Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/07 Council Special Meeting MinutesSPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 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, September 17, 2007 at 6:20 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council President Timothy A. Rouse and the Invocation and Pledge to the Flag were given. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMEERS: Present: Derek D. Dieter Charlotte Pfeifer Roland "Randy" Kelly Ann Puzzello David Varner Al "Buddy" Kirsits Timothy Rouse Karen L. White Absent: Ervin Kuspa OTHERS PRESENT: 1st District 2nd District 3rd District 4th District Vice-President 5th District At-Large At-Large President At-Large Chairperson, Committee of the Whole 6~` District John Voorde Janice L Talboom Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Absent: Mary Beth Wisniewski City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Council Attorney Chief Deputy RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 6:21 p.m. Councilmember Kirsits made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Dieter 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. 44-07 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE INCLUSION OF NEW ARTICLE 9 ENTITLED "REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SPECIAL EVENTS IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREAS" AND AMENDING OTHER SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 14 RELATED THERETO Councilmember Roland "Randy" Kelly, Chairperson, Community Relations Committee, reported that this committee met this afternoon and sends it to the full Council with no recommendation. Councilmember Dieter made a motion to consider the second substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17. 2007 Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to amend the second substitute bill. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember's Rouse and Kirsits, Co-Sponsors, made the presentation for this bill. Councilmember Rouse read a letter dated September 13, 2007, addressed to Members of the South Bend Common Council and signed by both Councihnember's Rouse and Kirsits. September 13, 2007 Members of the South Bend Common Council 4d` Floor County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 Re: 2nd Substitute Bill No. 44-07 Special Event Regulations Dear Council Members: Good dialogue has taken place since the last Community Relations Meeting when amended versions of Bill No. 44-07 were publicly discussed. As a result of these continuing discussions, we are pleased to file a 2nd Substitute Bill No. 44-07. Our primary goals are to protect the residents of our residential neighborhoods; to protect all visitors who come to our residential neighborhoods; to formally establish a community/campus coalition; and to establish a mechanism to permit limited residential lawn paring on a city-wide basis. Some of the key items in 2nd Substitute Bill No. 44-07 include: • Proposing regulations which carefully balance the rights of residents in the neighborhood with the responsibilities of the person(s) who host special events • Creating a 19-member Community/Campus Advisory Coalition (CCAC) composed of neighborhood residents, City appointed and elected officials, Officials from the University of Notre Dame, Indiana University South Bend and St. Mary's College, and the Student Body Presidents of each of these institutions who would meet on a regular basis throughout the year and make advisory recommendation to the Community Relations Committee and the Residential Neighborhoods Committee (See Sec. IS-52, pp. 4-5 for more detail) • Enabling the CCAC to collaborate, brainstorm and make advisory recommendations to the Council, with the boarding house regulations being implemented at such later date when the Common Council determines that they are needed in order to protect the quality of life in negatively affected residential neighborhoods or if there is a lack of substantial progress by the CCAC [Applications governing such special events would be required 5 days prior to a proposed event] (See Sec. VIII on page 14) • Clarifying the responsibilities of sponsors with regard to underage drinking so that they are responsible social hosts (See Sec. 14-53. ¶ (f~, p. 6for more detail) • Banning portable toilets at all special events held on residentially zoned property held throughout the City (See Sec. 14-54, ¶ (a)1, p. 7 for more detail) • Requiring all litter, refuse, etc related to a special event held on a residentially zoned property to be removed from the property where the special event takes place, as well as from any adjoining properties (public or private) within 12 hours (See Sec. 14-54, ¶(a)1, p. 7for more detail) SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 • Setting reasonable beginning times and ending times for the placement of temporary structures such as tens, equipment for outside music, etc. brought in for the special event (See Sec. 14-54, ¶ (a)2, p. 7for more detail) • Providing for temporary residential one-day Conditional Use Lawn Parking permits on a city -wide basis (See Sec. 14-56, pp. 7-10) • Requiring all lawn ruts to be repaired (See Sec. 14-56, ¶ (n), p. 10 for more detail) • Enabling the flow of information to the Common Council by specifically requiring that relevant data be shared so that the council's Community Relations Committee and the Council's Residential Neighborhoods Committee so that they may weigh the effectiveness of the regulations and hear recommendations from residents, city officials, and the Community/Campus Advisory coalition (CCAC) on a regular basis (See Sec. 14-60, pp. 12-13 for more detail) We believe that by addressing special events pro-actively, that each of our proposed strategies, not only compliment, but strengthen each of the proposed ordinance provisions. Detailed footnotes to relevant sources of information have also been included throughout the proposed ordinance. As noted in our prior meetings, there are many university communities across the nation who has been grappling with these multi- faceted challenges. We believe that the regulations we are proposing offer the City Administration discretion, yet are grounded in protecting the quality of life of our residents and the residential neighborhoods we call home. By collaborating with our city residents, college and university officials, as well as with student government leaders, we have the opportunity to all work together. The COPS Problem-Oriented Guide for Police, Problem-Specific Guides Series, No. 39 published by the U. S. Department of Justice in February 2006, has been carefully studied, discussed and reviewed. We believe that the proposed regulations are consistent with the "Effective Action Plan" detailed in that publication. By adding the Community/Campus Advisory Coalition (CCAC) to this ordinance, the strategic planning component has been further strengthened. As noted in the article "Putting the Lid on Unruly Parties" which appeared in the Higher Education Center: Prevention File in May 2007, and the article "Getting House Parties Under ControP' which appeared in Catalyst, a publication of Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, funded by the U.S. Department of Education (Winter 2007, Volume 8, No. 2 ); ongoing dialogue among all interested parties is critical. By having the Community/Campus Advisory Coalition meet on a regular basis throughout the calendar year, we will gain insights, build strong partnerships and have the opportunity to work together to see that the best local legislation is in place which fits the needs of South Bend residents, South Bend neighborhoods, and embraces our university and college neighbors. Councilmember Rouse thanked all the individuals who have offered suggestions and insights into this proposed ordinance. Councilmember Kirsits stated that South Bend is a vibrant, caring city. Residents and government celebrate our diversity and vitality. He stated that the Council believes that it is their duty to protect the "quality of life" in each of these neighborhoods. He advised that 2nd Substitute Bill No. 44-07 provides another tool for such protection. Ordinance No. 9749-07 which was passed on Apri123, 2007 by the South Bend Common Council, parking of motor vehicles on lawn areas in residential areas is prohibited from a public safety