Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-09-15-97City of Carmel CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 - 7 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS / CITY HALL / ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEETING CALLED TO ORDER INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING CITIZENS/CITY EMPLOYEES a. Art Contest Winners for Carmel Arts Council's 1998 Calendar APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. August 25, 1997, Special Meeting b. September 2, 1997, Regular Meeting RECOGNITION OF CITIZENS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ACTION OF MAYORAL VETOES CLAIMS Payroll General Claims Retirement COMMITTEE REPORTS a. Carmel Clay Library. Update; Judy Edwards, Ph.D., Council's Appointment to the Library Board OLD BUSINESS a. Second Reading Ordinance D-1329-97/An Ordinance to Restrict the Use of Tobacco and Alcoholic Beverages in Public Places and on Public Property and to Provide for Parental Responsibility for Certain Unlawful Acts of Minors; Councilors Ron Carter and Billy Walker b. Second Reading Ordinance D-1330-97/Amendment to Chapter 8, Article 6, Section 8-59 of the Carmel City Code (Parking Restrictions near Carmel High School); Council President Kevin Kirby c. Second Reading Ordinance D-1331-97/Additional Appropriation for Purchase of a Back-Up Generator; General Fund, Carmel Clay Communications Center to Line Item 670.99-Other Equipment; $21,658; Jim Kinder,. Communications Center Director ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2400 CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 -- 7 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS / CITY HALL / ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Brainard; Council President Kevin Kirby, Councilors Robert Battreall, Norm Rundle, Luci Snyder, Ron Carter and Billy Walker. Clerk-Treasurer Diana Cordray and Deputy Clerk Rebecca Wolf also attended. Councilor Jim Miller was absent. Mayor Brainard called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Councilor Carter gave the invocation. Mayor Brainard led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Brainard asked if anyone was present from the Carmel Arts Council. No one was present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilor Battreall moved to approve the minutes from the August 25, 1997, special meeting and the September 2, 1997, regular meeting. Councilor Walker seconded. Councilor Rundle stated the September 2, 1997, minutes indicated the amount in the General Fund was cited at $22,354,873. Councilor Rundle stated there had been some confusion about withdrawing $3,599,413 from the Parks Department budget. He stated that in the confusion, councilors had stated that the amount ($3,599,413) still would remain in the General Fund. He read a statement from the mayor recorded in the September 2, 1997, minutes stating the total amount of the budget to be $28,095,512. Councilor Rundle stated that, in reality, the council had reduced the General Fund from about $22 million to about $18 million but that the correct numbers had been submitted to the state. Councilor Rundle stated the minutes accurately reflected the discussion that occurred at the meeting, but those discussions and the numbers mentioned in those discussions were not accurate. He asked if any corrections needed to be made to the minutes to show the General Fund was not around $22 million but about $18 million, making the total budget about $24 million. Mayor Brainard stated the Operating Balance of the General Fund had not been reduced. Councilor Rundle stated that the operating balance is not part of the General Fund and he was quoted correctly in the minutes as incorrectly stating that moving the parks money would not change the General Fund. Councilor Rundle stated that this previous statement was incorrect and that moving the money would reduce the G~neral Fund. Mayor Brainard stated that Councilor Rundle was correct and that the General Fund had been reduced, but the operating balance and tax levy had not been reduced. Councilor Rundle stated his concern was that even though the minutes were accurate, the recorded discussion was inaccurate. He asked if corrections were needed. Mayor Brainard said no corrections were needed to the minutes. Councilor Rundle clarified that the documents submitted to the state included the correct figures. Mayor Brainard stated the state budget forms had been submitted properly. Councilor Rundle stated that, regardless of the council's discussion, the tax levy had been established, and that there essentially was no change from a taxpayer standpoint. The minutes were a_nproved 6-0. RECOGNITION OF CITIZENS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: Mayor Brainard explained the council did not have any limits on the length of time speakers could address the council. He asked members of the public to voluntarily limit themselves to three to five minutes. Thomas Harleman, 11080 WilloWmem Drive, stated the class action suit still was in litigation regarding the Monon Trail. He handed the council transcripts of his discussion with Councilor Carter at the September 2, 1997, meeting and rebutted Councilor Carter's comments. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES: Mayor Brainard handed out copies of why he vetoed Ordinance D-1328-97. an ordinance adding Chapter 6. Article 4. Division II "Parades. Public Assemblies and Block Parties" to the Carmel City Code to council members and the clerk- treasurer. The mayor stated he believed the ordinance caused too much regulation. He stated he was having a new ordinance prepared that would cause less regulation, but hopefully still solve the safety and noise concerns expressed by the Carmel Clay Chamber of Commerce and others. Mayor Brainard stated he believed the rules required the council to vote on his failure to sign the ordinance. Councilor Kirby stated the procedure enabled the council an opportunity to override the mayor's veto. Councilor Kirby moved to override the veto and approve the ordinance. Councilor Battreall seconded. Councilors Kirby and Rundle discussed whether the vote was optional or required by law. Councilor Battreall, the ordinance's sponsor, explained that local merchants had asked him to try to strengthen the city code so they could have some protection from the conduct of groups gathering outside their businesses. He stated the ordinance was not created to impede the rights of any individual or group, but was written in accordance with ordinances in other cities. Councilor Battreall stated this ordinance was an attempt to protect the rights of business owners and their customers. He stated the ordinance was put together in the city's legal department and scrutinized by outside counsel before being presented the council. He stated that all parties involved believed the ordinance was constitutional and did not impede the guaranteed rights of individuals or groups. Mayor Brainard stated that everyone involved in the development of this ordinance was well- intentioned. He also stated that Carmel didn't want to be on the leading edge of constitutional law. The mayor read part of his written explanation for vetoing the ordinance (Exhibit A). Councilor Carter asked when the mayor planned to present a new ordinance dealing with the same issue to the council. Mayor Brainard stated the ordinance should be on the next agenda. Councilor Rundle commended the mayor, Michael Mountain and others, stating the system of checks and balances was effective in this instance. Councilor Walker stated he did not believe legitimate businesses should have to be harassed. Councilor Battreall stated the ordinance had been reviewed by inside and outside council, and he believed it was a good, solid law. Councilor Snyder agreed that businesses should not have to endure harassment and stated the city needed to guard against intrusion of the law. Councilor Carter also agreed businesses should be protected from harassment and stated that demonstrators also should have their constitutional rights protected. He stated he believed the ordinance could have stood, but would vote to sustain the mayor's veto. Councilor Carter stated he believed most Carmel residents were opposed to the demonstrations. Councilor Walker called for the question. The motion to override the mayor's veto on Ordinance D-1328 failed 1-5. Councilor Battreall voted in favor of overriding the veto. The mayor's veto on Ordinance D-1328-97 was sustained. Councilor Kirby stated he agreed with demonstrators' rights to express their views, but did not agree with demonstrators endangering themselves or others. He asked the mayor to present the new ordinance to the council as soon as possible. CLAIMS: Councilor Snyder moved to approve claims in the following amounts: $525,474.22, payroll; $574,225.83, general claims; and $37,583.85, retirement. Councilor Walker seconded. Claims were approved 6-0. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Judy Edwards, Ph.D., the council's appointment to the Carmel Clay Library Board, apologized to Clerk-Treasurer Cordray for not including her at the ground breaking ceremony. She answered questions from the council and left a videotape with the mayor about the new library. OLD BUSINESS: Mayor Brainard stated the Department of Law had prepared a second amendment to Ordinance D-1329-97. an ordinance restricting the use of tobacco and alcoholic beverages in public places and on public property_ and to provide for parental responsibility for certain unlawful acts of minors. Councilor Carter stated he was a co-sponsor of the ordinance and had not been made aware of any additional proposed amendments. Councilor Rundle stated