Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-20-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,INDIANA,MONDAY,MARCH 20,2000 The Common Council of the City of Richmond,Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m.Monday,March 20, 2000, in the Council Chambers in said City. President Larry Parker presided with the following Councilmembers present: Howard "Jack" Elstro, Etta J. Lundy, Bruce Wissel, Karl Sharp, Bing Welch, Paul Combs,Phil Dickman and Sarah"Sally"Hutton.The following business was conducted: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRAYER BY COUNCILMEMBER COMBS ROLL CALL Nine present. Sitting in for Clerk Norma Schroeder as Deputy Clerk Myra Miller. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the February 22, 2000 meeting were approved on a motion by Councilmember Welch, second by Councilmember Lundy and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Since the meeting of March 6,2000,was cancelled there were no minutes to be approved. PRESENTATION OF REMONSTRANCES, PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, INTRODUCTIONS, MOTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS President Parker announced that the"Operation Clean Sweep"presentation had been postponed until a later date. COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR City Attorney Bob Bever said he had distributed to all Councilmembers prior to the meeting, a helpful guide from the State Board of Tax Commissioners. He said it is a relatively new definition which might assist them in determining on the issue of new manufacturing equipment when it concerns tax abatements. REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY President Parker said the minutes of the meetings of February 10, 17 and 24, 2000 were included in their packets. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES Reporting on a meeting of the Tax Abatement Committee, Councilmember Wissel said after contacting some of the other agencies which deal with the tax abatement issue that part of the problem is that there are so many different entities involved in the process.He said the state enabling legislation leaves all the power to the Council in the administration of this issue. And, he added, by a practical matter, the administration, which has personnel able to handle all the administrative work goes through the Controller's office and the Grants Administrator Tony Foster. He said it also goes through the Township Assessor, County Auditor and the State Board of Tax Commissioners. Discovering that nobody had a good, overall picture of what was really going on with the tax abatement issue, a committee comprised of Councilmembers Combs, Sharp and Elstro and him, met with Wayne County Auditor Chris Beeson,Deputy Auditor Linda Corder,Township Assessor Mike Statzer and Foster. He said they also received an 8-page summary from the State Tax Commissioners giving a good overview of those areas that can be abated, both in real estate and manufacturing equipment that he recommended that all Councilmembers should read. Along with that,he said,he had also distributed to Councilmembers a list given to him by Beeson,in which it mentioned 12 different real estate areas that are not abatable.He said they also learned that a compliance form is required to be submitted annually by firms who are receiving abatements and for real estate and real estate improvements the compliance deadline was February 29. He added that in checking, they found that as of March 7, there were 31 firms that had not completed and submitted their forms. He said letters were sent out on Council stationary giving them an additional 10 days to submit the forms or the abatements would be retracted because of non-compliance. Common Council Minutes Cont'd March 20,2000 Page 2 Recommendations that came from the meeting, Councilmember Wissel said, were as follows: (a) Since used equipment purchased out of state is eligible for abatement,the Committee thought those people should provide a copy of the bill of sale or some other proof showing where it was purchased from; (b) Used equipment should be clearly identified as being used; (c) A company representative capable of answering questions about either the equipment or real estate should be available at public hearing to answer any questions and if they are not, the ordinance would be held on second reading; (d) Equipment should have an estimated life expectancy indicated on the form; (e) All equipment listed for abatement should be for the same term,not listing one as a 10-year and the other as a 5-year. Councilmember Wissel stated that he wanted to assure the business community that this is not an attempt to change the philosophy or commitment to apply for tax abatements but to find a responsible use of tax abatement to encourage new businesses and to help existing businesses in the area. He said these tax abatements have become very popular and in order to make it manageable, they are looking for other controls to keep a handle on process. He said it has always been some concern that the Council did not have a good follow up system on the tax abatements which had been granted, which prompted another action taken by the Tax Abatement Committee. He said it was decided to ask Foster to go out and inspect the first 10 abatements granted in 1999 and check for compliance,making sure that things are up to snuff and what is expected. However, he said,that request was only made last week and Foster had not had an opportunity to do that yet,but Foster said.he would be doing spot checks on tax abatements granted from now on to make sure everything is as it should be. Councilmember Elstro stated that any computer on the tax abatement has to be tied to the machinery and Councilmember Wissel agreed, answering a question posed by Councilmember Dickman. He said every business is given a form at the time the tax abatement is granted. He also said Foster is going to put together a fact sheet for those making any requests so they do understand what is covered and what is not. He said there would be certain areas where Council would have to make a decision as to whether granting a request would substantially increase the life of the equipment or would it provide a deduction for maintenance. Councilmember Wissel said there would still be rough decisions that have to be made, adding that no ordinance designed is going to fit every situation. Therefore,he said,the requests would have to be treated in a fair manner and uniformly, adding that some of this gets into highly technical areas. He did say that after the committee got into the issue and learned more about it,they decided they had done a very accurate job in the past in administering the program.In conclusion,Councilmember Wissel said that when a firm is given an abatement it is asked to make a 10 percent contribution of the abated tax savings, which goes to a curb and sidewalk fund as well as a revolving loan fund. Councilmember Sharp commented that the committee agreed that it would be appropriate to give those people credit for making those voluntary donations.They are: Alchem Plastics Corp.,Benchmark Graphics, Chesapeake Display &Packaging, Carlos Casket Shell, Cinram, Gilbert and Alice Clevenger, Color Box, Marion T. and Ella Cummins, FRR Development Corp., E.G. Hill, IP Acquisition Corp, Mac-Del Inc., Maitlen Heating, Mosey Mfg., Oberle & Keller Construction, Jon Odom, PSD Premdor, Pallet Solutions, Peoples Loan & Trust, Pittsburg Tube Co., Plastics Machinery Technology, Primex Plastics Corp., Productivity Corp.,Productivity Fabricators,Richmond Casting,Sanko Peterson,Fritz Shoemaker,Stevens Wire Products,Danny Sullivan and Wayne Dairy. REPORTS FROM ORGANIZATIONS MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and read by title only Ordinances No. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19—2000,second by Councilmember Lundy and the motion was carried on a voice vote. ORDINANCE NO. 14—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 14 — 2000 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT 3641 EAST MAIN STREET,RICHMOND,INDIANA President Parker said this ordinance deals with changing the zoning of the properties at 3641 East Main presently designated as R-2 to R-3 and R-4, adding that it would go to Planning and return to Council on April 23. Councilmember Hutton expressed her appreciation for the map included with this ordinance. Common Council Minutes Cont'd March 20,2000 Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. 15—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 15 — 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 he had some concerns about this request. President Parker said it does go to the Tax Abatement Committee for evaluation and Combs is a member of that committee where he could make those concerns known. Councilmember Wissel explained that the ordinance deals with a request by Benchmark Graphics for$150,000 for equipment over a 10-year period. ORDINANCE NO.16-2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No.16 — 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 stated that this ordinance deals with a request made by Richmond Industrial Trucks Inc. for a 10-year abatement of$1 million worth of equipment. President Parker said this ordinance would also be reviewed by the Tax Abatement Committee. ORDINANCE NO.17—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No.17—2000—AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL, ACCEPTANCE, AND APPROPRIATION OF A GRANT FROM DNR HOMETOWN INDIANA URBAN FORESTRY Grants Administrator Tony Foster explained that this ordinance deals with the City's request for$5,912.50 to develop a tree plan and to plant 87 new trees along North 12th Street along Freeman Park and South A Street and along North J Street between North 12th Street and Chester Boulevard.He said the grant requires a 100 percent match and the projected cost of the project is $11,825, making the request one half of that amount. Foster said the project would be a supplement to the work going to take place this summer along North 12th Street,stating that the new curbs and sidewalks and other improvements would be practically funded by the Indiana Department of Commerce. Councilmember Welch asked if the plantings would occur in the fall of 2000 and Councilmember Combs answered in the affirmative. President Parker commented that he hoped that when the trees are planted between Chester Boulevard and North 12th Street that the Street Tree Commission remembers to back away from corners in those heavily traveled areas. He added that he doesn't want to run into the same problems which exist on North A Street where the large trees are so close to the corners it is difficult to see around them. Foster said that a request is being made in the grant for$950 to develop a tree plan,done by a horticulturist, who would give advice on the correct type of trees to be planted in the correct areas and the proper amount of feet between those trees and hydrants, corners and utilities. Councilmember Welch requested that Councilmember Combs and Foster be the conduit of communications between the City and the Indiana Department of Transportation. He said the current plan of INDOT is to redo the North J and Chester Boulevard intersection as well as State Route 227 which is North J east and that work is anticipated to begin in 2003. He said he would hope that no trees would be planted in that two-block stretch of North J Street because much construction is going to go on in that area as they revise that intersection. Councilmember Lundy moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 17 — 2000 to second 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. 17—2000 on second reading. President Parker announced that Ordinance No. 17—2000 was on second reading and public hearing.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 Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 17—2000 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Lundy and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 17—2000 on third reading. Ordinance No. 17—2000 was adopted by a unanimous roll call vote. Common Council Minutes Cont'd March 20,2000 Page 4 ORDINANCE NO.18-2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No.18—2000—AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL,.ACCEPTANCE, AND APPROPRIATION OF A GRANT FROM AREA 9 IN- HOME&COMMUNITY SERVICES Foster explained that this ordinance deals with the funding from Area 9 In-Home&Community Services to the City to be used to pay a portion of the salaries of the Roseview Paratransit drivers, adding that this has been done for the past several years. He said the City is requesting $40,500 from Area 9 and with the required match,this grant would pay the salaries of 2.3 of the 4 existing Paratransit drivers. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 18 — 2000 to second reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Dickman and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 18—2000 on second reading. President Parker announced that Ordinance No. 18—2000 was on second reading and public hearing.There being no comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Lundy moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Elstro and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 18—2000 to third and final 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. 18—2000 on third reading. Ordinance No. 18—2000 was adopted by a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO.19—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 19 — 2000 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING AND/OR CLARIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 10— 1984 REGARDING THE TIME PERIODS AVAILABLE FOR OBTAINING DEDUCTIONS FROM ASSESSED VALUE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA City Attorney Bob Bever reminded Councilmembers that, as it had been discussed in the past, the State Legislature on January 1, 2000, had added more flexibility in the tax abatement area about when a deduction could be granted and for what period of time.He said it is not limited to 3, 6 or 10 years and tax abatements could be granted for just one year all the way up to 10 for both real estate and manufacturing equipment.He said this ordinance would bring into line the local ordinances to reflect that newly allowable flexibility. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 19 — 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. 19—2000 on second reading. President Parker announced that Ordinance No. 19—2000 was on second reading and public hearing.There being no comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 19—2000 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 19—2000 on third reading. Ordinance No. 19—2000 was adopted by 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 Common Council Minutes Cont'd March 20,2000 Page 5 Councilmember Wissel requested that Ordinances No. 8, 12 and 13 —2000 be placed on hold because they have abatement issues about which the Tax Abatement Committee is waiting for more information, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. ORDINANCE NO. 10—2000 The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 10—2000—A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 120 OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND CODE President Parker stated that this ordinance deals with concerns about the alarm systems. Bever said this ordinance that Council has before them tonight is in its original form.However,he said,he had sent Councilmembers a letter in which he included the changes requested by Councilmember Welch regarding who would be responsible for the fine for failing to get a permit initially on the alarms. He said that resulted in the proposed amended ordinance. In his letter, Bever said, he stated that the administration is not proposing these amendments and likened them to the building permit procedure.He said the installer of the alarms should have some responsibility to notify the owner,which is in the original ordinance. Bever said only the sections which have changes in them are on this ordinance, adding that one section not being changed is 120.9 titled Consumer Protection which states: "It shall be the obligation of businesses selling alarm systems and doing business with the City of Richmond to inform customers at the point of sale that local ordinance requires anyone in control of an alarm system as defined by this ordinance to obtain a permit for such alarm."He said that is in the City's code now, adding that he had simply enclosed the amended ordinance as a form of introduction. He pointed out that one of the new sentences is "fine assessed against the person or entity responsible for obtaining or renewing a permit,"and the other is at the end of 120.02,putting that fine on the installer. Bever said it has always been the case that the City could fine people who don't get the permit before putting in the system. However, in the past, if the false alarms had been excessive, the only recourse the City had was to revoke their permit and take out the alarm system. Bever said he felt that defeated the purpose because of the good that is provided by the alarm system, but said the City needed a way to discourage the false alarms.That is why,he said,in this ordinance the fine system has been set forth as$50 for the fourth false alarm and that increases to $100 for the seventh. He reminded Councilmembers that there is the grace period allowed after someone puts in an alarm system to get all the"bugs"worked out of it. Explaining his reasoning for suggesting the two amendments, Councilmember Welch said his main intent was getting a record of all those alarms being installed in the City. He said he felt that if the City is expected to respond to those alarms to those locations he wanted to make