HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-09 Common Council Minutes
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
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, July 27, 2009 at 7:00
p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council President Dieter and the Invocation and
Pledge to the Flag were given.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Present: Derek D. Dieter 1st District, President
Henry Davis, Jr. 2nd District
Thomas LaFountain 3rd District
Ann Puzzello 4th District, Chairperson Committee of the Whole
David Varner 5th District
Oliver Davis 6th District, Vice-President
Al “Buddy” Kirsits At-Large
Timothy Rouse At-Large
Karen L. White At-Large
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Voorde City Clerk
Janice I. Talboom Deputy City Clerk
Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Council Attorney
Mary Beth Wisniewski Chief Deputy
REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES
To the Common Council of the City of South Bend: The sub-committee has inspected
the minutes of the July 13, 2009 meetings of the Council and found them to be correct.
Therefore, we recommend the same be approved.
s/Derek D. Dieter
s/David Varner
Councilmember White made a motion that the minutes of the July 13, 2009 meetings of
the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the
motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
SPECIAL BUSINESS
There was no special business to come before the Council at this time.
RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
At 7:03 p.m. Councilmember Rouse 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 Puzzello, Chairperson, presiding.
Councilmember Puzzello explained the procedures to be followed for tonight’s meeting
in accordance with Article 1, Section 2-11 of the South Bend Municipal Code.
Councilmember Puzzello stated that a brochure may be found on the railing in the
Council Chambers explaining those procedures.
1
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
PUBLIC HEARINGS
BILL NO. 52-09 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL TO VACATE
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
THE STREET TO BE VACATED IS
SUMMERTIME LANE FROM JACKSON ROAD
TO HIDDEN CREEK DRIVE FOR A DISTANCE
272.59 FEET AND A WIDTH OF 50 FEET
Councilmember Varner, Chairperson, Public Works and Property Vacation Committee,
reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and voted to
send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Bernard Feeney, Registered Land Surveyor, Lang, Feeney and Associates, Inc., 715
South Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill on behalf
of the petitioner, Hidden Creek, LLC.
Mr. Feeney advised that the petitioner wishes to re-route the entrance of Hidden Creek
subdivision. He stated that in order to achieve this they are requesting a right-of-way
vacation of Summertime Lane from Jackson Road to Hidden Creek Drive for a distance
of 272.59 feet and a width of 50 feet, being a part of Hidden Creek Section 1 with the
City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana.
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 nine (9) ayes.
BILL NO. 48-09 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 20
OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE BY
THE INCLUSION OF NEW ARTICLE 13
ENTITLED REGULATIONS ON THE USE OF
HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONES, MOBILE
COMMUNICATION DEVICES AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES IN
SCHOOL ZONES; AMENDING SECTION 2-213
ENTITLED SCHEDULE OF ORDINANCE AND
CODE VIOLATIONS AND SECTION 20-98
ENTITLED OBEDIENCE TO SCHOOL
CROSSING GUARD REQUIRED OF THE
SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE
Councilmember White, Chairperson, Health and Public Safety Committee, reported that
this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the
full Council with no favorable recommendation.
Councilmember White stated as Chairperson of the Health and Public Safety Committee
it is the committee’s goal to promote public safety throughout South Bend and is a top
priority in the community. She stated that since last fall, the committee has been in
discussions with school crossing guards regarding their employment and during those
discussions the issues of student safety as well as the safety of the crossing guards were
mentioned as a result of driving in school zones with cell phones. The Committee has
been studying ordinances in other communities which ban the use of hand-held cell
phone and other texting devices while driving in school crossing zones. She noted that
she along with Councilmember’s Puzzello and LaFountain are sponsors of this bill. She
2
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
stated that on file with office of the City Clerk is a map which shows the many public and
private schools located throughout the city. She noted that on July 1, 2009, a new
Indiana State Law will take effect which prohibits a drive of a vehicle under the age of
eighteen (18) to operate a vehicle while using a telecommunication device, except for 911
emergencies. She stated that the committee believes that this ordinance will compliment
the new state law. Councilmember White noted that both the City Administration and
Police Department shared information regarding this bill.
Councilmember Puzzello noted that the concern about public safety in school zones was
discussed during meetings with the School Crossing Guards. She stated that due to
budget constraints the number school crossing guards were going to be reduced for the
2009/2010 school year. She stated that with less supervision in school zones this bill was
necessary for student safety. She noted that the proposed bill would prohibit a drive from
sing a hand-held telephone and other hand-held telecommunication devise to send, read
or write a text while driving in a school crossing zone. Such prohibitions would be on
school days, during the hours that the school crossing zone is in effect; or where signs are
posted. She noted that emergency vehicle drivers would be exempt. A driver using a
hands-free mobile telephone in a hands-free manner would be exempt. A driver who is
reporting a 911 emergency would be exempt. A driver using a hands-free mobile
telephone in a hands-free manner would be exempt. A driver who is reporting a 911
st
emergency would be exempt. She stated that the penalties would be $75 for the 1
nd
violation; $125 for the 2 violation and $250 for all subsequent violations. She stated
that if a person violates this ordinance and causes an accident the fine would
automatically be $250.00. She noted that this is just a first step for this bill and that there
would be more fine tuning but this is a step in the right direction.
Councilmember LaFountain advised that the trend across the country and studies have
shown that distracted driving by the use of cell phones is the #1 problem causing
accidents. He stated that during the discussions with the crossing guards and learning of
the number of people who are busy dialing their cell phones while cruising through these
areas that something need to be done. He stated that this bill would prevent dangerous
circumstances and is a vital step in that direction.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand added as a part of the discussion that were
held they also gave copies of the draft ordinance to the Superintendent of the South Bend
Community School Corporation who in turn sent a letter which is now on file in the
Office of the City Clerk in favor of this bill and also have a letter from Uniform Division
Chief Jeff Walters, South Bend Police Department also supporting the efforts. She stated
that the Councilmember’s sponsoring the bill noted that they did extensive discussions
and researched how other communities were handling this and those that were successful
had a very pro-active communication with their school systems and parents. She stated
that is why if the Council goes forward with this bill tonight there is still a 30 day period
for advertising before it would take effect that would also give the opportunity for the
City of South Bend to work very closely with the schools and as Councilmember Oliver
Davis noted to work with all schools both public and private would be contacted with that
30 day window also gives the Council the time to deal with issues in regard to
enforcement and working with the police department, and Mr. Kapsa, SBCSC
Superintendent, specifically stated that he has began discussions just last week with
regard to all public safety issues and add this to their agenda. She stated that Public
Service Announcements are also vital if the Council goes forward with a bill like this.
Councilmember White asked Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand to speak to
the cost issue.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that the cost with regard to the
signage was discussed with the City Administration, Mr. Gary Gilot, Director, Public
Works was very conscientious as always with regard to getting a pro-type and the costs
ranges between $100-$142 with regard to the reflective type sign the posting that is
necessary to meet all the state law requirements. She stated that there are a few
Councilmember’s that are considering amending the fines to help off set that cost. The
projected numbers were about $11,000 that Mr. Gilot reported at the committee meeting
3
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
this afternoon. She stated that would come off the top of any penalties that would be paid
and all fines that would be paid would be sent to a dedicated fund in the South Bend
Police Department and that is the same department of the City where the school crossing
guard salaries come out of.
Councilmember Henry Davis questioned who will be writing down the license plate
number of the offender.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that they gave authority and
currently there are regulations specific of authority that have been in the City Code for
South Bend since 1967 with regard to the rules governing school crossing guards and
what they can do and what their authority can do. She stated that they have added the
discretionary authority not mandatory but discretionary authority, for instance if the
children have crossed and they see that someone has passed, they can direct that car and
contact the police department and have an officer’s issue that citation.
Councilmember Henry Davis asked if that is putting them in a tough predicament.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that the current language on the
books states that no operator of a vehicle or any pedestrian shall disobey the signal or
order of a school crossing guard.
Councilmember Henry Davis stated that this might be overstepping boundaries. He
noted that we have laws on the books that aren’t being enforced such as lawn parking.
When the Council starts adding things like this to the books it just sets the City up for
failure, because they are not being enforced.
Councilmember Puzzello stated that there will be more discussion to do with regard to
enforcement that needs to be worked out. She noted that at the beginning of the school
year there are police officer’s in the area of the school zones making sure that people are
obeying the speed limit. She stated that this bill will enforce that safety and draw
attention to it. She stated that even with having to still fine tune the enforcement part of
the bill, it is a good bill.
Councilmember Henry Davis stated that there had been discussion on making this ban
city wide not just in school zones. He questioned what the difference was between
school zone and a residential district. He stated that he knows that children go to school
in school zones but children also live and play in residential neighborhoods and this could
be potentially the same type of problem in the neighborhoods as well as in the school
zones. So would it behoove the Council not to extend it to the entire city rather than
constraining it to one certain area? He stated that he would like to make a motion to that
effect after the Council portion is complete. He stated this is like putting the cart before
the horse.
