Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-10 Common Council Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 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, June 28, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council Vice-President Oliver Davis and the Invocation and Pledge to the Flag were given. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS: Present: Henry Davis, Jr. 2nd District Thomas LaFountain 3rd District Ann Puzzello 4th District, Chairperson Committee of the Whole David Varner 5th District Oliver Davis 6th District, Vice-President Al “Buddy” Kirsits At-Large Timothy Rouse At-Large Karen L. White At-Large Absent: Derek D. Dieter 1st District, President OTHERS PRESENT: Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Council Attorney John Voorde City Clerk Janice I. Talboom Deputy City Clerk Mary Beth Wisniewski Chief Deputy REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES To the Common Council of the City of South Bend: The sub-committee has inspected the minutes of the June 14, 2010 meeting of the Council and found them to be correct. Therefore, we recommend the same be approved. s/Derek D. Dieter s/David Varner Councilmember Puzzello made a motion that the minutes of the June 14, 2010 meeting of the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. SPECIAL BUSINESS SWEARING IN OF MURRAY MILLER AS A CITIZEN MEMBER OF THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE City Clerk John Voorde sworn in Mr. Murray Miller as a citizen member of the Utilities Committee. Mr. Miller will serve as a citizen member until December 31, 2010. RESOLUTION NO. 4033-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA ADOPTING A WRITTEN FISCAL PLAN AND ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES TO AN ANNEXATION AREA IN CENTRE TOWNSHIP, BERKHEISER ANNEXATION AREA 1 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, an Ordinance and a petition by all (100%) property owners which proposes the annexation of real estate located in Centre Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana, which is more particularly described at Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed encompasses approximately .2169 acres of residential property, which property is at least 12.5% contiguous to the current City limits, i.e., approximately 20% contiguous, generally located at the west side of South Main Street just north of Pulling Street. It is anticipated that the annexation area will remain a single-family residence and utilize city water and sewer services. This site will require a basic level of municipal public services of a non-capital improvement nature, including police and fire protection, street and road maintenance, street sweeping, flushing, snow removal, and sewage collection, as well as services of a capital improvement nature, including street and road construction, sidewalks, street lighting, a sanitary sewer system, a water distribution system, and a storm water system and drainage plan; and WHEREAS, the South Bend Common Council now desires to establish and adopt a fiscal plan and establish a definite policy showing: (1) the cost estimates of services of a non-capital nature, including police and fire protection, street and road maintenance, street sweeping, flushing, and snow removal, and sewage collection, and other non- capital services normally provided within the corporate boundaries; and services of a capital improvement nature including street and road construction, street lighting, a sanitary sewer extension, a water distribution system, and a storm water system to be furnished to the territory to be annexed (2) the method(s) of financing those services; (3) the plan for the organization and extension of those services; (4) that services of a non- capital nature will be provided to the annexed area within one (1) year after the effective date of the annexation, and that they will be provided in a manner equivalent in standard and scope to similar non-capital services provided to areas within the corporate boundaries of the City of South Bend, regardless of similar topography, patterns of land use, and population density; (5) that services of a capital improvement nature will be provided to the annexed area within three (3) years after the effective date of the annexation within the same manner as those services are provided to areas within the corporate boundaries of the City of South Bend regardless of similar topography, patterns of land use, or population density, and in a manner consistent with federal, state and local laws, procedures, and planning criteria; and (6) the plan for hiring the employees or other governmental entities whose jobs will be eliminated by the proposed annexation. WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works of the City of South Bend, and the Board of Public Safety of the City of South Bend, have each approved a written fiscal plan and established a policy for the provision of services to the territory proposed to be annexed, which plan and policy the Common Council finds to be appropriate and in the best interest of the City, and, which it desires to adopt. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AS FOLLOWS: Section I. It is in the best interest of the City of South Bend and the area proposed to be annexed that the following described real property located in Centre Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana be annexed to the City of South Bend: Lot 33 & North 30' Lot 34 Gilmers Addition South Michigan Addition Section II. That it shall be and hereby is now declared and established that it is the policy of the City of South Bend, to furnish to said territory services of a non-capital nature, such as police and fire protection, street and road maintenance, street sweeping, flushing, and snow removal, within one (1) year of the effective date of the annexation in a manner equivalent in standard and scope to services furnished by the City to other areas of the City regardless of similar topography, patterns of land utilization, and population 2 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 density; and to furnish to said territory, services of a capital improvement nature such as street and road construction, sidewalks, a street light system, a sanitary sewer system, a water distribution system, a storm water system and drainage plan, within three (3) years of the effective date of the annexation in the same manner as those services are provided to areas within the corporate boundaries of the City of South Bend regardless of similar topography, patterns of land use, or population density. Section III. That the South Bend Common Council, shall and does hereby now establish and adopt the Fiscal Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and made a part hereof, for the furnishing of said services to the territory to be annexed, which provides, among other things, that the public sanitary sewer and water network is available with capacity sufficient to service this area with all connection and related fees to be paid by the owner in compliance with state and local law; that the road in front of this property is part of the U.S. 31 Realignment Project; that street lights already exist on Main Street; and that no additional public works are contemplated for this annexation area. Section IV. This Resolution shall be effective from and of the date of adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/Derek D. Dieter Member of the Common Council Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. th Jeff Vitton, Planner, Division of Community Development, 12 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana. Mr. Vitton advised that the annexation area is located at 60601 S. Main Street, which is on the west side of S. Main Street, north of Pulling and south of Dice Street. The site has single-family home owned by Ms. Louis Berkheiser. Ms. Berkheiser is seeking annexation of her home for the purposes of receiving water and sewer services. The annexation area is lot 33 and North 30’ lot 34 Gilmers South Michigan, Centre Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana. The annexation area is 1/8 (12.5%) contiguous to the current City limits. The annexation area is 0.2169 acres in area. The site currently contains one single-family detached structure. He stated that the site is zoned “R” Residential in unincorporated St. Joseph County. It is proposed to be zoned “SF1” Single Family Residential upon approval of the City Council and incorporation into the City of South Bend. No rezoning is being sought with this annexation. Currently one person resides in the Annexation Area. Mr. Vitton stated that the 2007 payable 2008 taxes as provided by the St. Joseph County Auditor were Land and Improvements Net Value: $48,900. He th stated that the Annexation Area will be in the 5 District. It is anticipated that this annexation will not result in the elimination of jobs for employees of any other governmental entities. The Centre Township Trustee has been notified of this Annexation. He stated that a thirty inch (30”) diameter public sanitary sewer is available on Main Street to serve this one lot annexation area. Revenue from customers on this sewer will be sufficient to operate and maintain the facility without burden to other ratepayers. The costs for extending the sewer on Main Street are recoverable from new customers. The development fee for connection of Lot 33 to sanitary sewer service will be $3,000 payable at the time of permit application. The South Bend Water Works currently has a 12” water main on the