Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-03 Council Meeting MinutesREGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 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, January 13, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council President Karen White and the Invocation and Pledge to the Flag were given. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS: Present: James Aranowski 1st District Charlotte Pfeifer 2nd District Roland Kelly 3rd District Karl King 4t' District Chairperson, Committee of the Whole David Varner 5th District Ervin Kuspa 6t' District Sean Coleman At -Large Vice -President Al "Buddy" Kirsits At -Large Karen L. White At -Large President Absent: None OTHERS PRESENT: Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Loretta J. Duda Sandra M. Parmerlee Janice I. Talboom Council Attorney City Clerk Chief Deputy City Clerk Deputy City Clerk REPORT FROM THE SUB -COMMITTEE ON MINUTES To the Common Council of the City of South Bend: The sub -committee has inspected the minutes of the December 9, 2002 and January 6, 2003 meetings of the Council and found them to be correct. Therefore, we recommend the same be approved. 12-9-02 minutes 1-6-03 minutes s/Roland Kelly s/David Varner s/Karen L. White Councilmember Coleman made a motion that the minutes of the December 9, 2002 and January 6, 2003, meetings of the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. SPECIAL BUSINESS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 WHEREAS, the Council recognizes, that despite challenges to himself and his wife, Joyce, Council President Roland Kelly committed himself to providing positive leadership to the Common Council by encouraging each of the Council Members and their staff to always use their individual talents for the good of the community, while also providing thoughtful comments to the City Administration; and WHEREAS, the Common Council further recognizes that Roland Kelly quietly promotes free and spirited debate, while always maintaining the highest commitment to integrity and respect, so that the overall welfare of all of our citizens would be addressed and enhanced; and WHEREAS, under Council President Kelly's leadership each item filed with the City Clerk's Office in 2002 was carefully reviewed by proper Council Committee and each item had a proper public hearing before the Common Council, which resulted in the Council passing eighty-eight (88) ordinances and adopting ninety-one (91) resolutions last year. 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 South Bend, Indiana, the Common Council hereby publicly honors 2002 COUNCIL PRESIDENT ROLAND KELLY for his extraordinary talents and especially his commitment to the Council and the citizens of South Bend, as the Chief legislative officer of the City of South Bend, Indiana. Section II. The Common Council commends ROLAND KELLY for always having an open door, for his thoughtful guidance, his kind manner and ready smile, which he always provides whether it be in his Notre Dame green painted Council office or when mentoring others while wearing his many Notre Dame ties, blazers or jackets of his alma mater Du Lac. Section III. The Council wishes Roland Kelly and his wife, Joyce, the very best as he embarks upon re-election as the Third District Council Member; and a rich, rewarding and memorable new year which will be filled with family, friends and Note Dame victories. Section IV. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. , s/James Aranowski, First District s/Charlotte Pfeifer, Second District s/Karl King, Fourth District s/David Varner, Fifth District ATTEST: s/Loretta J. Duda, City Clerk s/Ervin Kuspa, Sixth District s/Sean Coleman, At Large s/Al `Buddy" Kirsits, At Large s/Karen L. White, At Large s/Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney s/Stephen J. Luecke, Mayor E I Councilmember Pfeifer, Second District, made the presentation for this Resolution by reading it in its entirety and presenting it to Councilmember Kelly. Council President White presented Councilmember Kelly with a token of the Council's appreciation for his service. REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 RESOLUTION NO. 3145-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMEMORATING THE COUNTLESS CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR COMMUNITY BY THE LATE JUDGE WILLIAM A. HOSINSKI WHEREAS, the residents of the City of South Bend and St. Joseph County, Indiana are deeply saddened by the untimely passing of community leader and public servant William A. Hosinski; WHEREAS, the Common Council recognizes that William A. Hosinski was born on the 28th day of November, 1919, and was the son of Hattie H. Hosinski and the legendary William J. "Big Bill" Hosinski, who served as a police officer on the South Bend Police Department and was elected in 1936 as Sheriff of St. Joseph County, Indiana; and WHEREAS, the Common Council further recognizes that William A. Hosinski graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1940, and upon his graduation from the Notre Dame Law School in 1942, he immediately went on to serve his country as a member of the Untied Stated Army Air Corps during World War II; WHEREAS, William A. Hosinski, while in private law practice, served with distinction as an Assistant City Attorney for the City of South Bend for two (2) City Administrations and was President of the St. Joseph County Bar Association in 1964 and 1965; and WHEREAS, in 1971, William A. Hosinski was elected to be a St. Joseph County Superior Court Judge and served with distinction and integrity while administering a true sense of justice from the bench from 1972 until his retirement in 1987; when he and Martha Louise Hosinski, his wife of more than 58 years, began to enjoy more traveling and visiting friends and family both near and far. 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 South Bend, Indiana, the Common Council hereby publicly commemorates the late WILLIAM A. HOSINSKI for a life of dedicated public service and for leaving positive imprints throughout our community. Section II. The Common Council is indeed grateful to the late William A. Hosinski for leaving a rich legacy to those who serve in our legal community, and for leaving such wonderful memories to all he touched by his presence; which we hope will help brighten the years ahead for Martha Louise Hosinski and their five (5) children, sixteen (16) grandchildren and four (4) great- grandchildren. Section III. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/James Aranowski, First District s/Dr. David Varner, Fifth District s/Charlotte D. Pfeifer, Second District s/Ervin Kuspa, Sixth District REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 Councilmember Roland Kelly, Third District, made the presentation for this Resolution by reading it in its entirety and presenting it to members of the Hosinski family who joined him at the podium. Councilmember Coleman made a motion to adopt this Resolution by acclamation. Councilmember Aranowski seconded the motion which carried. ORDINANCE NO. 9347-02 PRESENTATION BY THE SOUTH BEND POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THE GANG LOITERING ORDINANCE Councilmember Pfeifer introduced Police Chief Tom Fautz, Assistant Chief Gary Horvath and Captain Wanda Shock. She noted that they have been working diligently with her, other members of the Council and the community over the past four (4) years to pass this loitering ordinance. She advised that Assistant Chief Horvath is prepared to present a power point presentation at this time to bring everyone up to date on the work that they have been doing in continuing the enforcement of this ordinance. Police Chief Thomas Fautz thanked the Council for providing them with a tool to deal with narcotic, gang and disruptive behavior in the neighborhoods. He stated that the more comfortable a criminal feels in any given neighborhood the bolder and more intimidating they become. This creates a sense of hopelessness for the residents of that neighborhood and erodes the clear confidence in the Police to protect them. While not a panacea, this ordinance is a step in the right direction toward the disruption and elimination of drug, gang and illegal activity. This ordinance will require a vital relationship between the neighborhoods, the public officials who are committed to developing new methods for dealing with crime and the police who must strive to create not tougher policing but smarter policing without infringing upon the rights of the citizens. Smarter policing can emerge when the police, elected officials and the public work together in new ways to solve the problems the community faces. Chief Fautz noted that the presentation will explain the implementation of the enforcement of this ordinance, the mechanics of how they will make all this happen and the role of an overview committee as they move toward their goal of safer neighborhoods and the improvement of the quality of life issues in the community. Division Chief Gary Horvath, South Bend Police Department, presented a twenty (20) minute power point presentation at this time. Chief Horvath's presentation consisted of discussion regarding the purpose and intent of the ordinance, various sections of the ordinance, the tasks of the Loitering Overview Committee, its membership, requirements and duties. Additionally, he discussed the proposed pilot program, law enforcement training and an overview of the penalties assessed for the various activities which are prohibited. Councilmember Pfeifer thanked Chief Horvath, Chief Fautz, Captain Shock and everyone who helped to increase the quality of life in South Bend. RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 7:40 p.m. Councilmember Coleman made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 for the hearings. The Committee operates in accord with the Council Rules and Procedures and Roberts Rules of Order and Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand serves as the Parliamentarian. The procedure for the Public Hearing for each bill is conducted as follows: 1. The title of the bill is read by the City Clerk. 2. Reports are presented from the pertinent Common Council Committee and/or the Area Plan Commission. 3. A formal presentation in favor of the bill which is not subject to a time limit is heard. 