Councilmember Oliver Davis asked if the crossing guards would receive any training to
help them proceed on this issue.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that it is her understanding that the
applications for school crossing guards just recently went out. She stated that if the
Council would go forward on this that would be again a part of Division Chief Jeff
Walters’s department who oversees all the school crossing guards, but it is her
understanding that there would be training.
Councilmember Rouse stated that during discussion in committee the Mayor made a
suggestion that Councilmember Henry Davis has addressed and that is banning the use of
cell phones city wide. He stated that is wasn’t in a form of a motion but was certainly a
part of the discussion. He stated that he wasn’t sure that it was wise to expect a crossing
guard to direct a car to the curb because they have their hands full watching the kids. He
stated that if they become busy trying to tell someone to pull to the curb and some kid
gets hit, has that issue been addressed in the research and discussion in drafting the bill.
4
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that the cities that have that
provision, that it is discretionary, that only in those instances where there was not a lot of
children crossing that they have that authority. If they see a car that is clearly texting or
dialing they have that authority, but if it is not put in the ordinance they would not have
that authority.
Councilmember Rouse stated that he is very concern and very supportive in making this a
safer environment for the kids. He stated that in his opinion that the fine should be a
minimum of $500, and he made mention of that in committee, that he relates this to
driving through a work zone on a highway and the fine if $1,000 or imprisonment if there
is injury to the workers. He stated that he values the youth of South Bend and thinks that
$75.00 in the ordinance is on the low side and would like to see a minimum of $500 to
start off with and use this particular ordinance. He stated that the city wide ban that the
Mayor has suggested is probably more appropriate in his opinion, but certainly
supportive of the resource and work and the concerns that the three councilmember’s
have presented.
Councilmember Puzzello suggested that if the Council is more receptive to a city wide
ban than vote against the bill tonight, because she stated that she doesn’t believe that the
Council wants to have discussion tonight on a city-wide ban.
Councilmember White stated that she is in total agreement with Councilmember Rouse to
increase the penalties. She stated that it is helpful during the committee meetings where
there is the opportunity to hear from fellow Councilmember’s and the Administration as
well. She stated that part of their Health and Public Safety Committees goal and sponsors
of this particular bill before the Council tonight is to make sure that the Council has given
everyone the opportunity to weigh in and hear the various options and they have done
just that. She stated that she would not have any difficulties looking at the bill that is
before the Council tonight and amend the bill to increase the fines but also to clearly spell
out the next steps in regard to working with the administration and looking at a city wide
ban and need that as a part of the minutes but also to begin the level of discussion not
only with the various school corporations, both private and public, but also to make sure
that they have had a level of conversation with the police department in terms of
enforcement. She stated that any ordinance that they have that they will be discussing or
passing, the enforcement has and continues to be a critical issue. She stated that she
doesn’t believe anyone on this Council would want to pass a safety ordinance just to have
it on the books, the Council’s goal is to have these ordinances in place and enforced. She
stated that she believes they have the makings of a very good bill and continue to make
amendments and have discussions and would like to incorporate as many of the
recommendations that have been heard tonight and at the committee meeting this
afternoon. She stated that she doesn’t believe that a Councilmember has to vote against
this bill per say, but the Council needs to outline what those next steps should be to make
sure the comments and the feelings of the Council are including in the discussions as
well.
Councilmember Puzzello suggested that this is a time for questions and the time has gone
beyond that and now is the time for the public hearing and of course come back to the
Council again for discussion.
This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents
and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Herb Herendeen, 710 W. Washington, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he had two
thoughts for the Council to consider. He stated that he is in favor of protecting not only
children but also residents of a neighborhood. The threat of every rule of law has some
impact on benefitting the cause that is being tried to be solved. He stated that not every
crossing is going to catch everyone passing through a school zone using a cell phone, but
the threat thereof, just like a bank robbery is against the law, they still occur. He
suggested that re-evaluating this bill and putting more teeth into this bill as it develops is
probably a valid way to get it started. He also suggested that maybe adding people
walking and talking and texting in school zones should be banned also. He stated that it
5
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
is worth giving it some consideration. He stated that he doesn’t mean them to be
disrespectful but they are careless when they are talking and texting.
Mr. John Thurin, 322 W. Washington, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he was at the
committee meeting this afternoon and was quite taken and in support of the bill that is
being presented tonight. He stated that the Council needs to enlarge the scope of thinking
on this bill and consider the entire community, because it is a community wide issue. He
stated that a study was conducted and that texting while driving caused 23% of all
accidents than any other form of distraction. He stated that it was said that the most
deadly message that could be sent from behind the wheel is responding to a texting
message. He urged the Council to step back and widen their view. He questioned the
urgency of this bill and what time frame is needed to get this in place. He stated years
ago car seats for children was the big issue; before that it was air bags; before that was
seat belts; and it took some time before those issues were put into place. He stated that
this is not going to come to fruition overnight. He stated that it might be most cost
effective to ban city wide rather than just in school zones because of the large number of
school zones in the city.
Ms. Maureen Bolton, 625 W. Colfax, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is in favor of
this bill. She agreed that it is a very good start and is in favor of raising the penalties.
She also agreed with Councilmember Rouse that the $1,000 work zone fines and signage
make you take pause. She stated that she is absolutely in favor of a city wide ban as well.
Councilmember Henry Davis asked to have school zone defined.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that State Law defines a School
Crossing Zone means a part of a roadway distinctly indicated for crossing by children on
the way to or from school by lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway or by
signs. She stated that it is under Title 9. She asked if Public Works Director Gary Gilot
could add to that. Again all schools regardless of whether they are public or private fall
under the same State Law and incorporated that definition so that there was clarity.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that it would only be effective in the
legal jurisdiction of the City of South Bend.
st
Councilmember Oliver Davis asked for clarification on pre-school/kindergarten versus 1
grade through high school or what is defined as a school.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that Mr. Gilot and his staff have
defined the school crossing zones that’s where it will apply.
Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that he believes that education of these designated
zones is critical so there will be no backlash.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that the question that
Councilmember Oliver Davis and Mr. Thurin have raised tonight was one of the positives
that came out of the cities of Dallas and Irving, Texas, that by the collaboration of
schools working with the municipalities decreased the texting accidents significantly.
Councilmember Oliver Davis reiterated the training of the school crossing guards. He
feels that it is very imperative that they be trained.
Council President Dieter stated that there are some things that need to be worked on in
this bill, however, it is a good bill and he will be supporting it tonight. He stated that the
fines do need to be adjusted higher; signage needs to be clear and at all school zone
locations. He stated that as a South Bend Police Officer he will be enforcing this bill and
would like to see clarification on school zone.
6
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
th
Gary Gilot, Public Works Director, 13 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson
Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, advised that what he provided in a way of an estimate was 20
locations, estimated a number of signs in order to adequately warn the public that there is
this new ordinance. He stated that there are in fact more schools than that when you add
all the public and private school. He stated that if it is the Council’s intent to cover
everything saturation wise his estimate might be higher, but he was thinking twenty
locations where there would be crossing guards to enforce it times 4 signs per location
times $142 each one installed cost. He stated that he has not done the full school zone
delineation process that might be found under the manual of uniform traffic control
devices which is the State Law governing any stop signs or any other traffic control
devices including street markings on the pavement. He stated that there is a whole
chapter in that book that is dedicated to school zones that needs to be gone through for
each location if the Council intends to apply this to every school. He stated that it was
his assumption that they were going to pick 20 locations where there were crossing
guards to enforce it and so the estimate was for twenty school zones.
Councilmember Puzzello stated that where there are crossing guards there are two
schools not far from her home that are being left with no crossing guards. She stated that
it particularly important that the signs be up and the enforcement be as great as it can.
Those two schools are Perley and Jefferson.
Mr. Gilot stated that is why he came up to clarify the situation for the Council.
Councilmember Davis noted that the twenty schools zoned do not include the private
schools, so therefore the cost would be more to include those private schools.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand wanted to clarify her discussions with Mr.
Gilot that she gave him the parameters of how some of the bigger cities than South Bend
identified it once they had the ordinance passed. She stated that one of those was tested
legally in the courts and the language that we have is that if you already have blinking
lights in a school zone that was not a high priority unless it was a very high traffic
pedestrian count. So it was phased in over time as more penalties were issued the
Council could prioritize those that had a crossing guard and the number of actual
pedestrians that are there and how they are marked. She stated that was part of the
discussion she had with Mr. Gilot that it would be phased in. She stated that in Dallas,
Texas, they phased it in so that as more revenue came in the less frequented school
crossing guards would have signage there. They have had them for about three years and
have been so successful in about 21 communities in the State of Texas, that the State of
st
Texas as of September 1 2009 it is State wide, that all school zones in the State of Texas
there will be no texting or cell phone usage while driving.
Mr. Gilot stated that the legislative intent for the staff to know what the Council has in
mind for initial start up the number that was given was twenty locations, if the Council’s
legislative intent is to do more than his numbers need to be modified or instruct him for
new numbers.
