Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-22-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,INDIANA,TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 22,2000 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m.Tuesday, February 22, 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 WELCH ROLL CALL Nine present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the February 7,2000 meeting were approved on a motion by Councilmember Welch,second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. PRESENTATION OF REMONSTRANCES, PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, INTRODUCTIONS, MOTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS SECOND AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 4 — 1999 — A RESOLUTION OF RICHMOND COMMON COUNCIL APPROVING THE FISCAL PLAN FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THREE AREAS TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND Alluding to the letter he had distributed to Councilmembers, City Attorney Bever explained that a small omission has had a domino effect on the City's annexation process. However, he said it would not cause any damage.He said in dealing with the three areas of the City which include the Midwest Industrial Park property,the U.S. 35 property and the Chester Boulevard property,the City thought it had included all the legal descriptions. However, he said, they found a small tract on the Chester Boulevard property that was going to be left hanging on its own if it was not included in the annexation. He said a small portion of Indiana University's property is also currently outside the City Limits as well as a tract of land owned by James L. and Jenny L. Willman. He said to include those in the annexation, they have to be included in the notice with their legal description so since all three were put in together, it is going to affect the entire resolution and the ordinance for all three areas. He said although there is going to be a delay, it is going to be done so that before the end of the year and the City can proceed with the property owners with any development they are hoping to occur. Bever said what is before Council tonight is the second amended resolution which adopts the fiscal plan. He said that fiscal plan is identical, the-exhibits are identical and the only thing that changes is the description of the Chester Boulevard property which now is the 47.651 acres rather than the 44.382 acres. He said they have already had public comment and since no public notice of the fiscal plan is required this would be appropriate to adopt the resolution tonight as amended with the inclusion of this other parcel. Then, he said, when they get to Ordinance No. 102-1999 on the agenda, he would ask that while it is on second reading tonight that they amend it to again include the description and also go into some other changes.He said it would be held over for what will now be public hearing on the annexation at the May 1 meeting, giving time to send out new notices to both the newspaper and adjoining property owners for that required 60 days between the time of the adoption of the fiscal plan with the proper legal description and when Council has the public hearing on the ordinance. Councilmember Elstro moved to amend and adopt Second Amended Resolution No. 4—2000, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY President Parker said the minutes of the meetings of January 27 and February 3, 2000 were included in their packets. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS A. Richmond Police Department Captain Melody Truitt of the Traffic Safety Division reported on the type of program efforts being made on behalf of animals in this community as well as some of the enforcement efforts made within the last couple of years for resolving animal problems. Common Council Minutes Cont'd February 22,2000 Page 2 Giving a brief outline of what is being done, Captain Truitt said the department's Animal Control Officer is on duty from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and he is Doyle Nichols. She said either Nichols or her are excellent contacts for any type of animal complaint anyone might have, adding that her primary focus is on animal neglect, abandonment and cruelty investigations. Nichols, she said, will also work any of the barking or running loose complaints Councilmembers might have. She said any officer on the department can and does respond to any kind of animal complaint. 111 She said the law is enforced regarding animals in two fashions and she said she determines the method in which she takes enforcement action depending upon the severity of the offense. She said abandonment or neglect is a Class B misdemeanor in the state, punishable by jail time and/or fine. Cruelty, she said, is a Class A misdemeanor, also punishable by jail time and/or fine and is a Class B felony if there has been a prior offense and conviction whether related or unrelated. She said arrests have been made recently in these areas and gave examples. Captain Truitt said she refers to the City Code for less severe cases such as allowing the animal to live in unsatisfactory conditions. She said on a weekly basis it is not uncommon to find many cats and dogs which have been dumped and every effort is made to find the owner. She talked about the authority exercised by the Board of Works,pointing out there are steps that can be taken to make a difference. She said currently