Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2012 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Neal advised that this bill would allow for the appropriation of additional funds for <br />operational expenditures necessary for the City to provide services to its citizens which were not <br />anticipated at the time the City budget was adopted. <br /> <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 /> <br />Rev. Greg Brown, 1238 Diamond, South Bend, Indiana, advised that he is in favor of this bill <br />and urged the Council’s favorable consideration. <br /> <br />There being no one else present wishing to speak in favor or in opposition to this bill, <br />Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning <br />this bill. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of <br />seven (7) ayes. <br /> <br /> <br />BILL NO. 63-12 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON <br /> COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, <br /> AMENDING CHAPTER 1, SECTION 104 OF THE <br /> SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE ADDRESSING “SIX <br /> COUNCILMANIC DISTRICTS” <br /> <br />Council President Dieter, Chairperson, Council Rules Committee, reported that this committee <br />met this afternoon on this bill and sends it to the Council with a favorable recommendation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Karen White advised that as a member of the Special Committee for Re- <br />Districting she is pleased to sponsor this bill. She stated that Councilmembers were requested to <br />recommend South Bend residents to serve on this special committee which is bi-partisan, diverse <br />in race, gender and location of their residences. She stated that Council President Dieter <br />appointed five (5) persons to serve, Karl G. King, Jesusa Rivera, Theresa Sedlack, Jack L. Smith <br />along with her to make recommendations on re-drawing the boundaries of the six (6) Council <br />Districts. She noted that Karl G. King served as the Chairperson of this committee, and has <br />spent countless hours reviewing the most recent census data. The special committee reviewed a <br />total of three (3) options. All options met the state law criteria which required each Council <br />District to be composed of contiguous territory; reasonably compact; have as nearly as possible, <br />equal population. Ms. White noted that this option was #3 and was the least intrusive. <br /> <br />Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney, advised that redistricting of the Common <br />Council’s six (6) councilmanic districts is required every ten (10) years based on data from the <br />most recent U. S. Federal Census. The 2010 U. S. Census data revealed that the population of <br />the City of South Bend, Indiana, was 101,168. She stated that Indiana Code §36-4-6-3 sets forth <br />the governing state law addressing the division of six (6) districts for second class Indiana cities. <br />It requires the city legislative body to pass an ordinance addressing councilmanic districts during <br />the second year after the year in which a federal decennial census was conducted. It further <br />requires that the six (6) districts be established which are: Composed of contiguous territory, <br />except for territory that is not contiguous to any other part of the city; reasonably compact; do <br />not cross precinct boundary lines, except as authorized by law; and contain, as nearly as is <br />possible, equal population. <br /> <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 /> <br />Glenda Rae Hernandez, 702 South St., South Bend, Indiana, advised that she did not believe the <br />Council or the Special Committee got the word out to get more of the public involved in this <br />process. <br /> <br />In rebuttal, Councilmember White stated that she too was disappointed that there wasn’t much <br />media coverage or participation, however, they met the open door law requirements and <br />provided transparency during the process. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />