03-24-75 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 24 1975 REGULAR MEETING - RECONVENED (CONTINUED) John Oxian, Vice President of the Historical Preservation Commission, read a letter to the Council members which letter requested the amount of $25,000 from the Community Development program for historic preservation. He indicated that a survey was mandated by ordinance, and the commission could not do the work on its own. With the request of $24,000 and $5,000 from the county, he felt the survey could be accomplished. He asked for consideration of the commission's request for fund, Mrs. Louvenia Cain, Chairman of the Model Cities Neighborhood Planning Association, expressed con- cern about the long -term objective of the program. She felt citizen participation should be now. Mr. Hojnacki indicated that the city also wanted good citizen participation. He stated that a person was employed to deal in that area. Mrs. Cain hoped there would be some type of citizen participation structure. Mr. Floyd Carter, 1619 Fassnacht, indicated that a few organizations had submitted a request for funds and had not received any consideration. He wondered what percentage of the proposald incorporated in the application were proposals made by the citizens in the community. Mr. Hojnacki indicated that, with the exception of the downtown project application, every proposal was made on the requests of the citizens. Mr. Gene Evans, Executive Secretary of the Civic Planning Association, stated that he could not find all the figures Mr. Hojnacki had referred to. He indicated that he had a copy of the application and the figures listed did not add up correctly. He wondered what would be forwarded to HUD, and Mr. Hojnacki clarified for Mr. Evans his questions concerning the budget figures. Mr. Evans wondered about the discussion which took place at one of the neighborhood meetings. He stated that something more than just "putting bricks and mortor into a program" was needed. He felt a change of attitude was needed regarding the rehabilitation of homes in the future. Mr. Hojnacki stated that the city's basic approach was that there were enumerable good programs that the city should be involved in. The problem with the Community Development funds was that they were the only funds for housing and community developmen- activities. In the area where other monies can be made available, the city felt strongly about not putting money into those areas. The problem was the cost versus the restricted use of the money available. Mr. Phil Magaldi, 1122 E. South Street, indicated that he was the owner of property at 201 E. Ohio Street. He indicated that his tenant paid him no rent, and the Board of Public Works declared his building substandard. At that time, he wondered what he could do with his present tenant because he did not want to turn her out. He stated that, recently his tenant left and the house was stripped. He asked if the Community Development Department was willing to help the owner - tenants in instances like these. Mr. Hojnacki indicated that he would talk further with Mr. Magaldi concerning the matter. Councilman Kopczynski indicated that he would appreciate having the results of Mr. Magaldi and Mr. Hojnacki's discussion. Mr. Russell talked about the amount of mone, being handled by the Human Resources Department on various programs. He wondered what was being done with the large amount of money being received by the city. He talked about preservation of the city, and he wondered what was the use of giving money year after year for rehabilitation of the same homes without trying to reach the property owners. Mr. Hojnacki indicated that he was dealing with the individuals. Councilman Kopczynski indicated that the housing data would be re- evaluated. He wondered what data was used to determine the proposed programs. Mr. Hojnacki indicated that the basic data came from the Area Plan Commission housing survey in 1967, a (supplement of the 1970 census data and the data supplied by the Polk Company in 1974. The Housing Allowance Office had also submitted data; likewise, the department's staff. All the information was up to date as of September. Councilman Kopczynski wondered if this information was readily available. He wondered if the Council could check it, and Mr. Hojnacki indicated that he would welcome that. Councilman Kopczynski wondered how many councilmen had gone to the southeast side to look over what was being done and the records kept and the work performed. He indicated that hE could not agree with putting in one - fourth inch Armstrong tile on floors in the upstairs bedrooms. He indicated that this was only one example of the work being done. He felt a great deal of money was being spent on the type of rehabilitation. When the funds were appropriated, he had been undej the impression that the funds would be used for the necessary repairs to meet the housing code. HE indicated that the amount of $5,000 was to be used for rehabilitation, and most of the homes cost $6,000. He felt a case history of each house should be kept, including the way the money was used in detail. He felt standard forms should be developed in order to keep this information readily available. He felt the progress being made should be reviewed closely, and he expressed the need for coming up with a program that would enstill pride of ownership in the people without just givi7 funds for rehabilitation work over and over again. He stated that the causes for deterioration should be established. He referred to a letter he had written to Mr. Hojnacki concerning the cans( of housing deterioration, and he stated that he had never received a reply to his letter. Mr. Hojnacki indicated that he had volumes of information concerning the subject and he would furnish this information to the Council. Councilman Kopczynski talked about the lack of enforcement of the city's ordinances concerning trash, substandard buildings, etc. He felt this was one of the prime reasons for deterioration. He asked that Mr. Hojnacki explain the real meaning of the proje< entitled "Belleville Sewer Repairs ". Mr. Rollin Farrand, Director of the Department of Public Works, indicated that the funds would be used to establish an inspection program and set up the priorities. This would give some means of preventive maintenance in the problem areas. Councilman Kopczynski felt the project should read "underground T.V. camera for sewer inspection to be used for the entire city ". He stated that the project title was misleading and was not specifically Belleville sewer repairs. Council President Parent wondered about the immediate cause for the purchase of the T.V. camera for the inspection. Mr. Farrand indicated that there was a problem in the Belleville area of sufficient magnitude. It was hoped the camera would provide the capability of inspecting and setting up priorities for sewer repair. Councilman Taylor indicated that he was not ready to vote on the proposal at this time. He asked for an explanation of the Better Communit Act. Under revenue sharing, the Mayor was required to make a proposal and the Council was requires to act on the request. He wondered if what was being done tonight was required, and Mr. Hojnacki stated that the Better Communities Act died in 1974. The Better Communities Act was a revenue sharing proposal and was replaced by the Housing and Community Development Act. He indicated that there was a distinction between the block grant and revenue sharing funds. He stated that this grant was more broad and flexible; however, the same rules applied. There was no requirement that the administration submit a proposal to the Council; however, hearings in the neighborhoods were required. Councilman Taylor stated that the metropolitan areas and cities like South Bend were owned by "Uncle Sam" and the cities did not carry a personal identity any longer. He believed in attacting problems head on. He indicated that another proposal to extend revenue sharing funds wa: being considered, and again the legislative bodies would be brought in. He stated that all federal funds could be cut off, and the city would be in a worse position. Councilman Miller expressed interest in the process used to determine the programs. He felt the same levels of service should be provided to the taxpayers next year. He wondered if the amount of $37,500 for the T.V. camera for sewer inspection and repair could be purchased under the Sanitation budget. He felt this couR be accomplished in order to meet other needs of the program. He also questioned the sidewalk and curb repair. He indicated that, in the past, the property owners were assessed for their sidwalks,