Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-07-16 Health and Public SafetyHEALTH & PUBLIC SAFETY APRIL 7, 2016 5:00 P.M. Committee Members Present: John Voorde, Karen White, Oliver Davis, Jo Broden Other Council Present: Regina Williams- Preston Others Present: Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand, Jennifer Coffinan, Alkeyna Aldridge Agenda: Bill No. 05 -16 Approving fees for nuisance abatement Bill No. 06 -16 Approving fees for securing and demolishing structures Councilmember John Voorde, Chair of the Health & Public Safety Committee, called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. with two bills for consideration. Chairperson Voorde explained that the committee was meeting to consider Bills No. 05 -16 and 06 -16, but received an email saying that both bills would be withdrawn, but they are not officially withdrawn so far. There is some question of whether or not the council needs to be involved at all, and Chairperson Voorde is of the opinion that the Council does need to be involved because it is the Council that can impose a fee or a penalty. Those fees and penalties would then be codified and made public record. Prior to it coming to the Committee, the Board of Public Works got involved, and Randy Wilkerson told the Board that they haven't raised fees since 2008, here's a new schedule that ought to be done. The Board of Public Works then works as a recommending body to the Council. In this case, they agreed with the department head and sent both bills to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Several councilmembers have asked the question how did the City justify this rate schedule or these increases. There is no record in the minutes of the Board of Public Works meeting that any justification was given. The minutes say that Randy Wilkerson made the proposal, and Gary Gilot, who is on the Board of Public Works said that the fees sounded reasonable and then they sent a favorable recommendation. Committee Member Karen White asked if the Board of Public Works takes action on the fee recommendation. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that the action was taken last November. Committee Member Jo Broden explained the minutes from the November agenda review session from the Board of Public Works. She read a section of the minutes, then explained that Gary Gilot stated that the Board of Public Works recommends fees to the Council, and the State Board of Accounts requires the Council to approve all fee setting. In the November 24`h meeting minutes, they referenced resolutions that were given favorable recommendations. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that at the last Health and Public Safety Committee meeting, there were at least two representatives from the Legal Department, and the question was raised whether or not there was a difference between what the Council believes are reasonable and necessary as opposed to the Board, and she got the impression that the legal department was going to get back to us. Committee Member Oliver Davis inquired about the questions that were submitted to Randy Wilkerson by the Council, and stated that he hadn't received any information on it. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated to Councilmember Preston that if she is going to participate, she needs to give a disclosure. Councilmember Preston stated that she was advised that she didn't have to do that, but it is what it is. Chairperson Voorde clarified that Councilmember Preston, working with these folks had a list of questions. Councilmember Preston stated that actually, the community forum for economic justice submitted something to the committee, and I submitted some of it separately. Committee Member White stated that they did not answer those questions, and that it was stated at the last meeting. Committee Member Broden asked for the minutes from that meeting to reference what requests had been made. Councilmember Preston stated that she never got a response to her set of questions. Committee Member Broden stated that she had taken notes that to substantiate the fees and document that the Council's role is to find them reasonable related to the cost. The Council discussed the fact that there was not a representative of the administration present at the meeting, and determined that they would like to make this a productive meeting and hear from the members of the public who came out. Chairperson Voorde announced that he had to leave for a meeting at 6:30 p.m., but he wanted to give the people from the public time to speak and share their concerns. Chairperson Voorde asked if anyone was there to speak in favor of the proposed bills. Seeing no one, he asked if anyone was there to speak opposed, and if you're going to speak give your name and address and proceed. Penny Hughes asked if both bills are regarding increasing the fees, and Councilmember Preston explained that they are both regarding increasing the fees, one is specifically on nuisance properties so things like tall grass and illegal dumping, and the other is separately for processing of demolition orders. So increasing the fees for service for processing demolition orders. They are both 11.5% as she understood it. Linda Wolfson, 809 Park Avenue, is part of the Community Forum for Economic Justice. We were aware of the bill and it was of interest to us because a lot of our meetings concern issues of enriching neighborhoods. We appreciate that the Council took this request seriously and also that you're having this meeting today. I'm sorry that you are being disrespected today. She was asked by the Committee Chair John Voorde to pull together some questions from people in her organization, and that is what the committee has. I think that this is the demonstration of a situation where we need a much deeper communication on a number of issues. I am not opposed to the fees, because I do not know enough about them. There are reasonable fee increases and there are unreasonable fee increases. If I heard correctly, the Public Works Committee seemed to say that one of the criteria for this raise in fees was a response to the nuisance property fees, and that we had a battle about them in the summertime because there was some opposition to that. I at first thought this was based on an inflation figure. It is reasonable to use inflation if things cost more, but that is not what I heard read from the minutes of the meeting, and I would like to know more about where these figures came from and if they couldn't have been avoided. Reynoldo Hernandez, 702 E. South St., stated this evening I got a look at the current fee structure, and it leads me to believe that even the current fee structure is burdensome. We should not be considering