The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/08/07 Council Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 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, October 8, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council President Rouse and the Invocation and Pledge to the Flag were given. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS: Present: Derek D. Dieter 1st District Charlotte Pfeifer 2nd District Roland “Randy” Kelly 3rd District Ann Puzzello 4th District Vice-President David Varner 5th District Al “Buddy” Kirsits At-Large Timothy Rouse At-Large President Karen L. White At-Large Chairperson Committee of the Whole Absent: Ervin Kuspa 6th District OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Beth Wisniewski Chief Deputy Janice I. Talboom Deputy City Clerk Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Council Attorney Absent: John Voorde City Clerk 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 September 17, 2007 and September 24, 2007 meetings of the Council and found them to be correct. Therefore, we recommend the same be approved. s/Timothy A. Rouse s/David Varner Councilmember Puzzello made a motion that the minutes of the September 17, 2007 and September 24, 2007 meetings of the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. SPECIAL BUSINESS RESOLUTION NO. 3798-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, PUBLICLY COMMENDING AND HONORING MARK O’DELL, A SENIOR AT WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL FOR SCORING A PERFECT SCORE ON THE SAT REASONING TEST 1 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Whereas, the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, notes that the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is America’s oldest, most widely used college entrance exam which began being administered in 1901; and Whereas, today this exam, administered by the not-for-profit College Board is known as the SAT Reasoning Test and is administered in 3 hours and 45 minutes; with possible scores of 600 to 2400 for the combined test results from three (3) 800-point sections, namely math, critical reading and writing; and Whereas, the South Bend Common Council is proud to honor Mark O’Dell, a senior at Washington High School, who scored a perfect composite score of 2400, making him the first area student to record a perfect score since the new writing component was added to the exam in 2006; and Whereas, the Council further notes that Mark O’Dell is just one of six students in the state of Indiana to record a perfect score this year; and Whereas, Mark O’Dell has not only excelled academically, but is also the Captain of the Washington High School Panthers soccer team, runs track, is a member of the Panther’s Quiz Bowl Team, and is an All-State Cello Player. Now, Therefore, be it resolved, by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: Section I. On behalf of all of the citizens of the City of South Bend, Indiana, the , Common Council hereby publicly commends and congratulates MARK O’DELLa senior at Washington High School, who scored a perfect composite score of 2400 on the SAT Reasoning Test. Section II. The Common Council publicly congratulates Mark, who stated that he has been “preparing for it since the fifth grade”. The Council would also especially like to thank his Mom, Evelyn O’Dell, who is a speech therapist at Warren Primary Center and Dickinson Intermediate Center; and his Dad, Dr. Ed O’Dell, a local veterinarian, for encouraging and nurturing such a well-rounded scholar, athlete and person. As a result, MARK O’DELL has brought the highest of honors to himself, his family, Washington High School, and the entire City of South Bend, Indiana. Section III. The South Bend Common Council believes that the commitment, discipline and exceptional academic abilities of MARK O’DELL, makes him a true role model to the youth of our community and an inspiration to us all. The Common Council wishes Mark continued success in the future. Section IV. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor. stth s/Derek D. Dieter, 1 District s/Ervin Kuspa, 6 District nd s/Charlotte D. Pfeifer, 2 District s/Timothy A. Rouse, At Large rd s/Roland Kelly, 3 District s/Al “Buddy” Kirsits, At Large th s/Ann Puzzello, 4 District s/Karen L. White, At Large th s/Dr. David Varner, 5 District s/Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Attorney th Attest: Adopted this 8 day of September, 2007 s/John Voorde, City Clerk s/Stephen J. Luecke, Mayor 2 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Councilmember Puzzello 1247 E. LaSalle Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this Resolution by reading it in its entirety, offering her comments and presenting it to Mr. Mark O’Dell. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There was no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution. Mr. O’Dell thanked the Council for this honor. He stated that he has been studying for this accomplishment since the fifth grade. He thanked his parents for their encouragement and guidance. Dr. Robert Zimmerman, Superintendent, South Bend Community School Corporation, commended Mark O’Dell for this great accomplishment and wished him well in his endeavors. There was no one else present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to adopt this Resolution by acclamation. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried. RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 7:11 p.m. Councilmember Dieter made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember White, Chairperson, Committee of the Whole, presiding. Councilmember White 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 White stated that a brochure may be found on the railing in the Council Chambers explaining those procedures. PUBLIC HEARINGS BILL NO. 40-07 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN 3466 AND 17210 DOUGLAS ROAD AND SOUTH OF 17210 AND 17242 DOUGLAS ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF S.R. 23, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 4 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Rouse made a motion to amend this bill to accept the written commitments as on file with the Office of the City Clerk. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight ayes. Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning & 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 subject to the written commitments as on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 3 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand read into the record the changes as follows: Section II. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the Common Council, approval by the Mayor; subject to the two pages of written commitments dated October 8, 2007 on file with the Office of the City Clerk and legal publication. th Mr. Mark Lyons, Staff Planner, Area Plan Commission, 11 Floor County-City Building, presented the report from the Commission. Mr. Lyons advised that the petitioner is requesting a zone change from CB Community Business District and SF1 Single Family and Two Family District to CB Community Business District to allow uses permitted in the CB Community Business District. The petition is sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation subject to the following written commitments: 1) No access to McErlain Street or Elkins Street 2) A cross access easement be provided to the western adjoining lots; Tax ID’s 24-2023-0548 and 24-2023-054801 3) The southern 180 feet of the site be restricted to OB Office Buffer uses and development standards. 4) No controlled uses allowed with the development. Prior to September 2005, the southwest portion of this site was zoned SF1, with the northeastern portion zoned OB. In September of 2005, the OB zoning was successfully petitioned to CB. The SF1 district essentially remained in place, with written commitments to protect the residential properties to the south. The land uses to the south of the petition area have not hcanged since the rezoning in 2005. The commission also recognizes the expansion of the commercial area along Douglas Road. However, the Commission feels by limiting the southern 180 feet of the development to OB Office Buffer uses and development standards, along with the required residential buffer yard and landscaping, the surrounding residential areas should be adequately buffered, white at the same time providing appropriately zoned property for commercial development. Mr. Frank Perri, Holladay Properties, 227 South Main Street, Suite 300, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for the bill on behalf of the Hartman’s Douglas Road and Snelson’s Douglas Road Trust Agreement. Mr. Perri advised that the petitioner is requesting a zone change from CB Community Business District and SF1 Single Family and Two Family District to CB Community Business District to allow uses permitted in the CB Community Business District to allow for the construction of six (6) retail buildings totaling approximately 110,000. Mr. Perri noted that there will be four (4) smaller retail buildings located on the northern part of the site and two (2) larger retail buildings will be located on the southern portion of the site. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Noal Yarger, 17180 McErlain, President, Juday Creek/Douglas Acres Neighborhood Association along with Vice-President Wanda Shock and Co-Vice-President Dave Shock, spoke in favor of this bill. Mr. Yarger stated that the Homeowner’s Association is in favor of this bill. He noted that the written commitments are a good faith effort on the part of the developer. He asked for the Council’s favorable recommendation on this bill. Mr. Yarger noted that the homeowner’s association took a lot of time to work this out very carefully and are happy to have the City benefit from the financial taxes that are going to be benefited by this development and they are happy with the protection that the written commitments are going to provide. There was no one wishing to speak in opposition to this bill. Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand noted that if the Council goes forward with the bill tonight with the written commitments it will then go back to the Area Plan Commission for final approval. 4 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Councilmember Kirsits made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill as amended, subject to the written commitments as of file in the Office of the City Clerk. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 52-07 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 827 EAST WAYNE STREET; 219, 222, 224, 228, 230 AND 231 SOUTH NOTRE DAME AVENUE; AND VACANT PROPERTY LYING EAST OF 222 AND 224 SOUTH NOTRE DAME AVENUE AND VACANT PROPERTY LYING SOUTH OF 219 SOUTH NOTRE DAME AVENUE; COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 4 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning & 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. th Mr. Mark Lyons, Staff Planner, Area Plan Commission, 11 Floor County-City Building, presented the report from the Commission. Mr. Lyons advised that the petitioner is requesting a zone change from MF1 Urban Corridor Multi-Family District to SF2 Single Family and Two Family District and MU Mixed Use District to allow single family residential and an off-site commercial parking lot. The petition is sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. The existing 19 foot strip to be zoned MU Mixed Uses District will be used for those vehicles associated with the adjacent commercial business. It is highly unlikely that the MU Mixed Use District zoned lot could be used for another use based on the size of the lot. The rezoning of the remaining six (6) lots to SF2 Single Family and Two Family District will help to develop an under utilized residential area with a new housing product. Mr. Derek Spier, A.I.C.P., Abonmarch Consultants, L.L.C., 750 Lincoln Way East, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Spier advised that the petitioner Kendall Weiss, LLP is requesting a zone change from MF1 Urban Corridor Multifamily District to SF2 Single Family and Two Family District and MU Mixed Use District to allow single family residential and an off-site commercial parking lot. 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 Rouse 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. 41-07 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE: ARTICLE 14, SUBDIVISIONS TO REVISE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MAJOR SECONDARY SUBDIVISION PLATS Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to accept the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 5 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning & 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. th Ms. Christa Nayder, Staff Planner, Area Plan Commission, 11 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Ms. Nayder stated that this bill is initiated by the Area Plan Commission and amends Chapter 21 of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 14, Subdivisions, Section 21- 14.05 Major Subdivisions to revise the approval process for major secondary subdivisions plats. This bill is sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Nayder advised that this change to the subdivision ordinance will reduce the amount of time that it now takes to receive secondary approval of major subdivisions. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill as substituted. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 61-07 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISHING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1905 COLLEGE, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Dieter 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. Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand read the procedures for tonight’s Council Meeting into the record. She noted that Chairperson White will ask for report from the Zoning and Annexation Committee, Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, will give the advisory recommendation to the full Council. A formal presentation will take place by the presenter. The formal presenter will at that time identify all individuals that will be speaking so that the Council will know when the close of that presentation takes place. The remonstrators will also be asked to identify who will be speaking. Neither the presenter nor the remonstrator will be subject to a time limitation. Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Council. They will need to give their name and address and they will be limited to five (5) minutes each, to speak either in favor first, followed by those wishing to speak in opposition. Council Rules provide that the public portion of the committee that is not the formal presentation but just the public portion is limited to the time again, the remonstrators are limited in time to that which was spent for those that spoke in favor or 30 minutes which ever is greater. Following that the presenter will have an opportunity to give a total of five minutes in rebuttal to address any questions that might have been raised by members of the public or as part of that presentation. This evening the Council is here to entertain a proposed Historic Landmark Designation. A local landmarks is defined as follows: A building, site, landscape, structure, object or area that demonstrates the historic an or architectural significance of a period in time of South Bend, St. Joseph County, the region, the State or the Nation. The Council this evening is limited in their review when reviewing a local landmark designation to the following criteria: They are restricted to look at whether the proposal is of historic or architectural significance or both. As a part of that review they may look at whether the elements of architectural design, detail, material or craftsmanship represent architectural characteristic or innovation. They may look at the suitability for preservation and the identification of life of persons or individuals of historic significance 6 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 that might be directly related to the building before the Council. That is the sole are that the City Council is at looking at this evening. Councilmember White does have the authority to gavel individuals out of order if they do not address those concerns. Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that this committee met this afternoon and after much discussion it was decided that more information was needed. They decided to go forward with the Public Hearing this evening, subject to the ground rules that the Council Attorney outlined. Also the Council will have a walking tour in a public meeting setting on October 23, 2007 at 6:00 p.m., and take final action on November 12, 2007. Catherine Hostetler, Director, Historic Preservation Commission, 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, stated that she will be give the primary presentation, secondary will be Mr. Tim Klusczinski, followed by Mr. Latoza, BauerLatoza Studios. She noted that there will be several individuals who will be speaking in favor of this bill after the formal presentation. Ms. Hostetler advised that this bill before the Council tonight is to address the landmarking of Marquette School. The City Ordinance establishing the Historic Preservation Commission mandates that the Commission identifies, protects and landmarks historic structures within the City of South Bend. On May 21, 2007, the Commission accepted the following findings at 1905 College Street, South Bend, Indiana, because Marquette School fulfills the three criteria for landmark status. 1.) It is architecturally important and connected to the development of the area as an unaltered example of the collegiate gothic revival style designed by the local architectural firm of Austin and Shambleau. 2.) Its educational value as an example of the type of projects undertaken by the Public Works Administration during the depression of the 1930’s to stimulate local economic growth. 3.) Its suitability for preservation because of its architectural significance by Austin and Shambleau and workmanship by general contractor Thomas L. Hickey its association with the PWA of the Roosevelt Administration as continuous use as a neighborhood school since 1937. The HPC is asking for landmark status for Marquette Primary Center because the building deserves it. As it is a monument to history and people of the City of South Bend, and as a monument to drive and spirit of the Citizens of South Bend as it struggled out of the throws of the Great Depression of the 1930’s and to the Roosevelt Administration’s PWA program. It is a monument to the local tradesman, construction workers, craftsmen, who labored on created such an aesthetically pleasing and structurally sound building that is anchored a neighborhood for almost 70 years. It is a monument to the local architectural team of Austin and Shambleau who designed this school along with many of the other buildings in South Bend that everyone treasures. Marquette deserves landmark status and as a landmark it can be added onto, its interior spaces upgraded and remodeled just like Madison Primary Center, just like Jefferson Primary Center, and just like Monroe Primary Center. Tim Klusczinski, 617 Park Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is privileged this evening to address the Council as the President of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County. Mr. Klusczinski stated that he has been before the Council to lend support to various causes relevant and important to neighborhoods. It has been his mission to develop an appreciation for local history, architecture, to improve the quality of life and to promote the wise use of local resources. Marquette School on South Bend’s northwest side was established as FDR’s new deal initiatives, The Public Works Administration. During the depression era the PWA financed large scale development construction projects aimed to cultivate support services much like trickle-down economics. Marquette is the only PWA elementary school in South Bend. Adams High School, its Big Brother stems from the same initiative. Marquette school is a important anchor to its surrounding neighborhood and a representative of the time period. So what is a landmark and what is the need to preserve. According to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, it’s because they possess an exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting heritage. South Bend City Plan describes as follows: “Landmarks are structures that are easily recognizable and create visual reference points for people in the community. Landmarks which enhance the identity of a community are often points of historic or cultural interest. Such as civic buildings, churches, monuments, or any 7 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 building with a distinctive design height or sighting and sets it apart from its surroundings. Historic Preservation is the process of preserving part of a community from and individual building or part of a building to a whole neighborhood because of its historic importance. Preserving buildings, structures and neighborhoods enhances the unique character of a place and maintains the historic build environment. Preservation also helps maintain identity and educations a people about a community’s history. Many communities use Historic Preservation as an economic revitalization tool. The community desires development that sensitively historic structures and the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in the downtown and throughout the city. Listed under objectives and policies inside the chapter on education it goes on to say: “Coordinate the planning and development of educational facilities 5.4 encouraged preservation and rehabilitation of older school structures when considering future growth.” Preservation standards do not impose enormous restricts counter-productive to a buildings purpose. Mr. Klusczinski, stated that is a myth. The proposed Group B standards fully support the adapted reuse of any building designated under those criteria. Marquette is not a museum, it is a school. As educational objectives change so may the configuration, interior remodeling, exterior additions are permitted, mechanical upgrades such as air conditioning, energy efficiency and ADA requirements can all be satisfied. Marquette is definitely not a period restoration project nor should it be. Rehabilitated historic buildings can even become brand new facilities on the inside where it matters the most. Anyone familiar with the Madison or Jefferson Primary Center’s to be true, both buildings are symbols of pride, both are Historic Landmarks. By some estimates our nation foster a 30 billion dollar industry promoting the replacement of existing school buildings, this is tragic and unnecessary. Propaganda feeds this animal by perpetuating many falsehoods as is often the case demolition and disposal costs are sometimes absent from the initial construction proposals. Rehabilitation is generally the most cost effective solution. Students can learn in older buildings too, if they couldn’t Universities across the country including Notre Dame would not be considered Institutions of Excellence. They embrace older buildings along with tradition which it would be wise to follow their lead. Many appreciate the charm and character of historic buildings for their display of craftsmanship and detail. They just don’t build them like that anymore. While many advances have been made from new technology, today’s construction practices focus much less upon art and durability as they did in the past. Modern buildings tend to be more generic, more disposable, and more expendable. He noted that we know how to build faster; while this has its place one must remember that with any replacement history is not transferable. Once destroyed forever lost, we never get old buildings back, we lose a part of the story, a part of our hometown and break the connection with the past. Landmark status is an honor; preservation encourages sustainable environment, productive spending, creative solutions, economic sense and a stronger community. He urged the Council for their favorable and unanimous recommendation of Marquette School at 1905 College Street as the next local landmark to the City of South Bend, Indiana. Mr. Bill Latoza, Senior Principal and Founding Partner in BauerLatoza Studio, Gary, Indiana and Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Latoza stated that they are nationally recognized firm in school rehabilitation and new schools. He stated that it is a pleasure to be before the South Bend Common Council and address the Landmarking of Marquette School. He had the opportunity a few months ago to walk through the school and due a quick assessment and then give a little talk about it. He stated that he was very excited to do this and found it to be a wonderful school in the City’s portfolio. The majority of his school work has been done in Chicago, Illinois, although he has done school projects from New York to California. Restored American Indian Schools from the 1920’s in the Great State of North Dakota and done similar type work in Florida. In Chicago he has the opportunity to lead the 2 billion dollars rehabilitation new school program. They rehabilitated over 574 schools. It was an enormous project and they have been working on it for eight (8) years and are very close to completing it. One of the things that they have been able to do within their program is to landmark certain schools. Right now in Chicago under this 2 billion dollars rehab program that they have been working they have almost ten percent of their schools are local landmarks and a little less than five percent are federal. They are very proud of that and it is no prohibitive or at added additional cost to any of the work that they have 8 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 done. He reiterated that in rehabilitating older schools they have found them to be far more economical than new construction. He hopes that he will be able to address these issues during the walkthrough of Marquette Primary Center. When schools are rehabilitated or landmarks the majority of the money stays within the community, like craftsman and local businesses as compared to buying new items that are purchased from far away in the State or Out-of-State. Rehabilitating landmarks and schools in general are inherently green and sustainable; these are two words that he hears typically on a regular basis. But being able to save a school saves tens of thousands of gallons of gasoline and embodied energy. The other thing that is important is the sense of place. Marquette School has been here for a long time a lot of people have gone to this fine institution it is part of the neighborhood. His experience in Chicago and across the country has shown and taught that rehabilitation of older schools make economic sense, they are able to provide if not only the exact same standards if not greater standards in older schools than in new schools, make them more energy efficient, great places of learning and inherently green. Ms. Hostetler handed out the letter dated June 8, 2007 from BauerLotoza Studio regarding Marquette Primary Center and a letter Dated October 8, 2007 from Kenneth P. Herceg, P.E.,L.S., President, Ken Herceg & Associates, Inc. This concluded the formal presentation. The following individuals spoke in favor of this bill: Mr. Ryan Dvorak, 215 W. Northshore, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill th and stated that he is the State Representative for the 8 District which includes Marquette School. He stated that he was asked by some of his constituents that live in the neighborhood of Marquette School to speak on behalf and in favor of the designation of a Historic Landmark for Marquette School. The neighbors are concerned that they are going to lose this piece of their community. Marquette is not a gem of the world, but it is unique to the community. It is a symbol of what South Bend had gone through the depression, the generation of students who have attended school there and the residents of the neighborhood who have been able use it as a focus point for their community. These kinds of treasures of the community need to be kept in tact. Tearing them down to make something more like a suburban strip mall, isn’t something that South Bend would be good at or want to do. Where South Bend has its advantage is in maintaining its cultural and historical integrity and drawing in those people that really value that sense of community. He stated that we all know people who have left South Bend and Indiana and people who have lived in places that don’t have this kind of historical tradition and moved to a community like Tempe, Arizona, that looks exactly like the Grape Road area they left before. Those kinds of people don’t have a connection to their community. The great value that South Bend has is nurturing their culture and the neighborhoods places where people truly feel that they have a home and want to stay and build their lives and families as they grow older. Mr. Dvorak stated that on behalf of his constituents and people of the neighborhood he urged the Council favorable support for this bill. Ms. Martha Lewis, 308 S. Frances, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. She stated that she is in favor of landmarking this school for one as a tax payer she believes that rehabbing this school is the best use of her tax dollars. Secondly, as a citizen that is a preservationist the value and lessons of architecture and history she feels cannot be duplicated in a new sanitized school. Finally, as a person who started out as a teacher, she remembers the best teaching experiences and the best learning opportunities were not in classrooms with the perfect amount of outlets or square footage, but where creativity, resourcefulness and pre-thinking abound. She noted that the children will be better served when given the gift of history and that is what landmarking will do. She further noted that she has a petition that she has started and filed with the Office of the City Clerk. Ms. Alisia Nagy, 310 Marquette, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. She stated that she is a concerned citizen of South Bend who is very interested in the City after living the last seven years in Alexandria, Virginia. A place that is just full of architectural preservation. Row houses that were once considered for the very poorest 9 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 are now considered luxury places to live. When she lived there she had