HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-19-1993 057
E PROCEED GS_O HE COMMON�CDUMCIL_OETHE
C-ITY:DERICIHIVIONE UNDIAIst i NDJMO TOEE1311 1SS3
•
1 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. Monday,October
2 18, 1993, in the Council Chambers in said City. President Lundy presided with the following
111 3 Councilmembers present: Elstro, Brookbank, Donat, Parker, Allen, Dickman and Hutton. Councilmember
4 McBride was absent.The following business was had to-wit:
5
6 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
7
8 PRAYER BY COUNCILMEMBER ELSTRO
9
10 ROLL CALL
11
12 Eight present.
13
14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20 AND OCTOBER 4.1993
15
16 Councilmember Brookbank moved to approve the minutes of the previous meetings as prepared, seconded
17 by Councilmember Allen and by unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
18
19 COMMUNICATIO NS FROM THE MAYOR
20
21 There were none.
22
23 PRESENTATIONS OF REMONSTRANCES. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
24
25 REPORT FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS
26
27 Earnest Jarvis, Director of the Department of Public Works and Safety, reported that the Street Tree
28 Commission had planted 41 trees throughout the City with only one being placed where it was not wanted.
29 He said that will be removed and given to someone who has asked for it. Volunteers included five
30 employees of the Department of Public Works, a doctor, two doctor's wives and a number of other citizens
31 including some teenagers and,he added, many of them worked in the rain.
32
33 Jarvis also reported that a letter had been received October 15 from the Indiana Department of
34 Transportation stating that the investigation had been completed regarding a request made by City Engineer
35 Robert Wiwi for a traffic light atU.S. 27 and Sylvan Nook Drive. The result of the investigation, as stated in
36 the letter, is that conditions needed for a traffic signal are not present. It further stated that the signal study
37 had consisted of counting traffic,observing delays, making a review of the recorded accidents and noting the
38 physical details and sight distance. This information had been compared with the standard set forth in the
39 Indiana manual on uniform traffic control devices.Jarvis stated this is the second time within 18 months that
40 the City has requested a traffic signal in that area and both times it has been denied.
41
42 Councilmember Donat suggested that perhaps an investigation further north around University Boulevard
43 and U.S.27 might be warranted..Jarvis said it might be worth a try.
44
45 REPORT FROM/OTHER OFFICES
46
47 REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY
48
49 Minutes of the September 30 and October 7 meetings in the Council packets.
50
51 REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
52
53 None were presented.
54
55 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES
56
57 None were presented.
58
59 REPORTS FROM OTHER COUNCIL COMMITTEES
60
61 Councilmember Elstro commented on the information guide booklet about the Richmond Sanitary District,
62 noting that it was extremely informative and a good publication.Jarvis said it is the intent to give one to every
63 household. He added that the information was compiled by Jan Luckett. Councilmember Brookbank noted
64 that she had called about having a freezer picked up and had paid her$15,then learned that she was going
65 to have to get it to the curb in order for it to be picked up.She said that is going to be a real problem.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd r.
October 18, 1993 • '
Page 2
• •
1 President Lundy read the names of the winners, their ages and the amounts they were awarded in the fire
. prevention poster contest sponsored by the Housing Authority of the-City of Richmond at Westwood
.Apartments. They were Garron Burton, age 15, $50, and Katara Harper;age 16, $30; Angela Burton, age
,i 13,$50,Joy Sery, age 11,$30 and Jamaal Harper, age 10, $20;Thomas Burton, age 8,$50, Michelle Sery,
age 9, $30 and Tracey Harper age 61/2, $20; and Maurice Harper, age 7, and Sherman Harper, age 8,
• received$10 each for honorable mention.
ORDINANCES
•
1. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
11
1- Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinances No. 89, 90, 91, 92, and 94-
1 1993,on first reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember Elstro and the motion was carried on
1 a unanimous voice vote. President Lundy_noted that there is an explanation for No. 93-which is to be an
1- Ordinance.
1;
1 ORDINANCE NO.89-.1993
1:
1• The Clerk read Ordinance No. 89-1993-A GENERAL ORDINANCE PROHIBITING OHIO DEPARTMENT
2' OF LIQUOR CONTROL SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CITY.OF RICHMOND
2
2- City Attorney Thomas Milligan explained that this ordinance is a result of merchants within the city whose
2 customers from Ohio are being harassed and impeded by surveillance activities by the Ohio Liquor Control
2 Board. Milligan said he contacted the chief enforcement officer in Columbus, Ohio, and had been informed
2- that in those cities which have adopted ordinances prohibiting their activities they do not attempt any
2: surveillance. These include Covington and Newport, Ky. and Lawrenceburg, Ind. The officer, Milligan said,
2 stated that to his knowledge this was the principal city in Indiana where those activities are being conducted.
