CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 21, 2003
The Honorable Council of the City of Evansville met on regular session at 6:30 pm on Monday, April 21, 2003 in the City Council Chambers, Room 301 Civic Center Complex, Evansville, Indiana with President John, presiding. The following business was conducted.
These minutes are not intended to be a verbatim transcript. Audiotapes of this meeting are on file in the City Clerk’s Office.
ROLL CALL:
There being eight (8) members present and one (1) members absent and eight (8) members representing a quorum, the President declared this session of the Common Council officially opened.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ashley Elpers led the pledge of allegiance this evening.
COUNCIL ATTORNEY
John Hamilton is Council Attorney this evening.
TEEN ADVISIORY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT
Member: Ashley Elpers
Member: Eliza Dy
READING AND AMENDMENT OF MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETING
Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the April 14, 2003 meetings of the Common Council as written?
Councilman Kniese moved and Councilwoman Walden seconded the motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of the Common Council held April 14, 2003 be approved as written. Voice vote. So ordered.
REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
IN YOUR APRIL 17TH PACKET:
*Agenda for the April 21, 2003 City Council meeting.
*Committee Meeting Schedule.
*Minutes of City Council Meetings for April 14, 2003.
*Rezoning Ordinances R-2003-17, R-2003-18, R-2003-19, R-2003-20,
R-2003-21, and R-2003-22.
*Ordinances G-2003-13 and F-2003-7.
*Resolutions C-2003-9 and C-2003-11.
*Minutes from Area Plan Commission Meeting held April 2, 2003.
*Area Plan Commission Staff Reports.
*A letter from Morley and Associates regarding Rezoning Ordinance R-2003-7
Requesting an amendment.
*A letter from Morley and Associates regarding Rezoning Ordinance R-2003-13
Requesting any future action be stopped and removed from any further meeting
Schedules.
*A News Release regarding the City Pledges $50,000 toward cleanup of Evansville
Plating Works.
*A News Release - Statement from Mayor Russell G. Lloyd, Jr. regarding assistance to
Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation.
*A News Release regarding Mayor Lloyd asks Legislators to fully fund the local
Homestead Credit.
*A Notice of Claim against the City of Evansville.
ON YOUR DESK THIS EVENING:
*A copy of Nations’ Cities Weekly.
*AMR 911 Ambulance reports for March 2003.
*Media Alert regarding groundbreaking ceremony for Greenway Section 3B.
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Kniese seconded the motion to receive, file and make these reports and communications a part of the minutes of the meeting. Voice vote. So ordered.
CONSENT AGENDA
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE G-2003-13 PUBLIC WORKS BAGBEY
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC ALLEY SOUTH OF FRANKLIN STREET IN THE BLOCK BETWEEN OAKLEY STREET ON THE WEST AND EDGAR STREET ON THE EAST
RESOLUTION C-2003-9 FINANCE (ROBINSON) KNIESE
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, PROPOSING AN ORDINANCE OF THE VANDERBURGH COUNTY INCOME TAX COUNCIL ESTABLISHING THE PERCENTAGE CREDIT ALLOWED FOR HOMESTEADS FOR 2004 AND CASTING THE VOTES OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE ON SAID ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE F-2003-7 FINANCE ROBINSON
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND APPROPRIATING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT, AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP GRANT FUNDS
ORDINANCE R-2003-17 TO APC C-4 & R-4 TO M-1 W/U&D
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 300-314 READ STREET
REP: BRIAN K. CARROLL
DISTRICT: B. J. WATTS, WARD 6
ORDINANCE R-2003-18 TO APC M-3 TO R-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1617 W. MISSOURI STREET
PETITIONER: DAVID P. BARTLETT
OWNER: B&S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC
REP: DAVID P. BARTLETT
DISTRICT: B. J. WATTS, WARD 6
ORDINANCE R-2003-19 TO APC M-3 TO M-2
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 512 AND 522-526 N.W. FIRST STREET
PETITIONER: AZTAR INDIANA GAMING, LLC
OWNER: ALEXANDER REAL ESTATE, INC.
SINGER-OPTICAL COMPANY, INC.
REP: MARCO L. DeLUCIO
ORDINANCE R-2003-20 TO APC R-4 TO M-2
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1141-1151 COURT, 1120 DIAMOND AVENUE
PETITIONER: NUNNING PROPERTIES, LLC
DISTRICT: STEVE MELCHER, WARD 3
ORDINANCE R-2003-21 TO APC CO-2 TO C-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 651 S. ELLIOTT
PETITIONER: SHELLIE A. KEY
OWNER: JOHNNIE M. FYKES
REP: SHELLIE A. KEY
DISTRICT: CONNIE ROBINSON, WARD 4
ORDINANCE R-2003-22 TO APC C-4 & R-5 TO M-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 506 AND 516 FRANKLIN STREET, 201-205 EDGAR STREET, 202-226 MARY STREET
PETITIONER: BERRY PLASTICS CORPORATION
REP: STEVEN KROHN
DISTRICT: B.J. WATTS, WARD 6
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Angermeier seconded the motion to adopt the consent Agenda as written. Voice vote. So ordered.
