HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-13 Common Council Meeting Minutes
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana met in the
Council Chambers of the County-City Building on Monday, October 14, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. The
meeting was called to order by Council President Derek Dieter and the Invocation and Pledge to
the Flag were given.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS:
st
Present: Tim Scott 1 District
nd
Henry Davis, Jr. 2 District
rd
Valerie Schey 3 District
th
Fred Ferlic 4 District
th
David Varner 5 District
th
Oliver J. Davis 6 District, Vice-President
Derek Dieter At-Large, President
Gavin Ferlic At-Large
Karen L. White At-Large, Chairperson Committee of the Whole
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Voorde City Clerk
Janice I. Talboom Deputy
Mary Beth Wisniewski Chief Deputy
Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Council Attorney
REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES
Councilmember White made a motion that the minutes of the September 23, 2013, meeting of
the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Schey seconded the motion which
carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
SPECIAL BUSINESS
RESOLUTION NO. 4287-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
TH
HONORING AND CELEBRATING THE 100
ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE
SAINT MARY PARISH
Whereas, the South Bend Common Council recognizes that on November 27, 1913, a meeting to
organize a church was held in the City of South Bend, Indiana; and
Whereas, the Council proudly recognizes that from the seeds of that first meeting Prime Bishop
Francis Hodur, a key organizer of the Polish National Catholic Church conducted a Mission
Service on October 4, 1815 which continues to be marked today by an eight foot marker which
proudly stands near the Church to commemorate that event; and
Whereas, 1915 was the year when construction began, with it being completed in 1921 and grew
to be a vital neighborhood anchor at its location of 1601 West Sample Street for individuals to
worship and develop fellowships; and
Whereas, the first Pastor was Reverend Basil Sychta; and the first Lay Officers of the Church
were Joseph Jaskiewicz who served as Chairman; Joseph Zwierzynski who served as Vice-
Chairman, Michael Przybylski who was the Recording Secretary, John Wawrzyniak was the
Treasurer; and Edward Nowakowski was the Financial Secretary; and
1
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Whereas, the Saint Mary Parish members & religious leaders have become notable luminaries
on many public issues from when they petitioned the City of South Bend in 1916 to establish
Washington School so that the many children of their Parishioners would be properly educated,
to their work today of preserving this historic neighborhood; and
Whereas, the Saint Mary Parish members continue today, in the proud tradition of its founders,
through their many outreach programs which include Annual Food Drives; hosting community
meetings and meetings for many civic organizations; hosting neighborhood block parties &
community events; co-organized the Oliver Gateway Neighborhood Association in 2000;
participated in the application process for South Bend’s first Weed and Seed Program in 2001;
and actively participated in Weed and Seed Programs until 2008, through board membership,
hosting meetings, participating in sustainability efforts and having Father Charles Zawistowski
serve as Chairperson for two (2) years; and
Whereas, today the Saint Mary Parish is part of the National Catholic Church (PNCC) which has
120 parishes throughout America which is a non-Papal Catholic alternative which places people
first through their ministry.
Now, Therefore, be it resolved, by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as
follows:
th
Section I. The South Bend Common Council proudly recognizes the 100 Anniversary
Celebration of the Saint Mary Parish, which began yesterday with the solemnity of the Christian
Family at a Mass of Thanksgiving concelebrated by Prime Bishop Mikovsky with Bishop
Bilinski and regional clergy, and continues publicly today.
Section II. The Common Council congratulates Father Charles Zawistowski who has
been the Pastor of the Saint Mary Parish since 1994, who is a third generation Priest of the
PNCC, and his father, the late Bishop Joseph C. Zawistowski serving the Church for fifty-three
(53) years, and his grandfather, the Very Reverend Joseph L. Zawistowski serving the Church
for fifty-two (52) years who collectively through their Parish enrich this part of our great City.
Section III. The South Bend Common Council applauds the members and officials of
the Saint Mary Parish on this momentous occasion as we celebrate with you 100 years of
continually striving to meet the religious and social needs of its Parishioners, its historic
neighborhood; and may you continue to positively contribute to the richness of the City of South
Bend in your outreach programs which benefit the well-being of our entire community for
generations to come.
Section IV. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption
by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
stth
s/Tim Scott, 1 District s/Oliver J. Davis, 6 District
nd
s/Henry Davis, Jr., 2 District s/Derek D. Dieter, At Large
rd
s/Valerie Schey, 3 District s/Gavin Ferlic, At Large
th
s/Dr. Fred Ferlic, 4 District s/Karen L. White, At Large
th
Dr. David Varner, 5 District Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Attorney
Attest: Approved this 18th day of October, 2013
s/John Voorde, City Clerk s/Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend
ANNOUNCEMENT: REPRESENTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION WILL BE CHIEF OF
STAFF KATHRYN ROOS
REPORTS OF CITY OFFICES
There were no reports of City Office at this time.
2
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
At 7:14 p.m. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the
Whole. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9)
ayes. Councilmember White, Chairperson, presiding.
Councilmember White, explained the procedures to be followed for tonight’s meeting in
accordance with Article 1, Section 2-11 of the South Bend Municipal Code.
Councilmember White stated that a brochure may be found on the railing in the Council
Chambers explaining those procedures.
RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
At 7:11 p.m. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the
Whole. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9)
ayes. Councilmember White, Chairperson, presiding.
Councilmember White, explained the procedures to be followed for tonight’s meeting in
accordance with Article 1, Section 2-11 of the South Bend Municipal Code.
Councilmember White stated that a brochure may be found on the railing in the Council
Chambers explaining those procedures.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(BILLS NO. 44-13, 45-13, 46-13 AND 47-13 TO BE HEARD IN THE COUNCIL PORTION ONLY)
BILL NO. 44-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, LEVYING
TAXES AND FIXING THE RATE OF
TAXATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING
REVENUE TO MEET THE NECESSARY
EXPENSES OF THE CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH
BEND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2014
BILL NO. 45-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING MONIES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE
EXPENSES OF SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS OF
THE CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING
JANUARY 1, 2014 AND ENDING DECEMBER
31, 2014 INCLUDING ALL OUTSTANDING
CLAIMS AND OBLIGATIONS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL TAKE
EFFECT
BILL NO. 46-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING MONIES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE
EXPENSES OF THE DESIGNATED
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2014, AND ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2014 INCLUDING ALL
OUTSTANDING CLAIMS, AND
OBLIGATIONS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL TAKE EFFECT
3
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Councilmember Schey made a motion to continue Bill Nos. 44-13; 45-13 and 46-13 in the
Council Portion Only and set for third reading on October 28, 2013. Councilmember Oliver
Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
BILL NO. 47-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING,
ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE SOUTH
BEND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
CORPORATION’S 2014 BUDGET AND
LEVYING THE TAX AND FIXING THE RATE
OF THE TAXATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RAISING REVENUE TO FUND THE SOUTH
BEND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
CORPORATION, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER
31, 2014
David Cangany, General Manager, South Bend Public Transportation Corporation, 1401 S.
Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill.
Mr. Cangany advised that TRANSPO is required to submit it proposed budget and tax levy to the
City of South Bend Common Council for its review and adoption according to Indiana law.
This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and
opponents were given an opportunity to be heard.
There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to
this bill, Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council
concerning this bill. Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of
nine (9) ayes.
BILL NO. 50-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, SETTING THE ANNUAL
SALARIES FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2014
Councilmember Varner, Chairperson, Personnel & Finance Committee, reported that this
committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and sends it to the full Council with a
favorable recommendation.
Council President Derek Dieter, 110 N. William, Apt. 104, South Bend, Indiana, made the
presentation for this bill.
Council President Dieter advised that the proposed bill would set the Council salary for 2014.
He stated that the bill allows for a 2% increase.
This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and
opponents were given an opportunity to be heard.
There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to
this bill, Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion for favorable recommendation to full
Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried
by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
4
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
BILL NO. 51-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, SETTING THE ANNUAL
SALARY FOR THE CITY CLERK FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2014
Councilmember Varner, Chairperson, Personnel & Finance Committee, reported that this
committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and sends it to the full Council with a
favorable recommendation.
City Clerk John Voorde, 1029 Clermont, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this
bill.
Clerk Voorde advised that this bill would fix the annual compensation for the City Clerk under
Indiana Code. He stated that it would set forth the same 2% increase as appointed officers and
non-bargaining employees of the City of South Bend for calendar year 2014. He asked the
Council for their favorable consideration.
This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and
opponents were given an opportunity to be heard.
There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to
this bill, Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council
concerning this bill. Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of
nine (9) ayes.
BILL NO. 52-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, SETTING THE ANNUAL
SALARY FOR THE MAYOR FOR CALENDAR
YEAR 2014
Councilmember Varner, Chairperson, Personnel & Finance Committee, reported that this
committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and sends it to the full Council with a
favorable recommendation.
th
Mark Neal, City Controller, 12 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South
Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill.
Mr. Neal advised that this bill established the annual compensation for the Mayor for the
Calendar year 2014.
This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and
opponents were given an opportunity to be heard.
There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to
this bill, Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council
concerning this bill. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice
vote of nine (9) ayes.
BILL NO. 53-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL FIXING
MAXIMUM SALARIES AND WAGES OF
APPOINTED OFFICERS AND NON-
BARGAINING EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 2014
5
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Councilmember Dieter made a motion to continue this bill until the October 28, 2013 meeting of
the Council. Councilmember Schey seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote nine (9)
ayes.
BILL NO. 55-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, REAFFIRMING ORDINANCE
NO. 10192-12 AND FIXING THE ANNUAL PAY
AND MONETARY FRINGE BENEFITS OF
SWORN MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH BEND
POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR CALENDAR
YEAR 2014
Councilmember Dieter disclosed that he is a member of the South Bend Police Department and
that after discussion with Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand it was determined that
there is no conflict of interest.
Councilmember White, Chairperson of the Health and Public Safety Committee and
Councilmember Varner, Chairperson of the Personnel & Finance Committee reported that these
committees held a joint meeting this afternoon and sends this bill to the full Council with a
favorable recommendation.
th
Mark Neal, City Controller, 12 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South
Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill.
Mr. Neal advised that this bill reaffirms the 2014 Police Department pay rates set out in
Ordinance No. 10192-12, passed by the Council in 2012.
This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and
opponents were given an opportunity to be heard.
Councilmember’s Dieter and Henry Davis Jr., reiterated that they voted against this bill in 2012
and are voting against it again tonight.
There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to
this bill, Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion for favorable recommendation to full
Council concerning this bill as substituted. Councilmember White seconded the motion which
carried by a voice vote of seven (7) ayes and two (2) nays (Councilmember’s Dieter and Henry
Davis Jr.)
BILL NO. 56-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 10200-12 AND FIXING THE ANNUAL PAY
AND MONETARY FRINGE BENEFITS OF
FIREFIGHTERS OF THE SOUTH BEND FIRE
DEPARTMENT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2014
Councilmember Varner made a motion to accept the substitute version of this bill as on file in
the Office of the City Clerk. Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried by a
voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
Councilmember White, Chairperson of the Health and Public Safety Committee and
Councilmember Varner, Chairperson of the Personnel & Finance Committee reported that these
committees held a joint meeting this afternoon and sends this substitute bill to the full Council
with a favorable recommendation.
6
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
th
Mark Neal, City Controller, 12 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South
Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill.
Mr. Neal advised that the substitute bill affirms all the pay rates established in the 2012
Ordinance No. 10200-12 for members of the Fire Department’s collective bargaining unit. The
only change to that ordinance is the 2014 pay rate for the Fire Chief which has been increased
from $84,610.00 under the prior ordinance to $92,250.00. This increase was to achieve parity
with the 2014 salary of the South Bend Police Chief.
This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and
opponents were given an opportunity to be heard.
There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to
this bill, Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council
concerning this bill as substituted. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which
carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
BILL NO. 49-13 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 16,
ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF THE SOUTH BEND
MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT PLASTIC
BAGS FOR YARD WASTE
Councilmember Dieter made a motion to continue this bill until the November 11, 2013 meeting
of the Council. Councilmember Schey seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of
nine (9) ayes.
RISE AND REPORT
Councilmember Scott made a motion to rise and report to full Council. Councilmember Dr.
David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
ATTEST: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
John Voorde, City Clerk Karen L. White, Chairperson
Committee of the Whole
REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED
Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the
Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County-City Building at 7:33 p.m. Council
President Derek Dieter, presided with nine (9) members present.
BILLS – THIRD READING
ORDINANCE NO. 10256-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROPRIATING, ADOPTING AND
APPROVING THE SOUTH BEND PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION’S 2014
BUDGET AND LEVYING THE TAX AND
FIXING THE RATE OF THE TAXATION FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RAISING REVENUE TO
7
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
FUND THE SOUTH BEND PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2014
This bill had third reading. Councilmember White made a motion to pass this bill.
Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call
vote of nine (9) ayes.
ORDINANCE NO. 10257-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
SETTING THE ANNUAL SALARIES FOR THE
COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR CALENDAR YEAR
2014
This bill had third reading. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to pass this bill.
Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of
eight (8) ayes and one (1) nay (Councilmember Scott.)
ORDINANCE NO. 10258-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
SETTING THE ANNUAL SALARY FOR THE
CITY CLERK FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2014
This bill had third reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to pass this bill.
Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of
nine (9) ayes.
ORDINANCE NO. 10259-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
SETTING THE ANNUAL SALARY FOR THE
MAYOR FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2014
This bill had third reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to pass this bill.
Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call
vote of nine (9) ayes.
ORDINANCE NO. 10260-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
REAFFIRMING ORDINANCE NO. 10192-12
AND FIXING THE ANNUAL PAY AND
MONETARY FRINGE BENEFITS OF SWORN
MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH BEND POLICE
DEPARTMENT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2014
This bill had third reading. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to pass this bill.
Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of
seven (7) ayes and two (2) nays (Councilmember’s Henry Davis, Jr. and Dieter.)
ORDINANCE NO. 10261-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10200-12 AND
FIXING THE ANNUAL PAY AND MONETARY
FRINGE BENEFITS OF FIREFIGHTERS OF THE
SOUTH BEND FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2014
8
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to amend this bill as in the Committee of the
Whole. Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9)
ayes. Additionally Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to pass this bill as amended.
Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of
nine (9) ayes.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 4288-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 818 THOMAS
STREET
WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.6, requires the Common Council to give
notice pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, of its intention to consider Petitions from the
Board of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council must take action within sixty (60) days after the Board
of Zoning Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council pursuant to I.C. 36-7-4-918.6; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing on such
requests pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.4, and
WHEREAS, the South Bend Board of Zoning Appeals has made a recommendation,
pursuant to applicable state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA as follows:
SECTION I. The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the Petition
from the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, requesting that
a Special Exception be granted for the property located at: 818 Thomas Street, South Bend, IN
46601-2537
in order to permit Bed and Breakfast (Guest House)
SECTION II. Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and after proper public hearing,
the Common Council hereby approves the petition of the South Bend Board of Zoning Appeals,
a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION III. The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, hereby finds
that:
1. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is
located and the land uses authorized therein;
9
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendation of the City of South
Bend Comprehensive plan; all of which is requested by the South Bend Municipal Code §21-
09.03
SECTION IV. Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the reasonable
conditions established by the Board of Zoning Appeals which are on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
SECTION V. The Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption
by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
s/Derek D. Dieter
Member of the Common Council
Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic, Chairperson, Zoning & Annexation Committee, reported that
this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full
Council with a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Mark Lyons, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana,
presented the report from the Area Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Lyons advised that the petitioner is seeking a special exception to allow a bed and breakfast
in a “SF2” District on property located at 818 Thomas Street. The Area Board of Zoning
Appeals held a public hearing on August 7, 2013 and sends this bill to the Common Council with
a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Don Linder, 818 Thomas Street, South Bend, Indiana, 1447 Rose Hill Lane, St. Peters, MO,
Owner & CEO, Avanti Museum Group, LLC., made the presentation for this bill.
Mr. Linder advised that he is seeking a special exception for a bed & breakfast in a “SF2”
District . He stated that he intends an Avanti Oriented Bed & Breakfast. He stated that it would
be located across the street from the Studebaker National Museum. He stated that it would
provide lodging to those who are visiting the Studebaker National Museum.
A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time.
The following individual spoke in favor of this bill.
Mr. Gerald Fry, 319 N. William, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. Mr. Fry stated
that this would be a great asset to the neighborhood and for the Studebaker National Museum.
He urged the Council’s favorable consideration.
Councilmember Varner made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic
seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. 4289-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1026 CORBY BLVD.
WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.6, requires the Common Council to give
notice pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, of its intention to consider Petitions from the
Board of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council must take action within sixty (60) days after the Board
of Zoning Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council pursuant to I.C. 36-7-4-918.6; and
10
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
WHEREAS, the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing on such
requests pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.4, and
WHEREAS, the South Bend Board of Zoning Appeals has made a recommendation,
pursuant to applicable state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA as follows:
SECTION I. The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the Petition
from the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, requesting that
a Special Exception be granted for the property located at: 1026 Corby Blvd.
in order to permit: A Special Exception Use From Developmental Standards to install non-whip
antennas on an existing structure that does not exceed fifty (50) feet in height above grade as
required in the Special Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Development
Standard 21-08-01(2)(C)i.
SECTION II. Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and after proper public hearing,
the Common Council hereby approves the petition of the South Bend Board of Zoning Appeals,
a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION III. The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, hereby finds
that:
1. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is
located and the land uses authorized therein;
4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendation of the City of South
Bend Comprehensive plan; all of which is requested by the South Bend Municipal Code §21-
09.03
SECTION IV. Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the reasonable
conditions established by the Board of Zoning Appeals which are on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
SECTION V. The Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption
by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
s/Derek D. Dieter
Member of the Common Council
Councilmember Gavin Ferlic recused himself from voting on this bill. He stated that the
company that he works for does business with the petitioner.
Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic, Chairperson, Zoning & Annexation Committee, reported that
this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full
Council with a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Mark Lyons, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana,
presented the report from the Area Board of Zoning Appeals.
11
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Mr. Lyons advised that the petitioner is seeking a special exception to allow the installation of
non-whip antennas on an existing structure on the property located at 1026 Corby Blvd. He
stated that the Area Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing on September 4, 2013 and
sends it to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation.
Kerry Wallace, 814 Marietta Street, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill.
Ms. Wallace advised that she works for Five Corners, LLC., and that they are seeking a special
exception to locate antennas on an existing structure that’s less than 50’. She stated that Verizon
Wireless Communications would like to locate their antenna on an existing structure there. She
stated that they want to increase their coverage in this particular area. She stated that the existing
structure is a Burkhart Advertising sign for which they have a land lease and an antenna lease
with them that runs concurrently with each other. She asked the Council for their favorable
consideration.
There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to
this Resolution. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to adopt this Resolution.
Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a
roll call vote of eight (8) ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. 4290-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND
DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 736 CALIFORNIA,
908 – 910, 906, 838, 836-834, 824-826, 812, 808
PORTAGE AVENUE AN ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF
UP TO A (6) SIX-YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX
ABATEMENT FOR THE NEAR NORTHWEST
NEIGHBORHOOD, INC.
WHEREAS, a petition for real property tax abatement has been filed with the City Clerk
for consideration by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, requesting that the
area commonly known as 908-910 Portage Avenue, 906 Portage Avenue, and 736 California,
South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows:
That part of the Northeast and Southeast Quarters of Section 2, Township 37 North, Range 2
East, Portage Township, City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana which is described as:
rd
Lots # 113, # 114, # 115 and Lot # 112 of the Plat of “Shetterley Place 3 Plat” now a part of the
City of South Bend as recorded in Plat Book # 5, on Page # 60 in the records of the St. Joseph
County, Indiana Recorder’s office, excepting the East 35 feet of said Lot # 112, Lot “A”, Lot #
nd
33 of the Plat of “Shetterley Place 2 Plat” to the City of South Bend as recorded in Plat Book #
5 on Page # 44 in the records of said Recorder’s Office. Containing 0.96 acres more or less.
Subject to all legal highways, easements and restrictions of record.
and which has Key Numbers 018-1060-2535, 018-1060-2536 ,and 018-1062-2658, at this point
and time, be designated as an Economic Revitalization Area under the provisions of Indiana
Code § 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., and South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76 et seq., and;
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Investment has concluded an investigation
and prepared a report with information sufficient for the Common Council to determine that the
area qualifies as an Economic Revitalization Area under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-12.1, et seq., and
South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76, et seq., and has further prepared maps and plats
showing the boundaries and such other information regarding the area in question as required by
law; and
12
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
WHEREAS, the Community Investment Committee of the Common Council has
reviewed said report and recommended to the Common Council that the area qualifies as an
Economic Revitalization Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South
Bend, Indiana, as follows:
SECTION I. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the Petition for Real
Property Tax Abatement and the Statement of Benefits form completed by the Petitioner meet
the requirements of Indiana Code § 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., for tax abatement.
