HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-06 Council Meeting Minutes
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
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 23, 2006 at 7:00
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
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Present: Charlotte Pfeifer 2nd District
Roland Kelly 3rd District Vice-President
Ann Puzzello 4th District
David Varner 5th District
Ervin Kuspa 6th District
Al “Buddy” Kirsits At-Large
Timothy Rouse At-Large President
Karen L. White At-Large Chairperson Committee of the Whole
Absent: Derek D. Dieter 1st District
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Voorde City Clerk
Mary Beth Wisniewski Chief Deputy
Janice I. Talboom Deputy City Clerk
Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Council Attorney
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 October 9, 2006, meeting of the Council and found them to be correct.
Therefore, we recommend the same be approved.
s/Timothy A. Rouse
s/David Varner
Councilmember Kelly made a motion that the minutes of the October 9, 2006, meeting of
the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Kuspa seconded the motion
which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes.
SPECIAL BUSINESS
Council President Rouse announced that due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, the filing
deadline for the November 27, 2006 meeting will need to be moved to Tuesday,
November 21, 2006. Therefore, Councilmember Varner made a motion to change the
filing deadline for the November 27, 2006 meeting of the South Bend Common Council
to Tuesday, November 21, 2006. Councilmember White seconded the motion which
carried by a voice vote of eight ayes.
Representative Jackie Walorski presented the Sagamore of the Wabash to Gabriella
Robinson.
1
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
RESOLUTION NO. 3652-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
PUBLICLY COMMENDING ST. JOSEPH’S
HIGH SCHOOL FOR BEING NAMED ONE OF
THE TOP FIFTY (50) CATHOLIC HIGH
SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
Whereas, the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, is proud to
recognize that St. Joseph’s High School has been named one of the top fifty (50) high
schools in the United States of America by the Catholic High School Honor Roll; and
Whereas, St. Joseph’s High School, along with Bishop Dwenger High School in
Fort Wayne, are the only two (2) Indiana high schools to receive this honor for education
excellence, with both high schools being operated by the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South
Bend; and
Whereas, the South Bend Common Council recognizes that St. Joseph’s High
School was selected from over 1,300 Catholic high schools operating throughout the
country; with competing high schools being judged in the following three (3) primary
categories: academics, Catholic identity and civic education; and
Whereas, the Catholic High School Honor Roll reviewed SAT, PSAT, and ACT
scores, the number of National Merit students and Advanced Placement testing, with St.
Joseph’s High School being ranked in the top 25 high schools in civic education of its
more than 700 students.
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
congratulates
Common Council hereby each and every member of St. Joseph’s High
School for being named one of the top fifty (50) high schools in the United States of
America by the Catholic High School Honor Roll for the 2006-2007 high school
academic year.
Section II. The South Bend Common Council believes that the hard-work,
discipline, dedication, and education excellence of St. Joseph’s High School, as
epitomized by its teachers, administrators, staff and students, along with the firm and
enduring support of the student’s parents and the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend,
has resulted in St. Joseph’s High School becoming an excellent role model for all high
schools throughout our country; with this most recent honor following in the footsteps of
St. Joseph’s High School being honored three years ago for its high-quality education
Blue Ribbon School
when it was named and honored as a by the U.S. Department of
Education.
Section III . The South Bend Common Council wishes St. Joseph’s High School
continued success in the years ahead as it continues to dedicate itself to train our future
leaders and carries out its mission as a college preparatory school by providing “an
environment of challenging curricular and co-curricular activities that encourages each
student to achieve successful academic learning and growth” and is now one of the
leading Roman Catholic secondary schools in our nation which “respects the dignity of
all individuals and fosters leadership, service, and life-long learning”.
Section III . This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
2
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
stth
s/Derek D. Dieter, 1 District s/Ervin Kuspa, 6 District
nd
s/Charlotte D. Pfeifer, 2 District s/Al “Buddy” Kirsits, At Large
rd
s/Roland Kelly, 3 District s/Timothy A. Rouse, 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, Council Attorney
s/John Voorde, City Clerk s/Stephen J. Luecke, Mayor
Councilmember Al “Buddy” Kirsits made the presentation for this Resolution by first
offering his comments and then reading the Resolution in its entirety and presenting it to
Marilyn Gibbs, Assistant Principal, St. Joseph’s High School.
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.
Ms. Gibbs along with Alumni from St. Joseph’s High School, thanked the Council for
this honor.
Councilmember Kelly made a motion to adopt this Resolution by acclamation.
Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 3653-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND INDIANA
ADOPTING A WRITTEN FISCAL PLAN AND
ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE
PROVISION OF SERVICES TO AN
ANNEXATION AREA IN PORTAGE
TOWNSHIP, EDDY STREET-EDISON ROAD
ANNEXATION AREA
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the Common Council of the City of
South Bend, Indiana, an Ordinance and a petition by all (100%) property owners which
proposes the annexation of real estate located in Portage Township, St. Joseph County,
Indiana, which is more particularly described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed encompasses approximately
26.2 acres of vacant, unimproved land, which property is at least 12.5% contiguous to the
current City limits, i.e., approximately 63.4% contiguous, generally located East of Eddy
Street, west of Ivy Road and South of Edison Road. It is anticipated that the annexation
area will be developed for various land uses including but not limited to research
facilities and other commercial and residential uses typically associated with a college or
university campus. This mix of uses will require a basic level of municipal public
services of a non-capital improvement nature, including police and fire protection, street
and road maintenance, street sweeping, flushing, snow removal, and sewage collection,
as well as services of a capital improvement nature, including street and road
construction, street lighting, a sanitary sewer system, a water distribution system, and a
storm water system and drainage plan; and
WHEREAS, the South Bend Common Council now desires to establish and adopt
a fiscal plan and establish a definite policy showing: (1) the cost estimates of services of a
non-capital nature, including police and fire protection, street and road maintenance,
street sweeping, flushing, and snow removal, and sewage collection, and other non-
capital services normally provided within the corporate boundaries; and services of a
capital improvement nature including street and road construction, street lighting, a
sanitary sewer extension, a water distribution system, and a storm water system to be
furnished to the territory to be annexed (2) the method(s) of financing those services; (3)
3
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
the plan for the organization and extension of those services; (4) that services of a non-
capital nature will be provided to the annexed area within one (1) year after the effective
date of the annexation, and that they will be provided in a manner equivalent in standard
and scope to similar non-capital services provided to areas within the corporate
boundaries of the City of South Bend, regardless of similar topography, patterns of land
use, and population density; (5) that services of a capital improvement nature will be
provided to the annexed area within three (3) years after the effective date of the
annexation within the same manner as those services are provided to areas within the
corporate boundaries of the City of South Bend regardless of similar topography, patterns
of land use, or population density, and in a manner consistent with federal, state and local
laws, procedures, and planning criteria; and (6) the plan for hiring the employees or other
governmental entities whose jobs will be eliminated by the proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City of South Bend Board of Public Safety and Board of Public
Works have each approved the written fiscal plan and policy and established a policy for
the provision of services to the territory proposed to be annexed, which plan and policy
the Common Council finds to be appropriate and in the best interest of the City, and
which it desires to adopt.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. It is in the best interest of the City of South Bend and the area proposed
to be annexed that the following described real property located in Portage Township, St.
Joseph County, Indiana, be annexed to the City of South Bend:
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST QUARTERS OF
SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, CLAY TOWNSHIP, AND A
PART OF THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST QUARTERS OF SECTION 6,
TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, PORTAGE TOWNSHIP, ALL IN ST.
JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION 31 AND THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IVY ROAD EXTENDED
SOUTH; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EXTENDED LINE A DISTANCE OF
52.20 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT; THENCE WEST A DISTANCE OF 70
FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF SAID IVY ROAD WITH THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF EDISON ROAD AS SAID NORTH LINE IS SHOWN ON A SET OF EDISON
ROAD RE-ALIGNMENT ROAD PLANS PREPARED FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
NOTRE DAME, BY THE DLZ INDIANA, LLC AND KNOWN AS PROJECT NO.
04612558, DATED, FEBRUARY 25, 2005 AND AS RECORDED IN THE RECORDS
OF THE ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA RECORDER'S OFFICE BY DOCUMENT
NO. 0537239; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF EDISON ROAD AS
SHOWN ON SAID PLANS A DISTANCE OF 168.29 FEET MORE OR LESS TO
STATION NO. 85+20.00 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING WEST A
DISTANCE OF 175.61 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TWYCKENHAM DRIVE AS SAID DRIVE IS SHOWN
ON SAID PLANS; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID WEST LINE A
DISTANCE OF 34.15 FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION NO. 83+28.3 ON SAID
PLANS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF RE-
ALIGNED EDISON ROAD SHOWN ON SAID PLANS; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ON SAID NORTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 59.40 FEET
MORE OR LESS TO STATION NO. 82+68.90 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE
CONTINUING ON SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF RE-ALIGNED EDISON ROAD
AROUND A 1,176.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT SHOWN ON SAID
PLANS, A CURVE LENGTH DISTANCE OF 543.90 FEET MORE OR LESS TO
STATION NO. 77+50.30 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID
NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 99.90 FEET MORE OR
LESS TO STATION NO. 76+50.40 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 39.84
FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION NO. 76+10.56 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTHWESTERLY A
4
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
DISTANCE OF 89.92 FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION NO. 75+20.64 ON SAID
PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE,
SOUTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 102.39 FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION
NO. 74+18.25 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID
NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 99.50 FEET MORE OR
LESS TO STATION NO. 73+18.75 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING ON
SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF RE-ALIGNED EDISON ROAD AROUND A 1,176.00
FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT SHOWN ON SAID PLANS, A CURVE
LENGTH DISTANCE OF 282.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION NO.