CONSENT AGENDA
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE R-2003-6 FROM APC R-2 TO CO-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2321 WEST DELAWARE STREET
PETITIONER: CINDY K. BRIGHT AND LLOYD D. BRIGHT
OWNER: SAME
REP: CINDY K. BRIGHT
DISTRICT: B.J. WATTS, WARD 6
This petition was approved, having 12 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE R-2003-8 FROM APC M-3 TO M-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2300 BLOCK W. ILLINOIS
PETITIONER: MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY
OWNER: SAME BY: PATRICK DECKER
REP: MARCO DELUCIO
DISTRICT: B.J. WATTS, WARD 6
This petition was approved, having 12 affirmative votes.
ORDINANCE R-2003-9 FROM APC C-4 & C-2 TO R-4
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 501 S.E. TENTH STREET
PETITIONER: MEMORIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OWNER: SAME
REP. KRISTA B. LOCKYEAR
DISTRICT: CONNIE ROBINSON, WARD 4
This petition was approved, having 12 affirmative votes.
Is there a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda Second Reading of Zoning Ordinances and to accept the Area Plan Commission Report?
Councilman Melcher and Councilman Watts seconded the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda Second Reading of Zoning Ordinances and to accept the Area Plan Commission Reports. Voice vote. So ordered.
Council now stands at Third Reading of Zoning Ordinances, which is final action.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ZONING ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS:
ORDINANCE R-2003-6 FROM APC R-2 TO CO-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2321 WEST DELAWARE STREET
PETITIONER: CINDY K. BRIGHT AND LLOYD D. BRIGHT
President John: Welcome. Would you please state your name for the record and give us a brief description of what your request is.
Lloyd Bright: I’m Lloyd Bright, my wife Cindy Bright. We are here requesting the rezoning of a piece of property at 2321West Delaware from current R-2 zoning to C0-1. That is I believe to be the lowest type of office use. I think limited to under 3,000, 3,000 or under. This piece of property is contains approximately…. the building does 850 square feet. It’s located at west Delaware there’s a representation here. Going west on Delaware before you get to Saint Joseph Avenue there’s Clayton’s Dry Cleaning establishment there at that corner. Rally’s is to the south. This piece of property is located on the alley way next to Clayton’s. There’s also an alley that runs along the back with parking there in the rear. And what we intend to do with that is Cindy is a real estate investor and has rental property there primarily on the West Side. And I’m a lawyer and my practice is limited to representing some of the PE oil and gas people still left around in the area so we don’t have a real busy there, at least we don’t plan too. We both live on the north…we live on the northwest side and we want to be located a little closer to both business and to our…where we live.
President John: Are there questions by Members of Council? Councilman Angermeier.
Councilman Angermeier: He indicated before the Area Plan Commission that he planned no additional expansion or addition to that property. Is that right?
President John: Thank you. Are there any other questions by Members of Council? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak either in favor of or in opposition to this particular Ordinance?
Unknown: I will.
President John: Please come forward and state your name. Welcome.
James Wilhite: My name is James Wilhite and what I have to say isn’t necessarily a complaint or anything against the people who are petitioning here for the rezoning. I just basically wanted to make a comment about the situation. If I were, for example, a resident of Evansville, Indiana could I purchase a residential property at a basically low rate and then turn around and petition an organization such as yourself to grant it to be a commercial property of any level. And then the very next day could I just turn around and put a for sale sign on that and sell it at a profit of two, three, four, plus times it’s value? Could I go around the City and do this? Is there anything in the City policy that would stop me from doing that? And again, I’m not accusing anyone of doing this thing I’m just curious bystander. My family does own some abutting and adjoining properties to this area. It also seems to me if I might make a further comment that there are a
bunch of commercial properties that are vacant now on Saint Joe Avenue that are looking for tenants. It just seems to me that some of those might need some attention first. Anyway that was just the comment I had and I thank you for your time.
President John: Thank you. Anybody like to respond or… In response to your questions as you pose them I’m sure that that does happen that individuals do come forward and request rezonings and at times never occupy them themselves, subsequently either sell or lease them. The Council looks on an individual basis. They look at a number of aspects of it. They look at the surrounding properties what they are zoned. The look at the Master Plan, what’s the highest and best use of the property, so a number of things go in that mix. It’s very difficult for us to sit up here and look at a piece of property and try to figure out how it would be best zoned and at the same time say: “We’re doing it, but only for you, we don’t anybody else to be able to take advantage of this zoning in the event that it’s approved”. So I’m sure that it does happen and there’s nothing that prohibits that, but the Council has to take a little responsibility in when we are evaluating whether or not it is a property that should be rezoned, if that makes any sense. Does any other Council Member have any comment?