2: -
2• Milligan explained that there was an ordinance pending in late 1991 which prohibited police activities
3r generally and then set forth exemptions of different types of police activities._.He said what this ordinance
3 addresses is the commercial problem between two states, noting that there are.Ohio citizens who come into
3- Richmond to purchase a number of items of merchandise, go to theaters, patronize restaurants and go to
3 bowling alleys. He added that they also purchase liquor and that is the only activity the state of Ohio
3, attempts to interfere with and it is acknowledged by the state of Ohio that it has nothing to do with bootleg
3- or illegal activities but simply the possession of aicholic beverages going into the state. He added that this
3: ordinance is-predicated on the basis that the federal constitution regulates that_through the federal level
3 through the.U.S. Congress and interstate commerce and it was designed to restore the free flow of
3: commerce between the two states. -
3, ,
46 People from Ohio, Milligan said, are followed around the city in their vehicle and are stopped as soon as
4 they cross the state line. This ordinance is designed for those individuals to,be able to file complaints for
4. ordinance violations and also for merchants who observe these surveillance activities on their lots and
4 parking lots within the city.Milligan said he had discussed this ordinance with Councilmember McBride who
4• is sponsoring it and representatives of the industry and retail package stores are in the Council chambers
4- tonight. However,he said, he had informed them that it is likely that Council will schedule the public hearing
4. for November 1 which will give them an opportunity to present their information and other material at that
4` time. He added that it would also give anybody. who is opposed to the ordinance the same opportunity.
4: Therefore, he said; he would recommend that this be held over for second reading on November 1 and at
4' that time they could be prepared to present the arguments in support of this ordinance.
50 . .
5 President Lundy said she didn't have any problem with that. Councilmember Elstro said the letter he had
5. received from Dale Defibaugh said the ordinance would be introduced by the Mayor's office and he asked
5 Milligan if the Mayor is endorsing the ordinance. Milligan responded that'the Mayor did not have a position
5 on the ordinance;adding that Councilmember McBride is actually the one introducing it. Councilmember
5 Elstro asked Milligan.:again if the Mayor was backing the ordinance and Milligan;responded that the Mayor
5^ did not have-a position on this ordinance. Councilmember Elstro stated that'that wasn't what he was asking
5 him. He asked again;.whether or not the Mayor will go along with this ordinance-and is he in favor.of the
5 Council passing it.,Milligan responded that the Mayor does not have a -position on this ordinance.
5^ Councilmember Elstro.said that was not what he was asking. Milligan said if Council passes this'ordinance
60 the'Mayor wilt sign it Councilmember Elstro asked again if the Mayor, is in agreement with..this ordinance
6 and would he,like to"see it passed..Milligan responded for the fourth time, ha said,that the Mayor does not
6. have a,position for or against the.ordinance. Councilmember Elstro said he would ask him for•the fifth time,
6 then!changed his mind, adding that Milligan was not going to answer.the question: Milligan responded that
6, he had answered Councilmember Elstro'squestion, adding that he (Elstro) could contact the Mayor himself
6• tomorrow,_but that he(Milligan)is telling him that the Mayor does not have a postion on this ordinance.
35a
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1993
P_ag&3 t
1 Milligan added that this is like other ordinances in that it is brought to Council on behalf of the citizens by a
2 Councilmember and he (Milligan) has assisted the individuals who have been interested and has also
3 pariticpated in discussions with the Ohio Liquor Control Board to ascertain under what conditions they would
4 cease their activities,adding that he feels that serves those interested people.
5
6 Councilmember Elstro persevered, asking Milligan again if the Mayor likes this ordinance, then added that
7 perhaps Milligan could not answer that and he (Elstro) would have to ask the Mayor himself. Milligan
8 responded that he would answer it and that answer is that the Mayor does not have a position either in
9 support or against this ordinance. Councilmember Elstro asked Milligan what action will be taken against the
10 enforcement officers coming over from Ohio and Milligan said section three in the ordinance addresses that
11 issue. He said the ordinance is designed to be enforced by those persons who experience being stopped in
12 Ohio who can recount being followed by the same car in Indiana, adding that these people are in a position
13 to come in and sign a complaint which will be a statement under oath. He added that this will be a verified
14 statement filed in the local court as an ordinance violation. He said it is also possible that any citizen and
15 particularly an operator of a package store in Richmond who observes these cars which are fairly visible
16 because the Ohio Liquor Control enforcement people are the only Ohio cars without a license plate on the
17 front end of their cars, would be in a position to file the complaint then these people would be cited for an
18 ordinance violation.