the penalty provision for violation of the ordinance is $50 and she feels that has made a difference. She said she is working with Assistant City Attorney Steve Rabe revising and re- writing a major portion of Chapter 91 that will, hopefully, be brought before this Council to look at. She said they are suggesting some new violations and changes in penalty provision that she feels will improve the overall chapter on animals. Programs which have been,initiated include the emergency veterinary service which was initiated by her in 1997 funded through the City and is somewhat supplemented through donations and animal tags. She said the Greens Fork Veterinary Clinic is cooperating with that program. Habitat for Animals is another program, she said, started through the help of the Wayne County Foundation through grant funds and the Richmond Police Department. She explained that volunteers construct suitable and adequate doghouses to help out after owners are checked out to see if they are deserving. She said they have built about two dozen within the past year, adding that it is a lot of work and a lot of time, but rewarding. She said there are also several spay and neuter programs going on now, especially at the Help Center where a veterinarian is willing to donate one day of this time for this. She said grant funds are being received to address the cat population program and estimated that there are hundreds and possibly thousands running wild within this community. In time,she said, they will be making a huge dent into that problem. She said that three times a year immunization clinics are offered to those people who cannot afford to go to the traditional veterinary office and pay for those immunizations. She said they did about 800 of those in 1999. Assuring the success of these programs, Captain Truitt said, is communication and the willingness to cooperate. She said she feels the Neighborhood Associations help with this. She also said the more information the person lodging the complaint can give, the better equipped the officer is to address the problem.Funding is the bottom line, she said, and in 91.14 in the City Code it seems clear that there is an established animal control fund and that can be budgeted with those funds going to animal welfare programs or in the form of donations to animal shelters. She said what the City taxes are paying for right now is for animals to be hauled to the shelter, to be maintained at that shelter for short periods of time and for the most part, for the animals to be destroyed by the animal shelter. She asked Councilmembers to consider the importance of some of these programs when budget time comes around this year. Councilmember Welch expressed his appreciation for Captain Truitt's efforts in bringing the message about animal control and problems to Council tonight. President Parker asked about follow-ups on complaints about animals and Captain Truitt said that unfortunately most complainants do not leave their names. Councilmember Combs said he had talked with many people in the community who have come to him with concerns about this issue. Captain Truitt said the newspaper had carried several articles about these programs and WCTV has carried some half-hour segments on the topic. B. Ron Chappell, director of Human Rights, reported on a recent trip he took as a representative of the City to Greensboro,N.C.He said he met with the Greensboro Human Rights Commission director and the Mayor of Greensboro. He said the most significant part of his visit took place at Guilford College, a historical Quaker college, which was the starting point of the first Underground Railroad.He said the main purpose of his being there was to commemorate the connection between Greensboro, N.C. and Richmond. Common Council Minutes Cont'd February 22,2000 Page 3 He said he accepted a plaque and said a few words on behalf of the City, noting that apparently Levi Coffin and Samuel Charles came from that vicinity and were innovators for the first railroad, making the 800-mile trip from Greensboro to the Richmond area. Chappell said he was asked to appear before the Greensboro City Council where he expressed his gratitude on behalf of the City to participate in that event. He said there was a mention of perhaps having a reciprocating event here in the future, however,that event in Greensboro had been five years in the making. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES Councilmember Combs commented that recently he had had the opportunity to go out with one of the City's street crews,a step that he said he took upon himself to take in his capacity as a member of the Street Tree Commission.He said he has had constituents contact him to ask about trees or tree limbs that are close to their house and since he had been making referrals to the street department, he felt he needed to see for himself what went on. He said he was very much impressed with the difficulty of their job and how they made a potentially dangerous task, very safe. He commended the department under the leadership of Bill Smith. Councilmember Lundy commented about the article in the Palladium-Item today that the Richmond Housing Authority has hired a Richmond native,Derek White, as its new director who will begin work in March and reporting to the Council. REPORTS FROM ORGANIZATIONS Councilmember Combs stated that after a week as a patient at Reid Hospital he felt he should comment on how impressed he was with the care he had received while there, adding that it is quite a resource for this community. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and read by title only Ordinance No. 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13—2000,second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. ORDINANCE NO.6—2000 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 6—2000—A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ALONG U.S. 35,WAYNE TOWNSHIP,RICHMOND,INDIANA Councilmember Hutton commented on the absence of a map with this ordinance. Councilmember Wissel responded that he believed the maps usually come after the Plan Commission meeting. After a brief discussion, City Attorney Bob Bever said it had also been discussed last year that Councilmembers should get a copy of the entire petition. Councilmember Welch said he, personally, would like to have a copy of the map and the petition before public hearing by Council. Councilmember Wissel said he feels that it is sometimes a matter of timing. President Parker said he would talk to Bob Goodwin, the Director of Planning, to see about getting a map along with the petition when it comes in on first reading of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO.10—2000 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 10—2000—A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 120 OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND CODE Assistant City Attorney Steve Rabe said this ordinance makes several substantial revisions to Chapter 120 of the City of Richmond Code.He said that chapter addresses false burglar and fire alarms within the City, adding that this ordinance has been prepared upon the request of the Richmond Police Department.He said Police Chief Bill Shake is present in the audience tonight and would be able to answer questions about the number and cost of false burglar alarms experienced within the City. Rabe said that currently, as the Code is written, upon receiving a fourth false alarm within any six-month period the permit to hold an alarm that rings into the police station is supposed to be revoked. He said this is something that is obviously not desirable and hasn't been done within the past four years. He said most cities address this type of problem through a fine system and that is what this ordinance would do.The way the ordinance would work,he said, is that there would be no type of fine for the first three alarms within a calendar year, but the fourth and subsequent false alarms would carry a$50 fine and the seventh and each subsequent alarm within any calendar year would carry a$100 fine, Common Council Minutes Cont'd February 22,2000 Page 4 In talking with representatives of Bloomington,Fort Wayne and Indianapolis,he said he learned that this is right in line with what they are doing. He said the wording was changed from"shall" to "allow" an alarm permit to be revoked upon the seventh or subsequent false alarm within a calendar year. He said to revoke an alarm permit would require a hearing before the Board of Works. Rabe said currently business owners and individuals in private residences have to obtain a permit to have a burglar alarm that rings into the police station and that is still retained in this ordinance.He said there were places in the current ordinance where it mentions filings are made with the City Controller and they are actually made in the City Clerk's office and have been for some time. A change was also made, he said, in the section at the end of this ordinance which deals with false fire alarms and lowered the fines on those. He said the current alarm ordinance allows three within a 12-month period and the fourth is a $100 fine, fifth is a $200 fine and the sixth is a $300 fine. He said that has changed because these kinds of fines have not been levied and in talking with Chief Allen the state law requires if someone is fined in excess of $100 the City does not have the option to write a ticket and enforce it through the normal ordinance violation process but have to go to the time and expense of filing a lawsuit against the person and taking them to court. Thus, the reasoning behind lowering the fine to $100 after the third for the fourth and each subsequent also$100,making it easier to collect. Rabe said the reason the fire alarms remain slightly higher than the burglar alarms because when the fire alarm goes off it necessitates bringing fire truck out that aren't already out on the streets and the additional cost of that. President Parker asked whether or not this ordinance could be adopted tonight since it changes the amount of the fine. Bever said there is no absolute restriction on that. Rabe said he would leave it to Council, adding that perhaps since things are changing they might want to hold on to it and get some input from the businesses. Councilmember Welch asked Chief Shake if he had a number of false alarms that have to be dealt with on a monthly or annual basis.The Chief said over a year's period there are approximately 1,200. Giving an example, Chief Shake said there is a residence on Henley Road to which they have sent officers in answer to alarm February 5, and two on February 8, that proved to be false and there is no one living there. He said two officers responded to each of the three alarms, meaning about an hour taken away each time from their other duties. He said he sent a letter to the address and has not yet received a response. Another example he