Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-02 Council Meeting MinutesREGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 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, June 24, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council President Roland Kelly and the Invocation and Pledge to the Flag were given. ROLL CALL Present: James Aranowski 1St District Charlotte Pfeifer 2nd District Roland Kelly 3rd District President Karl King 4' District Chairperson, Committee of the Whole David Varner Stn District Andrew Ujdak 6th District Sean Coleman At -Large Al "Buddy" Kirsits At -Large Karen L. White At -Large Vice - President Absent: None 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 June 10, 2002 meeting of the Council and found them to be correct. Therefore, we recommend the same be approved. s/Roland Kelly s/David Varner Councilmember Coleman made a motion that the minutes of the June 10, 2002 meeting of the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. SPECIAL BUSINESS There was no special business to come before the Council at this time. RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 7:05 p.m. Councilmember Coleman made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Chairman King presiding. BILL NO. 19 -02 PUBLIC HEARING AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2733 LINCOLNWAY WEST IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember White reported that the Zoning & Annexation Committee met on this bill and sends it to the Council with an unfavorable recommendation. Mr. Jeff Myers, Staff Planner, Area Plan Commission, Room 1140 County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana, presented the report from the Commission. -1- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 Mr. Myers advised that the petitioner is requesting a zone change from "A" Residential and `B" Residential, "A" Height and Area to "C" Commercial, "A" Height and Area to allow a used car lot. The property currently contains a single- family home and vacant land. Located to the north are single - family homes zoned "A" Residential, "A" Height and Area; to the east are single- family homes zoned "A" Residential, "A" Height and Area and vacant property zoned "C" Commercial, "A" Height and Area; to the south across Lincolnway West are single - family homes zoned `B" Residential, "A" Height and Area; and to the west across Eclipse Place are single - family homes zoned `B" Residential, "A" Height and Area. Access to the site is from both Eclipse Place and Lincolnway West. Water and sewer are available to the site. The drainage has not been addressed by the petitioner. The total site to be rezoned is twenty -two thousand sixty -eight (22,068) square feet. Of that, the buildings will occupy fifteen per cent (15 %) of the site, the parking and drives will occupy thirty -four per cent (34 %) of the site and fifty -one per cent (51 %) of the site will remain as open space. A check of the Agency's maps indicates that no public wells, flood hazards, wetlands or environmental hazard areas are present. The site plan is preliminary. The Area Plan Commission at its Public Hearing held on May 21, 2002, sent this petition to the Council with an unfavorable recommendation. The property is located in a predominately residentially zoned and used area. It is the Commission's opinion that future commercial development should involve the reuse of existing commercial property rather than infringing on the remaining residential areas. Furthermore, the proposed petition is not consistent with the land use and zoning plans that were formulated by the City and the Land Use and Appearance Subcommittee of the Lincolnway West Steering Committee. The proposed zoning for a portion of this site is "A" Residential, "A" Height and Area, while the other portion of the site is to remain "A" Residential, "A" Height and Area. In addition, there is conflicting information regarding the status of the east /west alley between Lots 5 and 6 and Lot 17. The City Engineering Department has stated that the alley is not vacated, while Schedule A of the Title Insurance Policy states that the alley is vacated. The Commission has requested further proof that the alley is indeed vacated but has not yet received any additional information. It should be noted that the required screening is not currently shown on the site plan. This information along with other changes to the present site plan will need to be made prior to final site plan approval, if this petition is approved. Additionally, the Historic Preservation Commission had 2733 Lincolnway West on its April 15th agenda for first reading recommending that this site, the Mott family home, be designated as a local historic landmark, at the request of the LaSalle Area Neighborhood Association. Because the petitioner was not present at this time, Councilmember Coleman made a motion to table this matter until later in the meeting. Councilmember Pfeifer seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 40 -02 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE FIRST EAST /WEST ALLEY SOUTH OF MISHAWAKA AVENUE FROM 21 ST STREET WEST TO THE FIRST NORTH /SOUTH ALLEY; AND THE FIRST NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY WEST OF 21ST STREET FROM THE FIRST EAST /WEST ALLEY SOUTH OF MISHAWAKA AVENUE Councilmember Varner made a motion to continue this bill until the July 8, 2002 meeting of the Council at the request of the petitioner. Councilmember Coleman seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. -2- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 BILL NO. 41 -02 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: VORDEN COURT FROM THE EAST LINE OF LOT 5, BW BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION, RECORDED MARCH 16, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 0111166, TO THE END OF THE STREET FOR A DISTANCE OF 700 FEET AND A WIDTH OF 60 FEET. THE VACATION INCLUDES THE 60 FOOT RADIUS CUL -DE -SAC. BEING A PART OF BW BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY Councilmember Varner reported that the Public Works and Property Vacation Committee conducted a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and sends it to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Thomas Veldman, on behalf of BW Business Park, LLC, 7101 Vorden Parkway, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Veldman informed the Council that this vacation is requested because they have sold six (6) lots at the west end of the business park and this road divides those lots. Without the vacation the purchaser will not be able to construct a facility on that property. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Coleman made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 45 -02 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMON COUNCIL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF AN INDEMNITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TJX PROJECT Councilmember Aranowski reported that the Personnel & Finance Committee and the Health and Public Safety Committee conducted a joint meeting this afternoon and sends this bill to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Varner made a motion to hear the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Coleman seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Mr. Gary Gilot, Director, Department of Public Works, 13th Floor County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Gilot stated that in order for this brown field site to be redeveloped and create the jobs and tax base in this area, the future developer, TJX, is looking for the City to indemnify for some of the environmental risks associated with the site. Mr. Gilot noted that he previously showed the Council the detailed study of the site where they have grid sampled the soil and the ground water to determine what is there and to quantify the risk. They have placed the worst case number on the environmental clean up at $1 million dollars and that is a budgeted factor in the overall TJX project budget on the City side of the ledger. Mr. Gilot further noted that putting a clean future use across the street from a public water supply well field actually lessens the City's risk in the future. This -3- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 site will be mostly covered with parking and rooftop which actually is better than some of the historical uses that were at the site. Mr. Gilot informed the Council that the administration recommends in favor of the environmental indemnification as a condition of the City's overall agreement with TJX. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Coleman made a motion for favorable recommendation to the full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 42 -02 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13, BY THE INCLUSION OF NEW ARTICLE 1, ENTITLED GANG LOITERING REGULATIONS AND DELETING SECTIONS 13 -55 AND 13 -56 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE Councilmember Coleman made motion to hear the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember King noted that the Council will be conducting a Public Hearing on this bill this evening but will not vote on the matter. Because the Council desires to have as much public input as possible on this ordinance, a second Public Hearing will be held on July 22, 2002 and the bill will be voted on at that time. After public comment this evening, this bill will be continued until July 22, 2002. Councilmember Ujdak reported that the Residential Neighborhood Committee and the Health and Public Safety Committee held a joint hearing this afternoon and sends this bill to the Council with no recommendation due to the consideration outlined by Councilmember King with the intention of sending it back to these committees on July 22, 2002 for additional Public Hearing and consideration. Second District Councilmember Charlotte Pfeifer made the presentation for this bill. Councilmember Pfeifer advised that in 1998 she and Councilmember King started getting telephone calls from neighbors, businesses and people who come downtown and want to take part in the events at the Century Center or the Morris Civic Auditorium or patronize a restaurant. After receiving a number of concerns and talking to individuals, it was realized that there were quality of life issues and that there was activity going on that literally compromised the quality of life in our City. Therefore, they conducted a number of meetings in conjunction with the Health and Public Safety Committee and with the support of the Office of the Mayor, the City Council and the IUSB School of Public and Environmental Affairs a Loitering Conference was held in April of 1999. They wanted to look around the country and see if other communities were getting these challenges. Some of the challenges were young people, generally young men, standing around getting involved in gang activity, intimidation, illegal activity, threatening people and compromising the quality of life. The City of Philadelphia was dealing with issues of loitering but they mostly pertained to homelessness. The City of East Chicago had a loitering ordinance and was dealing with gang activity. The City of Seattle had a prize winning program that was funded by the national Community Oriented Police program in Washington. The person responsible for this program was invited to South Bend to attend the conference. Also involved were the South Bend Police Department, Mishawaka Police Department, St. Joseph County Police, Indiana State Police and Michigan State Police. The conference was well attended. As a result, she and Councilmember King initiated the ticket sales -4- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 ordinance which was passed. This was the first of three (3) quality of life ordinances. The second quality of life ordinance was passed last year and it dealt with panhandling. It was discovered that the panhandlers were not just local citizens but were professional panhandlers who literally drove around in caravans. They would come into a city and hit it hard. They were very aggressive and intimidating. The third quality of life ordinance, the loitering ordinance, would be a more challenging ordinance as it touches some of our sensibilities and scares us a little bit. Councilmember Pfeifer noted that in the last two (2) years New York had a couple of high profile cases that involved the New York police and citizens of color and again the whole issue of racial profiling spread across the country and shed a bad light on all law enforcement whether they did anything or not and also on politicians that were trying to pass these quality of life ordinances. At the second Loitering Conference individuals were brought in from Chicago and included the attorney who argued before the Supreme Court and the police officers that implemented the loitering ordinance as well as the ACLU. Councilmember Pfeifer advised that she and Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski Farrand conducted nine (9) different neighborhood presentations on loitering in order to get input. Some individuals supported the ordinance, and some did not. Councilmember Pfeifer noted that during the committee meeting held this afternoon some additional information has come to light. Therefore, the Council will not vote on this ordinance this evening as there are many individuals present this evening regarding this ordinance and the Council desires to give those individuals the opportunity to provide their opinion of this ordinance and because it will be refined to make it an ordinance that the Council can feel strongly about and can support. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand offered a time frame to show the work that has gone into drafting this ordinance which is not only reflective of the community but is one that is usable and is a win win for all individuals and entities that are involved. Attorney Cekanski- Farrand noted that in 1992 the City of Chicago passed their first gang loitering ordinance which was in effect for several years before it was challenged on a constitutional basis. The City of South Bend had the privilege of having Mr. Larry Rosenthal, Associate General Counsel from the City of Chicago, who argued before the Supreme Court, at the second Loitering Conference. Asa result of the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court 6 -3 decision, the Court held that the City of Chicago's ordinance that was passed in 1992 was unconstitutional in light of it being overly broad and vague in certain areas. As a result of that decision, three (3) Supreme Court Justices set forth a roadmap to how this ordinance could be legally done and enforceable. At that point, the City of Chicago rewrote their ordinance and it was passed by the Chicago City Council on March 17, 2000. Police officers had several months of training before the ordinance took effect in August of 2000. Since that date the City of Chicago has issued almost six thousand (6,000) dispersal orders, have dispersed almost twenty -four thousand (24,000) individuals and have arrested two hundred fourteen (214) individuals. In March of this year the Chicago ordinance was again constitutionally challenged and was upheld by the Circuit Court of Cook County as being constitutional. The justices specifically identified that the revised ordinance addresses those concerns of the U. S. Supreme Court in the roadmap provided in 1999. Attorney Cekanski- Farrand noted that as part of the background to make sure that there is a proper record, materials were provided to all the people that attended the various conferences which sets forth the neighborhood concerns that were set forth in verbatim transcripts. The proposed South Bend ordinance is similar to the Chicago ordinance since it comes from neighborhood concerns. Attorney Cekanski- Farrand noted that the neighborhoods are initiating this ordinance and driving it and the Council is responding to those needs. Attorney Cekanski - Farrand noted that the ordinance addresses five (5) areas. The ordinance will focus on first establishing control over identifiable areas in the City so that gang and drug hot spots can be taken back by the neighborhoods and once again be enjoyed by the residents and those who travel to South Bend. Secondly, the ordinance will focus on deterring and preventing intimidation of law- abiding citizens by gang members. Thirdly, loitering which has a harmful purpose or effect is what will be focused on. Gang loitering is where you are remaining in one place with an apparent purpose or effect of establishing control over an area intimidating others from entering that area and concealing alleged illegal activities. Narcotics related loitering is where loitering has an apparent purpose or effect of facilitating illegal drug activities. The fourth goal of the ordinance is to address -5- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 concealment of illegal activities which often have a secondary effect similar to Councilmember King's ordinance with regard to panhandling where vandalism, violence or intimidation results. Lastly, that law enforcement gives proper notice as far as what conduct is illegal so that innocent activity would not be encompassed within this ordinance itself. The South Bend ordinance closely follows the road map that was provided by the U. S. Supreme Court. The City of Chicago has shared lengthy and invaluable information including verbatim transcripts of committee meetings which took place when they passed their ordinance as well as a training video tape. There were five (5) criteria which the City of Chicago looked at when they were determining what is a hot spot and what the areas are where there should be enforcement of an ordinance of this type. Attorney Cekanski- Farrand noted that some of the factors considered and the reason this bill is being continued until the July 22nd meeting is to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the criteria that will be established. She noted that there would be an analysis of the crime within a proposed area and there would be input from community leaders, local community -based organizations, elected public officials, input from sector commanders and the special needs of the area. She noted that this ordinance has a proposed effective date of October 1, 2002 to enable the Council, the administration and Police Chief Bennett and his department time to work together in preparing the day to day regulations that are so important to the effectiveness of an ordinance of this type. In addition, there is much training that must take place and the City of Chicago has agreed to work with the City of South Bend with regard to that training if the City goes forward in passing this ordinance. Attorney Cekanski- Farrand noted that City Attorney Chuck Leone brought up two (2) items this afternoon at the committee level. One was who would be ultimately responsible for the designation of these hot spots which we have agreed to work out in the next several weeks having input from Chief Bennett in particular. The second item raised by Mr. Leone was the Philadelphia component with regard to community service for violators of the ordinance. Attorney Cekanski - Farrand noted that it is their desire to make this the best possible ordinance so it becomes the type of regulation that other communities of our size can emulate throughout this region. Councilmember Pfeifer reiterated that this ordinance was initiated because of concerns raised by residents. She noted that business owners and restaurant owners who want to come into our community have talked about this problem as well. She further noted that it was hoped that this ordinance would be in place this summer but what is important is that the City have an ordinance that they feel good about and that the Council have public input as well as input from the City administration, Councilmembers and the police. Councilmember Pfeifer also noted that they want to make sure that a good job is done of training police officers and neighbors so they can work together. Councilmember Kirsits asked if the City is in a stronger position adopting this ordinance with it being adopted neighborhood by neighborhood instead ofmaking it abroad City ordinance. He noted that he is concerned about this fact and whether it would withstand the constitutional test that way. He further noted that he is concerned about the City profiling neighborhoods. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand stated that the City is in a stronger position adopting the ordinance this way. Another point that was brought up was why the City needs an ordinance of this type and why can't the City enforce what is currently on the books or the state law. Attorney Cekanski-Farrand noted that there are different standards with regard to reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspension is what is necessary in order for an officer to make a proper dispersal order in a civil action like this. The City is attempting to carve out a civil tool to provide to police officers that will be pro active and that can hopefully address problems before they become greater problems of a more criminal nature. Councilmember White inquired what would happen if a neighborhood association decides not to participate but that particular neighborhood has been identified as being a hot spot. Can the ordinance still be enforced regardless if the neighborhood association decides not to participate? Attorney Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand stated that the ordinance as currently drafted does not INS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 specifically identify how those enforcement areas or hot spots will be chosen. However, if there are significant criminal statistics that show that there is intensive drug dealing going on in a neighborhood and that particular neighborhood has opted out for whatever reason, it has to be very clear that the City is not being arbitrary or capricious with regard to giving a blind eye to that type of activity. In those limited cases the overwhelming health and public safety of addressing that problem even though the organization group may have opted out would be out weighted because of the criminal activity currently going on. Councilmember White stated that she believes this is an important point and that somehow there has been some misconception about whether or not neighborhood associations can decide to participate or not. Councilmember Pfeifer stated that this is a very important point because in the neighborhood deliberations some communities were concerned what would happen if some areas will not participate even though they need to. In conclusion, Councilmember Pfeifer thanked the neighbors, the law enforcement community as well as citizens for their input, whether for or against, in order to make this a good ordinance. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Ms. Rita Kopczynski, Director, Near Northwest Neighborhood organization, 1007 Portage Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, noted that a recent newspaper article inferred that their organization was against the ordinance. She noted that after a long discussion and debate, the organization decided not to vote either way on this bill at this time. She further noted that the Near Northwest Neighborhood has been very active in crime prevention activity and has a safety committee that has worked very closely with the police and has in fact identified areas or hot spots and has gotten rid of drug houses. They are in favor of anything that makes their neighborhood safer. She noted that they were concerned about ambiguity and profiling if the board makes decisions that could be contrary to the wishes of the neighborhood as a whole. Ms. Kopczynski noted that they are not against an ordinance that makes their neighborhood safer and allows citizens to participate in determining how safe their neighborhoods can be. Ms. Rhonda Redman, 518 North Scott Street, Apt. A, South Bend, Indiana, advised that she has lived at this address for the last nine (9) years and there have been many times when there has been such a strong gang presence on their streets that it has not been safe for her children to go out into the neighborhood. She noted that she realizes that South Bend is a diverse city and there may be areas where this type of ordinance is not needed on a daily basis. A lot of people do not have groups of gang members hanging out in front of their house but there are many that do have this problem. Ms. Redman stated that she appreciates the fact that the Council is looking into this ordinance for the benefit of those who live with this problem. She stated that she realizes that there is not any one thing that can solve the problem but perhaps this ordinance will give the police one more tool to fight back. She asked that the Council vote in favor of the ordinance. Ms. Lucille Spaulding, President, LaSalle Area Neighborhood Association, 1124 North Meade Street, South Bend, Indiana, informed the Council that on March 16th the Association decided to have this ordinance enforced in LANA's boundaries. Adoption of this ordinance will help protect the residents from intimidation, vandalism, drug dealing, gang activity and other illegal activity that goes on in the neighborhood. This ordinance will help neighbors take back their streets. Most neighbors know who belongs in their neighborhoods and who does not. This ordinance will be aimed at the drug and gang activity and not individuals walking or standing around legally. In conclusion, Ms. Spaulding advised that this is the best opportunity the neighborhood has to fight back against the gang and drug problems before it gets any worse that it already is. -7- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 Ms. Linda Chism, Vice - President, LaSalle Area Neighborhood Association, 1135 North Kaley, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is in favor of the anti loitering ordinance and the neighborhood association voted to support this ordinance. The boundaries of the association are Bendix Drive on the west to the railroad tracks by Wilber Street up to Portage on the east from Lincolnway West on the south to Elwood Avenue on the north. They need something to cut down on gang activity, drug activity and intimidation in the neighborhoods. Ms. Chism noted that with the proper training the police will be able to enforce this ordinance as it is meant to be enforced. Each neighborhood association will have to vote each year whether to keep this enforced in their neighborhood or not. She noted that she feels that the community needs to be made aware that this ordinance is not to stop people from talking on a street corner. Illegal activity is a problem and the City of South Bend needs to help out. They need help protecting their quality of life, and they need help to stop gang activity, drug activity and intimidation. With the existing problems at businesses that are open all night or open very late at night, the police need all the help they can get. Ms. Chism asked that the Council adopt this ordinance. Ms. Noreen Deane - Moran, 716 West Colfax Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, President, Near Westside Neighborhood organization, with boundaries from William Street to Olive and then Western to Lincolnway West, advised that the organization is fairly unanimous that they would like this ordinance to happen. She noted that some members feel rather strongly that there is a problem in the individual. organizations opting in or out and they wanted it to be more encompassing. She further noted that their neighborhood has a very diverse group and a large minority population and those individuals are very much for the ordinance as opposed to worrying about profiling that might have a racial element. In conclusion, Ms. Deane -Moran stated that they hope the Council will vote favorably for this ordinance. Mr. Maurice Williams, 1724 Prairie Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, Vice - President, Rum Village Neighborhood Association, noted that after the presentation by the City, the Board agreed that this ordinance would be a good thing for the neighborhood. However, the Board didn't feel it was just up to them and they therefore sent out a survey to their service area to determine whether they would be in favor of this ordinance. Mr. Williams noted that it was not necessarily unanimous but the majority said they were in favor of this ordinance and would therefore like to see this ordinance pass. Ms. Rose Garth, 1150 North Elmer, South Bend, Indiana, noted that she is a member of LANA but is not speaking for LANA but for her parents who live on Elmer