HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-05-1992 161
P_ROCEED.INGS.OF—THECOMMON_CO.UNCILOF THE
CI-T-Y-OF RICHMOND—INDIANA. MONDAY—OCTOBER-5-199Z
1 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. Monday,October
2 5, 1992, in the Council Chambers in said City. President Elstro presided with the following Councilmembers
3 present:Lundy, Brookbank, Donat, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman and Hutton.The following business was
4 had to-wit:
5
6 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
7
8 DEVOTIONS BY COUNCILMEMBER BROOKBANK
9
10 ROLL CALIF
11
12 Nine present.
13
14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21.1992
15
16 Councilmember McBride moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as prepared, seconded by
17 Councilmember Hutton and by unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
18
19 PRESENTATIONS OF REMONSTRANCES. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
20
21 None presented.
22
23 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR
24
25 Mayor Roger Cornett commented on the good weather which allowed the Street Division to complete its
26 paving on schedule. He added that the administration has had a lot of positive comments on that subject,
27 with only a few negative.All in all, he said,the citizens seem pleased with the street program progress.
28
29 Earnest Jarvis, director of the Department of Public Works, reported to Council that it was decided to fill in
30 the front of the Weir Dam in view of the drowning which occurred there a few months ago. He said the
31 32
contractor in charge of the work at the North Ninth Street bridge is hauling the material removed from the
building site and dumping it on the edge of Sim Hodgin Parkway. The City, using an operator and bulldozer
33 from the Sanitary District landfill pushed the material out to the Dam site. He added that some citizens are
34 concerned that the City has messed up their fishing but he feels that the fish may have moved to the hole
35 that was left south of the Dam.
36
37 Councilmember Donat asked about posting"No Swimming"signs and Jarvis said his department would look
38 into posting some kind of warning sign.
39
40 REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY
41
42 Minutes of the September 17 and September 24 meetings were placed in the Council packets.
43
44 Councilmember Donat commented that residents of Parkwood Estates subdivision were happy that their
45 streets have been paved but were concerned that the paving didn't include the cul de sacs. She asked Jim
46 McKillip of 3151 Parkwood Drive to step forward with the petition containing signatures of all the residents in
47 that area that he was responsible for circulating. McKillip noted that he had sent copies of the signed petition
48 to all the Councilmembers and Mayor Cornett. Jarvis said it was unfortunate that the cul de sacs were not
49 done at the same times as the streets but they are not in bad shape and the Street Division made the
50 decision not to do them this year. He said they would be placed on the list to be done next year.
51
52 Councilmember Lundy commented that she has a petition to give to the Street Division signed by residents
53 living in the area of North Eighth and Ninth streets between C and D streets asking for an alley to be paved.
54
55 Councilmember Brookbank expressed her appreciation to the Street Division for the installation of sidewalks
56 and curbs which has been completed on North E Street.
57
58 President Elstro reported that he had a letter from a man in Crestdale who had a problem with barking dogs.
59 Councilmember Dickman said he has been working with the Department of Law on that problem. City
60 Attorney Thomas Milligan noted the City has no barking dog ordinance, commenting that when the
61 ordinances were recodified there was a provision that was removed. He explained that the procedure for
62 handling those complaints through his office is to send the Animal Control Officer to the residence to
63 determine under the humane treatment of the animals section of the ordinance adopted by Council whether
64 or not the animal is being treated humanely, talk with the dog owner, see whether or not a larger lead is
65 needed to permit the dog to run in the back yard and if the dog is being fed and watered regularly.All this in
an effort to remove the environment that is irritating the dog and making it bark.
1,62
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 5, 1992
Page 2
1 President Elstro asked if it couldn't be covered under nuisance or noise? Milligan said it is up to Council as
to whether or not it wants to adopt a barking dog ordinance. He added that 1,240 calls had come into the
Police Department so far this year with the Animal Control Officer answering most of them. He said the
problem cannot be handled under the noise ordinance. President Elstro mentioned that an ordinance
concerning dogs is currently in the Committee of the Whole and he questioned as to whether or not the
issue of barking dogs could be added.
