HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-01-1993 �63
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
eI-_EOF_-RteHMONB,INOIANA;NOV_EMBER-1:19993
1 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. Monday,
2 November 1, 1993, in the Council Chambers in said City. President Lundy presided with the following
3 Councilmembers present: Elstro, Brookbank, Donat, McBride, Parker, Allen, Dickman and Hutton. The
4 following business was had to-wit:
5
6 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
7
8 PRAYER- COUNCILMEMBER BROOKBANK
9
10 ROLL CALL
11
12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18,1993
13
14 Councilmember McBride moved to approve the minutes of October 18, 1993, second by Councilmember
15 Hutton and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
16
17 PRESENTATIONS OF REMONSTRANCES. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
18
19 None presented.
20
21 COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR,
22
23 The Mayor had no comments.
24
25 REPORT FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS
26
27 REPORTS FROM OTHER OFFICES
28
29 None was presented.
30
31 REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY
32
33 Minutes of the October 14 and October 21 meetings in the packets.
34
35 Councilmember Donat said residents along Hodgin Road had requested that a load limit of 11,000 pounds
36 be placed on Hodgin Road from 9th Street to the City limits as well as signs indicating the speed limit and
37 signage noting no hazardous material. Mayor Cornett suggested she talk with the City Attorney.
38 Councilmember Donat said with the lawsuit pending with the annexation the residents along that route have
39 decided they would really like to move ahead on this. City Attorney Thomas Milligan said the City has no
40 authority to regulate anything on Hodgin Road other than the portion from South L Street which terminates at
41 Henley Road and the edge of the subdivision a short distance to the east. Councilmember Donat said the
42 residents are requesting that the City take care of its portion of Hodgin Road and that is her request. She
43 said if an ordinance to this effect is needed she would request that Milligan draft one, listing a load limit of
44 11,000 pounds, signage designating no hazardous materials and the speed limit established with
45 appropriate signs. After a comment by Milligan that an ordinance would be needed, Councilmember Donat
46 requested that he draft one including the items she mentioned and that it be presented at the next Council
47 meeting.
48
49 REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
50
51 REPORTS.FROM STANDING COMMITTEES
52
53 Councilmember Brookbank said she attended a Reid Hospital Board meeting where it was announced that
54 Dr. Elizabeth Mann was honored as Doctor of the Year, adding that she was proud of her acomplishments.
55
56 REPORTS FROM OTHER COUNCIL COMMITTEES
57
58 None was presented
59
60 ORDINANCES
61
62 ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
63
64 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinances No. 93, 95 and 96 - 1993 on
65 first reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and the motion was carried on a
unanimous voice vote.
•
64
•
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993 -
Page 2 - -
1 ORDINANCE NO.93-1993 •
The Clerk read Ordinance No. 93 - 1993 -A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 154 OF THE
RICHMOND CODE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Milligan explained that this ordinance has to do with the creation of a committee for site review, noting that
Bob Goodwin,the director of Planning, and a representative of the Plan Commission are prepared to give a
presentation tonight.
1 Speaking first, Goodwin said several months ago at the Commission's insistence, his staff was requested to
11 put together a site review ordinance or a beautification ordinance, which has been done. It establishes the
1� committee itself which will ultimately be appointed by the Plan Commission which will also set forth the
12 duties. Representing the Plan Commission was Len Clark who explained that for years developers have
14 petitioned before the Plan Commission for rezoning and special uses but the ones that have been of a
special concern are those along the corridors of the City along National Road East, National Road West,
1 U.S.27 North and U.S.27 South. He said the Plan Commission wants to ask those people who are building
1 and remodeling along those corrodors that are so important to the appearance of the City to join the rest of
1: us in achieving a standard with the planting and placement of appropriate shrubs,trees and evergreens.
1•
2. Clark said most commercial enterprises are prepared to invest money in site preparation so it is not likely to
2 promote a hardship. Oftentimes, he said, when they are asked what they will be doing to improve the
2 appearance they ask what the City would like them to do. Realizing there were no standards, Clark said the
2 Plan Commission asked the Planning staff to research ordinances around the state and they collected
2, appropriate ordinances which were reviewed by the Street Tree Commission and others concerned with
2 beautification of the City to help shape them and make them appropriate to our community. He said the
2• committee the ordinance will establish will be an instrument of the Plan Commission and will review and
2 make modifications, adding that when the developer gets the building permit and it comes before the Plan
2 Commission there will be a site plan that is in conformity with what the City expects. He noted that the
2 ordinance had the unanimous approval of the Plan Commission.
3
3 Milligan explained that this ordinance follows the same type of provision that is in Article 48 of the zoning
3 ordinance where site plans are reviewed as part of the special use. He said it is also embodied in an
3 ordinance because under Article 48 of the zoning ordinance that becomes a zoning for that particular site.
3 The visual enhancement of these development sites that Clark referred to, he said, is in a new Article 37,
3 adding that the present zoning ordinance designates districts and they ran out of room in that sequential
34 numbering so the first part of the ordinance simply repeals the airport industrial park district then B, C and D
37 take those three provisions of the airport industrial park district and merge them in the airport district. That is
3: done, he said, simply to enable them to use Article 37 as a new zoning district, to be called the visual
3• enhancement district and it is an overlay district. He said it is much the same as used in the concept of the
4® wellhead protection district in the area of the recent annexation ordinance. He said it is only an amendment
4 and an addition to an underlying residential commercial or industrial use district.
4
4 Milligan added that this ordinance is primarily to set up the structure of the committee which is a delegation
4, of power by this Council through the Plan Commission and will enable them to function then in a review
4 capacity and it is designed to meet the needs of developers. He said part J of the ordinance calls for the
4• committee to be on call and able to meet on a 48-hour notice. He added that said committee will consist of
4 three members of the Plan Commission and it will take two concurring votes to act on behalf of this
4 committee. Milligan noted that this committee will not have the power to block any particular development
4 but will have the power to work with and to achieve certain visual enhancements of the area. He added_that
5 this applies to those parts of the City which are designated as visual enhancement zones where there is a
551
large volume of traffic and business development, noting that the major objective is to achieve a more
attractive and a more appealing physical appearance for the City.
