HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-18-1999 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RICHMOND,INDIANA,MONDAY,OCTOBER 18,1999
The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. Monday,
October 18, 1999, in the Council Chambers in said City.President Bing Welch presided with the following
Councilmembers present: Howard"Jack"Elstro,Etta Lundy,Bob Dickman, Sarah "Sally"Hutton, Geneva
"Gene"Allen,Dennis R.Rice Sr.,Bruce Wissel and Larry Parker.The following business was conducted:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRAYER BY COUNCILMEMBER HUTTON
ROLL CALL
Nine present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilmember Dickman moved to approve the minutes of the October 4, 1999, second by
Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
PRESENTATION OF REMONSTRANCES, PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, INTRODUCTIONS,
MOTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Clerk read RESOLUTION NO. 3 — 1999 — A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA SUPPORTING AN ENTRY INTO THE GREAT AMERICAN
MAIN STREET AWARDS COMPETITION
Renee Oldham, director of Main Street Inc., explained that this resolution would allow the local Main
Street organization to compete for the national award. She said they had been encouraged not only by the
state organization but the national organization to submit an application. She said four communities a year
are selected and are judged in about 15 different categories.The award will be presented in Boston in April
2000 and includes two plaques as well as$2,500.
Councilmember Dickman moved to approve the resolution, second by Councilmember Hutton and the
motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR
Mayor Dennis Andrews announced that Jan Hibner, director of Human Resources, is retiring at the end of
November and will be replaced by Robin Henry who is currently director of Community Partnerships. He
said there will be some restructuring of that position but will continue with that commitment and the work
of that office.
He also announced a meeting to be at 5:15 p.m. Monday, October 25, 1999 here in the City Building. That
meeting will be a town meeting, he said, with Cole & Associates and the bridge experts to present the
information regarding the existing Main Street Bridge.
On yet another subject, Mayor Andrews distributed material covering the closing of the North 6th Street
Railroad crossing. He explained that the first suggestion for the City to look at 6th Street came from a
meeting held with the railroad at the Midwest Industrial Park.He said they were looking at the potential rail
crossing within the park and the railroad took the position that they don't like to add crossings so if a
crossing is added in that park then they would ask that another crossing be eliminated at another location.
He said he felt that it seemed like an odd position, especially if it would occur in an industrial park that
would have rail users,it would make sense that you would want to cross the rail at some point.
He said they actually suggested the 6th Street crossing at a meeting several months ago and when they made
that suggestion, he said, he reacted rather negatively. He said the reason for that reaction was because that
being in the inner city those businesses around there that not only use rail but use that crossing even though
it is primarily the businesses that use it. Unrelated to that conversation, he said, which went no further on
that subject, Purina Mills contacted the Economic Development Corporation in relation to a request that
they had for the vacation of that section of the street that abuts their property. He said he and EDC had
some conversation and he asked if they could talk with some other businesses in the area to see what their
thoughts were.
That led to a request,the Mayor said,by the Richmond Baking Co., which was interested also in being able
to expand across 6th Street if that section of the street were closed. He said their interest wasn't so much in
regard to the crossing as it was to the street. Since that time, he said, the City has talked with some other
businesses and there was a business or two in the area that has a question to it,if not an objection to it-even.
So,he added,there is not a consensus here as to what should occur,but it is a question at which the City is
looking.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1999
Page 2
He said included in their packets are the steps that have been taken so far which are services involved such
as the ambulance service,fire and police departments to get an idea of volume of use on that little street.He
said other considerations of that question would be, if the crossing were closed, it would put some more
traffic at 8th Street, which is an odd challenge. He said there are some things to look at and think about,
adding that the administration does not have a position on that but is just raising it up the flagpole. He
asked Councilmembers to be thinking about the issue.
Alluding to another short piece of information in regards to rail, he said Councilmembers had no doubt
seen some discussion publicly not by the City but by others, concerning the short section of CSX that goes
off of this 6`h Street area. He said the City is looking at that and City Attorney Bob Bever is working on a
letter about some concerns about the potential closure of that section of CSX.He said this Council might be
familiar with this from the Richmond Power&Light side because it is one of the local entities that raised
concern about it,along with some others.He said there are some positives to that closure,too.