seen that may have been deemed unsuitable turned into really amazing things because of architects creativity and resourcefulness. She moved back to South Bend and wanted to live in a community that had a sense of place so they moved close to the City, even though her realtor wanted to take them to Granger, because of the school system. She wanted to be here in South Bend. When she read in the paper that Marquette was going to be a Montessori Magnet she stated she was overwhelmed with joy and it is such a beautiful building. Then she heard that the South Bend Community School Corporation wants to raise it to the ground and build something new. She did not come to this community for that. She is here tonight not only as a concerned citizen of South Bend but as a mother of four (4) young children who already called the SBCSC to get on a waiting list to see if her three year old could start at the Montessori School next year. She also comes here as a teacher at a Montessori School, she took training this summer and as a catacyst as a catacysist in the Good Shepard which uses Montessori methods. One of the most beautiful things and this goes to suitability is that this method as been used with the Zulu tribes with people in Chili, people in Mexico, with people all over the world who don’t have great means, but who want to learn, people who want to have that spark about education ignited. This is not about having the best wired buildings that have the classy glass its about a sense of place. Maria Montessori began her mission with children who were the poorest of the poor in Italy, who were forgotten about, who’s parents had to go to work so they left their children alone in a room at age 2 and 3. She saw that these children needed something to ignite that passion, because if they had crumbs they would play with the crumbs, they needed to do some work that was important. She stated that they don’t need a state of the art building, this can be done at Marquette Primary Center, what needs to be done is have one of her great lessons, which is the Golden Thread of History. We are connected to that golden thread and we have got to stop as a community chopping up the thread and throwing it out. As a mother, she constantly teaches her children that they need to reduce, reuse, and if they can’t do those first two, they need to recycle. As a child from a family of eight she noted that they learned to do that and she thinks that can be done at Marquette School and teach the children by our example about a greener, better environment. Mr. Colin Hodson, 807 Ashland, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. He stated that he would like to address the issue of suitability through rehabilitation for a specific use which in this case is a Magnet Montessori School. Mr. Hodson noted that he is here tonight as a parent of Montessori students. His 7 and 10 year are Montessori kids, his wife and he are very greatful that his children can be in Montessori School, even though they can barely afford to send them. Montessori has been around for about 100 years, just this year. The lesson that Montessori teaches can home to him in no uncertain terms when a few years ago when his daughter was 4 and first learned to read. He had not expected her to be able to learn to read at 4, she did not even know her ABC’s and yet there she was reading to him from a book. He became a believer of Montessori at that time. South Bend Schools propose a Montessori School funded by a Federal Grant for a three-year pilot program. What should they spend the money on? Does have a pilot Montessori Magnet School require a new building? The first Montessori School was set up on shoestring in a slum in Italy. It was so successful that in 6 months of starting people were coming from all over the world to see the school. The school that his kids go to have been an old farm house and a church, both buildings that were not intended for that purpose, they were not designed to be Montessori schools. You will find most of the kids in Montessori school in South Bend are in buildings that were designed for something else. Both programs are very successful. No special buildings are required for these hundreds of kids each year. So this does this pilot Montessori program require a new building, No! Experts already confirmed that the Marquette building will work just fine and it is half the cost of a new building without the delay of new construction. So why is the program being delayed and doubling the cost of Montessori School education to the public school system. Don’t let the SBCSC play power games with the children of South Bend, don’t let them take this chance away from the kids. Don’t let the SBCSC shut out the Council’s voice and try to keep you in the dark, don’t let them leave another empty lot where the children’s future should be. Lincoln, Harrison, Muessel, Oliver, Nuner, Riley and the list will continue to go unless the Council does something about it. They have all been victims of the wrecking ball. Don’t think for a second that it won’t happen to this school if that’s what the SBCSC decides that’s what suits them best. He 10 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 urged the Council to pass this ordinance now and save this building and start this Montessori School as soon as possible. The time is right, the building is right, the opportunity is right, don’t throw it away. Ms. Susan Youens, 850 Forest Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. She stated that she is a veteran of issues like this, she grew up around it. Her father was a specialist, an architect who specialized in rehabbing historic buildings for the School District of Houston, Texas. She grew up hearing about the economics of rehabilitation versus new construction. According to those childhood lessons rehabilitation is not only more cost effective but new construction almost inevitability involves built in obsolescence setting in sooner rather than later. He became an ardent fan of rehabilitation over new construction and after seeing the construction, the virtues, the values of Marquette, she is of like mind and urged the Council to please consider landmarking this building. Ms. Susan Bullock, 843 Forest Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. She stated that everything that she had prepared to say tonight has already been said, so she just wanted to reiterate that she would like to see this building landmarked. She stated that she spent some time in Marquette having only vaguely known where it was in South Bend. She advised that she was a case worker for a couple of years, and there were children of all economic levels and was assigned to some that were having some problems. She was in the classrooms for hours with these children observing and she could see that they were taken in by the walls, the windows, and the big radiators. There is just a dignity that her kids when they were home were in very humble buildings and this was there only chance to have an experience of solidarity of beauty and history. She really appreciates that and hopes that when the Council tours the facility you will have that same feeling. Mr. Ronald Searcy, 16287 Berry Knoll, Granger, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. He stated that he is an architect and also is the current President of the local chapter of the AIA, and is here tonight representing himself. He stated that he attended a school like Marquette and spent four years there. As a child he marveled at its size and its historical value that represents. Marquette Primary Center a PWA project, the only one of its kind in the area is something of great significance. He encouraged the Council to support this bill. Ms. Yvonne Herring, 1707 Hamilton, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. She stated that she lives just doors down from Marquette Primary Center. She encouraged the Council to vote in favor of landmarking this building. Ms. Herring stated that all three of her daughters went to this school and she has lived there for forty-five (45) years and appreciates its historic significance. Ms. Amy Herdman, 330 W. Colfax, (Old Central High School) South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. She stated that she lives and works very passionately for the preservation of history. She noted that people often ask her how did she know what she wanted to do for a living. Ms. Herdman reflected back on when she was in sixth grade and she went to a lab school affiliated with Kent State University. There they taught non- traditional teaching methods and ramped creativity they also had very idealist student teachers, who when that school was threatened of being torn down, organized the students to a sit-in at the University President’s Office. She noted that they got as much press coverage as this issue with preserving Marquette Primary Center. That was a very sentimental moment in her development, the preservation bug bit her then and she now stands before the Council tonight thanking the Council for their consideration of landmark status for Marquette. She congratulated the Council for separating the rederick from the fact, for considering the school based entirely upon the criteria that have been described. Honestly, she noted that it is a very simply question, to approve landmark designation for Marquette the Council needs to only value what Marquette represents. Fine craftsmanship, local shared history, and the accomplishments of the thousands of idealist little learners that have matriculated through the doors. She thanked the Council for their consideration. 11 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Ms. Karen Gindele 831 Park Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. She advised that she comes here tonight with no architectural background, however, her father was an architect and started out in a very modern Frank Lloyd-Wright mode, he is now 81 years old. She stated that over the course of his career he became more and more commitment to historical preservation. This has rub off on her, she renovated an old house on Park Avenue and while she stated that she doesn’t live in the near vicinity of Marquette, she has looked at it and one of the things that the criteria doesn’t address is the amalgam the number and variety of monuments in the City that we need to preserve as a base, a bottom level and the criteria addresses building by building and not the overall impact. She thinks that it is really important to preserve as many buildings as they can. She stated that Marquette has value and should be preserved for that reason. Mr. Don Sporleder, 205 W. Cripe St. South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. He stated that he is Professor of Architecture Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, Member of the American Institute of Architecture, and Principle in Sporleder Architects. He urged the Council to support the landmarking of this fine facility. Sustainable, it speaks for itself. He is very happy that the Council will be touring the school, because the school will clearly send that message and in addition to the strength of the building, its craftsmanship is a place where children have been involved. He stated that from his experience in renovation work locally it has great adaptability potential to continue to serve as a school using the Montessori Program will be an excellent use of a sustainable building that speaks well to using the City’s resources wisely and involving all in the community to bring to life that which history has shared so well for all of us. He thanked the Council and encouraged their support. Rev. Lawrence Michael Grant, 111 E. Oakside, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. He noted that the Council has stated in prior meetings that the City is in a revitalization mode and the best way to do that is to preserve it’s historical landmarks. He stated that his parents both went to Marquette and he strongly encourages the Montessori Magnet Pilot Program to be implemented at Marquette. He noted that it is much cheaper to rehab than to rebuild. Mr. Grant encouraged the Council’s favorable consideration. Ms. Leslie Klusczinski, 617 Park Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. She encouraged the Council to in favor of landmarking Marquette. It has been proven before with rehabbing old schools such as Madison, Jefferson, and Adams can be done and they all serve their communities well. She believes Marquette can as well. The following individuals spoke in opposition to this bill: Dr. Robert Zimmerman, Superintendent, South Bend Community School Corporation, South Bend, Indiana, thanked the Council for this opportunity to speak regarding Bill 61- 07. He stated that he will be joined in presenting the corporation’s response to this bill by John Strauss, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities and Dr. Patricia O’Connor, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction. Dr. Zimmerman advised that Bill 61-07 is written to designate Marquette Primary Center located at 1905 College Street as a historical landmark. Contrary to the language of the bill presented to this council, the South Bend Community School Corporation is opposed to the designation of Marquette Primary Center as a historical landmark. The South Bend Board of School Trustees has committed to both upgrading all school facilities in the school district as well as doing what it can to maintain neighborhood schools. In an effort to fulfill these commitments, the Board has invested over $150 million dollars in school facilities in the South Bend Community School Corporation is the past ten years. Major commitments have been made at Riley High School., Adams High School, Harrison Primary Center, Lincoln Primary Center, Muessel Primary Center, and Nuner Primary Center. The Board’s fiscal responsibility is to educate our children in the best possible learning environment. At times, the best decision has been to completely renovate a facility, such as with Adams High School, Madison Primary Center, and Jefferson Intermediate Center. At other times, the Board has decided that building a new facility is more advantageous, such as in the cases of Riley High School, Harrison Primary Center, Lincoln Primary Center, Muessel Primary Center, and Nuner Primary 12 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Center. The Board strongly believes that it is not an appropriate use of very limited public education funds to maintain old buildings that do not best serve student’s educational needs. When considering the renovation or replacement of Marquette, it was important to the Board to recognize that three South Bend schools from the same time period have already been designated as historical landmarks and have been or are planned to be preserved. These three are Jefferson Intermediate Center, Madison Primary Center, and Monroe Primary Center. While the Board recognizes the importance of maintaining and renovating some of their old facilities, they also understand that the preservation of these buildings increased the cost to the school corporation taxpayers. They further understand that previous historical designations have presented challenges in following the proposed construction calendar due to the numerous discussions and approvals that must be received. Our experience in working with the Historical Preservation