5
5 Parker asked if recommendations of this committee will be binding. Milligan answered that whatever is
5 worked out and put forward as a site plan will become binding and the administration will follow up to see
5 that the site plan is executed. He said it is the same thing that is done with special use zoning where the site
5 plan is required. He said this is designed to provide guidelines to the developer working with this committee
5 and the site review committee will come up with an understanding of visual enhancement. Milligan explained
5 that the process would be that it has to run through this committee in order to obtain the improvement
6 location permit, then in order to obtain the occupancy permit those standards would have to be met or the
6 occupancy permit would not be granted.
6.
6 Councilmember Lundy voiced her concern that it may present a problem for businesses coming in because
6, of too many restrictions. Milligan said the Department of Planning is usually where these individuals start
6
. :3
•
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993
Page 3
1 and they're looking for guidance. He added that the Plan Commission has sought to provide that in situations
2 where they have had the authority such as special use,but where the land has already been properly zoned,
3 they were powerless to influence the considerations of visual enhancement. He said most developers, when
4 they were approached, indicated they wanted that kind of guidance and if it is lacking then everybody does
5 .their own thing. He said this whole effort will be one of working together.
6
7 President Lundy briefly called attention to the students in the audience and learned they were in a
8 government class at Richmond High School and were there to observe.
9
10 Councilmember Hutton moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 93- 1993 to second reading
11 and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice
12 vote.
13 •
14 The Clerk read Ordinance No.93- 1993 on second reading.
15
16 President Lundy declared Ordinance No. 93- 1993 on public hearing.There being no comments either for or
17 against, Councilmember Dickman moved for engrossment,second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion
18 was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
19 -
20 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 93 - 1993 to third and
21 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a
22 unanimous voice vote.
23
24 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 93- 1993 on third reading.
25
26 Ordinance No.93-1993 was adopted on the following call of the roll:
27
28 Ayes:Elstro, Brookbank, Donat, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Lundy(9)
29 Nays:None
30
31 ORDINANCE NO.95-1993
32
33 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 95 - 1993 - AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1993
34 BUDGET •
35 •
36 Earnest Jarvis, director of the Department of Public Works & Safety, explained that this ordinance is
37 necessary to move some funds around because of failure to budget enough money to pay the electric bill at
38 the Street Division garage.
39
40 .Councilmember McBride moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 95 - 1993 to second
41 reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a unanimous
42 voice vote.
. 43
44 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 95- 1993 on second reading.
45
46 President Lundy declared Ordinance No.95-1993 on public hearing.There being no comments either for or
47 against, Councilmember McBride moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion
48 was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
49
50 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 95 - 1993 to third and
51 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and the motion was carried on a
52 unanimous voice vote.
53
54 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 95-1993 on third reading.
55
56 Ordinance No.95-1993 was adopted on the following call of the roll: -
57
58 Ayes: Elstro, Brookbank, Donat, McBride,Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Lundy(9)
59 Nays:None
60
61 -
62 ORDINANCE NO.96-1993 -
63
64 •
65 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 96 - 1993 - A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF
STATEMENTS OF BENEFITS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C.
6-1.1-12.1
3 - _
•
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993
Page 4
1 Councilmember Parker explained that the Tax Abatement Committee had met and reviewed the requests of
the four companies, noting that one wished to install new machinery and another was expanding its real
estate. He said the.requests were found in'order and he recommended Council's approval. Councilmember
Elstro asked why a dollar value could not be given and Councilmember Parker responded that it is not public
knowledge until after it is filed and approved by the State 'Tax Examiners. Milligan concurred with
Councilmember Parker, noting that this is a confidential filing.
Councilmember McBride moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 96 - 1993 to second
reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Brookbank and the motion was carried on a
1 unanimous voice vote.
1
1 The Clerk read Ordinance No.96-1993 on second reading.
1
1 President Lundy declared Ordinance No. 96- 1993 on public hearing.There being no comments either for or
15 against, Councilmember Dickman moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Allen and the motion
14 was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
17
1 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 96 - 1993 to third and
1 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and the motion was carried on a
2 unanimous voice vote.
2
2 The Clerk read Ordinance No.96-1993 on third reading.
26
2 Ordinance No. 96- 1993 was adopted on the following call of the roll:
2
2 Ayes: Elstro, Brookbank, Donat, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Lundy (9)
2 Nays:None
2
30 ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING
3
3.
3. ORDINANCE NO.89-1993
3•
3 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 89 - 1993 -A GENERAL ORDINANCE PROHIBITING OHIO DEPARTMENT
3° OF LIQUOR CONTROL SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHMOND
3
3: President Lundy said this ordinance needed to be amended and asked Milligan to explain the amendments.
3° He said that in Section 123.01 the words "or any other law enforcement agency" have been removed. He
40 noted that this ordinance is designed with regard to the Ohio Department of Liquor Control only and does not
4 involve other law enforcement agencies which might be involved in surveillance for under age purposes and
4 that type of thing.
4
44 Milligan said there are some refinements in Section 123.03 which limit the enforcement of this ordinance to a
4. person who has observed such surveillance activity. He said that could be an individual that could be
4 watching activity around a liquor store or highway and could come back to Indiana to file a complaint and the
4 violation could be served on that individual the next time he or she was found in the state. He said this is an
4. ordinance violation, not an offense where you can send a summons to an individual in Ohio. He said those
4 refinements were made to make it clear as to the individuals conducting those surveillance activities,
5 confining those activities to those conducted by the Ohio Department of Liquor Control.
5
5 Section 122.03, Milligan said, is refined to focus on exactly who will be responsible for the enforcement of
5 this ordinance. He added that it also removed the local police department or other officials who have the
5.11 authority to stop people for ordinance violations and issue a ticket or a citation, adding that they can't make
5 an arrest for'an ordinance violations but can only cite the individual since it is a civil proceeding. He said it is
5 initiated by the citizen who is involved and gives them a civil proceeding. He explained that this entire
5 ordinance is predicated on the basis of interruption and impedence of interstate commerce and is basically
5 not anything to do with the enforcement of so-called liquor laws, adding that the purpose is to preserve the
5 free flow of commerce between the states of Ohio and Indiana.
