He said traffic studies were done last summer, within the last few weeks and will be done around the City in the next few weeks. He said it has been planned many years that there would be an overlook on the east and west side of the Gorge at the location where the old bridge is currently located. He said that he is quite sure that the State would not build those overlooks in the way the City would prefer and therefore there would be costs for the City in those overlooks. He said,if for example, the City ended up with$400,000 or$500,000 in the cost of those overlooks,then what would appear to be a$2.1 million cost for a new bridge at that location would in reality begin to come down.Part of the evaluation is to measure and evaluate the traffic flow of the uptown,but not exclusively. He added that there has not been and is not a plan on the part of the State or City to try and save that old structure and that is based upon those conclusions of the firm hired to evaluate the need. He said there is , likely, a time of six to eight weeks before there is demolition work that would begin on the old bridge,but he said he doesn't have that exact information about that from the State. REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY President Parker said the minutes of the meeting of June 29,2000 were included in their packets. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES REPORTS FROM ORGANIZATIONS MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Common Council Minutes Cont'd July 17,2000 Page 2 ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and read by title only Ordinances No.43,44,46,47,48, 49 and 50—2000,second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. ORDINANCE NO.43—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 43 — 2000 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT 2250 WILLIAMSBURG PIKE,RICHMOND,INDIANA Planning Director Bob Goodwin answered questions about the location asked by Councilmembers Wissel and Welch.President Parker announced that this ordinance would go to Planning. ORDINANCE NO.44—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No.44—A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT 2521 SOUTH 23RD STREET,RICHMOND,INDIANA President Parker explained that this ordinance amends the zoning map from an A-1 Agriculture district to an R-1 Residential.He said it would go to Planning. ORDINANCE NO.46—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 46 — 2000 — 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 Councilmember Wissel who said this is a tax abatement request by Michael E.Lyons for the old Medical Arts lot on South 8th Street and has an estimated value of$325,000. He said this will be reviewed by the Tax Abatement Committee and be brought back at Council's next meeting. Councilmember Welch asked Tony Foster, Grants Administrator for the City, to explain the intent of this ordinance.Foster said the plans are to build an office building and to use half of it for real estate/insurance offices and the other half to be occupied by a tenant which is already lined up. ORDINANCE NO.47—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 47 — 2000 — AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL, ACCEPTANCE, AND APPROPRIATION OF A GRANT FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG FREE WAYNE COUNTY Foster explained that this ordinance deals with a request by the Richmond Police Department for a grant from the Governor's Council on Impaired and Dangerous Driving in the amount of$11,127.30.He said the grant would be used to pay for the overtime of officers for the Operation Pullover program which has two main objectives.They are to decrease the amount of drunk drivers and to increase the use of seat belts. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 47 — 2000 to second reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Dickman and the motion was carried on a voice vote. There being no comments either for or against, Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Wissel and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Wissel moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No.47—2000 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Elstro and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No.47—2000 on third reading. Ordinance No.47—2000 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO.48—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 48 — 2000 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE CREATING A PARK FACILITIES NON-REVERTING CAPITAL FUND City Controller Shelley Miller explained that she wanted to introduce this ordinance tonight which will be part of the 2001 budget process. Last year, she said, during the 2000 budget process she introduced a new line item into the Park Reverting Fund 219 which would set aside $100,000 each year to accumulate for capital improvements for the facilities. Common Council Minutes Cont'd July 17,2000 Page 3 She said this ordinance would allow for the establishment for that fund and the accounting for that allowing revenues such as grants, transfers, interest income and any other sources that Council would deem it appropriate to go into that. She said expenditures for the construction or improvement of permanent park facilities to be made through the normal budget process from that fund. Councilmember Hutton asked if the user fees go into the non-reverting 260 which is for the golf courses and Miller answered that the money can only be used within that fund.She said generally any revenues that come into Glen Miller golf course are expended there and it is the same for the improvement fees that go into the 261 capital fund for those facilities. President Parker said this would come back on public hearing at Council's next meeting. ORDINANCE NO.49—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 49 — 2000 — AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AS PART OF A GOLF SCRAMBLE TO BENEFIT THE WIDOWED PERSONS SERVICE AND RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM Carol Miller, coordinator of the Widowed Persons Service program, explained they would like to have Council's permission to have the first RSVP/WPS golf meet and to make it an annual event. She said the date scheduled for the event is September 6 at Highland Lake Golf Course and it will be a four-person scramble with a shotgun start. She said the goal is for more recognition of the two groups within the community as well as fund raising. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 49 — 2000 to second reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No.49—2000 on second reading. President Parker declared Ordinance No.49—2000 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 Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No.49—2000 to third and final reading,second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No.49—2000 on third reading. Ordinance No.49—2000 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO.50—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 50 — 2000 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE RICHMOND-WAYNE COUNTY HALFWAY HOUSE FUND (231) AND PROVIDING IN-KIND SERVICES AND PERSONNEL BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE CITY Shelley Miller said this is more or less a housekeeping ordinance,which would allow the City Controller to set up a fund for the Richmond/Wayne County Halfway House. She said last year an ordinance was introduced whereby the City and the Halfway House applied for grants and those were received.She added that part of the City's relationship with that is to provide accounting services as well as benefits for the director of that facility. She said Amy Spears, director of Community Partnerships, and Don Griffin, who has been hired to be the director for the Halfway House are in the audience tonight to answer questions. In answer to a question by Councilmember Wissel, Miller said the cost of the benefits would be provided by the City as an in-kind match to the grants received from Reid Hospital and Wayne County Foundation. She said the City's share would be anticipated somewhere around$8,000 to $9,000. Miller explained that this is a similar situation that the City has with, for example, Birth to Five, in that they have a separate board that sets up the budget that oversees their expenditures. All this says, she said,is that it would not be incumbent upon the City to verify that they are the same authorized type of expenditures that you would see in a normal City fund such as the General Fund. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 50 — 2000 to second reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Combs and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No.50—2000 on second reading. Common Council Minutes Cont'd July 17,2000 Page 4 President Parker announced that Ordinance No. 50 — 2000 was on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Hutton moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules on Ordinance No.50—2000 and advance it to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Dickman and the motion was carried on a voice vote. 111 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No.50—2000 on third reading. Ordinance No.50—2000 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND ENGROSSMENT ORDINANCE NO.8—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 8 — 2000 — 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 request, Councilmember Welch said he talked with the personnel at Spartech and they reached an agreement that what they were trying to do was to upgrade their extruders and operation so they could produce additional products at a higher efficiency and higher quality. He said after discussion the company has submitted a new proposal that totals$383,000 for upgrading their equipment on several lines. He explained the contents of the ordinance, itemizing each one, noting that some were for 5 years and others were for 10 years. He said after much discussion it was indicated that these should be separated and he moved that Council alter or amend the three items the company is asking 10-year abatements on and place them all under five-year abatements and pass the request. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Combs and it was carried on a unanimous voice vote. President Parker announced that Ordinance No. 8 —2000 as amended was on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against, Councilmember Wissel 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. 8—2000 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 8—2000 on third reading. Ordinance No. 8—2000 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO.12—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 12 — 2000 — 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 Wissel said the Committee had made some progress on this but it was not final yet. He said there are two ordinances,both from Purina Mills,this one and Ordinance No. 13—2000, and they did get a revised listing of equipment but it has not yet been determined what goes with which ordinance. He said they plan to hold these for one more meeting and Tony Foster is going to contact Purina Mills to see if only Ordinance 12—2000 can be amended and combine the two. ORDINANCE NO.13—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 13 — 2000 — 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 This also would be held until the next meeting of Council. ORDINANCE NO.28—2000 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 28 —2000—A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 154.45 TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND CODE REGARDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Common Council Minutes Cont'd July 17,2000 Page 5 Bob Goodwin, director of Planning, said this ordinance is not ready to come back to Council, explaining that the Planning Commission approved the P.U.D. with the stipulation that he (Goodwin) work out the ratios with the developers and that is still being done. He added that as soon as that is finished, this ordinance would come back to Council. Councilmember Welch suggested that it might possibly be well to change Item D under Definitions from Open Space/Recreational Area or Space. Goodwin said he would take a look at it, adding there are some points in the ordinance that have been modified. President Parker announced that this ordinance would remain on second reading. ORDINANCE NO. 42-2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 42 — 2000 — 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 Combs said this ordinance would be held until Council's next meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 45—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No.45—2000—A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 33.04 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING EMPLOYEE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND THE PROCEDURE ASSOCIATED THEREWITH Mayor Andrews said this ordinance would amend the fact-finding ordinance passed in 1971. He said state law leaves union recognition decisions to local government and this ordinance clarifies that that choice would remain with local government. The second thing the ordinance does is to establish procedures to follow which would be well established in the event there was a decision to proceed along the lines of recognition. He said he wanted to point out that a decision was made not to appeal a local court ruling whereby the court decided the 1971 fact-finding ordinance created a mandate on the City to recognize.He said that ordinance did not include anything in relation to establishing procedures in relation to recognition. The Mayor added that the decision not to appeal was based upon several things, not the least of which, is that the City would expect not less than 6 months and maybe as long as a year to get a ruling from the Court of Appeals. And,he added that the Court of Appeals may not hear this case based upon a 30-year old City ordinance. Speaking primarily to the effect upon street department employees,he said based upon the court ruling he believes that once these procedures are in place that the street department employees are entitled to access those procedures and to move through them toward a vote. He said the effect of the procedures on that process would not be much different. He said the current ordinance talks about the majority of the affected employees of the department being in favor,adding that even in the private sector and with the labor standards requirements and regulations there first needs to be a determination made in relation to which employees are affected. Once done, then you would move to the next level,he said. A second point,he said,pertains to the effect of this ordinance on existing units that have been recognized such as police,fire and transit.He added that it is the City's intention to change those contracts and the City Attorney has been in contact with those units and addressed those concerns.He said he would like to draw a legal distinction about the effect upon AFSCME as it is related to streets,noting there were two aspects of the court ruling. One of these, he said, was deciding to recognize employees in that area which is separate from deciding to recognize a third party. He added that recognizing employees and their decision to organize and seek representation is one step and recognizing a third party such as AFSCME would be a separate step but would obviously be related and interconnected and it would be upon the courts,both the City and employees,would evaluate. Stating that there have been many things said on this issue in the last year, the Mayor said the administration has not responded to criticisms and not attacked anybody, adding that there had been no retaliation nor intimidation nor even response in many cases. He said he would continue to make every effort to maintain that posture. The Mayor said the last meeting, Council heard from Debra Garcia of AFSCME in relations to some . comments to the draft of the ordinance at that time.He said there was some discussion about the continuing choice of the City as things move along in relation to recognition decisions and those procedures. He said he felt the disagreement about the volunteer action that needs to be present throughout this system and at the same time,he feels the employees are entitled to a voice if they get to the end of the day in relation to who that third party would be. He also addressed some of the language in the ordinance as to whether or not it needs to be there. Common Council Minutes Cont'd July 17,2000 Page 6 City Attorney Bob Bever gave some of the history about the issue and said he did draft this ordinance upon the Mayor's request. He said upon studying the issue of employee collective bargaining he learned that although the federal law mandates in most instances the recognition of a union to serve as the bargaining agent for employees in private industry,the law specifically excludes public employees from those statutes. That means, he said, that neither federal nor state law requires a City to recognize a union as a bargaining agent for municipal employees. He also explained that the issue at this time is not the ability for an employee to join a union, but it is an issue as to whether or not the City administration must involve the union in discussing salary, grievances, etc. He said the recognition of a union