Commission has shown them to be less than flexible in issuing certificates of appropriateness causing an undue burden on both the school corporation and the taxpayer. The Board believes that the property taxpayers in the school district expect their school taxes to be devoted to the educational needs of our students, not to the maintenance of old buildings. When making the decision as to whether to renovate or replace a school, the Board must consider many issues other than simply, “Can the school be renovated?” Most buildings can be renovated; however, renovation may not be the most advantageous decision. In this particular situation, the cost of renovating Marquette to serve the needs of the children would actually cost more than a new facility. In addition, the Board must consider: 1) the disruption of the educational process, 2) the costs of moving children to another facility or the cost of portable classrooms, and 3” the safety and health of the children if children are kept in the building during construction. In Marquette’s situation, moving students to another facility is not an option as another building is not available. In addition, the Board must look at the building’s ability to meet the instructional need of the teachers and students. Classroom size is critical. New facilities design classrooms of approximately one thousand square feet. This allows for additional storage space in the classroom, as well as for additional instructional space to accommodate various groupings and activities that are now common within our classrooms. Classroom configuration is also crucial. New construction attempts to create square classrooms. This maximizes the teacher proximity to the students both for instructional and behavior reasons. Renovated facilities often result in elongated classrooms where teacher proximity is not good. This would be the case at Marquette due to the limited size of the current classrooms. New schools also provide other instructional spaces such as large group instruction spaces where teachers can pull several classes together for special programs and activities. The students and community of Marquette Primary Center deserve equity. They deserve a new school. It is important to understand that with the help of outside consultants working side-by-side with our administrative staff, the Board has decided that renovation of Marquette School is not financially or educationally appropriate. The Board is committed to the construction of a new school. Whether or not they are allowed to build on the existing site is the question that is before this council. There will be no renovated Marquette Primary Center. That decision has already been made by the School Board. The question that remains is, “Will the new Marquette Primary Center be located in the current neighborhood or will it be forced to be located on another site, outside of the neighborhood? Dr. Zimmerman stated that a vote “yes” to historical landmark designation means no Marquette School at 1905 College Street. A vote “yes” denies the community their right to decide the future of Marquette. A vote “yes” jeopardizes the building projects at Monroe Primary Center, Clay High School, and Washington High School. A vote “yes” denies educational equity for the Marquette students and community. A vote “yes” eliminates the use of the existing site for a school resulting in the need to identify a new site outside the existing neighborhood for a new school. A vote “yes” would lead to a vacated school building which may contribute to the deterioration of the neighborhood. A vote “yes” will inhibit the School Board’s commitment to fostering neighborhood schools. A vote “yes” will necessitate the School Board to reconsider its decision to place a Montessori program at the Marquette School. Dr. Zimmerman advised that a vote “no” to the Historical Landmark Designation at Marquette will allow the taxpayer and voters in South Bend to make the decision on construction of a new Marquette via the current remonstrance- petition process. He noted three questions: What is best for students? What is best for the neighborhood? What is best for the taxpayers? A vote “no” on the ordinance establishing historical landmark status to Marquette and allow the voter and taxpayers to 13 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 decide through the remonstrance-petition process that is currently underway. He urged the Council to consider these four requests: 1) Do no usurp the School Board’s right and responsibility to make this decision as a legally elected body. 2) Allow the statutory process for objecting to a project to be followed and allow the taxpayers and property owners to make the final determination. 3) Do not take the school away from the neighborhood. Marquette students deserve a new school in their neighborhood. 4) It is important to understand that a remonstrance must be filed by a private citizen, not a governmental unit. Indiana Code prevents school corporation employees from using public funds, resources, or work time to solicit or support the collection of petitions for te remonstrance-petition process. To ensure a level playing field, please direct the Historic Preservation Commission to refrain from the use of any pubic funds, resources, or work time to solicit or support the collection of petitions for the remonstrance-petition process. Mr. John Strauss, South Bend Community School Corporation, Assistance Superintendent, Facilities Management. Mr. Strauss advised that Marquette students deserve to have a building that meets present and future education needs, and it is their studied analysis that preserving the existing Marquette is not in the best interest of the children. He stated that he felt it appropriate to begin with a bit of history about the Marquette School. The school was constructed in the mid-1930’s, with 45% of the project paid with federal funds, part of the Nation’s unprecedented PWA effort. At the time of construction, there were approximately 125 school buildings within the State of Indiana that were funded with similar federal work grants. In the late 1930’s the critic Frederick Gutheim complained that this massive Federal effort effort produced “not one architectural masterpiece.” The “new” Marquette building of 1936 was designed with a life expectancy of 40 to 50 years. It was a replacement for an old, dated portable that originally was built on the Marquette site. And just as it was during the Depression years of the 30’s, when an old Marquette was replaced with a new Marquette so it is 70 years later. “This is called progress.” Compared to our schools with unique architectural features Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison, which were built with local monies before the impact of the Depresion snaked throughout America, Marquette was built on the cheap. It lacks the finer architectural detail and richness found in our other, older buildings. Mr. Strauss stated that there are some members of this community who feel Marquette is structurally sound and that routine maintenance promises to sustain it indefinitely. He stated that the condition of the present structure after careful inspection determined the following maintenance issues: The boiler chimney stack, particularly the top 20 feet, needs to be replaced. A significant amount of masonry tuckpointing needs to be accomplished on the building exterior. The windows in the building need to be replaced. The roof above the cafetorium needs to be replaced. The stem boiler and its associated piping distribution system need to be replaced. It is becoming more and more difficult to locate repair parts for this vital building component, and the piping system exhibits signs of deterioration. The electrical distribution panels are over capacity, dated and it is becoming tougher to locate replacement parts. The floor tile throughout the hallways is beginning to crumble, and reached the end of its useful life. These are the most pressing, noteworthy concerns. He assured the Council that these are not “routine maintenance” items. Mr. Strauss further noted that the building needs to be ADA compliant throughout. Currently there is only one door that leads from the ground, directly into the building, without using stairs. There is no elevator and access to the second floor is via stairs. There is no air conditioning in the building. A few rooms use window air conditioners; however there is insufficient capacity in the electrical distribution system to provide power for window units throughout the building. The kitchen needs to be expanded and updated. Modifications are needed to the site to improve safe flow of vehicles and school bus traffic. Reconfigure the building for improved student flow and access to special classrooms and administrative office spaces and replace drinking water and add fire suppression water lines. With respect to the proposed plans for a new Marquette, an architectural firm was requested to conduct a detailed feasibility study, to study building options for a structure for 500 students. This study compared the cost of renovating and adding on the present structure with the costs associated of constructing a new facility with similar capacity. Because of the building and design inefficiencies inherent in remodeling and adding onto an existing building, it was determined that a remodeled structure would be 20,000 square feet larger than the space required of a new structure. 14 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 This increase in size manifests itself with additional utility system and custodial costs of approximately $3 million dollars, over the design life expectancy of a new building. This is one of the many reasons we chose a smaller, more efficient new building for Marquette. He urged the Council to vote no on this historic landmark designation for Marquette. He stated that it is only then that they can proceed with the exciting plans to build a new Marquette School to meet the educational needs of the students in the most cost effective and efficient manner. Dr. Patricia O’Connor, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, South Bend Community School Corporation, advised that she is proud to announce that she is a product of the South Bend Community School Corporation, and a graduate from John Adams High School. She noted that after extensive parent and community involvement, a nine million dollar federal grant was awarded for a Fine Arts magnet at Perley Primary Center and Dickinson Intermediate Center, and a Montessori magnet at Marquette. She asked what is Montessori? The Montessori program is built on the belief that intelligence is not rare. That all children come into the world with a human potential that can best be reached in an environment specially designed for children to exercise and challenge their learning capabilities. The large open classroom is quite different from the traditional classroom with 30 student seats, a teacher desk, and chalkboards. The Montessori classroom is arranged in centers bursting with inviting materials displayed on open shelves the height of the children (3-6 years in age.) The materials are arranged to provide maximum eye appeal without clutter. The placement and sequence of materials allow children to find precisely what they need whenever they wish. There is a vast range in the level of curriculum on which the children are working. Children in the 3-6 year old cluster are first taught individually with the teacher, encouraged to practice and repeat the activity until mastery. Children are first taught, then encouraged, and finally expected to make their own work choices during the day. In a Montessori classroom, 25 children are working at their own pace individually on different lessons. There is a freedom of movement which allows for social interaction. Older students serve as role models to the younger children. It is important to note, and important for everyone to understand that the purpose of this Magnet grant is to eliminate, reduce or prevent racial isolation. In order to achieve the goals of the grant, it is imperative that they offer the best program in the best facility. The opportunity to do that is now. They want the Marquette program to be the best public Montessori in the state with accreditation from the American Montessori Society. It is also important to note that the Magnet grant does not fund transportation. Because parents will be required to provide transportation, it is imperative for them to know we have the best facility and program available. She stated that they are operating under a consent degree intended to correct racial imbalance. The purpose of the magnet is to eliminate, reduce, or prevent racial isolation. Marquette is currently out of compliance. A new Marquette designed specifically for the Montessori program will eliminate racial isolation at Marquette and create the optimal condition for success. The School Board has made the tough and not always popular choices for the benefit of the students. A new Marquette, which will allow all students living within the Marquette boundaries to attend, is a strong commitment to the neighborhood, and a community that has been waiting for a long time. It is also a commitment to racial equity. The Montessori program offers developmentally appropriate learning in a multi-age classroom. Education is delivered in a peaceful and respectful atmosphere. Children from all walks of life learn to be independent learners and to develop a true love of learning. A new Marquette can be designed to create the environment necessary for the multi-age classroom. The personalized curriculum can be uniquely delivered in developmentally appropriate work stations. The new Marquette will have classroom environments which can be carefully planned and prepared by teachers. The new Marquette will have classrooms which are designed as a learning laboratory where the children are free to explore and discover as soon as they choose their work. The th Montessori program celebrates its 100 birthday this year so obviously it has been in some older buildings. But now they have the opportunity to choose the best facility for this uniquely structured program. The best choice for the students, families and community is a compelling exciting Montessori program in a new Marquette which will create pride and racial equity in Marquette School. The South Bend Community School Corporation has the best interests of its children at heart and hopes that the Council will support these interests. She urged the Council to vote “no.” 15 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Dawn Jones, President, South Bend Community School Corporation Board, 602 Cushing Street, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. She stated that she is the President of the South Bend Community School Corporation Board. According to the Bridges in Poverty Concept, people who live in poverty are in survival mode, concentrating on providing for today, middle class families focus on preparing for tomorrow by attending college, purchasing home, etc. Those who are wealthy do not have to worry about surviving for today, nor do they have to worry about preparing for tomorrow, therefore, many focus their attention on preserving the past. Marquette is located on a very diverse neighborhood with diverse income levels; however, the student body in Marquette