Street. She noted that she has watched the neighborhood change and evolve into something they do not like. She further noted that she believes it is very important that the neighbors get their power back and become more pro active in addressing their issues and needs. Ms. Garth stated that she supports adoption of this ordinance. Mr. Chuck Leone, City Attorney, 14th Floor, County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana, advised that the City administration believes that this ordinance will be a useful tool to add to the other tools available to the administration and to the Police Department in improving and promoting neighborhoods in the City of South Bend and believes it is an appropriate ordinance to pass. However, he noted that there needs to be some fine tuning with respect to the designation process and the enforcement process. The role of the City Attorneys office will be to enforce this ordinance at the time that it is passed and the time the police begin to be out on the street. Therefore, they want to make sure that the mechanisms are in place so that if there is a legal challenge at some point in the future that the City will be able to successfully get past those challenges and to enforce the ordinance the way the Council intends. There was no one else present wishing to speak in favor of the bill. The following individuals spoke in opposition. In 1 1 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 Ms. Rita Kopala, 66559 Ivy Road, Lakeville, Indiana, stated that she is against the loitering ordinance. She noted that in 1998 she picketed the Century Center and was arrested for trespassing and put in jail. In September of 2000 she picketed the College Football Hall of Fame and was again arrested and put in jail. In 2001 the police picketed the same places and they were not even issued a ticket. Ms. Kopala noted that she was using her first amendment rights the same as the police were when they picketed for their raises. Now a law is being considered for arresting people for loitering. She stated that nothing stopped the powers that be from arresting her in the past so why would the City now need a loitering ordinance. She noted that she is 65 years old and was never arrested before in her life. She asked that the City be very careful what ordinances are allowed as she was intimidated by the very people who are supposed to protect her. Ms. Cheryl Ashe, 3830 Langley Drive, South Bend, Indiana, advised that she understands problems people have in dealing with drugs but believes the Council must look at what this ordinance says. She is concerned about what individuals have said tonight which is that they know who belongs in their neighborhood. How do they know who belongs in their neighborhood? Additionally, she is concerned about the neighborhood associations making decisions about this ordinance. Her concern is that this ordinance will be used basically to target young men because the neighborhood doesn't like the way they wear their hair or their clothes and will be used to correct behavior that is not illegal. She questions how someone will be able to tell the difference between gang members standing on a corner for a legitimate reason. While people may dislike gang members, they also have a legitimate right to stand on the corner. One of the biggest problems she has is the concept that one neighborhood may vote that they want a law enforced in their neighborhood and another neighborhood may vote that they do not want the law enforced in their neighborhood. She stated that if the law is good, then the law should be good enough for the entire City. Additionally, Ms. Ashe noted that she is concerned about how it was decided that the neighborhood associations will make this decision. Having belonged to a neighborhood association she knows that they can be very inclusive or very exclusive as it all depends upon the members. Ms. Ashe stated that she believes that this ordinance needs to be a referendum where everyone who is legally of age can vote because this ordinance will affect everyone. She asked the Council to do some serious consideration of this ordinance and asked that they tell the public how the police will be trained. She further stated that this ordinance may not be the panacea that the Council thinks it is. Mr. Jim Cierzniak, 1156 East Victoria Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is against drug trafficking and gang loitering and asked the Council to beef up the laws and not go through the charade of pretending that it all comes from the neighborhoods. Mr. Cierzniak questioned having the neighborhood groups making these decisions and stated that he believes that leaving this particular aspect to neighborhood associations makes the Council derelict in their duties as they can't pass that obligation and responsibility along to someone else. He also questioned the idea that the police will need hours and hours of training. As stated, the police need to know that a group of people talking while standing on the street corner doesn't necessarily mean they are loitering. Mr. Cierzniak noted that if the City needs tougher laws then they should be for the entire City. However, suddenly the City will have laws chosen by neighborhoods. He noted that the Council was elected and citizens know who they are and they conduct public meetings for input. He further noted that he would rather go with what the Council says as far as toughening up the law and laws should be enforced uniformly throughout the City. He asked that the Council turn down the ordinance when the time comes. There was no one else present wishing to speak to the Council concerning this matter. In rebuttal, Councilmember Pfeifer stated that she would like to address and clarify the issue of training for the police. She noted that police officers have been involved and support this ordinance and have asked for training. They are not going to be trained to decide whether groups of people are gang members or not but to know various aspects including the locations of the designated areas. Councilmember King noted that another reason for the training is that there are constitutional issues In REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 involved here and if the proper procedures are very carefully followed then problems will not arise with constitutional protection. He noted that no insult is meant to the police officers. Councilmember Coleman made a motion to continue this bill in the Public Hearing portion until the July 22, 2002 meeting of the Council and send it back to the combined Health and Public Safety and Residential Neighborhood committees and also reset it for Third and final reading at that time. Councilmember Coleman noted that the Public Hearing on July 22nd would be to receive new information regarding the bill from the presenter and to hear from additional citizens who have not yet had the opportunity to comment either for or against this bill as well as those who have already commented but may wish to comment on new provisions or alterations to the bill as they are presented at the next meeting. Councilmember Pfeifer seconded the motion. Councilmember Pfeifer noted that another thing that