he was concerned that the ordinance's sponsor was unaware of the proposed changes. Mayor Brainard stated the amendments were made to coincide with state law. Councilor Battreall stated he disagreed with the part of the ordinance which held parents responsible for their children's actions. Councilor Walker stated holding parents responsible was a good idea. Councilor Battreall disagreed and stated he believed the verbiage of the existing ordinance was adequate. Councilor Walker stated he was a co-sponsor of the ordinance and also was unaware of the proposed amendments. Mayor Brainard stated the changes were made after discussion with the prosecutor. Councilor Rundle moved to table the ordinance until the next meeting. Councilor Snyder seconded. Ordinance D-1329-97 was tabled 6-0. Councilor Kirby stated he wanted to amend Ordinance D-1330-97. an ordinance amending the Carmel City Code. Chanter 8. Article 6. Section 8-59 (Parking Restrictions near Carmel High School). He explained he wanted to make the following changes in section 1. (c): 'delete for any vehicle which is registered to an owner and replace it with to a person and delete owner of the vehicle and replace it with resident. Councilor Rundle stated that the paragraph Councilor Kirby wanted to amend did not address guests. Clerk-Treasurer Cordray asked Councilor Kirby about the changes to the second page of the ordinance her office had received earlier that day from the Department of Law. Councilor Kirby and Clerk-Treasurer Cordray discussed what changes had been made to the ordinance. Councilor Kirby suggested the council recess so the clerk-treasurer could make copies of the changes for all council members. Councilor Walker stated that no changes should be made to documents once councilors receive their packets. Councilor Carter stated the recess would enable the council to get the information it needed to discuss the ordinance. Councilor Carter moved to recess. Councilor Kirby seconded. Councilors Walker and Kirby discussed the current parking law and the changes the proposed ordinance would make to the law. The council voted 6-0 to take a brief recess. After several minutes, the council reeonvened. Councilor Kirby moved to amend section 1. (c) to read: The provisions of this section shall not apply to vehicles which properly display a resident vehicle sticker. Resident vehicle stickers shall be issued by the Carmel Police Department to a person who resides at an address which is located on any of the streets restricted by this section. Temporary resident vehicle stickers will be issued upon request for guests of residents. Permanent and temporary resident vehicle stickers shall be issued at no cost to the resident. Councilor Rundle seconded. The council approved the amendment 6-0. Councilor Walker stated that in order for residents not be inconvenienced, they should be allowed to pick up as many stickers as needed. Councilor Carter suggested getting input from residents who were in the audience. Mr. Finney, a resident on Beechmont Drive, stated he didn't need temporary parking tags. Jerry Hasker, also a resident on Beechmont Drive, stated he needed temporary tags because he had a short driveway. Councilor Battreall called for the question. Clerk-Treasurer Cordray asked for clarification of the amended ordinance. Mayor Brainard read Section C of the ordinance, as amended (see previous italics). Ordinance D-1330-97 was approved 6-0. Mayor Brainard called for the vote on Ordinance D-1331-97. an additional appropriation for $21.658 for a back-up generator for the Communications Center. (General Fund to Line Item 670.99. Other Equipment). The ordinance was approved 6-0. Mayor Brainard called for the vote on Ordinance D-1332-97. an additional a_npropriation for $37,400 from the General Fund to various line items in the Common Council budget. The ordinance was approved 6-0. LI HE N : Councilor Carter moved to introduce Ordinance D-1333-97. an additional appropriation for Carmel Police Department training ($4.500 from the Law Enforcement Contimfing Education Fund to Line Item 570-Training Fees). Councilor Walker seconded. Mayor Brainard opened the public heating at 8:28 p.m. Seeing no one from the public who wished to comment, he closed the public heating at the same time. Councilor Carter asked if the appropriation would cover travel expenses. Chief Michael Fogarty stated those expenses were covered in a different line item. Chief Fogarty explained the appropriation was to pay for several unbudgeted training sessions and that the money being appropriated was not tax dollars, but money collected from fines levied in the court system. Ordinance D-1333-97 was.carried over to the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Mayor Brainard read Resolution CC-09-15-97-01. a resolution directing the plan commission to make a change to the zoning ordinance