SECTION II. The Common Council hereby determines and finds the following:
A. That the description of the proposed redevelopment or rehabilitation meets the
applicable standards for such development;
B. That the estimate of the value of the redevelopment or rehabilitation is reasonable
for projects of this nature;
C. That the estimate of the number of individuals who will be employed or whose
employment will be retained by the Petitioner can reasonably be expected to
result from the proposed described redevelopment or rehabilitation;
D. That the estimate of the annual salaries of those individuals who will be employed
or whose employment will be retained by the Petitioner can be reasonably
expected to result from the proposed redevelopment or rehabilitation;
E. That the other benefits about which information was requested are benefits that
can be reasonably expected to result from the proposed described redevelopment
or rehabilitation; and
F. That the totality of benefits is sufficient to justify the requested deduction, all of
which satisfy the requirements of Indiana Code § 6-1.1-12.1-3.
SECTION III. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed described
redevelopment or rehabilitation can be reasonably expected to yield benefits identified in the
Statement of Benefits as set forth in Sections 1 through 3 of the Petition for Real Property Tax
Abatement Consideration, the Memorandum of Agreement between the Petitioner and the City
of South Bend, and that the Statement of Benefits form completed by the petitioner, said form
being prescribed by the State Board of Accounts, are sufficient to justify the deduction granted
under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-12.1-3.
SECTION IV. The Common Council hereby accepts the report and recommendation of the
Community Investment Committee that the area herein described be designated as an Economic
Revitalization Area and hereby adopts a Resolution designating this area as an Economic
Revitalization Area for purposes of real property tax abatement.
SECTION V. The designation as an Economic Revitalization Area shall be limited to two (2)
calendar years from the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Common Council.
SECTION VI. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for
and is granted property tax deduction for a period of up to six years as shown by the attachment
pursuant to Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-17.
SECTION VII. The Common Council directs the City Clerk to cause notice of the adoption of
this Declaratory Resolution for Real Property Tax Abatement to be published pursuant to Indiana
Code § 5-3-1 and Indiana Code § 6-1.1-12.1-2.5, said publication providing notice of the public
hearing before the Common Council on the proposed confirming of said declaration.
13
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
SECTION VIII. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by
the Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
s/Derek D. Dieter
Member of the Common Council
Council Member Scott disclosed that his wife Karen Ainsley is the Director of the Near
Northwest Neighborhood Association with that I am going to recuse myself from this bill.
Council President Dieter stated that before we proceed with this resolution tonight, I know that
there are emotions running high on both sides of this so again when we are talking about it let’s
be cordial to the people who are speaking, if someone is opposed at what you are going to say
that’s absolutely fine let’s just be professional about this whole thing once we get to it. And with
that I will let our Council Attorney read the rules of how we will be handling this meeting.
Councilmember Schey asked for a point of order.
Council President stated that when we are done speaking we can talk about that. So I will ask
our Council Attorney to talk about the rules that we will be adhering to tonight.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that the general rules for this evening is that
the petitioner has the unlimited amount of time to make a presentation, immediately after the
formal presentation anyone wishing to speak in favor, must give their name and street address
and you have a maximum of five minutes to speak in favor at the end of that session anyone
wishing to speak in opposing to the proposed bill again has a five minute restriction you must
also give your name and address after that section is completed a rebuttal may then be given by
the petitioner to answer any questions that may have been raised during the public portion. At
that point the public hearing is closed and then it will go to the City Council for deliberation and
questioning of the petitioner and making motions to dispose of the bill before us. With regard to
the actual law that is involved just briefly, the City Council amends rules and regulations that
have been codified into the South Bend City Code beginning with Section 2-76, so very briefly it
states that the Council declares that tax abatement procedures and general standards set forth in
this article shall mandatory govern tax abatement requests for that are filed for their
consideration. In light of the committee meeting earlier I also would like to clarify at the request
of Dr. Varner and Dr. Ferlic that Section 2-84-16 calls for the City Council to review all tax
abatement procedures in calendar years which end in even numbers. The City code regulations
on tax abatements were last amended in 2012 this report from Councilmember Gavin Ferlic’s
committee; if he is the Committee Chair next year would be due by October 1st pursuant to that
section.
Councilmember Schey stated that for accurate recording keeping purposes it should be noted that
it was actually sent to the full Council with no recommendation. Citizen Member Patrick Mullen
had to abstain from the vote.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that the tie was then broken by the Council
President, per City Code.
Councilmember Schey stated her apologies.
Karen Ainsley, Director, Near Northwest Neighborhood, Inc., South Bend, Indiana, and
th
Nike Surak, Englewood Development Company, 860 E. 86 Street Suite 5, Indianapolis, Indiana
made the presentation for this bill.
Karen Ainsley: We are proposing an affordable housing development at 906-910 Portage
Avenue specifically it’s the Ford Distributing Building, that building in particular is the building
that has sat vacant and abandoned for over four (4) years and has not been generating taxes
many, many years now, there is over $100,000.00 in back taxes owed at this point. They are
proposing through a tax credit application to create 42 units of affordable housing with 1-2
st
bedroom units in that mix and were are hoping to submit an application on November 1 of this
year, so we are coming before you today to ask for a tax abatement . The one thing that I would
14
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
like to specify is the money that is being raised specifically for that project is private money, so
we do not sit in an redevelopment area, we don’t sit in a TIF District, we are not part of the
Central Business District, the funds that would be utilized will be private funds which is part of
the reason why we’re looking for this tax abatement.
Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr., sure, could you please give me a brief understanding or run
down of the tax credit application process and what is involved in the tax credit application, what
do you have to list, yes, that is what I am asking.
Nick Surak: Ok, there’s one round held by the State every year to apply for tax credits and
applications are due on November 1. From there they take all the applications that are generated
and this year so far all indications are that they have 50 of them to review. Those will be
reviewed and they will announce awards at the end of February and at that time, if you are
selected for an allocation of tax credits then you will start the process of putting together your
equity partners and final review of the project and work towards getting permits ready for
development.
Councilmember Henry Davis Jr., asked if you can get tax credits anywhere in the City of South
Bend or State of Indiana.
Nick Surak: these tax credits?
Councilmember Henry Davis Jr., yeah, I mean is there a requirement to get tax credits. No that’s
not the question. Is there a way, can you get tax credits in any corner of the United States of
America or the City of South Bend or the State of Indiana?
Nick Surak: this particular tax credit is a federal tax credit that is administered by each state. So,
every state has an allocation that they can award according to their own criteria. So, yes, no
matter where.
Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr., what is the criteria for this one?
Nick Surak: the State of Indiana has a variety of factors that they assign a point value to, based
on that they use that to evaluate which ones they think are most deserving of an award.
Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr., what is the criteria for this project? Obviously, you have the?
Nick Surak: first of all, it is an adaptive re-use project, it constitutes in-fill development, it is near
some recent infrastructure improvements and those are the main things that way into this and
also the tax abatement would be useful and they do give you some extra points if there is
something like a tax abatement or some other sort of local government funding or contribution to
the project.
Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr., tax credit programs usually or traditionally are given in areas
that should I say underdeveloped.
Nick Surak: well again it depends on the State, every state is allow to decide whatever they want
and the States that I have had experience with that is not a factor. I would say in Indiana that is
the case and that the State authority, Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority
does place an emphasis on developing underserved areas or areas that have suffered from
disinvestment.
Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr., ok, now clearly we had a conversation earlier that again, I
don’t necessarily believe and think that it was that bad, honestly, I think that conversation needs
to happen and in light of fairness and you know me speaking with you in the hallway as well as
Karen here after the meeting, would there be any consideration to develop a community
conversation given a two-week delay on this particular matter based upon all of things that we
have talked about and things that preceded after the conversation and in light of fairness.
15
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Karen Ainsley: we are very open to a community conversation, at this point, we are not open to
postponing this date because, I work for a Board of Directors, I work for a group of basically
neighborhoods, and we are committed to this date today to meet our application deadline. We
are definitely 100% committed to talking with you further down the line as Nick mentioned that
this is just the beginning of a very long process so contractors wouldn’t actually be selected until
st
Spring of next year so if between November 1 and the end of February, you wanted to have
ongoing conversations we would certainly welcome that.
Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr., ok, and I want to get back at this again, and the reason why I
asked that question is because there is always a momentum thing that happens here and given our
job requirements on how it works and time, blah, blah, blah, in the interest of fairness and
working with the community at a high level of fairness and given the fact that folks came out
earlier and were obviously participating in the conversation about how this could be worked out
and I see both of these things being very congruent, I see a happy marriage that could potentially
happen. However, I just feel like that there is a level of, we are going to do it my way, and we
are going to do what we need to do and I believe that in all fairness that we could potentially
works something out in a two week time frame that would potentially, no, would actually be a
model for what can happen with the project given the tax credits and the different things that are
associated with the process of tax credits because am I right about this, I’m going to ask a
question now, are the tax credits, or the tax abatement associated with the tax credit application?
Are those things needed to be locked down on that?
Karen Ainsley: there is a direct correlation there and I do respect what you are saying about
momentum, but you have to understand there has been a yearlong process of conversation to get
us to this point and so the momentum that we have coming to this point, we really need to secure
this abatement at this point and not confuse it with the community agreement issue and are more
than happy to sit down and talk about that latter, but right now the application as it stands, you
do get points related to public investment. And, so we do need to secure this tonight so that it
can be including in that application. So it is not possible for us to delay it at this point, but again,
I offer you our utmost and would love to sit down with you and have conversations when we are
not under this deadline, when we are not being kind of surprised by this agreement.
Councilmember Henry Davis Jr., asked when is it due.
Karen Ainsley: pardon me.
Councilmember Henry Davis Jr., when is it due.
st
Karen Ainsley: November 1.
Councilmember Henry Davis Jr., so you do have time.
Karen Ainsley: I disagree.
Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr. I’m done.
Councilmember Schey I do have a number of questions. Nick, your corporation, Englewood
Corporation is actually the agency filing for the tax credits not the NNN.
Nick Surak: no they are. They are the NNN sponsor.
Councilmember Schey you, the NNN are filing for the tax credits with the state.
Nick Surak: they are the applicant.
Councilmember Schey ok, you are Housing Choices LLC.,
Nick Surak: Housing Directions LLC.
Councilmember Schey they will be the reseller of the tax credits?
16
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Nick Surak: co-developer of the project.
Councilmember Schey ok, if awarded these tax credits and are you selling the tax, filing for the
tax credits based on an $8.5 million dollar project or a $6.4 million dollar project?
Nick Surak: the total project cost is just under $8.5 million but the hard cost is about $6.3, $6.4.
Councilmember Schey so if awarded these tax credits, I mean this is an assessment vehicle that
probably a lot of folks here tonight might not be all that familiar with how, much would you
anticipate these tax credits will sell for on the market?
Nick Surak: you know I would say in this matter you’re probably going to get 87, 88 cents on the
dollar.
Councilmember Schey so you will be getting perhaps a couple million dollars.
Nick Surak: yeah, we will be requesting a little more than $8.5 million tax credits so; you would
probably look to leverage you know a little less than $8 million in equity in that.
Councilmember Schey Englewood Corporation, because we are talking that we have been
repeating ourselves that this is private money, it’s your company that is going to receive the $8
million dollars correct?
Nick Surak: no that is incorrect.
Councilmember Schey the NNN is going to receive $8 million dollars from the sale of these tax
credits?
Nick Surak: no, what we are going to have is a limited partner set up that is the recipient that is
the recipient of the tax credits and what you do is you take on an investment partner and equity
partner, they will receive the tax credits.
Councilmember Schey this limited partnership, is going to be a for-profit entity?
Nick Surak: yes, in tax credit development like this and this is true across the country most
commonly the investor is a larger financial institutions or insurance companies and another way
to do that is by another federal law called the community investment act and those are the most
common investors in these type of projects for example we most recently completed one in
Phoenix and our investor was Bank of America.
Councilmember Schey who will be the and I apologize these are complex investment vehicles
that I am not rich enough to be buying tax credits so I don’t know about these types of things,
you would have to have a pretty sizeable income for this type of thing. So anyway this limited
partnership who will be the principals of this limited partnership and who will be guiding this
LLC.
Nick Surak: there are two components to a limited partnership, a general partner and a limited
partner. The general partner has operational control that will be Near Northwest, the limited
partner is an equity partner they provide the financing basically equity and they basically sell it
other than that they reap the economic benefit in investing in the property but as far as day to day
control and decisions when it comes to property management or development that resides with
the general partner which would be Near Northwest.
Councilmember Schey so Karen, I worked with an attorney as I was drafting, as I was reviewing
something of things that came before us and some of the questions that the attorney had asked
was how, please explain how this project does not detracted from the not-for-profit status of the
NNN, will the project remain part of a not-for-profit operation or will it become a for-profit
operation?
17
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Nick Surak: the Near Northwest will form a for-profit LLC, to be the general partner and a
member of that LLC will be Near Northwest.
Councilmember Schey as a for-profit LLC what, the mission I would image of the for-profit
entity would be slightly different than the mission of the not-for-profit community development
corporation so do you anticipate that you would be beholden to the same sort of standards that a
not-for-profit would?
Karen Ainsley: Our mission is specific to affordable housing right now, revitalization and
stabilization of the area, so it aligns perfectly with our existing mission.
Nick Surak: It’s a single purpose LLC and that’s the purpose of having an LLC is to limit your
liability and that is why it would be separate for Near Northwest is to limit liability as any
business that organizes would opt to do the same thing. As a matter of fact non-profits are very
active in tax credit developments and some of the biggest national developers are organized as
non-profits.