Councilmember Kirsits stated that after having worked in an organization that uses
standard operation procedures (SOP’s) and seeing the way things are done some times we
intend to go on and on with them. He stated that everything has to have a starting point
and he thinks that this is an excellent starting point. He stated that if they delayed the bill
tonight and went to a city wide ban it would take on a life of it’s own like some other
ordinances do such as smoking, human rights, or banning pit bulls. He stated that this
bill is something that almost everyone can agree on, now maybe there might be some fine
points that need to be tweaked. He stated that maybe down the road those fines can be
doubled in a school zone. He stated that as far as the fine amounts are concerned he
worries about going to high with them for the initial offense that there might be some
reluctance to write the ticket. He stated that he is hoping to see a lot of tickets and $75.00
a pop for the first offense is fine even $100.00 for the first time. He noted that hopefully
a lot of tickets will be written. He stated that he believes that the message will get out
quickly that there will be fines if caught using a cell phone in a school zone. He
7
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
reiterated that there will be changes to this bill on down the road, but he is in full support
of this bill and will be voting in favor of it tonight.
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 and one (1) nay (Councilmember Rouse)
Councilmember White stated that she did not want the Council to loose sight of the
different recommendations and that very quickly the sponsors of this bill through the
Health and Public Safety Committee needs to reconvene to work out the number of areas
that need to be addressed prior to the next meeting of the Health and Public Safety
Committee. She stated that they need to make sure that the bill can be as solid as
possible.
BILL NO. 51-09 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $38,000
FROM GENERAL FUND (#101) FOR
EXPENSES OF SOUTH BEND’S “ALL
AMERICAN CITY” BID
Councilmember LaFountain, Chairperson, Personnel & Finance Committee, reported that
this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the
full Council with a favorable recommendation.
th
Mr. Tom Price, Assistant to the Mayor, 14 Floor County-City Building, 227 W.
Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, advised that from June 16 through 20, the City of
th
South Bend was represented in the 60 annual All-America City competition in Tampa,
Florida, by a delegation of 18 community residents, civic leaders and City officials. The
expenses incurred as part of South Bend’s All-America City bid were underwritten
through direct and in-kind contributions by South Bend area businesses. Beginning with
a challenge grant of $17,500 from an anonymous contributor, a volunteer task force led
by Ron Cohen was able to receive an additional $20,500 in pledges for contributions as
well as more than $7,500 in in-kind contributions. He stated that this resolution
appropriates those resources to cover expenses incurred in the All-America City bid with
additional resources being available to use in promotion of the City. While all our
expenses have not been finalized, we clearly have sufficient private resources to cover the
costs of our effort. He noted that they are proud that not a single tax dollar will be used
to support expense associated with the All-America City competition. He stated that
while South Bend did not come home with the top honor, this experience demonstrates
that our community is proud of its distinctive amenities, and the private sector’s
willingness to mobilize resources to support recognition of our collaborative civic
achievements.
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 Oliver Davis made a motion for favorable
recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Varner seconded
the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
RISE AND REPORT
Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to rise and report to the full Council.
Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9)
ayes.
8
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
ATTEST: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
John Voorde, City Clerk Ann Puzzello, Chairperson
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 7:50 p.m. President
Derek D. Dieter presided with nine (9) members present.
BILLS – THIRD READING
ORDINANCE NO. 9945-09 AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
THE STREET TO BE VACATED IS
SUMMERTIME LANE FROM JACKSON ROAD
TO HIDDEN CREEK DRIVE FOR A DISTANCE
272.59 FEET AND A WIDTH OF 50 FEET
This bill had third reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to pass this bill.
Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a
roll call vote of nine ayes.
ORDINANCE NO. 9946-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE SOUTH
BEND MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE INCLUSION
OF NEW ARTICLE 13 ENTITLED
REGULATIONS ON THE USE OF HAND-HELD
MOBILE TELEPHONES, MOBILE
COMMUNICATION DEVICES AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES IN
SCHOOL ZONES; AMENDING SECTION 2-213
ENTITLED SCHEDULE OF ORDINANCE AND
CODE VIOLATIONS AND SECTION 20-98
ENTITLED OBEDIENCE TO SCHOOL
CROSSING GUARD REQUIRED OF THE
SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE
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 and one (1) nay (Councilmember Rouse.)
9
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
ORDINANCE NO. 9947-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROPRIATING $38,000 FROM GENERAL
FUND (#101) FOR EXPENSES OF SOUTH
BEND’S “ALL AMERICAN CITY” BID
This bill had third reading. Councilmember White made a motion to pass this bill.
Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a
roll call vote of nine ayes.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 3982-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
APPROVING A PETITION OF THE SOUTH
BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 527 ½
RIVERSIDE DRIVE
WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.6, requires the Common Council
to give notice pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, of its intention to consider
Petitions from the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council must take action within sixty (60) days after
the Board of Zoning Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council pursuant to I.C.
36-7-4-918.6; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing
on such requests pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.4, and
WHEREAS, the South Bend Board of Zoning Appeals has made a
recommendation, pursuant to applicable state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA as follows:
SECTION I. The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the
Petition from the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5,
requesting that a Special Exception be granted for the property located at:
527 ½ Riverside Drive
In order to permit: A Special Exception to allow an accessory dwelling in a “SF2”
District.
SECTION II. Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and after proper public
hearing, the Common Council hereby approves the petition of the South Bend Board of
Zoning Appeals, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION III. The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, hereby
finds that:
1. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety,
comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent
area or property values therein;
10
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in
which it is located and the land uses authorized therein;
4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendation of the City of
South Bend Comprehensive plan; all of which is requested by the South Bend Municipal
Code §21-09.03
SECTION IV. Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the
reasonable conditions established by the Board of Zoning Appeals which are on file in
the office of the City Clerk.
SECTION V. The 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
Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning & Annexation Committee, reported that
this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the
full Council with a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Mark Lyons, Assistant Building Commissioner, 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend,
Indiana, advised the petitioner is seeking a special exception to allow an accessory
dwelling in a “SF2” District, on property located at 527 ½ Riverside Drive. He stated
that the Area Board of Zoning Appeals gave it a public hearing on July 1, 2009 and sends
this bill to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Larry Schohl, 527 Riverside Drive, South Bend, Indiana, advised that the special
exception is to allow an accessory dwelling in “SF2” district to be used as a rental
property again. He stated that the small house has been on the property for over sixty
years and was always used as a guest house or income property. He stated that he lived
in the front house for over twenty-five years and rented the house in the back at times.
He has not rented in the past two years and the gas was shut off. He stated that he has
worked on the interior, had a new roof installed and siding.
A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time.
There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in
opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to adopt this
Resolution. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried and the
Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes.
BILL NO. 09-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
APPROVING A PETITION OF THE SOUTH
BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 220 S. TAYLOR
STREET, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that
this committee met this afternoon on this bill and sends it to the Council with an
unfavorable recommendation.
Mr. Mark Lyons, Assistant Building Commissioner, 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100,
South Bend, Indiana, presented the report from the Area Board of Zoning Appeals.
11
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
Mr. Lyons advised that the petitioner is seeking a special exception to allow a group
home in a “MU” Mixed Use District. He stated that the petitioner would like to operate a
half-way house and this location for recovering drug and alcohol rehabilitation. He stated
that the mixed use district does not allow single family homes, so regardless of how this
petition turns out the home could not be converted to single-family; it could be used as a
multi-family sense or another office similar to the previous. He stated that the Area
Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing on July 1, 2009 and sends this bill to the
Common Council with a favorable recommendation with a vote of 5-2.
Councilmember Henry Davis questioned Mr. Lyons’s comment on mixed-use.
Mr. Lyons stated that the mixed-use district in which this home is located does not permit
single family residential use.
Councilmember Kirsits asked that if this home is sold and somebody wanted to convert it
back to a SF2, they could come to the Council and petition for that rezoning.
Mr. Lyons stated that yes they could be rezoned SF2 for single family use.
Council President Dieter asked Mr. Lyons what was the vote in Area Plan.
Mr. Lyons stated that he did not know the vote, but stated that the Area Plan Commission
sent the petition to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals with an unfavorable
recommendation.
Councilmember Oliver Davis asked if Mr. Lyons had the recommendations from the
Area Plan Commission.
Mr. Lyons stated that he did not have the recommendations from the Area Plan
Commission, only from the Area Board of Zoning Appeals.
Councilmember Rouse noted that the Area Board of Zoning Appeals received it with an
unfavorable recommendation, and then what was the basis for them approving it, given
the Area Plans unfavorable recommendation.
Mr. Lyons stated that the favorable recommendation was based on that the board felt it
was compatible with the other similar establishments that had been located in the area.
Mr. Arthur Carruthers, 1122 Enchanted Forest, South Bend, Indiana, made the
presentation for this bill.
