|
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1973
<br />COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
<br />Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend met in the Committee of the
<br />Whole on Monday, April 23, 1973, at 7:07 p.m., with nine members present. Chairman Odell Newburn
<br />presided. He asked the complete cooperation of those in attendance in order that the meeting
<br />could be conducted in an orderly and efficient manner. He requested that personalties be omitted
<br />from the presentations and that each person desiring to speak should give his or her name and
<br />address for the record.
<br />ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $101,250.00 FROM
<br />THE LOCAL ROAD AND STREET FUND AND $33,750.00
<br />FROM THE CUMULATIVE SEWER BUILDING AND SINKING
<br />FUND FOR PROJECT R & S 54 - NORTH LAYFAYETTE
<br />BOULEVARD FROM LASALLE AVENUE TO NAVARRE STREET.
<br />This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and
<br />opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. William J. Richardson, Director of the
<br />Department of Public Works, made the presentation for the ordinance. He requested that the
<br />ordinance be stricken and the improvement not be done because the elimination of parking would
<br />solve the problem. He indicated that the Council had received a letter from the Board of Public
<br />Works approving the recommendation of the Mayor to eliminate parking, and the matter would be
<br />taken care of at the next Board of Public Works meeting. Council President Nemeth made a motion
<br />to forego the public hearing on the ordinance and take appropriate action at the second reading,
<br />seconded by Councilman Parent. The motion carried.
<br />Miss Virginia Guthrie, Executive Secretary of the Civic Planning Association, asked if there would
<br />be an opportunity for the people to appear before the Board of Public Works when this matter was
<br />considered. Mr. Richardson indicated that the Board of Public Works meets every Monday morning
<br />and the meetings are open to the public.
<br />ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $825,000.00 FROM
<br />THE LOCAL ROAD AND STREET FUND AND $275,000.00
<br />FROM THE CUMULATIVE SEWER BUILDING AND SINKING
<br />FUND FOR PROJECT R & S 48 - CONTRACT NO. 2 -
<br />IRELAND ROAD FROM YORK ROAD TO IRONWOOD ROAD
<br />AND IRONWOOD ROAD FROM IRELAND ROAD TO 1500
<br />FEET NORTH.
<br />This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and
<br />opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. William J. Richardson, Director of the
<br />Department of Public Works, made the presentation for the ordinance. He indicated that the pro-
<br />ject was a pavement improvement and a public hearing had been held last November. In January, a
<br />several -hour period of review was held. He requested the appropriation for the project which
<br />included the four - laning of Ireland Road from York to 400 feet East of Ironwood and then turning
<br />North on Ironwood approximately 1500 feet. He indicated that pavement, curb and gutter, storm
<br />sewers and a new retention basin was planned. He further indicated that, at the public hearing
<br />previously held on the widening, several suggestions were entertained from the citizens and those
<br />suggestions have been taken into consideration. After the January review, there was a certain
<br />number of days allowed for written comments concerning the project. After that period of time,
<br />the Board of Public Works reconfirmed the project in its entirety and proceeded with the ordinance,
<br />He indicated that the project will have sidewalks on the West side of Ironwood and the boulevard -
<br />type of lights will be installed, with regular lighting at the three major intersections. He
<br />indicated that one of the biggest objections to the project seemed to be the idea that Ironwood
<br />was not an arterial street. He indicated that, in 1922, it was proposed to be 80 feet in its
<br />entirety. He presented slides to the Council showing the layout of the project. He further
<br />mentioned that, according to the county plan of 1960, Ironwood again was highlighted as a major
<br />arterial. Also, in 1960, the City Plan Commission showed Ironwood to be a major arterial. He
<br />briefly explained the color coding of the slides pertaining to the drainage basins in the Clyde
<br />Creek area. He also indicated that, out of the three retention basins planned, the Inwood Road
<br />basin would be included in the appropriation request. He indicated that some people have
<br />referred to the project simply as a "paving" project and this was not true. He mentioned con-
<br />struction of new storm sewers, water mains and an unrelated project known as the Ironwood Sanitary
<br />Trunk Sewer. He explained the intersections and traffic lights and signals. He indicated that
<br />there would be a very large turning movement from the southbound traffic and that he had available
<br />the traffic counts and accident data for the area. He indicated that, if the program was approved,
<br />the bids would probably be taken two weeks from the coming Monday and construction could be
<br />started this year, with all the pavement to be finished this year and some landscaping to be
<br />finished in the spring of 1974.
<br />Mrs. Goldie Minton, 753 Cottage Grove, indicated that she opposed the project as she felt the
<br />(raise in her sewer bill was attributed to the project. Mr. Richardson indicated that there was
<br />no utility company money being used for the project. He indicated that the storm sewers come
<br />from the Cumulative Sewer Building and Sinking Fund and the water mains that are carried in the
<br />(contract would be paid for by the funds available in the project. He concluded that the sewage
<br />and water charges money was not going into the project. Mr. Nick Sherbun, Denslow Drive, indicate(
<br />that he had submitted a petition for his group against the project of which 59% of the affected
<br />residents signed. He wanted to know why the petition was ignored as it appeared the Council was
<br />going ahead and approving the project. Mr. Richardson indicated that there are two types of
<br />petitions; ones legally allowed in the special assessment law where they have a definite point of
<br />bearing and others from the general public. He indicated that this petition was received and the
<br />remonstrance taken to the State Board hearing; however, the appropriation was upheld. He
<br />mentioned that this sewer would serve more than the people along Denslow and Southern View Drives,
<br />not just individual houses, and that the sewer was also proven to be needed. Mr. Sherbun asked if
<br />all petitions were handled in this manner, and Chairman Newburn indicated that they were. Mr.
<br />Sherbun expressed his feeling that the petition had been ignored. Chairman Newburn indicated
<br />that the needs had been checked and looked into and consideration and much research had gone into
<br />the matter; however, the requests of the citizens had not been ignored.
<br />Mr. James Olson, 122 South Mill, the attorney representing the area residents, indicated that they
<br />were not completely opposed to any type of improvement on Ironwood but that they were opposed to
<br />this particular plan. He felt there were four points to consider which would affect the project,
<br />
|