Councilmember Schey: Karen for this limited partnership other than yourself who would be on
the board.
Karen Ainsley: We haven’t organized it yet. We won’t organize it until the tax credits are
awarded.
Councilmember Schey: So back to the abatement request and I apologize to those you have
already been here this afternoon but I will be redundant on the abatement request that is before
the Council is a separate and distinct issue from the tax credits so I don’t want to confuse the
two. So with the tax abatement request that is before the Council tonight there was a request
made that would the NNN be willing to enter into an agreement which ensures that this project
provide some sort of benefit to our community. We certainly realize that any new building
ultimately increase the amount taxes collected but we are looking for a more direct benefit. If
this project goes forward can we move a couple of South Bend residents from the unemployment
line to the employment line?
Karen Ainsley: As we talked to you earlier we said that there is a 4% commitment to minorities,
to women, to veterans and so 4% of the project which is a substantial dollar amount will be
allocated to that. So we will commit that to you.
Councilmember Schey: Ok. The issue raised earlier by members of the minority community is
that commitment has been made in the past and has not been met.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand asked for a point of order. The controlling
sections of the City Code in particular the Community Investment Department gave a
recommendation upon reviewing the ¼ inch of material that the abatement petition before us
meets the qualifications for a three to six year real tax abatement under Section 2-77 Multi-
Family Residential Developments and other criteria with regard to a minimum amount of
investment with regard to a 20% units made available for low and moderate income and that the
base abatement would be 3 years and then there is a potential for add on abatements. So that is
the criteria under the city code. There is no mechanism to add, there are MOA’s that can be
added. Again, only what is in the City Code or under Title 6 Indiana Code. And I would also
like to add that I have discussed my opinion with Corporation Counsel and she concurs with me.
Councilmember Schey: Thank you for that additional information. As a Councilmember I still
that I have the right to ask the question. So the members of the community that had come
forward had said that commitment has been made in the past, but not met. So how do you
anticipate that this project will be different?
Karen Ainsley: I don’t have knowledge of what they are referencing in the past, I can only speak
to this project that we have before you. And for this project before we have before you we are
saying we will commit to 4% being representative of minorities, women and veterans.
18
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Councilmember Schey: I think it was the CAFR report, but you know I guess I would appreciate
much like Councilmember Henry Davis just expressed, I would appreciate the opportunity to
give this a further hearing on October 28, 2013 and schedule a Community Investment
Committee Meeting between now and then. Mr. Surak had said that he would be willing to do
apparently with Councilmember Davis; Mr. Surak had said that he would be agreeable to that.
Nick Surak: I don’t believe I said that actually.
Councilmember Henry Davis Jr.: You implied it and so.
Council President Dieter asked Councilmember Schey if she had any further questions.
Councilmember Schey well, I will just say that I will close with the City of South Bend certainly
has two significant Community Development Corporations that we work with to improve the
physical, social and economic conditions of our city’s neighborhoods, the South Bend Heritage
Foundation is one, the Near Northwest Neighborhood is another, these are both not-for-profit
501c3 organizations that are funded in large part through the support of the Federal Community
Development Block Grant Money that the City of South Bend receives from HUD because of
our entitlement status. The City of South Bend is considered an entitlement city because of the
large number of residents living at or below the poverty level in our City. The reason we just
Council President Dieter: excuse me if you have questions, we can come back to the Council.
These are questions for the petitioner now. If you want to make a statement later.
Councilmember Schey: I would like to finish my statement.
Council President Dieter: No, you have to ask a question, you’re making a comment on this. If
you have a question fine.
Councilmember Schey: Then I will continue my statement when given the opportunity.
Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic: Thank You, no comment.
Councilmember Dr. Varner: The only thing I want to clarify is that the credit is going to the
right group.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: Again, we are not dealing with the credits this
evening; we are dealing with the tax abatement.
Councilmember Dr. Varner, I’m sorry I misspoke. It’s the right entity.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: Correct, Community Investment did make a
review of all the documents as did the Council and the Legal Department.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: You all spoke about a 4%. Is that in a written commitment or is
that something that you just shared or where is that 4%.
Nick Surak: That would be part of the tax credit application, if we make that commitment that is
a box that we would be checking there and that would be enforced by ICDA.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: You said if you would be making that commitment or are you
going to make that commitment.
Nick Surak: Yes, I will make that commitment and we can put that in there. It’s 4% MBE,
WBE or VBE, as sub-contractors or suppliers.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: Will there be any need for them make a Memorandum of
Understanding, what were you talking about.
19
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: Under the City Code the applicant will be
required to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement as I brought two others that received the
same procedure and that could be as well. But again, that has to be in place prior to the
confirmatory action, that is if the council goes forward this evening that would be in place in a
legal document prior to the October 28, 2013 meeting in a confirmatory resolution before you
could go forward.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: Basically, what you are saying then that if this passes tonight
could you explain how that 4% would be put together one more time. There would be 4% for
minorities, women and veterans that’s what you are committing to.
Nick Surak: Yes, for subcontractors and suppliers.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: That is something that I had not heard earlier.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: Under the City Code the Department of
Community Investment had the original memorandum of agreement, the City Attorney’s Office
reviews it, as does myself with this commitment we will make sure that it is in there.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: That commitment will be prepared when?
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: Prior to the next Council meeting.
th
Councilmember Oliver Davis: Now the meeting on the 28 what would happen at that meeting
regarding the bill.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: It’s a confirmatory resolution and again like any
other tax abatement it’s a two-step process. The declaratory is the first step and the second step
is the confirming per State Law.
th
Councilmember Oliver Davis: On the 28 meeting if this is passed tonight then that
commitment for the 4% for the minority businesses will be attached to that bill and then if that is
passed then the minority business bill will be a part of that memorandum of understanding that
night correct.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: The representation that were made this evening.
Karen Ainsley: And Councilmember Davis, I would like to interject that what he is talking
about is Indiana Housing Community Development Authority, they manage that so they could
they could also provide a copy of that application that shows that we’ve committed to that which
means that’s what we will be judge on basically if they are awarded. So, there would be another
double check.
Nick Surak: When we commit to that in a tax credit applications, ICBA does and you have to
document that you complied with what you committed to and if you don’t, you don’t get your tax
credits so you know we have every reason to adhere to that, otherwise without the tax credits you
don’t have a project.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: Is it my understanding that the 4% is greater than what was asked
in the Community Agreement or is that about the same.
Nick Surak: It is greater.
Karen Ainsley: The difference Oliver would be that was asked specifically for a training fund.
Which would be separate and above and beyond the project cost. Where this would actually be
employing just like discussed employing people who need jobs and people within the community
who qualify in those ranges.
20
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Councilmember Oliver Davis: So the 4% is actually putting dollars in people’s pockets, it not
just training. It is putting money some contractor’s so they can take home. A lot of people who
do something like that, so you are committing to that.
Karen Ainsley: Right, its training.
