HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-16 Health and Public SafetyHEALTH & PUBLIC SAFETY APRIL 11, 2016 5:40 P.M.
Committee Members Present: John Voorde, Karen White, Oliver Davis, Jo M. Broden
Other Council Present: Regina Williams- Preston, David Varner, Tim Scott
Others Present: Kareemah Fowler, Alkeyna Aldridge, Kathleen Cekanski-
Farrand, Adriana Rodriguez, Randy Wilkerson, Tasha Outlaw,
Aladean DeRose
Agenda: Bill No. 19 -16 — Addressing Buskers and Sidewalk
Performers
Bill No. 5 -16 — Approving fees for nuisance abatement
Bill No. 6 -16 — Approving fees for securing and
demolishing structures
Bill No. 12 -16 — Landlord registration program
Chairperson John Voorde called the Health and Public Safety meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. He
entertained a motion to recess and reconvene in the large Council Chamber. Councilmember
Karen White moved to recess and reconvene which was seconded by Oliver Davis. The motion
carried with a vote of four (4) aye.
The meeting reconvened at 5:44 p.m. in the large Council Chambers with a formal presentation
by Aladean DeRose, City Attorney.
Ms. DeRose introduced Bill 19 -16 as a revisit and repeal of a former ordinance that raised
questions of constitutional validity. The new ordinance welcomes and encourages Busking
activities in downtown South Bend while addressing the original concerns of time, place and
manner similar to the original ordinance.
Chairperson Voorde closed the formal presentation and opened the floor to Council and
Committee questions.
Councilmember Oliver Davis clarified questions regarding sponsorship, enforcement, and
registration of buskers.
Ms. DeRose clarified that there were no registration fees but buskers needed to be sponsored by
an event holder. Buskers could be fined by DTSB or South Bend police. The enforcement of the
ordinance is complaint driven.
Councilmember Tim Scott clarified that enforcement of the ordinance is complaint driven and
policed by the South Bend police officers.
Councilmember Oliver Davis argued that these points of enforcement need to be clarified so the
public understands how to navigate the process of registration.
Councilmember Jo M. Broden added that the Board of Public Works approves applications for
downtown events. She asked for clarification regarding the relationship between the Board of
Works and DTSB.
Aladean DeRose discussed that all large events have to register through the Board of Works.
Councilmember Varner followed up with a question regarding the definition of "suitable"
solicitation for buskers.
Ms. DeRose explained that solicitation can be passive but not aggressive per the regulations laid
out in the City's Solicitation Ordinance.
Chairperson Voorde asked about age restrictions and identification.
Councilmember Oliver Davis interjected a question regarding legal challenges and concerns
regarding not allowing busking at certain events.
Ms. DeRose explained that the ordinance had been reviewed in detail with the ACLU, and the
lawsuit would be dismissed pending passage of the proposed ordinance.
Chairperson Voorde opened the floor up for public hearing. There was no one to speak in favor
or against the bill.
Councilmember Karen White moved that Bill No. 19 -16 go to full Council favorably. Her
motion was seconded by Councilmember Oliver Davis and carried by four (4) ayes.
Chairperson Voorde introduced Code Enforcement Bills Nos. 05 -16 and 06 -16. The bills
propose raises in the Code Enforcement fee schedule for various nuisance abatement.
Chairperson Voorde explained that both bills have been formally withdrawn from the record. He
spoke briefly about an earlier Health & Public Safety Committee meeting in which the public
extensively addressed their concerns regarding Code Enforcement fees and practice. Due to a
miscommunication, he said, administration was unavailable to answer questions at that meeting.
The bills were only still on the current agenda to address public and Council questions and
concerns that hadn't been addressed by Code Enforcement at earlier meetings.
Chairperson Voorde went on to discuss Council's scope of authority in regard to Code
Enforcement's fee schedule as a major question and point of clarification. Chairperson Voorde
clarified the concern explaining that the Board of Public Works has the authority to approve fees.
Council's only role is to review the schedule and decide if the fees are fair and reasonable.
Councilmember Oliver Davis asked how Council proceeds if they find the fees to be unfair or
unreasonable. What teeth does a resolution hold in this case?
Chairperson Voorde asked for input from Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand.
Council Attorney explained that under Home Rule, Council had the authority to review the
schedule and determine whether it was fair and reasonable.
Councilmember Oliver Davis asked why the Board of Public Works sent the bill to Council for
approval if the authority to approve Code fees lies with them.
City Attorney Aladean DeRose offered to share the legal department's opinion. She cited that
the state law intended for Council to delegate the specific details of creating fee schedules to
those specific departments. The Council has a limited role which is to provide oversight to the
Board of Works and to determine that the rates are not in excess of the actual costs to perform
the service. If there is evidence that the rates are unreasonable, then the Council has a
responsibility to ensure that the rates do not exceed the costs.
Councilmember Oliver Davis asked what information the Council has been provided to
determine the fairness of rates by the Board of Public Works.
Ms. DeRose discussed that Council should've received a schedule detailing departmental costs
versus fees and sometimes what other cities charge as a check to establish what's reasonable.
Councilmember Tim Scott raised a concern regarding why the ordinance came to Council and
his concern that administration is sending controversial bills to Council that can be approved
through other bodies. He suggested that other bodies hold their meetings during a time that
allow for the public to participate and understand the process.
Councilmember Broden expressed a concern and expectation for a process that engages the
public in more meaningful ways. She discussed a couple of practical solutions like later
meetings and more accessible locations to improve the transparency of City processes across the
board. She believes the City has to get to the point of having a process that is more accessible
and sensitive to public input.
Councilmember Karen White expressed concern that Council needs to reassess its approach to
fees and fines based legislation. How much is enough? We need to strike a balance between the
cost of business and over - fining the public. How can we look at alternate ways of delivering the
services without overburdening the public and passing on the costs? Are fines and fees an
effective method of deterring negative behavior? What are other communities doing to address
behavior outside of increasing fines and fees?
Councilmember Williams- Preston spoke to the costs for illegal dumping. She echoed
Councilmember's White concern about excessive fees and fines and misdirected policies that
miss the root of the problem. The City has to look at ways to address problems from a lens of
addressing the real problem rather than reactive, punitive legislation.
3
She went on to ask for clarification in regard to what Council's course of action should be if they
find assessed fees to be unfair or unreasonable.
Ms. DeRose said the question of reasonableness should addressed by the Board of Works who
looks at the evidence in an exacting and detailed manner.
Chairperson Voorde interjected that the Council can choose to not pass the ordinance at which
point the administration could choose to respond or not. Council could also draft a letter to
Public Works or the Mayor contesting that the fees are injurious to public welfare.
Ms. DeRose argued that she is unsure as to whether that is the correct course of action to ensure
equity in this case.
Councilmember Oliver Davis asked that each department include their projected fee schedules or
intent to change fees within the budget process.
Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston spoke to the question of Council authority and asked
for better communication between departments in terms of evidence provided to Council review
and assess actual fairness and reasonableness.
Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand suggested that Council amend City Code to address their
scope of authority in the fee schedule review process.
Randy Wilkerson agreed to meet with all Councilmembers regarding concerns of fee schedules
and Code Enforcement practices.
Chairperson Voorde transitioned to Bill No. 12 -16- Landlord registration program sharing that
sponsor Tim Scott asked for the bill to be continued until May 9th
With no further business, he adjourned the committee at 6:34 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
J Chairperson
4