Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-02-2004 - amended PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,INDIANA, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2004 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session Monday, February 2, 2004, in the Council Chambers in said City. President Larry Parker presided. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRAYER BY COUNCILMEMBER PAPPIN ROLL CALL Councilmembers present were Howard "Jack" Elstro, Etta J. Lundy, Bruce Wissel, Karl Sharp, Bing Welch, Al Glover, Gil Klose and Diana Pappin APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Welch moved to approve the Minutes of the meeting of January 20 and Memorandum of the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole on January 21. There was a second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 1-2004 — A RESOLUTION APPOINTING LUCINDA M. WRIGHT TO THE RICHMOND POLICE COMPLAINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE This Resolution will be brought back to Council for a vote at the next meeting. If anyone else is interested in this position, we will entertain the name at that time. Councilmember Wissel asked why this request was in resolution form. City Attorney Walt Chidester will review the procedures to confirm this as being the proper avenue. COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR Mayor Hutton applauded the work of the Street, Sanitary and Park Departments on their excellent work during the recent inclement weather. Job descriptions for city employees are being reviewed and a job reorganization report will be presented at the next meeting. REPORT FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY None REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS Police Chief Wolski introduced two recently appointed deputies. Patrol Major Robert Hobson and Administrative Major Mark Connery. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES/ORGANIZATIONS Common Council Minutes February 2,2004 Page 2 Councilmember Elstro presented a petition from residents on South 48th Street requesting six overhead lights. This petition will be forwarded to the Board of Works. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS There were several students in attendance Richmond High School and Centerville High School. They were Robert Abrams, Joey Rose, Jessica Wilson and Ryan Moore from Centerville and Mark Elstro, Rebecca O'Conner and Mr. Warner from Richmond High School. ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 7-2004—A GENERAL ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 58 OF THE RICHMOND CODE REGARDING LANDFILL FEES Sanitary District Superintendent Bob Tyler explained that this ordinance was intended to simplify the District's fee schedule. Mr. Tyler distributed a list detailing the current and proposed refuse codes. Councilmember Klose asked about the stability of the rates. Mr. Tyler responded that most of the rates have remained the same and a few decreased over the past six years. Councilperson Pappin asked if an historical summary of the rates could be furnished to each council member. Mr. Tyler will have this information mailed to each council member before the next meeting. All pertinent information will be reviewed and Ordinance 7-2004 will be brought back to Council for second reading. ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING: ORDINANCE NO. 4-2004—A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Councilmember Wissel explained that this request is a ten year abatement request for real estate from Osborn International and Focus Five, LLC. They are estimating 108 new jobs. This is a new venture to the Richmond area and there is a $3 million investment in real estate. Osburn is a manufacturer of industrial brushes. Their headquarters is in Cleveland, Ohio and have occupied the same building for over 100 years. Locally, there will be an 80,000 sf addition to an existing building. The salary range is $8.50-20/hour with an average of$11 per hour. Health insurance is provided. Councilmember Wissel recommended approval with a second by Councilmember Sharp. Council President Parker asked if anyone was there to speak in favor of this ordinance. Jeff Power, Vice President of Organization Effectiveness, of Osborn International thanked the City of Richmond for consideration of the abatement and also for the work that Jim Hizer of the Economic Development Corporation of Wayne County ("EDC") has done. Osborn is looking forward to a long term relationship with the City of Richmond and will start moving jobs down here in July. There are plans to complete the facility and move in by the end of September. Osburn will be requesting a second abatement in July. Mr. James Hizer, President of the Economic Development Corporation, has been working with Osborn for several months. There was severe competition, but the incentive package was what tipped the scales in favor of Richmond. One of the incentives is the ten-year abatement for the project. The Board of Directors for the EDC approved a$150,000 relocation package for Osborn. Common Council Minutes February 2,2004 Page 3 Councilmember Welch moved for engrossment with a second by Councilmember Sharp. The motion carried with a voice vote. Councilmember Lundy moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 4-2004 to third and final reading and read by title only. There was a second by Councilmember Elstro and the motion carried with a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 4-2004 by title only. Councilmember Welch expressed his welcome to Osburn International to Richmond and his hope the