|
REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2017
<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 /> Elicia Feasel, Executive Director Historic Preservation Commission, 125 S. Lafayette Boulevard,
<br /> South Bend, IN, stated, I am here to speak in support of the Interlocal Agreement and the
<br /> transferring of the Historic Preservation Commission to the City, particularly the Department of
<br /> Community Investment from St.Joseph County.With that said,I would like to speak to the process
<br /> to which this has been done. It is not easy for me to say in a public forum. We were concerned
<br /> there would be a loss of services to citizens of St. Joseph County. One (1) thing in the Interlocal
<br /> Agreement is that the County has decided on$11,250 as their budget for Historic Preservation for
<br /> 2018. That is three hundred (300) hours at $37.50 per hour. That is not adequate to cover the
<br /> services we currently provide to the County. We are the only Code Enforcement that the County
<br /> has. We follow minimum maintenance standards for the County which is enforced by the Building
<br /> Department. In order to do minimum maintenance standards surveying, we actually have to travel
<br /> to the County landmarks, of which there are seventy-four (74). That is something we have found
<br /> to take approximately fifteen (15) months, in addition to our schedule of the office, to get out to
<br /> all seventy-four(74)landmarks. We provide a report to those owners. We spoke to an owner today
<br /> that owns a farm on Portage Road and she said the minimum maintenance standards surveys are
<br /> helpful to property owners because rather than being reactionary, they are a proactive tool to help
<br /> the owners understand what problems may be showing on their property. It serves as an invitation
<br /> to work with the Historic Preservation Commission. We just don't feel only six (6) hours a week
<br /> would be adequate to do that work.
<br /> Ms. Feasel continued, In our attempts to preserve our function within the County, we spoke to the
<br /> County Council and I think, at that time, we were perceived as being adversarial. I would like to
<br /> say very sincerely to you that it was not adversarial to becoming a City Department, my concern
<br /> was about the process. It was about, for the last however many years you all have been discussing
<br /> this,I was under the impression this was a discussion about balancing the budget,not a full transfer,
<br /> and I was not involved in those conversations. That being said, I am very much in support of this
<br /> shift because after the Councils voted on their budgets, we immediately begin working with the
<br /> Department of Community Investment to create a transition plan. We will not have a loss of
<br /> services. In the last month, I have felt very welcomed and well aligned with the planning
<br /> department. I think we will find further efficiencies that will allow us to continue serving the
<br /> County. We have received a number of calls from County landmark owners that are concerned
<br /> and actually frustrated at how little they were included in this process.
<br /> Adam Toering, 236 S. Notre Dame Avenue, South Bend, IN, stated, My first day with Historic
<br /> Preservation was September 5,2017. We were notified on September 6,2017 that this process was
<br /> to come about. Since that point, I have attended a number of County Council meetings to advocate
<br /> on behalf of these landmark property owners to ensure all needs are met. We can all agree to the
<br /> imbalance of the payment structure so we look forward to that being rectified. Elicia and I had our
<br /> concerns throughout this process but we look forward to this resulting in stream-lined operations
<br /> that this opportunity brings to us. We look forward to digitizing our records. I implore you to make
<br /> this happen because we want to keep working.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden stated, A couple of additional amendments I have are to require
<br /> transition updates to the Common Council and the HPC Commission. The current agreement does
<br /> not specify to whom in the County that update would go. And specifically we need to have those
<br /> transition updates benchmarked against the yet-to-be-seen transition plan. Another recommended
<br /> change,that I think the benefit of additional time could help us look at,could be us working closely
<br /> with DCI, the Historic Preservation Staff as well as the Commission and representatives of the
<br /> County. Within this agreement, there is a monthly staff requirement report on activities and time
<br /> and it is only limited to the calendar year of 2018. Yet this agreement contemplates an automatic
<br /> renewal. To automatically renew without an evaluation process from the main legislative bodies
<br /> is just an oversight.
<br /> Councilmember Gavin Ferlic asked, Just to clarify, would you like to right now, Councilmember
<br /> Broden, make any of these specific amendments into motions?
<br /> Councilmember Jo M.Broden replied,I guess my first recommendation is,if it does not necessitate
<br /> special meetings by the Council,that we actually postpone this vote and work to clean up some of
<br /> these issues and then, short of that, yes I would like to include the four (4) or five (5) I have
<br /> mentioned tonight so I will revisit that later. Alternatively, I guess, is if there is a way to integrate
<br /> the legislative bodies within this agreement to have a more specific evaluative role going forward.
<br /> 8
<br />
|