4. Comments are heard from members of the public who wish to speak in favor of the bill. Each such member is limited to five (5) minutes for his/her presentation and must begin by stating his/her name and residential address. 5. Any formal presentation against the bill or Resolution which is not subject to a time limitation is heard. 6. Comments are heard from any members of the public wishing to speak against the bill. Each member of the public speaking against the bill is limited to five (5) minutes for his/her presentation and must also begin by stating his/her name and residential address. With respect to those individuals speaking against, the total time for comments by members of the public speaking against the bill is the amount of time that was used by those speaking in favor of the bill or thirty (30) minutes whichever is greater. 7. A five (5) minute rebuttal period is allowed for the persons who gave the formal presentation in favor of the bill after which the public portion of the hearing is closed. Finally, the Council portion of the hearing takes place in which members will discuss the bill and vote on its disposition. Councilmember King noted that this evening there is one thing that the Council will do that is not part of the usual procedure. One of the bills coming before the Council tonight for ordinance consideration has to do with a change in the sewer rates. He further noted that there is a provision in the state law of Indiana that allows property owners who are connected to the municipal sewer system to object to an ordinance increasing or otherwise changing sewer rates. There are provisions in that state law which allow for the filing of a petition as well as the time frames involved. One of the provisions is that any person signing a petition for such an objection must have been present at the Public Hearing where the ordinance is passed which would be this evening if the Council passes the ordinance. Councilmember King noted that because there are probably many individuals present this evening who would want to have a record that they attended this hearing, Deputy City Clerk Janice Talboom has a sign in sheet which each of those present who wishes to have a record made that they attended this evening, is invited to come up and sign. Deputy Talboom will then certify that they have all signed this form and were present and it will become part of the Council's record in the event that anything unfolds in the future that requires proof of attendance. REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 BILL NO. 101-02 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE FIRST EAST -WEST ALLEY SOUTH OF JEFFERSON BLVD. BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND LAFAYETTE STREET & ALSO THE FIRST NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY WEST OF MAIN STREET RUNNING BETWEEN JEFFERSON BLVD. TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FIRST EAST -WEST ALLEY SOUTH OF JEFFERSON BLVD. Councilmember Aranowski made a motion that this bill be postponed until the January 27, 2003 meeting of the Council. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 95-02 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 8, SECTION 2-117 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SOUTH BEND COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR MILITARY TOUR OF DUTY Councilmember Aranowski reported that the Personnel & Finance Committee met on this bill and sends it to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Al `Buddy" Kirsits, At -Large, 722 Marquette Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Councilmember Kirsits stated that since the events of September 11, 2001, everyone's lives have changed. Many cities suddenly found themselves scrambling to come up with a policy concerning employees that are called to active duty. In the 1990's the country's military service was reduced in numbers relying more on a reserve and national guard structure. This has affected the City of South Bend and therefore he is pleased to introduce for consideration an ordinance that will clearly address this policy and spell out what the City of South Bend will do for its employees that may be called to active duty. It will: 1. Guarantee thirty (30) days of paid leave commencing with the day following his or her last day of active employment with the City. 2. Guarantee that the employee be paid on a regular bi-weekly paycheck from the City an amount equal to the difference between his or her current gross City wage and his or her gross military wage for active duty. 3. Guarantee that an increase in City wages for the position held by the employee activated to miliary duty be paid as though he or she had not been called to active duty. 1 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 Councilmember Kirsits noted that there are state and federal laws that govern this type of situation. In September of 2001, the City of Mishawaka adopted an ordinance concerning military leave policy and it is time the City of South Bend step forward and clearly state its position. Councilmember Kirsits noted that at the time this bill was being put together there were three (3) employees called to active duty and that number has increased. He read a brief letter from an anonymous City employee who indicated that he was embarrassed when he was called to active duty. He felt that he may have been an inconvenience to some people by being deployed to serve his country. He stated that he did not start this war and he did not think he would be where he was which was a dangerous place with a lot going on. However, he as well as all other City employees who still serve our country, appreciate the Council's efforts to help them. He noted that regardless of the outcome of the ordinance, they will continue to defend freedom so all families can rest easy every night. He thanked the Council for their support. Councilmember Kirsits noted that this ordinance will go a long way in supporting City employees that may be called to active duty in the future. At this time Councilmember Kirsits offered the following amendment: This ordinance will be retroactive to January 1, 2002. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand offered the following amendments: Section 2-117, Paragraph (a), Subparagraph two (2), the last sentence would read as follows: Each covered employee shall continue in such inactive status until the earlier of ninety (90) days after such time as he or she is released from active duty in good standing or the date of receiving written confirmation of said covered employee being deceased, and where applicable, the date on which he or she resumes active employment with the City of South Bend. In subparagraph three (3) strike the words honorably discharged from service and replace with released from active duty in good standing. On Page three (3) of the bill Section III would read: This ordinance shall be retroactive to January 1, 2002 and shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. Councilmember Kirsits added that some employees are actually making more money working for the military so this bill would not cost the City that much. In some cases, the City employee may be taking a pay cut and that is where the City will pick up the slack. Councilmember Coleman made a motion to accept the amendments as presented. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 BILL NO. 88-02 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 17-21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW SEWER RATES BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS Councilmember Kirsits advised that the Utilities Committee met this afternoon and sends substitute Bill No. 88-02 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. He noted that there was an addition as follows: Section II, Paragraph b: The sewage rates and charges set forth in the preceding section 17-21 shall be revised and adjusted for calendar year 2005 to assure adequacy in the cost of maintaining the City sewer works in sound physical and financial condition necessary to render adequate and effective service. However, until such adjustment, the sewage rates and charges in the preceding Section 17-21 shall remain in full force and effect. Discussions between the City Administration and the Common Council. concerning sewer rates for 2005 and thereafter shall commence by June, 2004. Furthermore, the Mayor and the Common Council will establish within sixty (60) days of the passage of this Ordinance an advisory committee, with both the Mayor and the Common Council having an equal right of appointment. The committee will be broadly representative of this community. The group will act as a sounding board to the management of the municipal wastewater utility and will offer advice on future rates to address CSO, storm water and other challenges for 2005 and beyond. The Mayor and Common Council retain ultimate authority and responsibility for the operations and finances of the Municipal Utilities. Mayor Stephen Luecke, no address given, made the presentation for this bill. Mayor Luecke advised that this substitute bill has been the result of many months of investigation, discussion and consideration and is based on the December 20th revised Cost of Service Study. It sets the rates for the municipal sewer utility for two (2) years and is based on cost of service principles. There has been public discussion which began last summer with introduction of the first bill and many areas of agreement were established. Mayor Luecke stated that he believes that everyone in this community wants the wastewater treatment plant and the sewer collection system to be an asset both for development as well as for environmental stewardship. The City wants to make sure that all the environmental standards set by the EPA and IDEM are met and it wants to keep the plant running efficiently and up to date. It was discovered during discussions that there were some areas of disagreement including how to pay for ongoing capital needs as well as how to spread the costs for maintaining and operating the wastewater treatment plant among customers. This bill was originally introduced as a four (4) year rate ordinance. Changes have been made in REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 Mayor Luecke advised that because this is,a two (2) year rate ordinance, the administration will come back in two (2) years to propose an additional increase to cover costs and operations of the wastewater treatment plant and sewage facility. He noted