City can help them again in the future. Ordinance No. 4-2004 was approved unanimously with a roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO. 5-2004—A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1 Councilmember Wissel explained that this request is a ten-year abatement request from Howa Textile Industry, Co., Ltd. This is also a new venture to Richmond. Howa is estimating there will be 50 new jobs. After review and adjusting the value of the equipment, the total is $4,843,016 in lieu of the original amount of$5,151,200. The wages are 60% in excess of the average industrial wage that is used by the City. Health insurance benefits are provided. Mr. Wissel recommended approval of the ten-year abatement. Councilmember Welch moved to amend Ordinance 5-2004 to reflect the amount of $4,843,016 with a second by Councilmember Sharp. The motion carried with a voice vote. Christopher Felts, Attorney representing Howa Textile Industry Co., Ltd., explained that this is the first expansion of Howa outside of Japan. They have seven plants throughout Japan and manufacture cloth and related products that reduce sound in automobiles. This is a company with over 50 years history and 800 employees. They have been very methodical in their investigations. They first looked at Richmond over four years ago and have visited numerous times since. Each time they have come to Richmond, they appreciate the community and the cooperation of the Wayne County Economic Development Corporation and are looking forward to the final step of announcing to the world their intentions to open a facility in Richmond. Mr. James Hizer, President of the Economic Development Corporation, has been working with Howa and feels this is one more example of what a wonderful location the Sanyo Incubator is proving to be for overseas investment. The kind of support they can offer a company such as Howa is instrumental in attracting Howa. Mr. Hizer predicts this will not be the last of the companies that give strong consideration to the Sanyo Incubator. Howa is an example of the importance of long term economic development relationship building. The EDC strongly urges approval of the requested tax abatement. The Board of Directors for EDC approved a $50,000 relocation package because Howa will be moving equipment to Richmond from Japan. Councilmember Sharp congratulated Mr. Hizer on the work of the EDC with Osborn International and Howa Textile Industry. Mr. Sharp also recognized the work of Mr. Hideo Nakai of Sanyo. Common Council Minutes February 2,2004 Page 4 Mr. Hizer pointed out the financial return on the Sanyo Incubator has not yet paid off for Sanyo, but Mr. Nakai is a huge fan of Richmond and is dedicated to working with other companies in locating here. Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment with a second by Councilmember Welch. The motion carried with a voice vote. Community member, Sue O'Conner asked if the jobs created by Howa are available for local labor. Mr. Hizer answered that 95% of all the jobs will be filled by people living in the Richmond area. Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinance 5-1004 on third and final reading by title only with a second by Councilmember Pappin. The Clerk read Ordinance 5-1004 by title only. The motion carried with a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO. 74-2003 - A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR 33.378 ACRES OF A CERTAIN PARCEL FROM 0-1 TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Council President outlined the procedure for the public hearing. Councilmember Wissel outlined the Planning Commission report and the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole. The Planning Commission conducted three separate meetings. Each meeting was well attended. The Commission voted 6-3 in favor of approval with nine stipulations. Those are: 1. The development shall at all times comply with the approved "Integrated Design Guidelines". 2. The proposed Operation and Easement Agreement shall be applicable to all tenants of the property. 3. The sign plan shall allow 2-300 sq. ft., 1-150 sq. ft., 1-125 sq. ft for lot #1 identity sign at the end of the main entrance off US 40 and a community sign at the corner of lot#1. 4. Limitation of first access drive east of Elks Road to right-in, right-out traffic with a traffic island to separate traffic. 5. A 50% visual buffer shall be required between US 40 and the outlots, specifically including the area over the required 10' green strip on this area. Such visual buffering may be accomplished through either height design; landscaping; decorative walling; or any other technique acceptable to City officials. 6. The handling of storm water drainage shall be accomplished by either a satisfactory detention pond to be constructed by the developer or by natural runoff to the north into a pre-existing pond remaining on the Hayes property; provided, if the natural runoff is utilized, the water must first be pretreated by developer in a manner acceptable to City. 7. An interior sidewalk to the north of the outlots must be installed, upon which sidewalk signage describing the significance of the Arboretum and cultural aspects of the surrounding area shall be installed. 8. All truck traffic must utilize the entrance/exit from Woodside Drive and no truck traffic shall be allowed upon the Elks Road drive. 