Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-08-16-82 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 16, 1982 The Meeting cf the City Council was called to order by Mayor Reiman at 7:30 P.M. on August 16, 1982. Council members Kerr, Garretson, McMullen, Fleming, Shepherd and Walker were present. Also present was City Attorney, Dave Coots, and Clerk-Treasurer, Dorothy J. Hancock. Invocation was given by Billy Walker followed by the Pledge of Allegience. Mayor Reiman presented Jim Freed of Clyde E. Williams with a key to the City for his work on the Rangeline Road project. Mr. Freed filled in as City Engineer on the project during Mr. Welch's illness. Mrs. Kerr made a motion to approve the minutes of August 2, 5 and 9 as presented. Motion seconded by Mr. Fleming and passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Ordinance S-43 - Sewer Rate Ordinance - Public Hearing - Mr. Roger Umbaugh, fiscal consultant, briefly reviewed the proposed rate change and its impact. Mayor Reiman opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no comment from the public, the hearing was closed. Mr. Garretson made a call for the question and Ordinance S-43 passed unanimously. Ordinance D-341 - Ordinance to Establish Promotional Acccunt and to Provide for the Payment of Membership Dues to Organizations - Mrs. Kerr expressed her concern for the wording cf the ordinance stating she felt that in a time of tight money giving a Mayor a "carte blanc" with promotional funds was unwise. Vote was taken on Ordinance D-341 which passed 4-2, Kerr and Shepherd voting nay. Ordinance D-342 - Ordinance to Provide for the Payment of Membership Dues to Organizations - Mrs. Kerr stated she felt the same about this ordinance as she did Ordinance D-341 in that there were no restrictions or controls on how the money was spent. Vote was taken on Ordinance D- 342 which passed 4-2, Kerr and Shepherd voting nay. Mr. Johns~n arrived at this point. Discussion on Salary Ordinances - Mr. Walker made a motion to add the police salary committee to the agenda at this point. Motion seconded by Mr. Garretson and passed unanimously. Cpt. Don Allen and Sgt. Steve Overly read a letter to the Council expressing the Yiews of the policy salary committee regarding the salary ordinallce for 1933 salaries. (Copy attached). Council discussion ensued with Mrs. Kerr stating she supported a straight across-the-board salary increase. Mr. Johnson stated he was not convinced that there was not more money there to be distributed in wages and Mr. Shepherd stated that according to the comparison prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer the 5% would mean more money for more people and he would support the 5% across-the-board. Vote was taken on the motion made at the AugusAt meeting to amend the salary ordinances to provide for a straight 5% across-the-board increase. Motion failed 3-4, McMullen, Walker, Fleming and Garretson voting nay. Mrs. Kerr made a motion to amend the salary ordinance to 4.5% across- the-board. Motion dies for lack of a second. The meeting recessed at 9:05 P.M. and reconvened at 9:15 P.M. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing on Budget Ordinances (a) Ordinance D-343 General Budget - Mr. Johnson made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-343 General Fund Budget and dispense with the reading of same. Motion seconded by Mr. Walker. Mayor Reiman opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no comment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson stated he was opposed to the stipend for members of the Plan Commission, BZA and EDC. Mrs. Nyla Johnson, 317 Concord Place, stated she did a lot of volunteer work and would be insulted if someone offered her money for her volunteer time. (b) Ordinance D-344 MVH Budget - Mr. Johnson made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-344 MVH Budget and suspend the reading of same. Motion seconded by Mr. Walker. Mayor Reiman opened the meeting for public hearing on Ordinance D-344. There being no comment from the public, the hearing was closed. (c) Ordinance D-345 Bond Redemption Budqet - Mr. Garretson made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-345 and suspend the reading of same. Motion seconded by Mr. Fleming. Mayor Reiman opened the meeting for public hearing on Ordinance D-345. There being no comment, the hearing was closed. (d) Ordinance D-346 - EDC Budget - Mr. Garretson made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-346 and suspend the reading of same. Motion seconded by Mr. Fleming. Mayor Reiman opened the meeting for public hearing on Ordinance D-346. There being no comment the hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson stated he was opposed to the stipend for EDC members who serve as volunteers. Inducement Resolution 8-16-82-2 - Indiana Farmers Mutual - Mr. Shepherd made a motion to introduce Resolution 8-16-82-2. Motion seconded by Mr. Walker. Mr. Johnson made a motion to suspend reading of same. Motion seconded by Mr. Shepherd and passed unanimously. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Harper from Indiana Farmers Mutual appeared before the Council and described the addition to the building at 106th and Meridian. Vote was taken on Resolution 8-16-82-2 which passed unanimously. Ordinance D-347 - EDC Bond Ordinance for Carmel Care Center - Mr. Garretson made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-347 and suspend the reading of same. Motion seconded by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Smith and Mr. Langston, owners of Carmel Care Center were present as was Mr. Jim Crawford, their attorney, who explained the expansion project. Mr. Garretson made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance D-347 this evening. Motion seconded by Mr. Shepherd and passed unanimously. Vote was taken on Ordinance D-347 which passed unanimously. 