19
20 Milligan said it would not be the responsibility of the local Police Department to arrest law enforcement
21 officers from another state. He added that was the problem with the earlier ordinance and back in January
22 1992 Police Chief Dennis Rice stated he did not want his officers to be put in the position of arresting other
23 law enforcement officers from a neighboring state.
24
25 Councilmember Donat asked if this ordinance could go all the way tonight and Milligan said it could. She then
26 asked Milligan by what authority did he tell the people like Dale Defibaugh that it would probably be held
27 over. Milligan responded that he had discussed it with President Lundy who then commented that she had
28 received letters from store owners concerning this and felt that other Councilmembers had done the same.
29 She said she feels it should be properly discussed, adding that she actually thought it would go to the
30 Committee of the Whole.
31
32 Councilmember Donat said she had seen at least one article in the local newspaper about it and it appeared
33 to her that people are organized, citing a letter campaign, and have done a good job of getting their facts
34 together.She said she saw no reason why this ordinance should not go on to second reading and so moved,
35 with a second by Councilmember Dickman. However, it was stopped on second reading by an 8-1 vote with
36 Councilmember Brookbank voting against.
37
38 Milligan said Councilmember McBride had expressed very strongly his desire to be present for the public
39 hearing and he thought it was appropriate for Councilmember Brookbank to recognize that, adding that the
40 ordinance will automatically be on second reading November 1 and on public hearing.
41
42 In response to a question by Councilmember Hutton about what the law is in Ohio that allows the
43 enforcement officers to come into Indiana, Milligan said there is no law that requires them to have permission
44 to come into the state. He said Ohio liquor laws limit an individual coming into their state to one liter and there
45 is a limitation but as a practical matter it is a misdemeanor in Ohio. Therefore, in order for them to enforce
46 that law, they have to observe people loading the liquor in Indiana into their automobile because they can't
47 stop them in the state of Ohio to search their vehicle. And, even if they stop them for a speeding ticket,
48 unless they could observe the liquor through the window, they would have no basis upon which to search
49 their vehicle and try to enforce this law.
50
51 Councilmember Hutton asked if Indiana has any law like that and Milligan said it does not, adding that the
52 only laws that apply are federal laws coming in from another country and duty free shops and international
53 airports which gives an opportunity to purchase within the limits. He added that no states are permitted to
54 impose barriers, but Ohio is doing it under the guise of liquor control. He said the concern is the loss of
55 revenue in the state of Ohio and that all the package stores in Ohio are operated by the state and that is the
56 problem when every surrounding state has a much more flexible market for the purchasing of alcohol.
57
58 Councilmember Donat commented that the word "harass" is an inflammatory word and to use that word
59 makes it appear that the officers from Ohio are doing much more than stopping cars.She added that Milligan
60 had said this is not an illegal activity but he is wrong. She said it is illegal to cross the Ohio state line with
61 alcoholic beverages in the car and that makes it an illegal activity. Milligan responded that Councilmember
62 Donat was incorrect. He added that what is being discussed is the amount of alcohol in one's possession and
63 the state of Ohio considers it a misdemeanor to have more than one liter in one's possession. He said it is
64 not illegal in Indiana under federal or Indiana law and that is what is being addressed. He further stated that
65 he is not speaking for the state of Ohio but Councilmember Hutton's question had to do with the activity as it
relates to the only jurisdiction in which he is involved and that is the state of Indiana.
I
� _
•
Common Council Minutes-Cont'd
• October 18, 1993 - - ,
• Pago:4 . ' • ' - -
r
1 • Councilmember Donat said-this is dealing with an Ohio illegal activity and there are instances where Indiana
•.law 'is broken and it is important for this state's officers and law enforcement officials to.go iinto.Ohio to •
• enable them to do their-jobs in Indiana and in order to facilitate law enforcement.'arid whether it is not illegal
in Indiana but illegal in Ohio is very relevant.She reiterated that it is an illegal act to cross-the state line with
alcoholic beverages in a certain amount into Ohio and that is what allows the officers to stop the cars.
President Lundy said the ordinance would be discussed in public hearing November 1.
