Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-17 Council MintuesREPORT OF SUB - COMMITTEE ON MINUTES TO THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND: THE SUB - COMMITTEE HAS INSPECTED THE MINUTES OF THE January 23, 2017 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AND FOUND THEM TO BE CORRECT. THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND THE SAME BE APPROVED: TI T ARNER APPROVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL ON: February 13, 2017 ATTEST: KA EMAH FO LE , CITY CLERK REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana met in the Council Chambers of the County -City Building on Monday January 23rd, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council President Tim Scott and the Invocation was given by Reverend Chip Roush, Minister at First Unitarian Church of South Bend and Pledge to the Flag was given. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tim Scott Regina Williams- Preston Randy Kelly Jo M. Broden Dr. David Varner Oliver J. Davis John Voorde Gavin Ferlic ABSENT: Karen L. White OTHERS PRESENT: Kareemah Fowler Jennifer Coffman Alkeyna Aldridge Graham Sparks Aladean DeRose Adriana Rodriguez 1St District, President 211 District 3rd District 4th District 5th District 6th District, Vice President At -Large At- Large, Chairperson Committee of the Whole At -Large City Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk Deputy Clerk City Clerk Secretary Interim Council Attorney Legal Research Assistant REPORT FROM THE SUB - COMMITTEE ON MINUTES Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion that the minutes of the January 9th, 2017 meeting of the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. SPECIAL BUSINESS Councilmember Tim Scott announced that Bill No. 66 -16, regarding water rates, would be continued. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICES Representing the City Administration: James Mueller, Chief of Staff Suzanna Fritzberg, Deputy Chief of Staff RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 7:05 p.m. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight REGULAR MEETING (8) ayes. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic, Chairperson, presiding. JANUARY 23, 2017 Councilmember Gavin Ferlic explained the procedures to be followed for tonight's meeting in accordance with Article 1, Section 2 -11 of the South Bend Municipal Code. PUBLIC HEARINGS 77 -16 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3720 LINCOLNWAY WEST, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 2 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember John Voorde made a motion to accept Substitute Bill No. 77 -16. Councilmember Tim Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Oliver Davis, Chair of the Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with no recommendation. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the l I' Floor of the County -City Building, served as presenter of this bill. Ms. Smith stated that the property owner is seeking to rezone the parcel in question from Single - Family to MU, Mixed -Use. There is a single - family home zoned SF2, Single - Family and Two (2)- Family. There is also a local business zoned LB, Local Business. To the east is a restaurant zoned LB, Local Business. To the south are single - family homes zoned SF I. To the west is a commercial business zoned GB, General Business. Ms. Smith explained that the site currently contains a single - family home and some trees and vegetation. Ms. Smith at this point presented to the Council and public an image of the business to the west of the site. She stated that the current site plan occupies approximately two (2) acres with a 9,100 square foot retail store with a corner entrance and at least fifty percent (50 %) of the building fagade located within the maximum setback allowed for the Mixed -Use District. She stated that the proposed parking in this configuration would be to the west and they would comply with all the landscape requirements that are required by the City of South Bend. The Comprehensive Plan for the West Side Main Streets, adopted in 2015, calls for a development at the Sheridan node. Ms. Smith stated, That is commercial but with an urban character on the building's front -lined streets and parking located to the rear, and it serves as a transition to the Single - Family residential zone further to the east. She stated, This comes to you from the Area Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. John Wojtila, Zaremba Group LLC, 14600 Detroit Avenue, Cleveland, OH, served on behalf of the petitioner of this bill. Mr. Wojtila stated, Following the committee meeting, we did meet with the adjacent property to our east, which is Volcano Restaurant. After that, they had time to deliberate prior to this meeting. Mr. Wojtila presented to the Council and public an image of the site plan. He stated, One of the plans that we had talked about was shifting the building towards the [unintelligible]. They are not so much in agreement with this plan —this is what we created between the previous committee meeting and tonight. They would prefer to see the building back further away from the road to increase the visibility even more than what is shown on this plan. Again, this is something different than what you saw this afternoon, but it's something that the Volcano Restaurant would like to see. Mr. Wojtila walked over to the projector screen to demonstrate to the Council and public the change in the building's exact location on the site. He stated, Previously, the building was in this area here. They would prefer to keep it in that same plane, but towards the western property line. The setback lines from that would then be forty (40) feet on the close end, where the front door would be, and sixty -eight (68) feet on the other corner, which would be closer to the western property line. We are okay with that; I don't know about staff. Our request is based on an MU zoning classification, and it requires half the building to be within five (5) feet and twenty (20) feet. That would not be within the five (5) feet or twenty (20) feet. There would parking in there, so you would still have the design concept and the connectivity. Mr. Wojtila stated that he was content with tabling the bill until the 2 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Departments of Accounting and Community Investment had a chance to think more about the project. He stated, We committed to the building having a four (4) sided architecture —we are fine with that. We are also fine with any sidewalk along the entire front. If you look at the aerial view of the site, there is actually a sidewalk at the hotel and there are other sidewalks in this area. Having a sidewalk here would not be totally out of character. Councilmember Randy Kelly made a motion to continue Substitute Bill No. 77 -16 to February 13th, 2017 and Councilmember John Voorde seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 78 -16 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT A 119.89 ACRE TRACT OF LAND NEAR THE CORNER OF MAYFLOWER ROAD AND ADAMS ROAD ABUTTING THE ST. JOSEPH VALLEY PARKWAY, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Oliver Davis, Chair of the Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with no recommendation. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11th Floor of the County -City Building, served as presenter of this bill. Ms. Smith apologized for having to leave the committee meeting early that day. Referring to the site plan viewable by the Council and public, Ms. Smith stated that the property owner was seeking to rezone the parcel highlighted in red —and only the parcel highlighted in red; only the portion east of the bypass. The zoning ordinance is based on the legal description. She stated, We certify that the legal description, as described in the ordinance, is the area highlighted here in red. Ms. Smith explained that the site is currently zoned PUD, which it was rezoned to in 2005. In 2010, that PUD expired. She stated, In 2013, the City passed an ordinance that no longer required timelines on PUD's, but by that point it had already expired, so we are kind of in this position where it's zoned PUD but there is no active plan for us to refer back to. When we met with the petitioner —and all the uses were allowed under the LI, Light and Industrial District —we advised them to seek that zoning district, instead of trying to go back through the process there. To the east are single - family homes zoned R, Single - Family, in the county— that's east of both portions of the site. To the south is the Ameriplex building at Interstate 80 -90, zoned PUD. To the west, across the bypass, there is a portion zoned R, Single - Family, in the county and a portion zoned PUD in the City of South Bend. The site is currently vacant. Ms. Smith presented to the Council and public an image of the site with the bypass in view. She stated, This is looking across Mayflower Road. There is not much to see on the site, as it is now. Other than the woods, there are the properties to the south of the site, which are currently zoned R, Single - Family. The property includes all one - hundred and nineteen (119) acres to be rezoned. The development so far has only anticipated development for the portion of Lot A, shown here, but reserves the remainder of the site for the Light and Industrial uses. Since the PUD expired, if they didn't include the whole parcel, that would also be expired and they would have to address it at some point, so they decided to address the one - hundred and nineteen (119) acres at the same time. The site that is shown here includes a 15,000 square foot industrial facility. The petitioner can speak more about the specific use in question, but this is an illustration of how the site may be laid out. This comes to you from the Area Plan Commission with no recommendation. Brian McMorrow, Abonmarche Consultants Inc, 750 Lincoln Way East, South Bend, IN, served on behalf of the petitioner. He was joined at the podium by Jeff Smoke from Great Lakes Capital Portage Prairie III, LLC and Gordon Norquist, who is a member of the family that owns the property. Mr. McMorrow stated that they had approached the Area Plan Commission staff in December 2016, because they had an opportunity