9. A rear gate pedestrian access shall be installed on the north side of the development to allow reasonable pedestrian ingress and egress to the Arboretum. Common Council Minutes February 2,2004 Page 5 As this is a public hearing, Council heard comments from both sides. Councilmember Sharp moved that there be limitation of the first access drive east of Elks Road be restricted to right-in only. There was a second by Councilmember Welch and the motion carried with a unanimous voice vote. Councilmember Lundy asked if there would be anything in place to slow down traffic as it is nearing this new shopping area. Council President Parker said that Anchor Properties was planning to install a traffic light at their expense. Hayes attorney John Sayre confirmed this was planned subject to the State's approval. Councilmember Welch moved to amend Ordinance No. 74-2003 to include the 9 stipulations as recommended by the Planning Commission with a second by Councilmember Sharp. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote. Councilmember Pappin moved to make an additional amendment that no trees or earth can be moved until all permits are received and plans are approved. After discussion with regard to the necessity of this amendment there was a second by Councilmember Welch. Attorney Sayre expressed concern from the Hayes Foundation Research, Inc. The Foundation staff pointed out that they routinely move dirt and trees on the Arboretum. There is concern about a motion saying they cannot move dirt. There would be no substantial construction on the property until the entire project is approved and the transaction in finalized. Also, the very concept of a Planned Unit Development is to allow it to develop in different stages. Councilmember Welch asked Mr. Sayre if it would satisfy the Hayes Foundation if it was specified that the developer could not start any major construction until final approval and building permits were issued. Mr. Sayre agreed to this stipulation. Councilmember Elstro pointed out that the Planning Department already had the authority to monitor when construction could begin. Council President made it clear there was a motion on the floor and asked for a voice vote. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began with comments from David Burton, Attorney for the Friends of the Arboretum, and John Sayre, Attorney for the Stanley W. Hayes Foundation. There were statements from several members of the community. Councilmember Wissel moved for engrossment with a second by Councilmember Welch. The motion carried with a voice vote. Councilmember Wissel moved to suspend the rules, advance Ordinance No. 74-2003 and read by title only. There was a second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried with a voice vote. The Clerk read Ordinance No. 74-2003 by title only. Council President Parker asked if there were any comments from Councilmembers. Councilmember Sharp stated This has been quite an experience to go through all this. I have been on Council four years now and we have had very few of these. It is a difficult decision to make. I have looked at close to 100 letters, letters to the editor and phone calls. At this point I think there is less than 10%of those that are members of the Arboretum. It has been there for many, many years and yet we hear from all these people. There have been many criticisms of past management and mostly from people with little or no management experience but that is in the past. We must move forward. Names of the Common Council Minutes February 2,2004 Page 6 occupants of the Village will only last as long as they are successful. We have many businesses that have moved in and out of various business buildings in Richmond and I'll go back many, many years we had International Harvester, we had Perfect Circle here and I am one that worked for Perfect Circle before and after Dana. We had lawn mower companies that have closed up because their business did not succeed. We had Belden Corporation here for many years and they have expanded. We have had Hills Pet Products. I can go on and on and list many more. I must give credit to the homework of the Friends of the Arboretum group. They have done a magnificent job. We have known about this almost eight months. One thing, as long as this has lasted, it tended to bring out those people that are for the passage of this ordinance. We have your petition with 4,591 names. If there would have been a fund raising effort made to get pledges in the last eight months of those 4,591 names of$1,000 you could have raised over $4.5 million and I think, I'm not sure, but I think that the Stanley Hayes Foundation would have taken attention to that and this may have not gotten even this far. This ordinance would probably have been withdrawn. Even if you got$100 you would have raised over $450,000, but the problem with that is that you have to do that each and every year. I realize there is concern over the water runoff but I believe the developers when they say they will do what is required. With that I will be voting to save the balance of over 300 acres of the Arboretum and adding value and jobs to the Richmond area. Councilmember Lundy's comments were To say that because you do not vote for development that is coming in does not mean that you are not for economic development. I have been on Council since 1988 and I vote for many, many developments that have been good and some that I voted for that have been bad. I voted in 1993 for Carpenter. It has not panned out. I voted for Hills and it has. So what I am saying is, to say that because you have a feeling that something is not going to work—just because you think a strip mall is going to come in, that it is going to be successful, there is no guarantee. We say 300 jobs but as Mr. Sharp said, they come and go. We have no assurance. One of the things that bothers me about this development is whether