is predominately low to moderate income. Nonetheless, many of the parents in this district understand the significance of preparing their young children to be successful in education. Recently, the School Corporation received a grant that will not only address the consent decree and racial isolation but also establish a Montessori Program at Marquette. This program has been scientifically proven to be successful for example 100% of the third graders in the Montessori Program in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, public school system passed their I-Step test. The student population of program crossed many diverse lines as well, such as race, ethnicity, and economic background. A new facility will be beneficial for the school corporation in order for them to offer the best of the best to the students with a state-of-the art facility. She stated that the facility plan does not just involve Marquette Primary Center, Clay High School, Washington High School, and Monroe Primary Center. To support the vote for landmark status would mean all four projects would be delayed longer than necessary. It is extremely important that the necessary repairs at all four schools which are located in all sides of town, the northside, southside, eastside and Westside. She urged the Council to keep this in mind when they are making their decision on landmarking Marquette. The SBCSC Board of Trustees was elected by the public which is an illustration of trust in them to make important decisions on educational issues. She stated that the Board does not take this lightly, they make the decisions based on extensive research, planning and preparation. It is their duty as school board members to study the data and make informed decisions based on fact. They have done this regarding this issue. Students will be impacted all over the district by this decision. They owe it to this community to make provisions for the students to be academically successful in an educational environment which fosters growth, builds self-esteem, and introduces parents and teachers to yet another successful method of teaching and an extremely beneficial curriculum. They owe it to the staff to furnish a work environment that is high-tech, clean, efficient, pleasant, and second to none. The current structure at all of these facilities do not meet the educational needs as necessary to move the students into the technical competitive career market that they need to be in. She urged the Council to vote no on landmarking and allow the taxpayers to make the decision through the petition process that has already been established. She urged the Council to help the SBCSC Board to help the youth of the community by providing curriculums, programs, and yes facilities which will eventually cultivate economic growth for the entire community. Together academic expansion can be promoted for all of the students without allowing them to become stagnant in bricks and mortar that will prevent them from mentally and emotionally moving forward. The students deserve a new facility. Mr. John Roggeman, 3811 Fernhill Drive, Mishawaka, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. Mr. Roggeman stated that he is a City Councilmember in Mishawaka, Indiana and has served on the Mishawaka School Board for over ten (10) years. He also stated that he is the Director of Employee Relations for the SBCSC. After serving in the various rolls that he has in the public spotlight, and is keenly aware of the pressures before the Council in making this decision. As with any decision, the positives and negatives to the situation. He submits that the negatives by far surpass the positives. There has been substantial evidence and opinion tonight on how to vote on this issue, which he reminds the Council that it is only about the historic status of the bricks and mortar located at 1905 College Street. The Council must set aside any emotion regarding past graduates, teachers, and individual experiences that might have been in that building. The romantic notions of FDR must be set aside also, and the PWA, and do what is A-OK for the students. He urged the Council to look at the ramifications of placing Marquette School under the historical status; the status would add another layer of government to impede getting things accomplished. There has been some discussion about Jefferson 16 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 School and its landmark status, and this afternoon at the committee meeting the windows were an issue being talked about and that the other side stated that they saved the taxpayers thousands of dollars, he noted that is highly debatable. But what is debatable is the amount of time it took just to repair the windows. It took over 4 to 5 months to get this done because of the historical status placed on the building. He stated that in some other states such as Michigan, it has been determined by the Courts that local historic preservation groups have no authority at all when it comes to the use, configuration, and appearance of school buildings. Aside from these concrete consequences of historic designation there is an important overriding factor on which the Council should base the vote. This important fact deal with the government itself, the SBCSC has been duly elected by approximately the same electorates that have placed their trust in the South Bend Common Council to their positions four years ago. The Board Members have spend countless hours of time, sole searching and heartache studying the issues involved. The Board has unanimously chosen to proceed down the path of a new Marquette. The current Superintendent, Dr. Zimmerman, as well as the previous Superintendent, Dr. Raymond, both spent their lives in education and both supported the building of a new Marquette. The Council decision should be clear, trust the experience and expertise that has gone into building a new Marquette. Trust fellow elected officials that this is the best path to follow. Trust constituents who voted for these Board Members and do not add additional hurdles by placing the landmark status on the old building at 1905 College Street. It has served a useful life and urged the Council to vote no on this ordinance. Ms. Cheryl Batteast, Principal, Marquette Primary Center, 1905 College, South Bend, Indiana, stated that her heart breaks after hearing some of the comments made about Marquette Primary Center as being a good place to go to school and a good place to learn. She stated that this is her first year at Marquette and by looking at the picture of Marquette; it looks like a beautiful building from the outside. That impression quickly changed when she entered the building, to the smell of mildew and mold in the 94° temperatures. She stated that the temperature just today was very hot and she had to watch her teachers and children suffer once again. Marquette is not a good place to learn. She stated that she is there everyday and is trying her best to fight back the tears because she wants her students to learn in the same environment that the rest of the children in South Bend are experiencing. She noted that every school except a couple have been updated. In terms of the School being sound, it is not a safe place, its not a sound place for education and it’s not fair. The kindergartener’s have to walk up and down stairs several times a day and the worst time is when there is a fire drill or storm drill. She stated that there are 287 students trying to go down a narrow stairway of twenty to thirty steps to get to a bomb shelter for safety that is surrounding by dirt walls and a dirt floor. She stated that she has never seen anything like it before in her life. She stated that if one child trips it becomes a safety issue and that responsibility falls on her. She encouraged the Council to tour the school, it is very nice from the outside, but that is very deceiving. Buildings are nice, but they are not people, and the focus of concern should be children. Ms. Marcia Hummel, 51327 Hollyhock, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is a member of the SBCSC Board of Trustees. She thanked the Council for this opportunity to speak, because she knows how difficult this decision on Marquette School is. Like many of the Councilmember’s she has had the privilege of serving this community as an elected official for thirteen years and this current board and the many boards before them have made a commitment to the inner-city schools and the neighborhoods that surrounds them. There must be equity for the children and if the Council votes to support the historic landmark designation for Marquette, there will no equity for these children. She urged the Council to consider that the School Board is on record stating “the Marquette structure does not serve the educational needs of the children.” The Historic Preservation Commission sees buildings and the SBCSC Board sees children. What is really sad about this situation is that there are other building projects tied to this, the remodeling of Clay, Washington, Monroe and Marquette. Those bonds have been advertised and if the board does not move forward soon, the corporation is going to lose and have to start all over again. She reminded the Council that a year ago in May, that the board talked about Marquette and Monroe Primary Centers and they just weren’t strong at the time and did not have the votes to go down state with, they split the vote 4-3, so they would have probably lost that case. She urged the Council to understand if they vote to make Marquette a landmark, they start over again at square one. She stated that she isn’t 17 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 talking a little time, but a lot of time, the board goes back to possibly being split again. She noted that the Council needs to take in to consideration that when time passes interest rates get higher, labor is getting higher, architectural fees get higher, and the taxpayers and their money are getting less than they should. She stated that she is not against history. She lives in a house that is 165 years old, and made that choice herself. Every costly renovation, every time she has to wait for a contractor to come out to do it according to history, she pays that bill. She chose to live that lifestyle. The taxpayers of this community do not want to pay for that excess cost of renovation. She believes that the Council is creating a win/win situation for this community, by having a remonstrance process and understands that the Council is not going to take final vote on this tonight and will be touring the facility at Marquette. This action will not silence the voters and she applauded the Council for giving them a right to take their stand on this issue, their voices are not silent. She also thanked the Council for their dedication and service that they give to the community. Ms. Hummel thanked the Council for their wisdom in realizing that a progressive city depends on creating a great educational opportunity for the children. She noted that this is the last of the renovations, this is the dream to give the kids at Washington and Clay and particularly Monroe and Marquette, the vision that has been promised to them and if the process has to be started all over again, there is always that fear of where the school board was faced with a couple of years ago of only allocating 5 million dollars in Monroe Primary Center because of its historic designation and it was not affordable. Ms. Sheila Bergeron, 605 S. Sunnyside, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. She advised that she is a current member of the SBCSC Board of Trustees st representing the 1 District. She grew up and graduated from a small school in Northern Indiana, this school was a twelve year school. There were a lot of fond memories there, he parents also went to this school. She stated that she was the last graduation class from that school. It was decided that the school would be torn down and was almost positive that it would have qualified for historic landmark status. It was a great building with marvelous architecture, but it was decided that the building needed to come down because it was no longer safe or feasible to provide the best education for the students and a new building was created. There were people that were very sad to see it raised, they sold bricks, pictures and other memorabilia from the school. But there was no one really trying to save the school because everyone had realized that the time had come to for that building. Mr. Bergeron stated that is where we are today with Marquette. She loves old buildings and the other school board members can attest to that. She represents the district that holds Adams, Jefferson, and Madison and would have fought all night for Monroe if she had too. Those are beautiful old buildings that needed to be preserved and are unique in the architecture and she is so glad that they have been saved and renovated and moved on. Every building cannot be saved and every school has certain architecture and has wonderful memories for those who have gone to that school and the neighborhood for which it exists. She urged the Council to think about what if fair and equitable for all concerned the taxpayers and most importantly the children. Mr. Eugene Staples, 1678 College, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he represents the past, present and the future. He was student at Marquette and has a student here tonight from Marquette Primary Center and his son is the future of Marquette. The Council’s decision affects not only Marquette, but it affects three other schools. He stated that Marquette is a monument to some in their own mine, and if you don’t mind it doesn’t matter, but it matter’s to someone like him. He addressed the issue of equality and how the country was built on the statement that “we hold these truths’s to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” He questioned if everyone is created equal, does everyone start off with the same advantages and opportunities. He doesn’t think so, however, what can be done is to create a level playing field. The Council has the opportunity to let the community decide what needs to happen in that neighborhood, so there can be equal educational facilities for the students. He noted that the school was built during the depression and the first word is depressed, and if you go into that building you will certainly get depressed. It is a depressing facility, it is the same school that he attended 30 years ago. He urged to the Council to vote against the landmark designation. Ms. Ann Rosen, 1219 Leeper, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is the Secretary to the SBCSC Board of Trustees. She thanked the Council for allowing her to speak tonight. 