Councilman Kniese: I’d just like to add that theoretically you’re exactly right, that can happen. But it still has to come before Council to get final approval for that rezoning, but you’re exactly right. You can buy something that’s zoned residential and theoretically the next day, if it was approved by Council, and it met the requirements, it could be rezoned commercial. You could put a sign in the yard and sell it at possibly a higher value. Theoretically it could happen, realistically it doesn’t happen like that, there’s a process that you go through. But, that’s what we are here to do is to make sure that it is properly zoned for that specific request that comes before us.
President John: Councilman.
Councilman Angermeier: I sat on the Area Plan Commission and we watch that very closely. I don’t suppose you’ve attended one of them but for your information we turned down one on Newburgh Road, 7600 out there, and they were in progress to have it improved. Except, the Members of the Plan Commission said no. Every one of them are being investigated by a committee. The go out and review residential, commercial, and out of respect for the residential verses commercial they try to protect it. And I’m not going to tell you it’s always the case that they decide for or against that but they try to weigh very heavily so they would not create an imbalance as far as residences is concerned in a particular area. Quite frequently properties that maximize the amount of use from a standpoint of being a residence or being converted into some office space. It’s pretty normal that some of these aging homes require some additional moderation, some additional to change it physically and the conversion that they are making. And I drove by there and I looked at it for some time. If it’s not made into an office or something being done with that property it’s more than likely somebody would not move into it and make the repairs that are necessary to maintain the property. And given all the weight what changes take place when a commercial designation goes in there. If it’s not on a C-2 as a C0-2 that they talked about that property right there may not be acceptable for some other use. And Plan Commission has some people that go out and check it out very thoroughly. They make a report to the Members of the Council it tells you what the Area Plan Commission in their review of that property. They invite the questions on the Traffic Engineer and there are people. And if you remain in Evansville long the next Area Plan Commission meeting in June will be another
hot meeting again with the petitioner on the news today said he was dropping one petition on the corner of Fuquay and Newburgh Road because of what happened at the last one. The petition he’s going to file now they are going to change it from ten homes down to eight homes and I believe the Council Chambers will be filled with the people who will remonstrate against it. And I have reason to believe that the Members of the Area Plan Commission will turn it down again. So it’s not an automatic situation and if that’s what you thought about somebody could buy it one day and then improve it and then turn it the next day, it don’t work that way. Darmstadt Road, a man went out there and bought a big beautiful home and the neighborhoods appeared in mass, filled the Council Chambers and it was turned down. It was simply turned down. So I would not want you to think that these people came before the Area Plan Commission without being investigated. And furthermore the Members of the Council can decide on it again. But it’s very interesting the amount of involvement and the review on the part of the Area Plan Commission personnel and sometime changes are made to the property and it doesn’t necessarily make it more valuable. And there is a heavy flux of commercial, residential property, industrial property in Vanderburgh County right now. There’s more that there has ever been before and that’s been stated by outside appraisers, outside realtors, but again sometimes it falls through the crack. But it’s being very closely reviewed. Maybe it don’t make sense to you, but I’ve sat on that Area Plan Commission for 3 1/2 years and I can tell you one thing, my record shows that I’ve been more favorable to the people who reside in the area than I have about carte blanching giving it approval just because it come before the Area Plan Commission or the Council. Members of the Council can attest to that.
President John: Thank you.
Councilman Angermeier: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
President John: Councilman Melcher.
Councilman Melcher: I was just going to say sometimes like the Oak Hill property that we rezoned. People were only in there about three or four months and they were going to be in there forever as an antique store and now they are out. And that is just the fear of some of the neighbors at the time they got passed so now they are looking for tenants. So with that I’ll make a motion of do-pass.
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Watts seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance R-2003-6 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Bagbey, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, John.
Absent: Robinson.
There being eight (8) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2003-6 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
President John: Thank you. Before we go to the next one I would like to read or at least advise anyone in the audience that may be here for these particular zonings and Councilman Angermeier just referred to them. Ordinance R-2003-7 has been amended and is going back to Area Plan Commission. Do we have to vote to authorize that to go back? It’s not on our agenda.
Okay, 2003-7 and 2003-13 have both been removed and sent back to Area Plan. So we will have no action on them and those are the ones that you are talking about, Councilman.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE R-2003-8 FROM APC M-3 TO M-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2300 BLOCK W. ILLINOIS
PETITIONER: MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY
Nick Seriano: Hello, I’m Nick Seriano from Ziemer, Stayman, Weitzel and Shoulders, representing Mead Johnson and with me is Mr. Louis Greenwell, he’s the facilitator of properties at Mead Johnson. So if you have any questions that are too difficult for me he’ll step up. As you can see this is the property south of Illinois Street north of Indiana cat-a-corner to the northeast of the parking lot property that Mead Johnson rezoned last year and subsequently sold to the State of Indiana. This is part….this downzoning from an M-3 to an M-1 is part of the overall plan of Mead Johnson to move it’s facilities to the south of the Lloyd Expressway for the overall safety and convenience of it’s employees. With the movement of this facility south of the Expressway this has become surplus and we’re of the belief that downzoning from an M-3 to an M-1 not only would remove the possibility of certain facilities going in here that are inconsistent with the surrounding properties, but would also make it more marketable to potential purchasers of the property. If you have any further questions.