8 Councilmember Lundy expressed her concern as to how such an ordinance could be enforced.
Councilmember Parker said he felt Council had made a mistake by rescinding that part of the ordinance
1 speaking to the issue of barking dogs. He commented that he felt some type of enforcement could be found
1 because it definitely is a nuisance and is a problem which needs to be addressed by Council. Parker and
1 Dickman will sponsor an ordinance dealing with the issue of barking dogs.
1
1 REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
1
1 None were presented.
17
18 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES
1c
2? None were presented.
2
2i REPORTS FROM OTHER COUNCIL COMMITTEES
2
2 None were presented.
2
2 ORDINANCES
2
2 ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
2
3 Councilmember Lundy moved to suspend the rules and read on first reading by title only Ordinances No. 66,
3 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 - 1992, seconded by Councilmember McBride and on unanimous voice
3 vote the motion was carried.
3
34 ORDINANCE NO. 66 -1992
3
3 The Clerk read on first reading by title only Ordinance No. 66 - 1992 -AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
3 AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO RECEIVE A DONATION FROM THE EAGLES LODGE
3
3 Councilmember Parker suggested the Clerk read a paragraph explaining the contents of the ordinance.
4'
4 The Clerk read: "Now, therefore, be it ordained by the Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana,
4 that the donation of $6,000 for the use of the Police and Fire Departments to equip and train a rescue,
46 search and recovery team composed of six persons capable of performing underwater diving operations is
4 hereby gratefully accepted as the generous gift of the Richmnond Fraternal Order of Eagles Lodge No. 666,
4• and is hereby acknowledged with the heart-felt gratitude of the citizens of Richmond."
44•
4 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 66 - 1992 to second
4 reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember McBride and carried by unanimous voice vote.
4
5 The Clerk read the ordinance on second reading. _
5
5 President Elstro declared Ordinance No. 66 - 1992 on public hearing. Police Chief Dennis Rice appeared
5 before Council to express his appreciation to Eagles Lodge, which, he said, went"above and beyond"what
5 was requested. He said the original request was for$5,500 to pay for equipment for three firemen and three
5• police officers, and the Eagles Lodge increased that to $6,000. Rice added that he felt that gesture was an
5° example of how much the members cared about the community and wished to be a part of it.
5
5: Hearing no comments against the ordinance, Councilmember Parker moved for engrossment, second by
5° Councilmember Brookbank and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
60
6 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 66 - 1992 to third and
6 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and carried by a unanimous voice
6 vote.
6, .
6 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 66-1992 on third reading.
1-63
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 5, 1992
Page 3
1 Ordinance No.66-1992 was adopted by the following call of the roll:
2
3 Ayes:Lundy,Brookbank, Donat,McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Elstro(9)
4 Nays:None
5
6 ORDINANCE NO.67-1992
7
8 The Clerk read on first reading by title only Ordinance No. 67- 1992- AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
9 AMENDING THE 1992 BUDGET
10
11 Councilmember McBride moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 67 - 1992 to second
12 reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember Brookbank and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
13
14 The Clerk read Ordinance No.67- 1992 on second reading.
15
16 President Elstro announced the ordinance on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against
17 the ordinance, Councilmember McBride moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Brookbank and
18 carried by a unanimous voice vote.
19
20 Councilmember Parker noted that the ordinance allowed for the transfer of$1,000 to fund the printing of the
21 revised Master Plan.
22
23 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 67- 1992 to third and
24 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and carried by a unanimous voice
25 vote.
26
27 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 67-1992 on third reading.
28
29 Ordinance No.67-1992 was adopted by the following call of the roll:
30
31 Ayes: Lundy, Brookbank, Donat, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Elstro (9)
32 Nays:None
33
34 ORDINANCE NO.68-1992
35
36 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 68 - 1992 - AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1992
37 BUDGET
38
39 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 68 - 1992 to second
40 reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember McBride and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
41
42 Councilmember Parker explained the purpose of the ordinance was to pay for materials for the Master Plan
43 and new equipment for the new assistant in the Planning Department. The cost amounted to $700. City
44 Controller Dennis Grimes said the equipment was simply the normal desk equipment required for anyone
45 starting a new position.