west side of Main Street. This is a looped water main that will provide more than adequate capacity for 60601 South Main Street. Extensions of, or taps into sanitary sewer and water lines shall be governed by I.C. 36-9- 22-2, I.C. 8-1-5.3 and 4, and the rules and regulations of the South Bend Water Works and Sewer Utility. No waivers of annexation are in effect for the Annexation Area. The segment of Main Street in front of this property is proposed for reconstruction by the State of Indiana as part of the U.S. 31 Realignment project. The City of South Bend currently lights and maintains Main Street. No additional public works facilities are contemplated for this annexation area. There will be no additional cost to the Department 3 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 of Public Works if this area is annexed. The Annexation Area would be expected to be added to the already existing Beat 16. Police patrols, traffic enforcement, and emergency responses will be part of the services the City will offer to this area. This proposed annexation would require officers to cove a relatively small additional area to this beat. At this time it is not expected that this annexation would cause calls for service to increase significantly and it is not anticipated that it will be necessary to increase police patrols beyond the already existing beat patrol at this time. The area under consideration is not expected to cause any unusual problems. At the present time the cost for servicing the proposed area is not expected to impact the existing budget of the Police Department with any significance. However, this area, as well as all other areas of the City, will continually be monitored for level of service demands and other criteria that would necessitate additional resources through budgetary increases or possibly shifting of existing resources, such as a beat restructure. Police services and response time in this area can be expected to be comparable and consistent with that as in all other areas of the City. Police coverage to this area could begin immediately upon annexation and coordination of the conversion of the 911 emergency phone systems for that area. The City will provide fully staffed Fire Response with a full time fire department housed in 12 fire stations strategically located throughout the city. The Annexation Area will be serviced primarily by Station #10, located at 5303 York Road, approximately 2.6 miles away. Additionally Fire Department units would respond from Fire Station #1 which is approximately 3.3 miles away and Fire Station #5 which is approximately 3.5 miles away. The South Bend Fire Department does not foresee any unusual fire protection problems related to this annexation. Response times will be comparable to other areas of the City. No additional equipment will need to be purchased or personnel hired to service the Annexation Area. Adequate water supply will be necessary as development takes place. The City, under contract with St. Joseph County, provides emergency medical response to the unincorporated areas of St. Joseph County. Of the seven ambulances currently in service, 3 are dedicated for response to the unincorporated areas. These are Medic Units #10, 11 and 12. Upon incorporation, the Annexation Area will be serviced by Medic #1, located at Fire Station #10. Emergency medical response will continue to be provided by the City of South Bend. Response times will be comparable to other areas of the City. No additional equipment will need to be purchased or personnel hired to service the Annexation Area. The Annexation Area will be added to Code Enforcement’s Area 6. The Department of Code Enforcement will be able to provide services to the Annexation Area with comparable response times. The Department will respond to calls for service upon the effective date of the Annexation. Full and dedicated response will be in place within one year of the effective date of the Annexation. Wastewater treatment services are supported by user fees, and are paid through the Water Works billing system. He noted that the Division of Environmental Services could service them at the single family rate or senior rate if applicable along with a fee for recycling. Mr. Vitton further noted that the City of South Bend provides a wide range of services other than those noted above, such as the Mayor’s Office, the Legal Department and the Park Department. These services are available upon the effective date of the Annexation. Full and dedicated response for non-capital services will be in place within one year of the effective date of the Annexation. Mr. Vitton stated that costs for these services have not been calculated. The incorporation of the Annexation Area will not effect the provision of other services currently provided to this property on a county-wide basis. The St. Joseph County Health Department, the St. Joseph County Public Library, the Area Plan Commission and the St. Joseph County/South Bend Building Department are some of the county-wide agencies and their services that will continue to provide the same type and level of services to the Annexation Area. County-wide services will continue to be supported by the County and Township tax rates that will remain in effect. The proposed annexation will add a pre-existing single-family structure to the City of South Bend in its’ current state. Any future changes to the structure will need to meet the City’s applicable building and zoning ordinances. Essential city services can be made available to the residents (and territory) of the Annexation Area in a timely and comparable fashion per the requirements of State law and this fiscal plan. The City is financially able to support city services to the territory sought to be annexed. Required improvements made by the petitioner and/or owner of the parcels must be made in accordance with the standards of the City of South Bend. Required improvements made by the City will be completed within the time frames provided by State Law and this 4 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 fiscal plan. All figures are estimates. Financial cost of capital expenditures, if any, will not be determined until bids are publicly solicited, contracts are awarded and projects are closed out. Property tax revenue and land assessment estimates are based on a combination of: 2007 payable 2008 tax rates, taxes paid in previous years by a comparable development, estimates of units built, estimates of unit values and land assessments, and tax abatements or adjustments, if any. Property tax revenues based upon full implementation of HEA 1001. Department expenditures and revenues are derived from the City of South Bend Budget. The estimated costs to provide services are a citywide average based on a particular budget year. In the case of the proposed development in the Annexation Area, some of these services will not be required or possibly requested for many years. Hence, the cost of providing services over the first five should be evaluated with this in mind. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember White made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 7:13 p.m. Councilmember White made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Puzzello, Chairperson, presiding. Councilmember Puzzello explained the procedures to be followed for tonight’s meeting in accordance with Article 1, Section 2-11 of the South Bend Municipal Code. Councilmember Puzzello stated that a brochure may be found on the railing in the Council Chambers explaining those procedures. PUBLIC HEARINGS BILL NO. 23-10 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, ANNEXING TO AND BRINGING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA CERTAIN LAND IN CENTRE TOWNSHIP, CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH; COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 5, LOUISE BERKHEISER, 60601 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, 46614 Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Ron Berkheiser, 16900 New Road, Bremen, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill on behalf of Louise Berkheiser, 60601 S. Main Street, South Bend, Indiana. Mr. Berkheiser advised that they are seeking annexation of for the purpose of receiving water and sewer services. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. 5 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Kirsits made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember LaFountain seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 28-10 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $2,000,000.00 FROM STATE GRANT FUND (#210) FOR THE OPERATING ENDOWMENT FOR RAY AND JOAN KROC CENTER Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to hear the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Puzzello, Chairperson, PARCS Committee, reported that this committee met on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. th Mayor Stephen Luecke, 14 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mayor Luecke advised that this bill would appropriate $2,000,000.00 from a State of Indiana grant awarded for the construction of the Ray and Joan Kroc Center at the corner of Western Avenue and Chapin Street. He stated that the funds will be appropriated into a State Grant Fund #210 and used for the operating endowment match for the facility. He noted that these funds cannot be used for general government purposes, only toward the operating endowment match for the Ray and Joan Kroc Center. 