Mayor Andrews mentioned Ordinance No. 91 — 1999, stating that changes have been added to the local
ordinance that go beyond State law. He said the finding of nuisance has been moved from the Police
Department to the Law Department, noting that the information is gathered by the Police but the actual
approval on a finding before the City would move forward and would have to be approved by the Law
Department just to have a second independent look for the City. Secondly,concerning the issue of fines,he
said State law allows the City,the State or the landlord,under that remedy to evict now.
The Mayor said there is a small fine there if the landlord doesn't move forward after the finding but that
would only be occurring if the City makes the investigation and the City makes the judgment that the fining
is valid and notifies the landlord. Then, if the landlord doesn't proceed, there would obviously be some
expense incurred from having done that and that fine is small enough it would cover the City's expense in
proceeding to do what it would ask the landlord to do.He said he feels there are some important safeguards
that have been added.
City Attorney Bob Bever presented a report on Residential Tax Abatements,which he said he had reviewed
pursuant to the request by Mayor Andrews. He said for the sake of discussion, he had separated the report
into two major parts. The first one deals with abatements which are now possible by a property owner
pursuant to existing state law and the second deals with abatements which can occur only after certain
actions are taken by a City government.
He said under the first one there are currently available two Indiana statutes which allow a property owner
to apply for a tax deduction. He said no action is necessary by a City government and a property owner
applies directly to a County Auditor by May 10 of the year in which the addition to assessed value is made,
subject to certain conditions.Bever said the relevant points on this statute are as follows:
He said according to I.C. 6-1.1-12-18: It is available to a single family dwelling only if the assessed value
of the home, before the new improvement, is less than $6,000, adding that this number goes to $18,000
March 1, 2001. It also allows a property owner to prevent an increase in assessed value due to a
"rehabilitation" up to the lesser of the new increase in assessed value or $3,000, which goes to $9,000 in
2001.The new"rehabilitation"requires a repair,replacement or improvement which actually increases the
assessment on the property and can also not include a room addition or additional floor space, unless the
work is required to bring the property up to code.
And,he said,according to I.C. 6-1.1-12-22:It applies to the same rehabilitation as the above statute but can
include room additions.It is also good for 5 years and the rehabilitation must have cost at least$10,000.He
said a major difference from the above statute is no cap is on the total worth of the property,but the house
must be at least 5- years old, which goes to 10 years effective March 1, 2001. And, he said, the property
owner will only get a deduction for 50 percent of the increased assessed value, an only up to $20,000
deduction,which goes to$60,000 in 2001.
Bever went on to address the Deductions Requiring Affirmative City Action, stating that apart from the
above two statutes which are already available to the applicable residential property owners, another form
of deduction is available if certain conditions exist on the property and if the City chooses to declare the
specific property,or area where the property is located, as a"residentially distressed area."This,he said,is
the same procedure used for industrial property tax abatements,which is I.C. 6-1.1-12-1
He said the statutes setting forth this possibility are not primarily intended to accomplish what many in the
community are suggesting,which is to allow tax abatements on an owner-by-owner basis who simply wish
to fix up his or her home.
The procedure,Bever said,is begun by a property owner or the City applying for a designation that an area
is a "residentially distressed area." This, he said, must first pass the same test as an "economic
revitalization area" utilized for industrial tax abatements which means that a property . . . "has become
undesirable for, or impossible of, normal development, cessation of growth, deterioration of improvements
or character of occupancy, age, obsolescence, substandard buildings, or other factors which have impaired
values or prevent a normal development of property or use."
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1999
Page 3
Bever said in addition to those findings, City Council must find that many additional things exist. (This is
spelled out in Bever's report,which is on file in its entirety in the City Clerk's office.