Mr. Carruthers advised that he is seeking a special exception to open up a half-way house
at 220 S. Taylor Street. He noted that as it was mentioned at the Zoning and Annexation
Committee meeting this afternoon, the location is convenient, but it appears that there is
some sort of contradiction about what he is doing and what the purpose is for the City of
South Bend and the community. He stated that everyone is focused on the wrong thing.
So he stated that he might be a little out of line saying that everyone is naïve to the fact
that drug addiction and alcoholism is all around us. Mr. Carruthers stated that this is a
disease that actually is an epidemic in everyone’s area, whether it is right next door or
down the street, ten blocks away or a mile away. The purpose of the half-way house is to
bring something new to the community to help support what’s going on. He stated that it
is a fight against drug addiction and alcoholism. He stated that it is no different than the
fight against the drivers with the cell phones as was previously mentioned earlier this
evening. He stated that it is along the same line just stated a little different. He stated
that he was saddened earlier about the fact that the committee gave this bill an
unfavorable recommendation, based on the fact that he did not go around and meet the
residents in the area. He stated that seemed a little prejudice to him. He also stated that a
City Councilmember mentioned that when a half-way house or group home went into
their district, which was Madison Center, they voted favorably for it. Mr. Carruthers
stated that also seemed prejudice to him. He advised the Council that this is their City
and that they cannot just sit there and do nothing when things are erupting all around
12
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
everyday. He stated that is contradicting to him. He stated that if the Council has
concern about the community as much as they pay attention to the school system then
they should pay attention to the addiction side of this thing. He stated no disrespect but
with all due respect, it’s a thing that is happening everyday. Mr. Carruthers advised that
there are people here tonight that are going to speak in opposition to this, because they
say that they don’t want it in their back yards, next door, here, or there. He stated that it
is already there, you can sit in your living room and look out the window and find it. He
stated that the same people are the same people that were in treatment seven or eight
years ago.
Council President Dieter advised Mr. Carruthers to stay on topic and what is relevant to
the special exception.
Mr. Carruthers stated that it is all relevant. He stated that his point is that he tried to
speak at the committee meeting as was stopped and now he is being stopped. He stated
that all he is trying to do is open up a half-way house and how the community is losing
the fight on drugs and alcohol. He stated that it is about rehabilitating homeless people,
people with alcoholism and drug addiction.
Councilmember Henry Davis asked Mr. Carruthers that if he were to enter his half-way
house what would he have to do.
Mr. Carruthers stated that the first thing a person must do to enter his half-way house is
meet criteria. That means that you have to sit down someone that is certified in that area,
do an assessment, a series of questions, what was used, how it was used, how long it was
used, short term goals, objectives. He stated that there is a screening process that takes
place before you enter his doors. He stated that the assessment takes approximately an
hour to an hour and a half. He stated that the client would then after passing the
screening and assessment process sign a lease; his leases are from six months to one year,
two years at the longest. He stated that the client would then receive a key, a room, bed
linens and a handbook on the rules and guidelines of the organization and at that point the
client is expected to follow those guidelines upon signing the lease. He stated that the
clients must have a job based on the fact that is part of the criteria to enter the program.
Mr. Carruthers stated that he currently does not have anything set up with employment
agencies, but most of his clients would come from a referral source like Life Treatment
Center; Hope Rescue Mission, and Salvation Army. He stated that most of his clients
would be coming out of treatment or actively in treatment. So they would already by
actively employed to pay their own rent.
Councilmember Davis asked who is funding this.
Mr. Carruthers stated that their clients would pay weekly. He stated that he also receives
grants and donations also.
Councilmember Davis stated that he wanted to make sure that Mr. Carruthers had the
chance to explain his reasoning for the special exception. He stated that this is a problem
not only in the City of South Bend, but in several zip code areas 46619; 46628 and
46613. He stated that in 2006 and 2007 there were 556 inmates released back in to those
zip codes here in the City of South Bend. He stated that each year those numbers are
increasing and would like for those individuals to be able to come back into society with
some type of sustainability and quality of life. In the end they want them to become law
abiding, tax paying citizens.
Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that he was the Councilmember that was concerned
that Mr. Carruthers did not take the opportunity to talk to the neighbors. He stated that he
th
is the 6 District Council Representative and in his District last year a petitioner wanted
to put in a cell tower in a neighborhood. He stated that it was something that he did not
have a problem with as long as the petitioner took the time to talk to the neighbors and
explain exactly what the project was. He stated that his decision was based solely on the
fact of taking the time to explain to the residents of that neighborhood, because they have
to live there. He stated that he has worked with other treatment programs in the past and
13
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
they have gone through. He stated that he volunteers a lot at the Hope Rescue Mission
and is a Social Worker and have dealt with many people who have dealt with alcoholism
and a lot of other issues. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that Mr. Carruthers needed
to help educate the neighbors in the area because not everybody knows how to deal with
alcoholism or drug addiction. He stated that this is how he feels this situation should
have been handled and disagreed with Mr. Carruthers comments of being prejudice. He
stated that he is all for helping out, been doing it, will continue to do it, but there is a role
to educate and not ram things down and then get mad at people for doing it. He stated
that he wanted to share that information tonight and explain that is what he was saying at
the committee meeting this afternoon.
Mr. Carruthers stated that his comments had nothing to do with anyone individually; he
was clearly stating how he felt regarding the situation. He stated that this thing is
spiritually guided. He stated that it is going to happen whether it happens here or it
happens somewhere else. He stated that people can complain about the crimes that are
being committee etc. He stated don’t complain about the crime, if no one is going to do
anything to stop it, that is all he is saying. Don’t complain about the crack head coming
up to the door asking for money if no one is willing to do anything to stop it. He stated
that he understands that people have worked in this field and if they have the same
compassion that he has then you know, but until you get there, you just don’t know.
A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time.
There was no one present wishing to speak to the Council in favor of the Resolution.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the Resolution.
Maureen Dean-Moran, 716 W. Colfax Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition
to the bill. She stated that she is the President of the Near West Side Neighborhood
Organization. She stated that she believes Mr. Carruthers is correct in stating that we
need to help these people. She stated that the problem is not only in the city and in this
particular neighborhood, but in the county as well. She stated that the Near West Side
Neighborhood is not against the healing but against the location. She stated that the
neighborhood already has several of these kinds of rehab facilities and they have been
there for thirty or more years. She stated that putting another facility of that nature is
concentrating them in one area and doesn’t feel that is healthy for the individuals who are
seeking treatment.
Marilyn Watson, 226 S. Taylor, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is opposed to this
bill. She stated that she lives two doors away from the proposed group home. Ms.
Watson advised that there are small children who live in the home next door. She stated
that they play outside during the summer months. She noted that there is a school bus
zone directly in front of their house. She stated that she is not against helping people
with drug and alcohol addition, but this location is not the right location. She stated that
the neighborhood organization has been working toward making the area more family
oriented again.
Ms. Ann Gorbitz, 225 S. Taylor, South Bend, Indiana, stated that there are a lot of
children in the neighborhood who play in the small yards. She stated that you know how
children are, they are always playing ball and inevitably they hit the house or garage not
on purpose but just playing, and is afraid that they may make someone living at this home
angry or agitated. Mr. Gorbitz stated that parking is a problem. There is not enough
parking in the area. She stated that when she gets home from work and there isn’t any
space on the street, she has to park across the street at the Church parking lot.
Mr. John Turin, 322 W. Washington, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he has lived in the
neighborhood for over forty years. He stated that when he started his business at 322 W.
Washington some thirty years ago, people were afraid to walk past Williams Street after
dark. He stated that the neighborhood which is a gem has come a long way. He stated
that the area has gotten much better because of investments like Tippecanoe Place,
Studebaker Museum, Oliver Mansion, and the various bed and breakfasts. He stated that
14
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
he is not taking issue with Mr. Carruthers’ mission, but the location. He stated that Aid
Ministry is already in the area along with two (2) homes for Life Treatment Center and
that is the issue that really needs to be addressed. He stated that the resurgence of the
near northwest side neighborhood has been due partly also to the residential homeowners
interest in making the area single family. He commended the investment of the Franklin
Place Apartments. The new owners have rehabbed that building and made it a wonderful
place to live. He reiterated that this area is a gem and a real benefit to the city. It makes
the city vibrant, it’s vital and it’s an attraction for people who visit this town.
Maureen Bolten, 625 W. Colfax, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is twenty-four year
resident of the neighborhood and a member of the Near West Side Neighborhood
Organization. She stated that when she bought her home the house next door was a
rooming house. She said that home was bought by a woman who made it her home after
seeing how wonderful the neighborhood was. She lived there for about ten years and
then sold it to a couple who are raising their children there. She stated that the property
in question was used as an office for an attorney in town. She stated that she understands
that it would take some extensive remodeling to make it a single family home again. She
stated that she understands that no matter who buys the home that it would have to be
rezoned for the specific use, but would like to see it a residential home again. She stated
that she supports the neighborhood and supports Mr. Carruthers mission, but not at that
location.