or not we are going to end with just 33 acres. Mr. Sayre was too quick to say no, no, there is no way we can guarantee that is going to end'. I think that if they want us to make a decision that they should have made a decision to let us know that if you do this to save the Arboretum that you are going to actually save the Arboretum. That it is actually going to be there for us forever. I don't think that was too much to ask. Also, most of the points I had in my heart about it, including water, I hope the committee will follow the water. I do have the traffic concerns and the fact that we are asked to do something just out of blind faith. Usually there is a marketing study knowing what is going to come in. When Dillards was coming in, we knew Dillards was coming. When Wal-Mart was coming in, we knew Wal-Mart was coming in. We are asked now to vote on something in blind faith just because they say it is going to work. I hope that it does work but I will be voting against it because I feel there are too many unknowns. Councilmember Glover feels: You have awakened a sleeping lion and that sleeping lion is the community of Richmond. Water the fact that the purity of the water supply that affects a large percentage of the population comes from an aquifer in that area gives me great concern. I feel that further study by qualified engineers and other persons qualified to make a positive determination that the water supply is not in danger is needed. If controls are the answer, I will be concerned about how well they are monitored. Economic development It appears to me that a complete marketing study and analysis was not performed which gives me concern. The Shills report of 1997 measuring the economic and sociological impact of the mega-retail discount chains on small enterprises in urban, suburban and rural communities warrants consideration. Finance I commend the Board for independent attitude, however, I do not feel they have explored all of the avenues of possibility. The many proposals make that evident. I feel that giving the sleeping lion three years to help formulate a program that will be an ongoing program of income would be a fair attempt at maintaining the green space. When the Main Street Bridge was torn down and later we changed our minds, the bricks and mortar could be rebuilt. When Main Street was Common Council Minutes February 2,2004 Page 7 opened, there were questions and if we are not pleased, we can return the mall. When these trees are gone, that is forever. My final concern is the refusal to guarantee that no more of the ground will be sold in the future. Once that is zoning commercial cement city could well be the future. My vote at this time would be `no'. Councilmember Welch spoke: It was interesting when Mrs. Chance came to the podium to discuss the Scott property and how it had been cleared to be farmland and that was done in a period not too many years ago, it didn't have any trees on it. It was after Mr. Hayes took the property as a gift from the Scotts that he started to replant. He hired local landscapers and local arborists to replant that Scott property where the race track had been and to blend in with his estate which was to the north. None of those trees basically on the 33 acres are what we will call `native indigenous' trees to the State of Indiana. Those pretty Spruce trees that you see growing out there were planted. Planted by some local landscapers and arborists and growers of trees. They remember they went it. They put them there. Now to say we are destroying native forest, we are not or that we are anticipating that we are moving forward to destroy a native forest. We are allowing a private foundation established by Mr. Hayes in effect, retain control through that Foundation making it private property. It is not public property. You visit it. You go on it by the permission of the owners, the Hayes Foundation. You are traveling through something that they developed. They developed it for the purpose of research and education as the guidelines of their charter specified. You have also been told about water problems. That 33 acres makes up a miniscule part or percentage of their total acreage up in that area. So, any development that we put in the 33 acres to the south of the chute that was referenced by Associate Professor Parker is a partial feed of that aquifer and only a partial feed. I remember when the Eastern Industrial Park was an issue before Southeastern Wood Treatment and the question was raised about the chromium arsenic that was being used to treat wood. Everyone belayed the point that they could be done over that aquifer without pollution. Well, they proved to us that they could. Now admittedly, the EPA has since banned chromium arsenic as a wood treatment but the monitoring wells that were used around that building and around that plant and later added and monitored by the USDS showed no pollution. The other argument that was very prevalent during that discussion as to where an aquifer actually flowed and there was no one at that time that could determine with certainty that that aquifer was flowing to the north. Now that aquifer starts up at US 40. The gravel pit that sits just to the north of Red Lobster is a part of that aquifer. If you look at the topographical maps and look at the elevation you will see that that basin runs almost from the river straight down to the south in a southwesterly direction headed toward Short Creek. Short Creek is the creek that runs south of the Forest Hills Country Club and crosses Niewoehner Road just south. Now, I am not sure that anyone has determined with certainty where all of the water