Nick Surak: Right, if you’re a tradesman or whatever and you are a MBE, WBE or VBE, we are
committing to hire folks that have that designation to do work for us.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: Ok, cool, that’s all I have.
Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand: The City Code calls for a minimum threshold,
and then the MOA would be after that.
Councilmember Gavin Ferlic: No comments
A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time.
The following individual’s spoke in favor of this bill.
Jesse Davis, P. O. Box 10205, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in favor of this bill. He stated that
this project is an investment where there is a majority of private dollars and that is a good thing.
He urged the Council’s favorable adoption of this bill.
JohnMynsberge, 735 Portage Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he lived on Portage
Avenue for about 8 years now and he chose to move into the neighborhood because he really
appreciates the work that the Near Northwest Neighborhood does for the city here. But my
problem is that we are trying to put too much on a private entity as far as training programs and
things like that, that’s things that the city should be doing themselves. I just would like to see
somebody come in with private money to develop a building that has been sitting there just
getting dilapidated and getting in worse shape. We haven’t had any development up and down
Portage Avenue from downtown up to Cleveland Road almost nothing in the 8 years that I’ve
lived here. I think we should go ahead and approve this as soon as possible.
Margaret Porter, 4325 Garden Oak, South Bend, Indiana, I have been a board member of the
NNN off and on for over twenty-five years. I am currently a board member even though I no
longer live in the area. But, having lived in the area for a number of years almost 30 years I
know that the Ford Building is something that needs to be taken care of. There are no taxes
being collected on this particular property. Apparently there is nobody locally that is interested
in developing it so; nothing came through the Sheriff’s sale that took place recently. So I think
that this is something that we really need to think about and help along. I think that the
gentleman before made an excellent point there has been a lot of development on private homes
by the NNN along Portage. Those of us that have lived in the area for a long time we have seen
some of the houses that they have improved and look better. But there has been very little done
from California Avenue down to the city center. This would make a huge improvement in that
area and it might actual spur some more development in that section of Portage going down
toward the city, so again, I am at a loss as to why this discussion is even here, about this tax
abatement. It seems very odd to me that we would not as a city want to development something
that has been an eyesore that would actually bring people into the NNN area with affordable
housing, people will then think who might somewhere along the line be able to move out of the
rental situation and start investing and buying homes that are being developed and rehabbed by
the NNN. So I think they would do the city a great disservice if we stop this project from going
forward.
Rebecca Kaiser, 913 Diamond, South Bend, Indiana, I lived in the near northwest neighborhood
since I was 6 years old. When I was 26, I bought a house that had just been rehabbed, not by the
NNN, but by my little brother, on Diamond Avenue, that had been condemned. I am very
passionate about the NNN; I think that there are a lot of people who don’t understand what
Karen Ainsley and the NNN do. They think that Karen comes to you or to the Mayor and you
hand them a blank check and oh goody, goody, let’s go paint the house green. I would happen to
21
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
know that’s not how it works. That Karen works darn hard and she has the backing of the
neighborhood. Now if she can put up with me, which we all know I can be a loose cannon,
Henry Davis Jr., and I act like we are two cats that had our tails tied together and thrown over a
clothes line. I think that we can agree that portion of Portage is right at the line of marginal. By
that I mean we have the Cottage Grove redevelopment, but once you get across to the west of
Portage, you are dealing with a group of people who we all know are marginalized. Now, not as
a uber-liberal who is going to through around the word diversity, when I am living with
everybody whose of every color and of the same educational background and social and
economic background which makes diversity the kind of word that doesn’t mean the same. You
need to start looking at the other side of Portage Avenue, when you talk about diversity. When
you are going to have people who are economically challenged whether they are Latino, Black,
White, this housing, we talk about a brain drain, we can bring in young people who are Black,
White, Latino, who are just starting to make it and then they can say you know what five years
down the line I am now making $50,000.00 a year, I have the support of a neighborhood that is
one of the most supported neighborhoods in the City of South Bend and works very well
together. And I’m circumspect of why would we even have to go through this MI sugared a
mess when everyone there on the Council pretty much knows that’s the thing. Now, in the back
of my mind do I know why we want to receive this, I know why Scott Ford asked you guys to
thst
push it forward to the 28, because the deadline is the 1 and I know we are competing with a
project that the City has. Is that fair to put all of our eggs in one basket and quash this. I mean
ask yourselves that, is that really how we work in the City of South Bend. If you wonder where I
got my information, I am friend of Mr. Lynch’s at the White House, who called me from
Mishawaka, and so this is going to turn into whole (inaudible) So, I think you need to really
think about our activities and the up and up and we can both ask for state money and maybe one
or both of us will get it. Thank You.
Dustin New, 924 Wheatley, South Bend, Indiana, simply wanted to say that I am in support of
the tax abatement request for this project.
Mike Griffin, 704 California, South Bend, Indiana, I guess one of the things that I can speak to is
that I live in one of the houses, actually two of the houses, our house, where me and my family
live and the rehab house next door that are the closest to this project. And we are definitely very
supportive and hope that it passes through tonight. We really know the need for revitalization
and we are in the neighborhood for the long run and I guess the one thing, I actually want to
thank Councilmember Davis and Councilmember Schey for bringing up some of the issues. Our
neighborhood in this City we have a problem and a challenge that economic growth is not
shared. There are a lot of people in the community who don’t share in that. And I was here this
afternoon and you can feel the frustration, I do think that it is a little bit unfair to load all of that
onto this. But I also think that what you just heard about the 4% commitment, just so you know
there are many of us in the neighborhood who also from our end are going to be working to
make sure that this is a shared growth project where everyone in our neighborhood benefits. So,
I really hope that the larger problem that we have as a city doesn’t scuttle something that is just
desperately needing to be done in our neighborhood. Thanks.
Ann Clarke, 831 Forest, South Bend, Indiana, I’ve lived there 35 years. I taught at St. Mary’s for
30 years, and I taught philosophy there. And in that teaching of philosophy we talked a lot about
diversity and conflict between human beings and the reason that I live in this neighborhood is
because it is a neighborhood where that’s part of our conversation and concern and interest. I
think that anything that the NNN does in the way of this building will have that interest in the
back of its mind because that’s what the NNN Community has always been. And so, I think you
can’t talk about this in the abstract, you have to think about where it is and about the history of
this community. Thank You.
Kathy Schuth, 911 Leland Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, I spoke to you in committee this
st
afternoon too and I just want to thank you 1 of all for your attention to this and I hope that every
tax abatement project gets this kind of fine tooth comb, frankly, I need to speak publicly in
support of this project for a number of reasons that as a neighbor I live a block and half away
from this building from this building and have continued to watch it deteriorate from the outside
and twice in the last year I had the opportunity to tour the building. On the interior, my
profession is as an architect that I can tell you with a keen eye looking at this building I believe
22
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
this is really our finest shot at basically turning this into a success story for both the Near
Northwest Neighborhood and for the City of South Bend, so I speak in support of this for the
neighborhood but also in support for the City and I would like to see this be a partnership. I
think that a tax abatement would really be a nice show of that and I really appreciate your
attention.
