Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-15-1992 179 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE C-+BEAF-RIC-HMONBWNBFANA:N©1FEMBER-16:199� • 1 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. Monday, 2 November 16, 1992, in the Council Chambers in said City. President Elstro presided with the following 3 Councilmembers present: Lundy, 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 PARKER 9 10 ROLL CALL 11 12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2.199Z 13 14 Councilmember McBride made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 2, 1992 meeting as 15 prepared,seconded by Councilmember Hutton and carried on a unanimous voice vote. 16 17 COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR 18 19 None 20 21 PRESENTATIONS OF REMONSTRANCES.PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS 22 23 REPORT FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS 24 25 None presented. 26 27 REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY 28 29 Minutes of the October 22,26,29 and November 5 meetings were in the packets. 30 31 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES 32 33 Councilmember Brookbank complimented those in charge of planning the recent student event bringing 34 1,200 juniors and seniors together at Richmond High School. She noted that among those families opening 35 their homes to the visiting youngsters were City Attorney Thomas Milligan, Mayor Roger Cornett and herself. 36 37 President Elstro recognized visitors in the audience which included members of Boy Scout Troop No. 114 38 and students in Robert Zinkan's government classes at Richmond High School. 39 40 REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 41 42 None 43 44 REPORTS FROM OTHER COUNCIL COMMITTEES 45 46 None 47 48 ORDINANCES 49 50 ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING 51 52 Councilmember Brookbank made a motion to suspend the rules and read on first reading by title only 53 Ordinances No. 86 and 87- 1992, second by Councilmember McBride and carried on a unanimous voice 54 vote. 55 56 ORDINANCE NO.86-1992 57 58 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 86 - 1992 - AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1992 59 BUDGET 60 61 In response to a request by President Elstro, City Attorney Thomas Milligan explained the ordinance and the 62 procedure, noting•!hey were budget adjustments, two within a single department and the third involving two 63 departments. He said the purpose is to eliminate the growing number of ordinances. The first transfer is in 64 the Planning Department, allowing for the purchase of a scanner for its computer system by moving money 65 from one department category to another. 10 Common Council Minutes Cont'd - - November 16, 1992 • Page-2 - - C' 1 • The second allows the bus fleet'to continue to be operational, moving money from the category of other equipment to the category to repair parts. And, the third involves the local street fund and motor vehicle highway fund, moving $8,000 from one fund to cover electricity costs in the other fund and to cover the cost of electric power for the street department'garage for the remainder of the year. . • Councilmember Hutton moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 86 - 1992 to second reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember Parker and carried by a unanimous voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No.86- 1992 on second reading. 10 1 President Elstro declared Ordinance No.86-1992 on public hearing.There being no comments either for or 1 against, Councilmember Dickman moved for engrossment,second by Councilmember Hutton and carried by 1 a unanimous voice vote. 1 1 Councilmember Lundy moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 86- 1992 to third and final 1 reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember McBride and carried,by a unanimous voice vote. 1 1 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 86-1992 on third reading. 1 20 Ordinance No.86-1992 was adopted by the following call of the roll: 2 2 Ayes:Lundy, Brookbank,Donat,-McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Elstro (9) 2 Nays:None 2, 2 ORDINANCE NO.87-1992 - 2• 2 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 87 - 1992 - A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT 2: THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH SALISBURY ROAD AND WEST MAIN 2° STREET 3Q 3 President Elstro announced Ordinance No. 87 - 1992 would go to the Planning Commission. Milligan 3 explained that a public hearing will be held on Dec. 15, after advertising in the newspaper. President Elstro 3 encouraged all Councilmembers to go to the area and look at it. The request is to return the zoning prior to 3 the action in July. Milligan said a C-2 area will remain on the north side of the extension of West Main over 3� to the R-4 area which is the Toschlog Apartment area. He added that area of C-2 zoning was in existence 3 before the changes this summer.The remainder of the area is proposed to be returned to R-1. 