sure it had as much information that was needed. He said he felt that should be put into a database to hold a record of all those alarms that could be used by the Clerk's office for the renewal applications of the registrations or permits. And, he said, also for the police to set up a potential system that when an alarm came in, that the dispatcher could immediately call up the data base and say where the alarm was located, giving the officer some advanced information. He said the second purpose was to ensure that the installer putting in those units would have to sign off with the resident, stating that the permit would be forthcoming. Then,he said, the City would be given the pertinent information so that it could be sure that the installer had thoroughly inspected the system to make sure it worked well. He said he, personally, was not interested in generating revenue with the proposed changes,but merely to make people aware that the units have to be maintained properly to operate within the parameters of usage. He said Police officers chase after false alarms and there is not enough manpower to have them do those. His intention with the suggestion changes,he said,was to get the installer to make the application before he even began the installation, giving the responsible party at that location so it would all be included in the information file in the Clerk's office.He said he would,at that same time,be given a copy of the ordinance so he could pass it along to the property owner. Bever asked who ultimately should be responsible for obtaining this permit, the owner or the installer?He said the original ordinance requires the owner to do that and the amended proposal says it's the installer. Either way, he said, it says that anyone who installs these must notify the owners of this ordinance and a permit is required.He said they could be fined if the owner said that no one told them about the ordinance. Councilmember Welch said that is correct, but added that he did not have the original ordinance when he saw these changes the first time. He said it backs up what he was going for in his suggested changes, adding that once this ordinance is passed, along with the old one, it would serve the purpose making his amendments unnecessary. Common Council Minutes Cont'd March 20,2000 Page 6 Councilmember Dickman agreed that the property owners should be responsible and that the installer should tell them that. He said he had several phone calls from business owners concerned with the number of false alarms before the fines begin. He said most felt that after the grace period was over, four was not enough to allow, saying that they felt businesses should be allowed additional false alarms before the fines would kick into place.Bever said there is a communication that occurs in the notice procedure.He said it is the law that every false alarm is answered by the Police Department with the officer keeping a log and the homeowners usually get a letter about it. In answer to a question by Councilmember Lundy, Councilmember Dickman said there are all different kinds of situations with the size of the business being a factor. He said there may be a case where 10 different people operate that alarm. He said the alarm at Kessler's, his place of business, went off recently with the Police Department coming to the conclusion that it had been triggered by kids setting off a bunch of firecrackers by the store's entrance. Councilmember Dickman said the alarm came in designated as a glass breakage.Bever said that brought up a good question and he has had calls come into his office addressing that, adding that he feels the City has to be lenient in the description of false alarms. He said it the alarms can be set off by kids knocking on windows,this could also happen at a person's home where it is not someone's intentional mistake. Councilmember Combs asked if there was a way to hold this ordinance on second reading to allow people to come forward to give more public input to consider these points that have been brought up. President Parker said that once the discussion amongst Councilmembers is concluded, the meeting would be open to the public. He added that any Councilmember could stop it by not engrossing it. Councilmember Dickman said he would suggest that the fine be changed to allow a fine after six false alarms instead of four. President Parker said in that case, the other one, which is now seven, should also be changed. Councilmember Elstro said he felt it would be best to try what it is now,then see what happens. Councilmember Wissel said he agreed with Councilmember Elstro, adding that there is an expense involved here, asking if that should be spread out over the tax base or the property owner? He said he thought$50 was an unreasonable assessment compared to the peril in which it put the emergency people answering the false alarms. Councilmember Welch said chasing false alarms does create a position of jeopardy for the police officers, alluding to the accident that resulted in permanent disabling injuries to Police officer Kenny Lester who was answering a false alarm. He said it also costs time for those officers as well as a potential hazard while using the automobiles and incurring expenses. Councilmember Dickman proposed an amendment calling for fines for the 6th false alarm and the 9th instead of 7th, second by Councilmember Combs. Bever said that would change the reading in Section 6, 120.13,Section D to say a fine of$50 for the 6th false alarm and each subsequent, then an assessed fine of $100 for the 9th and each subsequent citation. He said in 120.16 those numbers are repeated, then asked if anyplace in the ordinance it talks about the 4 and 7 would go to 6 and 9. Councilmember Dickman said maybe after a year has passed,Council could see if it is working and if it was not then it could be looked at again.He said that would apply not only to businesses but also to everyone with an alarm. Ordinance No. 10 — 