Ms. Connie Blair, 1012 W. Washington, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she agrees with
the neighbors in the area. She stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for over thirty
years and has watched the progress from an area where no one would want to go to a
place where they all live. She stated that she has seen changes house by house, block by
block, and the fact is that there are small children living on this block that is something
that would not have happened ten or so year ago. She stated that the neighborhood is
coming back alive and families are wanted to move in and raise their children in the
neighborhood. She stated that the neighbors need all of the Council’s support to keep
them going to making their neighborhood a more residential place and charming area that
everyone wants to bring visitors to.
Ms. Marjorie Kinzie, 719 W. Washington, South Bend, Indiana, stated that the
neighborhood supports Mr. Carruthers effort; it’s the location of it. She stated that she
likes to walk the neighborhood and walks downtown whenever she can and she knows
the area very well and is very familiar with the contrast from the near west side and the
fragility of Taylor Street. She noted Jefferson east of Taylor; and Wayne east of Taylor
really needs help in being revitalized. She urged the Council to turn down this rezoning
not because of what the project is but because the area is just too fragile to support this.
Herb Herendeen, 710 W. Washington, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he opposes this
rezoning not because of its purpose. Mr. Herendeen asked if this is a not-for-profit
organization. If the project is for profit Mr. Carruthers would certainly have the means or
the ability to locate that facility in a less concentrated area where there are many other
commercial type locations that could be found for that same purpose.
Mr. Dwuan Watson, 226 S. Taylor, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is not against Mr.
Carruthers purpose he is against the over saturation of this type of project in a
neighborhood. He stated that before he purchased his home at 226 S. Taylor it was the
neighborhood crack house. He stated that now he houses medical students from Notre
Dame, Ireland, Canada, Asia, and France. He stated that he and his wife have renovated
the home to make it what it is today. He stated that his property taxes have jumped up
because of the renovation from $2,200 to $5,000 a year. He stated that even with the
increase in taxes he and his wife are not going anywhere and just wanted the Council to
know about the investment that they have made in the area.
In Rebuttal, Mr. Carruthers stated that it sounds contradicting to him that everyone is in
support of the half-way house but don’t want the half-way house. He stated that is fine
and he understands that the neighbors have concerns about their property values. He
stated that he can drive up and down Taylor Street about 9:30 or 10:00 at night and find
15
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
two or three people making a drug deal its not real hard to find. He reiterated that there
are four not-for-profit organizations in that area. He stated that he wasn’t sure if they
were grandfathered in or how they came to be. He stated that this half-way house is a
much needed thing and it won’t hinder property values, clients are not going to harm the
children and as far as parking goes there is only one client that may have a vehicle out of
the eight residents and they would park in the back of the building and not on the street at
all. He stated that he doesn’t have anyone here speaking on his behalf because he has
GOD with him today. He stated that is what he practices in his spirituality. He reiterated
that this is a spiritually inspired program. He asked the Council to take into
consideration: Is this project going to be harmful to the neighborhood; is it going to
affect the neighborhood in one way or the other; look at the overall picture; what’s in
need for the City of South Bend and the community. Those are the questions at stake
because whether or not he opens up this half-way house there will be another one coming
there soon. He stated that Madison Center is already planning on opening up a half-way
house there in the 300 Block of Taylor Street. He asked if anyone knew that? He stated
that no one new that there were three half-way houses on that block already until he
mentioned it to him. He stated that is the purpose because they are so low key, the clients
are so low key, they go to work, they do their thing, they come home, they make their
meals, they go to church on Sunday, they go home and go to bed. These are people that
need help just like us at one time or another in our lives. He stated that this project is
about saving lives and if these people didn’t have the opportunity based on property
values of someone’s home, then our society pretty much stays the same. The very
problem that is before the Council tonight will never get fixed.
Councilmember Henry Davis asked Mr. Carruthers why the previous owner Mr.
McFadden an attorney, moved out?
Mr. Carruthers stated that Mr. McFadden moved out because he wanted a bigger office.
Councilmember Henry Davis stated that he will help Mr. Carruthers from this point on
with his project; however, he is not in support of it today. He stated that he will work
with Mr. Carruthers to make sure from this point on that everything is clear cut,
understandable and will help with funding if needed.
nd
Councilmember Rouse stated Councilmember Henry Davis is the 2 District Council
representative and would like to help Mr. Carruthers with this valuable service that he is
trying to provide. He stated that he wants to see Mr. Carruthers get the same support as
any other entity that wants to serve this community. Councilmember Rouse stated to Mr.
Carruthers that this is not the end of the journey and that they can find support
somewhere to a location that is going be more receptive to what he is trying to do. He
stated that he is going to vote against the bill tonight, but with a commitment to work to
address the need and service that Mr. Carruthers is trying to provide.
Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that some of his frustration tonight is that this project
is such a great idea, however, he was disappointed that the neighbors were not included
in the discussion. He stated that is why the Council is here to work together on a project
like this. He stated that he understands and represents the residents who are going to
have to live next to a project like this and it is his responsibility to see that everyone can
get along and live together.
Councilmember Kirsits stated that as Chairperson of the Zoning and Annexation
Committee he attempts to look at the standards that the Council goes by. He stated that
he feels this project goes against those criteria. He feels that it would be injurious to the
health and public safety of the residents. He stated that as a firefighter he knows that
statistically there are a higher number of calls for emergency services. He stated that in
the Northshore Triangle someone was running a half-way house illegally in 1999 and
with the efforts of a former Councilmember John Hosinski had that half-way house shut
down. Councilmember Kirsits advised that a person who was living at that half-way
house murdered a neighbor three doors away from him. He stated that he believes this
project would adversely affect property values and also believes that it would be
inconsistent with character of the neighborhood. He stated that some soft uses like an
16
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
attorney’s office or engineering firm which sometimes could be injurious to the
neighborhood when they move out and transition back into the right use. He stated that
he doesn’t believe that it follows the City Plan the comprehensive plan that the City
passed a few years ago. He stated that he appreciates what Mr. Carruthers is trying to do;
he stated that the Council does support the mission. He reflected back on turning down
the Catholic Worker House in this very same area. He stated that Mr. Carruthers is going
to have to be very careful when selecting a site to put in this half-way house. He stated
that the Council if the last thin line of defense and are always going to be very careful
what they do to a neighborhood whether they allow encroachment of commercialization
on a corner or a special exception change to a mixed use property. He stated that what is
happening here tonight and he will be voting against this bill.
Councilmember Varner stated that he appreciates the passion and the energy that Mr.
Carruthers has put into this project. He stated that Mr. Carruthers asked the Council to
look into the needs of the community. He stated that one of the needs is to have people
be secure and secured and encouraged to reinvest in neighborhoods and know that
coming down the road two or three years after they have made their investment that there
won’t be some modified commercial venture. However well this project intended is it is
still a commercial venture. There will be less and less of those ventures made if they feel
like the door is open in all neighborhoods for whatever reason to allow this. Like the
project that Mr. Baxter had with the Catholic Worker House, they work together to find
another location where the neighborhood is welcome to the project and find an area
where there is not that much of a neighborhood and the Council will help with that. He
stated that the Council wants to help reach the goal, but they also want to reach their with
regard to neighbors and neighborhoods within the City. He stated that while this may
seem discouraging find it encouraging finding help elsewhere. He stated that he will not
be support this bill tonight. He stated that he has seen too many of these kinds of project
the past few years and thinks that if the Council is not consistent they will accidentally
open the door to many more and it defeats the whole purpose of being the last line of
defense.
Councilmember Kirsits made a motion to defeat this bill. Councilmember Varner
seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. 3983-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
APPROVING A PETITION OF THE SOUTH
BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3423 SOUTH
MICHIGAN STREET WITH CONTIGUOUS
VACANT LAND
WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.6, requires the Common Council
to give notice pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, of its intention to consider
Petitions from the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council must take action within sixty (60) days after
the Board of Zoning Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council pursuant to I.C.
36-7-4-918.6; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing
on such requests pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.4, and
WHEREAS, the South Bend Board of Zoning Appeals has made a
recommendation, pursuant to applicable state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA as follows:
17
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
SECTION I. The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the
Petition from the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5,
requesting that a Special Exception be granted for the property located at:
3423 South Michigan Street with contiguous vacant land,
In order to permit: A pre-school as an adjunct use to a public school, which is a
permitted primary use under Zoning Ordinance Section 21-02.02(a)(2)(A), SF2 Single
Family and Two Family District, Permitted Uses, Special Exceptions Uses, Educational
Use.
SECTION II. Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and after proper public
hearing, the Common Council hereby approves the petition of the South Bend Board of
Zoning Appeals, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION III. The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, hereby
finds that:
1. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety,
comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent
area or property values therein;
3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in
which it is located and the land uses authorized therein;
4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendation of the City of
South Bend Comprehensive plan; all of which is requested by the South Bend Municipal
Code §21-09.03
SECTION IV. Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the
reasonable conditions established by the Board of Zoning Appeals which are on file in
the office of the City Clerk.
SECTION V. The 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
Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that
this committee met this afternoon on this bill and sends it to the Council with an
favorable recommendation.
