Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-27-1991 4' BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, NOVEMBER 27, 1991 1 The Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Richmond, Indiana, met in regular session November 27, 2 1991, at the hour of 9:00 A.M. in the Municipal Building in said City. Ms. Hauptstueck presided with Mr. Smith 3 and Ms. Planck in attendance. Absent: None. Media in attendance: Cable 16, Palladium Item and WKBV. 4 The following business was had to-wit: 5 6 RECEIVE BIDS 7 8 Animal Sheltering for 1992 9 10 Ms. Hauptstueck opened the bidding for the sheltering of animals for the City of Richmond for 1992. Having 11 received all bids, Mr. Smith moved to close the bidding , seconded by Ms. Planck and on unanimous voice vote 12 the motion was carried. 13 14 The Proof of Publication was presented and found to be in order. Mr. Smith moved to accept and file the Proof 15 of Publication, seconded by Ms. Planck and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 16 17 The following bids were received: 18 19 1. Help the Animals, Inc. The bid was on the proper form, signed, notarized and accompanied by a 20 check in the amount of$1,000.00. The bid was for one year at$20,000.00. 21 22 2. Animal Welfare League. The bid was on the proper form, signed, notarized and accompanied by a 23 check in the amount of$900.00. The bid was for one year at$18,000.00. 24 25 Having opened all bids, Mr. Smith moved to refer the bids to the Board of Works and the City Attorney for 26 evaluation and recommendation, with the bid to be awarded on December 12, 1991, seconded by Ms. Planck 27 and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 28 29 Design and Construction of Structures for Central Garage Complex 30 31 Ms. Hauptstueck opened the bidding for the design and construction of the Bus building and Police and Motor 32 Pool building for the central garage complex. Having received all bids, Mr. Smith moved to close the bidding , 33 seconded by Ms. Planck and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 34 35 The Proof of Publication was presented and found to be in order. Mr. Smith moved to accept and file the Proof 36 of Publication, seconded by Ms. Planck and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 37 38 The following bids were received: 39 40 1. J.S. Sweet Company. The bid for the Bus Building was on the proper form, signed, notarized and 41 accompanied by a bid bond. The bid was for 131,863.00. 42 43 The bid for the Police and Motor Pool Building was on the proper form, signed, notarized and 44 accompanied by a bid bond. The bid was for 157,251.00. 45 46 2. Russell and Geier Contracting. The bid for the Bus Building was on the proper form, signed, 47 notarized and accompanied by a Bank Money Order in the amount of 6,250.00. The bid was for 48 117,801.00. 49 50 The bid for the Police and Motor Pool Building was on the proper form, signed, notarized and 51 accompanied by a Bank Money Order in the amount of$6,900.00. The bid was for 132,595.00. 52 53 3. Oberle & Associates. The bid for the Bus Building was on the proper form, signed, notarized and 54 accompanied by a bid bond. The total bid was for 123,000.00 55 56 The bid for the Police and Motor Pool Building was on the proper form, signed, notarized and 57 accompanied by a bid bond. The total bid was for 145,000.00. 58 59 4. Gem Buildings. The bid was for the Police and Motor Pool Building only and was on the proper 60 form, signed, notarized and accompanied by a bid bond. The bid was for 120,500.00. 61 62 Having opened all bids, Mr. Smith moved to refer the bids to the Purchasing Department, Public Works, Rose 63 View Transit, Police Department and Maze Design Group for evaluation and recommendation, seconded by Ms. 64 Planck and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 65 (J2\ Board of Works Minutes Cont'd November 27, 1991 Page 2 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21. 1991 2 3 Mr. Smith moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as prepared, seconded by Ms. Planck and on 4 unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 5 6 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 7 8 Ms. Planck moved to approve claims in the amount of 660,327.73 for payment, seconded by Mr. Smith and on 9 unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 10 11 PUBLIC REQUESTS AND COMMENT 12 13 Reserved Residential Handicapped Parking, 14 15 412 North 18th Street-New 16 17 Captain Ponder informed the Board that the request meets all of the guidelines and he recommended approval 18 of the request as presented. 19 20 Mr. Smith moved to approve the request for reserved residential handicapped parking at 412 North 18th Street, 21 seconded by Ms. Planck and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 22 23 Use of Fire Equipment for Richmond High School Football Team for Christmas Parade 24 25 The Board received a request from Richard Bryant, Head Football Coach,to use fire equipment to transport the 26 Richmond High School Football team in the Christmas Parade on November 30, 1991. 27 28 Chief Sticco informed the Board he had no problem with this request if two volunteers drive the aerial and that all 29 waivers be properly signed by the parents of those participating. 