Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-04-1999 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,INDIANA,MONDAY,OCTOBER 4,1999 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. Monday, October 4, 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 DICKMAN ROLL CALL Nine present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Rice moved to approve the minutes of the September 20, 1999 meeting and the special meeting of September 27, 1999, second by Councilmember Allen and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. PRESENTATION OF REMONSTRANCES, PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, INTRODUCTIONS, MOTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR There was none. REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY President Welch said the minutes of the meetings of September 2, 9 and 16, 1999 were included in their packets. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES REPORTS FROM ORGANIZATIONS MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Councilmember Rice said the Police Merit Commission's appointment made by Council expires the first of November and he has had contact with Sandie Rowe who is currently a member of the Merit Commission and was appointed by the Police Department. He said she sent a letter indicating her willingness to serve another three-year term. The Rev.Larue Griffin,he said, was appointed by Council three years and his re-appointment,if he wishes to be re-appointed, would have to go through the Police Department. With that explanation, Councilmember Rice nominated Rowe as Council's appointment to the Police Merit Commission, second by Councilmember Hutton and President Welch said he would hold the vote on that until October 18 to give time to submit other names. Councilmember Rice said Rowe's appointment is through the Business category so anyone who wishes to be appointed by Council would have to come from that same sector. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinances No. 87, 89, 90 and 91— 1999 on first reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Lundy and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. ORDINANCE NO. 87—1999 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 87—1999— A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT 412 AND 418 NATIONAL ROAD WEST AND 121 SOUTHWEST 5TH STREET, RICHMOND, INDIANA Common Council Minutes Cont'd October 4, 1999 Page 2 Councilmember Hutton asked what the intent is for this property.Planning Director Bob Goodwin said this request is made by Mendenhall Hardware for its South West 5th Street Store and the portions they are requesting to be rezoned are presently R-3 and they would like them to be C-2 so they can expand their business at that location. He said the business would be expanded north to the east-west alley and extend somewhat east of where it is now. She asked if houses would be taken down and Goodwin said he did not know. Councilmember Elstro said they are already down. Goodwin said letters would go out to adjacent property owners at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. President Welch said this ordinance would be referred to Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation and come back to Council possibly the first meeting in November. Councilmember Lundy asked if this is one of those types of ordinances that Council is supposed to get in the form of a request first before it goes to the Planning Commission. Bever said it was discussed that Council would get a copy of the petition for the re-zoning prior to the final action.He added that he thought the intent was to give Council that information following the Planning Commission meeting and any comments made would be in the minutes, which Council would be given. However, he said, if Council wishes, he would send copies of the petition itself at this time. Councilmember Lundy said that would be better,because they might have a reason to have someone attend the Planning Commission meeting if they know about it ahead of time. Councilmember Wissel, as Council representative to the Planning Commission, pointed out that he hasn't received that information yet either.Bever said he would see that it was provided. ORDINANCE NO. 89—1999 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 89 — 1999 — AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET City Controller Shelley Miller explained that this ordinance deals with a request from the Finance Department to transfer within the department. She said the copier on the first floor of the City Building was purchased in 1995 and it is time for it to be replaced. She said as they looked into their options,based upon the preliminary figures,and they anticipated that a lease payment which was similar to the one they had for the current copier would be about $12,000. She said when they looked at comparable machines they identified a machine that they could actually purchase with a trade-in for $15,745. She added that the maintenance they are currently paying on the existing machine is $565 a month and maintenance on the new machine would drop to$190 per month,which would be a substantial savings. Councilmember Dickman moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 89 — 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. 89— 1999 on second reading. President Welch declared Ordinance No. 89— 1999 on 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 unanimous voice vote. Councilmember Wissel moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 89— 1999 to third reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 89— 1999 on third reading. Ordinance No. 89—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. 90—1999 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 90— 1999—AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF A GRANT FROM THE TRI-STATE REGIONAL COMMUNITY POLICING INSTITUTE IN COOPERATION WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Explaining this ordinance was Miller again, who said the grant has been applied for and would be received to assist in offsetting the expenses associated with conducting and setting up the Citizens Police Academy and the grant is in an amount of up to$875. Common Council Minutes Cont'd October 4, 1999 Page 3 Councilmember Rice moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 90— 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.90—1999 on second reading. President Welch declared Ordinance No. 90— 1999 on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Lundy moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Allen and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 90— 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.90— 1999 on third reading. Ordinance No.90— 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. 