President John: I would note that like the last zoning this comes forward with a unanimous do-pass recommendation from the Area Plan Commission. Are there any questions by Members of Council? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this zoning Ordinance?
Councilwoman Walden moved and Councilman Bagbey to adopt Ordinance R-2003-8 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Bagbey, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, John.
Absent: Robinson.
There being eight (8) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2003-8 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ZONING ORDINANCES
ORDINANCE R-2003-9 FROM APC C-4 & C-2 TO R-4
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 501 S.E. TENTH STREET
PETITIONER: MEMORIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Krista Lockyear: Good evening Members of Council. My name is Krista Lockyear I’m here on behalf of Memorial Community Development Corporation. Reverend Adrian Brooks is also here with me tonight and if you have any questions he may be able to help me answering them. We are seeking to down zone this property, it was Snyder Buick property and has been for many years zoned commercial. And the property to the south of Oak Street is vacant. Directly across Oak Street is the existing Memorial Place Apartments which are low income, three bedroom low income apartments. And the Reverend Brooks is looking to expand that facility. Put in additional three bedroom units. He has found that there is certainly a demand for that. It will be low-income housing. It will be designed similarly to match and complement the existing Memorial Place Apartment. And it is being funded in large part by CDBG funds that you all have already committed to this project. So, we ask this down zoning in order to help this project move along and provided that we get the zoning tonight we really don’t have anything to stop construction from commencing here real shortly.
President John: Any questions by Members of Council? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to the Ordinance.
Councilman Bagbey moved and Councilman Melcher seconded the motion to adopt
Ordinance R-2003-9 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Bagbey, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, John.
Absent: Robinson.
There being eight (8) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2003-9 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ZONING ORDINANCES
NOTHING SCHEDULED FOR THIRD READING
RESOLUTION DOCKET
RESOLUTION C-2003-11 (DOCKET) COUNCILMAN KIEFER
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, INDIANA TO SUPPORT FULL FUNDING OF THE LOCAL 8% CREDIT TO REDUCE PROPERTY TAXES FOR LOCAL HOMEOWNERS
Councilman Kiefer: Thank you. This evening I passed around and placed on everybody’s desk a letter on Indiana General Assembly Letterhead I’d like to read into record if that’s okay. It says
To: The Honorable William Crawford
The Honorable Bill Cochran
The Honorable Jeff Espich
The Honorable Larry Borst
The Honorable Robert Meeks
The Honorable Vi Simpson
From: Vanderburgh County Legislative Delegation
Re: Local Homestead Credit
Date: April 14, 2003
We are writing on behalf of the residential property owners of Vanderburgh County. Specifically, we are requesting that the statutory cap of 8% on the local Homestead Credit be raised or eliminated by the Indiana General Assembly.
Historically, the Vanderburgh County Income Tax Council (VCITC) has set the local Homestead Credit at the statutory maximum rate of 8%. The City of Evansville states that it has budgeted the necessary COIT funds to fully pay the 8% local Homestead Credit. The problem, however, is with the new interpretation of the Homestead Credit calculation. It is our understanding that by administering the credit in accordance with the statute, certain levies (such as those for debt service) will be excluded. This change lowers the effective property tax rate. Unfortunately, the statute does not allow local units to make up the difference with their own funding, because this would require the VCITC to exceed the statutory cap of 8%. Consequently, residential property-owners are being forced to make up the difference.
Please consider inserting language in the appropriate Bill during the ongoing conference committees to fix this problem. We also would urge you to allow local units of government to fix this problem retroactively if they so choose.
Thank you for your attention to our efforts to lower residential property taxes. If you need further information regarding this important matter, please feel free to speak with any of us.
And it’s signed…oh; it’s House Bill 1001 Conference Committee Members. Reference Local Homestead Tax Credit and it’s signed Johathan Weinzapfel, Vanita Becker, Brian Hasler, Greg Server, Dennis Avery, and Larry Lutz with a copy sent to Russ Lloyd Jr., Mayor, Curt John, David Mosby, James Raben, Patrick Bauer, Speaker Indiana House of Representatives and Robert Garton, President Pro Tem. I just wanted to read that into the record.
President John: Thank you
Councilman Kiefer: Thank you.
President John: You want to explain the resolution?
Councilman Kiefer: Yeah, basically in pretty much what this letter from the General Assembly stated as well. The State when they re….when they were doing their calculation, recalculated the effect of the 8% Homestead Tax Credit reducing it down to 3 ½ to 4% in effect when they did that and so I’m asking the State to consider us allowing it to stay the full 8% and to rechange their calculation. Similar to what I just read.
President John: In essence you’re showing Council support for what our Representatives are requesting State Government to follow and approve.
Councilman Kiefer: Yes.
President John: Any questions by Members of Council? If not we’ll entertain a motion.
Councilman Kiefer moved and Councilman Bagbey seconded the motion to adopt
Resolution C-2003-11 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Bagbey, Melcher, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, John.