to develop approximately twenty -eight (28) or twenty -nine (29) acres of land north of Adams Road and east of the bypass. Mr. McMorrow stated, For a user that's based here in South Bend and is growing, they want to continue doing business in South Bend. We took advantage of a great process that the City and the County have 3 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 for a project advisory team, where County and City officials come together with the petitioners and talk about the issues that might be in play for an opportunity such as this. What we learned was that there was effectively a void of zoning, at this time. The PUD that was approved in 2005 had expired, and the best course of action that will protect the City, the petitioner, and the residents would be to seek approval from the Area Plan Commission and the Council to rezone to LI, Light Industrial. Why? Because the uses that are permitted in that zone included virtually all of the uses that were contemplated in the PUD that was approved in 2005. The only real exception was that a hotel is not permitted in the current LI zone and was contemplated as part of the PUD at the time. I want to make it clear, too, that this is simply a petition to rezone the property to apply certain zoning standards. Any approval by the Council would not be an automatic building permit. We are not able to put boots on the ground tomorrow morning if we have zoning standards in place. Any action by the Council to rezone these one - hundred and twenty (120) acres on the northeast quadrant does not automatically extend similar zoning to any of the other quadrants that are part of the petition. Mr. McMorrow presented a map to the Council and public depicting the entire Adams Road and St. Joseph Valley Parkway intersection. He stated, The property we are seeking to rezone is the one - hundred and twenty (120) acres of the northeast quadrant. The properties in the southeast quadrant have proceeded, in recent years, to be developed as envisioned by the PUD, but the lands in the northwest quadrant and the southwest quadrant would remain unchanged by any action that would be taken. In fact, the uses that were envisioned then included, in the northwest quadrant, Single - Family, Two (2)- Family, Multi- Family, Civic and Recreational Uses, and Lifestyle and Destination Retail. In the southwest quadrant there is Neighborhood Retail, Medical and Office Campus, and Assisted Living. The owner would not have the right to develop it exactly that way either, because I think the same void exists. With respect to concerns of traffic and safety at that intersection, we are still obligated to prepare site plans, road improvement plans, and work with the City Engineer to make sure the appropriate intersection controls are put in place. That is dialogue that has to happen. We would entertain —in consideration of the comments we have heard from the public, the Q &A we have had with the Council —to go through the PUD process on the balance of the property, beyond these twenty - eight (28) or twenty -nine (29) acres for the initial user. We would be open to that dialogue. Gordon Norquist, 17530 Stoney Point Drive, Granger, IN, continued the presentation. Mr. Norquist explained that the property has been owned by the Waggoner family for decades. Chet Waggoner, the current owner, is Mr. Norquist's father -in -law. The farm was originally purchased around 1948 and has since been in the Waggoner family. Mr. Norquist stated that the Waggoner Dairy Farm was happy to work with a local developer and the City, in 2005, to develop a master plan for the site, which was referred to as the Portage Prairie. The plan was to further build growth, investment, and jobs for the City. He stated that the rezoning would permit the continuation of the property and the development of the site. From 2005 to the present, the Waggoner Dairy Farm has worked closely with local businesses and developers, and intends to continue doing so. He stated, The plan will continue to be the cornerstone of this project. Jeff Smoke, Great Lakes Capital Portage Prairie III, LLC, 112 West Jefferson Boulevard, South Bend, IN, continued the presentation. Mr. Smoke stated, We are the local developer and local owner of the project. He explained that the previous PUD zoning on the east side of the site did not allow for LI zoning, unlike the PUD zoning on the west side. He stated, I know there was some concern about factories jumping over US -31, but the original PUD provisions don't allow for that. He explained that when the City annexed the land in 2005 to develop the land. He stated that many residents want more restaurants and retail locations like Toscana Park. He stated that Great Lakes Capital would love to do a development in the area with retail and restaurants, but it could not happen until more jobs and more homes came into that part of the City. He stated, It's not a twenty -four (24) hour facility. They have very limited truck traffic. It would probably be a tenth (1 /101h) of what FedEX sees right now —eight (8) or nine (9) trucks a day is what they have told me. We are willing to only proceed with Light zoning —it would be twenty -eight (28) acres for this particular tenant, and then go through the PUD process for the balance of the acreage. It is a time - sensitive matter. We are concerned that if we wait three (3) to five (5) more weeks, it could be too long. 0 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Councilmember Tim Scott asked, Would you consider it a continuation on the entire project, or just looking at zoning the front end of it? Mr. Smoke responded, We would do the entire project. Councilmember Scott responded, Continuation? Mr. Smoke responded, Sure. Councilmember Tim Scott made a motion to continue Bill No. 78 -16 to February 13t', 2017 and Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 01 -17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE FIRST NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY FROM SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY OF WEST SHERWOOD AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 255 FEET AND WIDTH OF 14', WEST OF SOUTH MICHIGAN STREET AND EAST OF SOUTH MAIN STREET. Councilmember John Voorde, Vice - Chairperson of the Public Works and Property Vacation Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Tim Scott paused the proceedings to inform Clerk Kareemah Fowler that, at that time, there was no audio for the "IT stream of the evening's meeting. As Clerk Fowler attempted to rectify the issue, Councilmember Gavin Ferlic asked that the presenters proceed. Maurice McGee, Cobb Funeral Home, 3525 South Michigan Street, South Bend, IN, served on behalf of the petitioner. He was joined at the podium by the owner and director of Cobb Funeral Home, Roosevelt Cobb. Mr. McGee stated that they were seeking to have the alley abutting the west end of their lot vacated. They intend to build a garage there to house their service vehicles. He stated, The one opposition that we had was from an employee at the church that is directly southwest. What is important to note is that both that church and the school, Xavier, across the street, got certified letters. Upon receiving those letters, the director of the school and the reigning pastor of the church called us that morning giving us their praise and offering to do anything they could to help. So, both Mr. Cobb and I were completely thrown off to find that an employee actually came and opposed the measure. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked, Can you just clarify: you got a letter —you got a phone call from the owners? Mr. McGee responded, Part of the process is that we must inform abutting properties. We only had two: a church — Southgate —and Xavier School across the street. The day they received their letters, the reigning pastor of the church and the director of the school called our office to praise our initiative and to offer any help that they could to make this process go smooth. Councilmember Davis asked, So they're very supportive? Mr. McGee responded, Very supportive. We were both very surprised to find an employee of the church here in opposition. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Those from the public wishing to speak in favor of this bill: Huey Scoby, Riverside Drive, South Bend, IN, stated that he hoped that Council would pass this bill. He stated, As a minority business, we are always saying that minorities are not given consideration, so I hope that you would give this bill consideration and pass it. Those from the public wishing to speak in opposition to the bill: REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Tom Foresting, 4581 Lake Shore Drive, Niles, MI, stated that he is a deacon at the church that abuts Cobb Funeral Home, clarifying that he is not an employee of the church. Mr. Foresting stated that he had not been informed by his pastor that he had made the phone call to Cobb Funeral Home that Mr. McGee had referenced. He stated, I would have to doubt that, because I was told to come to the meeting in opposition. My question is: will there be an egress for me to come out of that existing alley after you open it up? We need the egress. Half of our egress at the church was taken away. I want to know if we will still be able to use that alley with no restrictions, or not. Mr. McGee approached the projector screen, which depicted the general area that Cobb Funeral Home occupied. He pointed out where the church was located in relation to the funeral home. He stated, The church is here. I can't even imagine how many places to the parking lot they have, with an exit onto Sherwood and an exit onto South Main. This is our building. Our line abuts this alley. At some point, whether it was a church or the previous owners, they had this part of the alley already vacated. They have an exit that goes to Michigan Street, so there is no problem going north or south. In addition to that, across the street from this is a school. This house that is sitting up on this hill, that is separate from the church, has been abandoned for ten (10) years. There hasn't been anyone coming down from this house, down this alley. From Sherwood, the only people that use this alley are people attending our funeral services, because they believe it's part of our property. Roosevelt Cobb, 3525 South Michigan Street, South Bend, IN, stated that they had no desire to block this property. Mr. Cobb stated, This is essentially a driveway that gets us access to and from the west side of our parking lot. Once we get the garage constructed, that alley will still be every inch as wide as it is today. We are not putting barriers anywhere. Given that the house is right next to us, I suppose they have the right to block that off to keep me from going through there, but I would have no reason to block my own driveway to get in and out of the building. This is church property, but it is not the church proper. It is just a house that the church purchased about fifteen (15) years ago. They used it for a seminary for a while, then they let it go. As far as what they have lost as a result of Smart Streets —that has nothing to do with this. Councilmember Randy Kelly made a motion to send Bill No. 01 -17 to the full Council favorably. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 05 -17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA TO ISSUE ITS TAXABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2017 (EDDY ST. PHASE II) IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY -FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($25,000,000) AND APPROVING OTHER ACTIONS IN RESPECT THERETO Councilmember Gavin Ferlic, Chairperson of the Community Investment Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward favorably. Brian Pawlowski, Department of Community Investment, with offices on the 14th Floor of the County -City Building, served as presenter of this bill. Mr. Pawlowski stated that there had been no changes since the Committee discussion. He stated, I know that the developer has been working very diligently with APC staff to make sure that everything is in the right ballpark. Overall, this is a $150,000,000 investment. There are no upfront City tax dollars involved, and no tax backup as there was in the first version. This is a project that really pays for itself. As the project gets built and then it gets assessed, we will pay for the debt service that is required for these bonds. The moneys don't exist now —they will upon successful completion of the buildings and the assessment. The numbers that we have ballparked for the assessment —done by Crowe, in partnership with the City tell us a pretty good story about debt coverage and some other things that we were very happy to see. Four - hundred and thirty -one (43 1) new apartment units, overall, in the entirety of the plan. Sixteen (16) Residential and Flex. That is kind of a [? 41:12] no REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 work arrangement. The example I used previously was that Consuela Hawkins was on our EDC board and mentioned that a business like hers — small, local business — wanted to expand but did not need a big place. We kind of utilize something small like this in a totally different market area, where they might be able to garner some more business. That was an exciting story that a lot of the small businesses were eager to see. Eighteen (18) townhomes bordering Georgiana Avenue, so it has a residential feel now where the Triangle Neighborhood is, right across the street from that. Public green space is part of the overall development —it is not private green space with the Eddy Street residence: it is completely open to the public and privately maintained. The big thing is: a newly constructed and doubled in size Robinson Community Learning Center. Mr. Pawlowski then discussed affordable housing. He stated, I know in conversations with many Councilmembers there was a question about new development coming into town —how we might work in affordable housing components in various forms to those types of projects. We had conversations with the developer and other partners involved in the project, and basically figured out ways to have some lots within the broader neighborhood of Eddy Street, all the way over to St. Peter, etc, and have lots at the South Bend Heritage Foundation, which does work in this area, most prominently on Hill Street. We have a really solid partner in the NNRO. The work that they do, they continue to do with lots on which they would not have to expend any costs. So, we thought that that was a good thing to work into the agreement as well. This is a project that comes to you with approvals from the Economic Development Commission, as well as the Redevelopment Commission. This is the final step. After this, we would go work with a private partner to go secure these bonds. Matt Gavett, Kite Realty Group, 30 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN, continued the presentation. Mr. Gavett stated, We have worked hard at developing this plan in conjunction with the City, in conjunction with the University, to really try to fit well into the neighborhood. We have tried to limit the amount of surface parking that is visible to the residents. We have also reached out to the neighborhood communities, the residents, the various neighborhood organizations. We have had two (2) separate meetings and we have received a lot of really good feedback in terms of concerns, thoughts that they have had —such as the extension of Quigley Place into the Triangle. Quigley will not extend through the Triangle, so if the concern is about traffic, that has been mitigated. Also, setbacks along Georgiana Avenue: we worked out a way — it's in our zoning application —that we will have ten (10) foot setbacks from the sidewalks to the buildings. We have underground parking facilities. Those facilities are necessary for the density of the project, to create the dense, walkable, urban feel that we have with Phase I and continue south on Phase II. Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, First of all, I think it is important to note for the record that a significant portion of that $25,000,000 is in support of the hotel, which is not listed as part of the item but in fact it is. The second thing is the expectation that the bond issue will be about $1,300,000 per year, and we are expecting perhaps as much as $2,000,000 a year in revenue. There is a fiscal cliff, and we are not looking forward to it. I think it is important that at some point in time, we begin to look at one of these TIF Districts as surpluses, repatriating some of that money for the benefit. I know you have to pay a bond this year. I would hope that we don't limit ourselves to the uses simply within this TIF District. This surplus of $700,000 —I think it is a good time to get started on it, since we are pretty sure it is going to be there. I hope that we have some more discussions on that in the future. Mr. Pawlowski, responding to Councilmember Dr. Varner, explained that there is now additional pressure on the River East TIF District. He stated, So, we are going to be looking for all the access we can find and we will be looking to do those projects —not just within this space that we are talking about here, but outside of it. Encompassing it and serving it are definitely very high on our priority list. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Those wishing to speak in favor of this bill: 7 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Marguerite Taylor, 714 East Corby Boulevard, South Bend, IN, stated that she was the person on the Economic Development Committee that Mr. Pawlowski referenced earlier in the evening. Ms. Taylor stated that she belongs to the South Bend Heritage Board of Directors, the Northeast Neighborhood Council, the NNRO, and that she works at the Robinson Community Learning Center which, she argued, gives her a good perspective on the neighborhood. She recalled criticism of the development of the Eddy Street Commons that warned that deer populations would be driven out of the woods by Notre Dame. She stated, Really, what was in the Notre Dame woods were skunks. What has come out of that is kids walking, bicycling... I don't think South Bend ever was considered a college town. I have been to Ann Arbor and Pittsburgh —they have large colleges. South Bend never was that. Eddy Street gives us the feel of being in a college town. Ms. Taylor informed the Council that all the boards that she has been on have unanimously voted to approve this bill. There were none from the public who wished to speak in opposition of the bill. Councilmember Oliver Davis thanked Mr. Gavett and Kite Realty for taking the time to talk to their neighbors. Councilmember Davis stated, Over the last few situations, I have been trying to emphasize that more and more when it comes down to zoning issues. I think that really helps clear up a lot of the things before we even get to this Council, and it makes development grow in a stronger and better way. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston thanked the Department of Community Investment and the developer. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, I am always talking about affordable housing. It is great to see that you are taking the initiative to begin that process and say, "You know what? We are really going to live up to these values of mixed - income neighborhoods and we are going to build it right into the plan." Councilmember Tim Scott made a motion to send Bill No. 05 -17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 06 -17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, REAFFIRMING ORDINANCE 10461 -16 FOR CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE THE CITY'S CORPORATE BOUNDARY Councilmember Dr. David Varner, Chairperson of the Utilities Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation. Michael Schmidt, Assistant City Attorney, with offices on the 12th Floor of the County -City Building, South Bend, IN, served as the presenter of this bill. Mr. Schmidt stated, I come before Council today to ask for the Council to reaffirm Ordinance 10461 -16 that was passed in its full in October 2016. That ordinance dealt with what we call "system development charges." It removed compact fees and replaced them with a surcharge of fourteen percent (14 %). The bill we have in front of you uses the exact same language of Ordinance 10461 -16, but relates to waste water fees for users outside of the corporate boundary of the City. With all the best intentions, it was missed that we need to hold a public hearing and give the users outside our corporate boundaries a chance to present their case as it relates to any fee change. The surcharge and system development charge related to waste water would certainly constitute a change in fees. So, at this time, we ask that we hold the public hearing and we also ask that we move forward with the confirming of Ordinance 10461 -16, as it relates just to fees for users outside the corporate boundary. The rest of the ordinance that you passed in October is in effect, so the system development charges and what -not for water users are active, and that has been applied. So, we are moving forward on that end. It is just this one particular piece that remains outstanding at this time. Without the support of Council, we run the risk of having to go back. If you recall the cumbersome nature of compact fees, of having to open that back up and try to figure out how to pursue compact fees against all the customers that are out there —I don't think 8 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 that is an approach that the City wants. We hope that it is an approach that the Council does not want at this time. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked, For the record, all of the members who are outside the corporate boundaries have officially been notified, so no one can stand up tonight and say that they have not been notified? Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Could you tell me how did you notify them? Mr. Schmidt responded, The statute requires a ten (10) day period after the notice is sent before we can have this particular hearing. I believe it was January 11th, 2017 or January 12th, 2017 that the notices went out. I had them send me a notice just so that I knew that the process was working. I believe the Director of Public Works, Eric Horvath, also had a notice sent to him. There is a lot of positive evidence that suggests that the notices were successful. We took the list of customers, as of a certain date —so it was January 10th, 2017 or January 11th 2017. We had to certify that this was the active list of outside customers and that all these people were receiving the notices that were on this list. Councilmember Randy Kelly asked, Can you just run me through this, in terms of how this will work in action? If we pass this tonight, when will people be expected to pay in this new way? What would the process be for any special exceptions, relative to them? Mr. Schmidt responded, The surcharge that was proposed in the ordinance and voted on in October, 2016 was fourteen percent (14 %). This came upon recommendation of outside Counsel. It also came upon recommendation of other communities in the State and through guidance of the IURC which said to basically keep it under fifteen percent (15 %). There is a ramp -up provision —so, 2017 would be five percent (5 %); 2018 would be an additional five percent (5 %); and then in 2019 an additional four percent (4 %) to get to that fourteen percent (14 %), then it would be fourteen percent (14 %) thereafter. The City Ordinance, Section 17 -29, addresses what is called a "private use agreement." It allows for the City, through its Board of Public Works to negotiate, with particular customers for a special rate. It places the burden on the customer to financially justify the reduced rate that they would be receiving. There is no formal policy in place as to what particular elements would be used to justify such a special rate, but it sort of has to pass the smell test. Once it passes the smell test and we see the financial justification of the customers, Public Works and that particular customer would enter into an agreement. They would then bring that agreement, after passage by the Board of Public Works, to Council, asking for Council to agree to such a rate by action of a resolution. Part of the rules of Section 17 -29 do require yearly check -ins with Council to confirm that the numbers that were presented in the special rate agreement were true —that the impact is true; that it is ongoing. So, there is an opportunity for a really solid check - and - balance to the system. It keeps Council in the loop of anybody receiving a special rate. Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, That does not preclude multiple -year agreements, though, by the petitioner? Mr. Schmidt responded, No, and in fact multiple -year agreements are probably appropriate, however it would still have to come in front of Council and there could be all kinds of unique language in the agreement that would place the burden, again, on that applicant to make that justification to Council, so the Council has the reassurances that the special rate is justified. Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated that the sense that he had gotten from the Committee meeting with the petitioner was that the Council had the final say on the approval, not the Board of Public Works. Mr. Schmidt responded, Absolutely. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, Won't you make that clear? Mr. Schmidt responded, Yes. Nothing can be done without Council, and that also includes modifications and extensions. It does sort of push the burden back on the Board of Public Works and the customer to put all the facts together to come with the agreement —to have that all prepared for the benefit of Council beforehand. 0J REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Councilmember Oliver Davis asked, You said, regarding the special exception, as long as it passes the smell test it's okay, but do we need to have more teeth? So, can it pass the "teeth test "? Mr. Schmidt responded, I think, for my own benefit, whenever you have some guidelines to build off of, it allows you to be more transparent with the customers. It allows you to be more transparent with Public Works. It allows you to hold people accountable for the deal so people know how to approach the Board and say, "This is why...," instead of every customer coming out and saying, "I think I deserve this." Councilmember Davis asked, Would you initiate that or would we have to initiate that? Mr. Schmidt responded, It would be appropriate for the City to initiate that. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. There were none from the public who wished to speak in favor of the bill. Those wishing to speak in opposition to the bill: Tom Caiya, President of UN Tek and UN Kote, 1833 Pucker Street Drive, Niles, MI, stated that he and his organization oppose this bill. Richard Nussbaum, 225 South Sunnyside Avenue, South Bend, IN, stated that he provided the Council with information that would be helpful in speeding up the process. Mr. Nussbaum stated, I am here on behalf of UN Tek and UN Kote, which was originally a joint- venture of Inland Steel, but now ArcelorMittal —which is a European company —and Nippon Steel —which is a Japanese company. The plants have been in operation since 1990. In 1987, there was a New Carlisle economic development area established by St. Joseph County which allowed for the TIF District to pay for all of the infrastructure. The waste water that is coming from this area in the UN Tek and UN Kote plant to the Wastewater Treatment Plant is through a conduit that was not paid for by the City of South Bend. It was paid for by UN Tek and UN Kote with the taxes that they paid that went toward the TIF bonds. The plant could not be located within the City of South Bend. This is not a situation where someone is trying to avoid taxes for the City by locating out of the County. It was way ahead of its time in a sense of regional development because the City was involved in terms of providing its Wastewater Treatment Plant at a very favorable rate, with all the other partners —the County, and New Carlisle, and the private sector —to make this all happen. That was back in 1987. The plant now employs five- hundred and twenty (520) employees and many of these employees are South Bend residents. Over two - hundred (200) businesses within the City of South Bend benefit from business that they do with this plant. The waste water that comes from the UN Tek and UN Kote plant goes through a dedicated conduit, which means that that is the only thing that passes. There is nothing that goes out of it, nothing that goes into it, until it reaches the Wastewater Treatment Plant. It does not contribute to the combined sewer overflow issue. So, when people come to Councilmember Kelly in my neighborhood and are upset with flooding in their basements because of those kinds of issues, it is caused by the UN Tek and UN Kote plant. Mr. Nussbaum explained that the plant is the premiere plant in the ArcelorMittal system and that there are 10,000 employees in Indiana working in other plants throughout the state. He stated, The sewer rate paid by UN Tek and UN Kote is the largest of any other customer inside or outside of the City. The increase in rates has been over $1,000,000 since 2010. It was about $1,400,000 then —it's $2,400,000 now. Based on the latest sewer rate study produced by the City, the operational revenues for the Wastewater Treatment Plant for 2016 was projected to be $35,000,000. Of that $35,000,000, $11,000,000 was allocated toward debt service to take care of the combined sewer overflow, which is roughly thirty -one percent (31 %) or thirty -two percent (32 %) of the rate. Everyone is right: that percentage is in there. The rate that UN Tek and UN Kote pays is in there, but IN Tek and UN Kote does not contribute to that issue. The results show $3,500,000 that was allocated of that $35,000,000 for PILOT payment in lieu of taxes — so that of the rate - payers paying into the Wastewater Treatment Plant, about $3,500,000 goes towards the City budget to help pay for other services. The current ordinance is not fair. If this passes this evening, there really is nothing that UN Tek and UN Kote can do other than contest 10 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 the ordinance, and that would apply not only to I/N Tek and I/N Kote but to everything. There are things that we have to do to approve a special rate, and we feel that we can do that, but the Council has to show the reason for this surcharge. To date, there has not been any reason articulated other than that these customers are outside the City limits. Mr. Nussbaum asked for an