Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-11-13 Common Council Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 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,November 11, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council President Derek Dieter and the Invocation and Pledge to the Flag were given. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS: Present: Tim Scott 1s` District Henry Davis, Jr. 2nd District (7:01) Valerie Schey 3rd District Fred Ferlic 4th District David Varner 5th District Oliver J. Davis 6th District, Vice-President Derek Dieter At-Large, President Gavin Ferlic At-Large Karen L. White At-Large, Chairperson Committee of the Whole OTHERS PRESENT: John Voorde City Clerk Janice I. Talboom Deputy Mary Beth Wisniewski Chief Deputy Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Council Attorney REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES Councilmember Schey made a motion that the minutes of the October 28, 2013, meeting of the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. SPECIAL BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENT: REPRESENTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION WILL BE CITY CONTROLLER MARK NEAL Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand announced that at the Special Common Council meeting held on Wednesday, Substitute Bill No. 53-13 was amended with City Clerk John Voorde reading into the record information from the recommendations received from individual Councilmembers summarized. As noted that evening, the proposed salary for the Deputy Mayor could not be higher than that proposed by the Mayor, per governing state law. In working with Mark Neal and John Murphy, we noticed that the position of Forester"was read as receiving a 7% increase. However, in light of the same state law, namely Indiana Code §36-4-7-3(b) which prohibited the Deputy Mayor position to receive more than what was proposed by the Mayor, the "Forester" is limited to the Mayor's recommendation of 3.56% REPORTS OF CITY OFFICES There were no reports of City Office at this time. RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 7:03 p.m. Councilmember Oliver Davis 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. Councilmember White, Chairperson, presiding. Councilmember White, explained the procedures to be followed for tonight's meeting in accordance with Article 1, Section 2-11 of the South Bend Municipal Code. REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 Councilmember White stated that a brochure may be found on the railing in the Council Chambers explaining those procedures. PUBLIC HEARINGS BILL NO. 48-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1906 FRANKLIN ST. SOUTH BEND, IN 46614, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 6, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic, Chairperson, Zoning&Annexation Committee,reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and sends it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Angela Smith, Staff Planner, Area Plan Commission, 11th Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, presented the report from the Commission. Ms. Smith advised that the petitioner is requesting a zone change from LI Light Industrial District to SF2 Single Family& Two Family District to allow uses permitted in the SF2 Single Family&Two Family District. On site is a vacant commercial building zoned LI Light Industrial District. To the north across Calvert Street is an industrial building zoned GI General Industrial District. To the east across the alley is a commercial building zoned SF2Single Family&Two Family District. To the south is an industrial building zoned LI Light Industrial District. To the west across Franklin Street is a single family home zoned SF2 Single Family and Two Family District. The SF2 District is established to protect, promote and maintain the development of single family dwellings and two family dwellings in the urban core of the City of South Bend as well as to provide for limited public and institutional uses that are compatible with an urban residential neighborhood. The availability of public facilities (e.g. public water,public sanitary sewer, storm sewer, natural gas, electricity, telephone, etc.) is required for development within this district. No site plan is required for a rezoning to SF2 Single Family& Two Family District. The site has been zoned industrial since 1951, our earliest record of zoning in the City. The property to the west across Franklin Street was rezoned from industrial to single family residential in 1999. Calvert Street and Franklin Street are two-lane streets. The site is served by municipal water and sewer. The City Engineer had no comment. Community Investment provides a favorable recommendation for the rezoning, noting that the rezoning will support the re-use of the property and blend in to the surrounding residential properties to the east and west zoned SF2.There are no commitments proposed by the petitioner. Criteria to be considered in reviewing the rezoning request was City Plan, South Bend's Comprehensive Plan, Objective ED 1.2 to Encourage reuse of abandoned and underutilized land and structures. The Future Land Use Map identifies this area as Light Industrial. The block between Lafayette and Franklin Streets serve as a transitional area between the single family residential to the west and the industrial uses to the east. There is a mix of varying sizes of industrial buildings and traditional single family homes. The most desirable use of land is for uses compatible with the surrounding residential properties. The value of the surrounding properties should not be adversely affected. It is responsible development and growth to encourage the adaptive reuse of vacant buildings. Rezoning to a residential use may impact the adjacent industrial properties if they modify their sites in the future. Additional screening may be needed as part of a residential buffer yard. However,the effect would be minimal or could be relieved through variance requests. Based on information available prior to the public hearing the staff recommends this petition be sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. There is a mix of industrial and residential uses in this area. Rezoning the property to single family will allow for the adaptive reuse of the building and strengthen the surrounding residential area. Mr. Rami Sadek, 19543 Darden Road, South Bend, Indiana, owner,made the presentation for this bill. REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 Mr. Sadek advised that he is seeking to rezone from LI Light Industrial District to SF2 Single Family& Two Family District to allow uses permitted in a SF2 Single Family&Two Family District. He asked the Council for their favorable consideration. 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 Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Oliver Davis, seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 59-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1, BASIC PROVISIONS, TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION RELATIVE TO THE REZONING OF EXISTING STRUCTURES; ARTICLE 2, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO REVISE STATE SWIMMING POOL CODE REFERENCES; ARTICLE 4, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, TO REVISE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS; ARTICLE 5 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO REVISE AN INCORRECT CITATION; ARTICLE 7, GENERAL REGULATIONS, TO REVISE CERTAIN LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES, AND TO REVISE INCORRECT CITATIONS Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic, Chairperson, Zoning &Annexation Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and sends it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Angela Smith, Staff Planner, Area Plan Commission, 11th Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana,presented the report from the Commission. Ms. Smith advised that the requested action is a text amendment, amending various sections of Chapter 21 of the South Bend Municipal Code. The text amendments address certain changes that are necessary to revise and clarify various sections of the South Bend Zoning 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. Henry Davis,Jr.: Is this including all rezoning changes that happen in the City of South Bend or St. Joseph County. Angela Smith: It will include all rezoning petitions within the City of South Bend. St. Joseph County recently passed the same ordinance, and it only applies to existing structures. Henry Davis, Jr.: Does existing structure mean on-going operation or. Angela Smith: If there is an existing building on the property. Henry Davis, Jr.: Regardless of who's in it or not. Angela Smith: Correct REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 Henry Davis, Jr.: Ok, so my question at this point is that we had a meeting this past week on some things on Western Avenue, second hand car lots and different things, so is that per the new state code or I'm just trying to get a handle on what's going. Angela Smith: This would only apply to the building. So for instance if there was a building along Western Avenue and the property was rezoned for whatever use whether it had been vacant for a long time or not and it sets to close to one of the property lines, this would exempt them from asking for a variance for that. The theory behind it is that if the property is rezoned we are not going to make them tear down the building and move it 5 ft. to comply with the current zoning. Petitioners have been requesting the variance and the variances were granted, it's actually a step in the process that is just cumbersome to the petitioner. It does not eliminate them from the screening. So if there is a residential buffer yard that they need to install, if there is additional landscaping that they need to comply with or if there is additional parking, they are still required to comply with all those regulations or seek a variance through the variance process. Henry Davis Jr.: Thank you. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Oliver Davis, seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 49-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 16, ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT PLASTIC BAGS FOR YARD WASTE Councilmember Dieter made a motion to hear the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight(8) ayes. Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: Substitute Bill 49-13 in Section I amending Section 16-8 the last sentence that is recommended as being new to read as follows: Any yard waste set out for collection in any manner other than in a container leased from the City shall be limited to a maximum of thirty-five (35) pounds per container. On Page 2 Section II to add a new sentence to subparagraph G which would read as follows: If a leased yard waste container is lost or stolen the City shall replace such container and its cost only once per calendar year. Councilmember Scott made a motion to accept the amendments as read by Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Oliver Davis, Chairperson, Public Works and Property Vacation Committee, reported that this committee met on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. , Eric Horvath, Director, Public Works, 13th Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Horvath advised that this ordinance comes as the result of previous code allowed for plastic bags to picked up and people could put out yard waste in plastic bags and we are taking them out to organic resources so when we are trying to compost the yard waste out there unfortunately we ended getting the number over the last 15 years over 100,000 cubic yards of plastic contaminated yard waste that we have been trying to screen unsuccessfully. So we've got a REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 major issue out there with this pile that is the size of a football field 19 feet high of plastic contaminated yard waste that we need to do something with. A couple months ago we received from IDEM a notice of violation letter saying you guys have to step up your efforts and make something happen out there and so the Is` step in that phase is changing the Municipal Code to ban plastic bags so that they will no longer be allowed to have yard waste put in them. So in its place what we will do is allow for them to put yard waste in paper bags,biodegradable bags; or residential supplied containers up to a weight limit of 35 lbs. per bag or container. We have also added at the Council's recommendation a program that would allow the residents to rent bins similar to their trash bins, their 95 gallon yard waste bins, and their brown, specifically saying yard waste only on them at the cost of$2.00 a month for the months of April—November for a total of$16.00 a year. The cost of which is less than what is would cost for them to buy a couple plastic bags each week. So, we have also in this ordinance changed the effective date to reflect the January 1, 2014, effective date and also of course the language that we put in their to replace bin that are either lost or stolen up to one (1) per calendar year. I would be happy to answer any questions. Councilmember Dieter: Yes, I do. In regards to the 35 lbs., how will that be determined? Because I could see an instance where somebody may put something out, leaves, and then it rains, and the bag becomes a little heavier, how will that? Eric Horvath: Right now we currently have that same requirement that is kind of an internal requirement and has been there for a long time, it's currently on our website, and it's just not in the ordinance and not in the code. So we are adding it to that. I think that the idea of the 35 lbs. is that risk and safety people were looking at that as a safe measure for repetitive tasks, so if we've got let's say an instance one that's over the weight limit, we are not going to bring a scale around with us, I would imagine the guys are just going to try an empty it. If it's really bad you know there might be some way to empty one of the lighter ones and then dump some leaves in another one, or something like that. It's not our intent not to pick it up; however, having said that if we get a container full of bricks, we are obviously not going to pick it up. Councilmember Dieter: I just want to avoid something that if there was a confrontation and somebody says well it's not you're not going to argue, you're just going to say thank you we will get it. Eric Horvath: Great question. Councilmember Henry Davis Jr.: You listed several remedies for this, one was biodegradable bags and also paper bags are there a listing or a showing of where people can purchase those items at? Eric Horvath: Yes, and I apologize, at one of the previous presentation we had a list that gave the current prices. They range around $2.00 for 5 paper bags. The standard places to get them were Wal-Mart, Menards, Lowe's, Home Depot or a couple local hardware stores such as Ace Hardware. Councilmember Henry Davis Jr.: That's fine, the only reason that I asked that question is could we communicate to a larger audience. I don't know if you guys are looking to put that inside the water bill where the Mayor's notes usually go into or somewhere on our website, so that folks would know it's not just a knee jerk reaction saying well you are trying to charge some more, but in such a way people would know, ok, well it's not that bad and these are some places where I can purchase these item at so I can replace my plastic bags with paper bags or biodegradable bags. It's just a way of informing the community. Eric Horvath: Thanks, that's a great point, we need to and have had a lot of press on this issue and it's going to be effective January 1, 2014, so people are going to forget about it next leaf REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 season comes around, yard waste season. So we definitely need to be putting something out in the water bill. We will have to have other means, like on the website. Councilmember Henry Davis Jr.: Please make sure that these people understand that these things are available at these places. Eric Horvath: Absolutely. I also mentioned earlier we will make stickers as well. So if we do get people putting them out in plastic bags next year, we will sticker it so that they understand what the program is. It will tell them right on their their options are. Councilmember Henry Davis Jr.: That would be great. Thank you. 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 Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 63-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO REINSTATE ARTICLE 2, SECTION 17-27.1 HAULED SEPTIC WASTE Councilmember Oliver Davis, Chairperson, Public Works and Property Vacation Committee, reported that this committee met on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Eric Horvath, Director, Public Works, 13th Floor County-City Building,227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana,made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Horvath advised that this bill would reinstate Section 17-27.1 as previously adopted in 2004. That Section addresses regulations for hauled residential septic tank and other liquid waste, and it was inadvertently deleted from the South Bend Municipal Code when Chapter 17 Article 2 was substantially amended in 2011 to comply with the Clean Water Act under Ordinance No. 10095-11. He stated that because regulation for the hauling of residential septic tank and similar liquid waste to the South Bend Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the assessment of fees for such hauling is important to the Plant operation, it is necessary to reinstate this into the code. 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 Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight(8) ayes. I BILL NO. 64-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 2, OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADJUST SEWER RATES AND CHARGES INCREMENTALLY THROUGH 2017 REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 Councilmember Oliver Davis, Chairperson, Public Works and Property Vacation Committee, reported that this committee met on this bill this afternoon and did not take formal action on this bill because of the fact that we still are going to allow for a public hearing at this time. Just to note that in doing our research I would like permission to have a quick summary regarding this bill from our City Attorney, regarding what she shared with us today. That's correct Council Attorney. Council rn Kat Ckrd B for increase Atto for the next ey four hleen(4) years;eanski-Far it was properly ill pu64-13 blished sets that this the evening proposed would be rates public hearing on this. However,the Council does have the opportunity to continue the public hearing in the event that they would like to hold more committee meetings through the Utilities Committee and work with the Administration in gathering more information. With regard to past history of the sewer rates, the Council is charged by State Law under title 36 to establish what are to be determined just and equitable fees for providing services in this area. There is a listing of 10 different factors that the Council may use in determining those fees. Councilmember White requested in a recent Utilities meeting a brief history and we went back to 1989 when there was a significant increase first time in fourteen (14) years that the City of South Bend had raised the waste water rates. Thereafter in 2003, there was a twenty-four(24%)rate increase and also in 2004, 2005 there was a five(5%) rate increase, in 2006 at twenty-nine (29%) rate increase, in 2007 fifteen percent(15%) , 2008 eleven (11%) and each year thereafter a 9% rate increase. And again like we have done in the past Mr. Skomp will be presenting detail information as far as determining what is just and reasonable in this area. Chairperson White: I would also ask our Council Attorney to give a very brief overview when we move to the Public Hearing portion. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: At the time of the public hearing anyone has the right to speak before the Council. We ask that you give your name and address for the record, you have the right to speak for five (5)minutes. We always ask that anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the bill, speak first, after that anyone who wishes to remonstrant against the proposal also have the right to speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes. If there are any questions raised in either one of those portions the formal presentation given by the City Administration then have a rebuttal period of five(5) minutes. Councilmember Oliver Davis: Madam Chairperson is it at this time or afterwards that we will talk about continuation. Chairperson White: When we get back into the Council portion. Eric Horvath, Director of Public Works, 13th Floor County-City Building, 277 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Horvath: Also with me today Becky Schaefer she is an Engineer with Greeley& Hansen who will be joining me momentarily as well as John Skomp who is a Utility Rate Analyst with Crowe Horwarth. I wanted to start by giving a little bit of background and apologize to some of you that have heard this before,but throughout its history the river has just been a tremendous asset for the City of South Bend. Early on as an important industrial base, but for years it has been a mechanism through which we can get our sewers out of the city and into the river where it is diluted and taken away. This is something that has been going on in civilizations for over 5,000 years and they figured out that there is a need to have sewers and that they provided a good