perspective; and with the passage of Ordinance No. 9759-07 on June 11, 2007, by the South Bend Common Council, parking of motor vehicles on lawn areas in residential areas is prohibited from a zoning perspective. Public testimony in support of both of these ordinances, both sponsored by 4~` District Councihnember Ann Puzzello, noted that when there was residential lawn parking on a regular basis: There were increased calls SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 for service. There was a greater need to protect quality of life in residential areas. There were more public safety concerns of pedestrians and motorists. There were decreasing property values of homes, and the lack of managing residential events resulted in litter, trash, pubic urination & noise problems. Special events in residential areas may enhance the vibrancy of the neighborhood if properly managed by the person(s) hosting such events. However, our community has seen far too often the negative secondary effects when the person or persons hosting a special event in a residential neighborhood fails to control and manage the event resulting in: Noise, litter, public intoxication, rude behavior, public urination, & unruly large crowds congregating outside in residential neighborhoods during the early morning hours & have caused problems, such as: increased home owner occupancy turnover, increased calls for service requiring our South Bend Fire Department ambulances to make multiple runs, as well as increased calls to Neighborhood Code Enforcement & the South Bend Police Department, increased public health, safety and general welfare concerns for those living in the neighborhood, damaging the quality of enjoyment by the residents and neighbors who have invested in the neighborhood. Proposed special events regulations 2nd Substitute Bill No. 44-07, would create a 21 member Community/Campus Advisory Coalition (CCAC) composed of neighborhood residents, City officials, representatives from the University of Notre Dame, St. Mary's College and Indiana University South Bend and Holy Cross. CCAC would meet on a regular basis throughout the year to "collaborate, brainstorm and make advisory recommendations" to the Common Council. Pro-Active Measures such as these are intended to build positive, long-term partnerships which aid in protecting the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Proposed Special Events Regulations 2nd Substitute Bill No. 44-07 would place an emphasis on planning and management so that the responsibility falls on the person planning special events. If special events are properly managed, there should be fewer calls for police service and emergency medical personnel, so that all such needed services are available on a city-wide basis. It would create temporary one-day special events lawn parking regulations on a city-wide basis as a limited exception to the two (2) ordinances which ban all residential lawn parking. It would balance the responsibilities of persons who wish to host such special events with the rights of the surrounding residents who wish to have quiet enjoyment and a better quality of life in their residential neighborhood. South Bend benefits financially for calls for service, however there is too often a corresponding drain on public safety services simultaneously taking place in the rest of the City for such needed services. The US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Publication No. 39 published February 2006 recommends: Pro-Active strategies to address such multi-faceted problems developing comprehensive actions plans. 2nd Substitute Bill No. 44-07 is consistent with such recommendation, and with the inclusion of the Community/Campus Advisory Coalition we believe that these pro-active regulations are further enhanced on both a short and long-term basis. The US Department of Justice COPS publication No. 39 concluded that "Implementing multiple interventions at each of the five (5) stages of an event's "life cycle" will help to prevent misconduct and subsequent police use of force" requiring permits serves two (2) important purposes: Notifies authorities of gatherings in advance; and pre-defined conditions can be used to establish minimum standards that must be met before people can assemble. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse reported that drinking by 18 to 24 year old college students contributes to: 1,700 student deaths each year, 599,000 student injuries each year; 696,000 students assaulted each year; 400,000 students have unsafe sex each year; 150,000 students have health problems/suicide attempts each year; 97,000 cases of sexual assault or date rape each year; 2.1 million students drove under the influence last year as well as increased student vandalism, property damage, police involvement and alcohol abuse and dependence. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism NIAAA supported a Task Force on College Drinking who met for three (3) At the individual-student level; At the level of the entire student body; At the community level. Councilmember Kirsits read a quote from Rev. Edward A. Malloy, C.S.C. "Decisions about alcohol consumption are not just individual, they can affect the common life of the university... It is not realistic to expect that colleges can eradicate alcohol problems among students, given the complexity of the issues and the role of alcohol in the broader social culture. But we can work to prevent alcohol-induced behavior that violates our sense of peace and security and that makes us passive contributors to the degradation of student lives... " Councihnember Kirsits quoted Rev. SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 John Jenkins, C.S.C., President of the University of Notre Dame, from the September 13, 2007 The Observer, "I think there's nothing that defines Notre Dame more powerfully than the sense of community... " Councilmember Kirsits read a quote from the September 13, 2007 Scholastic, University of Notre Dame's Student Magazine Since 1867 (Page 10) "Are students off campus oftentimes disruptive? Yes. Are there consistent problems with underage drinking? Yes. And do these problems negatively affect the lives of South Bend residents going about their daily routines? Indubitably." Until students stop misbehaving, especially inoff-campus houses and during football weekends, their cries of persecution at the hands of the South Bend Police Department and the South Bend City Council ring decidedly false. You can't be unjustly persecuted for things you are actually doing." The Catalyst, a Publication from the Higher Education Center in Volume 8, No. 2, Winter 2007 edition on "Getting House Parties Under Control" reports: "From Gainesville, Fla., to Amherst, Mass., to Reno, Nev., college towns across the country are taking measures to get a handle on unruly house parties, which care a sore point of contention in neighborhoods near campuses." "...cities are enacting new ordinances as well as beefing up enforcement in order to hold party hosts accountable... such measures can take the form of nuisance ordinances, house party ordinances, or social host ordinances." "In California, 25 cities and 4 counties either have or are considering some type of social host... a social host ordinance is a strategy for changing social norms around the idea that it is okay for young people to binge drink at parties." Other communities have passed various types of social event legislation such as Berkley, CA; Concord, CA; Reno, NV; Ames, Iowa; San Marcos, Texas; Syracuse, NY; Orange and Ventura Counties in California, San Diego, CA. On June 7-10, 2007 the 2na Annual "Best Practices in Building Universit.