46
47 President Elstro declared Ordinance No. 68- 1992 on public hearing. There being no comments either for or
48 against the ordinance, Councilmember McBride moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember
49 Brookbank and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
50
51 Councilmember Lundy moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 68 - 1992 to third and final
52 reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember Brookbank and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
53
54 The Clerk read Ordinance No.68- 1992 on third reading.
55
56 Ordinance No.68-1992 was adopted by the following call of the roll:
57
58 Ayes: Lundy, Brookbank, Donat, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Elstro(9)
59 Nays: None
60
61
62 ORDINANCE NO.69-1992
63
64 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 69 - 1992 - AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1992
65 BUDGET
16 _
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 5, 1992
Page 4
•
1 Councilmember Parker explained the purpose of the ordinance was to fund the increase in the Police
Department clothing allowance allowed in the 1992 contract by $16,000, deleting $9,000 for traffic light
repairs and$7,000 from other administration.
Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 69 - 1992 to second
reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember McBride and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
The Clerk read Ordinance No.69-1992 on second reading.
1 President Elstro declared Ordinance No. 69- 1992 on public hearing.There being no comments either for or
1 i against the ordinance, Councilmember Hutton moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Parker
1 and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
1
1 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 69 - 1992 to third and
1 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and carried by a unanimous voice
1 vote.
1
1 E. The Clerk read Ordinance No.69-1992 on third reading.
1
2 President Elstro asked Chief Dennis Rice how much each officer received for clothing allowance. Rice
12 responded that each officer receives$1,000.
2
2 Ordinance No. 69- 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.70-1992
2
3 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 70 - 1992 - A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT
3 3282 CHESTER BOULEVARD
3
3 President Elstro announced the ordinance would go to the Planning Commission.
3
3 ORDINANCE NO.71 -1992
3
3 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 71 - 1992 - A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AT
3 650 PROGRESS DRIVE
3
4 President Elstro announced the ordinance would go to the Planning Commission.
41
4 ORDINANCE NO.72-1992
4
The Clerk read Ordinance No. 72 - 1992 - AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1992
4 BUDGET
4
44 The purpose of the ordinance is to transfer funds from the unsafe building fund -other contractual service s
4 to the park department for overtime hours spent by park employees on the board up program.
4
5 In answer to Councilmember Hutton's question as to whether or not this is depleting the unsafe building
5 fund, Milligan said all of it will be going from that account into the park department. He explained there are
5 park department employees who are working overtime hours beyond the regular 40 either on Saturday or
5 Sunday. He said instead of boarding up the property in the 1100 block of East Main Street which is the
5- former Village Cadillac property, park department employees working as carpenters have used city
5 equipment to get the work done. Materials have been paid for out of the unsafe building account and the
5. labor is paid by the park department. What happens is that the City simply reimburses the park department
5 and the labor is at overtime rates because of the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
5:
5° Councilmember Parker asked about the legal procedures pertaining to the building. Milligan said foreclosure
Co is pending but there is no bankruptcy. In answer to Councilmember Parker's question about filing a lien
6 against the property, Milligan explained the procedure involved. The amount in question, Milligan said is
6 around $600. The $3,000 mentioned in the ordinance is the amount anticipated to cover the needs until the
6 end of the year. This is being done rather than bringing it to the Council every time. This particular project
6, necessitated bringing it to Council at this time.
6
t65
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 5, 1992
Page 5
1 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 72 - 1992 to second
2 reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember McBride and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
3
4 The Clerk read Ordinance No.72-1992 on second reading.
5
6 Milligan said there are other projects where this same procedure has been used, explaining that in those
7 cases where projects are not sufficient for private contractors to submit a bid this procedure enables getting
8 the job done promptly. Milligan added that his department receives many telephone calls when a building
9 stands vacant and this ordinance opens the way to respond in a manner which eliminates a lot of complaints
10 and concerns.
11
12 President Elstro questioned the small amount of $600 and Milligan explained that it was for labor only
13 because city equipment was used and the material was purchased separately.