70+32.90 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
LINE, NORTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 99.50 FEET MORE OR LESS TO
STATION NO. 69+33.40 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID
NORTHERLY LINE, NORTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 55.60 FEET MORE OR
LESS TO STATION NO. 68+77.80 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 86.70
FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION NO. 67+91.10 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTHWESTERLY A
DISTANCE OF 94.30 FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION NO. 66+96.80 ON SAID
PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE,
SOUTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 95.10 FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION
NO. 66+01.70 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID
NORTHERLY LINE, WESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 509.40 FEET MORE OR LESS
TO STATION NO. 60+92.30 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG
SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET
MORE OR LESS TO STATION NO. 59+92.30 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTHWESTERLY A
DISTANCE OF 55.70 FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION NO. 59+36.60 ON SAID
PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE,
NORTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 51.60 FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION
NO. 58+85.00 ON SAID PLANS; THENCE CONTINUING WESTERLY A
DISTANCE OF 130 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SECTION 6 AND ALSO THE CENTERLINE OF EDDY STREET AND THE
PRESENT CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH BEND AS DESCRIBED IN ORDINANCE NO.
3993-54; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID CENTERLINE AND PRESENT CITY
LIMITS LINE AS DESCRIBED IN SAID ORDINANCE A DISTANCE OF 371 FEET
MORE OR LESS TO THE EXISTING NORTHERN CITY LIMITS LINE DESCRIBED
IN ORDINANCE NO. 1574; THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF 2043 FEET MORE OR
LESS ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO POINT WHICH IS WEST A
DISTANCE OF 625 FEET FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH CENTERLINE OF
SAID SECTION 6; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL TO AND 625 FEET DISTANCE
FROM SAID NORTH AND SOUTH CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 159 FEET
MORE OR LESS TO A POINT WHICH IS 200 FEET DISTANT AND
PERPENDICULAR TO THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH BEND AVENUE, SAID
POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHERLY CITY LIMIT LINE DESCRIBED IN
ORDINANCE NO. 2595; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY
CITY LIMIT LINE DESCRIBED IN SAID ORDINANCE 2595 A DISTANCE OF 730
FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID
SECTION 6; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID NORTH AND SOUTH CENTERLINE
A DISTANCE OF 230 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION 6; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 251
FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 26.20 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Section II. It shall be and hereby is now declared and established that it is the
policy of the City of South Bend, by and through its Board of Public Works, to furnish to
said territory services of a non-capital nature, such as police and fire protection, street
and road maintenance, street sweeping, flushing, and snow removal, within one (1) year
of the effective date of the annexation in a manner equivalent in standard and scope to
services furnished by the City to other areas of the City regardless of similar topography,
patterns of land utilization, and population density; and to furnish to said territory,
services of a capital improvement nature such as street and road construction, a street
light system, a sanitary sewer system, a water distribution system, a storm water system
5
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
and drainage plan, within three (3) years of the effective date of the annexation in the
same manner as those services are provided to areas within the corporate boundaries of
the City of South Bend regardless of similar topography, patterns of land use, or
population density.
Section III. The South Bend Common Council shall and does hereby now
establish and adopt the Fiscal Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and made a part
hereof, for the furnishing of said services to the territory to be annexed, which provides,
among other things, that the public sanitary sewer network is available with capacity
sufficient to service this area; that a 12" water main extension will be necessary for a
portion of the annexation area, along with general increased water capacity, that street
lighting, parking and will be installed at the developer's expense; and that a street
drainage plan will be also be planned, provided and paid for by the developer subject to
compliance with state and local law.
Section IV. In consideration of pedestrian safety and proper vehicular movement,
it is required as a condition of annexation that the developers give very careful
consideration to vehicular access and circulation as well as pedestrian movement for the
developments within the annexation area. If possible, the site should include open space
that could be linked in the future to other areas nearby as part of a larger open space
network. Neo-traditional building/site design elements should be included in terms of
context, setback, orientation, spacing, style, massing, height, entry, fenestration,
materials, accessory buildings, landscape buffering and lighting that achieve development
and design of the highest possible quality. It is required that the annexation area integrate
harmoniously with the surrounding residential areas. Water as well as sewer service is
available in sufficient capacity and it is required that the developer will pay the costs of
sewer and water extensions to the project site as needed. Building plans and other
information to satisfy these requirements must be submitted by the Developer to the City.
Failure to comply with all conditions of Section IV may result in the City’s repeal of
annexation.
Section V. This Resolution shall be effective from and of the date of adoption by
the Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
s/Timothy A. Rouse
Member of the Common Council
th
Marco Mariani, Assistant Director, Division of Community Development, 12 Floor
County-City Building, made the presentation on the Resolution.
Mr. Mariani advised that this annexation is a 26.2 acre parcel generally located east of
Eddy Street, west of Ivy Road and south of Edison Road. The Annexation Area is
currently wooded with areas of open space. The site does not presently contain any
structures. The land is slated to be used for research facilities and other commercial and
residential uses typically associated with a college or university campus. The site is
zoned “U” University in unincorporated St. Joseph County. It is proposed to be zoned
“U” University District upon approval of the City Council and incorporation into the City
of South Bend. The public sanitary sewer network is available with sufficient capacity to
serve this area and more. Public sanitary sewers of varying sizes are available to serve
the annexation area on the west, south and east boundaries of the area. The developer of
this property will need to extend sewer lines to the site from various locations adjacent to
the annexation area to the extents of this proposed development. The wastewater
treatment plant and downstream collection facilities are adequately sized to handle the
additional flow from any development. Revenues from the development of the site will
be sufficient to provide sewage collection and treatment services to the site. An 8” water
main is located on Eddy Street that terminates north of Napoleon Boulevard. There is
also a 6” water service on South Bend Avenue between Eddy and Twyckenham Avenue
that becomes a 12” service from Twyckenham to Edison Road. The water main on
Edison Road is 12” to Ivy Road. To provide water service to the annexation area, a 12”
main extension is required from Ivy Road/Edison Road to Eddy Street/Napoleon
Boulevard South Bend Avenue/Twyckenham Avenue to Eddy Street/Napoleon
Boulevard or South Bend Avenue/Twyckenham Avenue to Eddy Street/Napoleon
6
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
Boulevard. Mr. Mariani stated that additional capacity will be required to serve the
annexation area. Additional public and private expenditures will be needed to extend
existing water main facilites as part of the redevelopment of the area. The developer of
this property will be required to install a street lighting system. Additional revenue to the
General Fund from this annexation area will be sufficient to pay for street light
operations. No waivers of annexation are in effect fro the Annexation Area. Edison
Road will be added to the City’s roadway inventory. The mileage of the existing road
and any new roads that might be developed within the property will add to the State’s
payments to the Motor Vehicle Highway Fund and Local Road and Street Fund sufficient
for street maintenance, sweeping, and snow removal. As presented, the annexed
segments of Edison Road will be maintained by City forces. Landscaping, mowing and
maintenance of such for the portion will be maintained by City forces. Landscaping,
mowing and maintenance of such for the portion of Edison Road within the annexation
area will be completed by the University of Notre Dame. The annexation area would be
expected to be added to the already existing Beat 11. The Annexation Area is located in
an area of the city that is expected to continue to grow, both in commercial development
as well as residential. At this time it is not expected that this annexation would cause
calls for service to increase significantly and it is not anticipated that it will be necessary
to increase police patrols beyond the already existing beat patrol at this time. The area
under consideration is not expected to cause any unusual problems. At the present time
the cost for servicing the proposed area is not expected to impact the existing budget of
the Police Department with any significance. However, this area, as well as all other
areas of the City, will continually be monitored for level of service demands and other
criteria that would necessitate additional resources through budgetary increases or
possibly shifting of exiting resources, such as beat restructure.
Councilmember Varner noted that in the last paragraph of the Resolution it is noted that
there is insufficient capacity for water. Water as well as sewer service is available in
sufficient capacity and it is required that the developer will pay the costs of sewer and
water extensions to the project site as needed. Building plans and other information to
satisfy these requirements must be submitted by the Developer to the City.
Councilmember Varner asked if the water is there in capacity or not.
Mr. Mariani stated that it is his understanding and that maybe Gary Gilot, could speak
more directly to this. Mr. Mariani stated that he has not be privy to all of the
conversations, but in terms of providing the sewer and water laterals from the existing
mains, (Dr. Varner reiterated that he is talking about capacity), his understanding is to
provide the appropriate water capacity for that entire development that would include the
Tech Park as well as the residential retail components, additional capacity on the water
side would need to be added.
th
Gary Gilot, Director, Public Works, 13 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson
Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, advised that there is sufficient capacity at the north pumping
station and Edison Well Field to support this development area in the north east from two
direction there are some pretty decent size mains twenty inch and above that come from
the two well fields, they need to get some ten inch and larger distribution mains that
would loop through this development area in the Notre Dame Woods. So that is the
deficiency area and they are planning and working the engineering now to make sure that
they have adequate flow and adequate pressure for any of their consumptive needs or
their fire protection.
A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time.
There was no one present wishing to speak in favor of this Resolution.
The following individual spoke in opposition of this bill.
