|
REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 2017
<br /> 38-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF
<br /> THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
<br /> SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING
<br /> ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CERTAIN
<br /> DEPARTMENTAL AND ENTERPRISE
<br /> OPERATIONS IN 2017 OF $891,089 FROM EMS
<br /> CAPITAL FUND (#287)
<br /> Councilmember Karen White, Chair of the Personnel and Finance Committee, reported that they
<br /> met this afternoon and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation.
<br /> John Murphy,the Department of Administration and Finance,with offices on the 12th Floor of
<br /> the County-City Building, South Bend, IN, served as the presenter of this bill. Mr. Murphy
<br /> stated, These are the Enterprise Fund appropriations for June. They are both related to the EMS
<br /> Capital Fund. The second one (1) involves a program from the State of Indiana whereby the City
<br /> pays the State $471,089, and in return they send us back $1,411,932. It's kind of a Medicaid kind
<br /> of loan. It sounds too good to be true, but we have it in writing from the State. That's a good deal
<br /> for us. One of the items it will be used for is the construction and design of Fire Station No. 9.
<br /> $200,000 is being requested for appropriation for Epoch Architecture, $100,000 for additional
<br /> land purchases for Station No. 9, and $128,000 for demolition costs to demolish five (5)
<br /> properties that were already acquired earlier in the year.
<br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis asked, Could we have a brief synopsis of that project?
<br /> Councilmember Davis called up Chief Cox, thanking him for being present.
<br /> Stephen Cox, Fire Chief of the South Bend Fire Department, with offices at 1222 South
<br /> Michigan Street, South Bend, IN, stated, The State is basically taking their cut—an
<br /> administrative cut--of the amount of money that we are receiving as an adjustment from
<br /> Medicaid, from federal funding from reimbursement year 2014. We applied in 2014 for the 2013
<br /> monies, and they had a similar program and we did receive a relatively large chunk of change,
<br /> though we had to pay the State up-front, which seemed extremely unusual. As far as the Fire
<br /> Station No. 9 project goes, we have acquired five (5)properties. We will be taking possession of
<br /> one (1) last property in September. One of the additional appropriations we have asked for here
<br /> is to allow us to be able to demolish the properties that we have acquired,taking possession of
<br /> them after one (1) last renter that was living in one (1) of those houses has finished up his lease.
<br /> Dave Relos from DCI worked with the actual landowner to allow that individual to go ahead and
<br /> work out his lease. We are certainly not trying to kick anybody out of their home in an unusual,
<br /> quick manner. Additionally, we do have some money appropriations to begin the design work for
<br /> Fire Station No. 9, so that hopefully once the appropriation is made, we will get an architect
<br /> under contract and begin that design phase, which we anticipate will take about six (6) months in
<br /> order for us to be able to put it out to bid for construction sometime in the winter and start
<br /> construction next spring.
<br /> Councilmember Davis asked, Creativity: one (1) quick thing on that, please?
<br /> Chief Cox responded, Our aim is to be able to design a station that actually fits in the
<br /> neighborhood on Mishawaka Avenue. We want to make that a part of the neighborhood over
<br /> there for an extended period of time, as we've mentioned in numerous public meetings.
<br /> Councilmember John Voorde asked, Have you begun to consider what will become of old
<br /> Station No. 9?
<br /> Chief Cox responded, Yes. Well, what we had anticipated was allowing the folks—probably
<br /> with DCI—to perhaps sell that. It is a historic landmark building, so there are limitations on what
<br /> a new property owner would be able to do to the building itself, especially on the exterior. That
<br /> was obviously one (1) of our issues with the building. However, we also recognize that that has
<br /> been a landmark building in River Park since 1926, and so we are certain that there will be a
<br /> market for that building to be able to be used, once we vacate it.
<br /> This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and
<br /> opponents were given an opportunity to be heard.
<br /> 12
<br />
|