that he appreciates the amendment that calls for the establishment of an Advisory Committee and welcomes it being introduced into the bill. Mayor Luecke asked for the Council's favorable acceptance and action on this ordinance tonight. He noted that he believes that it is fair even though there are still big increases for some customers. It sets rates that are still competitive across the state. Mayor Luecke introduced Mr. John Skomp of Crowe Chizek who explained the technical aspects of the ordinance. Mr. John Skomp, Crowe, Chizek, no address given, advised that Crowe Chizek completed the Cost of Service Study for the South Bend municipal sewage works. It was completed earlier in the year and has been updated from time to time. The December 20, 2002 report is a complete report and is the one that has been used to derive the rates that are in the current ordinance. Mr. Skomp advised that many things are done in compiling a Cost of Service Study starting with taking a look at the utility's current financial condition. Exhibit A of the study is a balance sheet and shows the Utility Plant in Service at eighty-eight million dollars ($88,000,000.00). The City currently has two (2) bond issues outstanding on the sewage utility. One is a state revolving fund loan and the other is a loan that is done on the open market. The state Revolving Loan Fund was used in the past because of the 2.9% interest rate over a twenty (20) year period. Exhibit B of the report is an operating income statement. June 30, 2001 was used as the test year and this information has been updated from time to time and was used since the process began to try to establish what the rates were. The revenues and expenses for this test year were reviewed, and adjustments were made as indicated on Exhibit C to try to determine a normal year. Non -recurring events were taken out and adjustments were made for things that are known will occur in the future. As a normal year is determined, rates are set by taking out all the fluctuations in expenses from year to year. The revenues were found to be in line and stable but some adjustments were made to the expenses for payroll items and health insurance. The new utility receipts tax that has to be paid was looked at and adjustments were made for that. As those adjustments were made as far as expenses were concerned, revenue had to be brought in as well as capital improvements. Exhibit E is the utility's revenue requirement. The utility needs to bring in enough money for the expenses and other requirements. This is a cash in cash out type of situation. There are two (2) exceptions. In order to obtain the state Revolving Fund Loan at the low interest rate, the City is required to set aside money each year for an equipment replacement fund for any items that were purchased with those loan proceeds. The state will provide the low interest loan the first time but from then on they want the rates to accumulate enough money to be able to pay for that equipment when it comes to the end of its useful life. Accordingly, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) each year has to beset aside for the equipment replacement fund. The loanrequires that if money is spent out of that account it has be replaced into that fund within two (2) years. The interest rate is attractive at 2.9% but there are strings attached. Mr. Skomp stated that an ongoing capital improvement plan needs to be funded. Discussions have been held since the inception of this rate study and the introduction of the ordinance. He noted that REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 The revenue requirements page of the study indicates that the City needs approximately a twenty- four per cent (24%) increase in total revenues. The utility has two (2) choices. Per state statute the utility can increase its rates in one (1) or two (2) ways. It can do an across the board increase percentage which the courts have upheld since the original rates and rate structure was already in place and the new rates would be deemed then to be fair and equitable because each one was increased by the same percentage. The other option is to do a Cost of Service Study. The intent of that study is to look at who is causing costs on the system and try to develop a system of rates and charges making sure that those people who are causing the costs will pay for those services. Section III of the report looks at historical consumption and those types of things. In terms of consumption the industrial group has about the same amount of consumption each year as the residential group. However, there are about thirty-eight thousand (38,000) residential customers as noted on Exhibit H but only fifty-two (52) industrial customers. The sheets handed out at the committee meeting indicate that the revenues versus consumption characteristics of the classes were very similar except in the industrial class which showed that they really were not carrying the same load that the other classes were. That is one of the reasons it was decided to do a Cost of Service Study to shift some of the burden in the rates. You then start to allocate revenue requirements. The three (3) classes that were chosen are operation, maintenance and replacement, billing and collection and local capital. This study moves toward cost of service but will not take the City all the way to cost of service. In order to buffer the effect on some of the larger users instead of putting all of the collection system expenses onto a flow chart, half of those were allocated to the fixed meter charge. The same thing was done with the local capital which is normally a charge that is a flow based charge. Half of that expense was put onto the fixed monthly charge in order to buffer the effect for the larger customer. The development of the rates and charges starting on Exhibit J indicates that the study takes the allocated costs and divides those by the consumption to come up with an operation maintenance and replacement charge. Page 30 of the study indicates a billing charge per month and local capital is indicated on page 31. Those charges are then compiled on page 32 which is the proposed schedule of rates and charges which is the schedule that is in the ordinance. On page 35 the effect that this rate increase will have on users who use between one hundred (100) and two thousand (2,000) cubic feet per month is shown. Ninety-five per cent (95%) of the City's customers fall into this class. Ninety-five per cent ( 95%) of customers use less than two thousand (2,000) cubic feet per month, so this effect is on the majority of the customers. It is understood that some of the other businesses and larger customers have different effects. The separate pages that were handed out show analysis, in graph form, of the effect on the two (2) largest customers, I/N Tek and Notre Dame and the effect on the ten (10) largest customers. Councilmember Varner inquired about the five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) that is going into a sinking fund each year. Mr. Skomp advised that the sinking fund is created to retire the bonds. It is the equipment replacement fund that is budgeted at five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) a year. An annual depreciation cost or recovery charge is made on this same equipment. Mr. Skomp advised that the State of Indiana allows a utility to either set their rates based upon capital improvements or depreciation expense whichever is larger. The City of South Bend has chosen to use its capital improvements budget and not the depreciation expenses so it is Office of the City Clerk Loretta J. Duda, City Clerk CERTIFICATION CITY OF SOUTH BEND ) SS: COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH ) I, Janice Talboom, Deputy City Clerk, Office of the City Clerk, City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana, do hereby certify that the attached is the original Record of Persons Attending the Public Hearing Concerning Bill No. 88-02 Regarding New Sewer Rates, signed bytwenty-five (25) individuals in my presence on Monday, January 13, 2003, pursuant to I.C. 36-9-23-26.1. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal j of the City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana, this 14th day of January, 2003. _i Janice T oom Deputy City Clerk Office of the City Clerk City of South Bend 455 County -City Building • South Bend, Indiana 46601 •574/235-9221 • Fax 574/235-9173 • TDD 574/235-5567 Sandra Parmerlee Chief Deputy Janice Talboom Deputy Jennifer McCormick Ordinance Violation Clerk SOUTH BEND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING RECORD OF PERSONS ATTENDING PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BILL NO. 88-02 - NEW SEWER RATES JAN UARY 13, 2063 *PLEASE PRINT* *PLEASE PRINT* *PLEASE PRINT* NAME 2. LAP pis -"A - RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 4 5 RECORD OF PERSONS ATTENDING PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BILL NO. 88-02 - NEW SEWER RATES JAN UARY 13, 2003 *PLEASE PRINT* *PLEASE PRINT* *PLEASE PRINT* NAME 7. 8. RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS i So/ 5. 1,o- She c- 9. any O 10. �i3 c CP, �v'^� i N �ZO33 RECORD OF PERSONS ATTENDING PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BILL NO. 88-02 - NEW SEWER RATES JAN UARY 13, 2003 *PLEASE PRINT* *PLEASE PRINT* *PLEASE PRINT* NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 11. A L W � .��v Jdr-v #d 4 � Au,,-,l S1,06q L3J(�x p6l'i Y->" - Y6s36 13. 4. ,49e,p 049-r IJ AdT/ 15. e �r2 S � v22S- t v�-4 c rry (AJ Y6 GI 6 RECORD OF PERSONS ATTENDING PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BILL NO. 88-02 - NEW SEWER RATES JAN UARY 13, 2003 *PLEASE PRINT* *PLEASE PRINT* *PLEASE PRINT* NAME 16. ��h7 17 18. 4ivy✓ 0,4K11 -)1— OeAe./-- s,�! 19. 20.u�� V-� act Y Sfl-j RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 6ILV �c-�, V RECORD OF PERSONS ATTENDING PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BILL NO. 88-02 - NEW SEWER RATES JANUARY 13, 2003 *PLEASE PRINT* *PLEASE PRINT* *PLEASE PRINT* NAME 21 22. �ZS»� �rz:wvi 23. oc c s ev 24. GZ Ce �t rt a/ 25. o�✓ RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS �A-'\V, G-)F AW-re f ��) �4u 7 IdLV � . D-N '5(s, 4�(-s-7 § Fyn J�ll �� �� REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 that it is not. He stated that if you look at the capital improvement plan where the City will spend money for a specific project and fund some of those projects with debt and plan to buy and pay for future improvements that is what the rates are set on. The state allows the City to do so but that is not being done even though the state allows the City to fund its deprecation expense if it so chooses. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand indicated that the December 20, 2002 Cost of Service Study does not contain Exhibit F and asked Mr. Skomp if the Council has a complete document. Mr. Skomp advised that during revisions a lot of schedules were dropped out and he does not have an Exhibit F either. At this time, Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to affirm that the Council is acting on the most recent substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Coleman seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember King advised that there is a time limit on public comment. Each speaker is allowed five (5) minutes. Those individuals in favor of the bill will speak first. The total amount of time taken by those individuals will be the limit for the total amount of time available for those who are speaking against the bill unless those speaking in favor consume less than thirty (30) minutes in which case the total amount of time for those speaking against the bill will be thirty (30) minutes. Councilmember Aranowski volunteered to be the time keeper for this portion of the meeting. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. The following individuals spoke in favor of this bill: Mr. Don Brubaker, 1706 Anderson, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he was glad to hear about the decision to raise the sewer rates because environmentally speaking it is not a good situation in South Bend. On rainy days there are spikes of E-coli and other pollutants. Mr. Brubaker indicated that he hopes this increase is enough to deal with the CSO problem. He estimated that the City has approximately thirty-nine (39) CSO's registered with IDEM. He noted that it is his hope that the high end users would take a more positive and more generous approach to the community. Mr. Tom Brown,1213 Humbolt, South Bend, Indiana, advised that he thinks the City and Common Council are headed in the right direction. As an environmentalist he knows that human behavior can be changed if human beings have some way of judging the impact of their behavior on other people and the environment. One of the ways is through water rates. By going to a cost of service way of billing, those who use the most water will feel the same pain as the rest of the users. He noted that for the past fifteen (15) years the commercial and industrial users have been getting a substantial subsidy from the residential rate payers in the City. He stated that he believes the City is headed in the right direction. He noted that he is concerned with the CSO issues which it looks like will be put off until 2005. Mr. Brown indicated that he has not heard about the impact of this rate increase on fixed incomes and asked what that impact might be. There was no one else present wishing to speak in favor of this bill. Councilmember Aranowski advised that individuals who spoke in favor of this bill consumed seven REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 noted that the entire initial proposed sewage rate increase recommended by Crowe Chizek provided a framework for a much needed rate increase that would facilitate both the equal sharing of the cost of fixing the CSO problem and an equitable cost sharing for all entities utilizing the sewer system. The changes in the proposed amendment tonight are in response to pressure by large users. The proposed amendment and ordinance rate schedule on the table tonight compromises the much needed rate increases and shifts the short term liability for the infrastructure improvements and it allows zero dollars to address the CSO issue. Mr. Kaiser stated that if the Council votes for this bill they will have sold out the citizenry at the request of the special interests. He noted that the stink raised by large users has not gone unnoticed by the citizenry. However, the stink in the river remains. The reaction by the Council to special interests has also not gone unnoticed and the Council has forgotten the citizens. The Crowe Chizek study is being ignored and amended to allow for short term increases that provide zero dollars for the CSO issue. In the December 20th study, there was an allotment of $1.5 million a year to address this CSO problem. The alternative being banded about is a bond issue or a loan to provide dollars for capital improvement when there is a structure that is reasonable and fair to provide those dollars without having to borrow the money. Mr. Kaiser strongly recommended that the Council defeat this proposed ordinance and reintroduce and approve the ordinance as it was originally written. He stated that that is the only equitable solution to the CSO and infrastructure problems facing the City and is fair to everyone who utilizes a system and benefits from a clean river. Ms. Roxanne Lauer, Chief Financial Officer, Honeywell Aircraft Landing Systems, no address given, advised that Honeywell recognizes the need for some sort of increase. However, they are opposed to the process as well as the methodology that has been used to determine the amount of increases for the various businesses. She noted that they are a business that has been significantly impacted by the September I Ith events. Their primary customers are the airlines and price is a huge consideration iri the arena in which they play. They cannot turn around and pass along price cost increases to their customers. They have to find a methodology or some place else to take them out in order to remain competitive. Therefore, they request a more equitable way to apportion the increase. The other issue they take exception to is the process. She noted that they were given documentation last Friday that showed that they could expect about a fifty-six per cent (56%) increase. Less than two (2) hours ago they were given another document that shows a sixty-six per cent (66% ) increase. She further noted that they need time to look at and understand exactly what the impact is going to be to their business now and on a go forward basis. Therefore, Honeywell respectfully requested that the vote be postponed so that the Council has the opportunity to look for other methods to apportion the increase and to also help them better understand what the impact is going to be to their business. Ms. Judith Johns, 1069 Riverside Drive, South Bend, Indiana, advised that Holy Cross Service Corporation is actually St. Mary's campus, a college for women that is suffering from decreased enrollment due to the economy. She noted that Holy Cross Service Corporation is an organization run by the Sisters of the Holy Cross where the average age is over eighty-five (85) years. These sisters have no income because they are not out in the workforce. She noted that they believe that the system needs improvement and are supportive of a raise in rates. However, their rates will be raised by seventy five per cent (75%). Ms. Johns inquired how this rate increase will affect retired people on fixed incomes who may live at retirement communities. She noted that one of the major goals of Holy Cross Service Corporation is the improvement of the environment. However, they have just had a massive layoff in order to cut their expenses because of the lack of income since the . REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 occurs before the Council is asked to vote on the ordinance. He noted that Council President White previously indicated her desire for a similar undertaking. Mr. Nielson asked the Council, before they vote tonight, to please give consideration one more time to the possibility, not of delaying further, because they are sensitive to the need that the administration has to get revenues and move ahead with plans and to progress but to consider the adoption of a flat twenty-four per cent (24%) rate increase for all the customers that are served. That would provide the monies that are necessary for the administration and would also provide the opportunity for the dialogue and the investigation that has not yet taken place. Mr. Nielson stated that he understands that based on documentation provided to the local newspaper, for the average residential customer, the average monthly rate would rise from thirteen dollars and eight cents ($13.08) a month to fourteen dollars and ninety-nine cents ($14.99). That seems to be corrected by the Cost of Service Study, Schedule M2, which indicates that the rise would be from thirteen dollars and eight cents ($13.08) to fifteen dollars and sixty-seven cents ($15.67) the difference between the reporting and the schedule being sixty-eight cents ($.68). Mr. Nielson noted that their observation of the amount of change in the event that the Council was to invoke the twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board flat increase would be a monthly rate for homeowners of sixteen dollars and twenty-two cents ($16.22) which is fifty-five cents ( $.55) more per month than is contemplated in schedule M2 of the Cost of Service Study. He noted that they believe that most concerned consumers would be willing to brook that disparity in order to have a more in depth discussion of the issues. Mr. Jim Robinson, Group Vice -President, Aramark Uniform Services, 3701 Progress, South Bend, Indiana, stated that one of the issues they have is that they have had very little involvement or participation in this matter. He noted that they are listed as the number nine (9) water user on the list. He further noted that it puts them in a tough situation to be able to analyze data in such a short period of time. In 2001 Aramark made a six hundred thousand dollar ($600,000.00) improvement to their own wastewater treatment facility to be a better community partner. They are sensitive to the needs of the City for an increase and will support an increase that they can participate in and have a debate over. The issue they have is trying to recover from a fourteen (14) year period of no increase with a seventy per cent (70%) increase to them in these kinds of economic conditions. Mr. Robinson stated that they employ over one hundred sixty (160) employees and have gone through a lot of layoffs. They support a twenty-four per cent (24%) flat across the board increase without