6
6 Councilmember Allen moved to accept the amendments, second by Councilmember Dickman and the
6 motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
6'
6,
6. President Lundy declared Ordinance No. 89- 1993 on public hearing.
367
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993
Page 5
1 Dale Defibaugh of 300 South 19th Street spoke in favor of the ordinance, noting that he is a lifelong resident
2 of the City and part owner of Dale's Big Red Liquors. He said he appeared before Council about a year ago
3 asking for an ordinance to be passed keeping the Ohio Liquor Control Board agents out of Richmond and at
4 that time he stated that this was an economic issue and not a law enforcement issue and he feels the same
5 about this ordinance.
6
7 He read some excerpts from an article published in the Dayton Daily News which stated the opinion of a
8 liquor control agent that the people purchasing liquor in Indiana and bringing it into Ohio are cheating the
9 Ohio residents out of tax money,calling it unfair competition, noting that$1 million in liquor bought in Indiana
10 means $330,000 in lost revenue to Ohio taxpayers. Defibaugh noted that Indiana is losing that amount of
• 11 money when the liquor is bought elsewhere.
12
13 Defibaugh said he was in law enforcement in Wayne County for 14 years and four years of that were served
14 under Sheriff Edward L. "Corky"Cordell. He said not one time in that four years did Cordell order him or ask
15 him to leave Wayne County to investigate a misdemeanor charge. The reason for that, he said,was that he
16 had no legal_authority outside of the jurisdiction of Wayne County. He added that he feels that the Ohio
17 excise officers have no authority here.
18
19 He said transporting untaxed.liquor into Ohio is a crime against the state and it does not endanger
20 individuals or their property and that is why it is a misdemeanor. He added that Ohio liquor control agents
21 follow customers with Ohio plates who pull into his parking lot and follow them all over Richmond. Quoting
22 from the newspaper article again, Defibaugh read: "The squad sometimes must wait most of the day for
23 suspects to drive around shopping, visiting and having meals before following them back to Ohio to make
24 arrests."He said he felt like this is harassment. He said when those Ohio cars finally cross the state line they
25 are stopped and searched and many are found not to have any alcohol in them. He asked Councilmembers
26 how they would.like to pull off his parking lot and cross the Ohio state line and have an officer who is in a
27 plain car and not in uniform try to pull them over. He said he thought they would be frightened. He said the
28 Ohio liquor control agents say they are after bootleggers, people who buy liquor for re-sale, adding that if he
29 was after a bootlegger he would follow them to their destination so he would know where they were
30 operating from so he could close them down.
31
32 Defibaugh said he operates a legal liquor business and has been in the business for 20 years and has never
33 been cited for any violation of the law. He said he is tired of Ohio liquor agents coming into his community,
34 harassing his customers and even talking to some of them, telling them they are going to put him out of
35 business. He said he can't help it if Ohio can't compete with him, adding that he has some chain outfits that
36 he can't compete with either, but he isn't asking anybody to pass a law to close them down. In closing, he
37 asked Council to pass this ordinance.
38 •
39 'Jerry Easley, President of the Richmond/Wayne County Chamber of Commerce, read the position statement
40 of his Board into the record, noting that they represent restaurant owners, retailers, service establishments
41 and liquor store owners. He said the growth of the east side of the City can be contributed largely to the Ohio
42 customers who come here to buy food, gasoline, durable goods and take advantage of consumer services
43 and entertainment in the area. He stated they should not feel threatened or inhibited to shop in this
44 community. -
45
46 Dennis Osborn who•resides at 4068 Filby Road and is owner of Hornak's Liquor Mart, said he agreed with
47 Easley, adding that without the Ohio customers the City wouldn't be where it is today. He said he brought a
48 customer of his from the state of Ohio to tell his story to the Council.
49 •
50 Robert Molick of Springfield, Ohio, told the following story of an incident which involved him and his wife on
51 October 21, 1993. He said they had just completed a three-day pleasure trip in Michigan and Indiana and
52 had lunch in Richmond after which they stopped at Hornak's to buy some liquor. He said they no sooner got
53 across the state line into Ohio before his car was surrounded by three members of the Department of Liquor
54 Control. He added that the problem was that when they surrounded his car he did not know they were law
55 enforcement officers because they were in unmarked cars with no license on the front: He added that they
56 had just been on this trip and they didn't know whether or not someone was trying to highjack their car. He
57 said it was a frightening experience with blue lights circling, people running around his car, asking to see his
58 driver's licence, opening his trunk, searching the car and confiscating his items he had purchased. He said
59 he was irritated by being_stopped and searched and having his personal property removed.
60
61 Molick continued, saying the officers who had stopped him called the Ohio State Patrol and soon two
62 vehicles came toward them with sirens blaring. He said when they got out of their cars they shouted at him
63 that he was no better than a drug dealer and that he had broken the law and if he was not careful they were
64 going to confiscate his car and throw him in jail.
65
368
Common Council Minutes.Cont'd
November 1, 1993 •
Page 6 •
He said he felt that was harassment, because after the one officer had finished, the other one started
shouting at him. He said for a time, he was really sorry that he was an Ohio resident. But, he said,that was
not the end of it,the officer started in on him again and told him that if he opened his mouth one more time
t he would take his car away and throw him in jail. Molick said he knew that he wanted him to shut up, but he111
was trying to explain to the officer that they had been on a pleasure trip and had bought some liquor.
E Concluding, he said that was his story and he added that he appreciated what the City is doing and he
7 wanted to give his support because he believes in a free society without these kind of rules and regulations.
He added that he had served in World War II and he thought he had fought for something.
111
Councilmember Hutton asked if the citizens of Ohio had tried to get their own law changed. Molick said he
had talked with an attorney before coming to the Council meeting but got little encouragement. He added,
1 however,that he is going to do what he can and had started by writing the Governor and had already talked
15 to a senator. He said he was also going to meet with the Lt. Governor to see what he could do, noting that
1� he is just one citizen but they are going to know he is a citizen.