14
15 Councilmember McBride questioned as to whether the money, once it is transferred, can be used for
16 anything else other than overtime for park employees. Milligan said it can be used only for that purpose.
17
18 President Elstro declared Ordinance No. 72 - 1992 on public hearing. Hearing no comments either for or
19 against the ordinance, Councilmember McBride moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Parker
20 and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
21
22 Councilmember Lundy moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 72 - 1992 to third and final
23 reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember Brookbank and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
24
25 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 72-1992 on third reading.
26
27 Ordinance No.72-1992 was adopted on the following call of the roll:
28
29 Ayes:Lundy, Brookbank, Donat, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Elstro(9)
30 Nays:None
31
32 ORDINANCE NO.73-1992
33
34 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 73 - 1992 - A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 155.05 OF
35 THE RICHMOND CODE TO BE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE 1992 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE
36 CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA
37
38 President Elstro said the ordinance called for a special meeting and instructed Councilmember Lundy to let
39 Council know the date of that meeting. Councilmember Lundy noted that two other ordinances remain in the
40 Committee of the Whole.
41
42 ORDINANCE NO.74-1992
43
44 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 74 - 1992 - AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1992
45 BUDGET
46
47 Milligan said the ordinance provided for obligating the funds to go into the working cash balance into the
48 general fund. He noted the reason for doing this is to have money available for a working balance for next
49 year.
50
51 Grimes further explained that the purpose is to obligate these funds in 1992 to help finance the 1993 budget
52 by increasing the cash flow. He said these particular line items - the fire pension fund in the amount of
53 $144,320, and the police pension fund, in the amount of $101,380 - are normally budgeted for the total of
54 individuals eligible to retire. Milligan said the City is required by law to fund it as though every person who is
55 eligible, takes retirement. He noted that this year it was over funded. Councilmember Allen asked how the
56 City knows these funds are still available. Milligan said these are individuals eligible for retirment prior to this
57 date and even if they all decide to retire at once there would be enough money for the balance of the year.
58
59 Councilmember McBride moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 74 - 1992 to second
60 reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember Brookbank and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
61
62 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 74- 1992 on second reading.
63
64 In answer to a question posed by Councilmember Donat, Milligan said the ordinance isn't adding the money
65 to anything, it is simply not appropriating, but unappropriating. The money in question falls into the working
balance and becomes available to fund the 1993 budget.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 6, 1992 •
Page-6
•
He explained that the appropriation process establishes the right to spend but as a practical matter you
have to have money in the bank in order to spend.it.That is the funding process which is different than the
appropriating process.
President Elstro declared Ordinance No. 74- 1992 on public hearing.There being no comments either for or
against, Councilmember Parker moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember McBride and carried by
7 a unanimous voice vote.
Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 74 - 1992 to third and
1 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and carried by a unanimous voice
1 vote.
1
1 The Clerk read Ordinance No.74-1992 on third reading.
1
1 Ordinance No.74- 1992 was adopted by the following call of the roll:
1
1% Ayes: Lundy, Brookbank, Donat, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Elstro (9)
1: Nays: None
1°
20 ORDINANCE NO.75-1992
2
2 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 75 - 1992 -A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN APPEAL TO THE
2 STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS
2,
2 Grimes distributed additional information to Councilmembers, noting that this ordinance is designed after a
2° review of the property tax levy that was set for 1991 and in view of actual collections it was determined there
2 was a short fall amounting to$260,481 in the collections. In order for the city to receive these funds that are
2: rightfully due it, it has to petition the state. The situation came about as a result of erroneous assessed
2° valuation figures due to the disputes arising from the most recent reassessments which were used in 1990
30 payable in 1991 tax rate. The ordinance, Grimes said, needs to be passed before the report is made to the
3 state board of tax commissioners.
