My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-28-11 Common Council Meeting Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2011
>
03-28-11 Common Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/14/2011 9:47:40 AM
Creation date
4/14/2011 9:47:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2011 <br /> not less than 20%. Mr. Gilot stated that they would be tickled to death if that number <br /> could be 50 or 70 percent. But when that number gets in that range it gets anti- <br /> competitive and there are risks of lawsuits if you put that number too high. <br /> Councilmember Henry Davis asked Mr. Gilot how it was determined that 20% is the <br /> number that should be used. <br /> Mr. Gilot stated that it was decided upon after numerous discussions with the City's <br /> Legal Department staff <br /> Councilmember White asked Mr. Gilot on the time frame for eminent domain on the <br /> remaining parcels to be acquired. Councilmember White asked Mr. Gilot to make sure <br /> that Mr. Harris from Harris Liquor Store gets a copy of the map that was provided at this <br /> afternoon's committee meeting. <br /> Mr. Gilot stated that the Board of Public Works process for eminent domain is <br /> completed. It has been appealed to the Court and the City's Legal Department has filed a <br /> summary judgment and he believes that the Judge is pondering that. He stated that it is <br /> difficult to say when the Court will render a decision. <br /> Councilmember White asked Mr. Gilot if the project would be held up until the Court <br /> reaches a decision or could the city go forward with the project. <br /> Mr. Gilot stated that the appeal will render a decision of whether or not the City has made <br /> appropriate use of the eminent domain statute and can have that land for the purpose of <br /> right-of-way for the street and other infrastructure. The appeal process may continue <br /> over the decision of monetary compensation. The court may appoint different appraisers <br /> to question the appraisals that they prepared, and then they may either owe the court more <br /> money or they may get a refund. But the city's ability to take the land and proceed with <br /> the project will be decided more quickly. <br /> Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand read the following amendment into the <br /> record: The Common Council appropriates these funds contingent on the Administration <br /> not awarding construction contracts until there is firm evidence of demand for lots to <br /> build housing in the Triangle subdivision. This evidence of demands shall be met when <br /> 25 lots are held by 25% deposits on the value of the lots. It is understood these are <br /> refundable deposits if the project does not go forward. The City Administration agrees to <br /> include a specification clause calling for the highest level of local resident workers within <br /> St. Joseph County, but not less than 20%. <br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to accept the amendment as read into the <br /> record by Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand. Councilmember Dieter <br /> seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. <br /> Councilmember Henry Davis asked if the percentage could be at 25%. <br /> Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that she was not a part of the <br /> discussion that took place between Mr. Gilot and the City's Legal Department staff and at <br /> this point she would feel much more confident in their judgment and cannot render a <br /> decision at this point. She feels that 20% is reasonable. <br /> This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents <br /> and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. <br /> There was no one present wishing to speak in favor of the bill. <br /> The following individual spoke in opposition to this bill. <br /> Mr. Murray Miller, 1201 Priscilla Drive, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is not speak <br /> in favor or against, but had a concern regarding the 20%. He would like to see that <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.