In conclusion, Bever said that he believes that at the present time the City should proceed to inform and
encourage action under one of the current state statutes, while reviewing the community to determine if a
residentially distressed area is possible for either individual owners or an individual neighborhood. He said
given the expansion of the state statutes effective March 1, 2001, he believes that these procedures would
reach more homes than the limited nature of a residentially distressed area.
Bever said the administration is inquiring into other cities' use of the RDA an how this City might apply it
to Richmond. In addition, Bever said, he will put together information on the state statutes to help
supplement information provided by the state and county to pass out to neighborhood associations and
others.
REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY
President Welch said the minutes of the meetings of September 23 and 30, 1999 were included in their
packets.
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
REPORTS FROM ORGANIZATIONS
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
A. Councilmember Rice moved to re-appoint Sandie Rowe to the Police Merit Commission for
another three-year term, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a
unanimous voice vote.
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinances No. 88, 93, 94 and 95 — 1999 on
first reading and read by title only and read Ordinance No. 92 — 1999 in its entirety, second by
Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
ORDINANCE NO. 88—1999
The Clerk read Ordinance No. 87— 1999—A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
AT 1630 LIBERTY AVENUE,RICHMOND,INDIANA
President Welch said this would go to the Planning Commission and should come back to Council at its
November 1 meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. 92—1999
The Clerk read Ordinance No. 92— 1999—AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
CITY OF RICHMOND TO RECEIVE A DONATION
"WHEREAS, the City of Richmond, Indiana, has the option of accepting or rejecting donations for a
specific purpose;and
"WHEREAS, the acceptance of a donation for a specific purpose constitutes the appropriation of such
property for the intended purpose.
"NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana, that a
donation of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) to sponsor a table at the 1999 Volunteer Recognition
Luncheon made to Retired Senior Volunteer Program(RSVP)by each of the following businesses shall be
accepted and gratefully acknowledged by the citizens of Richmond:
1. Amcast Automotive,Richmond Plant
2. American Legion Post No. 315
3. Beverly Healthcare Golden Rule/Oak Ridge
4. Dunn Center
5. Eagles Club
6. Earlham College
7. Friends Fellowship Community
8. Hills Pet Food Nutrition
9. Holiday Inn and Conference Center
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1999
Page 4
10. Indiana University East
11. Ivy Tech State College
12. Kirk Little Post No. 1108 VFW,Inc.
13. March of Dimes
14. Med Surg Plus(2)
15. Midtown Prescriptions
16. Northbrook Healthcare Aids
17. Paul Lingle and all your friends at Lingle Real Estate
18. Regency Manor(formerly Heritage House)
19. Richmond Chiropractic and Rehab Center,Dr.Michael Barrett
20. Richmond Community Schools
21. Richmond Power&Light
22. Richmond Symphony Orchestra
23. Richmond Wayne County Tourism Bureau
24. Riggle Waltermann Mortuary
25. Rumpke
26. Tom Raper RV and Manufactured Homes
27. Wayne Bank and Trust
RSVP Director Vicki Jelly said the plan is to use the money toward paying a part-time secretary for next
year.She added that she is currently a Title V secretary which is paid for by Area 9.
Councilmember Rice moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 92— 1999 to second reading
and read by title only, second by Councilmember Allen and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice
vote.
The Clerk read Ordinance No.92—1999 on second reading.
President Welch declared Ordinance No. 92— 1999 on public hearing. There being no comments either for
or against the ordinance, Councilmember Wissel moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Rice
and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
Councilmember Lundy moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 92— 1999 to third reading
and read by title only, second by Councilmember Elstro and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice
vote.
The Clerk read Ordinance No.92—1999 on third reading.
Ordinance No.92—1999 was adopted on the following call of the roll.
Ayes:Elstro,Lundy,Dickman,Hutton,Allen,Rice,Wissel,Parker and Welch(9)
Nays:None
ORDINANCE NO. 93—1999
The Clerk read Ordinance No. 93 — 1999 — 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 Allen who said the request was made by Holland Colors
and was for $2,500,000 for new manufacturing equipment. She said it also included $550,000 for real
estate improvement. Councilmember Hutton asked if the tax abatements which had been given are being
reviewed and asked if there is a report on these. Councilmember Allen said each of the recipients of the
statements of benefits file a yearly compliance statement
President Welch said this ordinance will be referred to the Tax Abatement Committee and be brought back
at the next meeting.