Absent: Robinson.
There being eight (8) ayes and zero (0) nays, Resolution C-2003-11 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Councilman Melcher: I think everybody has this copy on their desk. This is basically what the Mayor and Solid Waste and myself was doing about a week ago. The Mayor and I have talked a few times about this back in 2000. About March I went to the Solid Waste Commission and ask them to set aside $150,000 to help tear down the EPA because I wanted to get it confirmed since there was a new election and everything at that time. And at that time I think Betty Jerrel was the Chairwoman. Anyway they were putting $150,000 aside to help us with EPA so it wouldn’t come out of our funds. So what’s happened over this time period if you remember we’ve been trying to get this tore down. Now the EPA has come in they said they could probably raze this building but they wanted some match money and they are going to put up some money. So they offered if we would put up $50,000 I told the Mayor that wouldn’t be a problem because we’ve got $150,000 sitting there for us. So he did a Resolution and I think that’s what made the paper last week for everybody. So what we’re trying to do now is show that the City Council is in full support of tearing down Environmental Plating. And hopefully this $50,000 will do it and if that happens the EPA was supposedly going to pick up the difference.
President John: I can assure Members of Council that Councilman Melcher for as many years as I’ve known him has been fighting to get that eyesore taken care of and hopefully you’re going to finally achieve I think everybody’s goal in getting that thing razed.
My understanding what they are willing to do is just clear it and clear the land off and I think they are going to go down about a foot or so and put new top soil in and seed it. So you know it won’t be the health hazard that it is now.
Councilman Bagbey: Mr. President.
President John: Councilman Bagbey.
Councilman Bagbey: Councilman Melcher have we ever satisfied the ownership?
Councilman Melcher: No, the ownership nobody claims.
Councilman Bagbey: Mr. Spindler doesn’t claim it now?
Councilman Melcher: No, none of them claim it, they don’t even know where the Spindler’s are. They think they are in Florida.
Councilman Angermeier: Mexico.
Councilman Melcher: Mexico, okay, so the County won’t take it. So it’s one of the pieces of the property in the community the County was supposed to take but they won’t take it, because they didn’t want the problem. And I’ve always said: “It’s in the City limits, it’s in the County”. So somebody need to at least take care of it. So this is you know…we’ve had a hard time keeping it cleaned up and you’ve heard me here many times trying to keep it boarded up. So if we could get it cleaned up surely we could get the grass cut.
Councilman Watts: There’s a billboard on this property. So someone’s getting $25,000 a year for… that or Lamar is not paying them to lease to anybody. Someone’s getting money from the billboard.
Councilman Melcher: I wouldn’t say that’s a lot of money. I know an agency’s that’s got a billboard and then get $200 a year, so I don’t know if $25,000 is the going rate.
Councilman Watts: On the Lloyd Expressway I guarantee you it’s worth it.
Councilman Melcher: It depends on when they get it. You know it depends on how old that contract is.
Councilman Bagbey: What will be the total cost Councilman Melcher?
Councilman Melcher: Mayor told me he that he thought it would be about $150 to $200,000, but the paper show I think 300 or something.
Councilman Watts: $400,000 is what they said at Solid Waste last week. EPA is going to put in 350 and we’re putting up 50. But, that is only going a foot deep and they said that’s not going to make it marketable. And that’s what scared the County and taking ownership of it and John you may have to take over here I don’t know if in doing this the concern was did the County in turn become liable for the additional clean up.
John Hamilton: And the additional remediation?
Councilman Watts: Yes.
John Hamilton: Any owner can be held in contempt of the property.
Councilman Watts: That was the concern that we didn’t like putting up the $50,000 we didn’t become owners of the property.
Councilman Melcher: And what I will say here is Mike Shopmeyer is supposed to be the President of the… or something in the State of Indiana. And the reason why we have never been able to go in there and be the lead person because whoever the lead person is is the one that’s
responsible. That’s why the City never would do it and that’s what he kept telling us and told the Council. So if the EPA goes in there and does this wouldn’t they be the lead person now?
Councilman Watts: That is the way, I wish Marco were here, that’s the way that Marco interpreted it.
Councilman Melcher: And that’s what I’m trying to say. So as far as I’m concerned then if Shopmeyer is correct they would be the lead person for any future….anything in the future.
Councilman Watts: And they called this a small project to use their words, so I think there will be additional monies there, they just wanted to see a commitment from us something like what’s (INAUDIBLE TALK OVER).
Councilman Melcher: And this has taken us a long time. We’ve had Evan Bayh working on it and Senator Lugar too. So we’ve come a long way in the last five or six years and I don’t want nothing slowing us down.
Councilman Bagbey: I think you’ve done an outstanding job on it Councilman.
President John: Councilman Angermeier.