Mr. Mark Lyons, Assistant Building Commissioner, 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100,
South Bend, Indiana, presented the report from the Area Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Lyons advised that the petitioner is seeking a special exception to allow a pre-school
in a “SF2” District, on property located at 3423 S. Michigan Street. He stated that the
Area Board of Zoning Appeals gave it a public hearing on July 1, 2009 and sends this bill
to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation.
Ms. Wendy Walker-Dyes, Attorney, Baker & Daniels, LLP, 202 S. Michigan Street,
Suite 1400, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation on behalf of Charter School
Development Corporation.
18
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
Ms. Walker-Dyes advised that the special exception is to allow a pre-school. She stated
that the property was most recently owned and used by SouthGate Church, Inc. (f/k/a
Calvary Temple-South Bend Gospel Tabernacle, Inc.) and previously housed the Busk
Brothers furniture store.
A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time.
There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in
opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to adopt this
Resolution. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried and the
Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. 3984-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND
DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS PORTAGE PRAIRIE
DEVELOPMENT, LOT 2 AN ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF
A SIX-YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX
ABATEMENT FOR WAGGONER FARM
DEVELOPMENT, L.P. (ONTARIO PARTNERS,
L.P.)
WHEREAS, a petition for real property tax abatement has been filed with the City
Clerk for consideration by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana
requesting that the area commonly known as Portage Prairie Development, Lot 2, South
Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows:
A part of the northwest quarter of Section 17 and the Northeast Quarter of Section 18,
Township 38 North, Range 2 East, German Township, City of South Bend, St. Joseph
County, Indiana, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of the northwest quarter of section 17, said corner
being marked by a Harrison Type Monument; thence south 00 degrees 12 minutes 46
seconds east, a distance of 910.31 feet to the point of beginning; thence north 89 degrees
44 minutes 25 seconds east, a distance of 385.46 feet to the west right-of-way line of
Dylan Drive as recorded under instrument number 0647966 in the Office of Recorder of
said county; thence south 00 degrees 15 minutes 35 seconds east along said west right-of-
way line, a distance of 919.19 feet to the north line of Portage Prairie Minor #2 as
recorded under instrument 0814357 number; thence north 89 degrees 44 minutes 25
seconds east along said north line, a distance of 386.22 feet to the east line of the
northeast quarter of said Section 18; thence north 89 degrees 44 minutes 25 seconds east
along said north line of Portage Prairie Minor #2, a distance of 166.28 feet; thence north
00 degrees 15 minutes 35 seconds east and parallel to said west right-of-way line of
Dylan Drive, a distance of 919.19 feet; thence north 89 degrees 44 minutes 25 seconds
east, a distance of 167.04 feet to the point of beginning; said described parcel containing
11.659 acres, more or less.
Subject to easements, right-of-way, covenants and restrictions of record.
An which has no Key Number at this point and time, be designated as an Economic
Revitalization 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, the Department of Community and Economic Development has concluded
an investigation and prepared a report with information sufficient for the Common
Council to determine that the area qualifies as an Economic Revitalization Area under
Indiana Code §6-1.1-12.1, et seq., and South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76 et seq.,
19
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
and has further prepared maps and plats showing the boundaries and such other
information regarding the area in question as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Community and Economic Development Committee of the Common
Council has reviewed said report and recommended to the Common Council that the area
qualifies as an Economic Revitalization Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South
Bend, Indiana, as follows:
SECTION I. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the Petition for
Real Property Tax Abatement and the Statement of Benefits form completed by the
Petitioner 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 the following:
A.That the description of the proposed redevelopment or rehabilitation meets the
applicable standards for such development;
B.That the estimate of the value of the redevelopment or rehabilitation is reasonable
for projects of this nature;
C.That the estimate of the number of individuals who will be employed or whose
employment will be retained by the Petitioner can reasonably be expected to
result from the proposed described redevelopment or rehabilitation;
D.That the estimate of the annual salaries of those individuals who will be employed
or whose employment will be retained by the Petitioner can be reasonably
expected to result from the proposed redevelopment or rehabilitation;
E.That the other benefits about which information was requested are benefits that
can be reasonably expected to result from the proposed described redevelopment
or rehabilitation; and
F.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.
SECTION III. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed
described redevelopment or rehabilitation can be reasonably expected to yield benefits
identified in the Statement of Benefits as set forth in Sections 1 through 3 of the Petition
for Real Property Tax Abatement Consideration, the Memorandum of Agreement
between the Petitioner and the City of South Bend, and that the Statement of Benefits
form completed by the petitioner, said form being prescribed by the State Board of
Accounts, are sufficient to justify the deduction granted under Indiana Code §6-1.1-12.1-
4.
SECTION IV. The Common Council hereby accepts the report and recommendation of
the Community and Economic Development Committee that the area herein described be
designated as an Economic Revitalization Area and hereby adopts a Resolution
designating this area as an Economic Revitalization Area for purposes of real property
tax abatement.
SECTION V. The designation as an Economic Revitalization Area shall be limited to
two (2) calendar years from the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Common
Council.
SECTION VI. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is
qualified for and is granted property tax deduction for a period of six (6) years.
SECTION VII. The Common Council directs the City Clerk to cause notice of the
adoption of this Declaratory Resolution for Real Property Tax Abatement to be published
20
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
pursuant to Indiana Code § 5-3-1 and Indiana Code §6-1.1-12.1-2.5, said publication
providing notice of the public hearing before the Common Council on the proposed
confirming of said declaration.
SECTION VIII. 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
Councilmember Rouse, Chairperson, Community and Economic Development
Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing this afternoon and voted
to send it to the full Council with no recommendation.
Mr. John Phair, President, Holladay Properties, and Mr. Paul Phair, Project Manager,
Holladay Properties, 227 South Main Street, Suite 300, South Bend, Indiana, made the
presentation for this bill, on behalf of Waggoner Farm Development, L.P./Ontario
Partners, L.P.
Mr. John Phair advised that Ontario Partners intends to construct a $5,000,000 facility
known as the “Ontario Building” in the Portage Prairie Development Area. He stated
that it is a speculative, 157,500 square-foot, light industrial building that will house
multiple tenants performing a variety of business functions, such as a medical supply
company, data storage facility, food/general distribution facilities, printing companies, or
light assembly. He noted that the building will be constructed using pre-cast concrete
panels. It will utilize green building techniques such as florescent lighting in the
warehouse. The building will be the second one in the Portage Prairie Development
Area, which is expected to produce a total of over $350 million in private investment.
The first building, also built on a speculative basis, is the “Huron Building” which
currently has over 70 people working in it. He stated that having a building ready to go is
critical to capturing potential tenants who have short timelines for occupancy. In
addition, the petitioners are facing short deadlines in order to begin the project this
construction season.
Mr. Paul Phair stated that due to the speculative nature of this building it is difficult to
provide some of the employment and construction information required on the
application. He reiterated that the Huron Building was also built and marketed on a
speculative basis and is currently occupied by two strong tenants. He stated that they
would not have captured either of the existing tenants without having the space available,
or tax abatement on the building. He stated that is the same conflict that they are facing
with the Ontario Building. In order to attract tenants who have a short timeline for
occupancy they need to have the ability to obtain a construction permit and move as
quickly as possible, but also need to have the assurance of tax abatement in place before
they will commit to the building and the area.
A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time.
There as no one present wishing to speak in favor of this bill.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Marty Wolfson, 809 Park Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this
bill. He stated since when does it become the responsibility of the tax payers to make the
Ontario project a profitable project. He disagreed with the speculative nature of this
building and the unknown kinds of jobs and wages. He asked the Council to put a
moratorium on all future tax abatements. He urged the Council not to adopt this bill.
Mr. Chris Springer, 530 Hildebrand, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Springer advised that the Holladay Corporation has hired HGR Consulting who has
misclassified workers on their 1099 forms. He stated that the company does not pay
workers compensation, overtime, or unemployment compensation. He noted that there
21
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
have been complaints of tax and insurance fraud. He urged the Council to request copies
of those documents and look them over before voting on this bill tonight.
Mr. Tony Flora, 202 E. Angela, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is opposed to the
granting of this tax abatement. He stated that this project lacks the qualifications in the
Public Benefit Point system that the Department of Community & Economic
Development has calculated. Mr. Flora advised that tax abatements no longer further the
benefits of the city. He asked the Council to please vote against this tax abatement.
Mr. Tom Zmyslo, 51042 Prairieview Way, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to
this bill. Mr. Zmyslo called this project “corporate welfare.” He stated that when he
opened his business several years ago, he did not ask for tax abatement. He urged the
Council not to adopt this tax abatement.
Mr. Brad Murphy, 9419 Dune Drive, Bridgeman, Michigan, spoke in opposition to this
bill. Mr. Murphy stated that the argument is not union versus non-union. He stated that
it is contractors not paying their fair share of the taxes. He agreed with Mr. Zmyslo that
this is corporate welfare and it is a burden on the community. He asked the Council to
vote against this tax abatement.