Ms. Jessica Payne, 1119 N. Frances, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this
resolution. She realizes that the annexation is just the very first part of the concept of the
University’s plan for that area. Her concerns go far beyond just the annexation, but what
their vision is for the future. Being a resident of the northeast neighborhood for her entire
life, she has grave concerns about the introduction of the housing developments that they
7
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
have proposed, the retail space, the hotel, and how they will impact the quality of her life,
in a residence that she bought specifically to be close to the University, which her
husband works at, and her son goes to school at. But, to still enjoy the quite serenity, of a
neighborhood, a residential neighborhood. Throughout the planning period, for several
years, she has asked the question on numerous occasions unfortunately the University has
changed people who have been in charge of this so, she has gotten several different
responses depending on who she has talked to as to what safeguards are going to be in
place for the residential area that is planned there. Predominately, condominiums and
townhouses, what mechanisms is going to help prevent that area from becoming non-
primary residential homes. What is going to help prevent it from becoming student
housing. Unfortunately, she said the only response she ever got was that this were going
to be very high end town homes. Her response to that was do you know who the student
body is? She stated that there are at least five homes in the immediate area that have
currently sold to non-primary residence. They had no problem in paying upwards to
$200,000 to $300,000 for a house, to stay in it seven weekends a year. So it is a very real
possibility. She also stated that she has concerns as to obviously the noise factor and the
traffic flow. With the new medical building being built, which is just approximately two
houses from her, the difference in traffic parked on the street is quite noticeable. She
stated that her parents live at the far end of Napoleon Blvd, and for the past thirteen years
that she has lived in her house she drives down Napoleon Blvd. almost every day. She
now goes down St. Vincent, because getting to the intersection of Notre Dame and
Napoleon, cars are parked basically all the way from the corner to Angela Blvd. It is
hard to encroach on that intersection safely. Now, with the addition of these proposed
businesses, she asked how that was going to affect her neighborhood. The vision seems
to be stated as they want to create this pedestrian area. Again, she cautioned that the area
is not that much of a pedestrian area. This is the Midwest, we don’t like to walk in the
cold, wet, rain, snow and if these businesses are going to viable, she doesn’t find that the
volume of people who live in that neighborhood are going to support those businesses.
So for them to be viable, that means that they are going to drawing people from far
outside the northeast neighborhood. With those people come more cars. She stated that
her children and many of the children in the neighborhood very much enjoy playing on
the new grassy area by the medical arts building, she stated she is not sure if that is
something that she would continue to let her children do. Because they would have to
walk down the street and cross over Napoleon Blvd. and that street is going to become
much more congested with this new development. She stated that it has been reported
that there hasn’t been a lot of outcry by the neighborhood. She stated that she has talked
to a lot of people in the neighborhood, and they are very disheartened at the idea of the
beautiful greenbelt when Edison Rd. was realigned. She stated that they enjoy the little
rolling hills the grass, the trees, it’s a nice break from the commercial area on the other
side of the neighborhood. Unfortunately, a lot of the residents that live in the
neighborhood have children, who have homework, practice, games, and all sorts of things
that keep them too busy to come to meetings like this. She stated that she has encouraged
them to write letters and e-mail the Council if they are unable to attend the Council
meetings. But to say that everybody in the neighborhood is for this, she stated that she
would not go that far, she has talked to a lot of people who have a lot of concerns about
this proposed development. She also noted that the City Plan is not in place just yet, but
she does find some contradictions in wording that is stated in the City Plan and how it
relates to this and how it states that mixed use, but they are talk about catering to the
needs of a diverse community. Unfortunately the plans that Notre Dame is creating in the
northeast neighborhood are not fostering the diverse neighborhood that used to be there.
It is becoming an upper middle class neighborhood that will primarily be occupied by
employees of the University. Page 27 of the City Plan that talks about compatible uses, it
talks about maintaining the quality life in a community, since the land use decision will
effect surrounding parcels of land, sound decisions will have be made to ensure that the
different land uses complement each other to create the best urban form. She further read
from the proposed City Plan that City Government Land Use Experts and the general
public recognize that new developments need to integrate well with their surroundings.
This is achieved by following a plan incorporating characteristics to the surrounding area
and into the development and establish appropriate buffers for example green spaces
unless intensive use and reduce land use conflicts. She stated that she finds several
conflicts between the proposed development by the University and City Plan. She stated
that she sees very little green space, very little buffer between the residential
8
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
neighborhoods and the commercial use. What was a beautiful greenbelt will now be
commercial use as a hotel. She has concerns for the safety of her children, and all the
neighbors who live in the area. She asked throughout the process of annexation and what
will soon be a petition for rezoning that the Council consider all these factors and be sure
that this is what is really in the best interest of the northeast neighborhood and that if this
development goes forward, to make sure that there are mechanisms in place that what is
being proposed is both appropriate for the neighborhood within the character of a
beautiful neighborhood and that those promises that are made are kept. She would rather
see nothing than inexpensive vinyl clad row houses and strip mall type retail spaces.
Councilmember Varner stated that on page three of same annexation request, five
sentences from the top is where Ms. Payne would be able to make her case on occasions.
Councilmember Varner read that it is required that the annexation area integrate
harmoniously with the surrounding residential area. The argument and discussion will
surround that and will probably occur five or six different times. But each time a
rezoning will occur it will have to have a public hearing.
Councilmember Varner made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember White
seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of eight ayes.
RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
At 7:35 p.m., Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to resolve into the Committee of
the Whole. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote
of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember White, 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 and that
pamphlets were available to the public, which outline the Council rules and procedures,
and are located on the railing in the Council Chambers.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
BILL NO. 49-06 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, ANNEXING TO AND
BRINGING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AND AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR CERTAIN
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF
EDDY STREET, WEST OF IVY ROAD AND
SOUTH OF AND INCLUDING EDISON ROAD
(AS RE-ALIGNED) IN PORTAGE TOWNSHIP
AND CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH
COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 4,
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME DU LAC
Councilmember Kuspa, Chairperson, Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that
this Committee met this afternoon and it was the consensus of the Committee to send this
bill to the full Council with a favorable recommendation.
th
Mr. Mark Lyons, Staff Member, Area Plan Commission, 11 Floor County-City
Building, South Bend, Indiana, presented the report from the Area Plan Commission.
Mr. Lyons advised that the petitioner is requesting a zone change from “U” University
District (Count) to “U” University District (City) to allow uses allowed in “U” University
District. This request is in conjunction with a petition for annexation. On site is
undeveloped property zoned “U” University. To the north is the campus of the
University of Notre Dame zoned “U” University, and at the eastern end there is a single-
family house zoned “R” Residential. To the immediate east is undeveloped property
zoned “U” University. Across Ivy Road is the Jameson Inn zoned “CB” Community
Business (City). To the south is undeveloped property zoned “U” University. To the
9
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
west across Eddy Street is the campus of the University of Notre Dame zoned “U”
University. The “U” University District is established to promote the development,
expansion and modernization of a major college or university campus, in which a
diversity of uses, functions, and facilities is necessary to best perform the functions of a
college or university and to permit appropriate uses necessary to facilitate the highest
level of education. Edison Road and Twyckenham Drive (Ivy Road) have four lanes.
Eddy Street has two lanes. The property will be served by municipal water and sewer.
The Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan Goal 2. Objective C. Develop quality business
areas to meet the retail and service needs of the planning area. The rezoning is consistent
with the comprehensive economic objective. The land use plan makes no specific
recommendation for the area. The property is currently undeveloped land. In the past
this area has been used for soccer fields and parking for football games. The most
desirable use for this property is university use, or higher density commercial or office
uses. The surrounding property values should be unaffected with the rezoning since the
zoning classification remains “U” University. It is responsible development and growth
to permit higher density projects near major employment centers and established
commercial areas. Based on information available prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends that the petition be sent to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation. The “U” University zoning designation remains consistent with its
previous classification in the County. The rezoning allows an under utilized property to
become and integral part of a growing commercial and residential area.
Mr. Rich Deal, Attorney at Law, Barnes & Thornburg, 100 N. Michigan, South Bend,
Indiana, stated that he is pleased to be here along with Mr. Greg Hackanen, Director of
Asset Management and Real Estate Development on behalf of the University of Notre
Dame.
Mr. Deal advised that this bill relates to the annexation and rezoning of a tract of property
that is approximately 26.2 acres located immediately south of the new realigned Edison
Road. On the east side is the property is bound by Ivy and on the west side the property
is bound by Eddy Street. Currently the property is zoned “U” University in the County
and historically been used as vacant property that facilitates general campus activity
including soccer fields as well as parking and other related uses. A request to annex this
property into the City and rezoned “U” University in the City, which will facilitate three
primary things. 1. It will create a very clear boundary for the City line and that being the
north side of the realigned Edison St. as separating the county from the City. 2. This
annexation will do, is bring the property within the City which will permit the City to
move forward with its plans to promote an innovative park, which is proposed to be on
the eastern side of this site. 3. This will allow the University to continue to use the
property for “U” University purposes, just like it is currently being used or is permitted to
be used under the County’s zoning ordinance, until further development and clarification
and confirmation of the development plans for the retail center, which Ms. Payne
addressed earlier come to peroration. More discussion on the west side of the property
will come at a time when future rezonings are requested by this Council.
Mr. Gregory Hakanen, Director of Asset Management & Real Estate Development,
University of Notre Dame.
Mr. Hakanen advised that this is part of a long developing plan that has been developed
and in conjunction with the City and other area employers and with the participation of
the residents themselves. Mr. Hakanen stated that the University will be back for
rezoning when those details are more clear.
This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents
and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard.
The following individual spoke in favor of this bill.
10
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
th
Mayor Stephen Luecke, 14 Floor County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in
favor of this bill.
Mayor Luecke stated that he appreciates the partnerships that the City has developed with
the University and the neighborhood in planning for a development in the Northeast
Neighborhood. This is a logical annexation to put boundaries at an understandable place.
The edges of roads are much more understandable for city boundaries than running
through the middle of a vacant piece of property. It does, just as Mr. Deal stated allow
the City to make application soon for a innovation research park at the east end of this
property and certainly will allow for further build out of a plan that has been worked on
through the NNRO with participation with the Northeast Neighborhood and institutions
in the neighborhood as well. Mayor Luecke stated that he supports this annexation and
asked the Council for their favorable support.
Ms. Jessica Payne stated that she just reiterates her comments made during Bill 06-108,
the fiscal plan for the Eddy Street-Edison Road Annexation Area.
There was no one else present wishing to speak opposed to this bill.
Councilmember Kelly made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council
rd
concerning this bill, and set for 3 Reading on November 13, 2006. Councilmember
Rouse seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes.