additional thirty (30) days so that discussions with the City could continue, with the goal of working out a mutually agreeable arrangement. Carl Schult, 53555 Poppy Road, South Bend, IN, stated that he believed that his residence was hooked to the same line that comes from I/N Tek and I/N Kote and goes to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Schult stated that he received the notice about changing rates. He stated, We currently have a rate of over fifty dollars ($50) a month, six - hundred dollars ($600) a year. There are two (2) retired people living in this home and getting up toward $1,000 a year just for sewage; no water involved just seems a little exorbitant. Mr. Schult asked if, given where he lives, he had any Council representation that had any effect on the decision on the rates. He explained that he takes care of his mother, who lives inside city limits, and noted that his bill was higher than hers simply because he lived outside city limits. He stated, I just feel like we need a little bit of relief on sewer rates. We just retired a year ago, and we are making the decision on where to live in retirement. Things like this are not really a positive factor —you feel like you're living in a very expensive place in retirement. Mary Rainey, 52752 East Cypress Circle, South Bend, IN, stated that she opposed any kind of increase, given that she is retired. Ms. Rainey pointed out that there were programs and benefits that City sewer and water customers get that County customers do not. She stated, We had extensive —I mean like thousands of dollars worth of sewage backup in our home on August 15th and 16th of 2016, and we had contacted the water company and the City Attorney's office on several occasions. We want a fifty -fifty (50150) program from the provider valve, which is the only thing they said will keep this from happening again. They will not include us, because we are outside the City limits. We should be included in anything a City sewer customer gets, too. Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205, South Bend, IN, stated that raising rates and also allowing for rate- payers to petition for a lower rate if their financial circumstances were dire enough was unfair. Mr. Davis questioned whether or not that would stand up in a courtroom. He felt that it was problematic that it was left to the Council to decide if a rate - payer's financial situation was dire enough to lower the rate for them. Kory Demeulenaere, Gateway Hospitality Corp., 3902 Cottage Avenue, Mishawaka, IN, stated that she was representing two (2) hotels affected by the possible passage of this bill. Ms. Demeulenaere stated, The notice was delivered to my organization on January 13th, 2017, however budgets for my operations were approved in November of 2016. This increase could affect us to the sum of roughly $7,000 a year. That $7,000 would eliminate the possibility of teammembers receiving bonus on a yearly basis. The staffinembers at our hotels are given an opportunity to earn a percentage of their annual salary based on meeting their financial obligations. In 2016, they received that by a mere one - hundred and twenty -two dollars ($122). So, this addition of $7,000 would eliminate that possibility for them, which of course is an economic value to South Bend, given the fact that they turn around and spend their money in the City. Those bonuses are given to all hourly and salaried teammembers. So, my housekeeping attendant who makes $25,000 a year and gets to come home with $1,000 extra won't have that next year, because we don't have the increased budget anymore. Mr. Schmidt returned to the podium and thanked the customers that spoke in opposition to the bill for voicing their concerns. He stated that if Council did not take action, that there would have to be a return to compact fees, which would be more expensive than the surcharge for the overwhelming majority of customers. He urged Council to move forward as the City of South Bend on this matter, to reaffirm Ordinance 10461 -16 and allow the use of the power that exists under 17 -29 to negotiate special rates for customers who need them. Councilmember Dr. Varner, addressing Jesse Davis's question, explained that the Council requested a fourteen percent (14 %) increase that came as a result of researched statutory authority —the rate was not made up or chosen arbitrarily. He asked Mr. Schmidt to address this authority for the sake of the public. 11 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Mr. Schmidt stated, As with anything, whenever we conduct a study, we reach out to our financial advisers. In this case, it was Umbaugh and Associates. They look at our complete system, they look at our revenues, they look at our operating expenses, they look at the number of customers, and they figure out where the rates need to sit. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, Did they examine statutory authority as a basis, going forward, for their financial assessment. Mr. Schmidt responded, When we use outside counsel or in -house counsel, it is within the authority of the City to propose rate increases to be voted on by the Council. We provide the data for the justification for the rate increases. With some —with water, for instance —you have to go down and get approval from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, which is an extensive process. With wastewater, it is a little bit different: the final determiner on rates is the Council. We did perform studies to determine that the fourteen percent (14 %) was a defensible position for a surcharge in the State of Indiana. That fourteen percent (14 %) would be a cost - savings compared to the compact fees that we are trying to replace. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked if that research was available to those like the UN Tek and UN Kote plant. Mr. Schmidt responded, Yes, we have provided them with the data. Frankly, we have had a fair amount of give -and -take. We try to be as helpful and cooperative as possible. We both have a shared interest in trying to get this right. Councilmember Davis asked how special rates could be determined for water users in a manner that was not discriminatory to any other water users. He also asked who would actually be the one to determine when and for whom to apply special rates. Mr. Schmidt responded, stating that any contract entered into by the City would be available for anybody to review. He stated that if two (2) customers have similar or identical circumstances and one (1) gets a special rate, then the right thing to do would be to apply the same special rate to the other customer. He stated, If they are different conditions, that would require someone to be treated and judged differently. The ultimate decision - making comes down to: is there financial justification for this particular rate - savings? Can our financial experts review the documents and the evidence put forward by a customer and say, "Yeah, this is legitimate, and this is entitled to X amount of savings," based upon their argument. Then you move forward on that. All of that becomes very transparent. Councilmember Davis asked again who would be the one to actually make the decision regarding applying special rates. Mr. Schmidt responded, It would go through Public Works... Councilmember Davis added, Which is a public meeting. Mr. Schmidt responded, Exactly. You've got the agendas published, you have agenda review sessions before a matter gets voted on, then you have the actual meeting where the board takes formal action, and then it would come throughI'm presuming —three (3) readings of Council, as well. So, the initial time it would be on there for a first reading it would be a committee hearing- Councilmember Davis interjected, So, the special exception would come back to us then afterwards... Mr. Schmidt responded, Absolutely. Councilmember Davis asked, So, they go through two (2) public bodies, then the Board of Public Works, and the City Council to make that recommendation —is that not correct? Mr. Schmidt responded, Absolutely. You are correct. Councilmember Davis responded, So, it's not just arbitrarily done so that Person A gets it, and Person B gets it, and they walk out the room with it. 12 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Mr. Schmidt stated, The beauty of how you guys drafted 17 -29 and how that impacts the City of South Bend is that it has to go through Public Works, it has to go through Council, it has to be transparent, and it gives the public the opportunity to see how it was done for somebody, to see if it applies to them, and to move forward with the potential special rate. Councilmember John Voorde, addressing Mr. Nussbaum, stated, I'm not sure why I understand the fact that you need thirty (30) days, if there is a negotiating process built into the ordinance. Mr. Nussbaum responded, As you can see, there are a lot of hoops to go through before you can get a special rate. There is no guarantee at this point that UN Tek and UN Kote, or anyone else, is going to get that. There is a process out there, but we have a very limited time to contest the ordinance. So, we have to get that on record while we are talking, which is why, to avoid that, I suggested that we keep the public hearing open and see how far we can get with the contract, as far as UN Tek and UN Kote's concerned. That way, there is no lawsuit filed. Michael has been very helpful. We have had a very constructive discussion, but I think it is important for the Council to know that there has not been a study with regard to the surcharge. There have been a lot of other studies— there's an assisted development charge in the ordinance, there's a rate study —but as far as this five (5 %), ten (10 %), fourteen percent (14 %) surcharge goes, there is no study. That's not good for this City, in litigation. What Michael is saying is that he got a legal opinion that prevents this Council to assess the surcharge up to fourteen percent (14 %) without it having to go to the IURC. The Council still has to have a reasonable basis for the charges to be just, reasonable, and non - discriminatory. I think there is a problem there. I don't want there to be any surprises down the road. That's one (1) of the reasons why I think we should have additional discussion on this. Councilmember John Voorde asked, Are you suggesting, then, that there should not be any differentiation between inside and outside of the City for... Mr. Nussbaum interjected, Not on the basis of the current record. There has not been any... Councilmember Voorde interjected, So, in the next thirty (30) days, if I can infer, you will be asking for no differentiation at all? Mr. Nussbaum responded, We are going to object to the ordinance. Without the ordinance, there is not a differentiation. So, as the record stands right now, there should not be a differentiation. In fact, with regard to UN Tek and UN Kote, we are paying far more than we should be paying. I'm not saying that, at the end of the day, the contract won't end up being any different, but I think that is what the record is going to show. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, What would be an argument for, "I don't have to pay as much as everybody else "? Mr. Schmidt responded, What you want to avoid is too much of the case -by -case basis, but things off the top of my head: you look at if there are pre- treatment facilities; does the organization do any type of pre- treatment so that the wastewater that the City is receiving does not have to have so many resources dedicated to it? Is there a dedicated line that does not impact the combined sewer? We are open to a variety of issues. We open to working with UN Tek and other potential customers, but we want to be able to verify before we come to Council that this is legitimate. We don't want to bring something to you and ask for a special rate when we can't verify the numbers ourselves. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated that when he first made his presentation, she was under the impression that there would be few special exceptions. But then she stated, The first problem is that I am afraid that if we pass this we will have an enormous number of people coming and going through this 17 -29 process to try to get an exception. The second problem is that if we don't, then I am left to wonder if it is simply because of an issue of access? People just don't know. Their rates go up, but they don't really know why, even though if they have the right information they might qualify. Then that sets up a situation where it is inequitable. How do you avoid those things? Mr. Schmidt responded that a customer has to go through the Board of Public Works before their case would come before the Council, and not every case will get through Public Works to reach 13 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 the Council. He warned again that a return to compact fees would be worse for the vast majority of water and sewer customers, inside and outside of City limits. Councilmember Williams- Preston responded that she appreciated the warning about compact fees, but that she felt that two (2) bad choices was not a good choice at all, or a choice to begin with. She stated, So, I am just trying to understand how we can do this, because I certainly understand that we have had those conversations about how it is important that we move forward on this, yet I don't want to jump into a place where we are now setting up a whole demographic of folks to be basically put in a situation where they don't have access to the information. How are we going to get the information out to people that they might have the ability to go through this process...? Mr. Schmidt responded, If there are concerns, I think those concerns may be addressed by including in our material that goes out to our users a part that points out Section 17 -29 to them. He stated that, to some extent, it is up to the customer to reach out to Public Works and express concern for the Section 17 -29 issue. He stated, We cannot hold everyone's hands, but we are there to answer and help people along the way, should there be concerns and questions, to the best of our ability. We want to be as fair as we possibly can, but we need some guidance, and we feel like we are moving in that direction as to how we can handle things for users inside and outside of the City. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked if Eric Horvath could clarify the issue further, stating, You're right, we can't hold hands for people, but we are here to be servants and make sure things are fair and that people know what they need to do. Eric Horvath, Director of the Department of Public Works, with offices on the 13'h Floor of the County -City Building, stated that he understood where Councilmember Williams- Preston was coming from. He stated that shortly after the ordinance was set in 2005, the Council decided that they wanted some control over the special rate agreements and then enacted what has been referred to as "17 -29" and set the language so that there had to be a clearly definable reduction in cost to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. He stated, Since 2006, we have not had many requests for special rates that have come in beyond that initial contract. The burden of truth will be on them, as per the ordinance. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, You said it has to be a significant savings to the City? Mr. Horvath responded, A clearly definable reduction in cost. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, So, basically the big users are basically are the ones that are going to... Mr. Horvath interjected, No, it is not a significant but a clearly definable reduction in cost. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated that it seemed that some of these individual households might be in the same situation as the big companies. She asked if either these households or big companies could be awarded the special exception if they could show a clearly definable reduction in cost. Mr. Horvath responded, Everyone has the exact same burden in the ordinance, and that is to show in writing a clearly definable reduction in cost. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, If we do not pass this, we will have to go back to the compact fees? Or we don't have any time... Mr. Horvath responded that we have a twenty percent (20 %) surcharge on water and zero percent (0 %) on the sewer rate. He stated, However, there were also assessments that were, in the overwhelming majority, much more expensive than the new way of calculating equity charges, which is through SCC's, which everyone pays inside or outside of the City. He stated, In the prior ordinance, there is not only the assessments —which are more expensive —but there is also a ten percent (10 %) surcharge on sewer and twenty percent (20 %) on water, with no residential caps, which is different than inside the City. So, that stuff went away with the ordinance, as well —and most importantly, probably —as the compact fees. So, if you were on sewer or water —one utility —it's thirty percent (30 %): the difference between taxes you pay inside of the 14 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 City and outside of the City. If you were on both, it was fifty percent (50 %). In an overwhelming majority of cases, it was much more expensive if we were charging the compact than charging a fourteen percent (14 %) surcharge. And the problem was that we were not enforcing the ordinance, so we are in a position where we are going to have to do something. To be clear, though, the ordinance is valid inside the City, but we sent out letters to 4,048 customers throughout the County. He explained that this letter contained in it information regarding the public hearing process and the provisions of the ordinance. He stated, But it said that 17 -79, 17- 81 are repealed and replaced with this language —what people did not see was what went out of the existing ordinance, which would be the compact fees and the assessments. Councilmember Davis asked if there would be two (2) different significant rates that individual families versus individual businesses would have to pay. He also asked if there was a specific threshold at which point a reduction of cost would be considered significant. He then stated, There is a lady that addressed the issue. She said that she pays into the fund but that she is not allowed to have the benefits, when it came down to the floods this past summer. I heard that if she is paying into the fund, she should be able to get the benefits of that. Could you share your thoughts on that? Why could she, or why should she? Mr. Horvath responded that there is no difference in rates between a residential and industrial or commercial customer. The only difference in rates would be between a customer inside of the City and one outside of the City. He stated, Currently, outside -of -the -City customers, on water, have a twenty percent (20 %) surcharge. Under the new rate ordinance that we have for the water rates, our recommendation was to move that to fourteen percent (14 %), as well, so it would not be twenty percent (20 %) anymore. They currently do not have one for wastewater, but it would go to fourteen percent (14 %). So, an inside - the -City wastewater customer would not be paying differently than an outside -of -the -City wastewater customer, but everyone— inside or outside the City; whether residential, commercial, or industrial —would be paying the same rate. Mr. Horvath, addressing Councilmember Davis's final concern, stated that he would have to look into that issue. He stated, We created the basement backflow program to help folks that have combined sewers and were getting backup when they started draining the vents. We know that we have a multiple - hundreds -of- million - dollar program in front of us, and it is going to take a long time there as part of our long -term control plan, but looking at that and trying to find ways to creatively solve it, we are also looking at maximizing the existing infrastructure that we have and keeping as much sewage in the pipes we possibly can. In doing that, it may not specifically take care of all of those basement backflow issues that are occurring. What we were trying to do is give people an option to prevent sewage from coming into the basement and putting in industrial basement backflow preventers. The way that program works is that you sign up and essentially the City is paying half of the cost to have a licensed plumber come in and install the valve in your basement, and the homeowner pays half of the cost. That was limited to City residents. Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, It does not take a long time to figure out that this gets pretty complicated, as it is proposed, as it is redrawn and reassessed. At some point in time, everyone acting in good faith —and certainly the folks who have objections, and certainly Council acting in good faith —if it turns into an issue where there is a legal concern, that will simply have to be addressed at the time. As we look ahead, this enormous proposed— however it gets funded, at whatever percentages anybody pays —this extraordinarily expensive, and I think in many ways partially unnecessary, CSO consent decree that the City entered into without fully understanding what the costs to the City were going to be. My recommendation would be to go forward with this favorably. Councilmember Dr. Varner recommended that if any legal issues emerge in the future —as they had ten (10) or fifteen (15) years ago, where it was handled through the legislature —to let the courts decide on the matter. Councilmember Dr. David Varner made a motion to send Bill No. 06 -17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Tim Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of seven (7) ayes and one (1) nay ( Councilmember John Voorde). RISE AND REPORT 15 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 20 Councilmember Randy Kelly made a motion to rise and report to full Council. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County -City building at 8:43 p.m. Council President Tim Scott presided with eight (8) members present. BILLS — THIRD READING 66 -16 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE AT CHAPTER 17, ARTICLES 4 AND 6 TO ADDRESS NEW WATER RATES AND CHARGES Councilmember Dr. David Varner made a motion to continue Bill No. 66 -16 indefinitely. Councilmember Jo M. Broden seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 77 -16 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3720 LINCOLNWAY WEST, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO.2 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to accept Substitute Bill No. 77 -16. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to continue Substitute Bill No. 77 -16 to February 13th, 2017. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 78 -16 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT A 119.89 ACRE TRACT OF LAND NEAR THE CORNER OF MAYFLOWER ROAD AND ADAMS ROAD ABUTTING THE ST. JOSEPH VALLEY PARKWAY, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to continue Bill No. 78 -16 to February 13th, 2017. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 01 -17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE FIRST NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY FROM SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY OF WEST SHERWOOD AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 255 FEET AND WIDTH OF 14', WEST OF SOUTH MICHIGAN STREET AND EAST OF SOUTH MAIN STREET. 16 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to pass Bill No. 01 -17. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion, which carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. 05 -17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA TO ISSUE ITS TAXABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2017 (EDDY ST. PHASE II) IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY -FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($25,000,000) AND APPROVING OTHER ACTIONS IN RESPECT THERETO Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to pass Bill No. 05 -17. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston seconded the motion, which carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. 06 -17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, REAFFIRMING ORDINANCE 10461 -16 FOR CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE THE CITY'S CORPORATE BOUNDARY Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to pass Bill No. 06 -17. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion, which carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) ayes and one (1) nay (Councilmember John Voorde). RESOLUTIONS 17 -03 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 401 E. COLFAX AVE., SOUTH BEND, IN 46617 AS AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A (10) TEN YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR COMMERCE CENTER DEVELOPMENT, LLC Brian Pawlowski, the Department of Community Investment, with offices on the 10 Floor of the County -City Building, served as presenter of this bill. Mr. Pawlowski stated that there have been no changes to this bill. He stated that the plan was still to split the ten (10) year abatement up into a five (5) year period at one - hundred percent (100 %) and the last five (5) year period at ninety -five percent (95 %). Velvet Canada, Matthews LLC, 401 East Coflax Avenue, South Bend, IN, served on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. Canada stated, Nothing has changed. It is the same project. We would just ask for a favorable recommendation from you. Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, Has the developer yet provided the City, the Redevelopment Commission, or the Council any feasibility studies to substantiate and/or delineate the parking numbers associated with this project, or the residential mix? Mr. Pawlowski stated that there would be one - hundred and forty-four (144) units and that the developer had not submitted any feasibility studies. Councilmember Broden asked, Any condos included in that? Or is it all apartments? 17 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Ms. Canada responded, Right now, it's all apartments because we do not have a market study saying that there is a need for condos. Councilmember Broden asked, And what about the residential mix itself? One (1) versus two (2) versus three (3) bedrooms... Again, relative to the housing studies. Ms. Canada responded, Currently, we are doing a study about the East Bank Flats, and we have a one (1) bedroom, two (2) bedroom, and three (3) bedroom. We are looking at possibly adding four (4) bedrooms into the mix, but the majority will be one (1) bedrooms and studio apartments. Depending on what happens with the East Bank Flats, that could possibly change. Councilmember Broden asked, Last two (2) questions: the grocery market square- footage; the number -of- parking- spaces ratio —has anyone identified that, Mr. Pawlowski, and has it been benchmarked against industry standards, yet? Mr. Pawlowski responded, The square- footage of the grocery space went down after the last agreement. Provided that stands, that may impact the number of spaces a little bit. As of right now, we are keeping the placeholder on a first- numbers basis. That is based on traffic counts that Rob Bartels did at previous times for other stores, not just this site. As of right now, we are keeping the placeholder on the current number of spaces on the assumption that, if some square - footage is lost, there may be a slight adjustment. Councilmember Broden asked, And then benchmarking that against industry standards for that square- footage? Mr. Pawlowski stated that Mr. Bartels's plan is based on how his other stores have performed. He stated, As he said when he was here, some of this is a moving target as they continue to pursue it. Councilmember Broden stated, There was a consultant that was brought in by the City — internationally renown Torti Gallas, urban designer. Have any of those recommendations been picked up in terms of decreasing the number of units facing the garage? I am looking for the public record to get caught up with the actual changes that were part of the compromise. Changes to the site plan, to the design of the building. Mr. Pawlowski responded, We are looking at a twelve (12) month planning period. Some things will inevitably change during that period, as well, so we are going to have to catch it up on the backend. In terms of what they have done, respective to Torti's suggestions, the East Race space was definitely done as part of a larger conversation that Torti initiated about that space, specifically. There are some other things regarding, I think, the design of the overall building — that could have had an impact in the space of those that have been adopted. In terms of the garage, when you consider the amount of spaces and the need from not just the site going up but the existing Commerce Center, I think some of Torti's suggestions that were looked at may not prove feasible in the long -run, but they are not dead, yet. We are looking at the orientation of the garage, overall. I think that as it sits now is how it will stay, but we, again, have twelve (12) months of planning ahead of us to see. Councilmember Broden asked, Is that from a report or was that just the presentation that several of us sat in... ? Mr. Pawlowski responded, It was part of the overall presentation and conversation. They had a number of phone conversations with the developer that we were not included in, where they went over more in depth. The same things were discussed, just more specifically. Councilmember Broden asked, Has an architect been hired? That was a follow -up from the report: getting at the ideas of some of the feasibility issues and long -term viability. Mr. Pawlowski responded, In addition to the one that is on -staff from the developer's side of the house and then some of the suggestions that Torti provided? The City is not in any position to hire an independent- Councilmember Broden interjected, No, not the City —the developer. Mr. Pawlowski responded, The developer, yes. 18 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston asked if the $5,000,000 listed on the projection screen included the TIF money. Mr. Pawlowski responded, That is the TIF money. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, And that's the abatement on top of that? Mr. Pawlowski responded yes. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, What does that bring us to? $11,000,000? Mr. Pawlowski responded, $10,000,000, $10,500,000, $11,000,000. Assuming our tax numbers are more or less right, yes. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, And the money from the State? Mr. Pawlowski responded, $4,900,000. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, So, almost half is tax dollars going into the whole development? Mr. Pawlowski responded, The Regional Cities plan was basically twenty /twenty /sixty (20/20/60), as a combination of the two (2) State and local funding sources in addition to the private. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked how much Torti Gallas was paid. Mr. Pawlowski responded that it went through the Board of Public Works and that it was probably about $5,500. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, In response to one (1) of the questions, you said that right now it's apartments but that could change because you are doing a market study? Ms. Canada explained that the East Bank Flats were just going up, and that depending on the demand for certain apartment sizes there, the mix of one (1), two (2), three (3), and maybe four (4) bedroom apartments in the current project may change. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, But all apartments. I heard something about condominiums? Ms. Canada responded, Correct. She explained that there is not currently a high demand for condominiums in South Bend, so the plan in their projects is to start with apartments and maybe add condominiums —only if there is demand for them —after the fact. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, So, it is not a design difference. Ms. Canada responded, No, it is not a design difference. It is just marketing— whether you actually own or rent. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Those wishing to speak in favor of this bill: Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205, South Bend, IN, stated that more housing, density, and a grocery store are all good things. Mr. Davis stated, There was a compromise made: let's do it. Samuel Brown, 222 East Navarre Street, South Bend, IN, stated this needed to be passed. He stated, It's a done deal. It's a good project for the City of South Bend. There were none from the public wishing to speak in opposition to this bill. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to adopt Bill No. 17 -03. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) ayes and one (1) nay ( Councilmember Jo M. Broden). BILLS FIRST READING 19 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 CO UNCILMEMBER GA VIN FERLIC LEFT THE CHAMBERS AND THE QUORUM WAS SET AT SEVEN (7). 07 -17 FIRST READING ON AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: E/W ALLEY FROM EAST RIGHT OF WAY OF LAUREL STREET A DISTANCE OF 144 FEET AND WIDTH OF 12 FEET, NORTH OF THOMAS STREET AND SOUTH OF WASHINGTON STREET Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to send Bill No. 07 -17 to the Public Works and Property Vacation Committee. Councilmember Randy Kelly seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of seven (7) ayes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to continue the Appeal of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1240 W. Thomas Street – Boyd vs. Historic Preservation Commission to February 27th, 2017, without the possibility of further postponement barring extraordinary cause. Councilmember John Voorde seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of seven (7) ayes. NEW BUSINESS Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston requested an update on the Sample and Olive Street Exchange, as well as an update on the traffic study done at the corner of South Street and Michigan Street. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205, South Bend, IN, stated, I just want to touch base and talk about what Regina was just talking about. Hopefully, everybody says a prayer for the family that lost their little eleven (11) year old son today. There were previous studies. I believe there was one by American Structure Point in 2015— probably for Smart Streets —and somewhere in there, I guess it was suggested to eliminate that light. We then covered up that light and said it was under study. I'm not sure if that study is still going on after it's been concluded, but I think we need to look at not only traffic but the pedestrian traffic. He stated that, before Smart Streets, Transpo was slowed down by that intersection. He surmised that Transpo was probably appreciative of the fact that there is no light there currently. He stated that children, the elderly, and disabled people need to be considered, given that in the past, pedestrians have been used to only looking south for incoming traffic before crossing that intersection. He stated that eliminating the crosswalk was foolish and that one should be reimplemented. Mr. Davis ended by stating, If that study has been finished, I would be curious to see why they took that light out of there. Charles Smith, 2023 South Taylor Street, South Bend, IN, stated that he agreed with Mr. Davis. He then went on to discuss issues with Animal Care and Control. He stated that at the last meeting with the new director of the SBACC, serious accusations were made against several people that could damage their characters. He described a situation where during an e -mail exchange reporting animal neglect, criminal information meant for authorities was shared with a private citizen. He stated that he was addressing these issues before the Council because he had not received a response from Code Enforcement after reporting the leak to them. He stated that he no longer trusted that tips or criminal information would remain confidential. He recognized that the City has limitations in how it can enforce animal neglect laws, but he pleaded for the 20 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 City to do whatever it takes to make enforcement happen. He stated that ordinances must be revised as soon as possible. He concluded by stating that he would do anything to bridge the gap that exists between citizens and the City regarding animal welfare. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston requested that this issue, as well as the issue regarding the intersection of Michigan Street and South Street, be forwarded to the Board of Public Safety. Samuel Brown, 222 East Navarre Street, South Bend, IN, stated that he was proud of the Mayor for standing up and making the decision to rename the downtown portion of Main Street Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. He stated that he was not pleased with the photo used in the paper to announce the change, suggesting a different one, but continued to praise the Mayor's decision. Brenda Bailey, 3621 Cooper Court, South Bend, IN, stated that there needs to be clarification as to what is going on at South Bend Animal Care and Control. She stated that the animal welfare community wants answers, that it is afraid of the SBACC. She stated, Legally, we have no choice but to follow the law. We see that there needs to be a moderator or somebody called in that can help bridge this gap, because the gap is just tremendous, right now. She asked, as she did in the last meeting, why Valery Schey and other volunteers were banned from the shelter for ninety (90) days. She brought up the dog, Lucky, who was recently euthanized. She stated that the community was requesting for an investigation into Lucky. Surgery had been offered by specialists and two (2) rescuers had offered to take him, but he was euthanized instead. She stated that a silent vigil and protest were planned in honor of Lucky. She concluded by asking what the City would do to repair the damage done by their new SBACC director. Morena Ballard, 52670 Primrose Road, South Bend, IN, stated that she was present to support the SBACC. She stated that she has been involved in trying to bridge the gap referenced by Mr. Smith and Ms. Bailey, but found that there were people who simply did not want to cooperate with each other. She stated that she was working with the new director to do things that will expand the shelter and educate people again. She stated that she did not know where things went wrong. She stated that Lucky's euthanasia was tragic but necessary. She did not feel that the new director, Jennifer, has been given a fair chance. Huey Scoby, Riverside Drive, South Bend, IN, stated that he was proud of the Council, and that he was proud of the newly named Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. He then stated, You got one (1) more step to go: the Mayor promised that he would select a prominent street with a few businesses on it and a few addresses. So, I'm going to hold you responsible for him putting up those houses with a few investors on it. So, we can't stop at the roundabout. We're going to have to go down Marion Street —isn't that where your committee started at? Isn't that where they were supposed to stop? Be real with me because I'm living out Dr. King's dream. Dr. King didn't give his life for elites and politicians. He turned to Mr. Brown, stating his full name, before Councilmember Tim Scott reminded him that he must address the Council. At this point, Mr. Scoby ended his message and walked away from the podium. Anthony Bailey, 3621 Cooper Court, South Bend, IN, stated that there were resources out there to save Lucky instead of euthanizing him. He stated that people were losing trust in Animal Control and the shelter, stating that this could create a safety issue wherein people do not call Animal Control when there is a problem. Mary Corbett, 1605 Southwood Avenue, South Bend, IN, addressed the Animal Control problem, stating that if people are not getting answers, then someone working for the City is not doing their job. She asked that items projected onto the screens for the Council and audience use a larger font, as she cannot read them as they are. She also asked that Councilmembers sit up when they speak because it is otherwise hard to understand what they are saying. Councilmember Tim Scott informed Ms. Corbett that she could get full packets from the Clerk's Office on the Thursday before a given Council Meeting. Ms. Corbett asked, How does one go about finding what all these things refer to? Clerk Kareemah Fowler stated, You can come into our office and we can navigate it for you. 21 REGULAR MEETING Ms. Corbett stated, Thank you so much. ADJOURNMENT JANUARY 23, 2017 There being no further business to come before the Council, President Tim Scott adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.