3' 3 ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING 3 4 ORDINANCE NO. 73-1992 4 4 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 73 - 1992 - A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 155.05 OF THE RICHMOND CODE TO BE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE 1992 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE 44 CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA 4• 4 Planning Director Robert Goodwin appeared before the Board, noting that the discussion on the Master Plan 14 had been a rather lengthy process page by page only the week before. President Elstro stated that the 4 ordinance would return to the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Hutton said she had had numerous 4 calls from citizens who were concerned that if the Master Plan was passed it would also include the 5 proposed annexation., 5 5 Milligan explained that the Master Plan simply adopts the statement as a guide for future development as 5 well as other objectives of the city. It becomes a part of the public development plan replacing the 1966 54 comprehensive plan for the City of Richmond and incorporates the features of the 1991 plan to a great 5 extent. He added that each particular objective will come through the Council, in particular, each annexation 5 on a one-by-one basis in separate ordinances. 5/ . 5 In commenting on,the Master Plan Councilmember Donat called it a well written, beautiful document, 5 containing information on greenery,'environment and natural,resources. She said it contains a lot more than 60 acquiring land outside what is now the city limits, adding that it contains much information about the City and 6 the Greater Richmond Progress Committee.She urged citizens to take the time to look it over.Goodwin said 6 copies can be found in the Planning Commission office,the Earlham College Library and Morrisson Reeves 6 Library. Councilmember Brookbank voiced her concern about the additional personnel and equipment the 6, street'department will'need if the annexation becomes a reality and was informed that a good amount of 6 time will be allowed for those changes to be made. • 181. Common Council Minutes Cont'd November 16, 1992 Page3 1 Councilmember McBride commented that since each area will have to be approved separately for annexation 2 it should alleviate a lot of concern among the citizens. Councilmember Lundy noted that the Master Plan is 3 only a plan, not anything cast in stone. She added that she feels it is a good plan and stated if you don't have 4 plans you don't have a good,workable situation. . 5 6 President Elstro declared the Ordinance on public hearing. Nobody spoke in favor or against the ordinance. 7 He announced that the ordinance will go to the Committee of the Whole, adding that it will probably be the 8 first of the year before it comes back before Council. The ordinance will stay on second reading and will be 9 on public hearing when it comes out of the Committee of the Whole. 10 11 ORDINANCE NO.'77-1992 12 13 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 77 - 1992 - A GENERAL ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN ORDINANCE 14 VIOLATION FOR OWNERS OF BARKING DOGS 15 16 Councilmember Donat said she had received numerous telephone calls, most of which had come from 17 people who have barking dogs. Councilmember Parker asked that the City Clerk read the ordinance in its 18 entirety. 19 20 The City Clerk read Ordinance No.77-1992: 21 22 WHEREAS it is undesirable to have dogs barking and howling so as to disturb the peace and quiet of any 23 person within the City of Richmond;and 24 25 WHEREAS it is necessary to establish an ordinance violation and fine to correct this problem, 26 27 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana,that Sections 28 91.04 and 91.13 of the Richmond Code be amended to read as follows: 29 30 91.04 Restraint And Quietude 31 32 A.The owner shall keep his or her dog under restraint at all times. B. The owner shall not allow his or her dog to disturb the peace and quiet of any person within the 33 city by barking, howling or making noise of any kind for prolonged periods of time. 34 35 91.13 Penalty 36 Any person violating Sections 91.02, 91.03, 91.04, 91.07, 91.09, 91.10 of the Richmond Code 37 shall be subject to a fine of $10 for the first offense and $25 for each subsequent offense in a 38 calendar year. Said fine shall be payable to the City Clerk. Failure to remit the fine within 15 days of 39 the issuance of the ordinance violation citation shall result in doubling the fine and the filing of an 40 enforcement action in Wayne Superior Court No.3. 