~y Relations Conference" was held in Gainesville, Florida and focused on "Living and Learning Together to Unite Our Communities" to discuss: Improving Town/Gown Relations; All the Right Stuff: Event Security; Berkeley, California developed a "comprehensive approach" which addresses "expectations of students and defining acceptable standards." College & city leaders advocate "... a paradigm shift" where towns and universities both work to address quality of life, cost-sharing for public services... Councilmember Kirsits advised that Proposed Special Events Regulations 2nd Substitute Bill No. 44-07 requires the sponsor who hosts a special event to properly manage and supervise it. Would help improve and protect the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods. Would help foster ongoing and pro- active discussions between city residents, community leaders and our university and college neighbors year-round through the Community/Campus Advisory Coalition (CCAC.) Would permit the CCAC to begin discussions before the boarding house permit regulations proposed in 14-53 would be implemented, with such implementation taking place after the Council adopts a separate Resolution indicating the need for such activation. Councilmember Kirsits quoted Rev. Edward A. Malloy, C.S.C. that Henry Wechsler [in the book Dying to Drink] not only describes graphically the environmental elements of this unhealthy and dangerous reality, but he helps us to understand the price we as individuals, as families, and as educators. Even more importantly, he issues a call to action that can be confidently undertaken by schools, by parents, and by the surrounding communities." By working together with our residents and our university & college neighbors, the City of South Bend can provide positive tools to enrich the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods by pro-actively addressing community & public safety concerns. In this way, public trust will be enhanced and our residential neighborhoods will be given the opportunity to flourish. Good dialogue has taken place since July 13d`, when we first filed Bill No. 44-07 with the Office of the City Clerk. We will continue to work to see that pro-active measures and discussions continue, so that the qualities of life in all of our South Bend residential neighborhoods are enhanced. Councilmember Kirsits thanked everyone asked the Council for their favorable support. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Ms. Liz Brown, 1022 E. Madison, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is the Student Body President at the University of Notre Dame. She stated that she appreciates the opportunity to speak tonight on behalf of the Student Body of the University of Notre Dame. As many people know she has been actively involved in discussions regarding tonight proposed ordinance. In the last month and half she stated that she has participated SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 in many fruitful and constructive discussions concerning the problem of disorderly students living in the neighborhood surrounding the University of Notre Dame. She is extremely pleased that from these conversations that Common Council President Rouse and Councilmember Kirsits have introduced tonight proposed bill. The Community Relations Coalition marks a major achievement for community relations. For the first time there will be a forum for continued discussion between City officials, South Bend Residents, area Universities, and students living in South Bend neighborhoods. While this coalition was created in response to the problem of disorderly students her hope is that this body will also serve as an area to discuss the range of issues effecting area neighborhoods. By bringing together all of the interested parties they can act in a truly collaborative and proactive manner to improve community relations. She is also pleased with the co-sponsors decision to pursue alternative initiatives to address community issues rather than the social gathering permit process. She stated that she has repeatedly mentioned that they remain committed to addressing the problem of disruptive student parties that clearly affect neighborhood residence quality of life. She noted that improved student behavior in the preceding month has validity their commitment to this issue. She hoped that continued improvements will lead to a better community environment for all area residents. Notre Dame Student Government will continue to lead the way in this regard by hosting programs throughout the year to encourage students to act as responsible citizens of the City of South Bend. She again thanked the co-sponsors of this bill for all of their hard work to address this issue of utmost concern to both community residents and Notre Dame Students. An affirmative vote on tonight's bill might signal and end to discussion on this particular piece of legislation it also represents significant progress in community relations. She looks forward to discussions over the coming year as they continue to candidly address the issues that affect the South Bend Community most. Ms. Marguerite Taylor, 714 E. Corby Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is a member of the CCAC. She asked the Council not to committee this bill to death. This is a quality of life issue and this bill needs to be passed. She stated that she lives right in the middle of the neighborhood that this bill affects. Ms. Taylor stated that she printed 53 comments off of the WNDU.com website concerning this bill. She stated that they are comments from Notre Dame Students showing their arrogance towards this issue. How dare they tell her that she should move if she doesn't like the partying going on. She quoted one comment "If you don't like living here around a college campus where parties have been going on since the college was founded MOVE!" She stated that she has lived there long enough to have paid the house off. She has lived at that residence longer than Ms. Brown's mother is old! She stated "Do I have to move... I don't think so..." Another comment was "the City of South Bend seems to forget that it is Notre Dame that brings money in... and the South Bend Common Council should be focusing on more important issues." Ms. Taylor stated that "they" don't bring her a dime! She stated that she pays taxes, votes, and should have the right to live in peace. She stated that she has the right for students not to urinate on her porch! She has the right to not have a student throw a beer bottle through her window! This is why she is so passionate about this bill. She stated that last year's student body president met with all the residents and neighborhood organizations. There was good dialogue and ideas going on and guess what... she graduated and MOVED! ! So then the residents and neighborhood organization had to start all over again! And this is where we are today. She urged the Council to pass this bill. Mr. Don Sniegowski, 917 N. St. Peter, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he lived prior at 1004 St. Vincent, and stated that they have lived in the neighborhood for 37 years. He stated that he is a Notre Dame Alumni and taught at the University for 41 years prior to his retirement. He stated that he supports both parts of the ordinance under questions. But tonight he wishes to speak towards the party portion of it. He is a little bit caught because for the first time he saw the inclusion of some things that he had not seen if prior version of the bill. The northeast neighborhood has seen a lot over the years and Councilmember Kirsits reiterated over those issues. All of these items listed in the bill pose a threat to quality of life and also a threat to public safety. The safety of not only the long-term residence, but also to the party goers as well, who are often wondering in the middle of the street drunk and could get hit. The passage of the amendment to the SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 disorderly house ordinance, important as it was for the neighborhood and the City it does not stop these violations of public indecency. Last Spring's 30 kegger on Washington Street and this year's many citations during the Georgia Tech weekend are cases in point, and that's all there is too that. Many people are once again calling for dialogue; it's been tried over many years, meetings between the landlords and the NENC, between landlords and individual groups of residents, between students and residents, back to school parties, letters from permanent residents to transient students. All of these types of dialogue should continue. But, it must be recognized how little effect these attempts at dialogue have had. Many reasons for this, the dialogue in groups are almost incommensurate, established resident and resident who will only reside in the neighborhood for 7 'h months. Permanent residents having to make contact with completely new groups of transient residence each year; does anyone realize how much energy that takes? People invested in the neighborhood paying taxes and upkeep and