3
3 The ordinance is only required when a shortfall in collections has occurred between the actual collections
3, and the levy that has been set by the state board of tax commissioners. Grimes said the levy shortfall is
3 something that should have been collected but it was not and if the City does not petition in the same fashion
3° to the state board of tax commissioners then this money will definitely not be received by the City. However,
37 he added that even though the petition is presented there is no guarantee the City will receive the funds. If
3 the funds are not received Grimes said the budget will have to be cut appropriately which the administration
3 is prepared to do in various categories.
4
4 In answer to Councilmember Donat's question as to whether the procedure involves a tax raise, Milligan
4 responded that it will increase the tax levy that is permitted under state law. He explained that in 1973 the
4 legislature passed an act either to limit the rate or the levy and as a result of the action of the Wayne County
4 Council the local tax on property tax replacement became a limited levy. He added that is what Richmond as
4 well as other Wayne County tax spending units have had to struggle with over the years. He said the frozen
4� levy limits the total number of dollars which can be raised.
41
Milligan read from Ordinance No.75-1992:
4
45 "Now, therefore, be it ordained by the Common Council of the City of Richmond Indiana, that Mayor Roger
5 Cornett is authorized to request permission for the City to impose an ad valorem property tax levy that
5 exceeds the limitations imposed by Indiana Code 6 - 1.1 - 18.5 - 3 due to the fact that the City has
51 experienced a property tax revenue short-fall."
5
5 Milligan said the ordinance enables the City to go above the frozen levy limitations for this amount of money.
5 He added that the budget was not realized, although it was set up on a levy for 1991, because of errors
5 made in the reassessment and as a result that money did not become available to the City so this is actually
I5 adding to the total levy which does slightly increase the tax rate. The taxpayer will be affected. The taxes
5 which he did not pay in 1991 he will pay in 1993.
6
61 Councilmember Allen asked if this entire problem could have been taken care of by an ordinance. Milligan
62 explained that the whole process of levying taxes and assessing property and setting rates is an ongoing
6 and continuous process so this overlap occurs. But if Council doesn't catch it with this ordinance it is going to
6 lose that opportunity to pick up approximately$260,000, noting that the subject at hand is funding next year's
65 budget. .
-167
Common Council Minutes curial
October 5, 1992
Page 7
1
2 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 75 - 1992 to second
3 reading and read by title only,second by Councilmember McBride and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
4
5 The Clerk read Ordinance No.75-1992 on second reading.
6
7 Councilmember Donat questioned taking the ordinance all the way in this meeting expressing concern about
8 everyone being aware of what was going on. Milligan noted that it was important for the ordinance to go all
9 the way tonight since the City will be meeting with the state tax board and they should have the paperwork
10 filed within the next week. Grimes said that meeting could be October 14 and the City would like to have all
11 the paperwork in order by that time.
12
13 Grimes said the petition was sent in by the deadline of October 1 and his office was notified by return mail
14 the next day that the state tax board prefers the approval of the legislative body. Milligan explained that the
15 statute did not specifically state that it has to be approved by the legislative body. It simply requested the
16 chief executive of the city petition the state tax board.
17
18 In response to a question posed by Councilmember Lundy, Milligan explained that the tax rate is fixed based
19 on a total valuation figures provided by the County Assessor.The auditor fixes the tax rate to fund the budget
20 based on that figure. However, the assessed valuation changed before taxes were actually billed and
21 collected due to errors in the reassessment for 1990. As a result the City was underfunded.The money was
22 not billed to anybody because the tax base or the assessed valuation was written off the roles as a result of
23 numerous adjustments and appeals and corrections of errors.
24
25 Because of their appeals and development of whatever errors, their tax bills were corrected. But the total
26 amount of money billed could not be reallocated to the other taxpayers because of the cycle of the tax year.
27 As a result the $260,000 -the money that was funded for the City's budget -was never collected. What is
28 happening now, Milligan explained, enables the City to go back in 1993 to the rate that will be adopted this
29 fall and will be certified to the City by the state tax board. The auditor will advise the treasurer and the tax
30 bills going out in 1993 will enable the City to recoup this money it was shorted in 1991. There is no unpaid
31 invoice.These are taxes that were never billed due to errors in reassessment.