30 31 Ms. Planck moved to approve use of Fire Department equipment for the Football Team provided volunteers will 32 drive the vehicle and waivers by signed by parents of those participating, seconded by Mr. Smith and on 33 unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 34 35 Complaint on Property at 327 North 16th Street 36 37 The Board received a request from the Code Enforcement Committee of the Starr Neighborhood Association 38 asking the City look into a property at 327 North 16th for various code violations particularly in connection with 39 the sale of the property to a new owner. 40 41 Mr. Smith moved to refer the complaint to the Planning Department with a report back to the Board on December 42 5, 1991, seconded by Ms. Planck and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 43 44 TABLED ITEMS 45 46 Smoke Free Workplace 47 48 Ms. Hauptstueck requested comment from the Board on the issue of a Smoke Free Workplace. 49 50 Mr. Smith said he agreed that second hand smoke was hazardous, but he recommended designating smoking 51 areas on each floor of the City Building and in other departments of the City. 52 53 Ms. Planck said the issue was non-smokers and that they could sue the City for not providing a safe work 54 environment. Ms. Planck said she had given it much consideration and was not able to locate a place in this 55 building that would be suitable for smoking areas. She recommended the City Building and other buildings and 56 enclosed vehicles under the control of the Board of Works be smoke free. 57 58 Ms. Hauptstueck said there had been a lot of information provided to the Board and she agreed there should be 59 some sympathy for the smokers, but there is no place in the building to locate smoking areas. She said all 60 facilities need to be smoke free. 61 62 Ms. Hauptstueck said that the Courts have held in favor of one (1)petitioner with regard to smoking as a hazard. 63 Ms. Hauptstueck stated that she would check into Stop Smoking Clinics. 64 65 Board of Works cont'd November 27, 1991 Page 3 1 Ms. Planck suggested that out of respect for smokers and to allow them time to adapt to the Smoke Free 2 3 Workplace, it become effective January 1, 1992. She said this would also allow time for the City to develop programs to help stop smoking. 4 5 Ms. Hauptstueck asked for a member of the Board to also look into penalties for enforcement of the Smoke Free 6 Workplace. She mentioned penalties such as following the reprimand procedure in the Personnel Policy or even 7 immediate termination. Ms. Planck volunteered to assist with enforcement penalties. 8 9 Mr. Smith said he felt banning smoking in all facilities was unfair and going too far. He felt Department heads 10 should still have some input into the policy. 11 12 Ms. Planck moved to make all city owned facilities, including structures and enclosed vehicles, smoke free 13 effective January 1, 1992, seconded by Ms. Hauptstueck and on a voice vote the Mr. Smith voting no,the motion 14 was carried. 15 16 Employee Sick Bank Policy 17 18 Ms. Hauptstueck informed the Board the Mayor had requested this item be stricken from the agenda to allow 19 some time for the pilot program in the Planning Office to operate and give the Board some guidance to develop 20 a policy. 21 22 Ms. Planck moved to strike the Employee Sick Bank Policy from the Agenda, seconded by Mr. Smith and on 23 unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 24 25 DEPARTMENT REQUESTS AND COMMENTS 26 27 CLERK'S OFFICE 28 29 Release and Satisfaction of Mortgage-Ernest Vanover 30 31 The Board was the Release and Satisfaction of Mortgage for Mr. Ernest Vanover, a Home Equity Conversion 32 Client. Mr.Vanover had sold his property and the mortgage had been satisfied. 33 34 Ms. Planck moved to approve and execute the Release and Satisfaction of Mortgage for Ernest Vanover, 35 seconded by Mr. Smith and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 36 37 PUBLIC WORKS 38 39 Invoices for Dana Parkway/Industries Road Improvements 40 41 Mr.Wiwi presented the Board an invoice for appraisals in the amount of 75.00 to Mr.Tom Dickman. 42 43 Ms. Planck moved to authorize Mr. Wiwi to pay the invoice to Tom Dickman as presented, seconded by Mr. 44 Smith and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 45 46 BOARD OF WORKS MISCELLANEOUS 47 48 Drug Free Workplace Policy 49 50 Ms. Hauptstueck presented a policy for a Drug Free Workplace and asked Mr. Metzger to comment. 51 52 Mr. Metzger informed the Board this policy will satisfy the federal regulations on a Drug Free Workplace in order 53 to continue to receive grants. He said this policy complies with federal regulations and goes beyond necessity 54 setting up testing with reasonable suspicion and establishes procedures for testing. 55 56 Ms. Planck moved to adopt the Drug Free Workplace Policy. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith, but prior 57 to vote discussion was held on the policy. 58 59 60 Det. Mark Smith, Richmond Police Department, told the Board he agreed with a Drug Free Policy, but felt in this policy public safety employees are bound under separate regulations. He also inquired as to what constituted a 61 positive test. Det. Smith said that guidelines and minimums need to be set and the policy needs to be the same 62 for all employees. Det. Smith informed the Board that the Kentucky State Police have a policy that does address 63 these concerns and has been court tested. 