the transient residents not at all invested, and by the way shouldn't be since they will be leaving in a matter of months. Mr. Sniegowski stated that he is not trying to by satiric there, they needn't be and he doesn't see any reason that they should be. And then there is the fact that both groups are just busy, permanent residents with jobs, family, civic responsibilities and the transient residents with their studies. Even when real dialogue can take place between these two groups given all these factors, it carries with it no accountability whatsoever. With all due respect he thinks that it is naive to think that this kind a dialogue is all that is needed. They need to codify what constitutes neighborhood civility for everybody. That will make everyone consciences what it takes to live in a neighborhood both transients and permanent residents, this ordinance does codify a standard of behavior, this ordinance also sets up a way of dialoging that is the proposed CCAC Community Campus Advisory Coalition that will go far beyond and dialoging that exists at present. Because this committee will include people with knowledge and authority in their separate spheres and because it will answer to the Common Council it will have clout and it will be held accountable. He agrees with Ms. Taylor that a bill can be committee to death, but if this is the way that it is going, then we need to get behind it. As far as he can tell this new ordinance will give the police department simpler and therefore more effective guidelines for enforcement than the disorderly house amendment was able to do, however important that amendment was. It is too bad that it has had to come to this, but when you have a significant amount of minority residence in a given area that do not know or do not care to know what it takes to be neighborly, and then an ordinance like this is a good thing! Mr. Dick Nussbaum (no address given), stated that he is an Attorney practicing law in South Bend, Indiana, and stated that he is speaking in favor of this bill because of the dialogue that has occurred over the past couple of months. He stated that the changes that have been made are both in the letter and in the spirit of what has been talked about. That was to promote dialogue in a meaningful way about this problem and to delay the implementation of the registration portion of the ordinance which seemed to be the most controversial and was the area of the bill that caused polarization between the Community and the University. He stated that he is very proud of the way the Council has acted over the past couple of months and very proud of the way Liz Brown and Maris Braun , University of Notre Dame Student Body President and Vice-President has acted over the past couple of month Ms. Brown's statement by being the very first speaker tonight in favor of this bill speaks volumes about the efforts that she has put into this particular ordinance. He stated that he can't help himself by making a few suggestions. Mr. Nussbaum stated that he agrees wholeheartedly that the COPS document is the basis around which this particular ordinance has been drafted and the discussions have taken place. One thing that he thinks is a hallmark of the COPS document is that it suggests that time is needed to figure out what is best for the community. He quoted "Depending upon the complexity of the problem you should be prepared to spend perhaps weeks or even months analyzing and responding to it, carefully study a problem before responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your community. You should not blindly adopt the responses that others have used; you must decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation what is true in one place may not be true elsewhere." He stated that he thinks that this is the real purpose of the CCAC, and that is to examine what the issue are in this particular community. Because as you find we do have problems here, there is disruptive behavior, but our problem is far less egregious than what other communities have faced. There is documentation in other SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 communities that resembles rioting. He noted that we do not have rioting here in this community. He thinks that the student body at the University of Notre Dame that not only helps our community, but is a student body that is an asset. He noted that Ms. Taylor stated that she doesn't benefit from the money that comes in from the University, but he has got to believe that she benefits from the thousands of hours of community service that the students from Notre Dame, Holy Cross, IUSB, St. Mary's and Bethel College provide for this community. He pointed out that Professor Sniegowski was a Rhoads Scholar, he played baseball and one of his teachers, he thanked him publicly for all that he has done for him. Mr. Nussbaum noted the University of Notre Dame's Women Soccer team were National Champions, and despite all the efforts that they have to put into their own lives in their own student studies and their athletic endeavors they provided twenty (20) hours of community service per team member. They completed 519 hours as a group, a remarkable achievement. 92% of the student athletes at Notre Dame provide community service. 80% of the student body at Notre Dame provides community service. There is a special partnership between six particular organizations, although 60 organizations receive community service, the six received over 24,000 hours of community service, this is a great student body. This is a great community, a great Common Council, and with the CCAC, there will be a solution that is going to solve this problem long standing. He thinks that one of the things that have happened over the past couple of months is that the University has stepped up to the plate. He stated that they are much more engaged in this and there is much more dialogue and should see results from that. He was able to meet with the Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand and provided several suggestions. He noted that Councilmember Rouse has said that this is a fluid document and with the CCAC as a very valuable tool. He still has some concerns with the requirement to comply with all of the state statutes as it relates to open door and other things, that could get very complicated, time consuming and need legal advice as time goes along. He stated that he is not volunteering to provide that, although he would be happy to do that and volunteer to do that. He thinks that the Council needs to give that support as well, so that all the Ps are doted and all the T's are crossed as they move forward. Mr. Nussbaum thanked the Council for taking the time to listen and appreciates the dialogue and everyone is on the right track. Mr. Charles Clark, City of South Bend Licensing Auditor, Department of Administration and Finance, 12~` Floor County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is speaking neither for nor against this bill. He stated that he thinks there are some technical problems that he would like to see corrected in order to make it a much more workable ordinance. Applications all going to the City Clerk's Office and he doesn't think that is the job of the City Clerk, it really belongs in the licensing department. He would like to see all applications and licenses coming into and going out of the Department of Administration & Finance Licensing Department. This ordinance mandates the application that is to be used and the permit that is to be issued are primarily administrative functions, if the ordinance mandates the application the city does not have the ability to change it as it may become necessary without coming and getting the ordinance changed and he would like to see the function and design of the license be left up to the licensing department and this will make it compatible with the computer software that is currently being used. There are a couple of typos in the ordinance. One in the statement of purpose and intent on page 2 item C the phrase maybe needed to be parked. Mr. Clark stated that he would like to see the words be needed changed to the word need, so it reads may need to be parked. In the definition for a rear year, the definition is really for a side yard and that will need to be changes. He would also like to see $5.00 application fees added for all lawn parking permits that