Laserfiche WebLink
413 <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />A regular meeting of the Board of Public <br />9:40 a.m., on Monday, April 28, 1980, by <br />McMahon, with Mr. McMahon, Mr. Richard L. <br />E. Kernan present. Deputy City Attorney <br />also present. <br />MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING APPROVED <br />APRIL 28. 1980 <br />Works was convened at <br />President Patrick M. <br />Hill and Mr. Joseph <br />Terry A. Crone was <br />Upon a motion made by Mr. Kernan, seconded by Mr. McMahon and <br />carried, the minutes of the April 21, 1980, meeting of the Board <br />were approved as submitted. <br />AGENDA ITEM ADDED <br />Mr. McMahon stated that the Board would consider the extension of <br />the consulting agreement with Thomas J. Brunner, Jr. for services <br />performed relating to the First Bank Center and Century Mall projects, <br />after approval of the traffic control devices. <br />PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL - VACATION RESOLUTION NO. 3487, <br />1980 (FIRST EAST -WEST ALLEY NORTH OF WESTERN AVENUE) <br />This being the date set, hearing was held on the Assessment Roll <br />with respect to Vacation Resolution No. 3487, 1980 for the vacation <br />of the first east -west alley north of Western Avenue, running west <br />from Illinois Street to the east line.of the intersection of the <br />north -south alley for a distance of 129 feet (in LaSalle Park, <br />2nd Sub.). The Clerk tendered proofs of publication of notice <br />in the South Bend Tribune and the Tri- County News which were <br />found to be sufficient. The Assessment Roll lists $0.00 net <br />benefits and $0.00 net damages to abutting property. No remonstra- <br />tors were present and no written remonstrances were filed with <br />the Board. Upon a motion made by Mr. McMahon, seconded by Mr. <br />Hill and carried, the Assessment Roll was approved and said resolu- <br />tion is in all things ratified and confirmed and said proceedings <br />closed. <br />HEARING- DENIAL OF TAXI LICENSES (STEVE PAUL BOTKA <br />AND DONALD E. OVERBAY) <br />The Board had received the applications of Steve Paul Botka, 55152 <br />Melrose, South Bend, Indiana, and Donald E. Overbay, 23819 West <br />Edison Road, South Bend, Indiana, for taxi cab licenses, and had, <br />at its meeting on March 24, 1980, denied the applications upon <br />the recommendation of City Controller Joseph E. Kernan. Mr. Botka <br />and Mr. Overbay had both been advised of the Board's decision and <br />of their rights for a hearing on the matter. A hearing had <br />originally been scheduled on March 31, 1980, however, Mr. Botka <br />and Mr. Overbay had not been present and had requested another <br />hearing date. Mr. McMahon turned the hearings over to Mr. Crone <br />who advised Mr. Botka that the Police Department had recommended <br />denial of his application and the Controller had concurred in that <br />denial based upon a history of arrests and convictions. He asked <br />Mr. Botka to explain the circumstances surrounding his conviction <br />of larceny in August, 1971. Mr. Botka explained that he had been <br />fined $15 and had pleaded guilty to the charge. He stated that he <br />was employed by Kreamo Bakery and was told that employees received <br />free loaves of bread. One night after hours, the delivery truck <br />had been parked outside the bakery and he took a loaf of bread. He <br />stated that he pleaded guilty to the charge because he felt he <br />would encounter less of a hassle. Mr. Crone stated that in March, <br />1975, Mr. Botka had been arrested for public intoxication. He <br />asked Mr. Botka to explain the charge. Mr. Botka stated that he <br />did not feel he was guilty as charged. He had been involved in <br />an argument with a couple of his friends and had been asked to <br />leave by the owner of the premises. He had objected and was <br />arrested, and he stated that he also pleaded guilty to the charge. <br />Mr. Crone asked about the conviction of assault and battery and <br />malicious mischief in February, 1980. Mr. Botka explained that <br />the incident was a result of child visitation rights and was a <br />confrontation with his ex -wife. He explained that he had objected <br />to the way.his ex -wife had been treating his son and he had tried <br />to talk with her on several occasions and she had refused to talk <br />