is coming from, that the Water Company is so concerned about, because we have had the old Pennsylvania Railroad running right over the top of the aquifer that they are discussing for the last 100 years or more. New York Central ran straight to the east and west right over the top of it and there has been no pollution from the railroad or any accidents or any chemicals that they have dropped in that roadbed. You have got Landis Plastics out there, you have got Atlas Plastics, you have got Envirotech, you had and still have an industrial zoned gravel pit sitting right over the top of the aquifer and a part of the feed of the aquifer. If you look on to the east and a little bit to the northeast and you look toward New Paris Ohio and up that river valley you have no trouble seeing that that aquifer extends a long way to the east. And look at the contour map and you can see how it is all fed. Contributions the last four income tax filings that I have had the privilege to look at for Hayes Arboretum and Hayes Foundation shows that they received contributions from the general public in sums of$13,000 to about$19,000 per year. That is how much support they got out of contributions from this community. Now, I had to tell an individual not too long ago, Don't call chewing on me after the fact, you had the opportunity well before all this happened. Where was your interest at then? Why were you not more interested?' Asking questions `Why haven't you developed this portion of the Arboretum? What's the problem with developing? What is the problem with opening it up? If you were interested, why didn't you?' I didn't and I know I didn't. I know I am at fault for not. Have you asked yourself why Common Council Minutes February 2,2004 Page 8 you didn't ask? $19,000 from a community this size is not an awful lot of money in a year. There is no way the Arboretum can support their expenses with $19,000 per year. It has got to be a much healthier contribution. Much more sacrificial on everyone living in this community to do that. I commend Mr. Sobol on his thought about bonds. But do you realize how many acres the City of Richmond already has under park land. We have over 1,000 acres of park in this City right now not even talking about the Arboretum. The Park budget comes under question every year when it comes before this Council as to how they are spending so much money and why they need such large amounts of money to keep operating their park and their programs and yet someone thinks that we can issue bonds to buy Hayes Arboretum, or this 33 acres and put it under our budget and be able to afford it. I doubt it. I truly doubt it. Our economy as we sit right now, even though it is improving, is going to make our budgets very tight for the next couple of years or maybe even longer. Strip mall. We keep hearing the terminology `strip mall. ' Well I think that is a misnomer. If you were here for the Committee of the Whole meeting and looked at the schematic as presented by the developer, we are not talking about a strip mall. A strip mall is a straight line of buildings attached to one another and fifteen or twenty stores located in that one basic building. We are talking about eight individual pieces of property built within the confines of about twenty plus acres of developed property. The 33 acres is not going to be developed as a whole. It has stipulations on screening. The developer has already offered to leave a tree-screening affect from the east section of the development through the north and over to the northwest at Elks Country Club Road. So, its actual development, under land or under shovel or spade or building about twenty-one or twenty-two acres. The advantage I see to this happening is to save the Arboretum they don't have to depend on an intermittent, undeclared or questionable money source to continue to operate. It gives them enough in their trust fund to be able to go ahead and develop the remainder of Hayes Arboretum in a way that will be compatible, esthetically pleasing and educational to the general public of Richmond, Indiana. I think, without it being stipulated or written or etched in granite, that the Board and the people that love and work for the Arboretum will do that with the money they derive from this development. I also respect the word of Anchor and Mr. Rickey, in particular, because I was very outspoken to you in my first meeting with you as to fold your tent, roll your drawings and go back to Cincinnati'. And I stipulated in my own words that if you couldn't see that we wanted a unique, compatible and complimenting development if it was going to happen, that I didn't want to talk any longer to you. You have convinced me otherwise that you are a man of your word, that you have included many of the things we talked about. I hope that you will continue to be a man of your word and not only walk the talk but actually walk it in pride and honesty. With that I will be voting to support the development of Hayes Arboretum. Councilmember Wissel feels: One of the things I will not forget about this process, is looking out in the crowd of activists and people who are very sincere in their feelings about what is best for Richmond. When this process started, I really thought I would be voting against the zoning and as it progressed I realized that is not my job here. We have a duty to perform the responsibilities of our office. Many of the arguments and the reason that I was so opposed to it originally was that we are visceral. We like to make a better world and like to make things perfect it is out of our control. So much of the discussion we have had here over these meetings