is how the licensing departments recovers a small portion of the cost of reviewing the application, if the application were to be denied. Otherwise, there would be no income at all if the application were to be denied and there would be no reimbursement. The section on removal of temporary structures would require a lot of cooperation from rental companies. Mr. Clark stated that if anyone has ever rented a tent, they come out and put it up at the rental companies convenience and tear it down at their convenience, and there really is no control over that and trying to regulate that would be a difficult thing to do. On pages 7 and 8 of Section 14-56(a) seems to imply that parking can only be done at a residence as opposed to an empty lot, and that only the resident of that residence can apply for a permit and he is questioning if that was the Council intent. Also the SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 ordinance talks about forms of identification and he wonders how many of the students at the various Universities have Indiana Driver's Licenses? On page 8 Section 14-56(d) Insurance is mandating for parking, but it doesn't say what type of insurance or how much insurance is supposed to be carried. Any other licensing ordinance that the City has that mandates insurance it is specified in their and what type of insurance and how much coverage they are supposed to have. Pages 8 and 9 Section 14-56(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) all of those sections refer to less than 10 motor vehicles or more than 10 motor vehicles, what happens if you have exactly 10 motor vehicles? He suggested that the ordinance read less than 10 motor vehicles or 10 or more motor vehicles. Page 9 item (i) Exemptions, Mr. Clark stated that this really is not an exemption it is just another ordinance. Mr. Clark noted that the one thing that really bothered him on page 10 Section 14-57(a)(b) these sections state that if for some reason "we as the licensing folks failed to include a permitted location on the transmittal list of residential locations where we have issued permits, the sponsor or applicant is subject to the provisions of Section 14-58." Mr. Clark stated that it does not seem quite fair to the sponsor or the applicant that if they have applied in good faith and we issue them a permit and through not fault of their own, we error by not including them on an internal list, that they in turn be punished for that. They did everything right and obtained a permit, in paragraph it is stated in Section 14-53; 14-55; and 14-56 that all they need to conduct these activities is to obtain a permit. He would like the Council to revisit those sections. He questioned whether or not the Department of Public Works can process an application for greater than 10 parking applications between 2:00 p.m. and closing on a Friday? He doesn't know if whether or not the whole process of them submitting the application, reviewing it and getting it to all the various departments can be accomplished. Mr. Clark wondered how the City was going to handle spontaneous gatherings. Those are going to occur and we are not going to get away with those at all. He noted definition of a boarding house on page 2, is defined as a building and he is wondering if it should not be defined as a residence. An apartment house is a building, which has multiple people living in it who are not related to each other, duplex houses and that kind of thing. Mr. Clark stated that these are just some things to think about before the ordinance gets passed. Ms. Catherine Toppel, Director Code Enforcement, 13~` Floor County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, thanked the Council for all their hard work, the University of Notre Dame, the neighbors, and everyone who has worked so hard this year to put together a document that has certainly come a long way. Many people have said that tonight and she wanted to make certain that she got her two bits in on that. She stated that her office is one of the offices that receive the complaints on Monday mornings following the parties that were held over the weekend. She stated that she is in favor of this concept. Ms. Toppel absolutely believes that there needs to be a good tool in place and this ordinance is just that tool. She noted that she has a couple of items that she has questions on and stated that she has put these items in writing to keep them clear and conscience. She noted that in Section 14-53(d) talks about a permit for a special event is referred to the Department of Code Enforcement for review of safety requirements. She stated that she is not certain of what safety requirements that the ordinance is referring to? Code Enforcement does not have access inside of structures, so in addition, in her opinion that is not a Code Enforcement duty, to review for a special event. Ms. Toppel stated that as she read the ordinance numerous times she thought that maybe the Council was referring to let Code Enforcement know that there was a party there and to look for debris etc., and help to enforce in that way. She is not sure of what the Council is eluding to as far as the safety requirements. In Section 14-54(a)(1) states that portable toilets are prohibited, and that was based on a suggestions that she made, however, if it is worded as such where the definition of a special event is a planned or unplanned gathering of people, that could pose a problem for events such as "Rebuilding Together" or School activities which are actually zoned residential and the soccer fields are zoned residential, she stated that she does not believe that was the intent, but we may need more clarification on that. She reiterated what Councilmember Rouse said earlier that this is a fluid document and can be adjusted as time goes on. Regarding tents, Churches, and other not-for-profit groups put up tents for festivals, etc., the applicant is at the mercy of the rental companies as to when they will be put up and taken down. 14-56(b) the requirement to park less than 10 motor vehicles concerns her and she would like to have some type of language in their of what would give the City the authority to deny that type of permit. Ms. Toppel stated that she SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 does know of some locations that cannot safely park vehicles in their front yards because their front yard is possible only 15' feet long and vary narrow, and for that she would like the language added to deny a permit. Section 14-56(g)(3) the filing deadline on Friday before 2:00 p.m. concerns her and wonders if that would be enough time for the Department of Public Works to make a review and return to all the departments by the end of the day. She has reviewed many sites plans over her years with the City and based on the amount of permit applications that might be received, she doesn't believe that will be enough time to review them thoroughly. In Section 14-56(h) displaying the parking permit, she asked for a little guidance with this section. Ms. Toppel asked are they to find people in violation if they don't have it prominently displayed, maybe some language to state exactly where it should be displayed such as front window so it can be easily seen. She stated that she worries about the people who will come after her. Obviously she won't be here forever, and worries about the people who will be enforcing the codes after her and how they would actually read it and is why she is bringing those concerns before the Council tonight. Mayor Stephen Luecke, 14~` Floor County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he rises in support of this ordinance. He stated that the end in mind is the appropriate and proper for the residents, students, and for the community. He thanked the Council for the good dialogue that has taken place and for listening and making changes based on suggestions that have been made. He offered in committee several comments and questions about specific portions of the ordinance in particular his concern for parking of 10 cars or fewer if there is not basis for denial or even perhaps a limitation on the number of times that one can do this. In fact, someone for no reason because they want to park their own car in the front yard could come in and get a permit for 365 days a year to do that and that would undercut what has been spelled out in the other ordinance