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 being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Varner made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill as substituted. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 31-10 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $8,000 FROM THE PALAIS ROYALE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND (FUND 450) FOR REPAIRS TO THE HISTORIC EXTERIOR/INTERIOR OF THE VENUE Councilmember Puzzello, Chairperson, PARCS Committee, reported that this committee met on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Dennis Andres, Executive Director, The Morris Performing Arts Center, 211 N. Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Andres advised that this bill would appropriate $8,000.00 within the Palais Royale Historic Preservation Fund (Fund #450). He stated that revenues for this fund are generated from a 2% surcharge assessed on all services provided in connection with the 6 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 use and rental of the Palais Royale facilities. He stated that the repairs will be made to the historic stone work on the exterior of the Palais Royale building, and to reseal areas around existing windows, and to repair interior wall damage that was caused by water seeping into the building from around exterior historic stone work. 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 being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 32-10 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, TRANSFERRING MONIES FROM THE RAINY DAY FUND NO. 102 TO DEPLETED FUNDS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND Councilmember LaFountain, Chairperson, Personnel and Finance Committee, reported that this committee met on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. th Mr. Gregg Zientara, City Controller, 12 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Zientara advised that due to delays in receipt of certain property tax revenue and State of Indiana revenue, it is necessary to transfer monies by June 30, 2010 from the Rainy Day Fund to three depleted funds in order to meet operational expenses. All funds will be paid back by December 31, 2010. The total amount to be borrowed from the Rainy Day Fund is $1,850,000. The cash balance in the Rainy Day Fund is currently $8,502,078. 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 being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 25-10 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 6 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAX ABATEMENTS Councilmember Rouse made a motion to continue this bill until the August 9, 2010 meeting of the Council. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 7 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 BILL NO. 26-10 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 2, OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADJUST SEWER RATES AND CHARGES INCREMENTALLY THROUGH 2013 Councilmember Rouse made a motion to hear the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Oliver Davis, Chairperson, Utilities Committee, reported that this committee met on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand read into the record the rules and procedures for the Public Hearing: Members of the public may speak for 5 minutes in favor, or in opposition; The total time for remonstrators shall be equal to the time of the public portion of those speaking in favor or 30 minutes, whichever is greater. A 5 minute rebuttal period then follows. th Mayor Stephen Luecke, 14 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mayor Luecke advised that in order to comply with the Clean Water Act, the City of South Bend must implement a 20-year, $400 million plan for the long-term control of combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Since 2006, the City has invested $43 million to reduce CSOs and the problems associated with them. Work has included expansion of the 54 year old Wastewater Treatment Plant and extensive efforts to separate combined sewers and build capacity for additional storage. Between 2010 and 2013, the City must spend another $54 million to make continued progress on the long-term control plan. Projects will include additional separation of storm and sanitary sewers, expanded capacity to retain storm water and a greater emphasis on green solutions, which address storm drainage through natural alternatives on site. Where sewer rates increased in stages by a cumulative 79 percent between 2006 and 2009, proposed rate increases over the next four years will be about half as much. The Council is considering increases of 8 percent in 2010 (beginning July 1) and 9 percent annually in 2011-13. For the average homeowner, it will mean an increase of about a dime a day. Other rates on the monthly South Bend utilities bill are expected to hold steady or decrease over the same period. That would result in less than a 3 percent increase in residents’ total municipal utility bill. Even after four years of the proposed increases, South Bend sewer rates will still be lower than current rates in Mishawaka and other Indiana cities. Mayor Luecke stated that they need to meet both federal targets and the citizen’s expectations to address public health concerns and preserve the beauty of the river. He stated that during the consent decree negotiations, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice have been clear: Regardless of the economic hardship in the community, they must make substantial progress toward the goal or face the threat of legal action and daily noncompliance fines. Progress in the first four years has been significant. The number of basement backups declined by 20 percent in 2009 when compared with 2005. The city also reduced overflow to the river 60 million gallons fewer in 2009 than in 2005. th Gary Gilot, Public Works Director, 13 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., advised that this is a 20 year solution. These types of problems can’t be solved in four years. He stated that this is about getting sewage out of basements, reducing combined storm-sanitary sewer overflows into the St. Joseph River and enhancing the st quality of life in the process. He explained in three segments: 1 review what they have accomplished on the CSO Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) the last 4 years with the prior nd 4 step rate increase 2 review the larger CSO LTCP and explain what comes next 2010- rd 2013 for rates and capital that will produce and how it is prioritized. 3 Explain the 8 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 across the board rate adjustments needed for 2010 through 2013 to continue the mandated CSO LTCP efforts as well as the full Rate Study by Crowe Horwath. Mr. John Skomp, Crowe Horwath, 10 West Market Street, Suite 2000, Indianapolis, Indiana, advised that they performed a study and analysis of the operating and financial reports, budgets and other data pertaining to the City of South Bend Municipal Sewage Works (“Utility”.) He stated that the report provides three possible scenarios for proposed rate changes over the next few years; the Report truly should be viewed as a continuation of an effort the Utility started to undertake back in 2005. At that point in time, the Utility had identified that it had a significant combined sewer overflow (CSO) problems and had begun to develop plans for how to address this problem over the course of many years. These initial plans indicated that the Utility would need almost $450 million over the course of twenty years to address and resolve the CSO problem. Due to the significant amount of improvements that would be necessary, the Utility determined that the best approach would be to address the situation in phases. In order address the first phase of the CSO project, the Common Council adopted a rate ordinance which allowed for incremental rate increase from 2006 through 2009. These rate increases were designed to allow the Utility to issue debt each year to provide funding for the necessary improvements while minimizing the impact to ratepayers each year. Since the adoption of the 2005 rate ordinance, the Utility has issued four pieces of debt, totaling over $44 million to provide funding for CSO improvements as well as other ongoing extensions and replacements for the Utility. This funding has allowed the Utility to keep on track with its originally proposed twenty-year long-term control plan. He stated that this report is to explore the second phase of the long-term control plan and provide possible approaches for continuing to successfully implement the needed CSO improvements. He stated that much of the focus of the report is to consider the proposed capital improvement plan for the next four years and identify potential levels of funding for this plan. However, the proposed rate increases in each scenario also considers the changes to operation and maintenance expenses that have occurred over time. Since 2007, operation and maintenance expenses have increased by almost fifty percent (50%) He stated that this seems like a significant increase in expenses, the two main categories of increases have occurred within collection system expenses and treatment plant expenses. Other operation and maintenance expenses such as administration and customer accounts have declined over time. In addition to these increases in operation and maintenance expenses, the Utility has also experienced increases in the contribution it makes to the City each year. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) is provided to the City to account for the assets of the Utility being exempt from property taxes, which impacts the amount of property taxes collected by the City. To account for this, the City requires the Utility to pay a PILOT each year out of is revenues. The PILOT is calculated based on the amount of utility plant assets of the Utility and the City’s corporate tax rate. The PILOT paid by the Utility over the last few years has increased by approximately $300,000. Again, this can be directly attributable to the increase in Utility assets as it has been placing new improvements into service to address its CSO plan and other needed extensions and replacements. Going forward, the PILOT is expected to continue to increase as the Utility continues to improve its system. In order to consider the funding of these capital improvements the City asked for three scenarios. The first scenario assumes that the proposed capital improvements are fully funded through the Utility’s rates. The second scenario assumes that the proposed rate increases are held to a specific level, allowing funding for a portion of the capital improvements with the remainder of the improvements being funded through other revenue sources. The final scenario assumes the proposed rate increases are established only to meet operating expenses and have sufficient coverage on the Utility’s existing debt. Any capital improvements not funded under these rate increases would need to be funded through other revenue sources. Scenario 1 – Fully Funded Capital Improvement Plan would raise its rates to a level where it could accomplish all of the capital improvements currently anticipated. Over the next four years, the currently anticipated funding level required is as follows: 2010 - $24,068,367; 2011 - $25,340,336; 2012 - $32,361,323; 2013 - $25,395,155; the total amount of proposed capital improvements over this time period is just over $107 million. To do this the City would issue bonds for the purposes of funding $90,444,828 in capital improvements. It is estimated that the City would issue over $100 million in bonds from 2010 through the end of 2012. The bond issue at the end of 2012 would fund the capital 9 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 improvements anticipated to be completed in 2013. The remainder of the capital improvements would be paid for through annual extensions and replacements funding. This funding has been designed to equal approximately 40% of the outstanding debt both current and proposed to allow the City to have sufficient coverage on its bonds. In order to fund the proposed bond issues, the currently outstanding debt and operating expenses, the Utility would step in rate increases over the next three-and-a-half years. For the purposes of the operating expenses certain assumptions regarding annual increases to thee expenses and taxes. For the purposes of estimating PILOT, the City has indicated that the annual increase in PILOT funding, could be held to 5% in order to allow for lower necessary rate increases. For this first scenario, the first rate increase of 16% would be effective in July 2010. The remaining rate increases would go into effect on January 1, of each year. For 2011, the rate increase would be eighteen percent (18%). In 2012 and 2013, the rate increases would be twelve percent (12%) and eight percent (8%) respectively. Scenario 2 – Maximum Rate Increase of 9% - Scenario 1 focused on the Utility’s priority of funding the necessary capital improvements in order to resolve the CSO problems and to maintain a working system. For Scenario 2, this priority is considered in the context of one of the Utility’s additional priorities looking out for the well-being of the Utility’s customers in regards to the monthly rates and charges. The Utility understands that any rate increase places an additional burden on its users as so, in Scenario 2, the Utility is considering options to reduce the impact to the users while still working towards accomplishing its capital improvement plan. For this scenario, the Utility considered the nine percent (9%) the maximum allowable rate increase on annual basis. By setting a maximum allowable rate increase, the Utility is looking to identify the portion of its capital improvement plan that would need to be funded through revenue sources other than the Utility’s revenues. Scenario 3 – Rate increase required to maintain sufficient coverage on existing bonds. This final scenario provided assumes that the Utility considers only the minimum rate increase necessary to cover its operations and existing debt. In this scenario, the Utility would not bond for any new capital improvements proposed for 2010 through 2013. While the goal of this scenario is to provide as minimal a rate increase necessary to the ratepayers, the Utility must also be cognizant of keeping a good credit evaluation by maintaining adequate coverage on its existing debt. Since the Utility will need to issue debt to fund Phase II of the CSO plan, it is imperative that the Utility maintain a minimum coverage on one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) on its existing debt. Future purchasers of the Utility’s debt will look to its historical coverage ratios to evaluate the Utility’s creditworthiness. In this scenario, the minimum coverage recommend is one hundred thirty percent (130%) while one hundred forty percent (140%) is preferred. The rate increases are the same as proposed in Scenario 2. This is due to the fact that the Utility is currently not meeting its coverage requirements. At the present time, revenues are providing a coverage percentage of approximately one hundred four percent (104%) of the Utility’s current operation and maintenance expenses, taxes due and debt service. Mr. Skomp stated that they recommend that the Utility should have at least one hundred thirty percent (130%) coverage. Therefore, for this scenario, the Utility would be implementing rate increases of eight percent (8%) in 2010, five percent (5%) in 2011, two percent (2%) in 2012 and one percent (1%) in 2013. The coverage amount calculated into the minimum rate increases in this scenario as annual extensions and replacement funding would allow for just under $8 million of these improvements to be funded through the Utility’s revenues. As in Scenario 2, the Utility would contribute currently available cash in the amount of $4.4 million. The remainder, almost $95 million, would need to be funded through other revenue sources if the Utility is to stay on track in addressing its CSO issues. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. The following individuals spoke in favor of this bill. Mr. Henry Mascott, 19492 Cottage Ct., South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. Mr. Mascott stated that this bill seems very reasonable. He noted that a great deal of planning went into this bill and it shows sensitivity to ecology. Mr. Mascott stated that the overflow into the river needs to stop. 10 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 Ms. Catherine Pittman, 2628 Summit Ridge, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is an avid kayaker and would like to see the city invest in keeping the river clean. She stated that she has seen improvement in the river and this bill will allow the Waste Water Treatment Plant to be able to keep the sewer overflows out of the river and be better for future generations. Mr. Tony Flora, 202 E. Angela, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. Mr. Flora advised that he is not a native South Bend resident; however, he was in shock and dismay when he learned that the sewer and sanitary systems were combined. He stated that he would rather pay a little more in tax instead of having his basement flooded. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the bill: Ms. Patricia G. Smith, 817 N. O’Brien, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. Ms. Smith suggested that the city could cut down on some expenses like billing for water insurance, late fees and stop sending return address envelopes. She also would like to see tax eliminated from the bill. She encouraged the Council Members to look into how many unemployed customers have had their service disconnected. She stated that this is not the time to raise rates when the economy has been in such bad shape and people are finding it hard enough to find a job, pay their bills and keep food on the table. She stated that she tries to pay her bill but still has an outstanding balance of $102.13. She urged the Council to reject this bill. Jesse Davis, 1333 E. Calvert, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. Mr. Davis stated that he is local sewer contractor and now is not the time to raise rates. He stated that the Federal Government says that the economy is getting better, but in this area it is not. Mr. Davis questioned why this has to be done all of sudden. He asked the Council to keep the rate increase at a pace that can be accepted. He asked if businesses get a break on their water bill, such as the University of Notre Dame. He urged the Council to vote unfavorably on this bill. Mr. Thomas Burnett, 18907 Cleveland Road, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. Mr. Burnett noted that he lives in St. Joseph County; however, he believes that he will be eventually annexed into the City and therefore will have to pay for this increase. He stated that if rates go up he will have to pay more to have his septic pumped. He encourages the Council to pay over a slower period of time. Mr. Burnett stated that the rate payers cannot pay for this in such a short amount of time. Mr. Burnett asked the Council to