ORDINANCE NO.94—1999
The Clerk read Ordinance No. 94 — 1999 — AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A
NON-REVERTING FUND TO BE KNOWN AS THE MIDWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK SPECIAL
REVENUE NON-REVERTING FUND
•
City Controller Shelley Miller explained that the agreement between the City and EDC which is a lease
agreement for the Midwest Industrial Park establishes that any revenues which would come in as a result of
a lease of property or sale of parcels would be deposited with the City and administered through the
Finance Department. To better monitor those funds, she said, she is requesting to set up a fund that would
isolate the money that is deposited and define the uses.
•
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1999
Page 5
The sources of revenue,Miller said,would be from any sub-leasing or sale of parcels and the money would
be used to offset crop damages, infrastructure drainage, any temporary infrastructure needs and others
established by the lease agreement to which she referred earlier.
President Welch asked who would actually control the non-reverting fund.Miller said it would be under the
custodial care of the City as defined in this ordinance as far as the revenues to be deposited and the uses of
those proceeds. Miller said everything is defined in the lease agreement stating that it would be reviewed
by Jim Hizer at EDC and forwarded to the City for its concurrence that it would be legitimate.
Bever explained that this property is under the ownership of the City,which has leased the entire amount to
EDC for management, attempted sub-leasing and attempted sales and that was just for$10. They, in turn,
he said can sub-let it and any funds they receive in turn comes to the City and once it is in the hands of the
City, according to the lease there is a priority of what that fund is to be used for. He said it would be the
administration which would determine the terms of the lease carried out with those funds. In answer to a
question by Councilmember Lundy, Bever said to the extent there would be an expenditure for
infrastructure out there and there has not been sufficient rentals from the property yet, which is the case
right now, money that the Board of Works has approved through its budget for an engineering study or
something like that would be deposited into this because it would be that non-reverting Midwest Industrial •
Park fund.
Councilmember Dickman moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 94 — 1999 to second
reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Wissel and the motion was carried on a
unanimous voice vote.
The Clerk read Ordinance No.94—1999 on second reading.
President Welch declared Ordinance No. 94— 1999 on public hearing. There being no comments either for
or against the ordinance, Councilmember Dickman moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember
Parker and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 94— 1999 to third reading
and read by title only, second by Councilmember Rice and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice
vote.
The Clerk read Ordinance No.94—1999 on third reading.
Ordinance No.94— 1999 was adopted on the following call of the roll.
Ayes:Bistro,Lundy,Dickman,Hutton,Allen,Rice,Wissel,Parker and Welch(9)
Nays:None
ORDINANCE NO.95—1999
The Clerk read Ordinance No. 95 — 1999 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS TO ACCEPT PENSION LIABILITY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,
INDIANA
Explaining this ordinance was Assistant City Attorney Steve Rabe who said this is merely a housekeeping
ordinance. He said the Public Employees Retirement Fund requires the City to designate two people, by
ordinance, whom they can call to verify a city employee's service with the City for pension purposes. He
said this ordinance,if passed,would take effect December 1 and designates those two individuals to be City
Controller Shelley Miller and Robin Henry, who, at that time will have assumed her duties as Director of
Human Resources.
Councilmember Hutton moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 95 — 1999 to second
reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Dickman and the motion was carried on a
unanimous voice vote.
The Clerk read Ordinance No.95— 1999 on second reading.
President Welch declared Ordinance No. 95— 1999 on public hearing. There being no comments either for
or against the ordinance, Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Rice
and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
Councilmember Wissel moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 95— 1999 to third reading
and read by title only, second by Councilmember Dickman and the motion was carried on a unanimous
voice vote.
The Clerk read Ordinance No.95—1999 on third reading.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1999
Page 6
Ordinance No.95—1999 was adopted on the following call of the roll.