15
16 Phil Fox of 1041 University Blvd. said he works for a national wine and spirits corporation which is a
1 wholesale distributor and sells to businesses in Richmond. He said his territory runs from Connersville to
1 Selma and on many occastions he travels that area in so-called border cities and Richmond seems to be the
1 only one that is having a problem.
2
2 Tim O'Leary of Carmel, partner in Dale's Big Red Liquors,said he is involved in getting this ordinance before
22 the Council. He said it is overwhelming to see how sincerely these people have looked into the issues. He
2 added that is is not a clear issue, noting that whenever alcohol is involved there are a lot of different
2 opinions. He said he respects the Councilmembers and their efforts to try to make the right decision, noting
2 that the issue before them today is just one step on the road ahead and what they will be facing within the
2 next few years.
2
2 He said he is asking Council tonight to support the responsible retailers. He noted that Councilmembers had
2 a letter before them from the Indiana Liquor Store Association in which it was stated that this debate is about
3 which state gets the tax revenue, not about who does the best job of selling alcohol. Part of his message
3 tonight, he said, is about the controlled, restricted distribution of alcohol. He said what he sees in the next
3 few years to be a part of the solution in participating in the law enforcement and education as well as their
3 part in the distribution. He said he feels it is important to differentiate in the responsible alcohol use and
3, alcohol abuse, noting that he, along with the other liquor store owners, is opposed to alcohol abuse,teenage
3 drinking, drunk driving and fetal alcohol syndrome. He added that the issue of merely possession of alcohol
3° crossing the state line may be illegal but there are other illegalities that occur in commerce as two
3 communities and two states go down an imaginary line down an imaginary road. He noted that Richmond
3: people purchase lease cars in Ohio in order to get around the excise tax, individuals go across state lines to
3° buy phosphate detergents and people purchase beer in Ohio on Sunday and bring it back to Indiana. He
4o said all of these things are illegal but they're being done. He added that there is a radio station here which
4 advertises for a New Paris,Ohio market where you can buy beer on Sunday.
4
4 He said he could go on and on, but there is even a bigger question here, adding that the liquor industry has
4 had a bad reputation. He said he had provided Councilmembers with information about how much of a
4. partnership it has with the state that controls local government. He added that state and local government
4° will make more money off of the liquor stores than what the owners do, noting how much revenue goes to
4 taxes. He said a large amount of those taxes do come back into the local community. He said that his vision
4: of being a participant in helping the community deal with some of these complex issues. He said there is
4° increased emphasis on addiction and treatment programs, noting that the industry in Indiana provided $4.7
50 million in addiction and treatment program statewide that come from the tax on alcohol and beer and other
5 products.
5
5 He added that the industry feels there has been a real neglect of a major component of this solution and that
5 is the distribution. He said it is for controlled, restricted distribution, adding that alcohol is apparently a
5$ dangerous product and needs to be distributed in the most responsible and controlled manner possible. He
5 noted that Defigaugh and Osborn both have a long, respectable history in this community and had no
5T problems with that area. He said their clerks are over 21 years of age and well trained, noting that both
5$ Defibaugh and Osborn are involved in state associations as well as the local community. Giving an example
5 of that, he said they both close at 9 p.m. except for special nights in the year, but they could easily run their
6 businesses much later, legally, but they feel it is not morally responsible to be selling half pints and six packs
6 at 12:30 a.m. He said his industry feels the responsible distribution of its products is part of the community
6 solution to the abuse. He cited a local chain store which is selling liquor below the liquor stores'cost, noting
6 that he is not saying these stores are irresponsible but he is saying they have a tendency to be less
66 responsible than either Defibaugh or Osborn.
369
•
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993
Page 7 '
•
1 He said he is proud to be associated with Defibaugh and Osborn and that they currently represent the
2 majority of all the alcohol sold in this community, adding that a stable, controlled business environment is
3 necessary for them to survive. He added that the Ohio excise and what they are doing will put, particularly
4 his store,out of business and that is a loss for them but they are also concerned about their customers.
5 - they.
6 He said he thinks Richmond is best served by an alliance between businesses and government community
7 programs and he wants to be involved. He said he wants to talk with high schools and get involved with the
8 police department, noting that inrthe next few years government bodies such as Council are going to have a
9 number of issues to deal with. He mentioned the alcoholic beverage commission going more for local option
10 and said Council will have to deal with issues as to whether or not it wants gas stations in this community to
11 be able to sell liquor and it is going to have to deal with the stores offering the big discounts on liquor. He
12 asked the question as to whether they should be able to sell liquor at a low cost and then jeopardize
13 legitimate business activity in the community.
14
15 He said all of these issues will have to be addressed in the near future because the state is going to be
16 giving the local communities more power in that area. He asked for a unanimous voice vote on this issue,
17 adding that it would show that Council believes that restricted, responsible controlled retailing of alcoholic
18 beverage products is part of the solution. He noted that.it is the beginning of an alliance that will hopefully
19 result in a safer community for everyone.
20 -
21 Speaking against the ordinance was Jody Govern, assistant chief legal counsel for the Ohio Department of
22 Liquor Control, located in Columbus, Ohio. She said that department would like to go on record as opposing
23 this ordinance which would prohibit its agents from conducting undercover surveillance of Ohio citizens who
24 are.illegally purchasing large amounts of alcohol in Richmond to.take back to Ohio. She said the 21st
25 Amendment of the United States Constitution allows states to prohibit the transportation of alcohol into their
26 states and several U.S. Supreme Court cases have held that the 21st Amendment does not violate the
27 United States commerce laws.
28 -
29 She said Ohio, like Indiana, has enacted laws prohibiting the transportation of alcohol into the state and
30 these laws protect the welfare of its citizens as well as maintain the integrity of its system of taxation such as
31 she asumes is the intent of the Indiana laws. She added that, to enforce Ohio's laws relating to the
32 importation and transportation of alsoholic beverages the Ohio Department of Liquor Control agents conduct
33 covert, unobtrusive surveillance in Ohio's bordering states in gathering information on Ohio citizens who are
34 purchasing only large quantitites of alcohol and transporting it back into Ohio.