Councilman Angermeier: Mr. Chairman. With the presence and your approval I’d like to talk about one other area that I’m being plagued with it. On Lincoln Avenue across from the school there was a cleaning establishment in there, and now they are being sited by the EPA, and I got all that information from them. But picture for one moment the man who did the leasing of the building and had a business in there and never owned the property, never owned the property, now they are being sited. And I’ve being told that they are working on it but the heirs of this estate now are being billed for something that they never owned for the bills that they inherited from their father. And as a consequence it’s a great concern. It was in the paper last week. And now I want to tell the Council Members just one quick moment. International Harvester had a place on Garvin, they vacated and moved out on Fares Avenue and a gasoline truck pulled in there one time and was hooking it up and in the absence the gasoline run all over the floor. And I believe the new owners that moved in there was called Gehlhausen. And they sited them except one thing. That the man who bought the building was not made aware that the ground was polluted from the gas problem from a truck. They made this owner pay for it, but the company that did the damage, International Harvester, who allowed that contamination of that soil, got home free. Now, I know when this hits the paper tomorrow my phone will be ringing. From a lady that I know and I think this Councilman has been contacted by. I’ve no objections. This play works out known for a lifetime. And the family that owned it, the man lived down the street and the son the grandson or now as I told you in Mexico as I understand it, but this will not cease tonight on this particular project. We’re going to have this kind of contamination many areas over so we might as well get used to it. If it’s going to be cleaned up maybe there’s a certain amount of liability on the part of the City Council to help improve it. I would not want my heirs of my estate to think that I’d neglected to do something somebody else would do it for me.
President John: There’s some State and Federal Laws that kind of dictate who has to pay for it. And in the absence of a responsible party I mean I think that’s where we are at. The stage we’re
at today is we can’t find that deep pocket to pay for the problem that’s been created there. And that’s why you are seeing the City step in. And I’m sure there will be other instances where that occurs. Hopefully, not very many but…..
Councilman Angermeier: I complement you Mr. Chairman because if my memory serves me right I think you were involved in this kind of a business for a while and you’re a professional at it.
President John: The clean up not the mess up.
Councilman Angermeier: Huh?
President John: The clean up not the messing it up.
Councilman Melcher: I move for a do-pass.
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilwoman Walden seconded the motion to approve this Resolution. Voice vote. Let the record reflect that Council unanimously approved Resolution C-2003- (with a number yet to be given by the Clerk).
President John: Miscellaneous business. I have one matter. I guess for the past couple of weeks I’ve been watching and listening to the Mayor on the TV and radio about saving money for the taxpayers by calling off the baseball stadium. And I noticed last week in the paper where he told the property owners that had been ordered to vacate the property by June 1st that since the plan was cancelled that they were to bear their own expenses since the project had been stopped. But then I look at what we are paying and we’re paying $110,000 to attorneys for a lease that we are not going to sign. We’re paying $80,000 to attorneys for opinions on bonds that we’re not going to issue. We’re paying $50,000 to attorneys for negotiating on property we are not going to buy. And we’re paying $850,000 to an architect for design of a stadium that we are not going to build. Now I don’t consider that saving taxpayers money. The Council’s not been involved with this from day one which hopefully in the future we will get some input on how we are spending our money. But I find it disturbing that we’re giving that message out. And I know it sounds very political and it probably is, but I find it disturbing that we’re making that claim that we’re saving money on the stadium. Councilman.
Councilman Kiefer: Mr. President. You know, I think one of the problems goes way back to the Redevelopment Commission. And I know that Councilman Melcher and Councilwoman Walden and I were at a Neighborhood Association where this very question came up about the City Council and the authority that we have. And I think there is a lot of confusion in the community about the role of the Redevelopment Commission. I know that last week you had said: “Well the State passed that law that allowed the Redevelopment Commission to be in place, and that the City Council at that time years ago, you know, gave, you know, allowed it to be in place”. The only opportunity we can do now is if we want to have all those bonds and everything that’s been issued then for the City Council to take on that. You know I don’t know what the solution is. I know Councilman Bagbey and I have both complained in the past about the roll of the Redevelopment Commission having the authority to spend those….that kind of money and like that. So, you know, unless the Council has some suggestion on how we could then not allow that Redevelopment Commission or take away that authority, you know, I think that the procedure
was followed as far as using…… I mean they were given their place through the State Legislature, and so…..
President John: And through this Council.
Councilman Kiefer: And through this Council, so I mean I guess we would have to step up to the plate and say: “Hey, you know, the Redevelopment Commission no longer has that authority”.
President John: The only way that we can do that under today’s statute, if I’m not mistaken, is to eliminate the Redevelopment Commission because it’s an either or, either you adopt the statute as is or you don’t have one. Now it’s my understanding that there are some legislators that are proposing setting limits on the authority and anything that exceeds that authority has to come in front of Council. But we still have to remember that the Redevelopment Commission is just the instrument carrying forward the direct…..
Councilman Kiefer: Right and I agree with you but I guess my point is this is an issue that goes way back. I know Councilman Melcher fought against what happened with the Victory Theatre where the then Mayor, you know, went ahead and pushed that project forward through the Redevelopment Commission. And when we go to these neighborhood meetings, I mean, we’re going to have to answer to the constituents that ultimately the Redevelopment Commission is authorized to do what they are doing unless we want to change it. I mean, and I don’t know if we can change it and say: “Hey, they can only recommend”, but as far as I understand that’s not the way it’s set up.