to prohibit that sort of activity. He stated that he knows that this is not the intention of this ordinance, but just wanted to bring that to the Council attention. There maybe a way again of amending either by putting a limitation on how frequently one can do this. He stated the special events regulations because that is not being implemented immediately they are less pressing and could possible become topic for further discussion by the CCAC as it moves forward. Mayor Luecke stated that he is full support of the ordinance, however he believes that there are still some concerns and questions to the specifics of certain sections if it were the Council will to continue it for an additional week before final vote, he feels that a few of the critical issues could be worked out, or if the Council wishes to pass it tonight, that the ordinance can be brought back to make amendments. There was no one else present wishing to speak in favor of this bill. The following individuals spoke in opposition to this bill. Mr. Wayne Curry, 1050 Burns, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is running for City Council At-Large. He commends everyone's participation in this ordinance. Mr. Curry stated that he has a few problems with this ordinance. He stated that he lives in the neighborhood along with Ms. Marguerite Taylor. He stated that they are ordinances on the book that if they were enforced properly would solve everyone problems, but everyone is at their wits end, who live next door to the chronic problems houses. Not all Notre Dame Students are disrespectful, most are kind-hearted, good students who bring a lot of good things into the community and it would be great if a lot more of those students would call South Bend home after they graduate. There seems to be a couple of items that need clarification, such as holding a property owner responsible for the behavior of the people he rents his land to. If the City owned a building downtown, (by the way they own 95 buildings or something like that.) If the City was to own one of these buildings and rent it out to someone who was laundering money, would the City then be held liable for money laundering or counterfeiting or whatever kind of illegal activity, is the person who owns the building really responsible for that. So holding the landlords responsible for the behavior of their tenants is not the right way to go. You should hold the person accountable who behavior is wrong not the person that owns the property. Secondly a five-day wait as far as getting all this stuff done, and if you want to go through all this process and as Councilmember Kirsits stated he wanted to have some provisions in place for people to assemble. Our Constitutional Right to a Free and Peaceful Assembly is 10 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and that should not be infringed upon by the local government. The CCAC is a great committee and he wished that there were more committees formed like that, to deal with the violent crime and things that are going on in the City. There were 10 or 11 shootings in the same number of days, while everyone was starting with this ordinance it took the spotlight over the tragedy that was occurring in the City. Regarding the ban of portable toilets, this might need to be readdressed. If people don't have anywhere to go to the bathroom are these people that are partying going to be urinated on my neighbors and my lawn. This is a problem that is complained about quite frequently. Mr. Curry also questioned how the City will prove the number of people at a residence. He thought that a search warrant would have to be obtained before anyone could enter the premise. He doesn't think that a judge would want to be woke up in the middle of the night to sign a warrant. Mr. Matt Costello, 120 N. Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana, stated that about three years ago it seemed to him that no one cared about the problem with the student party houses in the neighborhood. More and more of the neighbors have moved out and more and more of the houses went to student rentals. But with the hard work of the City Council by sponsoring this bill and the bill on disorderly houses, he is really gratified and glad to see that he was wrong in thinking that no one cared. He stated that he originally came to the meeting tonight to speak in favor of the bill, however, the part of delaying the implementation of the bill until the CCAC has had a chance to prove that it has failed is really ruins the bill as far as he is concerned. It seems to him that this is another example and Mr. Sniegowski stated it best that it is just "talk, talk, talk" and it is shocking to him that a bunch of party animals can get the Mayor and important officials, very busy people, to sit down twice a month to discuss these neighborhood problems. It seems to him that all because everyone is scared to implement this excellent bill. This CCAC will only put this bill on the back burner, by saying that the students will be good and eventually things will get slowly back to their original state of being bad, unruly and run down homes in the neighborhood. By that time the Mayor and Councilmember's, that are here tonight might not be representing the City any longer and this whole disorderly house issue and special event parking ordinance will have gone by the wayside and the neighbors will be left at the starting block again. Mr. John Alexander, 1117 N. St. Louis, South Bend, Indiana, asked a question about parking. He has a place that he owns and parks cars on game day and wonders why he should be made to pay the City for a permit to allow people to park in his own yard. He stated that he pays property taxes and those taxes are going up this year. The neighborhood has gone done and he doesn't think that paying for a permit parking system is going to work. Mr. Gary King, 730 N. Hill, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he lives in the 4~` District where there are a lot of student houses. When he first read the ordinance a few weeks ago he was really angry that the Council would even consider something like this. Part of the reason is that students that are admitted to the University of Notre Dame are probably amongst the finest in their communities. In order to be admitted to the University, they need top grades, at least in the top 10% of their class. They need excellent scores on their scholastic tests, they need recommendations from the coaches, principal, counselors, teachers, pastors, and other well know citizens in their communities. He stated that these kids are not riffraff, he is talking about young men and women who have earned a way into a fine university and they could say the same thing about St. Mary's, IUSB, etc. So when the City wants to put the hammer down on people who could potentially be excellent neighbors, they are young adults now, but in a few years they will take their place in the community. Why would the Council want to threaten them with something like this? We as good neighbors should be able to talk. Mr. Sniegowski referred to them as transient residents, however, with some dialogue, such as walking across the street and asking them how they are doing, welcome to the neighborhood. The students that were across the street from him last year had parties, they came over and gave their cell phone numbers to him and said if things get a little to loud, just call, you don't have call the police, they will take care of it. Mr. King stated that Mr. Nussbaum brought up the COPS documents; there are some problems with that document. He stated that on the first page and the very bottom the first citation says "The U. S. Department of Justice's 11 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 Office of Community Oriented Policy Services Publication 39 goes on and on and it's not about policy, it's about policing. It is a typographical error but if you look at the rest of the citations to this, one might think that it is falsification of evidence. Mr. King stated that falsification of evidence is a pretty serious issue. On the fast page of the COPS document goes on to say this for police it is not written for City Council's or any other government officials, there are suggestions for how police can function more effectively in their community. Maybe the best course of action would be to appropriate time and money