BILL NO. 63-06 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL TO VACATE
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
THE ALLEY TO BE VACATED IS THE FIRST
EAST/WEST ALLEY NORTH OF PLEASANT
STREET FROM THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY
TH
LINE OF 26 STREET TO THE FIRST
NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY FOR A DISTANCE OF
165 FEET, MORE OR LESS, AND A WIDTH OF
14 FEET. BEING A PART OF THE RIVER
ST
PARK 1 SUBDIVISION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY,
INDIANA
Councilmember Varner made a motion to continue this bill until the November 13, 2006
meeting of the Council. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which carried by a
voice vote of seven (7) ayes (Councilmember Pfeifer left the Chambers at this time).
BILL NO. 65-06 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL
APPROPRIATING MONIES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF
FUND #377 OF THE CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2007, AND ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2007, INCLUDING ALL
OUTSTANDING CLAIMS AND OBLIGATIONS;
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL TAKE EFFECT
Councilmember Varner made a motion to continue this bill until the November 13, 2006
meeting of the Council. Councilmember Kuspa seconded the motion which carried by a
voice vote of seven (7) ayes (Councilmember Pfeifer left the Chambers at this time).
11
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
BILL NO. 69-06 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $200,000
OF MAJOR MOVES MONIES FROM FUND 202,
(MOTOR VEHICLE HIGHWAY) TO
COMPLETE ROAD PAVING WORK
Councilmember Varner, Chairperson, Public Works and Property Vacation 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. Gary Gilot, Director of Public Works, 13 Floor County-City Building, 227 W.
Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill.
Mr. Gilot stated that this bill is a request to appropriate $200,000 of the major moves
money that was deposited into the motor vehicle highway fund just recently. The City
has received the first of two checks some what in the excess of $700,000 for each check.
They were deposited in MVH. This year the City experienced a 35% increase in asphalt
prices, so they had to reduce the paving list. The $200,000 supplemental appropriation
will allow for the following additional projects: 1. Lincolnway West – Bendix to Olive. 2.
Bendix – Goodland to Westmore. 3. Washington – Kaley to Falcon. 4. Oak Park –
Ironwood to Rosemary. 5. Jackson, Miami to Fellows. 6. Sample St. – Bendix (Mount
Olive) to Kentucky. 7. Sheridan St. – 400 and 500 blocks. Mr. Gilot stated that all of
these projects were greatly needed and this appropriation helps to accomplish this. This
allows for the preservation of road network that the City has as well as Economic
Development to preserve jobs and tax base in the City. Mr. Gilot asked the Council for
their favorable approval.
Councilmember Rouse asked Mr. Gilot when he anticipated from the adoption of this
bill, that the work will be complete.
Mr. Gilot stated very soon. He further noted that most of it is in fact completed because
of the urgency of getting the work done before the leaf program starts and the asphalt
plants close.
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 Kuspa seconded
the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes.
BILL NO. 70-06 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $8,055
FROM THE GENERAL FUND (FUND 101) FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING THE
MISHAWAKA AVENUE FACADE MATCHING
GRANT PROGRAM
Councilmember Varner, Chairperson, Public Works and Property Vacation 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. Pam Meyer, Director, Community and Economic Development, 12 Floor County-
City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for
this bill.
Ms. Meyer stated that this bill will appropriate $8,055.00 from the General Fund to
continue the façade matching grant program for Mishawaka Avenue. These funds were
12
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
originally under contract to the Corporation for Entrepreneurial Development. It was
determined that the CED no longer had staffing sufficient to administer the program, so
the funds have been returned to the City. The City wishes to continue this program
through the Board of Public Works.
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 Kelly 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. 71-06 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $86,975
FROM THE COUNTY OPTION INCOME TAX
FUND (FUND 404) FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONTINUING THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
FACADE MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM
Councilmember Varner, Chairperson, Public Works and Property Vacation 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. Pam Meyer, Director, Community and Economic Development, 12 Floor County-
City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for
this bill.
Ms. Meyer advised that this bill would appropriate $86,975.00 from the County Option
Income Tax fund to continue the Commercial Corridor facade matching grant program.
These funds were originally under contract to the Corporation for Entrepreneurial
Development. It was determined that the CED no longer had staffing sufficient to
administer the program, so the funds have been returned to the City. The City wishes to
continue the program and will be administered through the Board of Public Works.
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 Puzzello 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. 68-06 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCOME TAX
REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA TO PROVIDE
FUNDS FOR THE REFUNDING PRIOR TO
MATURITY OF CERTAIN PREVIOUSLY
ISSUED AND CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING
COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
INCOME TAX REVENUE BONDS, TOGETHER
WITH EXPENSES
13
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
Councilmember Kelly, Chairperson, Community and Economic Development
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. Shawn Peterson, Assistant City Attorney, 14 Floor County-City Building, 227 W.
Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill.
Mr. Peterson advised that this bill provides the refunding of two series of bonds that were
issued in connection with the construction of the Leighton Center Parking Garage. They
are payable from the county income tax revenues. It provides for the refunding of bonds
in light of the current interest rates, the current bonds allow us to redeem them, the City
believes that there can be a savings of $645,000 providing for the refund of the bonds.
There are issued in two series, one is taxable and the other is tax exempt. The current
interest rates range from 4.9% to 5.5% and the City believes that they can get a rate of
3.6% to 4%. This bill allows for the refunding of the bonds, and allows the City, through
the Mayor and Controller to execute all documents necessary to provide for the refunding
including the sale of the bonds and also the escrow agreements necessary to be refunded.
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 Pfeifer made a motion for favorable
recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Kelly seconded the
motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes.
RISE AND REPORT
Councilmember Kelly made a motion to rise and report to the full Council.
Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of seven (7)
ayes.
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 7:50 p.m. Council
President Timothy A. Rouse presided with eight (8) members present.
BILLS, THIRD READING
ORDINANCE NO. 9707-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
ANNEXING TO AND BRINGING WITHIN THE
CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
CERTAIN LAND IN GERMAN TOWNSHIP,
CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH; COUNCILMANIC
DISTRICT 1, BRICK ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, A
WEDGE OF PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG
THE NORTH SIDE OF BRICK ROAD ON THE
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 51933 ORANGE
ROAD
14
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
This bill had third reading. Councilmember White 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. 9708-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
ANNEXING TO AND BRINGING WITHIN THE
CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
CERTAIN LAND IN GERMAN TOWNSHIP,
CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH; COUNCILMANIC
DISTRICT 1, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OLIVE
ROAD AND BRICK ROAD RIGHT OF WAY,
25401 BRICK ROAD, EAST 50 FEET WEST OF
OLIVE ROAD AND A WEDGE ALONG THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE
25000 BLOCK OF BRICK ROAD
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. 9709-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROPRIATING $200,000 OF MAJOR MOVES
MONIES FROM FUND 202, MOTOR VEHICLE
HIGHWAY TO COMPLETE ROAD PAVING
WORK
This bill had third reading. Councilmember White made a motion to pass this bill.
Councilmember Kuspa seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call
vote of eight (8) ayes.
ORDINANCE NO. 9710-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROPRIATING $8,055 FROM THE
GENERAL FUND (FUND 101) FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONTINUING THE
MISHAWAKA AVENUE FACADE MATCHING
GRANT PROGRAM
This bill had third reading. Councilmember Varner 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.
ORDINANCE NO. 9711-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROPRIATING $86,975 FROM THE
COUNTY OPTION INCOME TAX FUND (FUND
404) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING
THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR FACADE
MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM
15
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
This bill had third reading. Councilmember Pfeifer 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. 9712-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF
COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
INCOME TAX REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA TO
PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE REFUNDING
PRIOR TO MATURITY OF CERTAIN
PREVIOUSLY ISSUED AND CURRENTLY
OUTSTANDING COUNTY ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INCOME TAX REVENUE
BONDS, TOGETHER WITH EXPENSES
INCURRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THE ISSUANCE
OF THE REFUNDING BONDS
This bill had third reading. Councilmember Puzzello 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
BILL NO. 06-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROVING AND ADOPTING CITY PLAN, A
TWENTY-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND
Councilmember White, Chairperson, Committee of the Whole, reported that this
committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and the committee
recommends that they wanted to wait until they have the opportunity to have a full
presentation, which will be given at this time. Councilmember White stated that no
formal action was taken on this bill.
th
Mr. John Byorni, Director, Area Plan Commission, 11 Floor County-City Building,
Room 1140, South Bend, Indiana, presented the report from the Commission.
Mr. Byorni advised that on September 19, 2006, the Area Plan Commission held a public
hearing on City Plan and unanimously voted to adopt this plan, and further to recommend
its adopt to the City Council.
th
Mayor Luecke, 14 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend,
Indiana, made the presentation on City Plan.
Mayor Luecke advised that this is a great day. He stated that they have been working on
it for a long time. In running races, you have dashes, the half-mile, mile, 10k’s,
marathons, and ultra marathons. Mayor Luecke stated that City Plan qualifies as an Ultra
Marathon, there have been some great athletes involved in this, people really dedicated to
the community to help bring the City to this day. So there is a sense of accomplishment,
but there is also a sense of expectation. Expectation that this City Plan is going to help us
grow as a City to bring new investment into this Community to take advantage of the
assets that we have here, to invest in our youth, to really build on our position as a
regional center for arts and cultural, for education, for finance, business, employment. It
really began with a vision, moved through to goals in ten different areas. It completes
with an implementation action plan, that says that this plan is not going to sit on a shelf,
16
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
but in fact, is going to be used as a guide, a blueprint for moving forward in the future.
As the City brings capital projects before the Council, zoning projects, this is a document
that will hopefully help to inform your decisions and the decisions of future Mayors and
future Council in moving forward. Mayor Luecke stated that what he is most excited
about with the process has been the participation from the community. Scores of
meetings, thousands of residents from the community participating because they love our
community and want to be part of the planning process, they want to be part of the
decision making process, they want their voices to be heard. He commends the
community for making it their plan, not the Mayor’s plan or staff plan or the Council’s
plan, but really a true City Plan. Mayor Luecke recognized and thanked the members of
the Civic Alliance as well as some of the Chairs of the different panels, and the staff that
worked on the City Plan. Mayor Luecke noted that this plan builds on the County’s
comprehensive planning effort that was several years ago, the City participated but
specific planning for the City of South Bend was left for the City to do. This plan meets
the statutory requirements as a comprehensive plan. Mayor Luecke asked the Council to
favorable adopt this resolution.
th
Ms. Pam Meyer, Director, Community and Economic Development, 12 Floor County-
City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for
this bill.