• ORDINANCE NO.90-1993
10
11 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 90 1993 - A SPECIAL ORDINANCE DESIGNATING RESIDENTIAL
1- PARKING PERMIT AREA NUMBER 9
1
1, Milligan explained that the public hearing on this has been conducted by the Board of Public Works and
1' Safety and is an amplification and expansion of the residential parking permit•concept to handle the parking
1: problem around-Richmond High School. He said that in the months since the last expansion was adopted,
1 which was the second one,Councilmember Hutton has talked with residents in the first and second blocks of
1: South West 1st-Street and was the one to request this action, He said the.Police•Department had conducted
1' a study and a hearing was conducted by the Board of Works and this ordinance is a-result of those two
21 actions and is supported by the administration.
2
2• Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No.90-1993 to second reading
2 and read by title only, second by.Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a-unanimous voice
2, vote.
2•
2:• The Clerk read Ordinance No.90-1993 on second reading.
2
2: President Lundy declared Ordinance No.90-1993 on public hearing.
2°
30 There being no-comments either for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Brookbank moved for
3 engrossment,second by Councilmember Hutton and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
3•
3 Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 90 - 1993 to third and final
3, reading and- read by title only, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion•was carried on a
3 unanimous voice vote:
3. `
3 The Clerk read Ordinance No.90-1993 on third reading.
3:
3° Ordinance No..90"-1993 was adopted on the following call of the roll:
40
4 Ayes:Elstro, Brookbank, Donat, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Lundy(8)
4. Absent:McBride
ORDINANCE NO.91 -1993
4'
4° The Clerk read,Ordinance.No. 91 - 1993 - A GENERAL ORDINANCE.AMENDING AND-RE-STATING
4 ARTICLES 38 A,-38B.AND38 C OF CHAPTER 154 OF THE RICHMOND CODE '
4:
4° President Lundy announced that this ordinance will go to Planning but asked Milligan to explain it.
50
5 In doing so, Milligan said this ordinance rewrites the reference articles of the Richmond Code which has to
5 do with flood plain and the fringe area adjacent to an actual flood way. He added that it does not addressthe
5 two-mile fringe,:but does deal with the fringe area next to a flood way. He said there have been a number of
5, changes in the federal law as well as the state law regarding this particular area where zoning is concerned.
5• -
5° He said the present-provisions in the zoning law were adopted in 1982 and complied with the federal
5 requirements- at that time. -However, since then, they have changed: and this affects the ability of
5: homeowners and owners of businesses and anyone with property to qualify for coverage under the federal
5° flood control and flood insurance program.
60
6 He said at the time of a disastrous flood, the private insurance companies basically exclude that under
6 coverage and federal coverage comes into play and in order to protect them from insuring more risk than is
6• at all reasonable-the floodways and the flood areas in the City have to be defined. He addedthat there are
6, not that many-but:they have to be properly defined within the zoning ordinance since it minimizes the amount
6 of construction activity that-takes place in those areas. - - .
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 18, 1993
Pages ;-t
1 Milligan said this ordinance narrows the exposure of the federal flood insurance program and in order for the
2 local citizens to qualify it is necessary to adopt the new provision. He added that in the case of all zoning
3 ordinance amendments, Council receives them on first reading and then they are referred to the Plan
4 Commission for the legally advertised public hearing. He said that has been advertised for October 26,which
5 means this ordinance will be back before Council at its November' 1 meeting with a Plan Commission
6 recommendation.
7
8 Councilmember Parker asked whether or not his meant that existing structures which may not presently be in
9 the flood plain may be in there now. Milligan said it recognizes legal non-conforming uses and does hamper
10 the ability to continue but the expansion of these would have to be done in the manner which is consistent
11 with these provisions. He added that it is only a very small area of the City that is being dealt with but there is
12 the potential for flood in those areas. He said this ordinance is simply to conform to the state and federal
13 laws, noting that there is no construction activity other than along Whitewater Boulevard that possibly would
14 be close to the requirements of this ordinance.
15
16 He said he has been working with the building inspectors as well as the Planning Department in defining
17 those areas, adding that at the hearing October 26 there will be a map that actually identifies the areas that
18 are affected by this ordinance. Also included will be information as to whether any existing structures are
19 affected and all that information will be availalbe to Councilmembers on November 1.
20
21 Councilmember Parker asked if buildings owned by the local government are subject to these provisions or
22 are they exempt. Milligan said all buildings and all construction are covered under these provisions.
23 Councilmember Parker asked specifically about the area that used to be referred to as Happy Hollow as to
24 whether it is in that flood plain area. Milligan answered that he was not sure. Councilmember Parker then
25 questioned as to whether the City would be able to build there and what would that do to the gorge areas as
26 far as any construction was concerned. Milligan said that although he didn't know the answer to that, it is
27 obviously an area possible for flood. He added that this ordinance has to be adopted by November 6 or the
28 City is out of compliance with the federal flood control insurance program. He said that is the reason for
29 adoption of this ordinance at this time. He said he should be prepared to answer the question on November
30 1 as to what this means for the valley area.