changing the structure. He indicated that he hoped the Council would vote against the bill proposed this evening so they can come back as a group in two years and get everyone to participate and feel better about this increase. Mr. Robert L. Miller, Sr., 17526 Douglas Road, Lot 9, South Bend, Indiana, advised that he represents Mr. Charlie Landesman and Mr. Wylie Wright and they vote no to this bill. Mr. Miller noted that Mr. Skomp stated that it is legal to go across the board as the Supreme Court has so ruled and that the rates proposed are presumed to be just and reasonable. Then a twenty four percent (24%) rate across the board would be the same. He noted that would settle it for all the people. He further noted that it is his understanding that that would raise the individual customer by about fifty- five cents ($.55) a month. As a matter of social justice, Mr. Miller stated that there are individuals on fixed incomes but there are also people working for these businesses to which the City is throwing the increased burden. Mr. Miller noted that he does not thoroughly understand all the REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 (24%) across the board raise which will yield the same amount of money for two (2) years and they can then counter again after that two (2) years. Ms. Kathleen Kaiser, 51840 West Gatehouse Drive, South Bend, Indiana, informed the Council that the St. Joseph River is a dirty river due to the fact that the wastewater treatment facility dumps raw sewage into the river every time there is a half inch of rain. She noted that the Cost of Service Study recommended a rate increase for the maintenance of the water treatment facility and funds to address the CSO issues. The biggest users are going to face the biggest increase. The ordinance presented tonight is a concession to the big users and transfers their share of the increase to a bond revenue. This is fiscally irresponsible and unfair to the average taxpayer. Worst of all, it is ecologically shortsighted because it does not address the CSO issues. Ms. Kaiser asked that the Council accept the rate structure that Crowe Chizek initially came up with in the interest of fairness to all and its responsibility to be good stewards of the St. Joseph River. Mr. Mark Lorenz, 2607 Winding Oak Drive, Plymouth, Indiana, Vice -President- Support Services, St. Joseph Regional Medical Center with hospitals located in Plymouth, Mishawaka and South Bend stated that everyone has seen the news stories about the need for the increase in rates after a fourteen (14) year period of no rate adjustment. He asked the Council to vote noon this particular bill as they have not had sufficient time to take a look at it and the various rates presented. Mr. Lorenz noted that they believe it would increase their rates by fifty-three per cent (53%). This would result in them either needing a reduction in other costs or increasing their prices the same as other businesses. This increase will have similar effects on other health care organizations, academic institutions and the business community at large. One thing that they all abhor is instability. They need to be able to predict and plan. While they compliment the Mayor and the Council for this alternative bill, they need additional time to study its impact. They also need to make sure that this alternative would address the ecological problems that were attempted to be solved in the first place. They simply do not know what impact this bill will have to solve those problems because they have not had sufficient time to analyze the information. Mr. Mark Eagan, President, Chamber of Commerce, 401 East Colfax Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, noted that the Chamber represents organizations that are area businesses that employee ninety six thousand (96,000) people who live and pay taxes in this community. Working people are not part of a special interest group and everyone is affected by the issue being discussed. The issue is complex and the efforts of the Council and the Mayor to look toward a better solution is appreciated but the best solution has not yet been found. Mr. Eagan stated that the Chamber endorses the twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board adjustment and encourages that within the next sixty (60) days that the group being put together look at the long term solutions. He noted that they realize that the cost of living in the community increases and they are not opposed to that. However, because of the length of time that has passed since the last increase, to try to make that all up in a recessionary economy will not be a win for anyone. Mr. Eagan encouraged the City to continue to be progressive and to involve all citizens. He noted that an earlier presentation on the issue of gangs was addressed and the community saw how much research and community involvement went into that issue and encouraged the Council to take that same kind of approach with this issue. There was no one else present wishing to speak in opposition to this bill. In rebuttal, Mayor Luecke thanked the Council for their time and energy in participating in these 0 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 (14) years at one time because of adjustments that have been made. Nevertheless, they feel that the rate structure that is proposed is fair for customers and keeps the City in a competitive position when compared to other communities, not just in Indiana but across the Midwest. Mayor Luecke thanked the Council for their attention and asked for their favorable consideration of this bill. Councilmember Varner noted that everyone seems to agree that by and large the costs of operation have been met on a continuing basis. He further noted that he believes there is universal agreement that consideration to the environment has to be taken into account and answered in a measured way. He stated that there has been a lot of reference to the large users but no one should lose sight of the fact that they are also large employers. Councilmember Varner stated that this issue comes down to a matter of perspective. One of the areas of disagreement is the fifty per cent (50%) surcharge for out of City users. He stated that he does not absolutely disagree with the fifty per cent (50%) surcharge but the idea of this increase all at once is something that he knows the City would disagree if it were to happen to them. The second area of disagreement appears to be the functional change in the rate structure that has been proposed. Mr. Skomp has done a great job of explaining the numbers. However, this is one (1) perspective on the issue as the City sees it. Councilmember Varner stated that he believes that the purpose of the advisory committee should be to determine what the appropriate structure should be as there is more than one (1) way to calculate a rate structure. Once the full perspective, as opposed to a unilateral one, is offered, he believes that the Council can make better decisions for everybody. With that in mind, Councilmember Varner encouraged the Council to consider the flat twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board two (2) year rate structure consistent with the existing rate structure and not adopting a new one. He noted that if the Council adopts the ordinance tonight as it is proposed whether they like the absolute numbers or not the fact of the matter remains that they will have made a fundamental change in the adoption of the rate structure. He believes it deserves a great deal more study and consideration and certainly deserves an opportunity for the Council to hear other sides to this issue. Councilmember Varner stated that after the comment session he would like to make a motion. Councilmember Kelly stated that he is not an accountant and the figures presented are hard to work out in his own mind. He noted that an across the board increase is being talked about which would amount to a fifty five cent ($.55) increase to residential users in their monthly bill. Councilmember Kelly asked for clarification on that issue. In response, Mr. Skomp noted that he was not sure how the fifty-five cent ($.55) was derived. He noted that someone using one hundred (100) cubic feet would see a three dollar ($3.00) increase in their monthly bill over the proposal so perhaps they are talking about an average. But even at the average it would probably be about one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) or more so than the proposal. Mayor Luecke stated that using the typical residential user at seven hundred (700) cubic feet, the proposal would have that customer paying fifteen dollars and sixty-seven ($15.67) a month. An across the board increase would make that sixteen dollars and twenty-two cents ($16.22) so it is fifty-five cents ($.55) above the proposal. It is three dollars and fourteen cents ($3.14) above what that customer is currently paying. Mr. Skomp stated that on Page 35 of the Cost of Service Study you can see that it will vary. However, the lower end customer is going to see a much greater increase. Councilmember Kelly commented that perhaps the twenty- four per cent (24%) across the board increase for everyone might be the way to go as he does not feel that this would be a major hit to the residential customer. Councilmember White noted that she raised the question earlier about the impact an across the board increase would have on the total plant operation and the service community as well and asked REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 Luecke noted that they have presented a proposal based on cost of service that says you should pay for what you use and that is the principle that they think is understandable and fair to the customers and that is what he is asking the Council to support tonight. In terms of dollars raised, either the current proposal or a twenty-four per cent (24% ) across the board proposal would raise the same amount of dollars during the next two (2) years. Councilmember Aranowski asked how much language change would be needed to the ordinance if the Council considered a twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board rate increase and whether it could be done tonight. Chief Assistant City Attorney Aladean DeRose stated that it would be her opinion that if the Council were to consider a twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board increase then they would need a new bill that would have to be noticed to all customers because it might increase rates for some of the lower users and it would affect the rates based on those rates that are in the current substitute bill. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that it is her understanding that the only bill published was the original version. Chief Assistant City Attorney Aladean DeRose noted that the Pubic Hearing was based on the substitute ordinance with the cost of service increase. Attorney Cekanski-Farrand noted that any amendments to the bill would be possible tonight as long as the rates do not go above what was legally advertised. Attorney DeRose noted that that is correct. However, it is the City's opinion that the rates for some of the lower users would increase as a result of a twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board increase. Councilmember White asked Attorney DeRose to speak to the time frame if the Council were to move toward a twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board rate increase and the impact it would have on the administration. Attorney DeRose advised that the bill would have to be renoticed through two (2) publications. With the time involved for those two (2) publications, the bill would have a February passage date. She noted that each month that revenue is lost, the City loses around two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00). This type of delay would affect the revenue and would impact the budget. Councilmember Pfeifer asked the Mayor to speak to the issue of CSO's as she has heard a lot of different opinions on this issue. Additionally, she asked to what degree the original bill addressed the issue and to what degree this substitute bill does. Mayor Luecke advised that the CSO issue is still being addressed in the same manner as originally proposed. He noted that a long term control plan has been developed that they are not fully funding through either the original proposal or this substitute proposal. The capital in this proposal would allow for one and one half million dollars a year toward the issues which could include such things as better controls on the retention ponds so that when it rains water is pooled in those retention ponds until the bulk of the flow has passed through the plant and then allow that water to come into the plant when it can flow through rather than overflowing the system. It could also include things such as having the University of Notre Dame replace a section of their sewage pipe in which the City could participate in terms of making that connection closer to the plant so that flow no longer has to go past three CSO's. He noted that there is some work that would be able to happen but it does not address the full issue of combined sewers in the community. Councilmember Pfeifer restated REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 substitute ordinance. She further noted that with a twenty-four per cent (24%) increase across the board the rate will increase for the lower household users and because of that the customers need to be renotified. Attorney DeRose confirmed that this substitute bill was readvertised and renotified even though it was not necessary because the rates in fact were across the board lower for all. Councilmember Varner inquired if the item for consideration was the proposed bill and whether a motion has been made on that bill for consideration. Attorney Cekanski-Farrand stated that was correct and that what the Council has before them is the most recent substitute bill which was filed with the Council by the administration at 6:30 p.m. this evening. Councilmember Varner asked if this bill must be disposed of or can it be withdrawn. Attorney Cekanski-Farrand noted that the administration always has the right to withdraw. Councilmember Varner then stated that the Council is then waiting for a motion on the disposition of this bill. Councilmember King noted that he has not heard anything about a withdrawal. Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to send this bill to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Kirsits seconded the motion. Councilmember King stated that there has been a motion and a second to send Substitute Bill No. 88-02 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. The motion carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes and one (1) nay by Councilmember Varner. RISE AND REPORT Councilmember Coleman made motion to rise and report to the full Council. Councilmember Kuspa seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. ATTEST: oretta, . da, ity Clerk REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County -City Building at 9:13 p.m. Council President Karen L. White presided with nine (9) members present. BILLS - THIRD READING ORDINANCE NO. 93 86-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 8, SECTION 2-117 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SOUTH BEND COMMONLY -_ ... � --. .-. ter. • rIYT1TlYT TILT REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 ORDINANCENO. 9387-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 17-21, AND SECTION 17-25 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW SEWER RATES This bill had third reading. Councilmember Coleman made a motion to consider the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Kirsits seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine(9)ayes. Additionally, Councilmember King made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember Kirsits seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes and one (1) nay by Councilmember Varner. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 3146-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING A PETITION OF THE SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 & 209 SOUTH CHAPIN STREET, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.6, requires the Common Council to give notice pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, of its intention to consider petitions from the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Common Council must take action within thirty (30) days after the Board of Zoning Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing on such requests pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.4; and WHEREAS, the South Bend Board of Zoning Appeals has made a recommendation, pursuant to applicable state law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the petition from the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, requesting that a special exception be granted for the property located at 201 & 209 South Chapin Street, South Bend, Indiana 46601 in order to permit the A residential dwelling unit (i.e. residential use) within a "C" Commercial Zoning District classification. REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the special exception will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; The need for the special exception arises from specific conditions peculiar to the property involved; 4. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which this special exception is sought; and 5. The approval does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City of South Bend. SECTION V. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/Karen L. White Member of the Common Council Councilmember Kuspa reported that the Zoning & Annexation Committee held a meeting this afternoon and this bill comes to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Donald F. Fozo, Building Commissioner, Building Department, 205 West Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana, advised that the Board of Zoning Appeals heard this petition at its December 19, 2002 meeting and sends it to the Council with a favorable recommendation. This petition is to allow a combined use within a commercial zoned piece of property. It will be used for an office and a residence. Mr. Mike Danch, Danch, Hamer & Associates, Inc., 2422 Viridian Drive, Suite 201, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill, representing the Petitioners and the Contingent Purchaser. Mr. Danch stated that the Petitioners are asking for this Special Exception to use a portion of the property located on Chapin Street for residential purposes. The existing houses on the corner of Thomas and Chapin Street are zoned "C" Commercial and the Contingent Purchasers would like to use the north structure as their residence and the south structure as their office and in order to do that this Special Exception is required. The Contingent Purchasers would like to purchase both of these structures but the only way to do that, in this particular case, is to have the Special Exception approved. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Coleman made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 Due to the absence of a Petitioner, Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to table this bill until the end of the Resolution portion of the agenda. Councilmember King seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 03-02 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1850 NORTH SHERIDAN AVENUE TO BE AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A FIVE (5) YEAR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR ADVANTAGE PUCK TECHNOLOGIES Due to the absence of a Petitioner, Councilmember Aranowski made a motion to table this bill until the end of the Resolution portion of the agenda. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 3147-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS LOT NUMBERS 100 THROUGH 129 ROYAL OAK ESTATES SUBDIVISION, SECTION 2 AS A RESIDENTIALLY DISTRESSED AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A FIVE (5) YEAR RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR D & H HOME BUILDERS, INC. WHEREAS, a Statement ofBenefits and apetition forresidential real property tax abatement has been submitted to and filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana requesting that the area commonly known as Lots 100 through 129 Royal Oak Estates Subdivision, Section 2, South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows: Street Address Legal Description 747 Pulling St. Lot 100 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 765 Pulling St. Lot 101 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 773 Pulling St. Lot 102 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 797 Pulling St. Lot 103 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 805 Pulling St. Lot 104 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 or 6027 Boxwood Dr. East (corner lot) 6009 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 105 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 5919 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 106 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 5903 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 107 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 5859 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 108 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 5843 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 109 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 Key Number 23-1018-038157 23-1018-038158 23-1018-038159 23-1018-038160 23-1018-038161 23-1018-038162 23-1018-038163 23-1018-038164 23-1018-038165 23-1018-038166 1 0 REGULAR MEETING 5906 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 118 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 5920 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 119 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 5934 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 120 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 6002 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 121 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 6014 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 122 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 6032 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 123 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 6046 Boxwood Dr. East Lot 124 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 or 6046 Carl Avenue (corner lot) 6045 Carl Avenue Lot 125 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 808 Pulling Street Lot 126 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 788 Pulling Street Lot 127 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 764 Pulling Street Lot 128 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 742 Pulling Street Lot 129 Royal Oak Estates, Section 2 JANUARY 13, 2003 23-1018-038175 23-1018-038176 23-1018-038177 23-1018-038178 23-1018-038179 23-1018-038180 23-1018-038181 23-1018-038182 23-1018-038183 23-1018-038184 23-1018-038185 23-1018-038186 be designated as a Residentially Distressed Area under the provisions of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et sea., and South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76 et seq., and; WHEREAS, the Department of Community and Economic Development has concluded an investigation and prepared a report with information sufficient for the Common Council to determine that the area qualifies as a Residentially Distressed Area under Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1, et seq., and South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76, et seq., and has further prepared maps and plats showing the boundaries and such other information regarding the area in question as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Community and Economic Development Committee of the Common Council has reviewed said report and recommended to the Common Council that the area qualifies as a Residentially Distressed Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the petition for real property tax abatement and the Statement of Benefits form meet the requirements of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., for tax abatement. SECTION II. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the area meets one of the following conditions as formally established in Ordinance no. 8845-97, which was passed on December 8, 1997: A. The area is comprised of parcels that are either unimproved or contain only one (1) or two (2) family dwellings designed for up to four (4) families, including accessory buildings for those dwellings; or B. Any dwellings in the area are not permanently occupied and are: i. the subject of an order issued under IC 36-7-9; or ii. evidencing significant building deficiencies; or C. Parcels of property in the area: i. have been sold and not redeemed under IC 6-1.1-24 and IC 6-1.1-25; or REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 the areas are owned by Indiana or the United States; or G. The area (plus any areas previously designated under this subsection) will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total area within the Council's jurisdiction. SECTION III. The Common Council also hereby determines and finds the following: A. That the description of the proposed redevelopment meets the applicable standards for such development. B. That the estimate of the value of the redevelopment is reasonable for projects of this nature; C. That the other benefits about which information was requested are benefits that can be reasonably expected to result from the proposed described redevelopment; and D. That the totality of benefits is sufficient to justify the requested deduction, all of which satisfy the requirements of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-3. E. The deduction will not be allowed unless the dwelling is rehabilitated to meet local code standards for habitability. F. The deduction will not be allowed unless the dwelling rehabilitation is completed within five (5) calendar years from the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION IV. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed described redevelopment can be reasonably expected to yield benefits identified in the Statement of Benefits and the petition for real property tax abatement consideration and that the Statement of Benefits form prescribed by the State Board of Accounts are sufficient to justify the deduction granted under Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-3. SECTION V. The Common Council hereby accepts the report and recommendation of the Community and Economic Development Committee that the area herein described be designated as a Residentially Distressed Area and hereby adopts a Resolution designating this area as a Residentially Distressed Area for purposes of real property tax abatement. SECTION VI. The designation as a Residentially Distressed Area shall be limited to five (5) calendar years from the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION VII. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for and is granted property tax deduction for a period of five (5) years. SECTION VIII. The Common Council directs the City Clerk to cause notice of the adoption of this Declaratory Resolution for Real Property Tax Abatement to be published pursuant to Indiana Code 5-3-1 and Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-2.5, said publication providing notice of the public hearing before the Common Council on the proposed confirming of said declaration. SECTION IX. Pursuant to Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-2, the rehabilitation must meet all local code standards for habitability as a specific condition of having such property be designated as a residentially distressed area. SECTION X. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by 0 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 Mr. Bernard Feeney, Registered Land Surveyor, 715 South Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill on behalf of D & H Home Builders, Inc., the developers of the Royal Oak Estates Subdivision. Mr. Feeney noted that this tax abatement is requested for a thirty (30) lot addition to the existing Royal Oak Estates. These lots will average approximately one hundred eighty thousand ($180,000.00) each when fully developed contributing an additional $5.4 estimated tax base to the City of South Bend. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Coleman made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 3148-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING THE FIVE YEAR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH ST. JOSEPH COUNTY CONCERNING EMS SERVICES FOR THE YEARS 2003 - 2007 WHEREAS, the City of South Bend, Indiana, has a long and successful history of providing emergency medical services to its residents; and WHEREAS, St. Joseph County, Indiana, wishes to provide the very best emergency medical services to its residents and feels that this can be provided by the City of South Bend; and WHEREAS, I.C. 36-1-7, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, authorizes one or more governmental entities to exercise jointly or by one entity on behalf of the other powers that may be exercised by such units severally; and WHEREAS, commencing in December 1997, the City of South Bend has provided emergency medical services for St. Joseph County under Interlocal Agreement. The parties wish to continue that relationship; and WHEREAS, the Executives of both the City of South Bend and St. Joseph County have reached an agreement on this payment and have approved the Five Year Interlocal Agreement Concerning EMS Services attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, AND PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, UNDER I.C. 36-1-7, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Common Council ofthe City of South Bend, Indiana, has considered and hereby approves and ratifies the Five Year Interlocal Agreement Concerning EMS Services for the REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 Councilmember Kelly reported that the Health and Public Safety Committee met on this bill and sends it to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Thomas Bodnar, City Attorney's Office, residing at 1618 East LaSalle Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this Resolution. Mr. Bodnar advised that he is presenting this Resolution on behalf of the Fire Department. He noted that the City entered into an interim Interlocal Agreement five and one-half (5 1/2) years ago with the County and then a five (5) year agreement which is now expired. This is a new five (5) year agreement. He noted that it has been a win -win situation on what is essentially a net -net agreement. It will pass along all costs reasonably associated with it and it is a flexible agreement. After two (2) years the City will revisit the Agreement and incorporate increased costs and labor costs. He noted that while the City can project these costs for this year and next, that will be the end of the current CBA with the Fire Department Union. They have built in this ability as well as the flexibility to deal with the situation to move one (1) of the county ambulances currently housed at the City's fire houses to some other location. On behalf of Chief Taylor and the Fire Department, Mr. Bodnar asked for the Council's approval. Councilmember Kirsits noted that Article 11 indicates that in addition to the monies mentioned in Paragraph 6, St. Joseph County shall reimburse South Bend for all overtime costs incurred by South Bend arising out of the pregnancy of any female firefighter regularly assigned to an ambulance covered by this agreement. Councilmember Kirsits noted that sometimes those paramedics are sometimes transferred from City ambulances to County ambulances and he asked what weight this has. Deputy City Attorney Bodnar replied that this particular paragraph was in the last agreement and has never had to be invoked. He stated that he does not believe the City has any intent of invoking it at any time now but he does understand that there is a pregnant firefighter but she is not assigned to an ambulance. 