Ms. Meyer advised that this Resolution would allow for the adoption of the City Plan
with an addendum. Addendum A is a list of non-substantive format, typographical,
grammatical changes to the document. She noted that they are aware at the point the
Council approves City Plan and the amendments, that because of those amendments they
would go back to the Area Plan Commission for their review of those amendments and at
that point the Plan would be formally adopted and finalized. Phase I – visioning, Ms.
Meyer stated that there were a number of visioning sessions with the Community. Report
back sessions to the community that resulted in the drafting of a vision brochure. Phase
II – analysis establishing topic areas, analyzing current conditions of those topic areas,
again going back out to the community and seeking ideas for solutions on how to address
those. The second part of Phase II was actually setting goals and policies and producing
the City Plan Draft I. Phase III – is the pubic review and plan adoption. The City Plan
Draft II has been presented to the public and Council and that is where the City Plan is
today. The first public meetings began in October 2003, there was a total of 38 public
meetings to date, attending approximately by 3,700 people. Over 100 small group
meetings with approximately 170 stakeholders, because the Civic Alliance had requested
people in the community who were experts in their field to assist in the analyzing process
and they were part of the process as well. The plan contains all of the elements required
by State Law. A statement of objectives for the future development of the jurisdiction
and there are objectives and policies for every subject matter in the document. A
statement of policy for the land use development of the jurisdiction, there is an extensive
land use chapter; it speaks to current land use, future land use with a future land use map
and a statement of policy for the development of public ways, public places, public lands,
public structures, and public utilities, a capital facilities chapter as well. The plan
includes additional elements, she noted that they went above and beyond what the
minimum requirements are, and tried to address other topic areas that compliment the
entire comprehensive nature of how the City will develop. Ms. Meyer thanked Mayor
Luecke for his constant support and the time that he took to meet with everyone. She
thanked the Council for their support and willingness to ask questions and to constantly
be their. She thanked the Area Plan Commission for their support. To all the department
heads and staff in the Community and Economic Development who were in a variety of
meetings internally over the years, specifically to the communication and special projects
department who help with the marketing related to City Plan and getting the word out to
get community people at the meetings. Ms. Meyer extended a special thank you to
Sharon Kendall, Executive Director, Community & Economic Development, because she
came into this process sort of in the middle of City Plan, probably not really grasping
what is was, until she was here for awhile. She was a constant supporter throughout the
process. Additionally, Ms. Meyer stated that she worked for the City for twenty-three
years this has been one of the most challenging as well as delightful experiences, she
gives a lot of credit to the passion and creativity of some very strong people in her
division who really have a passion and a commitment and a respect for the community
17
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
and the residents of this community and that is Marco Mariani, George Adler, Jitin Kain.
Ms. Meyer stated that she can’t leave out Larry Magliozzi, although he did leave
Community and Economic Development to go back to the Area Plan Commission, but he
is in an associated arena that helps through the process. Additionally, there were many
other City staff people who helped with City Plan. She thanked the planners who were in
attendance at every public meeting, Mike Divita, David Fecteau, Chris Dressel, Liz
Maradick, and two planners who are no longer with the department, who went on to other
jobs Tonya Zozulya, Anthony Dukes.
th
Mr. George Adler, Staff Planner, Community and Economic Development, 12 Floor
County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana.
Mr. Adler briefly described how City Plan is structured, as well as address the general
terms in the ten core planning chapters. City Plan has thirteen chapters, and a glossary.
The first two chapters give an overview of the planning process and provide some
information on the history of South Bend and current conditions. Chapters three through
twelve are the ten core planning chapters in the documents. Each chapter covers a
particular topic. Chapter thirteen covers implementation, specifically the first five years.
Each chapter from three to twelve is essentially divided into two parts. The first part has
a narrative section that describes the topic that is the focus of the chapter and provides
relative information about South Bend. Following that there is a section that provides a
goal for that chapter and the objectives and policies in that chapter relating to that topic.
The goal is essentially the desired feature condition that the City is aiming for, and the
objectives, policies and steps that can be taken to achieve the goal.
th
Mr. Jitin Kain, Staff Planner, Community and Economic Development, 12 Floor,
County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana.
Mr. Kain advised that from Mr. Adler’s presentation every chapter has several objectives
and policies; there are approximately 350 policies throughout the ten chapters of the plan.
Mr. Kain stated that what comes next in any important comprehensive plan is to use those
policies to develop priorities for the next several years. The City Plan has a five year
action plan which establishes priorities over the next five years. After the plan is
completed there are few things that must be done in order to implement the plan. The
first is to look at the zoning ordinance or subdivision ordinances to make sure that the
plan is compatible with those, because those are the mechanisms that can be used to
implement the plan. There are internal procedures that might need to be revised or
changed. The plan recommends future studies that need to be conducted and these are
some of the ways in implementing the plan. 150 of the 350 polices, were selected
through a filtering process in the five year action plan. There are eight strategies in the
plan after the 150 polices were filtered out, they organized them on the basis of broad
strategies. There are action steps within each of the eight strategies. The first is expand
economic opportunities, to create more economic opportunities in the community,
housing options in the downtown area was an issue that was heard in the public meetings
and one of the top items that was heard in the last round of community meetings held in
June 2005. An action step is to develop a plan for housing in the downtown area. By
creating that plan it allows for more support and development in the area and creates the
critical mass. Another idea was integrated Art related activities into the City economic
development strategies. The second strategy is promoting City assets; one way is to
highlight the diverse community assets. It was heard at the public input meetings was
that the City needs to more aggressively highlight the assets that are in the community.
This can be done by creating a formal marketing and promotional strategy for the City.
Another idea is to highlight the housing stock and the neighborhoods that the City has.
This section also talks about partnering with such groups as the Board of Realtors to
promote the style and variety of the existing housing stock. Strategy three is enhance
City Services, is to develop emergency preparedness and this will help make the City
ready for a natural disaster. Another idea is to recruit a diverse City workforce. The City
believes that it is important for the City workforce to reflect the diversity of the
community. This idea is an attempt to reach that objective. Strategy four is supporting
youth development. The youth that attended many of public input meetings strongly
encouraged developing vocational educational classes and creating mentoring programs
where the City can get involved and also encourage different employers in the area to get
18
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
involved in youth mentoring programs. Strategy five increases public participation, a key
idea is to develop a public involvement plan that will establish standardized methods for
gathering and disseminating public information for small, medium or large projects and
programs. Develop a youth volunteer base that can be tapped into for different volunteer
opportunities that exist in the community. Strategy Six is to insure quality design and
physical development. Standardize the current land development improvement process.
Develop ways to make this process more efficient and spark more development in the
area and by analyzing City Ordinances to make sure that the plans and recommendations
are integrated into legal ordinances such as zoning and subdivision. Strategy Seven is
raising public awareness, educating property owners on maintaining their property and
then developing a public awareness campaign that highlights environmental issues and
educates the community on them. Strategy Eight is conduct analysis and planning.
Develop benchmarks and indicators to measure progress towards the strategies that were
just mentioned. Measuring progress will make sure that the ideas are implemented and
an integral part of this comprehensive plan. Another key idea is creating a strategy to
address vacant properties.
Mayor Luecke stated that this is certainly a comprehensive plan, reaching goals and
objectives with a plan in place for implementation. Mayor Luecke stated that this is a
guide that the Council does retain its discretion when any individual zoning action is
brought before the Council. He stated that this comprehensive plan offers a significant
guide and blue print for South Bend’s development moving into the future.
Mr. Wayne Curry, Chairperson, Economic Development Panel. Mr. Curry stated that
this was a lot of work. He stated that they interviewed a lot of people, held a lot of
meetings, wording, rewording. He stated that they interviewed a lot of wise men in the
City, regarding all the problems in the City and brought those issues to the table. The
current administration took everything with a grain of salt and dealt with all the positive
and negative issues, and put that into the City Plan that they can work with to make the
City a better place than it is today.
Mr. Arnold Sallie, Granger resident. He stated that he is a part of the citizen panel that
helped champion this plan. Mr. Sallie stated that he is not speaking on behalf of the
administration, but on behalf of all the citizens who really support this plan. Mr. Sallie
encourages the Council’s support.
Mr. Roy Prince, Jr., 1009 Quimby, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is a member of the
Civic Alliance. Mr. Prince thanked the city administration for letting residents be part of
the process. A previous plan drafted in the 1960’s only had the voices of “experts” and
not the residents of the city, he said. This time around, people had a change to put forth
their visions for the city. Mr. Prince stated that originally they were told that this project
would take twelve to eighteen months; it turned out to be more like three years. But that
was okay with him, it was a labor of love actually, because everyone volunteered for this.
The Civic Alliance’s main goal was to be a steward for the people of South Bend.
A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time.
Councilmember Varner asked if the resolution includes the three pages of revisions and
does the final download draft have the corrections made?
Ms. Meyer stated no, they cannot make the corrections until the bill goes back to the Area
Plan Commission. When the Area Plan Commission makes that approval then the final
document would be printed and provided to the Council and on the website would have
those corrections in it.
There following individuals spoke in favor of this Resolution.