John Hamilton: No, I mean, the City can only adopt it pursuant to the State Statute and those powers are specified in that State Statute. So you either have it under that Statute or you don’t have it.
Councilman Kiefer: Or we don’t do any more…or we don’t allow the bonding. Once those bonds are paid off we just don’t reissue any new bonding…
John Hamilton: You can’t do that. I mean you would have to actually abolish the existence of the Commission.
Councilman Kiefer: And if we did that then we would be responsible then that would go on to…. The bonds would come on to the City Council then.
Councilman Melcher: It’s my understanding those bonds would be under the City. But they are still under the City. No matter….but it’s just a different entity. You know, in that same neighborhood meeting that we talked about the Park’s bonds, we talked about the sewer bonds. You know it’s all separated, but it’s still the City, they still use the tax basis.
Councilman Kiefer: Well, I mean, that’s just a problem we have to work around.
Councilman Melcher: That’s a question that’s going to come up at a lot of neighborhood’s is why don’t we vote it out, and why don’t we change the two people that are the City Council’s representatives? And there isn’t any answer for those unless we want to do that.
President John: Well, we have to realize that there are some good things come out of the Redevelopment Commission.
Councilman Melcher: That’s right.
President John: I think it’s a necessary body and maybe the answer is working with the Legislature controlling the limit of authority for them. Or getting them to amend amendments and maybe their action needs Council approval.
Councilman Kiefer: Right. Thank you.
Councilman Bagbey: The answer is home rule. Let the Council take the force and we decide, not the State Legislature.
President John: On the Redevelopment Commission we don’t have that authority.
Councilman Bagbey: The thing of it is, the answer is that you have the State to pass on home rule to the people who are elected. To the people that have to face those folks everyday, not hiding in Marion County. Not for our good old folks that go up there and fight against the people from central Indiana. That’s where I’m coming from.
President John: Councilman.
Councilman Kniese: I’d be curious to find out over the last ten-fifteen years how many projects that the City has spent a lot of time, energy, and effort, and money that when they absolutely knew that it was going to come in over budget, actually got stopped. For my own curiosity I don’t know the answer to that, but I’d like to know if that’s possible to find out how many of those projects that whether it be Council, Redevelopment Commission, whatever knew that based on the current information they received that it was going to come in over what they had budgeted for that particular project and how many of those actually got stopped. And how many of those actually went through and the taxpayer and the City end up paying much more than they anticipated. I’d like to know how many of those projects are out there. My guess is it’s very few if any. So I think there is some positives on what the Mayor has done. I think he stopped once he saw the final figures in on this project. He saw this was going to come in extremely over budget and we all know that’s just the starting point. If it’s three and a half million I guarantee you it’s going to probably blossom up to eight, ten, twelve million dollars. So, as I stated a week or so ago sometimes you have to spend money to make money. And sometimes you have to go through the process, spend time, effort, energy, resources to get to a point where you finally say: “I just don’t think this is going to work at this particular time because everything is coming in way more than we anticipated”. But to get to that point you have to spend some time, energy, and money. It’s all relative to the size of the project. You’ve been in private business as I have and it…you get to that point where you actually have to scrap some plans and you don’t like to do it. You spend a lot of your hard-earned money as the taxpayers question us. But I think what I’m trying to do is takes some positives out of this and look at what could happen down the road. We still own the bucket of information last I understood. I think we’re still going to have, you know, the Ripken Company come to Evansville and put on the team training camps if you will. So, you know, I’m trying to look at this as we can actually take some positives away from it. You know there are going to be some people questioning that, and they should. But at the same
time I think if we really look at the project from A-Z I think we’ll find out that this was something that made sense at this particular time, and once we knew the exact numbers that came in. And we did have a representative of this Council on one of those committees. So, you know, we had access to some information through that. I believe Councilwoman Robinson was on one of the study committee’s for the baseball stadium, so we had representation from this Council. It’s up to us as Council Members, or a representative, to relay that information to us. I went out and got the, I’m not on any of those committees, but I went out and ....seek the information myself to try and find out where we are at because I was getting the same questions a lot of people were. And so I did have we had representation here whether that information was disseminated back to us or not is another question.
President John: Well I had the similar questions but they were eight months ago and I said: “what if we go over budget?” And the response was: “I’ll pare back on the project”. I said: “Well what if your income that you’re projecting, you don’t hit those numbers?” “I’ll find other non-property tax revenue’s”. And it’s ironic that two weeks after a certain poll was taken that’s when we ran into all the problems and the project was scuttled after what’s amounting to maybe somewhere between 1.1 and 1.5 million dollars.
Councilman Kniese: Well again, you know, that’s…it’s all relative to the size of the project. So we can get into 1.1 million dollars whatever, that’s fine, but….
President John: That’s for right now.
