The sale of $13.5 million in bonds to pay for improvements to Huntington's wastewater treatment system, along with a 20 percent increase in sewage fees for city residents, sailed through the Huntington Common Council on Tuesday, March 9.
A proposal to regulate the size and location of signs throughout the city, however, proved more contentious. The ordinance - the result of a year's work by the Huntington Plan Commission - was characterized as "anti-business" and excessive government control by some of the speakers at an hour-long public hearing, and was eventually rejected by council on a 6-1 vote.
Many of the council members said they plan to attend the March 18 meeting of the plan commission to discuss the future of the proposal, which may not be dead despite its rejection by council.
City Attorney John Branham explained that the plan commission has several options: accept the council's decision, return the ordinance to council unchanged to be reconsidered or revise the ordinance and return the new version to city council. The plan commission is required to take action within 45 days, Branham said.
A public hearing prior to the council's meeting drew comments from a half-dozen people, including Mark Wickersham, executive director of Huntington County United Economic Development, who suggested tweaking the limits placed on signs at industries. Wickersham asked that directional signs bearing the company's logo be exempt from the limits, noting that those signs are a safety measure and are invaluable to out-of-town drivers trying to find a specific industry.
The proposed new sign ordinance would replace one that has been in existence, and unenforced, for many years.
"The plan commission believes it (the existing ordinance) is inadequate and unfair," said Bryn Keplinger, assistant director of the county-wide Department of Community Development.
Darlene Stanley, who with her husband owns and operates a chain of convenience stores in Huntington, agreed.
"The old one is much worse," Stanley said. "This one is very burdensome and overbearing, but the old one was worse."
"There's a lot of basically anti-business stuff in here," said Huntington resident Seth Anderson. "If you're a business in Huntington, you should be able to make your business a sign if you want to."
The length of the ordinance bothered Huntington resident Joe Gamrat.
"I'm not sure a city the size of Huntington needs 35 or so pages of rules," he told the council.
Keplinger explained the ordinance's length by noting that there are different rules for each zoning district - residential, agricultural, business, etc.
Cindy Gamrat, also a Huntington resident, said the ordinance "infringes on freedom of speech and expression of religion."
Keplinger said the ordinance regulates only size and placement, not content. A provision prohibiting "obscene, indecent and immoral" content on signs is included in the ordinance, but Branham said that section is essentially unenforceable because there is no objective definition of obscene, indecent or immoral content.
Councilman Brooks Fetters said the scope of the ordinance was too large to be decided in one evening.
"I've got notes on every page," he told fellow council members as a discussion of the proposal began. "I'd be happy to occupy as much time as anybody would give me."
"I would like to see the verbage reduced considerably," said Councilman Jack Slusser, who, in the end, was the only councilman to vote in favor of approving the ordinance.
"I think this needs to be reworked completely," Councilman Joe Blomeke added.
"It's seemingly unenforceable and incredibly intrusive," Fetters said. "It just is an overwhelming document."
The complete sign ordinance can be read online at www.huntington.in.us/city/department/?fDD=6-0. Click on "Ordinance 4-C-10" under the "Related Pages" heading.
In other business:
• A public hearing on a proposed 20 percent increase in sewage fees for city residents drew no comments from the public. Council passed the ordinance on first reading on a 6-1 vote, with Steve McIntyre dissenting.
The rate increase must be approved on second reading before it becomes effective. It is scheduled to be presented to council a second time during the panel's March 30 meeting, to be held at 6:45 a.m. in the City Building.
The resolution to issue up to $13.5 million in bonds to pay for improvements to the wastewater treatment system was approved unanimously.
• A resolution regarding longevity pay for city employees failed on a 7-0 vote. The resolution would have changed the way longevity pay is figured when there are 27 bi-weekly pays in a year instead of the normal 26, a situation that occurs every 11 years.