have been things that we as a body are not even allowed to look at. We cannot make any decision about how the Hayes Arboretum Board needs to conduct its business or whether they make good decisions or not. It is simply not part of our responsibility. We can't be influenced by financial plans that other groups, no matter how sincere they are in making them, want to put on a private entity. We can't look at the vacant locations around the city and say `wait a minute. ' That takes away your right to develop your property. Comments have been made throughout the meetings that the retail community does not have the elasticity for new stores. Quite frankly, that is a business decision. People take those business risks and that is not for government to decide. There has been a lot of talk about the Comprehensive Plan and the way I view the Comprehensive Plan is that it is not a road map that tells us how we are supposed to get from point A' to point B". It is a compass and that compass points to several different goals and needs and so it is only natural that when you get to the Common Council Minutes February 2,2004 Page 9 nitty-gritty of trying to decide what the best course of action is, those goals are going to conflict with each other. It is privately owned and that doesn't guarantee that you have a right to a zoning change. For many years, the Arboretum and the Hayes Foundation has given a gift to the community and it is not right to say Tou know, we want you to keep giving that gift to us and we want you to do it our way. ' I think this is going to save the other acreage. I think this is the balance between environmental issues and economic development that we are supposed to do. I will be voting in favor of the rezoning. Councilmember Pappin pointed out: This has been a very, very difficult decision for me because I am a true lover of nature. But there is a practical side that comes out as we have listened to arguments over the past few months and the legal issue, from what I understand, is that we have to rezone based on highest and best use. With that in mind, it has been my desire and effort as we have talked and listened that we put restrictions in place that will guarantee that we protect the land the best that can possibly be done and that we develop a unique shopping experience for people, that we have a compromise situation, that we protect the land and that we move forward into a brighter future for us. As I said from the first, I am going to be supporting this initiative. I know that my remarks are not going to change any of the Council people's minds who are going to vote against it. I just think it is important that we take this very seriously and that we all work to make the best of this situation. Councilmember Klose said: I am probably the last one to have made up my mind, because I made up my mind at ten minutes to five this afternoon. It was,for all of us, a difficult decision and I think the merits on each side are so closely rated that it what made it difficult. I have decided, however, to vote against the rezoning. I grant most of the things that the people on the rezoning side have said about `it's not our business to make a decision about the wisdom about the Hayes Arboretum Board' in the way it is managed, its resources, or about the prospects for the future, or whether it is a wise business decision to bring in new retail stores. I have difficulty in seeing why Anchor Property wants to spend that much money, but that is their money. On the other hand, however, the thing that tipped my decision was, in fact, the water problem. If we rezone and we have made a mistake, we have an irretrievable loss for something that will be, at best, an intermediate gain. I am going to vote against it, although I recognize that this also includes a risk. It encompasses a possible risk that the Arboretum may shut down. When I ran for City Council, I suggested that there might be a period when the Arboretum could work on a minimal program, work with the Friends of the Arboretum to develop what they could until their endowment increased. It seems to me that everybody who is so sure that business in Richmond will increase, should also be sure that the Arboretum's portfolio might increase as well. In this respect I associate myself very much with my colleague, Al Glover's, suggestion that they work for several years on an interim basis to see what can be done. At this point I am going to vote against the rezoning.. Councilmember Elstro added that: I am not going to over all of what we have been over, because we have gone over it several times. The only thing I have to say is that I think we as Council members were elected by the people and I think once in a while we ought to represent the people and if their wishes are that they don't want it out there, we won't give it to them. I think if we put this thing on a ballot, I think the vote would be to keep it just the way it is and I'll be the first one to vote. Ordinance No. 74-2003 was adopted with a 5-4 roll call vote. Voting in favor of the ordinance were Bruce Wissel, Bing Welch, Karl Sharp, Diana Pappin and Larry Parker. Jack Elstro, Etta Lundy, Al Glover and Gil Klose voted against the ordinance. Councilmember Klose thanked everyone who participated in this entire process. Common Council Minutes February 2,2004 Page 10 CALL FOR ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Councilmember Pappin moved for adjournment, second by Councilmember Sharp. The motion passed with a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. S/S Larry Parker Larry Parker,President ATTEST: S/S Karen Chasteen Karen Chasteen, Clerk