35 -
36 She added that these agents do not focus on individual Ohio citizens who are purchasing small quantitites of
37 alcoholic beverages which Council may have been led to believe. She said in conducting the surveillance the
38 agents merely drive through this City's public streets and observe Ohio citizens, and they do not park on
39 private property but simply travel on the public streets. She added that they possibly do make turn arounds
40 on private property parking lots but do not conduct surveillance by sitting on private property. She said no
41 actual arrests are made in Richmond, -adding that the Ohio customers are merely observed while in
42 Richmond and are followed back into Ohio and the stop is made in Ohio and the arrest, if appropriate, is
43 conducted within Ohio.
44 -
45 Govern said the department has filed 62 charges against Ohioans for their illegal possession of alcoholic
46 beverages between January 1 and August 31 of 1993. She noted the average value of alcohol seized per
47 arrest is between $250 and $300 which means it is not a small quanitity. Of the 62 confiscations, she said,
48 the'value of the seized alcohol was$17,234. She asked Council to keep in mind that she is speaking only of
49 the alcohol that the department was actually able to confirm that was transported into Ohio. She said it is
50 difficult to estimate the amounts of alcohol that is illegally transported into Ohio about which the department
51 has no knowledge.
52
53 The illegal transportation of alcohol into Ohio, she said, is resulting in a significant loss of revenue to the
54 state, adding that those tax dollars are used for funding educational and health programs, alcohol and drug
55 abuse treatment programs as well as being used for general revenue funds. That is why, she said,the state
56 has a legitimate interest in enforcing these laws, even if that enforcement forces the department to conduct a
57 surveillance of Ohioans while they are in other states.
58
59 Noting that to her knowledge no attempt has been made to change the Ohio importation and transportation
60 laws, Govern said these laws remain in effect and do apply to all citizens. In conclusion, she said the
61 department encouraged Council not to adopt the ordinance which would prevent its agents from enforcing
62 Ohio's laws in Ohio. She asked that Council not infringe upon Ohio's constitutional right'to regulate the
63 transportation of alcohol within its own state, adding that any attempt to prevent Ohio from doing so would
64 probably be unconstitutional and subject to a legal challenge by the state of Ohio.
65 -
370 •
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993 •
Page 8 •
•
•
1 Councilmember Hutton asked if there is a legal limit that can be brought into the state.Govern answered that
Ohioans may bring into Ohio no more than one quart of alcohol within any one 30-day period. Therefore, if
any Ohioan wishes to lawfully bring alcoholic beverages into the state-of Ohio they may visit Richmond or
any city in Indiana, Kentucky or West Virginia and bring back one quart of spirits within any 30-day period.
She added that, in doing so,these individuals are obeying the Ohio laws and it would benefit this community
because they would make more frequent trips to this City. However, she said, when these individuals come
into this City and purchase $200 to $400 worth of alcoholic beverages it is reasonable to assume that these
5 individuals do not consume their purchases immediately and therefore their trips to this City are less frequent
9 because the need for alcoholic beverages is diminished with the purchase of such large quantities.
10
1 Councilmember Donat asked Govern to expand on the possible lawsuit she mentioned and Govern said she
1 was not prepared to speak in depth on the issue at this time. However, she said, the department has
1 contemplated bringing federal litigation against cities who adopt similar ordinances to this one and its
1 contention is that it violates the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Councilmember Donat asked
1 Govern if Councilmembers would adopt this ordinance would they be opening themselves to a federal
1 lawsuit and Govern answered that at this time she could only say that it is a possibility.
1
1 Councilmember Allen commented that Lawrenceburg, Indiana has passed a similar ordinance and asked if
1 the Ohio Department of Liquor Control had filed suit against that City. Govern answered that she was not
2 aware of that ordinance.
2
2 B. J. Williams of 108 South 21st Street said he would like to ask Molick what he purchased that led to his
2 arrest. Molick stepped forward with his list in hand, noting that not all of his purchases which had been
2 confiscated had been made in Richmond. He said he had purchased 12 bottles of Frankenmuth beer in
2 Michigan to give as gifts. His list of purchases made in Richmond included gin, vodka, brandy, cognac and
2 Canadian Club which he said was for his own consumption. He added that included in that purchase were
2 several bottles of wine and 24 bottles of German beer.
2
2 Williams said he was curious because he had read about a gentleman who had purchased 13 cases of beer
3 and added that if he had purchased all of that in one store in Richmond the owner would have broken the
331
law because Indiana law says a liquor store owner can only sell six cases of beer to an individual. He said
the one objection he has to this ordinance is that it tends to make the Ohioans criminals, adding that if the
3 law is wrong, it should be changed in Ohio. He asked that Council not,pass a law giving the opportunity to
3 the Ohio citizens to become criminals or law breakers. He said he doesn't understand why Council is
3. considering a law to help others to break a law.
3°
3 Dale Sharits of 1000 North West D Street said he believes there are more than just individual personalities
3: involved in this issue. He said we can blame everything on somebody else or take responsibility for
3° ourselves. In the 1950s, he said, it used to be legal for 18 year olds to go across the line into Ohio and at
4o that time adults, too, went across the line to make purchases. He said some of the 18 years olds died
4 coming back from Ohio, noting that it was the only place they could legally drink. He said adults went into
4 Ohio because it was cheaper to buy beer and transport it back into Indiana. At that time, Sharits said, the
4 Indiana authorities went over into Ohio. Then, Ohio changed its laws and became compatible.with Indiana.
44 That state raised its legal age to drink to 21.years and the prices on alcohol went up so Indiana people did
4. not continue to go into Ohio to buy liquor.
4
4 Sharits asked whether or not this proposed ordinance is legal, noting the alleged bootlegging, asking if the
4 City government wants to become part of the bootlegging system. He said the dollar doesn't stretch as much
4 as it used to, adding that stretching sometimes has its consequences. He said schools close in Ohio
5 because they don't have a tax base that is functional enough. Then, he added, if this ordinance is passed
5 this City will be,to some extent,sponsoring in an indirect way,tax evasion.
5,
5 Noting that he felt the picture was bigger than the almighty dollar, Sharits cautioned Councilmembers that
54 others are watching, not only in the Council chambers or on TV, but businesses that may want to relocate
5 here at a later date. He asked what message Council is going to be sending to them if this ordinance is
5 passed. He asked if that message will be that they might be willing to circumvent another state's law to
5 personally help business people and/or private individuals here in Richmond? He said he feels the place to
5 change the law is in Ohio, adding that anywhere the boundaries of two communities abut there is always
5 conflict.