for those law enforcement officials who would like to implement the COPS program to a much greater extent. He stated that he looked at the South Bend Police Departments Website there was a very small reference to the COPS documents and it really did not tie or dove tail with this document. He was disappointed that the COPS document was cited as the basis for something, when in fact it's not really a good basis. It goes on to say that it recommends the word recommends is nowhere to be found in this document. He stated that he looked at it three times and he doesn't think he seen the words recommend or recommendation, but it does say some thing like to analyze or gather data. The CCAC is a good thing and the COPS document does say that establishing a committee is a good thing, but the rest of the things are very problematic. Mr. King stated that on page 16 of the COPS document states "Measuring your effectiveness", this is what is misquoted and bothers him a lot, the ordinance says that they recommend measures, the exact wording is "measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts have succeed and suggests how to modify the responses if they are not producing intended results. Measure, get the data, it's the right thing to do, but to hold the handle over people's heads is just really the wrong thing to do and unconstitutional how the way the City is limiting gatherings in that kind of way. Ms. Ellen Deamer, stated that she lives on the corner of Lawrence & Peashway just a few blocks away from campus. She stated that maybe she is naive in the process that is going on tonight, but it seems to her when an ordinance is passed the Council is attempting to correct or respond to a perceived problem. She noted that the Council passed a lawn parking ban earlier this year. Was this ordinance tested was it enforced, was there a problem with the lawn parking ban? She noted that she has been attending the meetings and now all of a sudden the Council wants a lawn parking exception for special events. The perceived problems are excessive drinking and a drain on law enforcement, drain on emergency services. She fails to see how allowing lawn parking will solve excessive drinking drain on law enforcement and emergency services, if anything, this bill will encourage it. More people, more cars will be allowed to come to be near campus, more people will be allow to drive drunk in the middle of the night. Ms. Deamer noted that enforcement and that even the Councihnember's are not completely sure of all the details. Some points are not detailed enough, some are too detailed. Side yard, front yard, boarding house, special event, under 10 more than 10, what is that? When you open this exception you open a can worms, and getting more and more involved in the personal lives of the citizens. She noted that people's lives are being regulated to death! She noted that Notre Dame started several years ago banning tail-gaiting drinking around the stadium, eliminated the football parking south of Edison Rd., much before the Eddy Street Commons was ever an idea. If the University doesn't want it, why should the entire northeast neighborhood become a parking lot for Notre Dame on Game Days? Ms. Pat Chism, 1305 White Oak, South Bend, Indiana, stated that her mother owned the home prior for 30 years. She stated that Notre Dame Parking means a lot to her family and has for many years. She noted that she and her husband have 3 children, ages 18, 16, 15. They have raised them to be very respectful and have taught them that charity begins at home and spreads abroad. When people come to their home on game day, they felt safe because of the values that her family has instilled. Ms. Chism stated they open their home and yard to visitors who want to come to South Bend, Indiana on Notre Dame home games. She doesn't believe that the City should charge her for permits to have people park on her lawn. She understands the quality of life issues and believes that public safety should come first. In all fairness, it is the homeowner's responsibility for what goes on at their property. Ms. Jean Hanrahan, 826 N. St. Louis, South Bend, Indiana, stated that is just so happens that this morning there was a beer can on her front yard. She is disappointed that the 12 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 Council is not planning to implement at this time the permit for special events. She is a vulnerable elderly living on the northeast side. She stated that she has no relatives in the State of Indiana, so she would make a really good victim, but she has good friends. She worked at Notre Dame for eight years and knew thousands of students. She worked 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.; she saw a lot of alcohol use and abuse. She is very fond of Norte Dame and the Notre Dame students, but she also knows that there are problems on and off campus. She saw young women freshmen begin drinking on Thursday evening. She saw 21 year olds come in on their birthday in a wheelchair, there is a problem. She hoped that at sometime the Council will implement the permit process for special events for the good of the students as well as the rest of us. There was no one else present wishing to speak in opposition to this bill. In rebuttal, Councilmember Kirsits and Rouse stated that they will correct the typographical errors. As far as violating constitutional rights, the city has the clear right to protect the welfare and safety of it's neighborhoods to pass regulations and it is clearly stated in the COPS manual. They noted that they have had this kind of regulation in other ordinances one being the Adult Bookstore Ordinance. They stated that if 50 students want to get together to hold a prayer meeting with no alcohol involved they don't need a permit. But if they are going to have a party with alcohol involved then you would need a social host permit and that what this bill is all about. They noted cutting to the chase, this is about controlling the kegger's off-campus. The permit parking was drawn from a document that Attorney James Master's drew up by residents that lived in the area. Councilmember Kirsits stated that he is in favor of allowing lawn parking on games day in that area. He stated that the residence in that neighborhood pay their property taxes should have the right to do that. However, with that right comes the right of respectful of the other neighbors and their property. The charge is a dollar a car, and that doesn't seem too unfair. They stated that most students are respectful, but if you happen to live next door to a disorderly house, it is a whole different ball game. Those residents feel victimized by the negative behavior. They clarified that the reason that the City Clerk's Office was to take part in the process is because the City Controller felt that the amount of work was just too much for her department to process. Because the Council and Clerk's Office are proactive and work very effectively together it was determined that the Clerk's Office was to be involved in the preliminary stage of the work and then would be sent to the Controller's Office Licensing Department for the permit to be issued. The boarding house definition has been refined to approve the recommendations from the Legal Department. They noted that Code Enforcement would not be going into homes, but reporting if those homes in question have had numerous citations based on code violations, would not be issued permits. They reiterated that the "Social Host" would be responsible for the violations not the owner. Councilmember Puzzello stated this bill is not intended for those students who lead sober lives or contribute to our community, by donating hundreds of hours of community service. The only thing that is being discussed today is drunks. She stated that it doesn't matter whether those drunks are Notre Dame Students or if they are someone else in the community who is holding a large party which gets noisy. She stated that she is kind of tired of hearing how wonderful the students are, she admits they are, she just asks that they behave like she expects everyone else in South Bend to behave. This is a good faith bill, permits are not going to be required in boarding houses until the CCAC has a chance to meet and work things out. This is okay if it works, she noted that she is a little hesitant and disappointed that there are partners that are not represented here tonight to be allow a chance to speak and have their voices heard. She stated that she would like to see cooperation with the Police Department to get information on the homes that are in violation. She advised that it is very difficult to find out who is hosting a party, so the permit process is a must to find out who is in charge. She noted that she would have liked to have a time limit as to how long the cars would be allowed to park there. Councilmember Puzzello questioned when this bill would go into effect? Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, City Council Attorney, stated that if the Council would go forward this evening and the Mayor would sign it by tomorrow, the first date that it could be effective would be September 28, 2007, because of the legal advertising requirements. 13 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 Councilmember Puzzello stated that because students come get involved and graduate, it would be good to have an evaluation process, a sort of progress report of how things are going. Documentation, statistics and reports from the various city departments and neighborhood organizations would be very helpful to see if the ordinance is working or if some things in the ordinance need to be reevaluated. Councilmember Puzzello would like to see the permit for lawn parking be okayed by the Council. Councilmember Dieter asked if the two Council representatives on the CCAC could be revised from two (2) At-Large Members to two (2) Members of the Council. Councilmember Rouse stated that the whole Coalition was presented because of the people who had been in dialogue. He stated that it is not written in stone it can be amended. Councilmember Varner stated he thinks that one of the good things that he has heard this evening is that from a perceptional perspective to focus on responsibility a lot more than he has heard rights. For too long people have focused on rights. Rights come with a responsibility and that is inherent, everyone seems to forget the last half of the equation because they are looking for their right. What has been brought before the Council tonight is a number of conflicting needs. The students have a need to party. Councilmember Varner stated that he did it the neighbors have a right to peace and quite and that there has to be a balance there. He stated that he is not sure how you always find that balance perfectly, but Councilmember's Kirsits and Rouse given where they have started and where they are this evening, that made a diligent effort to address some of those issues. From and administrative perspective, and this will be directed to Ms. Brown, since she will be the President and the end of the semester, and inherent, upon her to see at the April or May meeting to set the standard and the tone for the people coming back so that in fact they leave town knowing what there responsibilities are, and don't come back so that the neighbors have to go through this every year. He stated that it is not the neighbor's jobs to deal with this problem every year. He thinks that it is Ms. Brown's responsibility and subsequent Student Body President to see to it that students leave knowing that if they are going to live off-campus, there are responsibilities that they must adhere. And those are no different than they can expect from their neighbors who live next to them. Dr. Varner questioned where there was a constitutional issue here? He stated that he doesn't know, it's beyond him, and he was not afraid to say that. He understands what people are saying about their right to assemble. But there is a right to assemble in a manner that doesn't offend or affect other people's neighborhoods. This is something that will have to be decided by a court that will look at the details, if it will go that far. He hopes that it doesn't go that far, he thinks that the folks in that neighborhood have the right to enjoy all the benefits of being close to the University, they have the right to enjoy students and the students have a right to live in a neighborhood and work with the neighborhood to make sure that it works for everyone together. As such, this is the balance of rights and responsibilities, it use to take all the responsibility and put it on the City to do this and do that, now with this Committee, it will put some of the responsibility back on the students. Councilmember Varner stated that he feels strongly that it is not the job of these neighbors to deal with the same problem every year after year. The folks living in that neighborhood for as many years as he can remember, he understands their frustration and hopes that perhaps Ms. Brown maybe after this public hearing has a better feel for that and can take back that feeling to the students. The balance of rights and responsibility, that is what this bill is trying to do and he hopes that it does and effectively because the Council has a lot of other bigger problems out there to deal with. Quite honestly he said that if everyone acted responsibly, the Council wouldn't have to deal with this period. Councilmember Puzzello stated that she will be voting in favor of this bill, because they have been working diligently on special events yard parking and attending meeting after meeting after meeting and nothing has come to light. She stated that this is the time to pass such legislation. She noted that she has some problems with some of the language in the current bill, but she believes that over time they can be worked out. Councilmember Puzzello stated that if this bill is not passed then nothing ever will for a very long time. 14 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 Karen White stated that there were a number of questions that had come up in the public hearing portion tonight. She noted that those issues of concern will be taken into consideration and if need be amendments will be forth coming. Councilmember White stated that the Council's goal is to have an effective tool such as this ordinance that can be enforced and improve the quality of life for all of the citizens of the City of South Bend. Councilmember Kirsits stated that he was taken about by the licensing clerk asking to be part of the process. He stated that the Council was lead to believe early on that the Department of Administration and Finance couldn't handle it basically and that it would fall to the City Clerk's Office where it could be effectively handled. It really should be handled out of the Department of Administration and Finance Licensing Department. He suggested that maybe the bill should be continued until the September 24, 2007 meeting of the Council. Councilmember Rouse stated that he would like to see all the amendments that were suggested tonight be in the bill. He would like the bill to be an effective enforceable tool. He suggested making all the amendments and continuing 2nd Substitute Bill 44-07 in the Council Portion Only Councilmember Pfeifer noted that she will be out of town for the next Council meeting September 24, 2007 and would like to express her concerns for 2nd Substitute Bill 44-07. She noted that she thinks that having the Department of Administration and Finance Licensing Clerk accept, review, and administer the permits is a good thing especially for consistency sake. She also believes that yard parking in a city wide issue and is glad to see that it will be fair for all areas of the City. She would like the bill to go forward tonight. Councilmember Kirsits made a motion to continue 2nd Substitute Bill 44-07 as amended in the Council Portion to the September 24, 2007 meeting to allow amendments to be prepared that addressed the issues raised publicly this evening. Councilmember Rouse seconded the bill, which carried by a voice vote eight (8) ayes. RISE AND REPORT Councilmember Kelly made a motion to rise and report to the full Council. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. ATTEST: ATTEST: John Voorde, City Clerk Karen L. White, Chairperson Committee of the Whole 15 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County-City Building at 8:20 p.m. Council President Tim Rouse presided with eight (8) members present. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, President Rouse adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m. ATTEST: ATTEST: John Voorde, City Clerk Timothy A. Rouse, President 16