41 42 Milligan explained that violation of the ordinance will be a civil violation and if it becomes a court case the 43 preponderance of evidence will determine the case. It is not like a criminal violation where the case has to be 44 proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The person registering the complaint with the police department will be 45 asked to appear in court if that becomes necessary. The ticket will be issued to the owner and the citizen will 46 have to come forth to register the complaint which will be filed in Wayne Superior Court No.3. Milligan will try 47 the case for the City on the basis of whether or not there has been a violation of the ordinance. He said it is 48 the duty of the citizen who complains to testify. He added that the City will rely on the citizen who lodges the 49 complaint to help make the case. The police department will not be the primary evidence. Therefore if the 50 person fails to come forward,the case will be dismissed. 51 52 Milligan noted that citizens are entitled to a certain peace and quiet.The owner of a dog needs to make sure 53 the dog doesn't bark and make noises over a prolonged period of time. In answer to a question posed by 54 Councilmember Donat, Milligan said if the dog owner receives a ticket and pays, it is an admission of guilt. 55 The only way the case goes to court is if the dog owner doesn't pay the fine. Milligan said there has been no 56 ordinance on the books like this in the past. Taping the barking of the dog is good evidence but not a 57 requirement. 58 59 Milligan said the person getting the ticket is given a reasonable period of time to pay, within 15 days of 60 issuance. If the ticket is not paid at the City Clerk's office it is sent to the Department of Law then in 15 to 30 61 days is filed in court. If the dog owner pays it after it is filed the City Attorney can dismiss the fine hearing, 62 however, if it goes to trial,the individual will be obligated to pay the County Clerk and court costs. 63 64 65 • • - Common Council Minutes Cont'd • November 16, 1992 ' . . Page 4 - 1 • •• ,1r F, :, - :Policg'Chief Dennis Ripe questioned the-term "calendar-year" used in the ordinance versus a 12-month ' period: He said the ordinance would ntiake owners responsible for their dogs, adding that:his .office had received 15o barking;dog complaints so far this year and in each case officers were unable to cite the people . 1:i because of the lack of an ordinance: He said his officers will take a look at each situation and probably will riot issue a citation for the first offense but will let Milligan's office take care of the habitual offenders. Rice said his department has had nothing to allow his officers to deal with barking dogs but this ordinance will be 7' a tool which will allow them to deal with those individuals who are not responsible dog owners. He added that he would be in favor of a 12-month time period instead of a calendar year. Milligan said it would be no problem to re-do the wording in the ordinance. 1 1 President Elstro declared Ordinance No. 77 - 1992 on public hearing. Several citizens came forward to 1 speak in favor. Evan'Farber said when he moved to 304 South West H Street five years ago it was a nice, 11 quiet street. He said he got much pleasure out of sitting on hjs brick patio but that doesn't exist anymore. He 1 said two years ago people moved into his neighborhood with three large dogs who barked a lot, especially 1 from 4 in the afternoon until 7 or 7:30 at night. One dog, he said,barks almost constantly and is especially 1 disturbing from 4 to 6 a.m. He said he wants to support the ordinance and hopes it can be enforced, adding 1 that he isn't the only one in his neighborhood bothered •by the barking of the dogs. Milligan said the 1 complaints of three or four neighbors are apt to get more results than a single complaint and permits the 1 removal of any personal animosity. _ • 2 2 Willis Bowne of 15 South West 15th Street said a neighbor residing at 25 South West 15th Street has a 2 puppy which she ties to his fence. He said it barked all summer and it was midnight before she took it into 2 the house. He said the whole neighborhood was upset.When he complained, he said,she told him that if he 2 didn't like to hear the dog bark he could move around to his front porch and sit. He said it is a bad situation 2 but he's had to put up with it. . 