6
6 Councilmember Dickman moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember McBride and the motion was
6 carried on a unanimous voice vote. -
6
64 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 89 - 1993 to third and
66 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and the motion was carried on a
unanimous voice vote.
•
. . 071
•
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993
Page 9 '
•
•
1 Councilmember Elstro, noting that Mayor Cornett was not present at the last meeting when this ordinance
2 was on first reading,asked him if he was backing this ordinance.
3
• 4 Mayor Cornett responded that he understood that Councilmember Elstro had asked that question several
5 times during the last meeting, noting that he was honored that he would be interested in how he felt about
6 the ordinance, noting that it is different, asking what had caused the change. Councilmember Elstro
7 commented that he wanted to hear his answer, adding that he might make the decision as to how he is going
8 to vote on this ordinance.
9
10 Responding, Mayor Cornett said this ordinance is like many that are initiated by Council and if Council
11 passes it he will sign•it. He noted that this is not an administration priority but is obviously an item of extreme
12 interest to a lot of people. He said the administration makes proposals on a lot of things like job creation and
13 such but this came out of community pressure, much like the smoking ordinance and the one on dogs and
14 cats. He added that he could give Council a long story about personal feelings but this is not an
15 administration ordinance and if Council sees fit to pass this ordinance he will sign it. He added that he is
16 unaccustomed to signing things that he doesn't agree with. •
17 _
18 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 89-1993 on third reading. •
19
20 Councilmember Donat expressed disappointment in the fact that Police Chief Dennis Rice was not in the
21 audience to speak against this ordinance, noting that she had talked with him on the telephone. Upon
22 learning that Chief Rice was in the audience, she asked if he wished to speak and when he came forward
23 she asked him to comment on what he had told her in their telephone conversation were the reasons he was
24 opposed to this ordinance. Chief Rice stated that he is always concerned when restrictions are placed on law
25 enforcement personnel who are attempting to do their duty.
26 •
27 Prefacing her remarks with the comment that she believes Council has to think about the majority of the
28 citizens of Richmond, Councilmember Donat said she wished to take issue with the comment made by
• 29 Defibaugh while talking about the folks who break the Ohio law by transporting large amounts of alcoholic
30 beverages into Ohio that they don't endanger person or property. She called attention to a newspaper article
• 31 in which it was stated that in the past 10 years more than 7,000 people have died in Ohio accidents involving
32 drunken drivers and more than 250,000 have been injured.
33
34 She said she is very much aware of what happened in Lawrenceburg when that city passed its ordinance,
35 noting that she passes through there often and had taken some photographs. She said the main corridor
36 leading into the business section of Lawrencebrug is populated with liquor stores, cut rate discount liquor
37 stores, and billboards indicating it is a town with discount, cut rate liquor stores. She said they even have 38 drive-through liquor stores much like car washes.
39
40 Noting that the eastern gateway into Indiana from Ohio is a beautiful gateway into Richmond,
41 Councilmember Donat said it, too, could become a corridor of cut rate liquor stores and the billboards on
42 Interstate 70 would indicate that Richmond, Indiana is a town of cut rate discount liquor stores. She said she
43 doesn't think this is the personality this City wants to project to others, especially to those wishing to relocate
44 here.
45 . -
46 She said those who buy large amounts of liquor and take it over into Ohio know they are breaking the law.
47 She agreed with Williams, she said,that the laws of Ohio need to be changed. She added that she admired
48 Sharits for his comments that Richmond government should not be made a part of the crimes but needs to
49 help the law enforcement agencies of Ohio as they, in turn, cooperate with this City's law'enforcement
50 agents.
51
52 Commenting on Govern's statement that Richmond could. be opening itself to• a federal law suit,
53 Councilmember Donat said this City is already involved in one law suit and has some others in which it is
54 involved, noting that it costs a lot of money to fight them, not even considering what might happen if it should
55 lose them. She said she-urged her colleagues to vote against this ordinance for many reasons but the
56 federal law suit possibility should be the best consideration of the taxpayers'dollars.
57
58 Councilmember McBride and Councilrriember Allen offered comments in support of the ordinance.
59 .
60 President Lundy said she is concerned about the illegal issue and although she is for. economic
111 . 61 development, asked if this City wants that at any cost. She said she asked Chief Rice to research what
62 passing this ordinance would do to the relationship with the Ohio enforcement officers as far as working
63 together on things as equally important as drug busts, noting that no City can stand alone and has to work
64 together,with other cities. Chief Rice reported to her that he had talked with several officers who said they felt
65 it would have no specific impact to hurt that relationship.
•
ri
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993 _
Page 10
•
1 President Lundy asked Milligan about the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He answered that it
simply repeals the 18th Amendment which banned the sale of alcoholic beverages in the United States,
3 giving individual states permission to govern the movement of alcohol into and out of their states and these
4 states were authorized to pass laws concerning that issue. He said Ohio chose to be the liquor merchant for
5 the state and in Indiana licenses were allocated on the basis of population and those licenses had to be
6 within corporate or town limits and could not be in unincorporated areas of the state.
7
8 Milligan said that both states have a different approach,which means that today you have state owned liquor
9 stores in Ohio involved as a distributor and retail merchant and the state of Indiana is involved only in the
16 position of taxes on liquor, liquor spirts and wine and beer, but it is in the private enterprise sector.
1 Therefore, the 21st Amendment simply repeals the 18th Amendment which outlawed alcoholic beverages
1 and the state of Ohio would have no action against the City of Richmond on an ordinance violation. He
1 added that an individual faced with being accused of an ordinance violation would be the officer in the state
1 of Indiana conducting surveillance activities. That person, he said, would have an argument before the
1 courts of the state of Indiana as to whether or not it is a constitutional law, but the state of Ohio is simply not
1 in that position and not an appropriate party in a federal court to bring any action against the state of Indiana.
