11-22-04 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22,2004 anyone who wanted to review those records. Mr. Kahn stated that he chairs another entity called Downtown South Bend, Inc., which is a public and private partnership that has been created with interest in the downtown area for the revitalization and development enhancement of Downtown South Bend. The main issue that we have faced is that people perceive that there already is bureaucracy in government and this makes it difficult to get new businesses in the downtown area. Mr. Kahn further advised that government needs to be streamlined and more efficient and Bill 32-04 just adds another layer to the process that is unnecessary. Ms. Sharon Hawkins, 5026 Blackford, South Bend, Indiana, spoke opposed to this bill. Ms. Hawkins stated that she is currently a member of the Board of Trustees of First AME Zion Church, South Bend, Indiana. Ms. Hawkins stated that the church supports the City Administration's view on Bill 32-04. She believes that this bill would create an undue hardship on the not-for-profit organizations. Our Board of Trustees is voluntary and it is hard to get members to fill the trustee positions, and with Bill 32-04 in place it would make it even harder because it creates more undue hardship on the board. Ms. Hawkins encourage the Council to vote in opposition to this bill. Mr. Pat McMahon, Executive Director, Project Future, 401 E. Colfax Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, 1805 Bader Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke opposed to this bill. Mr. McMahon advised that he shares the same concerns that Ms. Kendall stated earlier. He stated that any time a municipality puts a process in place that creates the need for more people; more processes or more votes involved in the negotiating process, one finds themselves non-competitive with other communities who can do it more quickly. Mr. McMahon advised the Council not to restrict the administrative power of their executive branch of government. Bill 32-04 makes the City of South Bend less competitive out there in situations in which we fight everyday to be as competitive as we can be in the development process. Councilmember Coleman, Chairperson Committee of the Whole stated that time would only allow for one more people to speak in opposition to the bill. Mr. Timothy Rouse, 605 Cherry Tree Lane, South Bend, Indiana, spoke opposed to the bill. Mr. Rouse thanked Dr. Varner and Councilmember Dieter for their tenacity and vigilance in trying to create a City that is effective and efficient. However, cooperation is the key to making things work. Mr. Rouse encouraged the Council not to add another layer to already burdened system of bureaucracy. In rebuttal, Councilmember Varner stated that we are not going to control expenses in the City of South Bend until we provide some more oversight. As for the burden that is going to be created for the not-for-profit organizations, I would restate that if you do not want the money, if you don't need the money then don't ask for it. A little bit of regulatory oversight, a little bit of public process and public disclosure is a small price to pay for$100,000.00, which is the threshold upon which we have set. If you are a not-for- profit that isn't asking the City for money, you won't have any reporting requirements. He stated that you still have the responsibility to disclosure the Form 990 to anyone who asks for it. That is the agreement you make with the Federal Government you make when you accept 501C status. Bill 32-04 does not add a layer of burden to the not-for- profits, we are simply asking you to make a copy of that Form 990 and provided it to the City. Councilmember Varner further stated to sum up part of the discussion that the administration likes the status quo, and we don't blame them, we all like the status quo. But every now and then in order to make progress we have to make some changes. If a board member is offended of any organization that someone wants to take a look at there major expenditures, they need to take a step back and take a look at themselves and say what are we really doing here. Its like you would want an oversight committee, you would want a second look, you would want someone else out there to reaffirm that you made the right decision and collectively you come to a better decision. There is nothing in this ordinance that's meant to be punitive, no unkind words have been used against 16