06-13-11 Common Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 2011 (Discussion between Councilmember’s and Chairperson Rouse.) Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that the last question before was Councilmember Varner’s issue of whether we could keep the viability of the two options that the Council has set out and that goes to readiness of the issue. The only person that can answer that is the Mayor. She stated she cannot answer that and no other Councilmember can answer that. Chairperson Rouse asked Mayor Luecke if he is prepared to answer that question right now. Mayor Luecke stated that as he understand the question it’s would he accept the limit of $680,000 that could be used either towards the purchase of the building or toward infrastructure? He asked if that was the question and did he understand properly? Councilmember Varner stated that was his suggestion up for consideration. Mayor Luecke stated yes he is willing to accept that. He stated that the Council can make that amendment to have that happen. But, yes, he would be willing to accept that. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked if they go with the original vote. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that there is a motion on the table and a second. The motion would eliminate the St. Joe Hospital site in its entirety from the title through the entire bill. The Council would be eliminating the 1.2 million. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that hypothetically, if that motion would prevail again, since there are only eight (8) members here a tie vote defeats the motion. That does not eliminate another motion from being made that could address Councilmember Varner’s amendment. Councilmember Oliver Davis restated that the motion was in favor of items 2, 3, and 4. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that the total appropriation would be $150,000 that would be allocated between items 2, 3, and 4 which would be renumbered all items with regard to the St. Joseph Hospital project would be eliminated. That is what is before the Council. Roll Call: Councilmember Henry Davis, nay; Councilmember LaFountain, nay; Councilmember Puzzello, nay; Councilmember Varner, aye; Councilmember Oliver Davis, aye; Councilmember Rouse, nay; Councilmember White, aye; President Dieter, nay.) Five (5) nays; Three (3) ayes. The motion failed. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that the Council is back to the original substitute bill with all four projects in it. Councilmember White stated that prior to taking action and hopefully to give other Councilmember’s the opportunity to weigh in. She stated that she thinks that it is very important as they look towards the upcoming funding priorities that the Administration would prioritize all the remaining capital investment in terms of the standards by which these projects have been selected and the type of funding support that these projects have been given in terms of the total planning processes for the city. A timeline for implementation, the impact if these projects are not approved, the impact for the purposed funding priorities on other projects such as programs, parks and most importantly and vital that they as a Council along with the Administration that they come up with a utilization strategic plan to address those areas that have not been addressed in the City. She stated that they can continue to build on the outskirts of South Bend and the doughnut the inner city that they are obligated to serve and they have not done a great job in addressing those areas within our community and have a great opportunity to take the funds that they have and to bring about strategic changes for various segments within the community. She challenged the Council to really work very closely and to come up 22