17
1: Commenting that he had researched this issue with-the city solicitor of Newport, Ky., who had worked
1 closely with the Cincinnati, Ohio police departments, Milligan said they have problems there because of the
20 two cities on each side of the bridge. He noted they had some problems peculiar to their state when they
2 adopted those provisions and Newport and Covington-both have ordinances prohibiting such surveillance
2 activities. He added-that they had an ongoing relationship with law enforcement offices on the Ohio side and
2 have not experienced any problems, continuing joint activities in law enforcement. Milligan said the chief
2. enforcement officer of the Ohio Liquor Control Board told him in a telephone conversation a month ago that
2' the agents simply do not go into those communities that have passed such ordinances. He also commented
2° that the officer said that Richmond is the only City that has a sizeable Ohio population just across the state
2 line that has not passed an ordinance.
2:
2° Ordinance No. 89- 1993 was adopted on the following call of the roll:
30
3 Ayes: Elstro, Brookbank, McBride, Parker,Allen and Dickman (6)
3. Nays:Donat, Hutton and Lundy(3)
31
ORDINANCE NO.91 -1993
3
3 The-Clerk read Ordinance No. 91 - 1993 - A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-STATING
3 ARTICLES 38A,38B AND 38C OF CHAPTER 154 OF THE RICHMOND CODE
3
3 Councilmember Allen explained that the Plan Commission had voted 11-0 in favor of the ordinance. Milligan
4 G explained that it is simply re-stating some articles that had to be in place before November 6 in order to
4 comply with federal regulations. He said the ordinance is prescribed by federal and state authorities in order
4 for property owners in Richmond, Indiana to qualify for federal flood insurance protection. He said a flood is
4 such a comprehensive disastrous event that private insurers do not offer flood insurance. He added that is
4• basically done through the government and the government dictates the types of ordinances.in terms of
4 development in flood plains and flood ways. The areas basically involved, Milligan said, are the Whitewater
4° River, Clear Creek,Short Creek and Lick Creek within the City.
4
4: President Lundy declared Ordinance No. 91 - 1993 on public hearing. Hearing no comments either for or
4° against, Councilmember McBride moved-for engrossment,second by Councilmember Parker and the motion
50 was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
5
5 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 91 - 1993 to third and
5 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and the motion was carried on a
54 unanimous voice vote.
5
5 The Clerk read Ordinance No.91 -1993 on third reading.
5
5 Ordinance No. 91 - 1993 was adopted on the following call of the roll:
5
6 Ayes: Elstro, Brookbank, Donat, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Lundy (9)
6 Nays: None
6
63 ORDINANCE NO.92-1993 -
6
6 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 92 - 1993 - A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT
3041 EAST MAIN STREET
� ' O
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993
Page 11 -
1 •Councilmember Allen explained that there had been quite a discussion in the Plan Commission on the
2 subject of Keith Hodgkin, a local dentist, who wishes to build a property at this•location. She noted there
3 were some restrictions the Plan Commission wanted to add which included restricting the occupancy to two
4 dentists, maintaining reasonable business hours and much discussion about drainage. She said the
5 Commission agreed that the water coming off the roof should be run underneath in a drain tile and the runoff
6 of the parking lot was to go into the sewer off to the front providing the state-would go along with that.
7 Milligan said those were the conditions and a site plan was approved by the Plan Commission by a 10-1
8 vote. -
9
10 Councilmember McBride noted that the amendments were written into the ordinance.
11
12 President Lundy declared Ordinance No. 92-1993 on public hearing. Keith Hodgkin, owner of the proposed
13 property, said that comments made by Councilmember Allen and Milligan were correct. He said the parking
14 lot drainage will be filtered to the east to the lower end of the property rather than north if the state would
15 honor that request. .
16 -
17 Attorney Robert Burton, representing James and Ruth Guthrie who live at 3112 Southeast Parkway which is
18 immediately to the south and adjoining Hodgkin's property,said he would not reiterate the discussion held in
19 the Plan Commission meeting. However, he said, Ravinia Park has maintained itself as a residential
20 community for many, many years, noting that the Guthries have lived there since 1960. He said their concern
21 is to maintain as much residential character as they can, including protection against runoff. In attempting to
22 define conditions that he understood had been passed by the Plan Commission, Burton said the property
23 would be rezoned from R-3 to R-4 with the designation of special use of dental offices only, not to exceed
24 two dentists and their staffs. Secondly, he said, the offices would be operated only during normal and
25 reasonable business hours. And, thirdly, drainage to the front would be run underground through the tile to
26 the manhole,and drainage to the south be run underground to the sewer.
27
28 Burton said the Plan Commission indicated the buffer area shown on the site-plan would be arranged and
29 designed in a manner which would ensure auto rays would not shine through the fence into the property at
30 3112 Southeast Parkway. He stated that he understood the conditions adopted by the Plan Commission and
31 suggested clarification relating to the zoning question with these conditions would not be objected to by the
32 Guthries.
33
34 President Lundy asked if their concerns have been met to their satisfaction and Burton said he had given
35 Councilmember Allen a couple of lighter changes before the meeting.
36
37 Councilmember Brookbank asked Hodgkin if could live with these conditions. He said-he is prepared to run
38 water off the parking lot on the south side and has not researched the cost, but if it is reasonable he would
39 be'willing to run it underground to the north. He said the proposal is that the water coming off the roof would
40 be run north to the sewer system on Main Street with the state approval to do so. He added that he thinks
41 that what you have here is a bit of overkill and it is best to keep the attorneys out of it. He said there is 25
42 feet across the front and 40 feet at the side and he can filter out water off the roof if necessary. He added
43 that on the south side he recognizes as a potential problem but he preferred that Council not lock him into
44 extended cost of underground tile in through the Main Street sewer system unless it is feasible that he
45 decides to do so. He said he has plenty of room to put that water in a position where he can benefit himself,
46 adding that he is not going to have a flood plain in his office. Other than not wanting to be locked in he said
47 he had no objections, adding that he is aware of a potential drainage problem there and will be taking those
48 steps himself to resolve it.