reconsider this bill. Mr. Cecil Breden, 19590 Darden Road, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. Mr. Breden stated that he too lives in St. Joseph County, however, he is speaking for all the residents living in the city on a fixed income. He stated that this rate increase is just too much for anyone to pay for. He urged the Council to vote against this bill. Mr. Jim Grey, 2903 Erskine Boulevard, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. Mr. Grey stated that his bill averages about $70.00 a month in the fall and between $90.00 and $100.00 during the summer. He stated that this is too much of a rate increase and asked the Council to vote against this bill. In Rebuttal, Mayor Luecke advised that he wanted to address some of the concerns raised. He stated that when sewer rates increased in stages by a cumulative 79 percent between 2006 and 2009, proposed rate increases over the next four years will be about half as much. He 11 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 stated that the City is pledging $10 million dollars from Economic Development Income Tax (EDIT) funds over the next four years to support economic development-related investment in the long-term control plan. Mayor Luecke stated that they will seek federal grants whenever they can. He noted that the bills mentioned tonight were bills for water, trash and sewer not just sewer bills. Mayor Luecke thanked the Council for their consideration on this bill to keep basements clean and help with sewer overflows. He asked the Council for their favorable recommendation. Councilmember Varner stated that he wanted to see the mandate from the EPA. He advised that the Mayor handed out two letters in the Council Informal Meeting this evening from Mr. Fredric P. Andes and Mr. Thomas W. Easterly, Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Council Member Varner stated that he would like them both entered into the record: March 22, 2010 Mr. Jack Dillon Director City of South Bend Division of Environmental Services 3113 Riverside Dr. South Bend, IN 46628 Re: Funding of CSO Long Term Control Plan Projects Dear Jack: This letter is to outline the importance of ensuring that the City’s planned CSO Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) projects are fully funded. As you know, the City is currently negotiating with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) over development of the City’s LTCP, as well as a federal Consent Decree that will incorporate the LTCP. The current draft LTCP includes a number of Phase 1 projects that the City has already committed to completing, including CSOnet, sewer separation, and upgrades at the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, the City is negotiating the scope of Phase 2 projects, which are currently estimated to cost over $300,000,000 in capital expenditures, plus annual operation and maintenance costs of over $39,000,000. These projects, while expensive, will allow the City to achieve a level of CSO control that will protect human health and the environment, and bring the City into compliance with Clean Water Act requirements. Once, the City and agencies reach agreement on a final LTCP, including both Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects, both the Consent Decree and the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) permit will contain enforceable milestones that the City must achieve as it implements the LTCP. Failure to provide sufficient funding for those projects could prevent the City from achieving its milestones, and could subject the City to both state and federal enforcement actions, which carry civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day per violation. Knowing violations which could include a deliberate decision by city officials not to adequately fund LTCP obligations could result in criminal charges being brought against the responsible officials, and carry penalties of up to $50,000 per day and up to 3 years in prison. Please let us know if you have any questions concerning the City’s obligation to fund its CSO LTCP commitments. Sincerely, Fredric P. Andres 12 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 (No Date) Dear Mayor Luecke: In 2005, over 100 communities in Indiana had illegal combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and EPA was on a path to take enforcement actions against a number of these Cities. At that time IDEM and EPA worked out a plan to work together with the CSO communities to develop and implement long term control plans (LCTPs) to reduce or eliminate the water pollution caused by the CSO events. EPA insisted on keeping the lead for 10 communities of federal interest: Anderson, Elkhart, Evansville, Gary, Hammond, Indianapolis, Jeffersonville, Mishawaka, Mount Vernon, and South Bend. IDEM took the lead on the remaining 98 communities. At this time, all of the IDEM lead communities and four of the federal lead communities (Anderson, Indianapolis, Jeffersonville and Mount Vernon) are meeting their legal obligations to address their CSOs. In the summer of 2005, senior management from U.S. EPA, IDEM, and the U.S. Department of Justice met with you and the Mayors of Elkhart and Mishawaka to express out desire to work with your cities to adequately address CSO issues in the South Bend, Mishawaka, Elkhart, area. Now, five years later, we believe that Elkhart and Mishawaka would enter into legally enforceable agreements to implement acceptable LTCPs, but do not want to proceed until South Bend also has an acceptable plan. Because of the lack of an agreement with South Bend, U.S. DOJ has assigned additional legal resources to the South Bend case and is preparing a complaint to file. While negotiations can continue after a complaint is filed, there is generally more time pressure and less flexibility in settling once the complaint is filed. There are a number of cost components that become more significant once a complaint is filed. 1. There will be additional legal costs to the City to answer the complaint and prepare for trial. 2. The formal penalty calculation will include recovering the estimated savings from not coming into compliance as quickly as possible. 3. There will be gravity based penalties for past discharge violations associated with CSOs. 4. The terms of any Consent Decree will likely be less favorable to the City as the issues move towards litigation rather than negotiation. I am not able to estimate the specific future costs for delays in your program to address CSOs, but federal clean water act penalties can be up to $27,500 per day per unpermitted discharge and penalties assessed in federal CSO Consent Decrees are often in the millions of dollars. Thank you for helping IDEM protect Hoosiers and our environment by continuing to pursue your CSO LTCP. Sincerely, Thomas W. Easterly, Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management 13 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 Councilmember Oliver Davis asked what would happen if they would delay these issues. Mr. Skomp replied that if the Council passes now, the $450 million dollars has a time line and if it is not acted on now the rates will just keep going up. When you get closer to the timelines major jumps in rate increases would have to happen. Mr. Skomp stated that this is a good faith effort by the City to continue going forward with a willingness and a goal set for cleaning up the CSO’s and working with the EPA. He stated that the EPA will view this as a good faith effort. Mr. Skomp reiterated that the longer the City waits the more significant the rate increase will be. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked if it is more productive to adjust every year. Mr. Skomp stated that he and his company would like that very much it would keep them very busy, however, multi-year rate increases show transparency to the citizens and lock in those rates. Councilmember Rouse questioned on Page 1 of the South Bend Municipal Sewage Works, Preliminary Rate and Financing Report in paragraph #3 it states that Crowe Horwath had not conducted an audit of any financial or supplemental data and wondered why they have not conducted an audit. Mr. Skomp stated that he does not recommend a separate audit and stated that it is the responsibility of the State Board of Accounts (SBOA.) Councilmember Rouse questioned the estimated combined maximum annual debt service at $5.9 million on outstanding bond service. He stated that they are not autonomists. Councilmember Rouse stated that there is 15% unemployment rate in the City of South Bend and people are complaining that they cannot pay their bill now. Councilmember Henry Davis advised that he has some uncertainty regarding the mandate. He stated that there is the lace of inclusiveness. There has been no record of discussion with the EPA. He stated that this could have been done in a more creative way for the citizens and taxpayers to be able to understand and afford. He sees this as th and 11 hour movement to get this passed. He stated that he cannot support this bill. He nd stated that after talking with the residents of the 2 District regarding the CSO Project in Kennedy Park there are just too many concerns and uncertainty of how the projects are being planned. He stated that the City needs more transparency. He stated that there needs to be better communication and planning and a longer time frame. Councilmember Henry Davis stated that he is not against the environment, but there must be a better way to resolve this issue. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that the Utilities Committee held meetings and thanked Gary Gilot, Public Work Director for his dedicated service. He stated that this bill was not just dropped on the Council. He stated that even before some members of this Council were elected into office a 20 year plan was in place to address this issue. Councilmember Puzzello stated that she had a great deal of respect for Mr. Gilot and the information that was provided by him is accurate and correct. She stated that his office was a great help with neighbors in her district when they had trouble with water in their basement. Councilmember White asked prior to the 4 years when was the last rate increase. Mayor Luecke advised 2003 and prior to that it was 16 years. He stated that rates being put off for that long the rate increases needed to be caught up. Councilmember White stated that she is in agreement that something must be done; however, the argument is on just how much. She stated that basement flooding is awful and costs homeowners thousands of dollars and insurance only covers a small portion if 14 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 any depending on the policy. Councilmember White questioned how the City can give the quality of life that is expected by its residents and then struggle with passing on this burden to them. Councilmember Rouse stated that the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) is a perception to circumvent property taxes and is unfortunate that is has to be done but is a procedure that has been in place for over a decade. He stated that this is a difficult issue and believes that they need a pro-active approach to resolve this issue. Councilmember Kirsits stated that the sewage rate already out costs the water rate. He stated that he understands the engineering aspect and that this issue needs to be addressed for future generations, however, he suggests a slower approach. He stated that he will be explaining this decision to his wife and mother who will be questioning another increase on their bill. There being no one else present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill as substituted. Councilmember Kirsits seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. RISE AND REPORT Councilmember White made a motion to rise and report to the full Council. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. ATTEST: ATTEST: _________________________ _________________________ John Voorde, City Clerk Ann Puzzello, Chairperson Committee of the Whole 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 7:20 p.m. Vice- President Oliver Davis presided with eight (8) members present. BILLS – THIRD READING ORDINANCE NO. 10016-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $2,000,000.00 FROM STATE GRANT FUND (#210) FOR THE OPERATING ENDOWMENT FOR RAY AND JOAN KROC CENTER 15 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 This bill had third reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to amend this bill as in the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Varner made a motion to pass this bill as amended. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 10017-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $8,000 FROM THE PALAIS ROYALE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND (FUND 450) FOR REPAIRS TO THE HISTORIC EXTERIOR/INTERIOR OF THE VENUE This bill had third reading. Councilmember White made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember Rouse seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 10018-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, TRANSFERRING MONIES FROM THE RAINY DAY FUND NO. 102 TO DEPLETED FUNDS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND This bill had third reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 10019-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 2, OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADJUST SEWER RATES AND CHARGES INCREMENTALLY THROUGH 2013 This bill had third reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to amend this bill as in the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember White seconded the motion. Additionally, Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to pass this bill as amended. Councilmember LaFountain seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of six (6) ayes and two (2) nays (Councilmember’s Varner, Henry Davis.) RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 4034-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2211 S. MICHIGAN ST. 16 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.6, requires the Common Council to give notice pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, of its intention to consider Petitions from the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Common Council must take action within sixty (60) days after the Board of Zoning Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council pursuant to I.C. 36-7-4-918.6; and WHEREAS, the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing on such requests pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.4, and WHEREAS, the South Bend Board of Zoning Appeals has made a recommendation, pursuant to applicable state law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the Petition from the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, requesting that a Special Exception be granted for the property located at: 2211 S. Michigan St. In order to permit A Special Exception for manufacturing/retailer in a “MU” Mixed Use District SECTION II. Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and after proper public hearing, the Common Council hereby approves the petition of the South Bend Board of Zoning Appeals, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION III. The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, hereby finds that: 1. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare; 2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein; 3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein; 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendation of the City of South Bend Comprehensive plan; all of which is requested by the South Bend Municipal Code §21-09.03 SECTION IV. Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the reasonable conditions established by the Board of Zoning Appeals which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION V. The Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/Derek D. Dieter Member of the Common Council Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning and Annexation Committee reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and sends it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. 17 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 Mr. Mark Lyons, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana, presented the report from the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Lyons advised that the petitioner is seeking a Special Exception for property located at 2211 S. Michigan Street to all Manufacturing/Retailer in a “MU” Mixed Use District. Mr. Lyons stated that the Area Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing on June 2, 2010 and sends this bill to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Elizabeth Parvu, 538 E. Ewing Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is seeking a special exception to allow some light manufacturing for her business. Ms. Parvu stated that the business repacks food colors, coloring cocoa butter and occasionally hold specialty decorating classes for adults. She stated that she believes that her business will be an asset to the community. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember White made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Kirsits seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. BILLS – FIRST READING BILL NO. 34-10 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $75,000 FROM THE LOSS RECOVERY FUND (#227) TO PAY FOR AN ENGINEERING STUDY FOR THE SOUTH BEND WASTE WATER UTILITY This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to the Utilities Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on July 12, 2010. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 35-10 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, TECHNICALLY AMENDING THE 2010 CALENDAR YEAR NON-BARGAINING EMPLOYEES SALARY ORDINANCE #9959-09 TO REINSTATE ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT This bill had first reading. Councilmember LaFountain made a motion to refer this bill to the Personnel & Finance Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on July 12, 2010. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 18 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 BILL NO. 36-10 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $300,000 OUT OF SEWAGE WORKS CAPITAL FUND (#642) TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH UPGRADE OF A RAW SEWAGE PUMP REQUIRED TO MEET PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to the Utilities Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on July 12, 2010. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORT FROM AREA PLAN COMMISSION: BILL NO. 24-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 850 FELLOW STREET, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601-3121, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 2 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Varner made a motion to accept the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Varner made a motion to refer this bill to the Zoning and Annexation Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on July 12, 2010. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. CONFIRMING TAX ABATEMENT TO BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING: BILL NO. 10-33 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS LOTS 14 & 15 ON VORDEN PARKWAY ADJACENT TO 3751 OLIVE ROAD AS AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A FIVE (5) YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR OLIVE CLEVELAND PARTNERS, LLC. Councilmember Varner made a motion to refer this bill to the Community and Economic Development Committee and set it for Public Hearing on July 12, 2010. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. NEW BUSINESS 19 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that at the June 14, 2010 meeting of the Council under Privilege of the Floor the issue concerning the Kennedy Park CSO Project and concerns regarding on street parking was raised. She stated that there are maps on file in the Office of the City Clerk addressing this issue. Councilmember Henry Davis asked Councilmember Puzzello, Chairperson of the PARCS Committee if she would hold a committee meeting to address the Martin Luther King Center, Charles Black Center and the Kennedy Park Tennis Courts. Councilmember Henry Davis stated that this past week he has called several City Departments regarding issues for his constituents and was not greeted in a very friendly manner. He stated that customer services should be a number one priority for every department of the City. He stated that the lack of empathy and the explanation of “this is not my job” is totally unacceptable. He encouraged better communication and customer service for all city departments. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR COMMENTS REGARDING BILL NO. 30-10 AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 9, OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE ADDRESSING THE HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE BY THE INCLUSION OF NEW PROVISIONS ADDRESSING EMPLOYMENT FAIRNESS Penny Hughes – 1918 Southernview Drive, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is the Chairperson of the South Bend Human Rights Commission and that on June 17, 2010, The South Bend Human Rights Commission vigorously and unanimously voted to support an extension of the South Bend Human Rights ordinance to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Ms. Hughes filed a copy with the Office of the City Clerk. She stated as Chairperson of the South Bend Human Rights Commission and on its behalf, she requested that the Common Council favorably act on pending Bill No. 30-10. Tony Flora 202 E. Angela, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is the Secretary of the North Central Indiana AFL-CIO Council. Mr. Flora advised that the North Central Indiana AFL-CIO Labor Council supports the ordinance introduced by Common Council members Oliver Davis, Ann Puzzello and Buddy Kirsits allowing the South Bend Human Rights Commission to investigate claims of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The AFL-CIO Central Labor Council voted at its June 2010 meeting to take this position. The AFL-CIO has a long history of dedication to workplace fairness and is a strong advocate for an end to discrimination against all employees. In 2005, the AFL-CIO stated, “Discrimination based on sexual orientation is inconsistent with the fundamental value of equality; simply put, it is wrong.” This statement is part of the AFL-CIO’s declaration of “The Values that Unite Us as a People and A Movement.” The North Central Indiana AFL-CIO, the federation of Unions in the six north central counties of Indiana, asks that the South Bend Common Council support the amendments proposed to the South Bend Human Rights Ordinance. He stated that their support of this amendment is consistent wit the AFL-CIO’s commitment to improve the lives of workers and their families, and the goal of bringing economic justice to the workplace and social justice to the community. Mary Studer, 5332 Fairfaix Ct., South Bend, Indiana, stated that she has taught for the last eighteen years at the college level at Southwestern Michigan College, St. Mary’s and Notre Dame. She stated that she would like to take a few minutes to explain to the Council some economic comparison and how it may bring some issues into context on the amendment to the South Bend Human Rights Ordinance to include new provisions addressing employment fairness. She noted that Center for Applied Economic Research at Montana State University at Billings recently published some interesting information regarding the social impact on education. Its director ranked the states on how beneficial their public education system impacts society in each of their states. The number one 20 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 state is Connecticut and the bottom ten who impact their state most poorly are #50 - Mississippi, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Indiana was ranked #25. Consider the laws that Jim Crow implied and did to the south; they suppressed and marginalized most of their citizens regulating them to schools which lacked the basic necessity for education and hiring under qualified teachers. Jim Crow’s ghost is still haunting the quality of education in the south. When she started out in business in the mid 70’s the Fortune 100 Company she went to work for systematically disregarded the ideas of employees who lack a college degree or were women. That company has since been bought up and spun off so many times she is not sure that any of the surviving assets still belong to the original Belgian Company they did a few years ago. Consider if it is any accident that 80% of all Fortune 500 companies now have non sexual discrimination policies unlike her first employer these companies are survivors they understand the need to attract the best and brightest employees they understand need to pull from every possible talent pool to do so. They understand the disadvantages inherent of any Jim Crow mind set for their businesses. Jim Crow laws have been fortunately gone for many decades but his ghost still continues to hurt many of the education systems in the south. She stated that of course South Bend doesn’t have Jim Crow laws but take into consideration of how important it is to support this amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance and think about the advantages in the world market. Nancy Nickels, Pastor, Broadway Christian Parish, 1412 Carroll, South Bend, Indiana, residing at 122 E. Haney, South Bend, Indiana, urged the Council to pass Bill No. 30-10 amending the South Bend Municipal Code addressing the Human Rights Ordinance to include new provisions addressing employment fairness. The denial of human rights flies in the face of Christian beliefs. All individual are created in the image of God and are the beloved children of God and must be protected under the law against discrimination. Protecting the rights of citizens under the law is an area of justice that must be addressed by those who are charged with protecting the common good. Persons who are GLBT must have equal protection under the law and the lawful access to redress issues of workplace hiring and discrimination. She stated that protecting the rights of all citizens is just as equally valuable and they deserve equal protection under the law. This amendment not only protects the rights of GLBT community it protects the larger community as well. This is a quality of life issue for all persons who live in the Michiana area or are seeking an economic investment is South Bend. Ms. Nickels again urged the council to add the GLBT Community to the anti-discrimination ordinance as it applies to employee rights in the workplace. Grace Lydynski-Smith, 536 S. Sunnyside, South Bend, Indiana, advised that she is here tonight to ask the Council to pass Bill No. 30-10 amending the South Bend Municipal Code addressing the Human Rights Ordinance to include new provisions addressing employment fairness. She stated that growing up here in South Bend it has been wonderful to see how civil rights kind of blossomed here. She stated that just recently the natatorium has been turned into a Civil Rights Museum, which was once a place of oppression and prejudice. She stated that for many years people have been promoting equal rights for everyone. She stated that she would like to continue living here and be proud of her community, and as a lesbian youth be protected under the law no matter who they are or who they love. Randy Kelly, 1325 E. Wayne, South Bend, Indiana, advised that there is more than a little compelling date to indicate that communities which show themselves to be tolerant and inclusive, with regard to sexual orientation, benefit economically, from attracting and retaining new business to capturing young workers who are part of, to use Richard Florida’s term, the “Creative Class.” In case anyone is not familiar, Richard Florida is a best-selling author, an American urban studies theorist, a professor of social and economic theory and head of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. He also heads a private consulting firm, the Creative Class Group. Florida is a PhD from Columbia University, has taught at George Mason University’s School of Public Policy and at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College. Florida’s ideas on the Creative Class, commercial innovation, and regional development are being used globally to change the way regions and nations do business 21 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 