64 65 • Board of Works November 27, 1991 Page 4 1 Mr. Metzger stated he had no objection to looking at other policies. He did explain that this policy does apply tc 2 all and with reasonable suspicion all could be tested. Mr. Metzger clarified that public safety and health 3 employees can be tested without suspicion if involved in an accident. 4 5 Mr. Metzger addressed minimum standards and stated there are hundreds of drugs that can cause intoxication 6 and it would be impossible to set standards for each. He said that was why the policy sets the level reasonable 7 within the Richmond/Wayne County medical community. 8 9 Mr. Metzger told the Board he had no problem if they delayed the policy, but felt it had been misconstrued. He 10 said it had been developed based on current law and departmental input. 11 12 Officer Barry Ritter, DARE Officer,told the Board the policy needed to allow some protection for employees and 13 procedures needed to be established for testing that would not have to be changed with each incident. 14 15 Ms. Janice Strain asked the Board if they were looking at testing for probable cause or just doing testing 16 routinely. She asked if probable cause would be based on behavior and how would that be determined. 17 18 Ms. Hauptstueck said testing would be based on reasonable, just cause and could stem from mood or behavior 19 and then an expert would be involved. 20 21 Ms. Strain told the Board she concurred with the Police Department regarding guidelines being clearly 22 established for testing and collection procedures. She said the more defined the policy is,the better off the City 23 would be and it would be worth taking more time. 24 25 Officer Kris Wolski stressed his concerns that a police officer could be involved in an accident and with no other 26 probable cause have to be tested,while other employees would not be tested for the same type of incidents. 27 28 Mr. Metzger said that Rose View and Sanitary District employees would fall into the same category as Police 29 and Fire. 30 31 Det. Smith stated that anyone operating a city vehicle puts the city at risk and all should come under the same 32 testing procedures. 33 34 Ms. Hauptstueck asked Mr. Metzger if there was a reason that all city employees involved in an accident did no1 35 have to be tested and Mr. Metzger said the phrase"public health and safety" is used in the federal law. He said 36 we should define this in the policy and determine what is public health and safety. 37 38 Ms. Planck asked what the initial reason was for developing this policy and Mr. Metzger said to comply with 39 federal regulations and it should have been done two years ago. 40 41 Ms. Planck asked if it would be appropriate to let the motion stand and then look at amending the policy and Mr. 42 Metzger felt that once it was in place,the Board could get lax about the concerns expressed today. 43 44 Sgt. Randy Kolentus said he did not agree it should go into affect with so many gray areas. He said guidelines 45 need to be developed and reasons for probable cause need to be established. 46 47 Ms. Hauptstueck responded that the Officer responding to any accident could help determine probable cause. 48 49 Mr. Smith agreed that the policy needed to be passed, but that there was a lot more information needing to be 50 incorporated. 51 52 Officer Ritter felt with the Board changes that would come in January with the administration change this could 53 be another obstacle to amending the policy if it were adopted. He urged the Board to do more research before 54 adopting the policy. 55 56 Det. Gary Osborne, Richmond Police Department, stressed concerns over invasion of privacy. He explained 57 that over the counter cold medicine could be a liability and if a person were on an antihistamine, they may be 58 determined not fit to work by a supervisor. He asked the Board not to pass this policy because it was very 59 vague. 60 61 Mr. Rich Cody, Manager TCI of Indiana, Inc.,told the Board that TCI does have a drug policy in place and from 62 today's conversation he felt there was some vagueness in the policy as proposed. Mr. Cody said he would be 63 glad to share the policy they use and the rules are across the board for all employees. 64 65 Ms. Hauptstueck said the issues seem to be public health and safety employees and testing procedures. She asked Det. Smith to work with the City Attorney to address these concerns. Board of Work November 27, 1991 Page 5 1 Det. Smith informed Ms. Hauptstueck that he took offense with her statement and felt this policy had a long way 2 3 to go before it would hold up in court. He said he would be happy to work with the Attorney if the Board did not pass the policy. 4 5 Mr. Smith commented the Board has to start somewhere and with additional input the policy can be fine tuned. 6 7 The motion to adopt the Drug Free Workplace Policy was carried on unanimous voice vote. 8 9 CONTINUED HEARING TO RECEIVE REMONSTRANCES ON ACQUISITION OF LAND AND STRUCTURES 10 11 Elks Road Extension and In-Fill Housing_ 12 13 Joseph and Troy Horvath Property 14 15 Mr. George Sowers, Attorney at Law, informed the Board he was representing Jayavant R. Bhakta and Varsha 16 J. Bhakta, contract purchasers of real estate being considered by the City for acquisition for the extension of Elks 17 Road. Mr. Sowers stated he had not been able to get another appraisal done on the property in question. He 18 told the Board that Mr. Matt Nepote has informed him it would be thirty (30) days before he would be able to 19 prepare a written appraisal. Mr. Sowers did stated that he has filed a written remonstrance. 