Laserfiche WebLink
before it becomes effective. Both of those things need to occur before that special rate goes into <br /> effect. <br /> Committeemember Williams-Preston asked, So, the policy is that once they get that rate it stays <br /> that way? <br /> Committeemember Dr. Varner interjected, There was a fairly well-defined- <br /> Committeemember Williams-Preston continued, Because I hear you saying that you have to <br /> come back year after year, but then I thought I heard you saying that it didn't happen. So, they <br /> just continue to get the rate? <br /> Mr. Schmidt responded, It would come down, probably, to how the contract is written,but the <br /> ordinance is very clear that every August t 30th or August l't, or somewhere in that range,the <br /> applicant is to present to the Council why they should be able to receive such a benefit. And I <br /> guess just spit-balling it off the top of my head—you would want some language in the <br /> agreement that reminds them and requires them to be able to present the data to the Council <br /> 11 That could be a termination provision if the can't do that. <br /> successfully. p y <br /> Committeemember Dr. Varner added, And that if they are to achieve a successful resolution, we <br /> will terminate the contract upon such failure. <br /> This being the time heretofore set for public comment on the above bill,proponents and <br /> opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. <br /> None from the public wished to speak in favor of this bill. <br /> Those wishing to speak in opposition to this bill: <br /> Richard Nussbaum, 225 South Sunnyside Avenue, South Bend, IN, stated that he had been asked <br /> by I/N Tek and I/N Kote to present to the Council their opposition to this particular work. Mr. <br /> Nussbaum stated, I want to say from the outset that we are not here to be adversarial. We are <br /> here to try to work something out. The fact that we did not get notice was an oversight on the <br /> part of the City. We accept that. We don't think that there was any intent to not notify us. But we <br /> really have only been only working at this since we were notified of the passage of the <br /> ordinance, which was right before Thanksgiving. So, we've had about a month and a half—with <br /> a couple of major holidays—to try to have meetings. We had our first real substantive meeting <br /> with the City last week, and I can tell you that from that meeting I think there's some real, good <br /> faith on both sides to try to work something out so that we do reach an agreement. We don't <br /> think it's going to be very difficult at all to show justification for an agreement in favor of I/N <br /> Tek and I/N Kote. We are here to continue the process of working out an agreement, but we are <br /> also here from a legal perspective, because we have to remonstrate to this ordinance if we are <br /> going to preserved our legal rights. My respectful suggestion to the Council would be to hold the <br /> public hearing and to continue this matter in the public hearing to allow us at least thirty (3 0) <br /> days, or something along those lines,to try to work out an agreement, because if there is action <br /> taken on this ordinance, in order to preserve our legal rights there would have to be a lawsuit <br /> 4 <br />