REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 1972
<br />COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (CONTINUED)
<br />ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $125,000.00 FROM
<br />THE CUMULATIVE SEWER BUILDING AND SINKING FUND.
<br />This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and
<br />opponents were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. Mr. William Richardson, Director of
<br />Public Works, said that this project concerns the construction of a sanitary sewer on the north
<br />side of Cleveland Road, from Lilac Road to Maple Road, for the future expansion of the city.
<br />Mr. Roman Kowalski asked why the need to construct these sewers now, why not wait until they are
<br />needed. Mr. Richardson said that to wait to put the sewers in later would mean breaking up a
<br />$700,000 investment in new pavement. Miss Virginia Guthrie asked Mr. Richardson what the balance
<br />is in the cumulative sewer building and sinking fund. Mr. Richardson replied that the balance
<br />is $1,100,000.` However, $700,000 of that is allocated to a Model Cities project. Councilman
<br />Nemeth moved that the ordinance go to the Council as favorable, seconded by Councilman Szymkowiak.
<br />The motion carried.
<br />ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SUB - DIVISION (2) OF SUB- SECTION (A)
<br />OF SECTION 15 -16 OF CHAPTER 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
<br />THE CITY OF SOUr H BEND, INDIANA.
<br />This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and
<br />opponents were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. Mr. John Montgomery, representing the
<br />Yellow Cab Company, spoke for the ordinance. The ordinance would provide for an increase in
<br />mileage rates to $.60 for the first one -fifth of a mile or fraction thereof and ten cents ($.10)
<br />for each additional one - fourth of a mile or fraction thereof. He called the attention of the
<br />Council to the fact that the 1971 Municipal Code lists the rate incorrectly at ten cents for each
<br />additional one -third of a mile but the 1968 ordinance does read ten cents for each additional
<br />one - fourth of a mile. Taxi cab rates are freed from price control so this rate change would not
<br />be in violation of the wage -price freeze. The rates being charged now are not sufficient to
<br />offer adequate compensation to the drivers and it is impossible to supply sufficient services at
<br />the present time. While the company has 75 licenses, there are only 35 operating at the present
<br />time. The proposed rates are in line with rates in cities of comparable size. Councilman Parent
<br />suggested that, if the Council is going to act as a regulating agency in matters of this kind,
<br />they will need to ask for more information on profit and loss factors. Councilman,Szymkowiak
<br />made a motion that the ordinance go to the Council as favorable, seconded by Councilman Kopczynsk
<br />The motion carried.
<br />ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REFUSE ORDINANCE OF THE
<br />CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.
<br />AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REFUSE ORDINANCE OF THE
<br />CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.
<br />This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on these ordinances, proponents and
<br />opponents were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. Councilman Miller proposed to amend
<br />the Ordinance contained in Item 3I on the agenda as follows: "Strike section 16 -8D. Strike
<br />Section 16 -30. Amend Section 16 -10B to read "The charge for city collection of garbage and
<br />trash and disposal shall be $1.50 per month for all households which can present to the Bureau
<br />of Refuse Removal a receipt for an exemption over 65 statement and $2.00 per month for all other
<br />households "; add a Section 16 -57, "Severability. If any portion of this ordinance be declared or
<br />adjudged invalid, the remaining sections shall remain in full force and effect so long as they
<br />do not conflict with existing law." Councilman Parent seconded the amendment. It was the feeling
<br />of the Council that the public hearing should be conducted before taking action on--the amendment.
<br />Mr. William J. Richardson, Director of Public Works, gave a presentation on both ordinances,
<br />referring to the Ordinance in Item 3H as the competitive collection proposal and Item 3I as the
<br />city collection. He said that the two ordinances are quite similar and briefly outlined the
<br />method of collection, routes, charges, and restrictions in both ordinances. Both ordinances
<br />provide for penalties and define what shall constitute public nuisances and both provide for
<br />licensing. There can be no estimate given on the cost of the competitive collection plan but
<br />Mr. Richardson did present a breakdown of proposed costs for the city collection plan which
<br />would require an operating budget of $857,000. A loan in the amount of $150,000 would be require
<br />in order to start the operation, and this loan would be repaid after the first collections had
<br />been made. Mr. Maurice Cohen, 725 E. Eckman, spoke against the ordinances. He said the cost
<br />would be much too high and the City now has a good Sanitation Department under Mr. Koloszar and
<br />he sees no need to change.
<br />Mr. George Herendeen, 1st Bank Building, Attorney for the Independent Trash Haulers Association,
<br />spoke against the ordinance. He said that he has the signatures of over 4,000 citizens who oppos
<br />the ordinances. He said that the officers of the Independent Trash Haulers Association are ask-
<br />ing the Council to delete both ordinances. These men are dependent upon their earnings as privat
<br />trash haulers. The ordinances would exclude from competition all private trash haulers and
<br />deprive them of their civil right to earn an independent living. The ordinances would cause
<br />irreparable and irrevefsible damage to the independent trash haulers. There are now 117 members
<br />of the Independent Trash Haulers Association. Mr. Herendeen suggested that the problems which
<br />exist could be solved by strict enforcement of existing laws. He said the proposed licensing fee
<br />in the ordinances is much too high as it would increase from the present $6.00 fee to $25.00. He
<br />referred to the ordinance proposing city trash removal as a capitalistic ordinance and the ordin-
<br />ance for combined city and private hauling as a marriage ordinance. He said they are opposed to
<br />both ordinances, but the marriage ordinance is less objectionable. He asked if the city is going
<br />to get into the landfill business. He asked that the two ordinances be defeated and that any
<br />other ordinance dealing with this problem not be presented without substantial modification.
<br />Mr. Kenneth Buhle, representative of the Teamsters Union, Local No. 364, spoke in opposition to
<br />the ordinances. He read a prepared statement expressing the opposition of the union. The state-
<br />ment recommended that the trash pickup program be left to the private trash haulers, that strict
<br />enforcement of existing ordinances would help solve the problems, and that the Council should
<br />consider setting up a Trash Committee to be of advisory assistance to the Council. Councilman
<br />Serge moved for a ten minute recess, seconded by Councilman Szymkowiak. Councilman Nemeth called
<br />for a show of hands on the vote. The motion carried with a vote of eight ayes, one nay (Council-
<br />man Nemeth). The meeting recessed at 10:15 p.m.
<br />
|