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 President Welch said this ordinance is.iew and will be coming with some controversy but Assistant City Attorney Steve Rabe would be explaining it,further. Rabe explained some of the history behind this ordinance, stating that over the past two years the Law Department along with the Police Department and in cooperation with the Mayor's office had looked at different ways in which to address the problem of drug dealing within the neighborhoods. He said they have looked at similar ordinances used in other cities throughout the country, noting that Police Chief Bill Shake has worked rather closely with;the Fort Wayne Police Department. He said they have met with the landlords' associations as well as the neighborhood associations,individual landlords and different citizens ,. that had an interest in this subject and discuss what kind of action to take. In 1998,Rabe said, the State amended Indiana Code and inserted the chapter which allows either the City Attorney, County Attorney, Prosecuting Attorney or a landlord property owner to evict tenants from a property if it has been confirmed there is drug dealing activity taking place on that property. He said it is a civil suit,not a criminal suit,so it is a different standard of proof.He added that rather than prove beyond a reasonable doubt it is a preponderance of the evidence standard just like any other civil law suit would be. He said that section of State code has been in place since 1998 and is a tool available to property owners who might not have a provision in their leases to provide for evictions for this type of activity. Rabe said it is also a tool widely used by county attorneys,county prosecutors and city attorneys in order to address continued drug dealing from problem properties. He said this ordinance does not authorize drug nuisance evictions because that is already authorized under state law,but this ordinance reiterates the City's intention to use that section of state law if it becomes necessary. Secondly, he said, it mandates and then requires the Police Chief to work with the property owners to help screen tenants,to help spot drug activity and to help with the eviction process. The third thing this ordinance would do, he said, if it is confirmed that there is drug dealing activity occurring on the property,if the landlord has been notified,if the landlord does not take action on his or her own to evict those people responsible,and if the City then determines that it is necessary and the City goes ahead and files suit, then the property owner could be fined. He added that the amounts of those fines are $50 and could conceivably be$50 per day. Rabe said,however,the fines would not be instituted unless the property owner had been notified. And,he added, if the problem had been confirmed by the Police Chief and approved by the Department of Law there would be no fine assessed unless the property owner refused to take action. Then,he said, if the City decided to take action on its own, the fine would be assessed not only to reimburse but to help cover the cost of the City commencing legal action against a drug dealing tenant and have him or her evicted. He added that the ticket and the fine would only come into play in instances where the City does go ahead and commence legal action and begin preparing a lawsuit. Councilmember Wissel asked if the landlord would actually do the eviction or would the City's Department of Law send a letter. Responding, Rabe explained that there is a required letter after the activity is confirmed that would go to the landlord and the tenant stating that an investigation had commenced and it was determined that there was a drug dealing activity and the eviction would be required. Common Council Minutes Cont'd October 4, 1999 Page 4 Rabe added that it would be required on the part of the landlord to actually commence that eviction. However,the ordinance does state that if a landlord prepares an eviction notice that the Police Department would deliver it. Rabe said a concern of the property owners was that if they had a drug dealer in their buildings they would not be comfortable knocking on the door and handing that alleged drug dealer an eviction notice. Therefore, Rabe said, the property owner would prepare the notice and the Police would deliver it. Then, he said, if the tenant refuses to leave, action would have to be filed in court and the Sheriff's Department would deliver a subsequent eviction notice. Councilmember Wissel asked if there would be protection of the landlord because the alleged drug dealer is being evicted because of action by the City.Rabe said there would be documentation supporting that in the form of a letter to the landlord advising him or her of the activity and require him or her to take steps to commence the eviction.He said there would be a paper trail that the landlord could point to and say that it was something that he or she had to do pursuant to City ordinance. In answer to a question by Councilmember Wissel as to whether or not this statute had been tested.Rabe answered that he knew it had been used but he had found no case law on it. Bever said the landlords had expressed to him their concern that they did not want some sort of suit for wrongful eviction coming from the tenant. He said it is unfathomable to him that a landlord who would be required to follow by both the City code and state law to commence these eviction proceedings because of the drug activity which has been determined by the Police Department and the Department of Law. Because of that judicial finding,he said,he sees no risk of a counter-suit by the defendant in that situation. Councilmember Hutton voiced her concern about absentee landlords, asking what happens if a notice is sent to them out of town, out of state and possibly out of the country and they don't respond. She asked if the City then seizes the house. Rabe said there are no civil forfeiture provision in the City code. Rabe said the ordinance states that if there is an absentee property owner the notification then goes to person on record in the County Auditor's office,in other words, the person who gets the tax bill for the property. He said the Law Department had spoken to some property managers and will make an effort to compile a list to notify local property managers as well. However, he said, it would be the responsibility of the property owner who, hopefully, would notify the property manager as well. He added that if there was no response and the activity was confirmed and the decision was made by the City administration at that time to commence the suit and try to have those responsible, evicted, then the out-of-town property owner could conceivably be fined at that point,but not until then. Councilmember Dickman asked what procedure would be in place to keep the tenant from moving right into an uninformed landlord's property. Rabe said one thing the Police Chief plans on doing, and that the ordinance requires,is that the Police Department help the landlords and property owners with the screening process. He said they can't prohibit someone from renting a property to a person because of