gave was a business on the east side of the City which had alarms on January 5, 16 and 18,and three officers responded to the first,two on the second and two on the third. Chief Shake said he believes this alarm ordinance was adopted when Mayor Frank Waltermann took office. Councilmember Welch said he remembered going through this ordinance 20 years ago. Chief Shake said he would estimate that more than 90 percent of the alarms responded to by his department are false. Councilmember Welch asked if this ordinance covers the private protection systems sold by commercial entities such as ADT. He said this ordinance doesn't address the penalty against those commercial protection systems that are generating some of the false alarms. Chief Shake said all his department determines is that there is no valid reason for that alarm going off and if a person or business contracts with a company,they need to get in touch with that company and let them know they are having false alarms.The Chief said they way he reads the ordinance is that if a person wants an alarm installed at his or her residence,then he or she would get the permit. City Clerk Norma Schroeder said it is her office that takes care of issuing the alarm permits.Rabe and Bever both agreed,however,that it is the property owner who is responsible for the alarms. Councilmember Welch said there is a need for some sort of regulation on the installation of those systems through the permit and inspection system so that homeowner knows what to expect. Bever said what might be done,possibly through the Clerk's office, that if the alarm company sees that is being done it should require the property owner's signature on it so at least the company has had to explain it to them. Schroeder said a copy of the ordinance goes along with purchasing the security alarm. Councilmember Dickman asked who keeps track of the violations and notifying the permit holder that they have reached a point where a fine is imposed. Rabe said that falls to the Law Department, explaining that' when a response is made to a false alarm call a ticket is written, not a fine, and it requires a brief explanation of why the alarm went off and it is entered into a file. He said there are some notification features built in. In answer to a question by Councilmember Dickman about the renewing of permits, Schroeder said the names of those receiving alarm permits are kept in the computer in the Clerk's office and permit holders are notified prior to the month of their two-year expiration date.The renewal fee she said is$10 and that is paid every two years.Councilmember Dickman asked what would happen if the police responded to a false alarm and that person didn't hold a permit for the alarm. Technically,Rabe said, that results in a$100 fine and that has been in the ordinance for years,but he has never seen those. Schroeder said she has never seen one in the 8 years she has been in office. Common Council Minutes Cont'd February 22,2000 Page 5 Rabe pointed out some of the other safeguards built into the ordinance such as a three-month grace period after an alarm system has been installed to work out the quirks during which no fines are assessed and any false alarms don't count in the number for the year. Councilmember Wissel asked about alarms audible only at the residence or business as to whether or not permits are needed for those. Chief Shake said there are several businesses, which have those, and he said his department generally responds to those. Councilmember Elstro asked about automobiles and Rabe said they are specifically exempted. Councilmember Combs asked about responding to a false alarm and finding out there is no permit, is there a way that the owner can be given a choice whether to get a permit or be fined. Rabe said he felt that is something that is to the discretion of the officer answering the call.Chief Shake said if there is no permit in the window and if they don't they are in violation or they could have a grace period to have it registered. Councilmember Combs asked if that is something that needs to be done. Councilmember Welch recommended that the ordinance be held until the next meeting and Rabe invited input from the public. Councilmember Sharp asked if all of the 34 alarms the Chief mentioned before had permits. The Chief said his department had not been tracking that. President Parker announced Ordinance No. 10 — 2000 would come back on second reading at the next meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 11-2000 The Clerk read Ordinance No.11—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 explained this ordinance is a request from B &F Plastics for a 10-year abatement for$125,000 stating that it retains 64 jobs and adds 5 new ones. President Parker said it would go to the Tax Abatement Committee for review and come back on second reading at Council's next meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 12—2000 The 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. Explaining this ordinance, Councilmember Wissel said this is a 10-year abatement request for Purina Mills Inc. for the retention of four jobs and they are estimating new machinery at $300,000 and real estate at $50,000.He said the request would be reviewed by the Tax Abatement Committee. ORDINANCE NO.13-2000 The 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. Councilmember Wissel explained that this is another abatement request, also by Purina Mills Inc., for the retention of 48 jobs at an estimated value of $2,335,000 on equipment and $310,000 on real estate. President Parker said this ordinance would also be assigned to the Tax Abatement Committee. ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND ENGROSSMENT AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 102-1999 The Clerk read Amended Ordinance No. 102 —1999— A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFII S FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C.6-1.1-12.1. Bever said there are two areas of the amendment that are being requested. The first, he said, is the additional tract on the Chester Boulevard property which places that total acreage at 47.651 in paragraph (c) under the third"whereas,"describing that property. The second major area is under paragraph F on the next to the last page regarding the zoning of the areas.He said in any ordinance requesting annexation you are to put in what this area would come into on its zoning category. Addressing that, he said Midwest Industrial Park is still M-2, which the City feels is the most appropriate for that. On the U.S. 35 property, Bever said what was thought was being done to assist those residences there, that property is currently zoned (its in the two-mile fringe) as C-4. He said it was recommended on the initial draft of the ordinance to go to M-1 so that they could also potentially sell or lease and have people who are having industrial uses come into that area, but they got a number of concerns and complaints from the residents there saying they wanted to keep it C-4 because they think it is more in line with what the needs are and if there is someone with industrial use they can come in and request a special use.That means the U.S. 35 property is zoned C-4. Common Council Minutes Cont'd February 22,2000 Page 6 On the Chester Boulevard property, he said, there was some confusion between the Planning Department and the Law Department. He said they intended to bring it in as R-2 which is what it is currently zoned. However, he said, the Law Department thought it was currently zoned R-1 and that is what is was on the original draft.It is,in fact,R-2.He said his department has been in contact with Reid Hospital,which is the owner of the bulk of this property, and they are working on possible uses for the property and have come to no conclusion. Bever said they might want different zoning on that,but,he said he has informed them that he believes that it would be most prudent to initially annex this property as R-2 and then as the hospital comes up with certain projects to come in with, possibly a special use request. Bever said he would ask for Council's approval for this amended version, adding that this is still in anticipation of a full public hearing on the entire ordinance at that May 1 meeting. Councilmember Welch moved to amend Amended Ordinance No. 102— 1999, second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. He said the ordinance would stay on second reading. ORDINANCE NO.S—2000 The 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 Wissel explained that this ordinance deals with a request from Spartech Plastics for a 10- year-abatement on equipment to retain 123 jobs without any new jobs creation. He said Councilmembers should have received before the meeting, the SP1-A supplement not on the original ordinance giving them an idea of the wage and health benefits that are provided. He said on the original compliance with the statement of benefits application made,Councilmember Wissel said, under the description of real property improvements and/or new manufacturing equipment acquired Spartech described this as maintenance of existing equipment.He said he had contacted Rabe and asked for copies of the state codes that deal with the abatement request and he didn't see anything about maintenance. Further discussions with Rabe and Bever, concerning the eligibility of equipment and what • the committee should be looking for they concurred that this was not designed to be supplement for maintenance. He said the question becomes, then, when there is a large piece of machinery and large components of that are replaced,where do you draw the line between the maintenance and new equipment. In hopes of establishing a consistent interpretation of how Council is going to conduct this,Councilmember Wissel then proceeded to go through the Capital Expenditure Plan for the year 2000. (This is on file in its entirety in the City Clerk's office). At the conclusion of Councilmember Wissel's reading of the list and his recommendations, Councilmember Welch, drawing upon his background and experience in extrusion and chill rollers and dies, said he thought this request goes beyond the extreme. To make his point, he went back through the list, giving his reasons for that statement. He concluded with the suggestion that Spartech come back and amend its request. Councilmember Wissel said he felt that to deal with this uniformly and fairly, it is worthy of taking a lot more time and come back with some good recommendations. He said he would like to meet with Councilmember Welch to fine tune this. President Parker recommended that Councilmembers Welch and Wissel meet and go over the request then go back to Spartech to see what could be done.He said after that, the ordinance could be brought back on second reading. 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 p.m. Larry Parker,President ATTEST: Norma Schroeder,Clerk