When the Mayor's Away...

It didn't compare to the days of yesteryear, but the City Council put on one of its better shows to date on Thursday night.

In one instance, a divided council failed to settle a zoning matter of some importance, with the excuse given that the deadline for action remains more than 30 days off.

In another, the council declined to take up a $5,000 tax abatement for a regional company that is currently paying more than $10,000 in income taxes to Jeffersontown, Ky. and far more than $10,000 to Metro Louisville. This from a company with 100 employees (at least a fifth of whom are Floyd County residents) that promises to increase its payroll by another 20. Good jobs? It's reasonable to assume that these new employees alone would make at least $50,000 a year. Oh, and all they want is a $5,000 first-year abatement of taxes on an industrial park building that has been vacant for at least five years.

The most intriguing legislative action of the evening was the unanimous rubber-stamping of a Floyd County ordinance raising the annual restaurant permit fee. Even the smallest food service establishment (something like the breakfast bar at the Hampton Inn) would now be required to pay $125 each year to remain in business. Inspections that result in violations and that require repeat visits could cause those small establishments to be "fined" half of that again.

Consulting the 2002 economic census data, New Albany has about 140 establishments that you would ordinarily consider to be subject to health department food regulation. Restaurants, bars, convenience stores, groceries, bars, bakeries, confectionaries and ice cream shops that you and I would all want to be inspected. Then, of course, the Health Department has to guard us against food poisoning at fall's Harvest Homecoming! and similar temporary vending opportunities.

Like you, I suspect, I wondered why in the world the city council would even be addressing an ordinance regulating food services when it is a Floyd County Health Department function. A cursory investigation indicates that within the incorporated limits of New Albany, the city has exclusive and dominant jurisdiction unless it explicitly delegates it to the county. I can't verify that, but I have no reason to doubt that.

The city council rapidly ratified the county's new ordinance - unanimously and without debate. The Pride of the 3rd District indicated his wish that restaurant inspection fees be used to fund city mosquito abatement efforts. The health department majordomo replied that he wanted the city to pay for same. D4 added his two cents, making it clear that he wasn't going to be happy if the county health department didn't do something in his home district, and soon.

Shadow5's question is this: What in tarnation do restaurant permit fees have to do with skeeter abatement?

But more seriously, how does the health department justify imposing a minimum $125 annual fee for restaurant inspections. Fees should have a rational basis to the cost of the service rendered, a service rendered primarily to the public, but also to the dining establishments.

What I can't figure out is the rationality of this fee increase. Combined with a recent sales tax increase that is decimating our local economy, not to mention a property tax "relief" program that dumps the cost of government onto businesses at a ratio of three to one, it seems clear that Indiana, Floyd County, and New Albany are bound and determined to drive business away, making New Albany nothing more than a bedroom for a vital and growing Louisville.

If you guys want that, keep supporting current policies. Then see how easy it is to fight crime, pave the streets, and pick up the garbage on residential taxes alone. Spend your consumer taxes across the river, 'cuz the Mitch Daniels program is explicitly one that says to businesses, "Go away!"

Mr. Robert Caesar, tyro council member representing the 2nd District, had his finest moment in espousing his reasons for opposing the wrecking of the existing zoning along the light-industrial zone north of Mt. Tabor Road. His logical stance for maintaining the integrity of that zone, supported by the negative recommendation of the Plan Commission, carried the day, although a third reading on approval/denial of a PUD district remains on the docket.

THIS is what's so great about watching the sausage-making that is city government. Jack Messer (CM At-Large), a man for whom we have the greatest respect, has judged the current zoning to be unreasonable. Mr. Caesar, for whom we have held great hopes, believes otherwise. Dan Coffey, with whom we can reliably be counted on to disagree, actually deferred to the strong recommendation of city staff in voting to deny the rezoning. And D5, Diane McCartin-Benedetti, citing no rationale, said throw the zoning to the wind and let a struggling pawn shop set up on a backwater road a few hundred feet from appropriate commercially zoned land.

Mr. Price, the suspect D3, chairs the council committee on tax abatements (quelle surprise) and is blocking the tax abatement for "vacant" building purchases recently authorized by Indiana statute. Having learned that givebacks were legal, he instructed Deputy Mayor Carl Malysz to develop a full-blown program for "voluntary" contributions in exchange for abatements before the next council meeting (May 8? May 12?).

Mr. Malysz, as diplomatically as he could, said it was his greatest hope that such a feat were possible, and, dejectedly, sat down.

Will greed derail the recruitment of the employer of 100+ tradespeople?

The One-Member Veto

Several items from Monday's New Albany city council meeting deserve analysis. Yes, it was a short and relatively uncontroversial agenda (with one exception) and yes, it's still early in this council's tenure.

But it is becoming apparent that the paranoid style in American politics is taking its toll on the council. It's being used as a cudgel by the most experienced member, and it's swaying the votes of the least experienced.

For tonight, though, let's address just one tiny moment from that evening.

Pat McLaughlin, the representative for the old 4th District, was handed the duty of presenting an ordinance to grant L&D Mail Masters a tax abatement. It turns out that this particular type of abatement is authorized by new legislation and perhaps marks a first impression in New Albany.

Mr. Mac quashed the measure, stating that he wanted more time to learn about tax abatements. This has been the habit of past councils - to allow the nominal "sponsor" to defer or table discussion and debate, even if the only reason for it is that the presenting member doesn't understand what's going on.

Now, one could make the case that a member shouldn't let a vote proceed until he or she fully understands what is being considered. But why should the "sponsor" be allowed to, in essence, pocket an agendaed item.

"Sponsorship," as it is practiced twice a month in the third floor assembly room at Hauss Square, is a bit of a sham. The council president assigns these proposed ordinances and resolutions. The "sponsor" has little say in this. This practice offers up such anomalies as 3D Steve Price presenting dramatically progressive proposals and then arguing vigorously against them. It creates bizarro situations where members will simply refuse to bring an item forward for discussion. And finally, it can allow the most ill-prepared or inappropriate member to perform a pocket veto on a measure.

Yes, some tabled agenda items return to council. But in many cases (ordinance enforcement, for example), a hostile member designated as the nominal sponsor can bottle up legislation indefinitely.

Procedurally, this is ridiculous. If the council president can't find at least one member willing to present an item, why should it even appear on the agenda?

From time to time, the administration will put forward a piece of proposed legislation, only to discover that a hostile council will refuse to take it up.

Let's imagine a scenario sometime in the next four years. The board of directors of the city's sewer utility determines a need for a rate increase. Such a development wouldn't ordinarily be considered inimical to the city. Prices rise every year on everything. Gradual rate increases are easier to deal with than massive once-a-decade increases.

So in this scenario, imagine Jeff Gahan naming Steve Price as the sponsor of the ordinance approving such a rate hike. Can Price, who's committed to drowning all government services in the bathtub, simply table the ordinance. It seems he can.

We've yet to see a member call for a vote on these measures to "table" an ordinance. We've yet to see a member ask for a vote to overrule the ruling of the chair.

Do New Albany's ordinances and council procedures actually permit a single member to bottle up legislation because he or she is unprepared, confused, or opposed to a measure?