an increase in fees, but rather a decrease in the fees. To impose this kind of a fee structure on people who are economically stressed and cannot afford the compliance that we would expect from those citizens strikes me as Ferguson all over again. The city is financing the cost of its operations on the backs of those who are most burdened by the loss. We should consider the same kind of negative impact on the poor as we've seen them do in Ferguson. We need to consider a more reasonable fee structure that would involve a decrease rather than an increase in fees. Bob Masters, Attorney with Nemeth, Feeny, Masters, & Campiti, offices at 350 Columbia Street, here as an attorney for Rage Customs Automotive Inc. joined by the two owners of Rage Customs, Mathew Rice and Mike Harris. Rage Customs has been located at 1307 Lincolnway West for the last 6 years. They're expanding operations further west on Lincolnway as well. You don't need to raise fees on these poor people. Code Enforcement's problems are self - created. There are better ways to do business. Mr. Price estimates that in 2016 he's had roughly 40 visits from city code inspectors at his 1307 location. That's almost every day of the working week. The visits run anywhere from a half hour to all day. This isn't the way this used to be done. If there was a code problem, Ed Williams would come to the shop and say this this and this, can you take care of it, and Mr. Rice would. There has been a change, and the impression that these small businessmen are forming is that they're being picked on because they aren't the kind of business people want to see in the neighborhood. Auto repair work is tough, dirty work, but it is important work. Their customers are people with low income or moderate income. Having a working car is not a luxury for those folks, it is a necessity to get to work, childcare, and medical care. Without Matt and Mike in that neighborhood, their customers wouldn't have anybody to turn to. They started Rage Customs with nine (9) employees. They're down to two (2) because when their employees would come to their job and park legally within the street parking the city recently put up, Code Enforcement would issue them citations, and they would tell these employees that unless you move your car we're going to issue you a $1,500 fine. Mr. Rice made an arrangement to allow his employees to park in a neighbor's private driveway, and it didn't stop Code Enforcement from citing cars there. When the employees went to park, they were told their cars would be towed. The local, South Bend workers who quit formed the impression that Code Enforcement was out to get us. You're talking about fines and fees for people who haven't complied, but I suggest that the problem is that Code Enforcement isn't even trying to get people to comply. The ordinance requires that if there is a nuisance, they should provide the property owner a reasonable time to abate the nuisance. I don't think that's happening anymore. You don't need to raise fees, you can solve this with good old fashion neighborliness and prudent use of government. You have one code inspector for every 12,500 people. How could so many of them be focusing on one little business? It drives the hurt feelings of everyone who feel like they're being picked on. Government has such power, please use it judiciously. Work with the businesses to help them grow. There's a better way of doing business, folks. Osee Brazer asked if we are talking about our own issues with code, or about the bills that were mentioned. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that the legal notice was on the two bills. Chairperson Voorde stated that we have to restrict ourselves to the proposals. Councilmember Preston stated that if you have a story related to exorbitant costs, that's appropriate. Chairperson Voorde announced that there was a half hour to 45 minutes before he had to leave. Osee Brazer, 1612 Lincolnway West with Women's Outreach, was given property at 522 Allen St. for the women's program of having disadvantaged women in the community live there. When we got the house it needed some repairs and the gentleman who was supposed to do the back taxes did not do his part so they ended up doing the back taxes. Her organization then made an agreement with Code Enforcement to fix up the house but if they did not meet the deadlines that Code Enforcement set they were penalized and it got so bad that the civil penalties became more expensive than the taxes on the house. Being a non - profit they depend on donations and making those deadlines was very difficult. Her non -profit was not even able to keep the house because the expenses from repairing the house, back taxes and paying these fees to Code Enforcement was too much for them and had to lose the house. She claimed they tried to come to some agreement with Code Enforcement but they didn't want to change the initial agreement. We were just trying to help these women get low income housing to get them on their feet. 4 Councilmember John Voorde asked if Code Enforcement was claiming the house was unsafe Ms. Brazer responded it's not that it was unsafe but that when the people that donated the house gave it to us they had stripped the house so we had to start completely over. We were getting help from various organizations and discounts on materials needed to renovate the house, the problem was the schedule set by Code Enforcement did not give us enough time. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekasnki- Farrand asked who set the timeline at Code Enforcement. Ms. Brazer stated they would get letters just from Code Enforcement. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston asked what eventually happened to the house. Ms. Brazer responded initially they tried to give it to the City and then they tried to give to the Near North West but it was not in the right area so eventually the house just went to another non- profit. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston asked how much money they probably put in the property. Ms. Brazer estimated approximately $8,000.00. Penny Hughes, 1918 Southern View Dr., stated she served on the Mayor's Vacant and Abandoned Task Force. She stated when you have so many people living below the poverty level it is very hard to pay these fees. She stated she has been a landlord for about forty (40) years and had never got a fee but then all of a sudden she got this violation for a property. They are harassing and nasty letters and insinuating that these violations are being done deliberately which isn't the case. She hears landlords say that South Bend's Code Enforcement does things much different from Mishawaka's who call before the letters and try to work with the owner and not getting threatening letters. She stated landlords won't invest in South Bend anymore they have just had it. We need the funds from the rental income just to keep the house and neighborhood up. She stated it is not just landlords its also home occupants as well. South Bend needs a kinder and gentler Code Enforcement not one that treats the taxpaying citizens like they're cheaters. Marty Wolfson, 809 Park Ave, asked why Code Enforcement wants to withdraw these bills and is it because they have decided they don't need these fees after all or is it that they don't actually need Council approval. Also why did Code not answer the questions from the Council and what is the Council going to do about that. There seems to be all these aggressive actions by Code Enforcement to try to get people out of their houses and are they getting kicked out of their home in a discriminatory fashion. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston questioned how the "Thousand Houses in a Thousand Days" initiative affected the demolition prospect and if there were conflicts of interest and some houses could have been saved but were demolished because it made some people more money. Drew Duncan, 424 S Street, stated since the start of the year the Council has seen a variety of issues and if you piece them together it is clearly linked with gentrification. It is no shocker that most of these programs target the West Side which is the low income part of South Bend and it 0 can be viewed as criminalization of the poor. There are other ways to address dealing with dilapidated houses without paying any attention to what these demolitions will do to the neighborhood. It seems Code Enforcement is acting as the bully to push these people out of their neighborhoods and homes. Mr. Duncan asked is there some type of development coming or is someone in the City pushing for some new development for the Westside because this is classic gentrification. Hearing the things that have been proposed it looks like being poor is off - limits in South Bend or working -class is off limits in South Bend and it does disentivize people to invest in South Bend. As a young person in college, Mr. Duncan stated this makes him not want to remain here once he comes into some money. There needs to be some accountability, especially for what has happened this evening, and it seems they have tried to circumvent the Common Council. Alicia Ortiz, Portage Indiana, stated she invests in this City but she is getting out because of Code Enforcement along with several other of her investors. She stated that Code Enforcement has said if there is one house left on a block they will take that house. She stated she heard a Code Enforcement officer bragging about issuing 1,800 tickets for lawn mowing in one day for his area. People are being targeted, especially on the North Side by Code Enforcement. Ms. Ortiz gave a number of examples of Code Enforcement mistreating her and fining her way more than was necessary including a story. where they accidentally started demolishing her house when it was really another house they were supposed to demolish. Lynn Collier, a representative of Life Long Residents for the 1 St, 2nd; and 6th Districts, stated she is a lifetime resident and is not sure what the common vision is for this City going forward and other seniors seem to think the same thing. Right here in South Bend it is blatant the gentrification going on. Her number one question is what is going to happen next in the City and who is going to be accountable. Code Enforcement has just had a huge turnover and all new people and in the most distressed parts of town they have all new people. What is the City going to do now with all this vacant land in South Bend. We have many rodents and animals living in these vacant lots especially all over the 2nd District. Is anybody going to investigate any of these horrible stories. Fred Preston asked who Code Enforcement answers to. Councilmember John Voorde responded it is a City Department. Councilmember Karen White stated there are so many unanswered questions dealing with these two (2) bills. An email should go to Code Enforcement asking if they are going to withdraw the bills, what are the reasons for withdrawing, the time frame and also if they are still planning to pursue these fees. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked that the email also CC the Mayor Buttigieg, Legal Department and also James Mueller so that they would be included in the conversation. Councilmember Karen White stated the other concerns regarding Code Enforcmenet is a much broader issue that also needs to be addressed. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated this City is relying too much on fees because there is a practice across this country that municipalities are starting to use fines as a way to run the departments which is totally unethical. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated his concern for the way violations are registered with Code Enforcement. Councilmember Jo M. Broden stated there is a question of law and responsibility with these issues. She stated there is definitely ambiguity about who at the end approves of these fees because clearly some at the Board of Public Works don't even think they have the authority. The main question which needs to be answered is whose responsibility is it to approve the fees. Also, when so many concerns come from the public and those concerns aren't reflected in the Board of Public Works minutes, the question of due diligence comes up. She stated her understanding is that the City is not to be making a profit on these fees so we need to get the evidence of what are the actual costs of these procedures. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand stated past Councils have used a cost - benefit analysis for all City fees coming forward from the administration. It is her understanding that administration would have addressed these questions. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated it is a poor excuse to raise fees just because they have not been raised since 2008 because if all the departments start thinking that way there will be chaos. Councilmember John Voorde stated this obviously raises consequences beyond just a fee increase whether they were intended or unintended. In addition to not having a justification for these fees in correlation to what it costs to do them, we need to take a larger look into how we do our business in South Bend. How well Code Enforcement is doing their job shouldn't be based on how their numbers and bottom line look. With no further business before the Committee, Chairperson John Voorde adjourned the meeting at 6:12 p.m. Respectfullr,ai itted, John Voo a o2, /�J- 7