18 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 She stated that the Council understands the importance of education for the City and that without schools and an excellent educational system this City will falter. The SBCSC understands that is a two-way relationship and that they need the City also. This issue may have a good outcome that brings the two elected bodies together to work and collaborate in the best interest of the kids. The SBCSC’s main responsibility is the students’ education and the financial health of the educational system. A way to do that is to attract new parents into the systems and retaining those currently in the system. For many parents it is not the age of a building that draws them to a system, it isn’t the age of a building that keeps them here. When she decided on a school system for her children it was not based on the age of the school buildings, she based it on how good the program was. The Montessori grant allows for the exciting opportunity to create at Marquette School a program full of challenging, wonderful educational promise for the students. She believes that it needs the best housing possible, the housing that allows the classrooms to be the right size and configuration for a Montessori Program. She noted that Montessori could be taught in any size building. They don’t want to teach it in a slum. Just because it originated there doesn’t mean that is still their vision. Schools in the United States originated in a one room school houses. Some of those should be maintained, however we would not continue to teach children in them today. The Montessori program calls for specifications that are more ample and more in line with current educational standards of excellence. An example is that educational research indicates that young children learn best when they are actively engaged. For that the rooms need to be somewhat larger. Additionally, the best Montessori programs have entrance from the classroom to the outside. When the Council is deciding on making the project green, that is part of the environment of a Montessori classroom is the surrounding area. A new building suitable for Montessori would be on down the line more suitable for a traditional or maybe even a new program as well. By giving landmark status to Marquette would put constraints on how to configure that building for ever. Architects have pointed out that renovation does not always allow for the most efficient use of space and that renovated buildings end up being larger than necessary, thus ending in increased cost for utilities. This is the time that everyone needs to be mindful of every penny going into the budget. If the SBCSC wants to remain competitive and provide the best education for children there needs to be flexibility. There needs to be flexibility in education and have buildings that are flexible. Buildings should serve children and not the other way around. th Mr. Gary Stokes, 626 S. 26 Street, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. He stated that this Council is a very diverse, intelligent group of individuals. Mr. Stokes stated that he attended Studebaker School. This issue is like dejavu for him and his siblings. They attended the old Studebaker School while the new building was being built back in the 1960’s. He stated that there were very good teachers at Studebaker, however the building was very depressing. When the new school opened the children that attended were enlightened and ignited with a spark to learn. He stated that he worked at Marquette last year, he had the opportunity to take a new job at the new Harrison School and it has been a blessing. He stated that it was hard to leave Marquette and all the great kids. These kids deserve a new building. Mr. Stokes urged the Council to vote against the landmarking of Marquette. In Rebuttal Mr. Latoza stated it really takes a lot of time when they look at older buildings, they get up close and really look at them. They make roof tops sustainable and green. The issue of ADA accessibility can be made completely. New lighting, new floors, fully HVAC, and wired for the latest state of the art computer technology. Existing bathrooms can be fully ADA compliant and as nice as any new building. Mechanical systems can be upgraded. Windows, masonry, and doors all can be rehabbed. Mr. Latoza stated that he has some of the same pictures of Marquette school as Mr. Strauss and they were taken back in May of 2007. Those items are still in the same condition today. Old buildings down just break down, they break down because they are not taken care of and that is solely the fiduciary responsibility on the part of the SBCSC. Councilmember Puzzello questioned where the children would be attending school while the new school is being built. 19 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Dr. Zimmerman stated that is was the SBCSC intent to retain the current facility until the new school is ready for occupancy. Then the old building would be raised. Councilmember Rouse questioned why Marquette is in the shape that it is in today. Dr. Zimmerman stated that they have tried to address those needs in the best way possible. He would not hesitate to say since the long range plan has been to come and do a substantial renovation there is a hesitancy to come in and do the quick hits and so forth. They have done some of that when necessary; obviously roofs are one of those hits regardless of the importance of that. The custodian staff with the support of the central office staff does a great job in trying to keep the building clean. Marquette is a very difficult building to maintain in a clean environment. There are some old restrooms, some new restrooms obviously are much easier to maintain. They have done some of those, but have not done that across the board. As far as the mold, he stated that he doesn’t believe that there is any currently existing in the building, he thinks that there is a very musty smell when entering the school and especially in the basement area. They do air quality test to make sure it is safe and he does not believe that they have anything of that nature in there. But it is a very old structure that has not been updated and consequently some of the old restrooms smell, the basement has an odor, but they do try to do air quality test to make sure they are safe. Councilmember Kirsits stated that there has been a lot of information presented here tonight and at the Zoning & Annexation Committee this afternoon, with concern from both sides, he really felt it was necessary to hold the public hearing tonight. The Council also feels that it is necessary to tour Marquette School in a Public Hearing setting, it will be posted public meeting. He advised that there will be 3 lead people from each side to guide the Council. The meeting will be on October 23, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. The Council will then have substitute Bill 61-07 on for final reading on November 12, 2007. Councilmember Pfeifer stated that she very sad that there are two elected bodies here tonight, voted in by virtually the same constituents and there is no communication between each other. She stated that it is very disheartening and she is very disappointed that the SBCSC Board of Trustees would make a decision and lock in that there has to be a new building. They are forcing the Council in a corner, and this does not serve the public best. These two elected bodies should come together and talk about what would be in the best interest of Marquette School, and together they should talk about renovation versus building new. Instead of one group making a decision and then the other group feeling forced to either support or deny it. This issue is a prime example of the lack of cooperation and communication that voters are saying that they are disgusted with in their elected officials. This is a classic case of two elected bodies not working together at the same time for the best interest of the children of South Bend, Indiana. If the Council designates landmark status, it is not in the best interest of the citizens, taxpayers, and especially the children that the SBCSC has already made up their minds to build a new school somewhere else. She stated that there is only so much money that can be spent and this is not the best way to serve the constituents who elected them into office. She reiterated that she is very disappointed about how this issue came to light and that this is certainly not the way to do it. Councilmember White advised that the Council and the SBCSC Board of Trustees have an opportunity here tonight as two elected bodies to use tonight’s experience to begin to look at ways to collaborate and open up the communication line. She encouraged Council President Tim Rouse to make contact with the SBCSC Board of Trustees President so that the Council can have regularly scheduled meetings to talk about education, government and what is best for this community. As Councilmember Pfeifer stated early the City is dealing with limited funds and both elected bodies need to have the best interests of the community and especially the students. She believes that only when both bodies work collaboratively together that they can have a better understanding of how to move forward, so that South Bend and the School Corporation can come into st the 21 Century together. Councilmember Varner made a motion to continue Substitute Bill No. 61-07 in the Council Portion Only until the November 12, 2007 meeting of the Council. 20 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight ayes. Councilmember Varner made a motion for a five (5) minute recess. Councilmember Kirsits seconded the motion which carried by voice vote of eight (8) ayes. The Meeting reconvened at 9:49 p.m. BILL NO. 63-07 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA APPROPRIATING $225,000 RECEIVED FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE WEED & SEED PROGRAM Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to hear the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. th Ms. Pamela Meyer, Director, Community Development, 12 Floor County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Ms. Meyer advised that the substitute version of this bill is to correct the dollar amount listed in the title to $200,000.00. She stated that this bill would appropriate the fifth year of funding for Weed & Seed site #1 Department of Justice grant award for the period of September 1, 2007 through August 31, 2008. Fifth year funds are being used for programming related to the Weed & Seed required areas of Law Enforcement, Community Policing and, Prevention, Intervention and treatment activities. Included in this year’s funding are graffiti paint-overs, GED training, a youth billboard contest, an after school program at the Safe Haven Greater Friendship Church, and additional police patrols. These activities continue to build the effort initially developed and will be included in the program evaluation that will also occur and is required by the grant. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill as substituted. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 64-07 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) FROM THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT FUND NO. 410, AND ALLOCATING ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) TO POTAWATOMI ZOO AND ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) TO THE KROC CENTER Councilmember Puzzello, Chairperson, PARCS 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. Phil St. Clair, Superindent, Park Department, 321 E. Walter Street, South Bend, Indiana, and Mr. Terry DeRosa, Director Potawatomi Zoo, South Bend, Indiana, Mr. Jeff th Gibney, Director, Economic Development Department, 12 Floor County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana made the presentation for this bill. 21 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 Mr. Phil St. Clair stated that this bill would allow for additional funding in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for Potawatomi Zoo. The funding for the zoo will be put towards the accreditation process that they are seeking in 2009. Currently some of the zoo infrastructure needs addressing such as HVAC repairs, water conservation, structural upgrades in some of the exhibits and buildings, and roof repairs. These are some of the previous accreditation comments that they are working on as well as some of the new standards that the AZA would be passing along in the 2009 accreditation process. He urged the Council to vote favorable on this bill, to help finish some of the much needed repairs at Potawatomi Zoo. Mr. Terry DeRosa, Director, Potawatomi Zoo, 500 S. Greenlawn Boulevard, South Bend, Indiana, advised that this funding would provide creditable resources for meeting the ever increasing standards set by the American Zoological and Aquarium Association, thus maintaining the upcoming accreditation for 2009 and remaining only one of the 216 facilities accredited through AZA in North America and there are over 800 zoos, and Potawatomi is currently one of the 216 that are accredited. By meeting these rigid standards AZA insures that Potawatomi Zoo maintains the highest standards in their operations such as animal husbandry, veterinary care, education, and conservation programs. Potawatomi provides an engaging and affordable recreational asset to the community, thereby increasing the quality of life for the citizens of South Bend as well as for many of the rare and endangered in the zoo’s care. He thanked the Council for this opportunity and urged their favorable recommendation. th Mr. Jeff Gibney, Director, Community & Economic Development, 12 Floor County- City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard, South Bend, Indiana Mr. Gibney stated that in January of 2007, he received notice that St. Joseph County and the City of South Bend, received a 42.6 million dollar grant from the estate of Ray and Joan Kroc, they are the family that owned the McDonald businesses throughout the United States and internationally. He stated that an 85,000 square foot building will be built in this community. The site that was selected is on the southwest corner of Chapin and Western Avenue. Included in this building on a 9+ acre site will be an education center, performing arts center, gymnasium, aquatic center, fitness center, athletic fields, etc. The total cost of the building will be 22.6 million dollars and the building is paid for through the gift from the Kroc’s. When the Kroc Center opens it will have a 30 million dollar endowment, which will cover approximately 75% of its operating expenses. He noted that 20 million dollars of the 30 million dollars was also part of the gift from the Kroc family. The City has 10 million dollars that needs to be raised here in the Community of South Bend, statewide and nationally. This bill would allow for the approval of a 1 million dollar contribution towards that endowment that would give the City approximately 4 million dollars that the City has to date. Mr. Gibney stated that those funds are coming from the former Business Development Corporation, when they left the partnership with the City of South Bend, negotiations were made and approximately 6 million dollars were paid back to the City. Those funds initially came from the UDAG grant to the City of South Bend that was a loan for the Ethanol Plant. Mr. Gibney urged the Council’s favorable approval of this bill. Ms. Pfeifer questioned whether Mr. Alonzo Watson’s name will still be maintained at that site. Mr. Gibney stated that Mr. Watson’s name will be retained, but he was not sure how, if it would be with a cornerstone or some kind of signage. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Councilmember Puzzello stated that it took a number of years for the problems at Potawatomi Zoo to become apparent to the public and the Council. She thanked Terry DeRosa, for his skills and being able to assess the situation so well and to Marcy Dean who worked with the Zoological Society to crunch the numbers and come up with the needs in those areas that need to be addressed according AZA standards. Councilmember Puzzello noted that things have been moving forward and with thanks to Mayor Luecke 22 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 and Park Superintendent Phil St. Clair, the money was found to begin work on the areas in need. She stated that it is very important this situation never happens again. The Zoo and Park Department needs to meet, talk, access and find ways to improve the financial situation, so that they can keep up on the improvements as they are needed. Councilmember Kirsits thanked Mr. DeRosa and Marcy Dean for the tour that the Council was given. He stated that their passion for the Zoo is truly commendable. The Council and the public were given a behind the scenes tour. He stated that he brought his daughter Hanna and they named the tour “Rolling with Roland”. He stated that Councilmember Kelly was there and was being wheeled in a wheelchair. Councilmember Kirsits noted that what he remembers the most was they had talked about having to change or even eliminate some of the exhibits namely the Chimpanzee Exhibit. He stated that he vividly remembers when they entered the Chimp Exhibit the zoo staff saying to watch where they were walking because sometimes the Chimps through dirt clods or something worse. He went on record stating that they did not through anything and he is very passionate about keeping the Chimpanzee Exhibit at Potawatomi Zoo. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 57-07 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, SETTING THE ANNUAL SALARY FOR THE MAYOR FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008 Councilmember Pfeifer, Chairperson, Personnel & Finance 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 Mr. Chuck Leone, City Attorney, 14 Floor County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Leone advised that this City’s legislative body is required to fix the annual compensation of all elected officers. This bill established the annual compensation for the Mayor of the City of South Bend for the calendar year 2008. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. RISE AND REPORT Councilmember Dieter 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. 23 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 ATTEST: ATTEST: _________________________ _________________________ John Voorde, City Clerk Karen L. White, 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 9:49 p.m. Council President Tim Rouse presided with eight (8) members present. BILLS, THIRD READING ORDINANCE NO. 9792-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN 3466 AND 17210 DOUGLAS ROAD AND SOUTH OF 17210 AND 17242 DOUGLAS ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF S.R. 23, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 4 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA This bill had third reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to amend this bill as in the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to pass this bill as amended. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 9793-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 827 EAST WAYNE STREET; 219, 222, 224, 228, 230 AND 231 SOUTH NOTRE DAME AVENUE; AND VACANT PROPERTY LYING EAST OF 222 AND 224 SOUTH NOTRE DAME AVENUE AND VACANT PROPERTY LYING SOUTH OF 219 SOUTH NOTRE DAME AVENUE; COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 4 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA This bill had third reading. Councilmember Dieter 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. 9794-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE: ARTICLE 14, SUBDIVISIONS TO REVISE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MAJOR SECONDARY SUBDIVISION PLATS 24 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 This bill had third reading. Councilmember Dieter made a motion to amend this bill as in the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Pfeifer seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Dieter made a motion to pass this bill as amended. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 9795-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA APPROPRIATING $200,000 RECEIVED FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE WEED & SEED PROGRAM This bill had third reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to amend this bill as in the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Dieter made a motion to pass this bill as amended. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 9796-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) FROM THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT FUND NO. 410 AND ALLOCATING ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) TO POTAWATOMI ZOO AND ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) TO THE KROC CENTER This bill had third reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes ORDINANCE NO. 9797-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, SETTING THE ANNUAL SALARY FOR THE MAYOR FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008 This bill had third reading. Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 3799-07 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1247 HOWARD STREET AS RESIDENTIALLY DISTRESSED AREAS FOR PURPOSES OF A FIVE (5) YEAR RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 25 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, has adopted a Declaratory Resolution designating certain areas within the City as Residentially Distressed Areas for the purpose of tax abatement consideration; and requesting that the area commonly known as 1247 Howard Street, South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows: Lot 29 Talbots Plat and this property has Tax Key Number 18-5095-3359 be designated as a Residentially Distressed Area under the provisions of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., and South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76 et seq., and; WHEREAS, notice of the adoption of a Declaratory Resolution and the public hearing before the Council has been published pursuant to Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-2.5; and WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing for the purposes of hearing all remonstrances and objections from interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the qualifications for a residentially distressed area have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the petition for real property tax abatement and the Statement of Benefits form meet the requirements of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., for tax abatement. SECTION II. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the area meets one of the following conditions as formally established in Ordinance No. 9394-03, which was passed on February 10, 2003: A. The area is comprised of parcels that are either unimproved or contain only one (1) or two (2) family dwellings designed for up to four (4) families, including accessory buildings for those dwellings; or B. Any dwellings in the area are not permanently occupied and are: i. the subject of an order issued under IC 36-7-9; or ii. evidencing significant building deficiencies; or C. Parcels of property in the area: i. have been sold and not redeemed under IC 6-1.1-24 and IC 6-1.1-25; or ii. are owned by a unit of local government; or D. A significant number of dwelling units within the area are not permanently occupied or a significant number of parcels in the area are vacant land; or E. A significant number of dwelling units within the area are: i. the subject of an order issued under IC 36-7-9; or ii. evidencing significant building deficiencies; or F. The area has experienced a net loss in the number of dwelling units, as documented by census information, local building and demolition permits, or certificates of occupancy, or the areas are owned by Indiana or the United States; or G. The area (plus any areas previously designated under this subsection) will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total area within the Council’s jurisdiction. SECTION III. The Common Council also hereby determines and finds the following: A. That the description of the proposed redevelopment meets the applicable standards for such development. B. That the estimate of the value of the redevelopment is reasonable for projects of this nature; 26 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 C. That the other benefits about which information was requested are benefits that can be reasonably expected to result from the proposed described redevelopment; and D. That the totality of benefits is sufficient to justify the requested deduction, all of which satisfy the requirements of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-3. E. The deduction will not be allowed unless the dwelling is rehabilitated to meet local code standards for habitability. F. The deduction will not be allowed unless the dwelling rehabilitation is completed within five (5) calendar years from the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION IV. The Common Council hereby confirms its Declaratory Resolution designating the area described herein as a Residentially Distressed Area for the purposes of tax abatement. Such designation is for Real property tax abatement only and is limited to five (5) calendar years from the date of adoption of the Declaratory Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION V. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for and is granted Real property tax deduction for a period of five (5) years, and further determines that the petition complies with Chapter 2, Article 6, of the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend and Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq. SECTION VI. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/Timothy A. Rouse Member of the Common Council Ms. Violet Schorsch, Habitat for Humanity, 402 E. South Street, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Ms. Schorsch advised that Habitat for Humanity palns to build a new, single-family residence with three bedrooms and one bathroom. The home will have 1,120 square feet and it will be built with a four-foot crawl space. Habitat will use volunteer labor and donated materials to build the home. The price of the home will be $65,000. The lot is currently owned by the City of South Bend. Habitat for Humanity intends to purchase the lot, construct the house and then offer the property for sale to qualified, low-income families using a no-interest loan and mortgage. 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 Dieter made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 07-122 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS VACANT LAND IN THE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AREA AS AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A SEVEN-YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR OLIVE CLEVELAND PARTNERS LLC. 27 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 BILL NO. 07-80 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 202 SOUTH MICHIGAN STREET FLOORS 1,2,4,5,9 AND 11 TO 14 AS AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A NINE (9) YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR KEY SB, LLC, THE HINMAN COMPANY Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to continue Bill Nos. 07-122 and 07-80 until the October 22, 2007 meeting of the Council. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 3800-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 101 SOUTH IOWA STREET AS RESIDENTIALLY DISTRESSED AREAS FOR PURPOSES OF A FIVE (5) YEAR RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR JONATHAN BURKHOLDER WHEREAS, a Statement of Benefits and a petition for residential real property tax abatement have been submitted to and filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, requesting that the area commonly known as 101 South Iowa Street, South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows: nd Lot numbered Three Hundred Forty-Eight (348) LaSalle Park 2 Plat , and this property has Tax Key Number 18-4063-2326be designated as a Residentially Distressed Area under the provisions of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., and South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76 et seq., and; WHEREAS, the Department of Community and Economic Development has concluded an investigation and prepared a report with information sufficient for the Common Council to determine that the area qualifies as a Residentially Distressed Area under Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1, et seq., and South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76, et seq., and has further prepared maps and plats showing the boundaries and such other information regarding the area in question as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Community and Economic Development Committee of the Common Council has reviewed said report and recommended to the Common Council that the area qualifies as a Residentially Distressed Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the petition for real property tax abatement and the Statement of Benefits form meet the requirements of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., for tax abatement. SECTION II. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the area meets one of the following conditions as formally established in Ordinance No. 9394-03, which was passed on February 10, 2003: 28 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 A. The area is comprised of parcels that are either unimproved or contain only one (1) or two (2) family dwellings designed for up to four (4) families, including accessory buildings for those dwellings; or B. Any dwellings in the area are not permanently occupied and are: i. the subject of an order issued under IC 36-7-9; or ii. evidencing significant building deficiencies; or C. Parcels of property in the area: i. have been sold and not redeemed under IC 6-1.1-24 and IC 6-1.1-25; or ii. are owned by a unit of local government; or D. A significant number of dwelling units within the area are not permanently occupied or a significant number of parcels in the area are vacant land; or E. A significant number of dwelling units within the area are: i. the subject of an order issued under IC 36-7-9; or ii. evidencing significant building deficiencies; or F. The area has experienced a net loss in the number of dwelling units, as documented by census information, local building and demolition permits, or certificates of occupancy, or the areas are owned by Indiana or the United States; or, G. The area (plus any areas previously designated under this subsection) will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total area within the Council’s jurisdiction. SECTION III. The Common Council also hereby determines and finds the following: A. That the description of the proposed redevelopment meets the applicable standards for such development. B. That the estimate of the value of the redevelopment is reasonable for projects of this nature; C. That the other benefits about which information was requested are benefits that can be reasonably expected to result from the proposed described redevelopment; and D. That the totality of benefits is sufficient to justify the requested deduction, all of which satisfy the requirements of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-3. E. The deduction will not be allowed unless the dwelling is rehabilitated to meet local code standards for habitability. F. The deduction will not be allowed unless the dwelling rehabilitation is completed within five (5) calendar years from the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION IV. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed described redevelopment can be reasonably expected to yield benefits identified in the Statement of Benefits and the petition for real property tax abatement consideration and that the Statement of Benefits form prescribed by the State Board of Accounts are sufficient to justify the deduction granted under Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-3. SECTION V. The Common Council hereby accepts the report and recommendation of the Community and Economic Development Committee that the area herein described be designated as a Residentially Distressed Area and hereby adopts a Resolution designating this area as a Residentially Distressed Area for purposes of real property tax abatement. SECTION VI. The designation as a Residentially Distressed Area shall be limited to five (5) calendar years from the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION VII. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for and is granted property tax deduction for a period of five (5) years. 29 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 SECTION VIII. The Common Council directs the City Clerk to cause notice of the adoption of this Declaratory Resolution for Real Property Tax Abatement to be published pursuant to Indiana Code 5-3-1 and Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-2.5, said publication providing notice of the public hearing before the Common Council on the proposed confirming of said declaration. SECTION IX. Pursuant to Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-2, the rehabilitation must meet all local code standards for habitability as a specific condition of having such property designated as a residentially distressed area. SECTION X. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/Timothy A. Rouse Member of the Common Council Councilmember Dieter, Chairperson, Community and Economic Development Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon to hear the pros and cons and give due diligence and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Doug Merritt, Professional Permits and Municipal Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 664, Notre Dame, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill, on behalf of the owner Jonathan Burkholder. Mr. Merritt advised that Mr. Burkholder intends to construct a new 1,000 square foot, two to three-bedroom home with a detached garage. The home will be constructed on an infill lot and the cost of construction is estimated at $111,700. 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 Dieter made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. BILLS – FIRST READING BILL NO. 65-07 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA APPROPRIATING $3,500 FROM THE MORRIS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AND PALAIS ROYALE MARKETING FUND (FUND NUMBER 273) FOR PURCHASE AND PRINTING OF MORRIS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TICKET ENVELOPES This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to the PARC Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on October 22, 2007. Councilmember Pfeifer seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 30 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 BILL NO. 66-07 FIRST READING ON A BILL ESTABLISHING THE URBAN HOMESTEADING PROGRAM (DOLLAR HOUSE PROGRAM) AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS This bill had first reading. Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to refer this bill to the Community and Economic Development Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on October 22, 2007. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 67-07 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $1,000,000 FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE HIGHWAY FUND (FUND NUMBER 202) FOR THE EXPANSION OF DOUGLAS ROAD FROM STATE ROAD 23 TO THE MISHAWAKA CITY LIMITS This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to the Public Works and Property Vacation Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on October 22, 2007. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 68-07 FIRST READING ON A BILL TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE FIRST NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY LYING WEST OF MIAMI STREET EXTENDING FROM EWING AVENUE NORTH TO THE FIRST EAST-WEST ALLEY LYING NORTH OF EWING AVENUE FOR 123.5 FEET MORE OR LESS AND A WIDTH OF 14 FEET BEING A PART OF OAK PARK FOURTH ADDITION. This bill had first reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to refer this bill to the Public Works and Property Vacation Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on October 22, 2007. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 69-07 FIRST READING ON A BILL TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE ALLEY TO BE VACATED IS THE FIRST EAST- WEST ALLEY NORTH OF WASHINGTON STREET, EXTENDING FROM THE FIRST NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY EAST OF HUEY STREET, EAST TO THE NOW VACATED O’BRIEN STREET FOR A DISTANCE OF 107 FEET MORE OR LESS AND A WIDTH OF 12 FEET BEING A PART OF OAK GROVE ADDITION, PORTAGE TOWNSHIP, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA This bill had first reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to refer this bill to the Public Works and Property Vacation Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on October 22, 2007. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 31 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORT FROM BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BILL NO. 07-126 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING A PETITION OF THE SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT BETWEEN 228 NOTRE DAME AVENUE AND THE FIRST EAST-WEST ALLEY NORTH OF WAYNE STREET Councilmember Varner made a motion to refer this bill to the Zoning & Annexation Committee and set if for Public Hearing and Third Reading on October 22, 2007. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. MOTION TO CONTINUE BILL NO. 47-07 Councilmember White made a motion to continue Bill No. 47-07 indefinitely. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember White stated that there will be a Health and Public Safety Committee Meeting on October 24, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. to continue discussion of Bill 47-07. NEW BUSINESS Councilmember Pfeifer stated that in light of the late hour, she will give an update on the Vacant Properties Conference at the next meeting of the Council. Councilmember Varner stated that as of September 28, 2007, Comcast will no longer be broadcasting the South Bend Common Council Meetings. He noted that there has been a change in the way the law reads relieving Comcast from their duty of video taping any public meetings. Councilmember Varner noted that he has been in contact with Angel Hernandez, WNIT “Public Access Channel” to discuss the possibilities of having the Council Meetings broadcast over the public access channel. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR COMMENTS FROM MR. SINCLAIR POINDEXTER REGARDING COMCAST Mr. Sinclair Poindexter, 1046 Georgiana, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is a professional videographer, producer and director. He studied at Ivy Tech and did his internship under Greg Giczi, WNDU, Channel 16,, He stated that Mr. Giczi is now the station manager at Arizona State University, Tempe. He stated that he has been a broadcaster on public access for fourteen (14) years and he also stated that he is a citizen, a taxpayer and a registered voter. Mr. Poindexter noted that most of the Council has been on his television program. He noted that he has given personal interviews and has had discussions of some of the activities that the Council has been involved with around town. He stated that he is very disheartened when he tried to call his elected officials about this Comcast situation. He stated that he was told that they were too busy with the campaign to even deal with it. He stated that he had to file an Access to Public Records form to get any information related to Comcast when this information has been sitting on the City Attorney’s desk for weeks. He stated that this Comcast is very important and he understands that WNIT is taking over it. Mr. Poindexter noted that he has been exposed to WNIT, twelve to thirteen years ago and because of racists attitudes he was not allowed to broadcast. He thinks that as a broadcaster, producer and a member of this community, he ought to be in on the ground floor in the planning stages of when this thing is getting ready to be turned over to WNIT and thinks that this is more than fair. He stated that Ms. Carol Davis, is a broadcaster to and that they have been working together to try to meet with their elected City Officials to try to resolve this problem. He stated that they have asked if they could be of some kind of assistance and yet steady the doors are being closed in their face and for what, they don’t know. He stated that they are simply asking 32 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 their elected City Officials from the Mayor on down to the Council to let them in on the ground floor of where this public access is going because they are the ones that have built it to what it is today. They give people non-stop public access for fourteen years and he knows that a lot of the Councilmember’s have seen his show. Mr. Poindexter feels that he gives the community what he feels they need such as a religious experience; he gives them an educational experience and things that are going on in the community. Like tonight, people won’t be able to see this Council Meeting to see what is going on. He stated that it is the Council’s duty to prod whoever is in charge of this to get public access up and going and put him in on ground zero with this thing. He stated do not let somebody come in that doesn’t know the people and take over. Councilmember Varner stated that he had a conversation with Mr. Poindexter as far back August 28, 2007, when the letter first appeared. The letter basically stated that due to the change in the State Legislature, Comcast would still broadcast tapes but they would not provide personnel or equipment to make or produce the tapes. Since that time, the Council has been waiting for other information that has not arrived and relayed that information to Mr. Poindexter. He took the liberty of contacting WNIT since they are going to be residents of South Bend. Now, at this point and time, the issue that the Council is dealing with is whether or not the Council Meeting’s are going to be broadcast. The issues that Mr. Poindexter brought up about WNIT are certainly something that the Council should have some say in where the City is concerned. At this point and time he stated that he can’t tell anymore other than that because of the lack of progress and someone taking the initiative to go to WNIT and see if in fact there is a possibility. So that’s where it is at this point and time at least from the Council’s perspective. He stated that he is not sure if the Administration has gotten any further on their own. COMMENTS FROM MS. CAROL DAVIS REGARDING COMCAST rd Ms. Carol Davis, 623 S. 23 Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated like Mr. Poindexter, she has an access program called “Your Right to Know.” She stated that she has invited several Councilmember’s to be on the program. Prior conflicts have prevented them from attending. She stated that they have had several of the City’s agencies like The Youth Service Bureau, Police Department and several others along with various support groups. Ms. Davis stated that she would like to continue their programs, but she would like to see the City Council likewise aired, along with the South Bend Community School Corporation Board. She noted that Mr. Poindexter can film and edit and that he should have brought his equipment tonight to tape this meeting. She noted that the Council is lacking their voice on television. The public needs to know what is going on at these meetings. She stated that she is trying to save everyone’s voice over the airwaves. Ms. Davis stated that if they can save just one station, there is a good possibility that they could have up to four (4) different access stations for South Bend. Councilmember Rouse asked Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney to give an overview on the legislative action that has caused this confusion and the ceasing of public access. Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney, stated that it is her understanding that the new State Law took effect July 1, 2007. As Dr. Varner as mention, the way that the Indiana Legislature enacted the legislation there is a requirement to continue to have a channel available for public access, however, with regard to either personnel or equipment that is not required and basically, Comcast has stated that the way they see it would not be a level playing field, since they are providing that at a cost to them. She stated that Mr. Gilot said that the contract that the City has in effect with Comcast is in effect until the year 2010 that the revenue stream will continue to the City of South Bend, and again, at one of the Personnel and Finance Committee that Dr. Varner, Vice- Chairperson, stated that the Mayor was to be setting up a meeting with the officials from Comcast and again in light of this being the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns Week, that many of the public officials are attending that conference in Evansville, that upon their return that they do plan to bring the Council up to date with regard to that. She also added that Councilmember Varner stated that in addition to WNIT he also asked for information to be forthcoming from the public library and to see if any of the other communities like Hammond, Mishawaka or Valparaiso who have received similar letters 33 REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 as the City of South Bend did, would want to interact together. That is all of the issues that have been raised by both the public and the Council that need to be addressed. Councilmember Rouse stated that if someone were to bring a tape to Comcast, that they would actually play that tape on a public access channel. But what they won’t allow is for it to be edited on site or provide that taping. Mr. Poindexter stated that for those who have been broadcasting they have been notified their last day is December 18, 2007. As far as he is concerned it seems like Comcast has already shut them down. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, President Rouse adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. ATTEST: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ John Voorde, City Clerk Timothy A. Rouse, President 34