regarding indoor theaters. Councilor Kirby moved to introduce the resolution and waive the reading. Councilor Snyder seconded. Resolution CC-09-15-97-01 was approved 6-0. ~: Councilor Kirby stated that Resolution CC-09-15-97-02. transfer of funds up to $14.300 from Line Item #4.C (Ca~nital Outlay - Improvements Other than Buildings) to various line items, was to fund the Park Department's new office. Councilor Battreall moved to add the item to the agenda. Councilor Carter seconded. The item was added to the agenda 6-0. Resolution CC-09-15-97-02 was approved 6-0. Councilor Kirby stated a false rumor had been spread that councilors had forced the Park Department out of city hall so councilors could use the department's office. He reiterated this was not the case. Judy Hagan, Carmel Clay Park Board president, thanked Councilor Snyder for helping the department find its new office in Kirby Office Park, 3rd Avenue SW. Councilor Kirby told the council about a request from the newly developing Regional Transit Authority to participate in the authority. Several councilors stated they were not impressed with the lack of voting power Cannel would have in contrast to the amount of money the city was asked to give. The council recessed to sign documents at about 8:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at about 8:50 p.m. TO: Common Council of the City of Carmel DATE: September 15, 1997 RE: Parades, Public Assemblies and Block Parties, Ordinance No. D-1328-97 The purpose of this ordinance is twofold. First, the city wishes to make certain that public assemblies, demonstrations and gatherings are conducted in a safe manner. The city wishes to ensure that pedestrians, vehicular traffic and others who wish to assemble, for whatever purpose, are safe. This concern is a result of demonstrations and other gatherings that sometimes take place along busy, well-traveled highways in our city. Specifically, there has been a series of demonstrations where young demonstrators on protesting on a sidewalk within a few inches of a five-lane road. These same protesters sometimes carry signs which obstruct the sight of drivers, including many elderly drivers, turning into a five lane street from a private business. The police department is leg/timately concerned about the safety of all present. Secondly, the city wishes to have rules limiting the electronic amplification of sound at a public gathering or demonstration. There have been instances where the sound of protesters has been amplified to such an extent by electronic megaphones that complaints have been received from businesses some distance from the site of the protest. Complaints have also been reported from motorists who are startled by the demonstration so close to a major street. The reasons for this ordinance are well-motivated and it is a well-intentioned attempt by city government to ensure that its citizens and guests are safe and commerce is not interrupted. The individuals that prepared this ordinance drew upon the ordinance,s of other cities for most of its provisions. The end result o;fthis effort, however, is too much government regulation of individual behavior. Even though the intent of this ordinance was to ensure safety and orderly commerce, this type of regulation has, many times in the history of the world, been used to control the content of what can be said. Unscrupulous regulators and officials could use an ordinance such as this to discourage unpopular political views and dissemination of those opinions through a public demonstration. Particularly onerous in the present proposal were the detailed limitations on the size of signs and the charging of a fee before engaging in a public assembly. Since King John I agreed to the demands of his English nobles on the fields of Runnymede in June of 1215, in what became known as the Magna Charta, our tradition of liberty has protected public protest and assembly. We may not agree with the message of the particular protest but must protect the rights of the unpopular minority from the preferences of the majority. These are the principles upon which our government was founded and which are protected by the First Amendment to our federal Constitution, in 1791. The City of Carmel does need to improve upon its ordinances to insure the safety of those engaging in or near the site of a public assembly, in particular those that are carried on next to a busy street. The city further needs to issue reasonable regulations concerning the electronic amplification of sound so that it does not interfere with businesses blocks away from the site of the protest. However, the city must be careful to balance the needed changes in our laws against the rights of our citizens and draf~ this ordinance in such a way that there is a minimum of government interference. I am ret~uing this ordinance to the council, unsigned.