20 21 Mr. Metzger explained to the Board that this property acquisition is not under the time constraints that the 22 Industries Road property was, but they would like to get the issue resolved before the end of this year. 23 24 Mr. Smith suggested the Board could set a special meeting to continue this hearing and Ms. Hauptstueck 25 suggested that December 30, 1991 at 10:00 AM be set for the continuation of the hearing on property owned by 26 Joseph and Troy Horvath. 27 28 Mr. Smith moved to set December 30, 1991 at 10:00 AM for the continuation of the hearing, seconded by Ms. 29 Planck and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 30 31 Edward Peters,Jr. Property 32 33 Mr. Robert Bever, Attorney at Law, representing Mr. Louis Jaffee, leasing property owed by Mr. Edward Peters, 34 Jr., presented a remonstrance to the Board. Mr. Bever explained that Mr.Jaffee leases ground from Mr. Peters 35 and will be affected by the acquisition and/or affected by the damage award. He reported to the Board that Mr. 36 Peters was aware of the remonstrance being filed. 37 38 Mr. Bever explained that the land leased by Mr. Jaffee is part of land leased to Krogers and with a reduction in 39 land size, Krogers could ask for a reduction in their rent. 40 41 Mr. Bever asked that the award of 62,150.00 remain, the tract be modified from 60' to 50' width, a curb cut to 42 Krogers off the proposed extension be provided and there be no permanent effect to the paved parking area of 43 Krogers. Mr. Bever assured the Board they would assume any further risk with Krogers and not pursue the 44 matter further with the City if the award damage was left at 62,150.00 for the proposed reduced area. 45 46 Mr. Metzger indicated if the area is reduced to 50'it would not reach the paved area. 47 48 Mr. Matt Nepote, MAI, told the Board he was hired by Mr. Peters initially and had advised him the award offered 49 by the City at 62,150.00 was clearly fair. He said at that time he was unaware that Kroger's would have the right 50 to reduce their rents with a disturbance of common areas and he felt leaving the award damage at the same for 51 the reduced area was a cheap settlement. 52 53 Mr.Wiwi asked what the effect on the business would be if the remaining area was not disturbed and Mr. Smith 54 added that the land as it is now is not usable. 55 56 Mr.Wiwi also assured Mr. Bever the City would provide a curb cut for Krogers. 57 58 ' Mr. Bever indicated they could argue over$100,000.00 in loss of income over the life of the lease. 59 60 Mr. Metzger explained to the Board he felt the additional 12,500.00 was reasonable to insure the City would be 61 kept out of court. 62 63 Ms. Hauptstueck asked if a third appraisal was needed and Mr. Metzger said this was different because it 64 involved the value of a leasehold. 65 • I �� Board of Works Minutes Cont'd November 27, 1991 Page 6 1 Mr. Nepote told the Board that the damages to the remainder of the property could exceed the value of the real 2 estate taken. 3 4 Ms. Planck clarified that if the award was 62,150.00 they would not be back for more damages and asked what 5 the procedure was if the Board denied the award as set out. 6 7 Mr. Metzger said they would have to appeal the award and a judge and jury would decide the damages. 8 9 Mr. Bever said that was correct,they would appeal and show the potential loss of income from the property. 10 11 Mr. Wiwi stated to the Board that there may be a need to get on the Kroger property temporarily and especially 12 to provide the curb cut and Mr. Bever said the language said "permanent effect", not temporary. Mr. Bever said 13 it was understood a curb cut could not be matched up without temporary access to the property. 14 15 Mr. Metzger told the Board his recommendation was to accept the four conditions as set out in the 16 remonstrance. 17 18 Mr.Wiwi said his concern was he have temporary use of the property. 19 20 Ms. Planck moved to allow the damage award for property owned by Edward Peters, Jr. be set at $62,150.00, 21 with a reduction in the width of the property to fifty ft. (50'), a curb cut for the Kroger property and the paved area 22 of the property not be permanently affected, seconded by Mr. Smith and on unanimous voice vote the motion 23 was carried. 24 25 In-Fill Housing- Penn Central Corporation 26 27 Mr. Metzger informed the Board that the Proof of Notification had been returned to the City and no 28 remonstrances have been filed by Penn Cerltral Corporation. 29 30 Ms. Planck moved to affirm the damage award in the amount of$500.00 to Penn Central Corporation, seconded 31 by Mr. Smith and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 32 33 ADJOURNMENT 34 35 There being no further business, on a motion duly made,seconded and passed the meeting was adjourned. 36 37 38 39 40 41 Carrie N. Hauptstueck, President 42 43 44 45 46 47 ATTEST: 48 Mary Merchanthouse, City Clerk 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65