111 31
32 ORDINANCE NO.92-1993
33
34 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 92 - 1993 - A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT
35 3041 EAST MAIN STREET
36
37 President Lundy announced that Ordinance No. 92-1993 will go to Planning but asked Milligan to explain it.
38
39 He said this is a petition by Dr. Hodgkin with regard to the dental office at 3041 W. Main Street and attached
40 for Council's further information is a copy of the actual petition for special use and a site plan of the present
41 building and the proposed building. It also includes details from the various City departments and a curb cut
42 off of Southeast Parkway.
43
44 Complying with a request by President Lundy for an explanation of No. 93, Milligan said it is a proposal that
45 is being considered by the Plan Commission and has to do with the beautification ordinance. He said that
46 discussion has been going on within the Commission. Milligan said the proposal that No. 93 would present is
47 a Site Approval Committee provision in the plan ordinance. He added that there is a Plat Review Committee
48 created by ordinance on subdivision control and this would create a new committee within the Plan
49 Commission that would consider a site plan on virtually any new construction or expansion of existing
50 buildings. He noted that it has to do with the consideration of the beautification of the City and the Planning
51 Commission will be discussing this on October 26.
52
53 Milligan said this does present a considerable departure from the City's present practice, adding that at this
54 time an individual can obtain a building permit for a structure or an expansion of an existing structure by
55 simply complying with the zoning law which has to do with setbacks and with the use in a permitted area and
56 the various approvals in order to comply with the building code, electrical code, plumbing and heating.
57 Milligan said this matter will be before Council at its November 1 meeting if the Plan Commission decides to
58 go ahead and propose an ordinance and it will be Ordinance No. 93.
59
111 60
61 ORDINANCE NO.94-1993
62
63 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 94-1993-A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A
64 STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR A DEDUCTION UNDER I.C.
65 6-1.1-12.1
Common Council Minutes Cont'd.
•October 18. 1993 - ••
Paged
•
.Councilmember Parker said no specific meeting had been held but Bob Goodwin,•Diirector'of Planning, had
- taken it around to every committee member and these statement of benefits are in order.-for-Casting
Technology Corporation for the'purpose of acquiring new machinery..Councilmember'Parker recommended
•-approval with a second by Councilmember Allen. .
Milligan said the machinery will be located in the Amcast building and Councilmember Parker explained that
this is a Japanese firm that is presently doing.some work there at Amcast and it is going to bring in a new
piece of equipment and start a new project there.
•
1 Councilmember Parker said eight new jobs are going to be created along with the retention of six or seven
1 jobs that are presently there. Milligan said this relates to the technology that was discussed at the time of the
1 Amcast lease, noting that at that time they indicated they were working with a Japanese company and they
1 would be entering into a joint venture with Amcast being an American company with the Japanese in order to
1• bring new casting technology to this market. He said this is the first step and there is significant investment in
1- machinery which creates the eight new jobs. Councilmember.Parker said this is in relation to the additional
1. acreage that was requested at that same time by Amcast.
1 •
1:. Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 94 - 1993 to second
1 reading and read by title only,,.second by .Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a
20 unanimous voice vote.
2. •
2 President Lundy declared Ordinance No.94- 1993 on public hearing.There being no comments either for or
2 against the ordinance, Councilmember Dickman moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Hutton
2, and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
2 •
2° Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 94 - 1993 to third and
2. final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a
2: unanimous voice vote.
2°
30 The Clerk read Ordinance No.94-1993 on third reading.
3
3 Councilmember Elstro pointed out that the date was wrong where the Mayor would.be signing the
3 ordinance.Councilmember Brookbank moved the ordinance be amended showing the correction,second by
3 Councilmember.Parker and.the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
3
3- Ordinance No.94-.1993 was adopted on the following call of the roll:
3
3: Ayes:Elstro, Brookbank, Donat, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Lundy(8) •
3° Absent:McBride' -
40
4 ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING
4
There were none.
4• ORDINANCES ON THIRD READING •
4° •
4 There were none. .. • .
4: •
4° ADJOURNMENT • '
50
5 There being no further business,on a motion duly made,seconded and:passed,the meeting was adjourned.
5
5•
5• - • . •
5,
5°
5,
5= Etta J. Lundy,-President
5°
6a
6'
6 ATTEST: -
6 Norma Carnes,City'Clerk
6
6 •