and transform their economies. He is one of the world’s leading public intellectuals on economic competitiveness, demographic trends, and cultural and technological innovations. In a 2003 USA Today Article, Florida wrote: “Research I conducted with Gary Gates, and Urban Institute demographer, shows that the big new-ideas and cutting- edge industries that lead to sustained prosperity are more likely to exist where gay people feel welcome. Most centers of tech-based business growth also have the highest concentrations of gay couples. Conversely, major areas with relatively few gay couples tend to be slow-or no-growth places. Innovation and overall regional economic vitality also are closely associated with the presence of gays and other indicators of tolerance and diversity, such as the percentage of immigrants and the level of racial and ethnic integration.” Certainly they can always find people to argue research data, but Florida’s theory strikes him intuitively, as not only plausible but probable. He’s found that this group of knowledge-based workers, techies, innovators, and artist represents just one- third of the total workforce, but earns more than half of all wages and salaries, and controls nearly 70 percent of all discretionary income in the United States. Unlike previous generations of workers, members of the Creative Class have much more control over where they choose to live, and they are increasingly choosing places that proactively include GLBT people. Florida relates this to the “3T’s” of economic development: Technology, Talent and Tolerance. Again the areas with a growing tech-based business economy have the highest concentration of gay couples, while major areas with few gay couples tend not to show any signs of growth. The City of South Bend is working st feverishly to brand itself a 21 Century City, citing its Metronet, Innovation and Ignition Parks. But if we don’t publicly show ourselves as a place tolerant of the attitudes of the people who make up the business we’re trying to attract, we simply cannot be as successful as we hope to be. We cannot allow ourselves to be perceived as community, intolerant, or unwilling to stand up for the rights of any group of people, for fear of falling farther behind in the race toward economic growth and prosperity. Mr. Kelly placed on file in the Office of the City Clerk petitions in support of Amending the South Bend Human Rights Ordinance to extend to all individuals protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (heterosexual/bisexual/lesbian/gay) or gender identity in the area of employment. Doug (no last name or address given), stated that he used to work for a distribution company here in South Bend. He worked there for five years. At a point in time he was up for consideration for a management position with the company. He stated that his supervisor submitted his name and he was told to submit another name. I found out afterwards that the plant manager, upon reading his name, said at the management team meeting “I will not have a faggot on my management team! When he learned of this he asked his supervisor if this was true. He was ushered into his office, shut the door and told him it was in fact true. He asked if he had any options and was told no. That if forced, the company could find any excuse it wanted to fire him if he contested this. Two days later the plant manager summoned him into his office. He then was told what he had heard was not true, but for someone to be on his team, he had to command respect and he had to remember that this is South Bend not San Francisco, which completely negated his previous claims. He stated that he left the company, not long after that and went back to college, because he realized that he would have no chance at advancing at the company. He encouraged the Council t act progressively. With the City attempting to attract new business especially in the technology corridor, it would be beneficial that the city act accordingly. He stated that more than 260 of the Fortune 500 Companies provide benefits and job guarantees for their homosexual employees. He asked the Council to please pass this ordinance. Theresa Wainscott, 503 Riverside, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she grew up in LaPorte and moved to South Bend to attend IUSB. She stated that she is a Medical Social Worker. She stated that at work derogatory remarks were made against her regarding “her kind of people.” She stated that after this incident she did not know who she could trust to talk to. She stated that she went to the Human Resources Department and was told that they would investigate the allegations. She stated that after two meetings she went back to Human Resources and they told her that it had been taken care of. She questioned what had been taken care of? Ms. Wainscott stated that nothing had 22 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 been done. Incidentally, shortly after that the person who made those derogatory remarks had been promoted and she had been laid-off. Ms. Wainscott stated that she did not have any further recourse, no one to go to for help. She urged the Council’s favorable consideration of this bill. Alex Georgio, 50578 Pine Ct., Granger, Indiana, stated that he is here tonight to ask the Council to pass Bill No. 30-10 amending the South Bend Municipal Code addressing the Human Rights Ordinance to include new provisions addressing employment fairness. He stated that he does not live in the City, but is a student at Ivy Tech, and the facility director of the Youth Group at the GLBT Resource Center of Michiana, 1522 Mishawaka, Avenue. He stated that he is speaking on behalf of the GLBT Youth. He stated that he believes that this is not a good example to set for the youth of the community to allow discrimination in the workplace because of gender identity or sexual orientation. In order for the City to move forward everyone needs to be judge on their performance and not any thing else. He stated that many of the youth feel that in South Bend is a place of discrimination and that is just not fair. He urged the Council to pass the Human Rights Ordinance Amendment. COMMENTS FROM MR. JIM CIERZNIAK REGARDING TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT Jim Cierzniak, 1518 Pine Top Trace, Mishawaka, Indiana, quoted from the South Bend Tribune an article from June 25, 2010 “Indiana Democrats have been calling for months for more transparency in state government.” He stated what a great concept. Showing interested citizens where the money is coming from and where it goes. He proposes that citizens have detailed information on the quasi-business run by the City (Which, in some cases, also receives tax money from the county.) He stated let’s have some real transparency and put annual reports on the City website for Coveleski Regional Stadium, Morris Civic Auditorium, Palais Royale, Blackthorn Golf Club, and Century Center. This may not be a complete list of such businesses, many of which compete with private enterprises and enjoy an unfair tax advantage, but it’s a start. These reports would be a reasonably detailed statement of income and expenses similar, let’s say to, the ones prepared by Liz at Century Center in the early years of the Hall of Fame. Each venue’s one-page report should also include bond payments made for the venue during the year and the total bonded indebtedness at the end of the year. He noted that he has not mentioned the financial sinkhole otherwise known as the College Football Hall of Fame. (South Bend’s spending for the Hall, once the bond is paid in 2017, will total over $35 million.) In fact, it is difficult to use the words “transparent” and “Hall of Fame” I the same sentence. He asked the Council if they had seen the 2009 annual report of the Hall? He doubted it. He stated that he had a Freedom of Information request in for that report for several months and still has not received it. He received the 2008 report eight months after the end of that year. The NFF has put operating information in a lock box. Like the Council he is familiar with that part of the Second Interim Agreement which states that the NFF “shall not have any financial reporting obligation to the City or the Board of Mangers in connection with the operation of the Hall of Fame.” He stated to assume that 2010 is the last year for the Hall and that they will never get a report on this year despite giving them another huge subsidy. If the Hall does operate here in 2011, assume that it will do so with its own money and not get the usual $500,000-$600,000 subsidy from the City. He stated that he digresses. He appealed to the Council to get together with the Mayor and open up the information spigot on the venues mentioned. In the past he has concluded from Mayor Luecke that he has little interest in making local government more transparent. He stated that indeed he appears hostile to that idea unless the information is helpful to him in pushing for new spending projects. Mr. Cierzniak stated that on August 10, 2010, he addressed the Council on this matter, pleading with the Mayor for transparency. He stated that his entreaty was met with his haughty silence. He closed with one can hope that will fellow Democrats making a big push for transparency statewide, he will get on the band wagon. 23 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, Vice-President Oliver J. Davis adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m. ATTEST: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ John Voorde, City Clerk Oliver J. Davis, Vice-President 24