health benefit for civilizations, if you look world-wide we are still not there. We have 1 in 4 people who do not have access to sanitary toilets and 4,000 deaths a year from water borne illnesses, 4,000 deaths a day from water borne illnesses throughout the world. So we are very fortunate that we are not in those developing countries and we are not in that same situation. However, we have got our own issues that we have to deal with, and the late 1800's early 1900's we took our sanitary sewer and our storm sewers and took them directly to the river. In the 1950's we decided that we needed to build a wastewater treatment plant to treat some of that II 1I REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 waste. So we built some of interceptor sewers that would intercept that flow and take it to the wastewater treatment plant to be treated. But they did not built the treatment plant larger enough to handle all the flow, nor did they build the interceptor sewers larger enough to handle it, and so there are a number of occasions where we are overflowing into the river or even worse people's basements. So here's our motivation,we've got somewhere around 60 to 70 times on a typically year that we've got these overflow events and they could be as many as 36 different locations throughout the city,we've got 36 combined sewer overflows throughout the City of South Bend and somewhere between five hundred million to we had as much as 2 billion gallons a year of overflow from these combined sewer overflows during the year. Here's the other part of the motivation is keeping sewage out of basements. We still have a number of areas where basements are backing up, we simply looked at 3 distinct areas in town just to make sure we were still having issues with basement back-ups and 376 homes surveyed we had response from 225 that they were still having back-ups in their basements. Some of those were multiple times per year. Mr. Horvath referred to his power-point presentation. So here's a diagram showing roughly what combined sewer looks like and operates like on the left you can see under dry weather conditions the downspouts from buildings the storm lines from roads all these go into this combined pipe as does the sanitary sewage from our homes and from our businesses. Under dry conditions our pipes are big enough that they can handle all that flow and so it just continues to flow all the way to the treatment and we treat it there before discharging it back to the river. However, when we have wet weather, it rains our combined sewer starts to raise and at some point we have got bottle necks in our system that they start failing and so we get surcharging in those lines and that's when it backs up and either floods basements or overflows to the river. So our problem is as I mentioned we've got 36 of these along the river our city limits is approximately 40 square miles and our combined system is approximately 20 square miles. So one solution would be separating the entire city storm separate from sanitary and creating a bunch of storm sewers,unfortunately the cost of that program is well in excess of what our term control plan is. So now what I would like to do is maybe just have Becky talk a little bit about long term control plans. Councilmember Oliver Davis: How much rain does there have to be or how much snow does there have to be before it starts surcharging or backing up? Eric Horvath: That totally depends; I know that's not the answer you are looking for. The issue is that's its more about intensity and duration than it is about overall amount. Councilmember Oliver Davis: So the faster that it comes down? Eric Horvath: The faster it comes down the more we are going to have an overflow, so we can have a sprinkle over a couple days and not have an overflow when we get a good rain. You can see 60 to 70 days a year we have overflows. So imagine you know most rainfalls we are getting overflows. Councilmember Oliver Davis: And the same thing after the snow melts? Eric Horvath: Yeah, if you have a big snow melt, you can easily have an overflow as well. Becky Schaefer, Greeley and Hansen Engineers, 7820 Innovation Blvd., Suite 150, Indianapolis, Indiana, (referring to the power point) This slide shows the history of the development of South Bend's long term control plan. I won't get into the details, but it started back in 1989 and the city has invested a significant amount of money to study the system and bring together a bunch on information to develop this plan and they gotten input from several experts along the way and the plan has been through several iterations throughout time over the last twenty years. This table compares South Bend long term control plan to other long term control plans so the costs are listed and then the best way that we have found to compare plans is looking on how much combine sewer area you have in the City and the plan is basically is very dependent on the volume of combined sewage in the area and the land. So South Bend took the cost of the long term control plan per acre, combined acre in South Bend's mid-range. South Bend is in a Federal Consent Decree, a federal enforceable order; it was signed in December 2011. The element of the plan includes eliminating dry weather overflows; reducing wet weather overflows from 60-70 per year to 4 overflows per year and disinfecting those overflows so that water quality standards are met at the state line. There are a couple of ways that we can re-open the REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 consent decree and actually adjust the plan. This slide outlines those three options to potential change the plan. The first option is a potential extension of the schedule of the plan. The plan has a 20 year implementation; there is an opportunity to potentially extend that schedule up to five years. There are a couple of constraints that have to happen before you can apply for an extension. So the extension can be applied for after May, 2017; a total of almost$99 million dollars needs to be spent on the plan already and financial conditions have to get worse and there's an indicator a residential indicator that looks at the cost of the plan in comparison to median household income. Currently, that residential indicator is at 2.41% and would have to increase by 0.2%, so financial conditions would have to get worse. The second way to potentially change the plan in a consent decree is changing either the size or configuration of the facilities in the plan. There are two opportunities before December 31, 2020 to do that. Before we would apply for a change in the technical plan we would have to implement green design or CSOnet project improve that those project reduce the flow to these new facilities so that we can reduce the size of these new facilities; if we can reduce the size of these facilities up to a maximum of 40%. In order to even apply for this you have to plan the green infrastructure CSO net design it, construct it and then have a period of where you monitor the performance of it and then put together a case to make the modification. Those two options are options that are built into the consent decree so you would have to work and get approval from the parties that signed the consent decree which are the Department of Justice, EPA and IDEM. This third and last option is basically requesting that the entire consent decree be reopened. This would have to go through a federal court or a judge to change the plan. So there aren't any restrictions it's just going back and trying to open up the consent decree or the contract. Basically, what we know from experience is that you have to prove that your new plan is better for the environment than your old plan and you have to show good faith in implementing the plan that you have. So those are the three ways. Councilmember Oliver Davis: In you experience in the State of Indiana any cities who's under these consent decrees or any like this or any kind of decree, have they filed for any type of extension, under any other categories and what has been their success rate in being able to file for any of these things? Becky Schaefer: Sure, so for Option#1 extending the schedule, Elkhart has the same language in their consent decree but they have not extended the schedule, they have not yet applied for that extension. South Bend is the only community that I am aware of that has option#2 or has the flexibility to change tank sizes or configurations. A lot of people think that clause is very attractive in their consent decree. For Option#3 re-opening the consent decree, yes, I am aware of one other community that has done that and it took several years but it was successful. The reason it was successful was that they showed more environmental benefit facts. Councilmember Oliver Davis: On your third issue the city that was successful are there any kind of best practices that they learned in that kind of a case that we could adapt in our case that we could look at re-opening it based on some of the lessons that they learned on how to re-open theirs in order to meet the guidelines to get everything accomplished which would in effect possible reduce some of the cost. Becky Schaefer: Yes, I think that the#1 lesson learned was that EPA looks at the environmental benefit and just applying for the cost reduction is not going be a factor to them. Councilmember Oliver Davis; I understand that, are there any written documents that could be forwarded from that? Do you know what city that was? Becky Schaefer: Indianapolis. Councilmember Oliver Davis: Is there any information that we can have, some key things that we can look at to add to ours? Becky Schaefer: I am not aware of something that summarizes that. I am sure it could be pulled together. Councilmember Dr. David Varner: It's on their website, the City of Indianapolis. REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 Chairperson Karen White: I would ask that we let the presenter complete their presentation. Then we will come to the Council for questions,before we go to the public portion. Becky Schaefer: So,this slide details the deadline for the consent decree within the next five years. The 1s`deadline is to complete all of the Phase I projects which includes sewer separation by December of 2017. Starting one project by March 2014, that there are five tanks that are upstream of the East Race just one of them needs to be started by March 2014 and then one 111 project at Leeper Park needs to be started by March 2017. Eric Horvath: So, next steps we've got this long term control plan, this 20 year plan that has a number of different items in it and we've gone over those items but in a nutshell you've got separations that we are going to be doing upgrades to our treatment plant large interceptors sewers to get more flow to the plant and then storage facilities that will store instead of overflowing into the river, it will store it,then after it stops