to serve as a bargaining agent for municipal employees has always been left to City law or ordinance. He added that the recent court ruling acknowledged this but took the position that Richmond had,in fact,passed an ordinance in 1971 to demand collective bargaining. However, he said, in his opinion the judge's interpretation of that ordinance is not correct and he (Bever) has a completely different interpretation. He said part of the Judge's rationale for his ruling was his suggestion that if the City did not accept his interpretation since it was just a City law then the local Council could amend or clarify it.He added that that is exactly part of the purpose of this new ordinance.In spite of the wording in his written ruling, for those who were present at the hearing, which did not include one person from AFSCME or the plaintiffs, the judge acknowledged the serious ambiguities of the local ordinance and the lack of any procedures for going through with the union recognition request. This,Bever said,brings this to the specific recognition of AFSCME as the selected bargaining agent for the street and sanitation workers. In spite of comments to the contrary by their representatives,Bever said,the recent ruling intentionally,and by agreement of both attorneys and the judge,did not address this AFSCME issue and was left to be decided at a different time.He said an initial hearing has been set on that in August, but that was not a part of the ruling. Based upon all of the above, he said, he was instructed to draft an ordinance which recognized and incorporated federal and state law on municipal union recognition and which set forth fair procedures for those instances where a union would be recognized as an agent. He said he believes this ordinance fairly addresses both of these points. Bever said he inquired of other Indiana cities and talked about the issues with both lawyers for cities and for labor organizations and learned that to no one's knowledge, including the lawyers for the labor organizations, no other Indiana City mandates employee collective bargaining in all situations where requested by a union which is what the Judge,in his ruling,said the City did in 1971. Most of the towns such as Indianapolis and Fort Wayne said it is left up to a situation by situation wherein if a union or a department wants to be recognized they will present a new ordinance each time someone asks for union recognition then it's up to the City to accept or reject such an ordinance.As to the procedure utilized for recognition,Bever said that upon presentation of this ordinance to other cities and labor lawyers the City was given high marks for doing a thorough job in establishing a fair procedure for the recognition process. Bever summarized the steps that are now to be taken on collective bargaining recognition as it is stated in the ordinance. (These can be found in the body of Ordinance No. 45 — 2000). He pointed out that the procedures to establish collective bargaining included (1) Request for Bargaining Agent; (2) Oversight Panel;(3)Election;(4)Recognition;(5)Decertification;and(6)"Union Shop"Agreement. President Parker asked for a motion to amend the ordinance. Councilmember Welch moved to revise the ordinance to coincide and copy the revision offered to Council dated 7/13/2000 which was delivered to Councilmembers in their packets, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a 7 to 1 voice vote with Councilmember Elstro voting against. President Parker announced Council would recess for approximately five minutes after which time would be allowed for public input on Ordinance No.45—2000. There was no public comment in support of the ordinance. President Parker asked those speaking against, to hold their comments to only the necessary amount of time. Those speaking against included Dan Harris of the Street Department who was concerned about the fairness of the City wanting to change the ordinance after the Judge made the ruling and bring the employees into it.He said he was the one who asked the street department employees the ones who wanted to join, never harassed and never intimidated anyone, and 100 percent complied with the request. He said they didn't believe that anyone else should have the right to tell them who represents them and they chose AFSCME because of their successes in the past. Debra Garcia said she wanted to make a correction,stating that when the Judge made his ruling,AFSCME was there as well as its attorney along with Sue Neeley an employee of AFSCME. She defended the actions of AFSCME on behalf of the street and sanitation employees. Also speaking against the ordinance was Fred Davis of Wayne — Randolph UAW CAP chairperson who said he helped put together a couple of demonstrations to try to draw attention to their problem. Common Council Minutes Cont'd July 17,2000 Page 7 Others speaking against the ordinance were Tim Hartman of the National Association of Letter Carriers organized since 1971;Jim Sticco of 87 Edwards Place in Richmond;Tony Bane,native of Richmond;Mike Toschlog, representing the Carpenter's Union at 711 South H Street; Willard Brown, President of Local 5163-5 which is Silgan Containers,formerly Alcoa;Mike Brown,President of the East Central Indiana AF of L/CIO,Central Labor Council which covers seven counties which includes Wayne County; Gil Klose of 2712 South G Street said he is against the ordinance in its present form because he fears it would give the City the kind of labor relations that it does not deserve; Dennis Tyler, representing East Central Labor Council;and David Leffell,driver of a City bus for 32 years and a member of the Transit Union. President Parker said this ordinance would come back on second reading at 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. Larry Parker,President ATTEST: Myra Miller,Deputy Clerk