Ayes:Bistro,Lundy,Dickman,Hutton,Allen,Rice,Wissel,Parker and Welch(9)
Nays:None
ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND ENGROSSMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 91-1999
The Clerk read Ordinance No. 91 — 1999 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW SECTION
94.40 TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND CODE PROVIDING FOR DRUG NUISANCE EVICTIONS
Giving a brief re-cap of what was talked about at the last meeting, Rabe stated that over the past several
years the Police Department and the Law Department have worked closely together trying to examine some
of the drug related problems in the community and how they can be addressed. He said they have
specifically looked at the repeated sale of illegal drugs from a given location. He said in 1988, the State
passed a statute that allows the City Attorney, County Attorney,Prosecuting Attorney or a property owner
to evict a tenant at a rental property when drug-dealing activity is taking place.
He said once that has been confirmed,the statute allows that action can be taken by those people mentioned
above to have that person evicted.He said over the past couple of years the City has met on three occasions
with the Landlords Association and examined ordinances from other cities to see what they are doing and
have found that some of them are adopting similar ordinances to the one that is proposed to Council
tonight.
Rabe said this ordinance reaffirms the City's commitment to encourage the use of the State law that is
already on the books; it also says that if the City is going to use this, then it is going to assist the property
owner with this process and it mandates that the Police Department and the City assist the property owner
with tenant screening, spotting illegal drug activity and following up with the eviction process. The third
thing that it allows the City to do is to partially recover some of its cost in the event that a determination is
made that the activities are occurring but the property owner refuses to do anything about it and the City
actually goes ahead and files suit under the state law which the City could already do.
Rabe said this part of the ordinance would allow the City,if it goes through those steps,to recover some of
the costs and that's where the fine provision comes in. How this would come into play,Rabe said,is that if
the Police Department has determined there is a legal drug related activity occurring at a given location,
they will bring that information to the Law Department. Then, he said,both departments would look at the
issue to make sure it is something that can be proven in a court of law. He said if that the Law Department
approves determination,then a letter would go to the property owner and the tenant.
Rabe said the letter would state that is had been confirmed that there is illegal drug related activity
occurring on the premises and they are requested to begin the eviction process pursuant to state law. The
letter, he said, would also state that the City would assist in any way it can and help deliver the eviction
notice and provide any information to prove that the activity is occurring. And, he said, if the property
owner goes ahead and evicts the tenant at that time, it is done. However, if after receiving the notification,
the property owner refuses to do anything about it, ignores the problem and the City makes the
determination that the problem is bad enough the City is going to file suit.He said it is at that point that the
City begins preparing to file suit and the property owner could be fined.
What has been done, Rabe said, is that the City has taken an already existing statute and made it a little
user-friendlier by building in some notice requirements and a more cooperative approach.He said he had a
lot of phone calls over the past two weeks about this and the response has been somewhat favorable.
Councilmember Hutton said the one question she keeps getting is if the activity is going on,why can't there
be an arrest made and why evict?Rabe said he would imagine in most instances there would probably be
an arrest forthcoming, however there may be situations where they may have enough information to prove
by preponderance of the evidence(51 percent, which is all that is required in Civil Court) that this activity
is occurring. But, he said, they might not have enough information to successfully prosecute a criminal
conviction,which requires a higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Councilmember Wissel said he has a problem with this as far as giving due process here, adding that it
looks like the alleged drug dealer does not have any opportunity to profess his innocence or any recourse.
Rabe answered that when the letter goes out,it goes to both the occupant and the property owner,so at that
point the occupant would be in receipt of that letter. At that time, he said,he or she could come to the Law
Department and contest at that point. Secondly, he said,the property owner or the City could not complete
an eviction without a civil hearing before eviction proceedings.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1999
Page 7
That civil hearing would be automatic if a tenant decides they want to fight it. But, he said, if they get a
letter and they leave, that is up to them, but if they decide they are going to contest that determination and
they don't want to move,the City does not have the power to say they are going to have to move.He added
that that could only be done with a court order.He said even the property owner has to get a court order to
force them out if they refuse to leave.