raining it will be pumped back to the sewers to get to the treatment plant. Right now,what we are focused on is Phase I which is the sewer separation projects and this is in those areas where you've got combined areas of having back-ups in basements and so we are going to focus on those areas separating those out and that will reduce the amount of flow in the system and reduce the amount flow that we need to store. Because it will take some of the clean water sources off of the system entirely, store entry, I should say. Then in addition to that, we are going to be focusing at the Waste Water Treatment Plant an upgrade at that facility. The consent decree requires us to be able to treat a hundred million gallons a day at peak, so during wet weather occasions we need to be able to treat a hundred million gallons a day and we are at 77 peak now, and so the initial two phases will be eliminating sewage in basements from separating sewers in neighborhoods and the secondly upgrading our treatment plant. Then, concurrently what we are going to do is; and Oliver you asked the question about you know what kind of rain event, and there are so many factors that go into it, cause, intensity, duration some of it's where the rainfall occurs, the coverage area, and part of its just how many rainfalls you've had and have wetter grounds, you will get more run off. All of those things go into it and so you can guess that the model is not perfect, and as they built the a model, they built a conservative model, and now we've got these hundred plus sensors in our system, they are giving us real time data every 5 minutes on flows and depths,we've got a better idea of how our system operates. So we can utilize those including rain gauges sensors in different parts of the city so we are going to utilize that information to recalibrate the model so we can get a more exact model than what we have currently. And so, we hope to see is that some of the numbers that we are looking at will do down significantly so, instead of needing to have a tank that pulls eight million gallons of combined flow, perhaps we can get a tank that holds six million gallons. We will know after we do the recalibration of the model and can see where it lies. And then associated with that will be an update of the LTCP and look then are there ways that we can still get that same environmental benefit and get the end result,but do it less expensively, that is going to be absolutely paramount to us, to continue to try value engineer every project and find ways to do this program, what ways we can save cost and do it in a way that is sustainable when we look at the economic component as well. So that will be our next steps, after that will then the Phase II projects you know we plan on optimizing the system using technology as best we can. Those things on storage tanks, interceptors,use of green solutions, will come in to play as we re-evaluate whether or not we can take some of the flows off with green solutions and just re-look at the entire plan if we have time. So this number, these come from the sheets that you got from John and he is going to talk about how the capital plan drives the rates and ultimately what I want to show is that we have to do optimization and we have to use technology to reduce the cost because we are fighting inflation. We have$432 million dollars of capital improvements that have yet to be done in the next 16 years. Those were 2007 dollars, the ENR Midwest Region Construction Cost Index with inflation over the last 20 years of 3% annually, so moving that forward in the years that we were going to use if we were going to do these projects could be as much as a$667 million dollar project. So clearly we have our work cut out for us to try to reduce the cost of the overall long-term control plan. Another thing I want to share, Dr. Ferlic we talked a little bit about this, and by the way Phoenix, is higher than our right now,there are at $58.46 a user right now. (Referring to power point) This is our utility rate in comparison and what I did is I just put South Bend/Mishawaka Metro against the other States and these are the top 10 states in rank, the rank on the left is the overall rank of all costs of living and I've got them sorted here by utility so you can see we are just under Mississippi in terms of being competitive for overall rates. Now, mind you this is all utilities, this is not REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 focused on water and sewer, but ACCRA does report the cost of living index for all utilities and so I want to share that as well,just to show that we currently are competitive and we share the Council's you have made it clear that you want us to be in a position where we continue to be competitive with our rates. We got this huge consent decree that we are going to have to do something about and the issue in front of us. We are going to do our best to do it in a way that we continue to be competitive on utility rates the best we can. (Referring to the power point) This is where we currently line up,these are 2013 rates and for all cities and towns in the State of Indiana with a population over 25,000 you can see in the left column the ones that are above us and then you get down on the right one there a couple down how we are currently$55.38, so there is where we line up with the other cities and towns in the State of Indiana of populations over 25,000. Chairperson White: Before John comes up, Eric, I am going to ask Council, I think that a couple of them have some questions, so we don't lose the questions and then we will come right back. Councilmember Oliver Davis: Was there any discussion in 2007 when these numbers were created didn't that give some understanding with the sense that it was going to be a 20 year plan that inflation would already be included in it, so the fact that was already a given? Eric Horvath: It was not included, that's all I can say. Everywhere you look at a plan they usually have a master that says 2007 dollars, so I'm not sure why that was, but you know, it's something that has been bothering me, because I don't want to get to a point where I've got a ten million dollar project as 2007 dollars and I go to build it in 2017 and everyone still expects it to still be a$10 million dollar project. Now, it may very well be, and it may be less than that based on you know improvements that we see to the industry. But you know if it's something like a large diameter sewer pipe there haven't been significant improvements in the way that we do that over the last number of years. So, I don't see those things changing drastically. Councilmember Oliver Davis: Ok, the only reason that I say that is like this is every four years and so in 2017, we will come back to the Council and say those numbers were based on the 2013 numbers and they need to continue to raise it and raise it and this thing can continually go out of whack, without having any kind of ceiling or something on it. So what they did then is adjust it, and keep on adjusting it, and keeps on going up, and up, and up. Eric Horvath: (Referring to the power point) I hear what you are saying, if you go back a slide, if you look, and I apologize it is really difficult to read here,but if you look at the 2007 dollars column which is the top column and you see 2014/2015 all the way to 2029, that matches up with the sheet that John gave you and he is going to talk about essentially set our capital plan, which sets our rates,but those are all based upon on 2007 dollars. So when you add all those up you get to $432 million and so we are basing rates on that$432 million. So, the reason that I wanted to show you this is because if I move those forward from '07 to let's say 2019 that$38 million becomes $55 million with inflation, I think if I am reading that correctly, my eyes aren't that good. And so at the end of 2029, you have a plan of$667 million, so what we are funding is $431 Councilmember Oliver Davis: But when John did, I'm sure when he created those numbers back in 2007, that weren't taken into consideration, when he created the $431. Eric Horvath: It was not. Councilmember Oliver Davis: Why not? Eric Horvath: It wasn't, and I can't answer why not, I'm not sure. Chairperson White: When he comes up for his presentation, you can ask him that question. Councilmember Dr. David Varner: The comment I wanted to make was on the slide before this one(referring to the power point presentation), the one that had the rates, subsequent rates. Unfortunately, I have been doing this long enough that what you are seeing here is a game of REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 statistical regulatory leap frog where everybody puts the rates from one year and says see we are fine and then three or four years down the road when they haven't done anything, we have moved up significantly, which it is an interesting number I tend to look at the rates as proposed down the road when you combine sewer and water rates, I maintain we will be for a normal household somewhere in the neighborhood of$150 - $200 dollars a month. That's something that is going to leave us scratching our heads and it won't be you and it won't be me, it will be subsequent Councilmembers and subsequent employees who say what are we going to do to correct this. The time to correct it is now, when we find ways to make this a less expensive program and a more efficient program and if we simply follow this line out the way it is, we will be in a big, big problem. Bigger than we can imagine today, so I can't emphasize how much I think it is important to get it under control now and the get the rates workable, so that it is a finished product despite what this consent decree is. Other people have worked successfully at it. Something that is not going to leave us uncompetitive and scratching our heads, that's not a legacy that I want to leave. Councilmember Dieter: The rates that Dr. Varner brought up earlier at the committee meeting just flow into this. He was saying right now, so that's the big concern I have of catching up, catching up, catching up, and then at some point when we are not here,maybe Oliver will still be here, but were not here, it will be a big issue and I don't want him to have the burden of that. Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic: I agree with Dr. Varner this is an unsustainable business model, so that is what we have to look into this as a business model, and that's what our Council is going to do and we are going to work with you and we can come to a good conclusion on this. Councilmember Henry Davis: Thank you, I have two, three actually, why are we always constantly grouped in with like a Mishawaka/South Bend thing when we are dealing with our numbers? I would think that it would probably put us at a different average, whether up or down if we are grouped with another city. Eric Horvath: Oh, yeah I am sorry the utilities one does do metropolitan districts. This particular one is just showing the actual rates of each of those individual cities, but the South Bend/Mishawaka one because that's a national wide index they don't do each, if they do them I didn't have access to that. They may very well have South Bend, you may be able to buy that report,but for the reports that I was able to get on line, this is the metropolitan district. Councilmember Henry Davis: Just for the sake of certain numbers or exact numbers, I would be interested in, I don't know how much it would change, but deal directly with South Bend, I'm sure, but I don't know how much they would deal with South Bend in a Mishawaka model or conversation,not that I am over there,but I would be interested in seeing where we are directly at when we are dealing with our city. The other deal, we always seem to be compared to Ft. Wayne. When Ft. Wayne is significantly larger than you know us,by land mass and population and I'm wondering why are we always higher than Ft. Wayne. I just noticed that, on these slides. Eric Horvath: I can't speak to specifics on that, but I will say this knowing Ft. Wayne's system, it's significantly different. They've got these huge CSO ponds that were built a number of years ago at their Waste Water Treatment Plant and so that holds a significant amount of flow right now and it helps them balance that flow better and we just don't have any room to do that. We don't have any place where we can build a multi-million gallon storage facility. So the South Bend-Mishawaka metropolitan rate, I think is probably pretty close when you find if you were to separate South Bend from Mishawaka because when you look at the water and sewer rates they are really similar, we are at $55 and they are at $59, so I'm guessing the rest of the utility rates electric, gas are probably pretty similar too. The other thing that I wanted to point out is so on the projections that we have done to support the $431 m and the increases that they have projected every year for the next 16 years we did put what the average residential user rate would be in and John can go over that, but at the end of the plan at 2029 it's $95.43 cents I believe is what the rates was. The last thing, if you could jump to the chart (referring to the power point) a couple down, right here, this will show us in relation to those other population of 25,000 and I know it's really hard to see, because we wanted to get them all on their, and what I did was, I compared us, I took the 2013 rates and didn't increase them at all, even though a number of these REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 are going through increases right now, so of them are significant like we talked about Evansville, with the 32%, but what I did was I just put in our 2014, if it went at 9% and where we would be in relation to everyone if nobody else had a rate increase just to show you kind of where we are for the next four years at least. Councilmember Henry Davis Jr.: Yes, sure, thank you for that. One thing that I have been concerned about and I have been talking about this for the last month or so, is how do we capture the biggest economic impact possible when we are dealing with large prices like this, I was concerned about another project and I can't remember right now exactly what it was or actually two of them these past few Council meetings in dealing with how we deal with local hiring of labor. And so as we are edging forward on this project/projects how likely is it for us to think or know that we will be able to be specific in our goal setting to make sure that the money is captured back here, this is a huge project, this is monumental, you know and I agree with Dr. Varner when he was saying about a$200 water bill, my seniors and lower income families they can't even pay their water bill now, and you know for us to look at an increase is already scary enough, and you know, you talk about no water at all, so how do we kind of reverse that but not only reverse it but make sure that those dollars are being recaptured here, so that if there is an impact, the impact actually happens here and not in Southwestern Michigan or you know somewhere in Colorado or where ever somebody might come in and say(inaudible) Eric Horvath: I think that is something that we definitely need to look at, one of the issues that we are going to have to deal with is that you are allowed to do local preferences for equipment and supplies,but you are not allowed to do local prefers toward public works bid projects, you have to go with the lowest, responsible, responsible bidder. But they may be other ways that we can figure out systems that we can drive so that we can have construction locally and I think that is something that would be important to us that we would love to sit down and share ideas on how to we get there to make sure that we are keeping our dollars local as much as possible, I think that is very important. Councilmember Scott: Going back to what Dr. Varner was saying, of these cities here (referring to the power point)besides Indianapolis, are they any other ones going through the CSO project? You don't have to answer that right now, I would kind of like to know what their budget is on their projects, Indianapolis and anybody else. Eric Horvath: Ok, if not, I can probably answer most of those, but we will send you those. Councilmember Scott: Can we get this power point? Eric Horvath: Absolutely. Chairperson White: I am going to ask Eric to complete your presentation, I do know that you do want to go over the finances and then we will ask the Council any questions on the presentation and then we will go to the public hearing. But I also know that we will continue to have discussions on the issue that is before us in terms of this bill, so if you have questions,just make sure that you keep those questions and they will be addressed. This is just really the Is`public hearing that we are having thus far. John Skomp, Crowe, Horwath: As far as the financial side of the presentation goes (referring to the power point presentation) that his gentleman has up here right now,throughout the remainder of the life of the plan we put together here would be 2029, what we put together in the plan is basically a$3.44 increase per year in the monthly sewer bill. What we looked at as we started here obviously over$400 million in capital improvements that were needed over that period of time. First of all, we tried to have some level of construction each year, it's a project that is mandated and it be done in the most efficient manner and try not to do $75 million dollars of projects in one year and then $3,4, or 5 million in another year. Trying to smooth that out, so that a level amount of projects can be completed each year. Along with that also, trying to make it as smooth as possible the monthly increase in the sewer bill year over year, we have done that a couple of different ways tried to look at a percentage increase trying to keep that level. And what it comes out to is trying to make the impact on a residential customer as manageable as possible. We have also come back and looked at trying to come to Council and plan for these REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 increases and last time it was over a four(4) year period of time, a 9% increase each year. We are trying to do the same thing at this point in time, 9% increases over the next four(4) years, that allows us to actually go out into the public and explain to your customers what they can expect to happen with this bill. Especially, if you are looking at not-for-profits, schools, hospitals, those other entities that have to put together budgets. They would like to know over a period of time what's going to happen with the rates, especially when they do know that they are putting enormous pressure on the utility and cause increases. For them not to see an increase for a couple years and then all of a sudden be shocked with a 30, 40, 50 percent increase the next year, it makes them hard to budget and plan on their end. So we try to put together planned increases over a period of time so that they can be put in, in a reasonable manner. I will talk to you about the pressure at this point in time, as Eric mentioned just a little bit earlier, these rate increases are driven by capital improvements. What we are trying to accomplish over the next four(4) years is about $91 million dollars' worth of projects and trying to mix the funding of those projects through bonds, and debt financing and also paying for some out of our revenue stream. As was mentioned earlier about the sewage works fund, it is an Enterprise Fund, the cash comes into that fund, and the revenues coming in are for the financial responsibilities of that fund. We've got debt services, we have operation and maintenance expenses, salaries, wages, benefits, insurances,power, chemicals all of those needed expenses, we have all those, taxes, and we have capital improvement budget. So the money coming in, the revenues come in and pay for the projects. We are currently bringing in $32 million dollars a year in revenue, and as you look at it about$9.5 million dollars of that $32 million go to annual debt service. What we are looking to do is to increase that$32 million by 2017 we would like to have that increased to $40 million dollars. About half of that increase a little over$4 million would go to funding additional debt service for completing that $91 million dollars of projects. The other$4 to $6 million a year would go to funding some improvements with cash. Yes, we had built in some inflationary pressure with the operation and maintenance expenses and those types of things, those are minor really though in comparison to what we are really trying to do as far as bond fund some of the $91 million dollars in projects over the next three years and pay for some of those with capital improvements. Again, if you look at the sewage works, enterprise fund, its cash in, cash out. When we need to fund this level of projects, I guess fortunately or unfortunately the source of revenue generally comes from the customers and as you look at it what we have planned for is on the residential bill an increase each year in that bill so that we can fund the projects over that period of time. As I said before the average is $3.44 for the remainder of the life of the plan. We have put that together and shown you in this detail here, (referring to power point) when you go out to 2029, when we came here four years ago we showed you an additional four years on this plan, showing comparisons of where we are at. If you were to go back and compare what we gave you four years ago compared to what we have now we are pretty much staying on target with where we are at as far as the final rate. Yes, the final rate is a big number but all we can do is stay on target with that and move forward and try to lessen the impact as much as possible. If you look at it as Eric mentioned before, we are competitive now. A lot of other cities many,many cities are out there dealing with these same things. As Eric showed you our 2017 rate already compares on the high side,but competitive with the other communities and we know that they are going to be going up either currently or within the next few years as they are dealing with these things. So, as far as the financial side goes, I think we have a plan that is very feasible, we think that it is put together in such a way that we can give the public some reasonable increases that they can anticipate and plan for and move forward. We really need to move this project, and one thing that was asked,how about just doing a 5%increase instead of a 9% increase over the next few years. If you knock down to a 5%basically, you are going to put twenty some million dollars of project over to 2017/2018, double digit rate increases needed at that point in time, with projects being delayed. I think one of the things that was mentioned earlier that Becky mentioned was the re-opener clause is if we spend $100 million dollars when we get to that $100 million dollar number, one of the those re- opener clauses could be activated if we start not funding the projects then we are not going to get to that one part of re-opener clause. Part of the financial part of it goes; you can see the increase in residential monthly rates which are very feasible at this point in time. I would like to open it up to any questions that you may have. Councilmember Oliver Davis: Yes, thank you, I think that there needs to be a clear understanding of what we have done in past capital projects since the inception of this whole project that the public needs to know. That since we have spent the first dollar, what kind of REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 projects have been,how have all of those monies that we have set aside for 2005, 2009, and all those kinds of things, how have all those monies been spent that has helped to clear up our waters to do all that. I think that needs to be clearly explained because the question I have is how do we know that, how do we meet our federal mandates in terms of when it comes to capital projects in using, like I said before, a Chevy model instead of a Lexus or a Cadillac model. What is the bare minimum of capital projects that we need to meet our federal mandates, in terms of that, and how do we know that? So, we can go back to our neighborhood groups and say we need to have only this amount because sometimes what we have been told in the past that there may be some more additional or fluff or some wishful thinking or some higher rate of cost that has been built in to these costs that have made them higher than what they really could be. And if we could still meet the federal requirements, the guidelines, the EPA,the Department of Justice,by having a different type of plan when it comes to capital projects that meets the requirements yet saves us costs. Could you please help us to ask/address those matters? John Skomp: Let me address that very quickly. First of all, our responsibility at Crowe, we do not put together the project costs. We are not the engineer's that actually go out and design the projects and bring in the project costs. We do take the project costs that are given to us by the engineer and go back and forth and put together a reasonable spend down time tables as far as if this is the cost of the project how many years does it take to do that, how many dollars do you need here. So you see the spreadsheet I put together, we develop that with the engineers saying ok if we are trying to do reasonable spend down each year how many dollars in these projects will you need in each year to kind of plan this out. Councilmember Oliver Davis: So basically, when the administration came to you, and the former administration under the leadership of Gary Gilot at that time, they brought this plan to you, and your goal is to say ok based on this plan that you are presenting to us here's the financial plan to accomplish it. That's really been your goal? John Skomp: It really is a more of a process than that as far as when you go back and forth with the EPA and IDEM, you are also dealing with some financial capability analysis where you are saying if that is the level of spending you do, here is the impact on the residential customer, they have a residential indicator that you can calculate. So we did some calculations with different construction numbers and your betting that through the EPA and IDEM and you go and show the impact on customers until you end up and what happened here with South Bend, I probably should let the engineer speak more to this, is basically it came down to the amount of money that you needed to spend to get to a certain number of overflows each year. Now, the numbers we are using right now are the numbers that were used, kind of what Eric said were 2007 dollars that we used to come to the consent decree that we have and tried to plan those dollars out. Councilmember Oliver Davis: But, basically if the administration had brought to you a Chevy plan, then you would have just been able to do the same thing and brought that. So your evaluation is not based on the capital project, it is based on the plan that came to you. John Skomp: I am in no way equipped to evaluate that. Councilmember Dr. David Varner: No, we are going to have some more discussions on this. So, I'll pass on this. But I do, if this started in 2011 in 2031 the project should be completed if in fact nothing changes. It's a 20 year project. Eric Horvath: We have it funded to 2029 is because the construction projects have to be completed by 2031. Councilmember Dr. David Varner: Yes, that is my point, in 20 years it should be completed in 2031. The debt service rolls off, on a schedule. Eric Horvath: Correct. Councilmember Dr. David Varner: Having said that you have $10 million dollars in capital planned. It seems to me that we have a huge cash cow created in 2031 unless we allow our expenses to grow. So if we have this cash cow going forward which includes payments in over REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 $6 million dollars a year which includes $10 million dollars' worth of cash outlays for other construction. Often we create that with this schedule and not think that we can do it for less along the way, so we are actual neutral at that point in time. I think that is the discussion that we have to have. John Skomp: So one of the things this schedule highly anticipates as we go forward is that some of the bond issues roll off as the new ones come on. When you get out to 2029 and 2030 there is not a cash cow where it all stops. Councilmember Dr. David Varner: No, I understand that. The bonds have to pay out. John Skomp: The bonds have to pay out, they are 20 year bonds. Councilmember Dr. David Varner: It doesn't go on forever. John Skomp: Correct, we hope that the (inaudible) does not go on forever, it dissipates. Councilmember Dr. David Varner: Alright, we will clarify some of that. Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic: Is that right, did rates not go up for up fourteen (14) years or did they go up by inflation. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: Prior to 1989 they did not go up. Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic: Fourteen years after that they did not go up right? Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: They started going up from 1989 on. ' Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic: But,prior to that they did not go up. John Skomp: From 1989 to 2003 they did not go up. Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic: They did not go up, so we kind of got behind the eight ball there. Then you had these massive increases, which were necessary. We just have to go through the numbers, each week. Chairperson White: We thank you for the presentation again, this is the second public hearing that we have in regard to this particular bill. We do foresee that we will have other hearings as well. We will now move to the public hearing portion. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill,proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Councilmember Oliver Davis: Excuse me madam chair, I think that this is the first public hearing? Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: This is the first for the Common Council, we have had committee meetings. Kathleen Petitjean, 119 S. 26th Street, South Bend, Indiana, I am torn between being on one side or the other, but I want you to know that I recognize that the City of South Bend has to, we have to address the raw sewage and pollution that is going our river, and it is mandated of course by the government that we do this. And I recognize that this is going to cost us money, and we have to do this and I would support a rate increase with the caveat that we explore natural hydrologic solutions such as permeable pavement as other green solutions retaining our heritage trees that reduce the overall cost of this project. Recently at Greentown an event that was supported by the City, there was a presenter who demonstrated that municipalities all over the country are realizing significant savings by using these so called"green solutions"by using the natural hydrology of the earth we can save a lot of money and not even have to increase the waste water REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 treatment plant to the extent that we would have to anticipate. I am very, very encouraged that our Public Works Director Eric Horvath, is very,he seems very, very open to looking at green solutions and I am so thrilled that this is something that he has expressed to me in my conversations with him in our community Walnut Grove, we spoke about using green solutions as a pilot project and looking at some grant opportunities to look at that, I am very much in support of that. Some people have said that using these kinds of solutions are not usable in cold climates even Mayor Pete was under the impression that we couldn't use these solutions and that anybody who would doubt that I will tell them that they are successfully using these solutions in Iowa, Canada, there are companies out there who have proven track records and who have implemented these successful hydrologic storm solutions while saving a lot of money for municipalities. Again, I want you to know that I recognize that raising the rates is something we are going to have to do because of this history of how we've treated water as a nuisance rather than a resource to protect,but protect the water we must and protect the river we must. And we are legally bound to take care of the storm water but it is also a more imperative that we use best practices with natural hydrologic solutions. Thank you for your time. The following individual spoke in opposition to this bill. Carol Thompson, 51717 Summerwood Ct., Granger, Indiana, I will tell you my initial reaction to receiving the proposal was really a shock. I kept looking at this and saying this can't be, this can't be accurate. So I started doing a little bit of research on it and I learned a lot more here tonight by being here and I do appreciate what I've heard so far. But when you look at the fact that we have already had a 129%increase over the last ten (10) years, and now we are looking at another 41% increase over the next four(4). That's 170% percent increase, that's difficult for anyone; my income hasn't gone up 170%. So what does that mean in dollars for us as consumers if you have a 5" meter maybe that $3.44 for is an accurate number. But it's still a $37.00 annually and $127.00 increase. If you have an 1" meter your almost at$1,008.00 a year. That a $293.00 increase per year. This is before any additional usage or taxes that are calculated on that as well. So we are looking at a situation where this becomes more and more conducive for us to find alternate ways, or places to live, or different resources. I am one of those $150.00 consumers in 2017 and that's without using any additional water that is just having water brought into my home. I don't see how anyone can justify this as fair and reasonable. There is going to be a really big impact if you have larger meters. If you look at what the 12" meter rates are going to increase to almost$41,000.00 annually and for companies that are struggling right now to make ends meet what's that going to do our small business owners that are going to have to find ways to stick that in their budget. Unfortunately water is not a service that we can't do without, that's what make is a commodity, and we can't go out and look for alternative solutions, we are stuck with your decisions. We are bound to bear the consequences and the choices that you make on this decision and unfortunately it's going to have an impact on our most marginal lives and poor socio-economic groups. Raising rates is simply an alternative to a hidden tax, it is hidden in the user fees and rate increases. Let me assure you, you can dress it up and call it whatever you like, but it's a tax. I think that the burden is being placed solely on the consumers at this point, or at least the majority of it is. Information is far reaching, less discretionary numbers and also we have the impact on our community, I personally would approach you to look for alternative sources of funding. Look at what may be available to you. This society has got to stop funding programs that where we are just looking to the easiest answers which is raising rates. We need to look at some of the alternatives that are out there and I hope you will continue to explore, I urge you please seek alternative choices, continue exploring and do what you can to keep the rates at a minimum. I totally appreciate what you are trying to do and I know what we need to do, I'm not against any of that, I just want you to seek alternative options, because right now I think you are putting the extreme burden on the consumers. No rebuttal at this time. Councilmember Dieter made a motion to continue this bill until the November 25, 2013. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Oliver Davis: Question madam chair. Will this bill be continued back in the Utilities Committee part of it or will it be continued back in the Council portion again? REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: Again, several questions were raised at the Utilities meeting, so it will be sent back to committee. BILL NO. 60-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $21,000.00 FROM THE PALAIS ROYALE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND (FUND 450) FOR REPAIRS TO THE HISTORIC EXTERIOR/INTERIOR OF THE VENUE Councilmember Dieter made a motion to continue this bill until the November 25, 2013,meeting of the Council at the request of the petitioner. Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight(8) ayes. RISE AND REPORT Councilmember Scott made a motion to rise and report to full Council. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine(9) ayes. ATTEST: ATTEST:966944- John Voorde, City Clerk Karen L. White, Chai erson Committee of the Whole REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County-City Building at 8:26 p.m. Council President Derek Dieter,presided with nine (9) members present. BILLS—THIRD READING ORDINANCE NO. 10268-13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1906 FRANKLIN ST. SOUTH BEND, IN 46614, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 6, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA This bill had third reading. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. ORDINANC ENO. 10269-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE,ARTICLE 1, BASIC PROVISIONS,TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION RELATIVE TO THE REZONING OF EXISTING STRUCTURES; ARTICLE 2, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO REVISE STATE SWIMMING POOL CODE REFERENCES; ARTICLE 4, REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, TO REVISE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS; ARTICLE 5 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO REVISE AN INCORRECT CITATION; ARTICLE 7, GENERAL REGULATIONS, TO REVISE CERTAIN LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES, AND TO REVISE INCORRECT CITATIONS This bill had third reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight(8) ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 10270-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 16, ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT PLASTIC BAGS FOR YARD WASTE This bill had third reading. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to amend this bill as in the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to pass this bill as amended. Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 10271-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO REINSTATE ARTICLE 2, SECTION 17-27.1 HAULED SEPTIC WASTE This bill had third reading. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 4294-13 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4004 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE AS AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF AN EIGHT (8) YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR THE LEBERMUTH COMPANY, 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 4004 Technology Drive, South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows: Lot numbered Six (6) as shown on the recorded Plat of Landmark Business Park, Section REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 3, recorded April 18, 1985 as Document Number 8506870 in the Office of the Recorder of St. Joseph County, Indiana. and which has Key Number 71-03-19-200-010.000-009 be designated 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 remonstrance's 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 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 II. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for and is granted Real property tax deduction for up to a period of 0 years as shown by the attachment pursuant to Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-17 and further determines that the petition, the Memorandum of Agreement between the Petitioner and the City of South Bend, and the Statement of Benefits comply with Chapter 2, Article 6, of the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend and Indiana Code 6-1.1-12 et seq. SECTION III. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approved by the Mayor. s/Derek D. Dieter Member of the Common Council Mr. Alan Brown, Vice-President, The Lebermuth Co., Inc, 4004 Technology, South Bend, Indiana,made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Brown advised that Lebermuth is consolidating their Mishawaka and Bremen locations into one (1) location in South Bend. This includes creation of manufacturing, laboratory& office space. He stated that the renovations will take approximately$1.2 m in order to make the site functional for their needs. Mr. Brown stated that Lebermuth does fragrance and flavor compounding and R&D work with fragrances and flavors. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. Councilmember Henry Davis Jr. asked how many jobs will be retained. Mr. Brown stated there will be fifty-five (55). ' Councilmember Henry Davis Jr. asked if he thought the tax abatement process was business friendly. Mr. Brown stated that he believes the process is smooth, the questions are fair and South Bend is business friendly. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember White made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 4295-13 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4528, 4536 4546 4606, 4612 LAKE BLACKTHORN DRIVE,6568 DOCKSIDE DRIVE, 4636, 4644, 4710, 4720, 4728, 4814, 4822 STARBOARD DRIVE, 6510, 6507 STILL WATERS COURT, 4938, 4954, 5011, 4935, 4915 STERN LINE COURT, 6535, 6530, 6634 LEEWAY DRIVE, 5015, 4917 MASTHEAD COURT; 5002, 5010, 5013, 5003, 4925 BOW LINE COURT, 4738, 4712 PORTSIDE DRIVE, 4627, 4611, 4604, 4614, 4624 PIER COURT, 6613 DOCKSIDE DRIVE, 4711, 4719, 4821, 4829 STARBOARD DRIVE, 6530 LAKE CREST CIRCLE, 6735, 6747, 4736, 4739 BLACKTHORN HARBOR DRIVE AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A (5) FIVE-YEAR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR COOREMAN REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, has adopted a Declaratory Resolution designating certain areas within the City as Residentially Distressed Areas for the purpose of tax abatement consideration; and WHEREAS, a Declaratory Resolution designated the area commonly known as The Villas at lake Blackthorn— Section One, South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE VILLAS AT LAKE BLACKTHORN,SECTION ONE A PART OF THE NORTHWEST,SOUTHWEST,AND SOUTHEAST QUARTERS OF SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, GERMAN TOWNSHIP, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, 5.8 FEET SOUTH OF A 2" IRON MONUMENT WITH A CAP LABELED"SEC.CORNER";THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST,A DISTANCE OF 1549.41 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF U.S. ROUTE 31 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES: (1) SOUTH 17 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 85.66 FEET; (2) THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 58 SECONDS WEST,A DISTANCE OF 409.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5950.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 58 SECONDS, AND A CHORD OF 933.60 FEET BEARING SOUTH 12 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST;(3)THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY CURVE,A DISTANCE OF 934.56 FEET;(4)THENCE SOUTH 16 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 211.20 FEET; (5) THENCE SOUTH 38 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 481.60 FEET; (6) THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 39 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 114.32 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD BOOK 741, PAGES 475-477, AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF RECORDER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA; (7) THENCE SOUTH 35 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 401.95 FEET;(8)THENCE SOUTH 2 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST,A DISTANCE OF 256.87 FEET;(9) THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 199.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 8717366,AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LAND, NORTH 0 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST,A DISTANCE OF 181.22 FEET;THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LAND, NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 323.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 500.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2.00 FEET;THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2.00 FEET;THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 20 SECONDS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11,2013 WEST, A DISTANCE OF 500.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2.00 FEET;THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST,A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 800.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT "A" AS DEPICTED IN THE REPLAT OF RIGHTER'S ORANGE ROAD MINOR SUBDIVISION, DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 8525803, AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT "A", NORTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT "A", NORTH 0 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 251.56 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, BEING THE CENTERLINE OF ORANGE ROAD, CONCAVE TO THE NORTH,HAVING A RADIUS OF 335.00 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 44 SECONDS, AND A CHORD OF 112.38 FEET BEARING NORTH 67 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 112.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 70.83 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT I OF BOGUE'S MAJOR SUBDIVISION, DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 8932797,AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 9331954, AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID LAND THE NEXT THREE (3) COURSES; (1) SOUTH 26 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST,A DISTANCE OF 66.96 FEET;(2)THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST,A DISTANCE OF 556.25 FEET;(3)THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 39 SECONDS EAST,A DISTANCE OF 80.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST;THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST,A DISTANCE OF 729.56 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THAT PORTION WHICH INCLUDES LOTS I THROUGH 5 INCLUSIVE, OF THE VILLAS AT LAKE BLACKTHORN SECTION ONE, AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT, RECORDED APRIL 21, 2003, IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF ST.JOSEPH COUNTY,AS INSTRUMENT#0323151. SAID DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINING 56.25 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS,AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD. and which has Key Numbers: 4528 Lake Blackthorn Drive 025-1010-0176 4536 Lake Blackthorn Drive 0251010-017620 4546 Lake Blackthorn Drive 025-1010-017621 4606 Lake Blackthorn Drive 025-1010-017622 4612 Lake Blackthorn Drive 025-1010-017623 6568 Dockside Drive 025-1010-017625 4636 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017626 4644 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017627 4710 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017629 4720 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017630 4728 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017631 4814 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017635 4822 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017636 6510 Still Waters Court 025-1010-017637 6507 Still Waters Court 025-1010-017639 4938 Stern Line Court 025-1010-017644 4954 Stern Line Court 025-1010-017646 5011 Stern Line Court 025-1010-017650 4935 Stern Line Court 025-1010-017655 4915 Stern Line Court 025-1010-017657 6535 Leeway Drive 025-1010-017658 5015 Masthead Court 025-1010-017664 4917 Masthead Court 025-1010-017667 5002 Bow Line Court 025-1010-017672 5010 Bow Line Court 025-1010-017673 5013 Bow Line Court 025-1010-017674 5003 Bow Line Court 025-1010-017675 4925 Bow Line Court 025-1010-017677 4738 Portside Drive 025-1010-017687 111 4712 Portside Drive 025-1010-017690 4627 Pier Court 025-1010-017693 4611 Pier Court 025-1010-017695 4604 Pier Court 025-1010-017697 4614 Pier Court 025-1010-017698 4624 Pier Court 025-1010-017699 6613 Dockside Drive 025-1010-017703 4711 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017708 4719 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017709 6530 Lake Crest Circle 025-1010-017711 REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 4821 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017717 4829 Starboard Drive 025-1010-017730 6530 Leeway Drive 025-1010-017719 6634 Leeway Drive 025-1010-017724 6735 Blackthorn Harbor Drive 025-1010-017403 6747 Blackthorn Harbor Drive 025-1010-017428 4736 Blackthorn Harbor Drive 025-1010-017429 4739 Blackthorn Harbor Drive 025-1010-017728 be designated as a Residentially Distressed Area under the provisions of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., and South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76 et seq., 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 remonstrance's and objections from interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the qualifications for a residentially distressed 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 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. 9394-03, which was passed on February 10, 2003: 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 ii. are owned by a unit of local government; or D. A significant number of dwelling units within the area are not permanently occupied or a significant number of parcels in the area are vacant land; or E. A significant number of dwelling units within the area are: i. the subject of an order issued under IC 36-7-9; or ii. evidencing significant building deficiencies; or F. The area has experienced a net loss in the number of dwelling units, as documented by census information, local building and demolition permits, or certificates of . occupancy, or 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 REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 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 commencing from November 12, 2008, or the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Common Council whichever date is later. SECTION IV. The Common Council hereby confirms its Declaratory Resolution designating the area described herein as a Residentially Distressed Area for the purposes of tax abatement. Such designation is for Real property tax abatement only and is limited to five (5) calendar years commencing from November 12, 2008, or the date of the adoption of the Declaratory Resolution by the Common Council whichever date is later. SECTION V. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for and is granted Real property tax deduction for a period of five (5) 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 6-1.1-12.1 et seq. SECTION VI. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/Derek D. Dieter Member of the Common Council Steve Cooreman, President, Cooreman Real Estate Group, Inc., 4404 Technology Drive, South Bend, Indiana,made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Cooreman advised that he intends to develop fifty-one (51) lots in the Villas of Lake Blackthorn, Sections I and II. The petitioner previously had abatement on those lots and that abatement expires this November. Mr. Cooreman stated that the lots have been slow to sell due to economic market factors, including the tightening of the credit market, and the decline in real estate property values which have compounded the impact of higher than comparable city taxes in this subdivision. He stated that the abatement would provide an incentive for citizens to invest in new construction within the city limits of South Bend. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. Councilmember Henry Davis Jr. asked if he thought the tax abatement process was business friendly. Mr. Cooreman stated that he has been doing business with the City of South Bend for the past 15-20 years and they have been very supportive of business and very business friendly. Councilmember Henry Davis Jr. asked if the homes were built. Mr. Cooreman—no. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember White made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of eight(8) ayes. BILLS —FIRST READING REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2013 BILL NO. 65-13 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 4 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE INCLUSION OF NEW SECTION 4-21 ENTITLED BUSKERS AND SIDEWALK PERFORMERS This bill had first reading. Councilmember White made a motion to refer this bill to the Health &Public Safety Committee and Personnel & Finance Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on December 9, 2013. Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BILL NO. 66-13 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 8, SECTION 2-121 (a) OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO REINSTATE ONE NON-DESIGNATED HOLIDAY This bill had first reading. Councilmember Dieter made a motion to refer this bill to the Personnel & Finance Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on November 25, 2013. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Councilmember Henry Davis Jr. stated that there needs to be a website that would be able to capture job availability for the company's requesting tax abatement and creating jobs. We need to make sure that the information is out there and accessible. He also advised that we need to tell our own story; we need to drive that conversation that we are business friendly and communicate that to businesses. Dr. Ferlic stated that the Chamber does a good job. They have the utmost respect for the City. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Council at this time. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR There was no one present wishing to speak to the Council at this time. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, President Derek D. Dieter adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. ATTEST: ATTEST: • ,� _ .►,. _ .1 _ LIii John Voorde, City Clerk Derek D. Dieter, President I I I