The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-14-08 Health & Public Safety - Quality of Life IssuesHEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES Page 1 of 3 The May 14, 2008 meeting of the Health and Public Safety Committee of the South Bend Common Council was called to order by its Chairperson, Councilmember Karen White at 4:31 p.m. in the Council's Informal Meeting Room. Committee Members present: Karen L. White, Chairperson, Ann Puzzello, Vice, Chairperson, Donald Brubaker, Pam Brunette Persons in attendance included: Ann Carol Nash, Catherine Toppel, Jamie Loo, Roger, Hamburg, Winona Hays, Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney, John Voorde, City Clerk. Councilmember Puzzello, in Councilmember White's absence, asked Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand to outline the purpose of the meeting, Kathy Cekanski-Farrand explained the focus was to be on the implementation and enforcement of current health and public safety ordinances. As well, the Council was looking to identify measurable outcomes for these regulations. By 3:45 Karen White arrived, assuming chair of the meeting. Karen added that the Council hoped to assist the administration in implementation of the regulations. To that end, with transparency a necessity, Karen wanted to clearly identify who was responsible for the enforcement of ordinances and whether additional training was needed. Basically, the focus was to be on who was enforcing the quality of life ordinances, how they were going about it and was the system working. Karen then went on to announce 2 sets of H8~PS meetings. The first series to be held on the 3`~ Wednesday of the each month from 3:30 to 5:00 in the caucus room. Each meeting would focus on one quality of life ordinance. The first meeting would be Wednesday, June 18, to address the scrap, precious metals regulations. See attachment for dates and focus. Also announced was a series of meetings intended to hear neighborhood concerns. One meeting in each councilmanic district, the first in the 4 district on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. in the Zion United Church of Christ. The other 5 meetings to be determined. Karen then recognized Catherine Toppel, Director of Neighborhood Code Enforcement to speak to the committee. Catherine Toppel said she would like to have a meeting with the Council before the neighborhood hearings begin. She maintained that the Department of Code Enforcement was only responsible for 3 of the 17 ordinances listed by the Council as quality of life ordinances. Furthermore she felt the data presented to the Mayor and the questions asked in the November 28, letter from the committee to the Mayor indicated a lack of understanding on the part of the Council as to the enforcement process and her department's efforts. Karen countered that the very purpose of the field hearings was to hear and measure neighborhood concerns, not to hold Neighborhood Code Enforcement up as a target. The purpose was to "connect the dots,° that is identify responsibilities. Such as, who enforces, how, when, and why of the process. The process needs transparency. Only that way can the effectiveness of ordinances be measured. Information should increase understanding, allowing realistic expectations, and collaboration with the administration. Ultimately, the people would be better served. Catherine Toppel cautioned against using numbers (i.e. # of tickets) to gauge effective enforcement. She said her philosophy was to try to resolve issues face to face hopefully achieving resolution without paperwork. Her goal is compliance not paperwork. Nonetheless, she maintained compliance was tracked, albeit mostly in paper files. 111ustrating other challenges Page 2 of 3 Neighborhood Code Enforcement faces she spoke of a backlog of 450 long grass complaints and an often cumbersome legal process resulting in additional frustration by both her staff and the citizenry. Karen emphasized the need for better communication. Are the quality of life ordinances effective in improving the city? Are they good, bad, enforceable or not, why or why not? Can they be improved? Communication through reporting to Council would develop understanding thus preventing misperceptions. Toppel restated a philosophy of personal contact to achieve compliance not citation. Kathy Cekanski-Farrand asked how effective was this one on one approach? Toppel responded compliance was good. Karen indicated an apparent disconnect between the Council and Neighborhood Code Enforcement, between stated results and reality. Ann Puzzello said she supported face to face conflict resolution; but wondered about follow-up and feedback. Ann then asked about the timeliness and responsiveness of Neighborhood Code Enforcement's approach. Given the legal process that needs to be followed sometimes resulting in unacceptable delays in compliance. Ann wondered what could be done. Karen, focusing on the legal process, asked who in legal makes decisions to negotiate an offense and by what criteria? Ann Carol-Nash an Assistant City Attorney said the results hoped for, that is compliance, often requires using judgment on a case by case basis sometimes resulting in a varied compliance requirement. Often times a negotiated settlement being better than the imposition of an uncollectible fine. Winona Hays speaking for the Ordinance Violations Bureau (OVB) explained the timeframe followed once code notifies OVB of a violation. First OBV mails a 30 day to pay letter. If the fine is not paid a "final notice" letter allowing 14 additional days to pay is mailed. If the fine is still not paid, OVB refers the matter to legal which then sends a 10 day to pay letter. Legal at this point may negotiate a settlement or decide to file in small claims court. Winona added that legal does not always provide disposition feedback. Winona also noted that Animal Control routinely provides timely feedback. Karen White wondered if the lengthy timeframe could be condensed and suggested enforcement policies should be clear and transparent. Ann Carol Nash suggested that before any quality of life initiatives take ordinance form the Council should include input from legal and anyone else affected. That way, responsibilities and expectations would be identified as an ordinance was drafted. Toppel spoke to several impediments to efficiency in the process as well. Namely, a need for training from IT to allow her staff to more fully utilize the software that tracks the enforcement process. Ann Carol-Nash added that state law works against the attachment of liens because it does not allow the city to recover the costs incurred by the city when this is done. Karen White moved into a summation phase of the meeting asking everyone in turn to expound on their "quality of life" philosophy. Page 3 of 3 Ann Puzzello led off by saying a lack of communication frustrated the Council. Often the Council has the closest contact with the public, but lacks follow-up data to pass along to the public. She emphasized we all need to work together. Pam Brunette, a citizen member, said the whole process needs to be more responsive, quicker. Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated the need to work together with the administration was vital. HEA 1001 means we will have to do more with less. Communication and cooperation is even more paramount. Karen added we will do it on our end; but we need collaboration from the administration. In that spirit she asked all how the June 18th meeting set to deal with scrap metals can be a meaningful one. Consensus resulted in making sure all pertinent parties were notified to be present. That list would include the South Bend Police Department, the Controller, the Legal Department, Neighborhood Code Enforcement, and scrap dealers. Additionally these parties should be ready to discuss the questions posed to the Mayor in the Council's letter to him of November 28, 2007, page 2. There being no further business to come before the Committee, Council Member White adjourned the meeting at 5:03 p.m. Respectful) Submitted, Karen L. White, Chairperson Health and Public Safety Committee Attachment