President Welch said the key word that comes up in the context of the ordinance is "civil nuisance," and
that the property in question has to be declared a nuisance property and be determined to be a civil nuisance
in the City. He asked who is going to do that and would the letter that Rabe has been talking about convey
the determination of a civil nuisance. Rabe said the Police Department and the Law Department would
determine that. He added that in the ordinance, as drafted, the Police Chief would determine it or a
designated officer working with this program but then approved by the Law Department.
Once that determination has been confirmed then a certified letter would notify both the property owner
and the occupant,Rabe said. President Welch then asked whether or not there would be no open release of
public information of the conveyance of that communication. He said he asked that because some of the
property owners who had called him expressed concern about having the property declared a civil nuisance
and then having that information given to the public. He said they felt it would place a stigma on their
property even if they get that person out. Rabe said at that point that letter only goes to two places, the
occupant and the owner.
Councilmember Parker had a question about the statement that "the Richmond Police Department will, at
the owner's request,deliver the eviction notice."Does this mean,he asked,that the owner does not have to
pay a filing fee for the eviction notice or require an attorney?Rabe said that is a potential and depends on
whether or not the tenant decides to leave.He added that nothing prevents a property owner from preparing
an eviction notice and taking it to the tenant or taping it to his or her door or handing it to the tenant. He
said you don't have to go to court to do that. However, if the tenant refuses to leave, then it would take a
court order to forcibly remove them from the property.What this does is says the Police Department would
deliver it for them if they are uncomfortable walking up to someone and handing them a notice that says
they suspect there is drug activity occurring and they are evicted.
Councilmember Parker said his question is if the landlord does this at the request of the City or Police and
does present them with the eviction notice, either himself in person or by the Police Department, does that
fulfill his requirement or is he being forced to go beyond that to go ahead and file. Rabe said this is the
minimum that is required within the first 30 days in order to comply with the ordinance and it does go on to
state that they have to diligently prosecute that action to a conclusion. If they did that and the person
refused to leave,they would have to take further action beyond that and the possibility of incurring the$35
filing fee for an eviction. Rabe said they don't have to have an attorney to do this, although he always
recommends they do. He wasn't quite sure what attorneys charge for evictions because it varies from one
attorney to the other.
Councilmember Parker asked if the offender is the only person who has to be evicted. Rabe said that is
correct, adding that the way the ordinance was drafted it is evicting those responsible for the violation. He
said it is possible that if you have two or three people sharing an apartment and one was engaged in the
illegal dealing of drugs only that person would have to be evicted. Of course, he said,it would be a case by
case basis depending upon who was involved in the activity.
Another question he said he had been asked is that whether or not this would include such a thing as a
storage building. Rabe said the ordinance does include outbuildings and garages. Councilmember Parker
then asked if that person owning a storage facility either tapes an eviction notice to the door or sends it and
the person does not respond or come back, what is the next step? Rabe said people who rent storage units
deal with that type of problem on a regular basis and there is a state statute on abandoned property that
deals with how they have to dispose of that. Rabe said, assuming they had other property in there, the
illegal substance would be turned over to the Police Department for disposal that way.
Councilmember Wissel said he did have a call from a constituent who said he is a renter and wanted to
know why renters were selected and not homeowners themselves that commit the same type of abuses.
Rabe said that state law is a little more strict on property owners who commit these types of offenses from
their homes, adding that not only can they be arrested but can be subject to civil forfeiture which is a little
bit different process and a little bit drawn out. He said they could stand to lose their home, but the
prosecutor takes care of that, not the City. Councilmember Elstro said that would be the same thing as an
automobile and Rabe answered that that was correct and is under state law, which is something the
prosecutor would do.
Police Chief Bill Shake addressed the Council saying Rabe had already answered Council's questions
about the eviction process but invited questions from Councilmembers. President Welch said he was still
interested in how the Police Department would go about gathering the information to declare that location.