2 2; Beth Jetmore said she has lived at 300 South West H Street for nine years. When her neighbors moved in a 2 few years ago they had six dogs but now have only three. She said she tried to reason with them at first but 2 had no success.They denied there was any problem and now she fears retaliation. Her latest encounter with 3 the dog owners,she said, had taken place 24 hours previous to her appearance at the Council meeting.One 3 of the dogs, unrestrained,was on her property and bared its teeth at her family members. However,the dog 3 owners continue to insist there is no problem but they do not want their dogs to be friendly. She said she 3 wasn't sure whether issuing fines and being involved in the court will do any good in her situation. She fears 3 it may escalate the situation where people do not have the skills to cooperate but she would like to have the 3 issue addressed. 3 37 In answer to Councilmember Donat's question about whether tickets can be combined, Milligan said police 3 officers can issue as many tickets as there are offenses which can.make it a fairly expensive proposition for 3 the dog owner. Answering Councilmember Lundy's question, Milligan said a dog owner can get tickets 4 several times in one day and police are faced all the time with a neighbor against neighbor situation where 4 they have to make a judgment call. When Councilmember Hutton said there is still going to be friction 4 between neighbors, Milligan answered that this ordinance is not going to be a panacea. He added that the 4 whole barking dog issue is beginning to be a problem and deals with insensitive dog owners. He said officers will work with the dog owner and the presence of a law enforcement official is something neighbors haven't 4,4 had before. 47 Councilmember Lundy said there is no guarantee that a neighbor is not going to retaliate.She said you can't 4: change attitudes and people are sensitive. Milligan said if a police officer comes up against an ugly situation 4• he or she may stay in the neighborhood or at least in the vicinity. He added that if citizens in this situation 5o feel threatened they should call the police. 1 5 , 1 5 Jetmore asked if there is any provision for removal of dogs from a property after the dog owner is given a 5 certain number of violations over a prolonged period. Milligan said the issue is addressed under the Indiana 5- code dealing with nuisance,talking about a.prolonged period of 45 to 50 minutes of intermittent dog howling. 5 5• Robert Jacks of 149 South West 14th Street said he has to work for a living and if a dog barks for three 5 minutes and wakes him up four or five times a night he may lose a day's work.'The dog next door,he said, is 5 right under his bedroom:window. He asked if a cassette tape of a dog's barking is admissable in court. 5 Milligan answered that it was and how persuasive,it is depends on what the judge considers evidence.The 6 strongest case, Milligan said, is the statement made by the complaining citizen and three or four make it 6 even stronger. Bringing a tape would be helpful, however the most helpful is the citizen's personal testimony 6! that the dog keeps him Or her awake.The judge is the one who makes the specific evaluation and wants to 61 help citizens deal with the situation they find unpleasant. 6 1 , 65 H. - • I i 18 Common Council Minutes Cont'd November 16. 1992 Page_5 1 William Jefferies of 523 Northwood Drive told Councilmembers he had lived at his residence nine years and 2 enjoyed the peace and quiet in his neighborhood until last fall when neighbors brought a German Shepherd 3 to live with them. He said it barks all the time,day and night. He tried to talk to the dog owner but got nothing 4 but sarcastic remarks. He said he can't enjoy sifting on his patio because of the barking and his 5 grandchildren aren't allowed to play in his yard. He said the dog started barking at 2:30 in the morning today 6 and he turned on his tape recorder. He played the tape for Councilmembers. He said the young couple who 7 own the dog have four children and he doesn't know how they sleep. He added that he thinks it goes back to 8 the old thing of having respect for your neighbors. He said he doesn't like to complain but putting up with the 9 barking is a pain in the neck. 10 11 Nobody spoke against Ordinance No.77-1992. 12 • 13 Councilmember Dickman made a motion to change the wording in the ordinance from "calendar year" to 14 "12-month period,"second by Councilmember Parker,carried by a unanimous voice vote. 15 16 Ordinance No.77-1992 will go to the Committee of the Whole. 17 18 ADJOURNMENT 19 20 There being no further business,on a motion duly made,seconded and passed,the meeting was adjourned. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Howard J. Elstro, President 29 30 31 • 32 33 34 ATTEST: 35 Norma Carnes, City Clerk 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 1 I, r �, 1 .