Councilman Kniese: It’s all relative to the size of the project. But the way I understand it again, I’m not on that committee, the way I understood it though was, you know, recently they got the final numbers in on what the true costs were going to be. And then once that information was taken into consideration that’s when I’d heard they pulled the plug on the project.
President John: Councilman.
Councilman Melcher: Yeah, it’s kind of like the Gary project. It started out at $25,000,000 and their final numbers came in at $41. So your eight or nine million might have been more correct. The thing I guess I’d like Madam Clerk to find out because I never did hear about it and never got a fax on it. My understanding with the $10,000,000 that Aztar has given us, and this is kind of what was said the last day of the year between Christmas and New Year’s when they changed the contract. You know, that Aztar got to keep $10,000,000 and the other $10,000,000 was going to come as we need it, I guess. I thought they were going to give it to us. But there was going to be Capital Development Board. So I’d like to know when that board met, and who’s on the board, if there’s minutes from that meeting, if it was, because that board was going to decide how to spend the $10,000,000. And once they made that then as far as I understood Aztar would okay what that board said. And that’s the process I thought it was taking. I thought the Redevelopment Commission would say this is what they wanted. The board that was made up of five members, one of them was our representative, was going to say so that 1.1 million that Capital Board should have met on that. I want to know when they met.
Clerk Matlock: Who are they.
Councilman Bagbey: I don’t know who they are because I don’t know who our representative is. And maybe ours is not on there, maybe they just got four, and they decided to pay those bills and did the one, then they took that. That’s it, thank you.
President John: Any other Council Members have any? Councilman Bagbey.
Councilman Bagbey: Next week we will hear a Finance Ordinance F-2003-5 and I made a request to you through… to talk with the administration about the soccer program 3.4. Have you heard from the Administration?
President John: I’ve talked to the other party that you asked my too.
Councilman Bagbey: Okay. Have there been any dialogue from the Administration?
President John: I have not talked to them yet. It will be this week.
Councilman Bagbey: Thank you.
President John: Councilman.
Councilman Kiefer: Can you possibly give an update on your meeting earlier today with the neighborhood groups on the…..
President John: Be happy too. We had twenty some people there maybe, and we heard the pros and con’s of the proposed legislation in front of us. I think that there was a consensus that that may not be the direction we are going. We will be appointing a smaller sub-committee with apartment owners. The Neighborhood Associations, DMD, Building Commissioner, Member of Council to come up with something that they feel will work. I mean if the Code Enforcement itself doesn’t feel that what we’re presenting will be sufficient for them to do their job, my query to them is, “you tell us what we need to do for you to do your job, and we’ll do our job”. You know we need some direction on what is hindering their performance. And they named a number of things today, they named lack of personnel, they’ve got 2 ½ slots open that they don’t have people in, but that are funded because they can’t find qualified people. Lack of funding, lack of authority outside the focus area, because we are using DMD funds so they can’t go outside the peramiters of the use of those funds. The enforcement by the Housing Courts sometimes are slow or contradictory. So they have enforcement problems once they even get into Court. Notification is a problem of theirs. So all those are going to be discussed and hopefully they will come forward with some legislation that first will work, and second will be enforced.
Councilman Kiefer: That’s great.
Councilman Bagbey: So May 12th, what does it look like.
President John: It probably is a no go. Peggy said that she could probably have a rough draft December 1st. And we’re trying to put that on fast track to see if we can help maybe expedite that with input from those organizations that I just mentioned. Anything else from Members of Council? If not I’d entertain a motion to….
Councilman Kiefer: Mr. President one other thing.
President John: Councilman.
Councilman Kiefer: I just wanted to….I gave Alberta Matlock the notice for the public meetings for the Committee on the Consolidation Study. And I just want to let you know that they have requested from the County Commissioners to appoint three additional people to this Steering Committee and the County Commissioners have agreed to that. And then they also requested from the County Council to appoint five to the Steering Committee and they’ve agreed to that as well. So they will have a total of the nine from the City and eight from the County, total of seventeen members on that Steering Committee. And I want to update on that. But City Clerk has the notes I just gave her tonight that has all the meeting dates for public notice. Thank you.
President John: Do you have a timetable set on any kind of recommendations coming forward?
Councilman Kiefer: Yeah, the Steering Committee is looking at a one-year timetable, so it would go well into 2004 before they would have a recommendation.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRWOMAN ROBINSON:
President John: Thank you. Before we adjourn let me go through the Committee Reports.
Finance Chairman on the 28th has Ordinance F-2003-5, F-2003-6, F-2003-7 and C-2003-9.
ASD CHAIRMAN ANGERMEIER:
Nothing scheduled at this time.
PUBLIC WORKS CHAIRMAN BAGBEY:
May 12th, 2003-10 which I’ve been notified that may not go. And 2003-13, May 12th at 6:15.
President John: Thank you. With that I’d entertain a motion to adjourn.
ADJOURNMENT:
Councilman Bagbey moved and Councilman Kiefer seconded the motion to adjourn. Voice Vote. So Ordered. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
PRESIDING OFFICER
CITY CLERK