Chief Shake responded that in the packet he had distributed to Councilmembers is a photocopy of a training
manual obtained from a company out west. He said this is the same company used by Fort Wayne Police
Department and Allen County to get their training materials, adding that the last page is a blank Richmond
Police Department information only report.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1999
Page 8
Chief Shake explained that what they would be doing is if there is a phone call made about a particular
residence,the officers on patrol stop and talk to someone, they would pull out this report which has a case
number. They will fill out the report, write what they have heard, told or observed then forward that
information into the administrative offices.Then,he said, at this point the information would be forwarded
to the drug unit.He said at some point in time,depending on the level of information, who it is that lives in
the house or who it is who is supposed to live in the house, an investigation will begin or they can send a
warning letter. That, he.said, is described in the ordinance, which would basically state the information
received by the Police Department.
The Chief said that letter can be sent to the landlord and to the tenant then two things could happen from
that. The landlord and the tenant could agree that the latter would straighten up, if they had actually been
doing it, he said. And, he said, the tenant would not stop his or her involvement and they would have to
continue on. Also, he said, if there is enough information for that tenant to realize that the Police
Department is on to him or her that they will go to some other place.With the warning letter,he said,there
are some options available to the Police Department that they may not have to invest the amount of time
necessary to get enough information to make an arrest.He said the warning letters would be kept on file so
they would be available for future reference.
President Welch commented that everyone keeps talking about drugs, but doesn't the same connotation
exist when the talk is about alcohol consumption?Hypothetically,he said,there are some houses within the
City where teenagers are frequenting and they are consuming alcohol, being given alcohol, being served
alcohol by someone in that house. His question was, does this fall under that same connotation. Chief
Shake said the state statute is different in that case because it refers to a public nuisance rather than a
common nuisance.Bever said all of this is applicable to the state law which specifies that a civil nuisance is
being found when there has been a violation of the drug laws and does not include any alcohol issue.
Chief Shake said if they just have enough information to send a warning letter and it doesn't work then the
Police Department can begin an investigation and use undercover officers from other locations to come in
and try to make a purchase, do surveillance and attempt to obtain a search warrant or they can use another
tactic which is called "knock and talk." He explained the way that works is to go to the house, identify
yourself and tell the tenant what you have heard and seen and get permission from them to enter and
search.The Chief said it does work, adding that he has done that before and found paraphernalia and chose
not to make an arrest but to handle it in a different manner and they have worked and the problems have
left the neighborhood.
Councilmember Lundy asked whether or not there is a time frame for when someone reports an activity
that possibly could be drug related and an investigation is made. She said there have been cases where an
investigation just keeps on going with no action. She asked if there would be a time limit and Chief Shake
said it would depend on the level of the information and how thorough it is. Many times, he said, there is
just general non-specific information that takes a little bit more time to work on. What he likes about this
ordinance, the Chief said, given the right opportunities the Police Department can use it with less
manpower to address a problem.
Chief Shake said it is very time consuming and labor intensive to make drug arrests especially when you
send someone in to make a drug buy.He said sometimes they get lucky,but sometimes they don't.To give
a time limit is difficult because it depends on the local activity that's observed and other information that
might be available as well as who this person might be. He said if he or she is a second or third time loser,
obviously they are going to go after them somewhat harder than someone who might be letting their friends
come in and smoke some marijuana in their apartment or have someone come in on weekends. Again, he
said,it depends on the available information.
Councilmember Lundy said there are so many cases where there are known drug activities and they still do
it. She said they are walking the streets and still doing it, you see it and report it and there is evidence,but
they are still out there. She said year after year it is the same person and she said she wanted to know if this
is going to be something that is going to trigger some fast action for those people. Chief Shake said he
hoped so,adding that it depends on the willingness of people to come forward with information.
Chief Shake said the Police Department would be working with the landlords assisting them in screening
their tenants, adding that once the tenants are in there sometimes it is difficult to get them removed. The
best way to ensure you don't have that problem is to screen them and that is what the training manual will
help the Police Department to do.He said they can have a training session for the landlords,adding that the
last meeting they had with the landlords last week they had some of the drug enforcement officers come in
with their paraphernalia and the drugs so they could see some of these things so they might notice them
when they make visits to their apartments.