2000 failed on a 6 to 3 roll call vote, with Councilmembers Elstro, Lundy, Wissel, Hutton,Sharp and Parker voting against and Councilmembers Welch,Combs and Dickman voting for. President Parker announced Ordinance 10—2000 was on public hearing. Speaking in opposition to the ordinance was Vivian Sanders Himelick, owner of Sanders Jewelry, which she pointed out had been run by her family since the early 1940s. She said they have a most sophisticated alarm on a cellular system and if a cellular block goes out it indicates to ADT,their installer, that there has been a system failure.Based on the insurance requirements,she said,the alarm company is obligated to call the Police Department. She said they have six windows in their store and if kids come along and hit them they could set off the alarm as well as the boom boxes in the cars on Main Street which actually makes the front windows in the store rattle. Only recently, she said, after locking up the store, they were just getting to their car that was parked only more than half a block away, and they heard the alarm go off. She said as they headed back to the store, they saw some kids running away from the back door and they felt that by merely rattling the door the alarm was set off. She said these systems are so very sensitive, especially for jewelry stores and banks, because the insurance companies require it. Ray James, speaking for Sonitrol Security Systems, said his company serves n excess of 550 clients in the Richmond and Wayne County area. He said he didn't deny that some users need a little jogging as far as false alarms are concerned but requested that the ordinance contain very specific instructions for contesting the finding of a false alarm.He said most of them are at night when the Police officer might not see what is going on. Councilmember Sharp asked what recommendations he would make and James responded that he would raise the fine for not getting the alarm permit to $500. He said he presently makes sure everybody gets a copy of the ordinance and if they are elderly,he gets it himself. Common Council Minutes Cont'd March 20,2000 - Page 7 In answer to a question by Councilmember Welch about re-training,James said when the business changes those contacts, he goes back and gives them a refresher course to make sure the system is understood. He added that he felt there should be some adjustment between the homeowners and the businesses. Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Wissel and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 10—2000 to third and final reading,second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 10—2000 on third reading. Councilmember Lundy said this ordinance could be passed as is and then it could be adjusted accordingly. Councilmember Welch said if the ordinance passes, as it is, he felt that the Clerk's office and the Police Department set up an administrative procedure for a database that could be followed. Councilmember Combs said he felt that it is a shame to pass an ordinance like this because he doesn't like the unfairness of it.He said he felt like the amendment that failed would have provided more of a buffer,or a less desirable approach, having a police officer go to the location the next day and make a determination on a false alarm. He said he felt this ordinance is sending a poor message to business, leading them to believe they would be harassed if they get false alarms. Councilmember Dickman said he feels that a number of businesses and residents have abused the false alarm process, adding that he felt they have been irresponsible in how they have handled correcting the situation.He said he heard of one such case where they had had at least three false alarms a week. He said trying to curtail that kind of thing is what this ordinance should aim for and that is why he felt four were too few. He said his concern is that if Council tries to revisit this issue later, many businesses would be fined when they don't need to be,adding that it should control those who are abusing it. President Parker requested that the Clerk's office and the Police Department give Council some indication by July 1 of the violations and any fines that have been paid. Ordinance No. 10 — 2000 was adopted on a roll call vote of 7 to 2, with Councilmembers Combs and Dickman voting against. ORDINANCE NO.11—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 Councilmember Sharp explained that he and Councilmember Combs had visited with Paul Bertsch at B & F Plastics,Inc.on February 29,2000.He said Bertsch explained that this request for tax abatement involves a purchase of a used 78-inch wide sheet line extruder that is bigger than anything they have and they are completely rebuilding it.Councilmember Sharp said the cost to rebuild it is$125,000 and Bertsch indicated that if he purchased it today it would cost$1 million.He said this extruder would increase the corporation's production of truck mud flaps,which is currently,200,000 per month. President Parker announced that Ordinance No. 11—2000 was on second reading and public hearing.There being no comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Welch moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Wissel and the motion was carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 19—2000 to third and final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Wissel and the motion was carried on a voice vote. The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 11—2000 on third reading. Ordinance No. 11—2000 was adopted by a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO.12—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 This was held over by a motion made earlier in the meeting. Common Council Minutes Cont'd March 20,2000 Page 8 ORDINANCE NO.13—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 This was held over by a motion made earlier in the 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: Norma Schroeder,Clerk