Ms. Penny Hughes, 1918 Southernview Drive, South Bend, Indiana. Ms Hughes stated
that she has been a resident of the City for approximately forty-four years. She stated
that she is here tonight to thank the Council for all that they have done for the City. As
you drive around and see Scottsdale and what has happened to that with all the new shops
and you go out to Portage Prairie and you see all the new development and the businesses
19
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
coming out there, you can tell that there are some intelligent people here that have long
range goals. The northeast side near Notre Dame and all the amazing development
around the campus is just wonderful and how that all has happened in just a short period
of time. The City Plan is going to bring all that into fruition. She has been asked to come
to speak tonight on behalf of Edie Mathis, who could not be here tonight. She is the
President of the Local Real Estate Investors Organization and Landlords Association
formally called MIPOA, they have recently changed there name to REIA Real Estate
Investors Association of North Central Indiana. In 2001, they brought a petition before
the South Bend Common Council, cautioning that when the State Legislature in their
wisdom chose to give a $36,000.00 homestead exemption to owner occupants, and gave
nothing to non-owner occupant residential housing, and they cautioned at that time that
they could foresee, boarded up homes, lots of vacancy, because landlords could not
charge their tenants another $100.00 a month for rent. Ms. Hughes noted that she
foresaw this hurting the poor people in the inner city, because people who were wealthy
enough bought homes, but those who were not had to rent. The discussion was that this
was going to create declining values of properties as a result of what the State Legislature
had done and it was at this time that they had asked the Council to help lobby them to
bring more equity between the owner occupant and the non-owner occupant. Landlords
found their property taxes double and triple, and it is a sad state. What was said in that
petition has come true, there are an extreme amount of vacant boarded up houses in the
City, and that there is one neighborhood between Lincolnway and Portage Avenues with
40 percent vacancy, boarded up housing in that area and other areas of the City. It has
been estimated that forty-three percent of the housing stock is rentals in South Bend, and
that information was included in the petition. Ms. Hughes stated that the she was told
that the Council was studying the 2001 petition that was filed and would like to know if
the Council has made any recommendations. Ms. Hughes further noted that there were
10 pages of homes that went up on tax sale, there are a record number of foreclosures in
the county, and housing sales are down 6 percent according to local MLS, and that is
normally the lower priced homes, kind of in the inner city. So, with that in mind and in
addition to all that the Council has done to make the City beautiful, she urged the Council
to petition the State Legislature to bring more equity between the owner occupied and
non-owner occupied homes, and either give all residential housing this homestead
exemption or none at all. Whatever is chosen is should be equitable to all.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to this Resolution.
Mr. James A. Masters, 211 W. Washington, Suite 1800, South Bend, Indiana
Mr. Masters advised that one of the things that he has heard so much tonight and what
has been talked about the City Plan is that we champion the diversity of this City. So he
is here tonight to present a slightly divergent view, and if his friend Penny Hughes hadn’t
told him that she was here to speak in favor of the plan, I would have sworn she was
speaking against it. He came here tonight to tell you that as a resident of this City for
over 30 years, that he is broken hearted over the state of decline and deterioration that can
be seen all over this City. City Plan does not address this problem. In fact in his
estimation the City Plan is an example of what is wrong with the City. Because while the
City Administration and the Department of Redevelopment and Economic Development
and their legion of planners have been focusing on their efforts on creating this City Plan,
for twenty years in the future, they have allowed the City of the present to deteriorate
before our eyes. The first question that I hope everyone will ask the Mayor is this, How
much did all of this cost the taxpayer of this City? How much money was spent on out-
of-town consultants on out-of-state consultants? How much did this cost the taxpayers of
this City in employee’s salaries and benefits for all these planners? How much did all
these meetings cost us, and for what purpose? As we know this City Administration has
presided over an unprecedented out migration of population business and jobs from this
City. Our tax base is eroded. City revenues cannot support City services. There has
been a litany of business that have left or announced that they are going to leave South
Bend. St. Joseph Medical Center moving to Mishawaka. Three years ago the State
offered to widen South Bend Avenue, SR 23, so that the 40 percent of the population of
this County that lives north and east of downtown South Bend can actually get to the
hospital. Had that been done the decision to move the hospital might have been changed?
The oldest law firm in the County, with offices in downtown South Bend for over 150
20
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
years, moved to Mishawaka. A large national insurance company that had offices in
downtown South Bend for over 100 years, moved to Mishawaka. Why, because this
administration would not or could not work with them to keep them in our City, when
they wanted to expand in downtown South Bend. Just recently, when Holladay
Corporation, one of the largest and most successful developers in this Country, with
offices here in South Bend, wanted to build a multi-million dollar office building on the
East Race with a walk way to connect to the Century Center, which would have brought
badly needed additional hotel rooms to the downtown, so that Century Center could once
again compete for regional convention business, the answer was no! This didn’t fit the
plan, what plan? In what should be the last straw for this administration, the TV and
radio station that bear the call letters of this City WSBT, is leaving downtown South
Bend and moving to Mishawaka. Why? Because once again this administration would
not or could not work with them to keep them in our City, when they wanted to expand in
downtown South Bend. But the City Administration, Department of Redevelopment, and
the Department of Economic Development, along with their planners have been working
on this City Plan. Mr. Master’s stated that this plan should be rejected, if for no other
reason that you as our elected representatives send a message to the administration and
more importantly, to the taxpayers of this City, that the status quo of lack of development
in progress more deterioration and decline will not be accepted by you. Nothing explains
the sad condition of this City, better than this simple fact, reportedly there are at least
forty people working in the departments of Redevelopment and Economic Development,
that as we stand here now, there are no more than 22 uniformed police officers patrolling
the streets of this City to protect the citizens of this City. It’s no wonder why property
values and the quality of life in this City continue to decline. The only things going up in
the City of South Bend are the tax rate and the crime rate. Mr. Master’s urged the
Council to say no to the City Plan.
Mr. Don Schefmeyer, 300 S. St. Louis Blvd., South Bend, Indiana. Mr. Schefmeyer
stated that he has been a resident of South Bend for over thirty years. His first job here
was to manage Whitcomb & Keller Mortgage Company’s Commercial Loan Portfolio.
Subsequently, he managed the commercial loan division at Tower Savings and in 1982,
when the time was right he started his own company Action Mortgage and since that time
he has been actively involved in over 80 million dollars of property locally. Mr.
Schefmeyer stated that when he first came to town in 1977, he was amazed by the
progressive attitude in South Bend. He had heard that the Midwest was euphemistically
knows as the rust belt, where people were leaving in droves. While this was true in
maybe cities like Detroit, it was not really true in South Bend, under the leadership of
Mayor Peter Nemeth, Century Center had just opened and his office in the new
Whitcomb & Keller building overlooked the continuing development of block 6, which
was initiated by the owners of Whitcomb & Keller, which is now know as the River Glen
Office Park. Although the economy was not good in the 1980’s, there was a spirit in the
area, a progressive spirit, a spirit to success, a spirit of entrepreneurship. This after all
was the community, that had weathered the closing of the Studebaker Corporation in
1963, and in two years time in 1965 was given the Urban League’s designation of an All-
American City. In the last ten years we have witnessed a damping of this spirit. Long
time city residents both commercial and residential are abandoning South Bend. Some of
this is undoubtedly due to the out migration to suburban and county neighborhoods
common to most cities. But South Bend has lost more than business and residence. It
has lost its brand. He stated that if he has one thing to tell the Council tonight, the Mayor
and the Members of the City Departments that are represented tonight, that we must get
our brand back in the City of South Bend. In 1977, South Bend was synonymous with
the University of Notre Dame, when you came into town; the little signs that welcomed
you to the City had little footballs on them. He remembered the first time that he came
into town, it brought home that this was the place where Notre Dame was, the football
team was, where Knute Rockne was, all that history comes flooding in, what do we have
now? We’ve got a sign, that’s got a guy on an old bicycle that says City of Growth and
Progress or some such amorphous nonsense. Progress, he really questions that, to get
progress you need to go back further than ten years. The only significant new
development announced for the downtown City other than expansions for not-for-profits
is the game day condo project. Interestingly this development seems to be entirely
focused on wealthy Notre Dame Alumni, who can afford prices digs overlooking Century
21
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
Center Parking Lot and the backside of the Sherland Building. In order to indulge their
six or so game days a year. Mr. Schefmeyer stated that when he came here in 1977, the
City had the South Bend Chamber of Commerce, again, the South Bend Chamber of
Commerce, now we have the St. Joseph County Chamber of Commerce, there are many
St. Joseph County’s in the United States, but as far as he knows there is only one South
Bend. Instead of trumpeting our brand, we have diluted it. In the name of inclusion, we
have forgotten who we really are. We need to rebuild the erosion of our brand before it is
gone forever. Along with the significant retail development market rate residential
development and major office hotel and hospital development which has already fled.
Mr. Schefmeyer urged the Council to reject this City Plan, as emblematic, still defying
the lack of leadership this City has had over the last decade. It is an exercise in mental
gymnastics, whose principle conclusions could have been reached by a few reasonable
well informed businessmen over a ten minute cup of coffee. Mr. Schefmeyer urged the
Council and Mayor to enlist aid of established business people who have demonstrated
their commitment to the City through development and investment and maintenance of
the public good and to guide the Mayor and his Economic Development Department on
how actually to attract new business and commercial activity instead of welcoming an
environment which seems only lately to benefit the impoverished and anti-social
elements of our society, indeed communities all over Indiana and from outlying areas in
different states, which has over burdened our central business districts increasingly
fragile infrastructure. Mr. Schefmeyer stated that this City Plan is a joke, thirteen
chapters containing policies, action steps, subsections which few will read, let alone
implement. By rejecting it, the Council can send a message to the Mayor, real progress is
not just achieved by promoting diversity and Kumbaya rhetoric, nor is development
encourage by simply buying eyesore properties and tearing them down. There actually
has to be some business accumulated and employed. Yes, the City Plan is a joke, but by
rejecting it, the Council can show that they will not be the butt of it.
Sharone Smith, Vice President of Real Estate Association of North Central Indiana. She
stated that they represent mainly landlords and people that wholesale properties. She
stated that she thinks that it is great to have future plans, but the City is in trouble now.
The City might not last five years to see this City Plan. The City has to close the tax
disparity between housing providers and homeowners. Instead of giving just
homeowners the homestead credit, they need to make it fair across the board. Landlords
suffered greatly, their taxes went up 300 to 400 percent in 2003. The closure of the tax
disparity will make the City a better place. There is very little income coming in to
improve the properties. She urged the Council to keep this in mind when they are voting
on the City Plan.