Ms. Judith Wroblewski, 515 S. Meade Street, South Bend, Indiana, spoke opposed to this
bill. Ms. Wroblewski noted that the City of South Bend is in financial trouble. She
stated that even with the increase in the Local Option Income Tax, the city is still going
to be in debt. She stated that one way the City of South Bend could save money is to stop
granting so many tax abatements. She urged the Council to vote against this abatement.
Mr. Kevin Wild, 52630 Brooktrails, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is speaking on
behalf of the Concrete/Mason Workers Union. He urged the Council not to set a
precedent tonight and let the Holladay Corporation to continue to hire contractors who
are misclassifying workers on their 1099 forms so that they do not have to pay for
workers compensation, unemployment benefits and overtime work. He asked the
Council to vote against this abatement.
In Rebuttal, Mr. Phair advised that the project won’t happen if they are not competitive.
He noted that 100% of the tax abatement benefits go to the tenant. He stated that this
project will be a major contribution to the tax base. Mr. Phair agreed to the six year term.
He urged the Council’s favorable recommendation.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that the Council that should they
go forward tonight they could hold off on adopting the Confirming Resolution until a
client was established.
Councilmember LaFountain advised that he is not in support of this bill. He stated that
this is not the movie “A Field of Dreams”, build it and they will come. He stated that he
is against creating something that might or might not be used. He stated that he will not
be voting in favor of this bill.
Councilmember Rouse stated that the Ontario Building based on the Public Benefit
Points system was calculated for the abatement term to be six years only. He advised that
he is not comfortable not having the entire breakdown of the local option income tax and
how that tax is going to be collected and distributed. He noted that when the abatement
was granted for the Huron building it was an entirely different economy.
Council President Dieter advised that Holladay Properties is paying for the building and
that they are asking for abatement for their tenants.
Councilmember White questioned why the Council would not support the administration
in granting a six (6) year abatement.
Councilmember Henry Davis asked if there were any other tools available.
22
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
Mr. Phair stated no other tools are available to the public.
Councilmember Varner stated that he would prefer a $6 million dollar project funded by
private money, but doesn’t want to turn down a project and send the wrong message to
other investors especially in this tough economy.
Councilmember White reiterated that this project qualifies for a six (6) year abatement
based on the Public Benefit Points System. She stated that they could amend this bill
tonight and then revisit for a nine (9) year abatement.
Councilmember Rouse advised that this abatement is going to go into a TIF District. He
stated that he is not comfortable no knowing where the .95% Local Option Income Tax is
going. He stated that it’s not really wonderful until they have all the facts. The City
cannot do business status quo.
Councilmember Puzzello stated that there certainly has been a lot of talk about the
speculative nature of this building, however, she does believe in a “Field of Dreams”
build it and they will come. She advised that she has perfect confidence in Holladay and
they do a good job. She stated that she has no respect for HRG and their business
practices. She reiterated that they need the building and is confident that Holladay will
get the job done.
Councilmember Henry Davis stated that he is not in favor of the entire Portage Prairie
Development. He advised that because of HEA 1001 and the property tax caps he does
not agree with locking money up into a TIF area. He stated that there is no new revenue
coming back into the general fund. Councilmember Davis stated that he will not be
voting in favor of this bill.
Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that he doesn’t like the timing of the project. He
agreed with Mr. Wolfson and implementing a moratorium on tax abatements. He stated
that he is not in favor of this abatement and will be voting against it.
Councilmember Al “Buddy” Kirsits reiterated the words of former Councilmember Karl
King, the tax abatement process is like an ice cream sundae. He stated that you first start
out with vanilla ice cream and then you can add different flavors and toppings by having
more points in the Public Benefit Points System. The more points you have the more
flavor and toppings you get. He stated that this project clearly only qualifies for a six (6)
year abatement.
Mr. Phair agreed to the 6 year abatement.
Councilmember Henry Davis asked if the Community and Economic Development
Department can track how many companies call their department and want to relocate to
South Bend.
th
Mr. Schalliol, Staff Member, Community and Economic Development, 12 Floor
County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he was unsure if they track, but
would be willing to check into that.
Councilmember White made a motion to amend this bill to six (6) years. Councilmember
Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of five (5) ayes and four (4)
nays (Councilmember’s Henry Davis, LaFountain, Rouse and Oliver Davis)
Councilmember Varner made a motion to adopt this Resolution as amended.
Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of five (5)
ayes and four (4) nays (Councilmember’s Henry Davis, LaFountain, Oliver Davis,
Timothy Rouse.)
23
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
RESOLUTION NO. 3985-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROVING AN ORDER OF THE ST. JOSEPH
COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION
APPROVING A CERTAIN DECLARATORY
RESOLUTION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE
AIRPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA
DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
,
WHEREAS the South Bend Redevelopment Commission (the
“Commission”), the governing body of the South Bend Department of Redevelopment
and the Redevelopment District of the City of South Bend, Indiana, pursuant to Indiana
Code 36-7-14 (the “Act”), on July 14, 2009, approved and adopted its Resolution No.
2552 (the “Declaratory Resolution”), Exhibit A, amending the acquisition list in the
Airport Economic Development Area Development Plan (the “Plan”) for the Airport
Economic Development Area (the “Area”) and amending the Airport Economic
Development Area Development Plan (the “Plan Amendment”); and
,
WHEREAS the Plan Amendment calls for the addition of various parcels
located within the Area, to the Acquisition List contained within the Plan; and
,
WHEREAS the St. Joseph County Area Plan Commission (the “Plan
Commission”), which is the duly designated and acting official planning body for the
City of South Bend, Indiana (the “City”), on July 21, 2009, adopted and approved a
resolution, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, determining that the
Declaratory Resolution and the Plan Amendment conform to the plan of development for
the City and approving, ratifying and confirming the Declaratory Resolution and the Plan
Amendment, and designating such resolution as the written order of the Plan Commission
approving the Declaratory Resolution and the Plan Amendment as required by Section 16
of the Act (the “Plan Commission Order”); and
,
WHEREAS Section 16 of the Act prohibits the Commission from
proceeding until the Plan Commission Order is approved by the municipal legislative
body of the City; and
,
WHEREAS the Common Council of the City is the municipal legislative
body of the City and now desires to approve the Plan Commission Order in order to
permit the Commission to proceed with the redevelopment of the Area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the
City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows:
1. The Plan Commission Order attached hereto is in all respects
hereby approved, ratified and confirmed.
2. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption by the Common Council of the City and compliance with procedures required
by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of South
Bend, Indiana, this 27th day of July, 2009.
s/Derek D. Dieter
Member of the Common Council
24
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
Councilmember Rouse, Chairperson, Community and Economic Development
Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon
and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation.
th
Mr. David Relos, Staff Member, Economic Development Department, 12 Floor County-
City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for
this bill.
Mr. Relos advised that the process began when the South Bend Redevelopment
Commission (RDC) conducted a study and determined that it is necessary and beneficial
to the orderly redevelopment of the Airport Economic Development Area (AEDA) to add
various parcels to the AEDA Acquisition List. The declaratory resolution of the RDC
was sent to the St. Joseph County Area Plan Commission (APC) for an order approving
the RDC’s action. The APC’s resolution is now submitted to the Common Council for
approval. He noted that these parcels are in three specific target areas with the AEDA.
The areas are targeted to enhance the surrounding business and neighborhoods, and in
one instance, to partner with an educational facility to further their expansion needs in
light of large increases in enrollment. Area 1 adds four properties to the acquisition list
which have been identified by Ivy Tech as properties needed to relieve the current
overcrowding in their main building. Area 2 is the Airgas facility, which is scheduled to
close at the end of August. This property adjoins Hamilton Towing on the east side of
Lafayette, who is currently on the acquisition list. The acquisition of this property would
make this site, on the fringe of Ignition Park, large enough for a developable site. Area 3
is bounded by Indiana Avenue on the south, Franklin Street to the east, Taylor Street on
the west, and the Norfolk Southern Rail Road tracks to the north.
A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time.
Ms. Virginia B. Calvin, Chancellor, Ivy Tech Community College, 220 Dean Johnson
Drive, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill.
Ms. Calvin advised that Ivy Tech’s mission has expanded by 150% in student growth
since the year 2000. She stated that they are in dire need of additional classroom space.
She thanked Mayor Steve Luecke, Mr. Jeff Gibney and Mr. David Relos for their
dedication to this project. She stated that she did not pick the site, but it is the right site
for the right institution.
There being no one else present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in
opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to adopt this
Resolution. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried and the
Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. 3986-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROVING AN ORDER OF THE ST. JOSEPH
COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION
APPROVING A CERTAIN DECLARATORY
RESOLUTION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE
SOUTH BEND CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTED BY
THE SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
,
WHEREAS the South Bend Redevelopment Commission (the
“Commission”), the governing body of the South Bend Department of Redevelopment
and the Redevelopment District of the City of South Bend, Indiana, pursuant to Indiana
Code 36-7-14 (the “Act”), on July 14, 2009, approved and adopted its Resolution No.
