06-22-92 Residential Neighborhoods

Home Browse Search

Residential Neighborhoods Committee June 22, 1992 Page 2 Council President Luecke noted that the computers and telephones would not be installed on a permanent basis until the space issue was resolved. Council Member Kelly stated that he would be supportive of a bill but expects it to be in place by November 1, 1992. Council Member Duda questioned why it could not be implemented now. Mr. Fozo noted that several other ordinances in light of the consolidation of the County and City Departments have taken priority and are now completed. Mary Mueller also noted that the relocation has been a real ongoing issue. In response to a question by Council Member Duda it was noted that the possibility of a County-wide Ordinance was "iffy" at best. She noted that she believes that it should be County-wide including Mishawaka. She questioned why the Council was not informed earlier. Mr. Fozo stated that he noted that problems were being experienced as early as February, however felt that that was too soon to ask the Council for an extension. Since he had only been on the job one month. Council Member Duda noted that bonding was part of the original bill which was opposed by the City Administration. She stated that bonding should be an important element since it helps protect the public. She stated that her frustration is not with Mr. Fozo but, rather with the City Administration for failing to put a higher priority on the implementation of the registration of building contractors. She inquired whether a thirty (30) day extension would be helpful and was advised that it would not be. She asked the Council Members to have the courage to say no and stated that she would be voting against the proposed bill. Council Member Kelly stated that he believes that Mr. Fozo was caught in the middle and inquired whether Mr. Fozo would be willing to give periodic updates on a monthly basis. Mr.Fozo stated that he would. Council President Luecke stated that he does not want to see the Building Department in violation of the ordinance. He stated that he believes that it is a bad time of the season to put the registration in place and believes that this is a reasonable request for an extension. He stated that the City Council should identify monies in the budget for the move and move ahead. Council Member Washington questioned whether the failure to implement the ordinance would cause any legal liability to the City at this time. The Council Attorney noted that it would not since it would involve the City Attorney's Office bringing action against the Building Department. She noted that it was a policy question rather than a legal question at this time. The Committee continued to discuss and question the proposed Substitute Bill No. 41-92 with a motion being made in favor of the extension failing to receive a majority with Council member Coleman and Council Member Kelly in favor of the extension, Council Member Duda voting against the extension, and Council Member Zakrzewski abstaining, the Bill was sent to full Council without recommendation.