In rebuttal,
Mayor Luecke, stated that there are a number of positions that were stated here that bear
refutation. First off the population of the City of South Bend, is not declining, it is
increasing for the first time from 1990 to 2000. Since, 1960, the population had been
declining, from 1990 to 2000 a growth had been seen, and expect that growth to continue.
Yes, some businesses have left, other businesses have come into the City, the City
Administration has worked well with those businesses who wish to. Certain specific
projects were referenced, the law firm that left town, the Mayor stated that they did in
fact work with them, and tried to find them a location in downtown, they said they
wanted to build; they were not interesting in renting. The Mayor stated in fact, that he
wanted to place them in Mr. Schefmeyer’s building, but they told the City that they were
not interesting in renting. But, unfortunately, they were not familiar with the cost of new
construction; the estimates that they had gotten were way below what actual costs would
be. They also wanted to place a 30,000 square foot building on what should be reserved
for a 60,000 square foot or larger building. The Mayor stated that he encourage them to
look for other space. He stated that he told them if they decide that they would like to
rent, there are a number of places that could be looked at. They stated again that they
were not interested in renting. What are they doing in Mishawaka? They are renting!
Why are they renting there, because, they got bargain basement price, because a company
went out of business in Mishawaka, left Mishawaka, the company that has bought that
place had to fill up their building and they were giving away space. He stated that he
would have much rather seen them in Mr. Schefmeyer’s building, but unfortunately, they
22
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
did not speak to the City about that opportunity. Holladay Corporation has talked to the
City about developments on their site, if fact, the City had an agreement several years ago
to support condominium development on that site. The Holladay Corporation decided
not to build at that point. That was there decision, they did come back to the City, with a
proposal for a hotel and a pedestrian bridge across connecting to the Century Center, and
they wanted the City to invest 17 million dollars, the City felt that that was too large of an
investment to make, based on the ratio to the private investment being made. Yes, we did
say no to that proposal, but we are certainly open to and continue to work with Holladay
Corporation on other developments around the City, including Portage Prairie. Mr.
Masters said that St. Joe Med Center left because the State didn’t widen SR 23. Mayor
Luecke stated that he can say that the State’s plan several years ago to widen SR 23 was
to run a through way through the neighborhoods and that’s not good planning, that’s not
good development, and it would not have kept St. Joseph Hospital in South Bend. The
City worked hard with St. Joseph Med Center to see what there needs would be. It would
have required clearing six to ten blocks of housing for their building and expansion in the
City of South Bend. The City had talked about other alternatives for a variety of reasons,
primarily because of space; they decided to move to a Greenfield site. A contrary
example to that, look at Memorial Hospital. Memorial has in effect built a new hospital
at its current location, working with the City Administration. Mayor Luecke stated that
they have a great working relationship, and the expansion has protected the adjacent
neighborhoods, but has allowed them to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in their
plan at that site. They continue to serve as an anchor on the north end of South Bend.
Mayor Luecke stated that he takes much offense at the suggested that City Plan could
have been put together over a cup of coffee in ten minutes by business people. He stated
that he respects and appreciates and welcome the input from business people in this
community. He stated that they invited business people to every public session that was
held and a special session jointly with the Chamber of Commerce for business people to
have input into the City Plan. Mayor Luecke stated that they will continue to have input
from business people and will continue to work with them. When you look at what has
happened over the past ten years, Mr. Schefmeyer mentioned Century Center, a great
anchor for downtown South Bend, a non-taxpayer entity, a thorn for Mr. Schefmeyer, in
the last ten years, we have seen the renovation of the Morris Performing Arts Center,
another great anchor for downtown South Bend, it brings in thousands and thousands of
people into downtown. The renovation of the Palais Royale, the expansion of Crowe
Chiszek also very vital to the downtown. Crowe was one of the early anchors in block 6.
The City worked very hard with Crowe provide space for them to expand and add
another 50,000 square foot building. Expansion across the river, Environmental Health
Lab, again, the City working very hard with them to allow for that expansion to continue.
The expansion of Press Ganey, another company that the City has worked very hard with.
South Bend Chocolate Café of course located in downtown South Bend. Retail
development on the South side South Bend. Retail development on South Michigan
Street, a significant number of investments throughout the community, there has been
good planning by this administration, planning in a number of areas, planning to address
the legacy of Studebaker. The City has been left with dinosaur buildings, finally after
forty years; the City is addressing that issue and clearing that land, so that we can get new
private investment and new jobs in those areas. The City is addressing Brownfield
factors, addressing combined sewer and long term control plan needs for the community.
The City has worked very hard to bring new investment, new jobs and new development
all over town, from the retail on the South Side, Blackthorn, over 500 million dollars of
investment, 7,000 new jobs on the north side, Portage Prairie beyond that working with
Holladay Corporation, A.J. Wright on the Westside, Northeast Neighborhood, all of that
results of good planning, hard work, working with partners in the private sector. Mayor
Luecke stated that they will continue to do that, City Plan allows the City to move
forward and continue building on those successes. Mayor Luecke again urged the
Council’s favorable adoption of City Plan.
Dr. Varner addresses the non-substantive changes. He stated that the downloaded version
does not include all of those corrections. He doesn’t understand why a corrected copy is
not available.
Pam Meyer stated that the downloaded version is the same as the black and white version
that is before the Council tonight and what the Area Plan Commission received. Those
23
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
corrections were noted after that. She again reiterated that most of those corrections are
typographical or grammatical in nature. She stated that they cannot make a change to
something that is called a draft and already been through Area Plan that has been sent to
the Council as a recommendation until after that fact.
Councilmember Varner stated that once that is done, the resolution does not come back
before the Council.
Council President Rouse called upon Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand for a
legal advice.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that State Law provides that the
final version that the City Council would adopt if there are any corrections such as the
three and half pages of amendments that have been proposed after the Area Plan
Commission that it then goes back to the Area Plan Commission for final approval or
disapproval. She believes that it is 60 days that the Area Plan has to take final action. It
does not under State Law come back to the Common Council.
Councilmember Varner stated that the final version is necessary because you can have
much more public input and participation.
Council President Rouse stated that the Council is not adopting a final version, but a draft
version. If the Council is going to adopt a final version, this is the question in the
Council’s mind, who is actually going to adopt this final version plan.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrard stated that State Law Indiana Code 36-7-4-
5-10 and it states that if the Common Council rejects or amends the comprehensive plan
then it shall be returned to the plan commission for its consideration with a written
statement for the reason for its rejection or amendment. The Area Plan Commission has
60 days to act and file its report with the Council.
Mayor Luecke stated that the Resolution adopts the draft and incorporates the three pages
of technical changes and amendments, so that what the Council would be adopting
through the Resolution becomes the final version and then goes back to Area Plan, which
also has its adoption process and they would accept or reject the amendments. Given the
nature of the amendments the administration does not expect the commission to reject the
Resolution. So for the Area Plan Commission’s purpose they would accept those
amendments to revise what they have already accepted as the City Plan for the City of
South Bend.
Councilmember Varner’s concern is because the Council has recently sat through a
process like this with the rezoning in a large document. By coincidence, it was Mr.
Master’s with the result of some action, found out that there as a shortfall with regards to
the absence of parking, it was an oversight, certainly not intentional. He stated that he
would like to see a final draft with all the changes and amendments incorporated to avoid
problems in the future.
Councilmember Puzzello questioned a correction that might change the context of the
subject.
Pam Meyer stated that she personally went through all the changes to make sure what
they were, just like the question has been asked. Ms. Meyer stated that she cannot tell
that off the top of her head, but she does have her papers with her.It could be that that
was a duplicate and that there were two words in the document. So that is the reason for
it being taken out. It could be that the phraseology didn’t make sense so they changed it
and took it out, there might have been a better way to say what was there or it wasn’t
necessary in the line. She thinks that the assumption was that by sending those
amendments, there might have been a review of those to make the Council comfortable.
It that is not the case, then, she understands the hesitancy but, in her mind and in
conversations with John Byorni, Area Plan Commission, those were non-substantive and
did not think it would be an issue.
24
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
Councilmember White stated that it is the consensus of the Council to have the most
corrected copy before the Council before it is adopted. What would be the time frame
and impact on Community and Economic Development to incorporate all of those
corrections so that the Council would have a clean copy? What impact would that have
on the process?
Pam Meyer stated that they can physically make the changes and get a copy to the
Council. She stated that she is not the one to speak to about the legal ramifications of
how that addresses the whole approval process. But the corrections can be made in a
couple of days.
Mayor Luecke stated that the Council could continue this in the Council portion until the
next meeting. In the next couple of days, a final version that incorporates the three pages
of amendments, could be printed out or sent electronically for the Council’s review
before the next meeting. That would not hinder the process at all.
Councilmember Varner stated that that would satisfy his questions, as long as a
downloaded version and approximately a dozen hard copies available for the public to
review.
Pam Meyer agreed to do that.
Councilmember Pfeifer asked the question does City Plan have to be passed by the
Council before it goes to the Area Plan Commission.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that final action has to be taken by
the Council before it can go back to the Area Plan Commission.
Councilmember Pfeifer asked for a point of order from Counsel. Can the Council pass it
pending a clean copy that does not change the substances?
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that Resolution as currently
proposed in the last section specifically addresses the addendum A which is the three and
half pages of corrections. They are proposing that the Council go forward with the City
Plan with the three and half pages as exhibit A and go forward. That is the proposal on
the table right now.
Councilmember Pfeifer wanted a yes or no can it be passed tonight pending a clean copy
that doesn’t change the substance.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that that is a policy question. Dr.
Varner has asked for a complete copy with all the proposed three and half pages
incorporated, the presentation this evening states, take the final draft and the three and
half pages, it is the same result, we are getting to the same end result, it is just a manner
on how to get there.
Councilmember Varner stated that if there were just a few changes, he would have no
problem, but since there are three and half pages of corrections, he does not feel
comfortable with the version the way it is presented tonight. He feels that the cleanest
piece of work should be sent to the Area Plan Commission.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that State Law requires the City
Council to send it with a written statement why these changes are being made also. So
that is another step that would have to be taken.
Councilmember Kelly made a motion to continue this bill in the Council Portion Only to
the November 13, 2006 meeting at the request of the petitioner. Councilmember Varner
seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes.
Councilmember White advised that she along with the members of the Council appreciate
all of the hard work that has gone into the development of the City Plan.
25
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
BILLS, FIRST READING
BILL NO. 73-06 FIRST READING ON A BILL AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1643 AND 1635 PRAIRIE AVE.,
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COUNCILMANIC
DISTRICT 6, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Kelly made a motion to refer this bill to the
Area Plan Commission. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a
voice vote of eight (8) ayes.
BILL NO. 74-06 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND APPROPRIATING $2,807,056.00 FROM
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND
(FUND 212) FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AND DESIGNATED
SUBGRANTEE AGENCIES FOR THE
PROGRAM YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1,
2007, TO BE ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to
the Community and Economic Development Department and set it for Public Hearing
and Third Reading on November 13, 2006. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion
which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes.
BILL NO. 75-06 FIRST READING ON BILL OF THE COMMON
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA APPROPRIATING $118,321
RECEIVED FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT’S
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT PROGRAM
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to refer this bill to the
Community and Economic Development Department and set it for Public Hearing and
Third Reading on November 13, 2006. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion
which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes.
BILL NO. 76-06 FIRST READING ON BILL OF THE COMMON
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA TRANSFERRING $80,000 AMONG
VARIOUS ACCOUNTS WITHIN FUND 212
“COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT” IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to
the Community and Economic Development Department and set it for Public Hearing
and Third Reading on November 13, 2006. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion
which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes.
26
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
APPEAL OF DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS NO. 2005-1029A
BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 2300 PORTAGE AVENUE, SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA
Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to strike this bill at the request of the petitioner.
Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8)
ayes.
REPORT FROM AREA PLAN COMMISSION:
It is noted that the Council is in receipt of a recommendation from the Area Plan
Commission of St. Joseph County, for the following ordinance based on their Public
Hearing held on October 17, 2006.
BILL NO. 53-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
ANNEXING TO AND BRINGING WITHIN THE
CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN CENTRE
TOWNSHIP, CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH;
COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 5
Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to the Zoning and Annexation
ndrd
Committee and set it for Public Hearing and 2 Reading on November 27, 2006 and 3
Reading on December 11, 2006. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which
carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Council at this time.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
COMMENTS CONCERNING THE BAN ON USE OF ENGINE COMPRESSION
BRAKES WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND
John Hagen, 19575 Jewel Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is asking the
Council to consider the adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the use of engine
compression brakes within the City of South Bend in an effort to reduce noise. The noise
caused by engine braking with semi’s and other vehicles not only disrupts public peace
and quiet but is a health hazard. For whatever reason, the larger trucks want to engine
brake all along the highway from Kern to the bypass, and coming off the bypass on the
clover leafs. In any case, the behavior adds to already high levels of noise generated
from the surface material on the bypass – although engine braking is more disturbing than
continuous noise. While traveling you have no doubt seen such postings prohibiting the
use of these devices. There is one on U.S. 31 outside of Lakeville, for example. For the
past several years, Mr. Hagen stated that he has asked about the feasibility of signage
posted along south U.S. 31 from just south of Kern Road and along the St. Joseph Valley
Parkway on-off ramps to prohibit the us of engine brakes (sometimes referred to as “Jake
Brakes”.) Mr. Hagen did not go into the history of his inquires and the bureaucratic
meanderings. Suffice to say, it is his understanding that the City is responsible for the
highway along U.S. 31 after having annexed that part a few years back. The St. Joseph
County Council passed such an ordinance in 2003 (Ordinance No. 88-03, Bill No. 103-03
as amended.) I have attached a copy of that Ordinance. The ordinance has a couple of
flaws, namely: (1) It prohibits the use of any engine compression brakes in posted areas;
and, (2) provides no dates that would constrain the County engineer to complete studies
needed to determine areas that need posting. The second issue is easily addressed. The
first would be addressed by focusing on the issue: it is not engine brakes per se but the
27
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
noise they make when not properly muffled. One approach would be to make the
operation of an unmuffled engine brake a traffic violation. Mr. Hagen urged the Council
to refer this issue to a committee to take whatever action is appropriate to ensure our right
to peace and quiet and to begin to create a quiet community.
COMMENTS CONCERNING GLBT AND NOT AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE TO INCLUDE SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY
Tom Ubbing, 1737 Brookmede, South Bend, Indiana, stated that there have been reports
in the press despite the defeat of Bill No. 29-06 that Gay Rights Activists continue to
appear before the Council promoting their cause. Although those of us who have
opposed Bill No. 29-06 would like to consider the matter settled, circumstances do not
permit us to do so. He asked the Council’s indulgence as his brings up the subject of Bill
No. 29-06 again. You can argue all day long about a proposal, but if you put it into effect
and it is lived out, it will either have good results or bad. Unfortunately for legislators,
you don’t have the benefit of future time and results to evaluate an issue. You must
decide in the here and now what serves the common good of the people. But there is a
way to predict the future and to avoid bad decisions. That is to understand the nature and
dynamics of principle. A principle is a basic truth or falsehood that underlies a position.
Take for example traffic laws, the unspoken but underlying principal of our traffic laws is
that of the supreme value of human life. But image a new advocacy group appears before
the Council called Citizens for a Quick Commute, they urge you to change that principle
to Get There as Fast as You Can. They say that they are not going to change any other
laws, just the principle, sounds good, everybody wants to get there quicker, so you vote
for it. Nevertheless, in time, all the other traffic laws would fall behind this new principle
and change to reflect it. Instead of the pedestrian has the right-of-way, we would arrive
at pedestrian get out of the way. While speed limits would rise, in traffic, deaths and
injuries would go up, a bad result. With out going through the whole process of trying it
out in real life, you could predict what would happen if you change the principle.
Similarly, before the sexual revolution goes underway in the 60’s, the guiding principle
behind sexual morality was grave and justice to any child conceived out of wedlock by
adultery or between two uncommitted unmarried people. The new sexual morality
proclaimed that anything goes between any two consenting adults.Yet, after 40 years,
but no so long ago, the South Bend Tribune reported Dr. Roland Chamblee, as saying the
42 percent out of wed lock birth in St. Joseph County is social catastrophe. Fatherless
children have much higher academic failure rate, tend to live in poverty, and tend to get
involved in violent crime. This is just being openly recognized, in other words the
principle is false, and the results are bad. Same thing with the 30,000 children lose their
lives through abortion in this area, it’s a bad principle and it gets bad results, especially if
you trying to grow the City. In the case of 29-06 which should be put to rest, proponents
for gay rights introduced under the rights of discrimination, the most radical new
principle, in sexual morality, that sex has absolutely nothing to do with beginning and
raising of children. In this process of passing this law of gay sex, would be elevated in
the law, is morally legitimate. Following this principle would create a brave new world
that would have no logically defense in principle against any consensual sexual acts. To
enshrine into law this principle that sexual relations have nothing to do with procreation,
would have a corrosive and disastrous effect on society. It will weaken heterosexual
marriage by trivializing its value, would make economic benefits given to heterosexual
married couples discriminatory, it would corrupt the moral of youth leading to more
homosexuality involvement, it would legitimize on principle polygamy, and
polyamonitiy and so call consensual intergenerational sex. (Councilmember Pfeifer
interrupted, time limit imposed) Mr. Ubbeing thanked the Council for voting down Bill
29-06, and apologized for going over the time limit.
COMMENTS CONCERNING THE POTAWATOMI GREENHOUSE &
CONSERVATORIES
st
Ms. Janet Maciulski, 1117 S. 31 Street, South Bend, Indiana, gave an update on the
progress that is being made to save the Potawatomi Greenhouses & Conservatories. She
wasn’t sure how informed the Council has been, so she came here tonight to help with
that. At the September 2006 Council Meeting, Council Member Puzzello, said that the
Park’s budget should go forward with the stipulation that a Council Member work with
the Mayor on ways to keep greenhouses open. It is here understanding that because of
this stipulation, a task force was created and held its first meeting on September 28, 2006.
28
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006
Mr. Maciulski stated that she was in attendance, and they listened to the explanation of
the financial situation at length. Following was an open discussion, but no goals were
determined. The next meeting date was set up for October 16, 2006. Information of this
meeting that was supposed to be given to the media, was found only in the public notice
section of the newspaper. Despite the lack of media, the room was filled and there was
standing room only, which was very nice to see that kind of support from the community.
Many good ideas were shared, and suggestions for making things even better, were
plentiful. Lists for committees were generated, and she is waiting to be contacted by the
Parks Department, because she signed up for two of those committees. As of today, she
has not been contacted. While this has been happening, they have had a group of citizens
that have organized themselves, and they are calling themselves the Botanical Society of
South Bend. They have at this point and time accomplished a number of things;
remember this has only been over a month’s time. The Botanical Society has been
meeting regularly, they have a web page, they have business cards, they have a Post
Office Box, they have opened a bank account for deposits, they have enlisted SCORE for
the not-for-profit procedures, they have been in contact and visited other conservatories
that have gone through similar situations, they are working closely with the Historic
Preservation Commission, and are meeting and setting goals. The most pressing goals at
the moment are to secure a pro-bono attorney, to organize executive members and set
committees, and to sponsor a fund raiser, which will be on Sunday, November 5, 2006 at
the Greenhouses from 11:00 – 3:30, and would like to extend an invitation to all the
Councilmember’s. Ms. Maciulski urged the Council to please support the efforts by the
Botanical Society of South Bend and save the greenhouses and conservatories, they are
valuable treasures.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, President Rouse adjourned
the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
ATTEST: ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
John Voorde, City Clerk Timothy A. Rouse, President
29