her or her previous record, and can only require an eviction because of current activity. He said he believes there would be some Constitutional implications there. He said what has been talked about at some of the previous meetings with the landlords is screening the tenants through a background check because there is certain information that is public information that has to be released, even without their consent. These would also be records of arrests. He added that the property owner is certainly free to say he or she won't rent to someone who has been convicted of dealing in illegal drugs. Councilmember Lundy asked why, if a notice is sent to the landlord, does it not at that same time warrant action by the Police Department. Rabe answered that oftentimes it does, but it depends on the level of activity. He explained that there are two different stages found in the careful reading of the ordinance. Upon receipt of a complaint the ordinance gives the Police Department the option of whether or not to notify a landlord or property owner because they may not want to do that if they have someone undercover or are concerned that through notification that it would spoil the investigation. He said at least that is a possibility up front. If the point is reached where they say in the letter that it says they have investigated and there is activity occurring sometimes there may not be enough there to make an arrest for one reason or another. Councilmember Parker asked about the wording on Page 1 which reads: "The warning letter to the owner and/or occupant . . ." His question was why the use of and/or. Rabe explained that at this stage the complaint has been received by the Police Department that there is activity occurring and it leaves discretion in there. He said it may be conceivable that the Police Department would want to write the property owner a letter stating that they think something is going on and it hasn't been confirmed. However,they may not want to notify the tenant yet,especially if they are in the process of an investigation or they think they may be able to effect an arrest. In some instances, he said, it is possible that they may want to send the letter to the occupant where they tell him or her that they have received complaints. Common Council Minutes Cont'd October 4, 1999 Page 5 Rabe said he knows of some instances where the property owner has been notified and the Police Department thought possibly that he or she had tipped off the tenant. He added that there have also been instances where the Police Chief has written a letter to both the property owner and the occupant and the activity ceased.Therefore,he said,it is a case-by-case situation. Councilmember Elstro asked what happens if there is some activity going on and the man of the house is arrested and is the husband,and there is a wife and three or four children. Could she still stay in the house? Rabe said the way the ordinance reads is that those responsible are evicted and if they are arrested there may be an argument to allow the other person, if they were not responsible for that activity, they could continue to reside in the home. He added that there is a lot of discretion built in to this ordinance, step by step,to address those types of concerns. Councilmember Rice said if landlords file an eviction it still puts them in a position to have to supply a defense for themselves if an action is filed against them. Rabe said the landlord would have as a defense that he is acting pursuant to local code. Rabe requested that this ordinance be held on first reading and come back on second at the next meeting to give Council and the public an opportunity to take a look at it. President Welch stated that he felt that was a fair request and announced that Ordinance No. 91 — 1999 would come back to Council October 18 on second reading at which time it would be on public hearing. Councilmember Hutton asked if there are those in the audience who wished to speak tonight about the ordinance would they be recognized? President Welch said he would leave that up to them and if they would like to speak they could do so briefly. He added that they would have time in two weeks at the - public hearing to address each and every concern and raise questions at that time. Receiving no comments from the audience,President Welch said this ordinance would come back on public hearing October 18, at which time they could voice their concerns. ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND ENGROSSMENT ORDINANCE NO.76—1999 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 76 — 1999 — AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FIXING THE ANNUAL COMPENSATION OF ALL ELECTED CITY OFFICERS FOR 2000 President Welch declared the ordinance on public hearing. There being no comments for and none against the ordinance, Councilmember Elstro 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. 76 — 1999 to third 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.76—1999 on third reading. Ordinance No.76—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.83—1999 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 83 — 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 the ordinance was Councilmember Elstro who said it deals with a request made by Air Products and Chemicals Inc. of Allentown,Pa., for a 10-year tax abatement on new manufacturing equipment to be installed at the Johns Manville plant in Richmond. He said this is for$2,400,000 for an oxygen firing line and$400,000 for a foundation. He said this abatement is to be considered a part of the overall abatement requested by Johns Manville and approved by Council on July 2, 1999. Councilmember Elstro explained that what this would make clean air and save the company about 40 percent of the natural gas they use. He said the pay rate is good at Johns Manville and they do have a nice insurance package. Speaking in favor of the ordinance was Dale Sharits, a resident of a property that abuts the property of Johns Manville who said he would welcome some clean air in the area after living there for 36 years. Common Council Minutes Cont'd October 4, 1999 Page 6 There being no other comments in favor and none against the ordinance, Councilmember Dickman 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. 83 — 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. 83—1999 on third reading. Making a few brief remarks, President Welch talked about the effect this would have on the environment. He said the company was making a commitment to retain 238 jobs in this community and add 10 more which is a sizeable commitment. He said they are talking about$25 million just in improvements they are going to make to the plant. Ordinance No. 83—1999 was adopted on the following call of the roll. • ORDINANCES ON THIRD READING There were none. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Councilmembers joined in wishing fellow Councilmember Rice happy birthday. 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