06-27-73 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 1973 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (CONTINUED) received this date. He indicated that there have only been four annexation ordinances that have impounded taxes and they were only impounded at 50 He assured the Clay residents he would find out how the Council could give some benefits to certain annexations and not to others. He also wondered how the Council would justify taking in the St. Mary's area. He briefly touched upon the Gilmer Park annexation and the litigation of that case. He felt the proposed annexation involved many questions as to whether or not the ordinance was fair and equitable. He wondered why it wouldn't be right to hold the matter in abeyance until the constitutionality of the act was received. He indicated that the city was not aware of the number of acres it would have to serve. The 1970 census showed a drop in the population for the City of South Bend while the City of Mishawaka increased in size as did the surrounding towns. He indicated that this annexation pro- posal was the first substantial annexation since the Maple Lane annexation in 1971. He felt that the proposed area was "quite a chunk to absorb" and take care of with the necessary services. Mr. Roper then proceeded to quote portions of articles that appeared in the South Bend Tribune from 1970 to 1973, pertaining to the problems the city has encountered. On July 22, 1970, an article appeared in the Tribune regarding services extended outside the city. On October 14, 1970, there appeared an article on the problems of repairing South Walnut Street. Pollution of streams and Clyde Creek appeared in an article on September 22, 1970. In the spring of 1972, an article appeared pertaining to city sidewalks. The dry well problems that developed and slowed the water situation appeared in March of 1972. In May of 1972, an article dealt with the city parks, and in June of 1972, the watermain expansion program was reported. Revenue sharing and the problems it created were reported on July 13, 1972. In November of 1972, an article appeared regarding future Public Works projects and a lack of sufficient funds. On January 29, 1973, the installation of sewers to the Kensington Farms area was reported with the city paying 50% of the installation. Mr. Roper indicated that he felt the proposed annexation ordinance would leave Clay Township in an almost inseparable condition. He commented on the boundaries of the annexation, and he talked about the annexation of a small piece of land in German Township in order to keep the area con- tiguous. He indicated that land cannot be annexed simply to pick up tax revenue, and he felt this was the city's sole motive. He spoke about the water and sewers, indicating that Clay Utilities has a contract to furnish services. As far as the sewers were concerned, even if the area was annexed, Clay Utilities would still have the exclusive right to furnish facilities to the area. He indicated that the city could not construct any sewers within the area for eight years. He did not feel the Council could show the necessity for city water as the Clay residents have their own water. He felt more time should be allowed in order to investigate and check into the matter more thoroughly. He indicated that everyone was taking the word of an engineer. Clay Utilities had filed a report with the Public Service Commission showing its investments and capital. He did not think the city could buy the utility for $120,000. He indicated that, if the city could not ser- vice sewer and water, there was no justification for the annexation. Further, if the ordinance was passed by the Council, the matter would go to court and he would question using the 1970 censu to obtain the required three persons per acre. He asked about a fiscal plan. He felt all the Council had were general conclusions and speculations without the necessary figures and facts. He felt there must be some other way for the City of South Bend to get its head count, and he also felt that the city was not concerned about the people in the area but only wanted help in repairin the downtown area and in solving its other problems. Mr. Roper talked about the impounded taxes with 100% the first year, 75% the second year and 50% the third year, for the benefit of the property owners. He indicated that the people in Clay Township would not have any say as to how the Board of Public Works would use the money and that the residents of Clay would like to have joint control on how the money would be used. He questioned the percentage of impounded taxes for the first year, second year and third year. He indicated that the people in the area to be annexe had not even been talked to about the annexation by the administration, and they were being affect by it. He talked about the revenue to be generated by the.proposed annexation and the estimated income of $1,318,000 plus and $228,000 plus for tax rebate. He did not think this should go into tax rebate. No one could say what the property taxes would be in the next few years. He stated that revenue sharing was nothing but a "bonanza" and would be gone soon. He mentioned that it was not in accordance with good accounting practices to include revenue sharing funds in the revenue total as they were speculated figures. Mr. Roper could see nothing in the resolutions passed per- taining to street improvements for the annexed area. Increased personnel would be needed in order to maintain the area, and if the figures on cost and expenses were not right, it would cost the city a great deal of money. He again stated that using speculated revenue was not right. With all the opposition to the annexation, he wondered if the Council would go ahead and annex the area for only $35,000. Mr. Roper indicated that he had a high respect for the entire Council, but that he was simply trying to point out certain facts to them. He indicated that, unless it was the Council's position that the ordinance be defeated, they would have no other alternative except to postpone voting on the matter. He stressed the fact that, if the ordinance was passed, the matter would go to court. He cited the following reasons to vote against the annexation ordinance: The figures presented in favor of the annexation have no support. He asked for a chance to look at the figures as he had only received them this date. He mentioned that, if the.Gilmer Park annexa- tion came about, services would have to be provided to that area. He asked about cutting expenses in the administration. He concluded his presentation by indicating that a delay on the ordinance might enable everyone to sit down together and talk over the matter. Councilman Taylor made a motion to take a 10- minute recess, seconded by Councilman Miller. The motion carried and the Council recessed at 9:30 p.m. Reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Mulligan introduced Mr. Otis Romine, Clay Township Trustee, who also spoke in opposition to the proposed annexation. Mr. Romine indicated that, in making an attempt to assess the outcome, he wished to assure the Council and audience that he wanted to seek the benefit of the people because he did not want an unfavorable outcome for the city or the township. He stated that the burden of annexation was more than just dollars, although dollars were meaningful. He felt the Council should recognize the fact that the people who are to be annexed have nothing to say about it and that the response of the group of people present at the public hearing represented the only way in which the citizens can demonstrate and express themselves. He indicated that, apart from that, the Council must determine if the alleged conditions of annexation provide solutions to the urban problems. He mentioned that the ordinance was prepared in only a few days and it had alread been amended. The area change reflected that the correct number of people per acre was not presen He expressed concern about errors being made, and, if one error had been made, he wondered if othe would be found. He commented on the June 22, 1973, letter addressed to the Common Council from th Bureau of Design and Administration. He cited discrepancies in certain figures and expenses as outlined in the report. He talked briefly about the Class 3 and Class 9 fire insurance ratings. As far as the Clay Park was concerned, he indicated that the township holds a lease on the park until 1990. Further, that the lighting of the ball diamond would not be $65,000. He referred to page 5 of the letter, indicating that the bus corporation was an independent taxing unit. The