needs to be addressed is the misunderstanding that if a person is in the wrong neighborhood that that alone can cause a problem. Individuals must be involved in specific inappropriate illegal gang activity. The motion carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 43 -02 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND 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 Al "Buddy" Kirsits reported that the Utilities Committee did not vote on this bill based on the petitioner's request that it be withdrawn. Mayor Stephen Luecke, 14th Floor, County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mayor Luecke informed the Council that the last sewer rate increase was in 1988. Submitted to the Council for consideration is an ordinance regarding a rate increase that does a number of things. It meets the City's needs to meet increased operational expenses of the wastewater treatment plant and maintenance of the sewer system. It provides for payments for the $24 million dollar improvements that have recently been done to the wastewater treatment plant. It provides for funding of capital programs as the City moves forward to begin to meet some of the combined sewer overflow issues as well as other capital investments in the systems such as lining old sewers so they don't collapse, extending new lines to provide for new housing and /or industrial development as well as ongoing maintenance of the system. The proposal represented the City's best efforts at putting together what was felt was a fair rate structure. There were a number of issues taken in consideration. The current rate structure has a high fixed cost with a very small per unit cost associated with the sewer rates. It was proposed to change that to have a much smaller fixed cost and a higher per unit cost so that customers that produce more sewage would pay a larger percentage of the operating expenses of the plant. It proposed a fifty per cent ( 50 %) surcharge on customers outside the City limit. This was based on a cost of service study that was conducted. Because of those changes there were some customers that were impacted not with a fifty seven per cent (57 %) average increase but with a two, three or four fold or larger increase in their proposed sewer charges. Discussions have been held with some of those users and they, as well as Councilmembers, have raised some legitimate questions. Therefore, Mayor Luecke asked that this ordinance be withdrawn from consideration tonight. He noted that the administration would like to take more time to have some work sessions with the Council to help to explain further the rationale for the level of funding they believe is appropriate for the rate increase and to talk about a variety of options in terms of how this rate increase might be funded. Those options would include looking at the existing plan that is -10- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 on the table, looking at a plan that might do away with the surcharge outside the City, looking at a plan that would have an across the board increase where every ones rate would go up fifty -seven per cent (57 %) as well as looking at changing that mix between fixed costs and per unit charge. The Mayor noted that they would also look at proposing the possibility of phasing in some of the dollars for capital so that the impact does not come all at once for customers. He noted that they would like to come back to the Council yet this summer with a new proposal for a rate increase and would hope to have an effective date no later than December 1 st of this year. Mayor Luecke noted that he appreciates the opportunity to go into this ordinance in more detail with the Council and for further discussions with customers on the issue. Councilmember Coleman made a motion to strike this bill as substituted. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion. As a point of order, Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski Farrand advised that this bill was never accepted as a substitute and therefore the motion should be on the bill that was originally filed. Councilmember Coleman withdrew his motion and made a new motion to strike this bill as originally filed. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 19 -02 PUBLIC HEARING AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2733 LINCOLNWAY WEST IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember King noted that this bill which was first on the agenda and which was tabled because of lack of a petitioner is now up for consideration. It was further noted that the petitioner was still not in attendance. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand advised that in the past when the presenter was not present the bill was continued until the next meeting. She noted that the Council is operating within a sixty (60) day window on this matter and this is the proper procedure. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand also advised that it would be appropriate for the City Clerk's office to send a certified letter to the Petitioner advising them of this action and request their presence at the next meeting of the Council which is July 8, 2002. In order to conduct further action on this bill, Councilmember Ujdak made a motion to reconsider this bill at this time. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Coleman made a motion that this bill be continued until the July 8, 2002 meeting of the Council and be sent back to the Zoning and Annexation Committee with the understanding that a letter will be sent to the petitioner requesting their presence at that meeting to make a presentation and in the absence of their presence at the committee level that the committee could then make a determination as to the disposition of the bill in committee. Councilmember Pfeifer seconded the motion which carried. In discussions, Councilmembers Coleman, King, Pfeifer and Ujdak stated that the Council will take final action on this bill on July 8, 2002. Councilmember Coleman noted that in the committee meeting this afternoon the question was asked by President Kelly of the petitioner whether or not they intended to go forward with the petition and they replied that they did. The motion passed by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. RISE AND REPORT Councilmember Varner made motion to rise and report to the full Council. Councilmember -11- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 Coleman seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. ATTEST: Loretta Oda, ity Clerk ATTEST K i i s Co ittee of thi le REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County -City Building at 8:20 p.m. Council President Roland Kelly presided with nine (9) members present. BILLS - THIRD READING ORDINANCE NO. 9335 -02 AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: VORDEN COURT FROM THE EAST LINE OF LOT 5, BW BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION, RECORDED MARCH 16, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 0111166, TO THE END OF THE STREET FOR A DISTANCE 700 FEET AND A WIDTH OF 60 FEET. THE VACATION INCLUDES THE 60 FOOT RADIUS CUL -DE -SAC. BEING A PART OF BW BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA This bill had third reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember Pfeifer seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 9336 -02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMON COUNCIL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF AN INDEMNITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TJX PROJECT This bill had third reading. Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to consider the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Aranowski made a motion to pass this bill as substituted. Councilmember Coleman seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 3104 -02 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4833 AMERITECH DRIVE TO BE AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A TEN (10) YEAR REAL -12- 1 1 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR THE SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR THE BENEFIT OF: JVH, INC. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, has adopted a Declaratory Resolution designating certain areas within the City as Economic Revitalization Areas for the purpose of tax abatement consideration; and WHEREAS, a Declaratory Resolution designated the area commonly known as 4833 Ameritech Drive, South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows: US 31 Industrial Park; Section 2, Lot 9 US 31 Industrial Park; Section 2, Lot 10 US 31 Industrial Park; Section 4, 1/2 of Lot 11 and which has Key Numbers 25 -1016- 060012; 25- 1016 - 060013; 25- 1016 - 060016 respectively as an Economic Revitalization Area; and WHEREAS, notice of the adoption of a Declaratory Resolution and the public hearing before the Council has been published pursuant to Indiana Code 6- 1.1- 12.1 -2.5; and WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing for the purposes of hearing all remonstrances and objections from interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the qualifications for an economic revitalization area have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council pursuant to Section 2 -84 of the South Bend Municipal Code finds the ten 10 years is the appropriate and rational time period for this tax abatement in light of the following: 1. The petitioner was asked by the City of South Bend to relocate the business to accommodate the TJX Company's new warehouse distribution center. 2. The petitioner will incur additional building costs associated with the new location as a result of the restrictive building covenants of the new area. 3. The new location fits the City of South Bend's development plans for the area and will support the warehouse and distribution services already located within the area. SECTION II. The Common Council hereby confirms its Declaratory Resolution designating the area described herein as an Economic Revitalization Area for the purposes of tax abatement. Such designation is for Real property tax abatement only and is limited to two (2) calendar years from the date of adoption of the Declaratory Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION III. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for and is granted Real property tax deduction for a period of ten 10 years, and further determines that the petition complies with Chapter 2, Article 6, of the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend and Indiana Code 6- 1.1 -12 et. sea. -13- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 SECTION IV. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approved by the Mayor. s/Roland Kelly Member of the Common Council Mr. Jim Van Houten, Owner and President of JVH, Inc., no address given, made the presentation for this Resolution. Mr. VanHouten advised that JVH proposes to build a twenty seven thousand (27,000) square foot building on approximately 7.7 acres in the US 31 Industrial Park. After completion, the building will be leased to MTE Truck & Trailer Service who primarily operates as a Mack and Volvo truck dealer. The visibility and easy access from US 31 will allow truck sales, repair and parts to be expanded. The companies are relocating at this time because their current location at 1818 Sample Street has been purchased by the City of South Bend for the TJX project at Sample and Olive Streets and this is a very important consideration for the success of this project. 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 Uj dak seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 3105 -02 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPOINTING A NEGOTIATOR FOR THE 2002 TEAMSTER NEGOTIATIONS WHEREAS, the South Bend Common Council acknowledges that Mr. Robert Warnock, President of the Teamster Local Union No. 364, sent a letter dated March 19, 2002 to Mayor Stephen J. Luecke giving official notice that Teamster Local Union No. 364 desires to negotiate changes and modifications to the Agreement Between the City of South Bend and Teamsters Local Union No. 364 ( "Agreement ") which expires on December 31, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works, which is the body authorized to approve a contract between the City and Teamster Local Union No. 364, is expected to adopt a resolution at its meeting of June 24, 2002 appointing a negotiator for the purpose of reaching anew agreement with Teamster Local Union No. 364 through the negotiating process, related to such items as working conditions and other such items addressed in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the South Bend Common Council has the authority to approve wages and budgetary items addressed in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the South Bend Common Council hereby wishes to act in unity with the Board of Public Works for the purpose of reaching a new agreement with Teamster Local Union No. 364, through the negotiating process, related to such items as annual compensation and other budgetary items addressed in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the South Bend Common Council, in agreement with the Board of Public Works, wishes to appoint a negotiator to address wages and other budgetary items addressed in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the negotiator appointed by the South Bend Common Council, together with -14- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 any persons named by the negotiator to act in an advisory capacity to the negotiator shall not be considered a "Governing body" or "public agency" under either Indiana Code 5- 14 -1.5 -2 or 5 -14 -3- 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, as follows: Section I. The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, hereby appoints Jeffrey M. Jankowski as its negotiator in any discussions with Teamster Local Union No. 364 concerning wages and other budgetary items addressed in any agreement with Teamster Local Union No. 364. Section II. Jeffrey M. Jankowski shall have the authority to appoint a team to advise him and shall keep the South Bend Common Council advised of the composition of that team through the South Bend Common Council's legal counsel, Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand. Section III. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the South Bend Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/Roland Kelly Member, South Bend Common Council Councilmember Aranowski reported that the Personnel & Finance Committee and the Health and Public Safety Committee met on this bill and sends it to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Jeff Jankowski, Deputy City Attorney, 14th Floor, County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Jankowski advised that the Teamsters local union invited the City to sit down at the table with them as their contact expires in December of this year. He noted that the Board of Public Works is the signatory to this contract and the Council approves the wages and budgetary items of the agreement. The Common Council works in conjunction with the Board of Public Works with regard to the negotiation process. The Resolution submitted today requests that the Council name Mr. Jankowski as the negotiator for the City so they can move forward with negotiations. 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. BILLS - FIRST READING BILL NO. 46 -02 FIRST READING ON A BILL TRANSFERRING $450,000 AMONG VARIOUS ACCOUNTS WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT This bill had first reading. Councilmember Coleman made a motion to accept the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Aranowski seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember Coleman made a motion to refer this bill to the Community and Economic Development Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on July 8, 2002. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. -15- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 BILL NO. 47 -02 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE 3, OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED AMBULANCE /MEDICAL USER FEE AND DEDICATED FUND This bill had first reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to refer this bill to the Health and Public Safety Committee and the Personnel and Finance Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on July 8, 2002. Councilmember Coleman seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORT 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 June 18, 2002: BILL NO. 36 -02 A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AMERITECH DRIVE AND PARKLAND DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA BILL NO. 32 -02 A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR SPECIFIED PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE HOMELAND NEIGHBORHOOD BETWEEN OLIVE STREET ON THE EAST, EWING AVENUE ON THE SOUTH, NEW ENERGY DRIVE ON THE WEST, AND RAILROAD TRACKS ON THE NORTH, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Coleman made a motion to refer these bills to the Zoning and Annexation Committee and set them for Public Hearing and Third Reading on July 8, 2002. Councilmember King seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 33 -02 A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, ANNEXING TO AND BRINGING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR CERTAIN LAND IN PORTAGE TOWNSHIP CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH; (RAITT CORPORATION, AN INDIANA CORPORATION) (22,500 BLOCK OF S.R. #23, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46619) Councilmember Coleman made a motion to refer this bill to the Zoning and Annexation Committee and set it for Second Reading and Public Hearing on July 22, 2002 with Third Reading on August 12, 2002. BILL NO. 16 -02 A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF VEHICLES WHICH -16- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 SHOULD NOT BE PARKED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND TO ENHANCE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND Councilmember King made a motion to delete this item from the agenda because there will be no report from the Area Plan Commission on this bill because in fact the bill was withdrawn and was never heard by the Area Plan Commission. Councilmember Pfeifer seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Council at this time. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR COMMENTS - SUMMER IN THE CITY, COLLEGE FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME, STUDEBAKER COLLECTION, POLICE SALARIES Mr. Jim Cierzniak, 1156 East Victoria Street, South Bend, Indiana, asked for Council action in several areas. He asked the Council to take a close look at the Summer in the City festival and how it is financed, how well it does and why there were so many problems this year. He noted that just because the festival has been held for years is not reason enough to continue. He also asked that someone contact the National Football Foundation to ask for - the salaries of the Director of the College Football Hall of Fame as well as the top several employees under that Director. Mr. Cierzniak also suggested to the Council that the South Bend Studebaker collection could be combined with a car collection in Elkhart and housed on Main Street and Grape Road in Mishawaka. This is near the Toll Road and would be accessible. He suggested that all citizens get involved in this matter and not just South Bend. He noted that a car museum could be structured that would gain support from the entire area. In the area of Police Department salaries, Mr. Cierzniak suggested that the City gather salary and pension information from the top five (5) Police Departments in the state and calculate the average of those top five (5) and see if the City can meet that amount and to somehow find the money to boost the Police Department up to that average point. In response, Councilmember Coleman commented that the Summer in the City festival was a tremendous success this year and the problems they faced this year were not new nor were they greater this year than they have been in past years but for whatever reason there was more emphasis on reporting the problems that occurred. He noted that the festival was a success for the community and something the City can be proud of and he disagrees with Mr. Cierzniak's opinion that the City should step away from the festival. He noted that the City can continue to improve the festival but it was a great success and people went away happy that they attended. REQUEST FOR TWENTY -FOUR HOUR BASKETBALL FACILITY Mr. John Swanson, 1321 West Washington Street, South Bend, Indiana, gave the Council an overview of his life. He noted that for the last twenty (20) years he has been watching his nephews grow up and has been thinking hard about solving the problem with the young black males in South Bend. He suggested that South Bend needs a basketball center open twenty -four (24) hours a day with midnight basketball. Mr. Swanson noted that when they started midnight basketball in Chicago crime went down. However, he cannot afford to go public and do anything but the Council should consider building a state of the art basketball center. -17- REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2002 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, President Kelly adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. ATTEST: Loretta J a, City CYerk M. ATTEST: Roland Kelly, Presiders 1 I 1