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. Councilmember Kirsits advised that he is a member of the South Bend Fire Department but on the advice of the Council Attorney, he will not be violating any state statute by voting on this bill. Councilmember Kirsits made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 3149-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE INDIANA COMMISSION ON COMMUNITY SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM FOR AN AMERICORPS GRANT ■ REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 SECTION I. That the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana, is hereby authorized to submit a grant application, up to the maximum amount of $385,000, to the Indiana Commission on Community Service and Volunteerism AmeriCorps Grant. SECTION II. That the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana, shall file with the Common Council a complete copy of the AmeriCorps Grant application to be submitted by the Mayor to the Indiana Commission on Community Service and Volunteerism. SECTION III. That for every activity, proj ect, or program to be funded under this resolution, the Mayor shall submit to the Common Council an appropriation ordinance prior to expenditure of any funds received from the Indiana Commission on Community Service and Volunteerism as a result of this application. SECTION IV. That the Mayor shall be authorized to accept and affirm the grant should it be awarded. SECTION V. That the City of South Bend, Department of Community and Economic Development be designated as the agency and office administering on behalf of the City of South Bend any grant awarded under this application. SECTION VI. That this resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/Karen L. White Member of the Common Council Councilmember King reported that the Community and Economic Development Committee held a Public Hearing on this bill and voted to send it to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Beth Leonard, Department of Community and Economic Development, no address given, made the presentation for this bill. Ms. Leonard noted that this Resolution will allow the City to apply for an AmeriCorps Grant through the State's Community Service and Volunteerism Program. If this grant is awarded, it will be the third year that the City will be the administrator of this program. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Coleman made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember King seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 3150-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, EXPRESSING ITS INTEREST IN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY 201 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 Lots Numbered One (1), Two (2), Three (3) and Four (4) in block numbered Three (3) as shown on the Recorded Plat of William S. Vail's Addition to the town, now city, of South Bend. WHEREAS, the Real Property is desired for the purpose of conveyance to a not -for -profit social service agency which is qualified under Section 501(C) of the Internal Revenue Code; and WHEREAS, the State of Indiana is interested in selling said Real Property; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: Section I. The Board of Public Works is authorized and directed to appoint two (2) appraisers to appraise the fair market value of the Real Property. Section II. The Board of Public Works shall give a copy of both appraisals to the Common Council. Section III. The Board of Public Works may not purchase the Real Property for a price greater than the average of the two appraisals. Section IV. The Board of Public Works may not dispose of the Real Property for less than the purchase price. s/Karen L. White Member, South Bend Common Council Councilmember Varner reported that the Public Works and Property Vacation Committee met on this bill and sends it to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Bob Case, Community and Economic Development, 12th Floor, County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this Resolution. Mr. Case advised that occasionally the City has the opportunity to work with the State on their surplus property and what makes this situation unique is that the City also has the opportunity to work for a local not -for -profit social service agency. He asked that the Council approve this Resolution which will allow the City the opportunity to acquire this property and eventually transfer it over to the not -for- profit agency. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Coleman made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Pfeifer seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 03-01 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A 0 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 BILL NO. 03-02 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1850 NORTH SHERIDAN AVENUE TO BE AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A FIVE (5) YEAR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR ADVANTAGE PUCK TECHNOLOGIES Due to the lack of a Petitioner, Councilmember Coleman made a motion that these Resolutions be continued until the January 27, 2003 meeting of the Council. Councilmember King seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILLS - FIRST READING BILL NO. 1-03 FIRST READING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 742 EAST IRELAND ROAD, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA This bill had first reading. Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to refer this bill to the Area Plan Commission. Councilmember Coleman seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 2-03 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, ANNEXING TO AND BRINGING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, CERTAIN LAND IN GERMAN TOWNSHIP CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH; THE VILLAS AT LAKE BLACKTHORN II, LOCATED IN THE 5170 BLOCK OF ORANGE ROAD This bill had first reading. Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to refer this bill to the Zoning and Annexation Committee and set it for Second Reading and Public Hearing on February 10, 2003 and Third Reading on February 24, 2003. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 3-03 FIRST READING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2701 NORTHSIDE BLVD. IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA This bill had first reading. Councilmember Coleman made a motion to refer this bill to the Area Plan Commission. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 This bill had first reading. Councilmember Aranowski made a motion to refer this bill to the Personnel and Finance Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on January 27, 2003. Councilmember Coleman seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORTS FROM AREA PLAN COMMISSION: It is noted that the Council is in receipt of recommendations from the Area Plan Commission of St. Joseph County, for the following ordinances based on their Public Hearing held on December 17, 2002: BILL NO. 50-02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 620 N. MICHIGAN STREET BILL NO. 89-02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND AND HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 809 N. MICHIGAN STREET BILL NO. 90-02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 615 NORTH MICHIGAN STREET IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA BILL NO. 91-02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 802 NORTH LAFAYETTE STREET IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Coleman made a motion to accept the substitute versions of all of these bills. Councilmember Kuspa seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to refer these bills to the Zoning and Annexation Committee and set them for Public Hearing and Third Reading on February 10, 2003. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. NEW BUSINESS NOTICE OF MEETING - LANDLORD/TENANTS Councilmember Pfeifer informed the Council that she is starting to meet with property owners to deal with all the issues of owning property and being a good neighbor. She asked Councilmembers to join her by attending the first meeting which will be held on Tuesday, January 18, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. at the Epworth Church. They will set the agenda and work with people on how to again continue improving the quality of life in our City. 1 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2003 Council President White reminded Mr. Swanson that Councilmember Coleman recommended that he contact the Park Department Director regarding his concerns about recreational activities for youth. Mr. Swanson indicated that he has not contacted the Park Department because he is not into groundwork any more. He was teaching leaders to be leaders and now he is just watching and observing. PRESIDENT WHITE ANNOUNCES REQUEST FOR CITIZEN MEMBERS Council President White announced that there are eleven (11) standing committees of the Council that are in need of citizen participation and anyone wishing to serve or receive information regarding these committees should contact the City Clerk's office by January 20, 2003. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Coleman made a motion to adjourn. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m. ATTEST: Lorett . Dua, City Jerk ATTEST: Karen L. White, President