32
33 Councilmember Dickman asked about the property replacement tax credits Council opted not to pursue next
34 year amounting to $456,454. Grimes said the City decided not to actually petition to the state for those
35 credits but would try to live without that. He added that by not appealing to the state for the property
36 replacement credits it favorably impacts the rate to the taxpayers moreso than this particular $260,000. He
37 said the City made conscious decisions to actually keep the taxpayer in mind. This is money due the City
38 that it will not get if the City does not petition the state tax board commissioners in this manner.The state tax
39 board chooses to require municipalities to petition in the same manner as if it were asking for property tax
40 replacement credits. If the City had petitioned for the property tax replacement credits amounting to
41 $456,454 Grimes estimated it would impact the tax rate at about 20 cents. This petition covered by this
42 ordinance will impact the tax rate about half that amount.
43
44 Councilmember Donat asked if the October 14 date was negotiable. Grimes answered that it was not
45 because the City wants to be prepared to get on an early schedule. He said it simply boils down to the fact
46 that if the City doesn't petition for the funds it will not get them. He said he was optimistic about the chances
47 of receiving them if the petition is filed. In response to Councilmember Donat's question as to what this is
48 going to do to the taxpayers, Milligan reiterated that any time you appeal to raise more money than the
49 frozen levy permits you to do you are going to increase Richmond tax bills. That is what is being done, he
50 said, asking for permission to raise $260,000 more dollars than it would normally be able to raise.
51
52 Grimes explained the consequences of not passing the ordinance would take the City out of the arena to
53 even fund its budget for next year to the tune of $260,000 which would result in going back to the various
54 departments and getting a combined total of cuts in that amount.
55
56 President Elstro declared Ordinance No. 75 - 1992 on public hearing. There being no comments either for or
57 against the ordinance Councilmember McBride moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Parker
58 and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
59
60 Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 75 - 1992 to third and
61 final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Brookbank and carried by a unanimous voice
62 vote.
63
64 The Clerk read Ordinance 75-1992 on third reading.
65
Ordinance No. 75-1992 was adopted by the following call of the roll:
168 .
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
October 5, 1992
Page 8
•
1 Ayes: Lundy, Brookbank, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Elstro (8)
2 Nays:Donat(1)
3
4 ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING ' •
5
6 ORDINANCE NO.64-1992
7
8 The Clerk read Ordinance No. 64- 1992-A SPECIAL ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC WAY LOCATED
9 AT 1600 RICH ROAD AND EXTENDING NORTH 480 FEET
10
11 In the absence of a letter from the Planning Commission, Councilmember Dickman advised Council that the
12 Commission did act on the ordinance which was the only issue on the agenda that passed. Milligan
13 explained that the area was designed for a boulevard type highway. The area in question is the east lane of
14 that highway that was never used as a boulevard because developers did not necessitate its use. That
15 resulted in only a two-lane road which is the west part of the boulevard. This portion covered by the
16 ordinance is on Rich Road on both sides. It is land owned by the Elder family which operates three different
111 businesses in that location. Milligan said the public right of way as far as using this as a road is what Council
18 is terminating tonight with this ordinance.
2? Jarvis noted that the property parallels Flatley Road. He said it begins at Rich Road and runs north and is
2f1 used for absolutely nothing.
President Elstro declared Ordinance No. 64- 1992 on public hearing.There being no comments either for or
against the ordinance, Councilmember McBride moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Parker
and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
Councilmember Brookbank moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 64 - 1992 to third and
2final reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember McBride and carried by a unanimous voice
vote.
3
3 The Clerk read Ordinance No.64-1992 on third reading.
3
3 Ordinance No. 64- 1992 was adopted by the following call of the roll:
3
3 Ayes:Lundy, Brookbank, Donat, McBride, Parker,Allen, Dickman, Hutton and Elstro (9)
3 Nays:None
3
3 ADJOURNMENT
3
4 There being no further business,on a motion duly made, seconded and passed,the meeting was adjourned.
4
4
4�
14
4
4
4
4
4
5 Howard J. Elstro, President
51 5
5
5 15.
5 ATTEST:
57 Norma Carnes,City Clerk
5
5
60
6
6 •
6
6,
6