The Chief said the training manual encourages landlords to screen their tenants by checking the criminal
records, employment records, credit records.and previous residences. He said it also encourages them to
use rental agreements and to maintain ongoing management of their properties as well as to assist their
tenants to create apartment watches and to promote community within the neighborhoods where their
apartments are located.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1999
Page 9
He said there are sections on warning signs of criminal activities specific to drugs and a section on crisis
resolution. He said each step they go through in the screening process might weed out potential problems.
He added that what the landlords have to realize is that it has to be done all the time and they have to be
consistent.
Councilmember Elstro asked Chief Shake just how much could the Police Department help the landlords.
Chief Shake answered that as part of the screening process they can present a piece of paper to the tenants
saying that it is part of the requirements that they sign it to allow the landlord to look at their criminal
record.When the form is signed, the Chief said,the Police Department can give the landlord a copy of that
person's criminal record,but if the applicant refuses to sign that is a determination the landlord would have
to make whether or not he wants to rent to that person.
Chief Shake said they could also provide the landlord with the letters that say, "Johnny Jones was evicted
from whatever residence because of suspected drug dealing."He added that that is also available from the
courts. The Chief said they have eight landlords who are going to work with the neighborhood coordinator
in designing the training program for the landlords in the City, which would assist the landlords in doing
what has to be done.
Speaking in favor of this ordinance was Don Ramsey at 800 South 20th Street who said he owns a couple of
houses that are rented out and asked how to go about getting rid of someone who doesn't want to move,
who won't move.
Rabe answered that question, stating that it is at that point the landlord has to file an eviction suit in small
claims court and at that point the tenant would be under court order to move and if they don't,the landlord
can go back to the court and someone from the Wayne County Sheriff's department would be sent out to
escort them off the premises.
However, Rabe said, normally when they are under a court order they do leave. Ramsey also asked what
happens if she is gone when the letter is delivered and the 30 days are up before she even knows she has it.
Rabe said the letter would be sent by certified mail, which would have to be signed for, and action is taken
30 days after receipt of the letter so if that were the case, the 30 days would start after the date the letter
was signed for.
Reading from a prepared statement, Dale Land of 42 North West E Street,president of the Wayne County
Property Owners Association, said that from the outset of this proposed ordinance the members were
somewhat concerned that the drug nuisance ordinance singled out the property owners to battle the drug
dealing in their neighborhoods. They felt the $50 a day fine was unjust and feel that this ordinance is an
intrusion on our rights as property owners.
However,he said,it goes without saying that property owners do not want drugs or drug dealing going on
in their rentals and want to do whatever they can to eliminate the problem from the rentals. He said after
two meetings with the Richmond Police Department and Steve Rabe along with the subsequent changes in
the ordinance the Association does support the ordinance in its present form. He added that they wanted to
thank the City officials for the opportunity to participate in the revisions of the ordinance.
President Welch expressed his appreciation to Land, saying that it is good to hear that a cooperative effort
occurred because he had received several calls from property owners with those main concerns that had
been addressed in his statement.
There being no further comments for and none against the ordinance, Councilmember Dickman moved for
engrossment,second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
Councilmember Rice moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 91— 1999 to third reading and
read by title only,second by Councilmember Lundy and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
The Clerk read Ordinance No.91—1999 on third reading.
Councilmember Rice commented that he thought this was an exciting thing when the administration and
the Police Department will go to the extent of developing an ordinance and have it introduced to Council
that will benefit the citizens of this community and improve the quality of life.
Ordinance No.91— 1999 was adopted on the following call of the roll.
Ayes:Elstro,Lundy,Dickman,Hutton,Allen,Rice,Wissel,Parker and Welch(9)
Nays:None
ORDINANCES ON THIRD READING
There were none.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1999
Page 10
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CALL FOR ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business,on a motion duly made,seconded and passed,the meeting was adjourned.
Bing Welch,President
ATTEST:
Norma Schroeder,Clerk