49
50 Burton said the property is residential and the rear of the property is all grass now and there is going to be a
51 major change with Hodgkin's project, pointing out there will be a lot of surface area, lot of driveway, lot of
52 parking and lot of run off, all of which was discussed at the Plan Commission. He said the water from the
53 south is to be run through a drain underground to the manhole,that way there is some reasonable assurance
54 in spite of otherwise good intentions that it is not going to run off onto the Guthries' property. He said the
55 water to the north, it is understood, will travel through an underground tile to the sewer on U.S. 40 obviously
56 with the state approval and if the state says it won't approve then whatever City Engineer Bob Wiwi would
57 require would certainly be appropriate.
58
59 Hodgkin reminded Council that there is an existing residence there today.and water is coming off the roof
60 and there are no gutters and rio downspouts, adding that he would prefer the members take all that in
61 consideration.Goodwin said he believed that the condition of this approval is that the site plan drainage must
62 be approved by the City Engineer, regardless of what the commissioners or the Council think of how the
63 water should be handled. He said it would be checked by a hydrologist and approved by the City Engineer
64 which would not permit the property to the south to be endangered.
65 -
374
•
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993 •
Page 12
•
1 Burton said he appreciated good will, but said he felt the conditions he is referring to, and there were six,be
2 adopted as stated, including those about drainage. Burton said the words "by underground drain"should be
3 added to the second line in the second to last paragraph after the word "drainage." Also, the two words
"storm sewer" should replace "catch basin," and after the word "Parkway," should be the words "by
underground drain."He said with those minor clarifications it is exactly what the Plan Commission adopted.
Councilmember Elstro moved to adopt the ordinance with those conditions, second by Councilmember
Donat. •
0 1 Councilmember Dickman asked whether or not the underground drains are required by the engineering
11 department and Goodwin answered that the City Engineer has to be satisfied after the site drain committee
1 .report. Burton suggested that the specific underground drainage be added.
1
1- Hodgkin said Burton was incorrect, noting that the'roof drainage was not required in the north area
1- underground,but he will offer to do that if the cost is reasonable. He said Burton is changing the rules, noting
1• that he does not want to be locked in in case it is cost prohibitive.
1
1: President Lundy asked Milligan for legal direction and he said Council should go ahead and vote on it
1• because it is a minor point. He explained that what happened at the Plan Commission is that the
20 underground drain was included as a condition on the south side but not included as a condition to the north.
21 The discussion about the north was that there was a request that they take it to the state highway's drain on
2- National Road East if possible. If not, it was to be drained across the grass to the east side of the building.
2 He said his recollection is that the drainage on the south is to be taken to the storm sewer, not the catch
2 basin,opposite the east entry exit curb and after the word Parkway"by underground drain,"adding that is on
2 the south side. He said there was no underground drain requirement agreed to for the drainage to the north.
2 He said the recommendation from the Plan Commission did not include underground tile to the north.
2 Councilmember Dickman said it does state the City Engineer must approve and be satisfied with the
2 drainage, noting that he would know better about what is required than Council.
2
3 Councilmember Parker asked for an explanation of the motion, noting that the problem seemed to be that
3 Burton is saying underground drain to the north and Milligan is saying underground drain on the south. He
3 said he agreed with Councilmember Dickman in that the City Engineer should take care of the whole thing,
3 but all this needs to be cleared up before this ordinance is amended. Councilmember Hutton asked about
3 the underground drain to the north. Milligan said that is not a requirement, adding that the words "catch
3 basin" were replaced by the words "storm sewer," and that was agreed upon, but the roof drainage to the
3 north by underground drain was not a recommendation of the Plan Commission.
3
3 Mayor Cornett said it sounded like Burton was changing the ground rules, noting there is a motion and a
3 second to do that. He suggested that Council get on with the proceedings and either accept it or vote it down
4 then vote on the original one. Milligan said Council will be voting on Councilmember Elstro's motion which
4 requires an underground drain to the north, underground drain to the south and subject to the word change
4 of "storm sewer"for"catch basin." He said the vote is about two.underground drains and switching the two
4 words. Hodgkin asked if the motion fails for two undergrond drains will Council be re-voting on the original
proposal. Advised that that was the case he asked Council to turn down the motion on two underground
4 drains.
4,
4 The motion was defeated by the following call of the roll:
4
4 Nays: Brookbank, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Lundy(7)
5 Ayes: Elstro and Donat(2)
5 -
5 Councilmember Hutton asked Hodgkin if the only way for a drain to be installed is to put it underground
5 would he do so. He answered that in all probability he will run that right out into the sewer on the north side.
5 He added that if he finds the cost will be $20,000 to do that he would prefer to run it out on the ground on his
5 own property and use the money for something else. He added that he will do it if the cost is reasonable, but
5 he just does not want to be locked in to it.
5
54 Milligan said he would urge Council to amend the ordinance by putting in "storm sewer" in place of "catch
5• .basin" in the third line and add the words"underground drain"after the word Parkway through the end of the
60 fourth line.He added that is what the Plan Commission recommended.
6
6 Councilmember Donat moved to accept the recommendation as stated by the Plan Commission with the
6 above amendments suggested by Milligan, second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on
6, a unanimous voice vote.
6
Councilmember Dickman moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember. Hutton and the motion was
carried on a unanimous voice vote.
t •
375
•
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
November 1, 1993
Page 13
•
•
2 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 92 - 1993 to third and
3 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and the motion was carried on a
4 unanimous voice vote.
5 •
6 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 92-1993 on third reading.
7
8 Ordinance No.92=1993-was adopted on the following call of the roll:
9
10 Ayes: Elstro, Brookbank, Donat, McBride,Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Lundy(9)
11 Nays: None
12
13 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
14 •
15 Councilmember Brookbank noted that the Board of Works room is available for the Thursday executive
16 session at 7 p.m.
17 "
18 She asked Jarvis about how soon he would be getting the Sanitary District booklets out to the public. He
19 answered it is the Intent to have then) all distributed by the first of the year, adding that it is hoped that the
20 residents will do their own composting. .
21
22 ADJOURNMENT
23
24 There being no further business,on a motion duly made, passed and seconded the meeting was adjourned.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 Etta J. Lundy, President
32
33
•
34
35
36 ATTEST:
37 Norma Carnes, City Clerk
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 "
49
50 •
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
111 61
62
63
64
65
376
1
1
1