3-Way Stop at 116th Street and Lakeshore Drive, East - The Council was in receipt of a letter from Mrs. Mary Lou Thatcher requesting a possible 3-way stop at the corner of 116th Street and Lakeshore Drive, East. The City Engineer and Police Chief had prepared written reports on the traffic situation at that intersection. Following discussion by the Council and perusal of the reports, it was the consensus of the Council that the inter section should remain as it is now. Registered Cities Resolution 8-16-82-1 - Mr. Walker made a motion to adopt Resolution 8-16-82-1 and suspend tihe reading of same. Motion seconded by Mrs. McMullen and passed unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 16, 1982 PAGE 3 OTHER BUSINESS Mrs. Kerr requested that the time of the meetings appear on the agendas and that memos be signed. Mrs. Hancock reminded the Council that the special meeting on August 23 would begin at 6:00 P.M. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the same was duly adjourned at 9:55 P.M. APPROVED: ATTEST: August 13, 1982 During the past few weeks, you have discussed at length the budget proposals and wage increases. Many of the questions raised and suggestions made have been right on target. Along with the charts I am enclosing for your information, I also have some thoughts on the City's finances. For the last two and one-half years I have spent a great deal of time "getting educated". I have attended with regularity Clerk-Treasurer Seminars, work meetings, IACT meetings and State Board of Account schools. I have done extensive reading of materials published by the State Board of Accounts, State Board of Tax Commissioners and IACT to mention a few. I have strived to bring intelligent professionalism to this position of Clerk-Treasurer. The City of Carmel has enjoyed a rather substantial grown which, from all indications and available information, is tapering off. We simply will not continue to grow as we have in the past and we can expect to see the money we receive from year to year stay substantially the same with no big increases. Other c;ties have seen the revenue remain the same and at the same time watched expenses soar and the need for employee wage increases rise. Carmel will be seeing that happen and there seems to be no relief in sight. We have to look at the reality of the end of Revenue Sharing. Governmental units who have used this money for operating expenses are only going to hurt more. Carmel has indeed been fortunate not to have felt this crunch to date but we do not live in a utopia. Last year's budget was cut from the year before - the fat trimmed away. There will be less left at the end of this year. The 1983 budget has had only tne increases that were necessary for utilities. Everything else has stayed basically the same. Our real costs, however, have not stayed the same. They too have gone up but we have not allowed extra to cover those increases. That means we will simply have to make do with less. There will be even less (if anything) left at the end of 1983. According to IACT surveys, Carmel wages are above average. The formula for wages is not an original idea, it has been used successfully for some time in other munici palities. The first year I was in office we had one garnishment. Now it is a common occurrence. The man at the bottom is struggling, not through his own doing - it just keeps getting harder to manage. The difference between a straight 5% and the formula may be a small amount, but the formula is a start in the right direction. The straight August 13, 1982 Page Two 5% diminishes the lower end slightly but increases the higher end significantly. This changes next year's base and all the bases to come with the employee at the top continuing to enjoy large increases and the employee at the lower end barely seeing a difference. The wage increases are fair and, in my opinion, the best the City can do at this point. For many municipalities an operating balance is a thing of the past. The money has, out of necessity, gone into current needs and wages. Unless the legislature does something soon to relieve this situation, Carmel also will feel the crunch as they never have. It's time we took a good hard look at the road ahead. We no lonqer can afford the luxury of living for today and not looking on down the road. Municipal finance is a complicated matter and must be delt with realistically, professionally and with true concern for those who live in this community. However you distribute the wage money, let's not compromise Carmells tomorrows by increasing budget appropriations which have already been carefully thought out. I am always willing to answer questions and work with you in any way possible toward the continuation of sound fiscal policy for the City of Carmel. Sincerely, The Clerk-Treasurer ****SEE MAPS WITH ORIGINALS**** August 11, 1982 To: Council Members Mayor Reiman From: Dottie Hancock Attached find salary ordinance as passed with the 5% figures and the plus or minus dollar amount per your request. The Police and Fire figures are at the bottom of the regular ordinance The 5% across-the-board would show a dollar figure increase as follows: Increase in wages 11,306 Social Security 760 Police & Fire Additional PERF 822 Additional Regular PERF 170 13,058 Increases passed 8l9/82 4,269 Total increase in budget 17,327 ORDINANCE D-340 SALARY ORDINACE FOR 1983 SALARIES WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana desires to set the salaries for employees of the City of Carmel, other than the Police and Fire Departments, to be paid during the year 1983. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, to wit: That the salaries for employees of the City of Carmel, other than the Plice and Fire Departments, to be paid during the year 1982, are as follows: ***SEE ORIGINALS FOR SALARY INFORMATION*** BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an employee must have been in the full employ of the City of Carmel a minimum of six months during a year to receive a year's credit on longevity remuneration which shall be added to their above salaries on an individual basis at a rate of $150.00 per year up to twenty years. Dated this 2nd day of August, 1982. To : Carmel City Council Members From: Carmel Police Salary Committee Re : Clarification on 1982 Salary Issues (Copies to be provided to Chief Lowe, Mayor Reiman, and members of the press) We, the members of the salary committee wish to clarify a number of points which have arisen during this year's salary talks. 1. The letter from the staff of the Police Department to the Council disagreeing with the formula for 1983 salary increases does not merely reflect the opinion of five members; it was reviewed and strongly supported by the reminder of the department. We, too, feel the 2% plus $400 is socialistic and unfair to those of us who were selected for our positions because of advanced educational and other qualifications. A straight, across-the-board percentage increase is the only fair way to raise salaries without basing increases on merit. 2. The city's increase in contribution to our insurance plan is matched by a like percent increase in the amount the employee contributes. The net result is a decrease in the amount of cash taken home. 3. With regard to the amount the city pays to the Public Employees Retirement Fund for Police and Firemen, neither we nor the council can change that. It is established by State Law. Our salaries should not be penalized because of statutory mandates. 4. There are very good reasons why thereA~ere no employees present at the previous Council meetings to protest the proposed increases. A. We were advised not to go to the July 26 meeting by Captain Steve Babb who was acting Chief at that time. He told us that at the Department Heads Meeting he had been told that there would be no need for employees to come since the July 26 meeting was just to expose the Department heads to the proposed formula. The idea was that the Department heads could then go back to their people for discussion on the issue. Then, in the absence of any employees to object, the council attempted to get the proposal passed in one meeting on July 26. There was no opportunity for Department headsito explain the formula or for the employees to respond. 4.B. Secondly, on the night of the August 2 meeting, all on-duty and nearly all off-duty police personnel, were participating in the Northside Drive-In raid and could not attend. So, the contention by at least two council members that our absence indicated agreement with the proposal, is totally incorrect. 5. With regard to the mayor's comment that the police "are never happy...they've got their hand out every day", we strongly resent that statement. The requests made at budget time for more personnel, more equipment, more dependable cars, more training, are not intended to improve the personal lives of the men and women of the Carmel Police Department. Those requests are designed to provide better service, quicker response time, and increased patrol time to the residents of this community. There is no selfishness there. We do expect decent salary increases and, therefore have our hands out like other employees one time each year. We believe the citizens of Carmel expect to be served by the best educated, best trained, best equipped department anywhere. We cannot l~eep people of that caliber, or recruit new people with those qualifications, unless we maintain an attractive salary and benefits package. Our attrition rate reflects our inability to keep the people on whom we have spent thousands of dollars and man-hours hiring and training. No city in the area is better able to pay for quality service than Carmel. 6. The comparison of Carmel Police to other police agencies in the Stephen Key article made very light mention of the fact that officers from patrolman through chief have take-home cars in Noblesville, Fishers, Westfield, State Police, and the Sheriff's Department. That car is worth at le~st $3000 annually as a benefit to the individual officer. The pay gap is not nearly so severe when all the facts are in. 7. We agree with Councilman Johnson's contention that too much money is left each year in surplus. Every year at budget time we are told that the city has no more money for salaries. Then, every year, the city ends up with a sizeable surplus which gets spent on items other that salaries. 8. Prior to the initial budget talks, Chief Lowe and Captain Babb told us up front that they were not going in to ask for much in the way of increases. They felt that, for our safety, and for the safety of the City, that what we really, desperately needed is additional manpower and replacement of some very dilapidated cars. They were then told in preliminary operating budget talks that there would be no additional people and only three replacement cars in 1983. The reasoning was that we could then give sizeable raises in salaries. The end result was no new people, fewer replacement cars than needed, and a salary increase of about half of last year's. Your life and the lives of the officers who serve you, depends on an outdated fleet of vehicles, your half of which have more than 70,000 miles--three have over 90,000 and one is over 100,000 miles! Your safety also depends on a manpower level in the police department which has not increased since this administration took over in a city which has greatly increased in patrol area. If the crime rate in Carmel is on the increase and the response time by police is slower; or, if you call the P.D. only to find out that we do not have the manpower or equipment to serve your needs or investigate your complaint, don't blame us. We keep asking for more people and equipment to better serve you. What we receive instead is criticisim. Respectfully submitted by the l982 Salary Committee. S ephen M. Overly Donald W. Allen