2551 (the “Declaratory Resolution”), Exhibit A, amending the acquisition list in the
South Bend Central Development Area Development Plan (the “Plan”) for the South
25
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
Bend Central Development Area (the “Area”) and amending the South Bend Central
Development Area Development Plan (the “Plan Amendment”); and
,
WHEREAS the Plan Amendment calls for the addition of various parcels
located within the Area, to the Acquisition List contained within the Plan; and
,
WHEREAS the St. Joseph County Area Plan Commission (the “Plan
Commission”), which is the duly designated and acting official planning body for the
City of South Bend, Indiana (the “City”), on July 21, 2009, adopted and approved a
resolution, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, determining that the
Declaratory Resolution and the Plan Amendment conform to the plan of development for
the City and approving, ratifying and confirming the Declaratory Resolution and the Plan
Amendment, and designating such resolution as the written order of the Plan Commission
approving the Declaratory Resolution and the Plan Amendment as required by Section 16
of the Act (the “Plan Commission Order”); and
,
WHEREAS Section 16 of the Act prohibits the Commission from
proceeding until the Plan Commission Order is approved by the municipal legislative
body of the City; and
,
WHEREAS the Common Council of the City is the municipal legislative
body of the City and now desires to approve the Plan Commission Order in order to
permit the Commission to proceed with the redevelopment of the Area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the
City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows:
1. The Plan Commission Order attached hereto is in all respects
hereby approved, ratified and confirmed.
2. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption by the Common Council of the City and compliance with procedures required
by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of South
Bend, Indiana, this 27th day of July, 2009.
s/Derek D. Dieter
Member of the Common Council
Councilmember Rouse, Chairperson, Community and Economic Development
Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon
and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation.
th
Mr. Bill Schalliol, Staff Member, Economic Development Department, 12 Floor
County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the
presentation for this bill.
Mr. Schalliol advised that the process began when the South Bend Redevelopment
Commission (RDC) conducted a study and determined that it is necessary and beneficial
to the orderly redevelopment of the South Bend Central Development Area (SBCDA) to
add various parcels to the SBCDA Acquisition List. The declaratory resolution of the
RDC was sent to the St. Joseph County Area Plan Commission (APC) for an order
approving the RDC’s action. The APC’s resolution is now submitted to the Common
Council for approval. Mr. Schalliol stated that there are five (5) properties (seventeen tax
parcels) proposed to be added to the acquisition list. The properties are all within the
Coveleski Park Planning Area. The first property is the Manor Building located at 118 S.
William Street. The Manor was built as a nursing home and most recently owned by the
Madison Center which vacated the property in summer 2008. The building is
functionally challenged and acquisition of the property would allow for demolition and
site control and the ability to remove an inconsistent land use form the William Street
26
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
corridor. The second property, located in the Coveleski Park Housing Block, is Fred’s
Transmission, located at 501 W. Western Avenue. It is anticipated that Fred’s will close
this location, and this acquisition would allow for controlled development of this site.
The rest of this block, with two exceptions (a communications building and a single
family house), has been cleared and is ready for development. Plans for this block are for
housing to the north end of the block and commercial development along Western
Avenue. The third area is the Coveleski Park North Development Block, and
encompasses the remaining three properties. These properties are the remaining Gates
parcels, the former Schilling’s Camera Store, and Nor Systems Computer Store. The
acquisition of the properties in this Development Block, which is 5.8 acres, allows for the
controlled development of this block, and the potential for a large format user.
A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time.
There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in
opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Al “Buddy” Kirsits made a motion to
adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried and
the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes.
BILLS – FIRST READING
BILL NO. 53-09 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 14 ARTICLE 9 OF
THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE
ENTITLED “REGULATIONS ADDRESSING
SPECIAL EVENTS IN RESIDENTIALLY
ZONED AREAS”
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to
the Health and Public Safety Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading
on August 10, 2009. Councilmember Rouse seconded the motion which carried by a
voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
BILL NO. 54-09 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21
OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE,
ARTICLE 5 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT; SECTION 21-05 PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, TO REVISE THE
CRITERIA USED IN DETERMINING
MAJOR/MINOR CHANGES TO APPROVED
SITE PLANS AND REMOVING TIME LIMITS
TO OBTAIN SECONDARY APPROVAL
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Rouse made a motion to refer this bill to the
Area Plan Commission. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a
voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
BILL NO. 55-09 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $5,600
FROM THE MORRIS PERFORMING ARTS
CENTER AND PALAIS ROYALE MARKETING
FUND (FUND NUMBER 273) FOR PURCHASE
27
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
OF MORRIS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
TICKET STOCK & ENVELOPES
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Rouse made a motion to refer this bill to the
PARC Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on August 10, 2009.
Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine
(9) ayes.
BILL NO. 56-09 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND
INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS AND EXTENSIONS TO THE
CITY’S SEWAGE WORKS, THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE
BONDS TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE
PAYMENT OF THE COSTS THEREOF, THE
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF BOND
ANTICIPATION NOTES IN ANTICIPATION OF
THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SUCH BONDS
AND THE COLLECTION, SEGREGATION AND
DISTRIBUTION OF THE REVENUES OF SUCH
SEWAGE WORKS AND OTHER RELATED
MATTERS
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Rouse made a motion to refer this bill to the
Utilities Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on August 10, 2009.
Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine
(9) ayes.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
REPORTS FROM AREA PLAN COMMISSION:
BILL NO. 45-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1351 AND 1355 PYLE AVENUE AND THE
ADJACENT VACANT LOT LYING TO THE
NORTH, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 4, IN THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to the Zoning and Annexation
Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on August 10, 2009.
Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine
(9) ayes.
NEW BUSINESS
Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr. stated that he was in Washington D.C. this past week to
study and observe President Obama’s plan on healthcare reform. He stated that it was a
great learning experience to see how the “wheels work” in Washington. He stated that he
appreciated the opportunity to attend.
28
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
COMMENTS CONCERNING AMENDING THE SOUTH BEND HUMAN RIGHTS
ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY
Mary Porter, 52801 Woodridge, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is a member of
South Bend Equality a local community organization that advocates for equal protection
under the law for all residents regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. She
urged the Council to amend the South Bend Human Rights Ordinance to include sexual
orientation and gender identity. She stated that “all” individuals should be treated
equally.
Marie Lafferty, 739 Marquette, South Bend, Indiana, stated that protecting the rights of
citizens under the law is an area of justice that must be addressed by those who are
charged with protecting the common good. She stated that persons who are gay, lesbian,
bi-sexual, and trans-gendered must have equal protection under the law and the lawful
access to redress the issue of discrimination.
Donna Kane, 2354 Normandy Drive, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she lost her job
because of openly admitted she was gay. She stated that she had worked for her
employer for a number of years and her supervisor had knowledge that she was gay. She
stated that her supervisor was on leave and she was reporting to a new supervisor, when
that supervisor learned that she was gay, let her go for a reason of using a company
computer to send an e-mail. Ms. Kane stated that she received that e-mail from another
co-worker then forwarded it on. She noted that the other co-worker was not fired. Ms.
Kane stated that she had no recourse for any action because there is no law discriminating
against sexual orientation and gender identity. She urged the Council to amend the South
Bend Human Rights Ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity so that
all individuals are treated equal.
Catherine Pittman, 2628 Summit Ridge Drive, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is a
member of South Bend Equality. She stated that South Bend Equality is lobbying for a
proposed amendment to South Bend’s Human Rights Ordinance that would extend
protection to all citizens in South Bend. Ms. Pittman passed out a statement from
community members praising South Bend Mayor Steve Luecke’s executive order that
expanded the non-discrimination policy for city employees to include sexual orientation
and gender identity. A copy is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. She stated that they
want to “add a box” to the City of South Bend Human Rights Commission Information
Request to include sexual orientation/Gender Identity.
Raul Jara, 317 Napoleon, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is here tonight to give the
straight male perspective on non-discrimination protections. He advised that the City of
Indianapolis enacted such protection in 2005, after their mayor had passed a similar
executive order, and a variety of other Indiana localities such as Lafayette, West
Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, Bloomington, Fort Wayne, and Michigan City has
extended protection to include sexual orientation and/or gender identity. He noted that
Governor Daniels has maintained similar civil rights protection for state employees since
he took office in 2004. He urged the Council to amend the South Bend Human Rights
Ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity so that all individuals are
treated equal.
Bridget Hardy, 319 W. Navarre, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is a member of the
South Bend Human Rights Commission. She stated that she will be resigning her duties
as a member of the South Bend Human Commission because her family is being
relocated out of the City. She urged the Council to pass an amendment extending
protection to all citizens in the South Bend area.
29
REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2009
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the President Derek D. Dieter adjourned
the meeting at 10:27 p.m.
ATTEST: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
John Voorde, City Clerk Derek D. Dieter, President
30