Andre Stoner, 628 Cushing Street, South Bend, Indiana, I live about 3 blocks from this property
and I have lived there with my family, 4 children, raised them for last 17 years. I would like to
speak in favor of this project for several reasons. One, I think as we all know it is an abandoned
building, that has been that way for a long time and we know that a building like that can attract
a lot of problems. So the development would be a positive for our neighborhood, but beyond
that I am really in favor of adding 42 well managed units, low income rental units, into our
neighborhood. We have a lot of very poorly managed rental units in our neighborhood a lot of
people who live far away who are not invested in the neighborhood and are making a lot of
money off of people. Those of us that live in the neighborhood suffer because of it, we need
good quality well managed low income rental units and this would add 42 of those units and so I
am in favor of that as well. I think it would be a plus not only for neighborhood but for the city.
Thank you.
Mary Curgee, 1023 Portage Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, I did speak this afternoon but I just
wanted to mention a couple of things. I strongly support this as I mentioned this afternoon, I am
the President of the NNN Board and they too very strongly support this project and the tax
abatement specifically. I live, like Kathy, I live a couple of door down from this building and I
can assure you that it is a source of major blight along one of our corridors to the city. We have
talked for years about bettering the corridors so that the City, the downtown becomes more
attractive people will be invited and not afraid to come into the City. So that has not been
mentioned yet tonight and I just want to point that out to that bettering this building would also
take care a source of blight on one of our major corridors. And that’s a win; win for the City and
the NNN and our neighborhood. I really encourage you to vote for this tonight and to pass it.
The following individual spoke in opposition to this bill.
Rev. Greg Brown, 1238 Diamond Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, been living there 49 years. The
tax abatement 4% gives us the 96% and gives them the 4%. Bringing jobs and as far as doing
things in the community every time we give these rebates something happens and it’ not in the
city’s favor and we were listed as being a dying city, 4% is awful cheap for South Bend if we
only coming back up. Are we going to get employees from this city; are we going to be
guaranteed; what kind of guarantees are in the language; are we going to hire electricians,
contractors from South Bend, that live in St. Joseph County. We always say we are going to do
this, were going to do that, on the other end of Diamond, Walsh is working down there; they are
not from South Bend. Try to be a contractor and go work in the cities around us and they want
50% of their dollar put back in their city. We need to look at this, it needs to be some more
explaining done Council board before you bring this to the floor and vote on it. Our
unemployment rate 12%, what is this going to do for our community, is this really going to
repair, this is a Band-Aid on it, and we gave tax abatement, if you look at the history of it. If you
look at A.J. Wright, we gave them an abatement, where is A. J. Wright at? Think about it.
Thank you.
No Rebuttal.
Councilmember Gavin Ferric: No Comment
Councilmember Oliver Davis: When I heard about this situation and the comments that were
made even earlier today that talked about the community agreement it was pretty much said that
no, we are not going to do that or it’s too late or we’re going to look at the next year. I was very
pleased to hear tonight about 4%. Now, personally I think if 4% issue would have been raised
earlier a lot of the conflict that we had up here probably wouldn’t have been up here tonight.
Secondly, like one of my colleagues stated that’s a minimum. Is that a minimum of 4%?
Nick Surah: Yes
23
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Councilmember Oliver Davis: Could you share with us what that means with the minimum 4%.
Nick Surah: It means a minimum of 4% of the total project costs would have to go the one of
those disadvantaged business categories. I would like to point out as well that it is calculated off
the total project costs, but the hard cost which is $6.4 million, which are the actual nuts & bolts.
It’s actually the 4% translates to a bigger chunk of that, because the stuff that is soft cost, things
like paying architects, lawyers and all that other stuff so there is actually more than 4% of the
construction budget that would be going toward those disadvantaged businesses.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: So you are talking about more than a minimum 4%.
Nick Surak: We will do at least 4%, and when it comes to total amount of hard construction
costs it is more than 4% of that.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: When you have done other constructions in the past, what is
percentage rate with dealing with more than 4%?
Nick Surak: That was a new category that ICDA offered just recently and so we committed to
that on a most recent one that’s in Indianapolis and we didn’t have any problem hitting the 4%.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: What made you commitment to that?
Nick Surak: It seemed like an attainable goal. I mean we are talking about once we get those tax
credits and go through all the other process to the point of where you can actually bid out a
project, were talking almost a year from now and so now saying I can make this commitment
now gives you a lot of time to figure out the mechanics of that and we felt that was a reasonable
amount to ask without maybe over committing ourselves not knowing exactly who we needed to
hire and who was the most qualified to do the work at the time.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: So is there any reason when Councilmember’s Schey and Henry
Davis brought this up regarding the community agreement that this concept of the 4% was not
raised and discussed in that light and dealt with that.
Karen Ainsley: We did discuss it this afternoon when we were in. But the Community
Agreement, we didn’t see that until it was filed with the Clerk’s Office and became a public
document, so there wasn’t a conversation that happened before that. So that wasn’t something
that we were privy to, and so we did mention it when we were here this afternoon, the 4%, but I
assume that they were looking at the 4% and thinking that it was not enough, because we had
said that when we were one on one as well, so I’m not quite certain and maybe just a
misunderstanding.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: In the response that was given to us, I probably would have
looked at it a lot easier if they would have said that we already dealing with the 4% issue and like
you shared earlier that 4% is not only a minimum and that does not include possible attorney’
and other issues, like you just shared . And we are talking about memorandums of
understanding it was clear to me that we kept hearing no we can’t do that or we will wait until
2014 and everything else, but I am glad tonight that I heard a whole different tune.
Karen Ainsley: I am sorry Oliver, what I think we were responding to was the commitment for
training. We couldn’t commit that training as opposed to probably maybe clearly expressing the
commitment that we would make through as a natural part of that application process.
Councilmember Oliver Davis: Because I hear you on that training issue, but what I really heard
my colleagues share or at least with me and I’m sure they are going to explain it themselves, but
they were looking at more dollars to take home for people. Because Councilmember Henry
Davis, Jr., has always talked about the unemployment rates, and so I think the Chamber was
talking more about the training piece of that. But in terms of what we were looking at was at that
4%, and I am glad to hear that and that was news to me, because I have been watching the
correspondence back and forth on e-mails, and it was seeming like there was a strong resistance
to that, but tonight I hear that this is a minimum of 4% and maybe even higher. Considering that
24
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
what was asked by Mr. Shabazz, I think he was asking for 2% to 3%, so therefore, you are
asking more than what he was even asking and so I am glad to hear that and looking forward to
th
seeing that on the 28 of October in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Karen Ainsley: Perfect. Yeah I think that there might have been some miscommunication
because we were kind of caught off guard when that agreement came forward. And so, you
know hopefully we can continue that conversation and of course we will commit to that 4%.
Councilmember Varner: When people talk about the things that the Council has to consider, we
need to consider, we should consider one of the things that we all say is particularly more the
dollars or private dollars as opposed to grants or money in the form of economic development
dollars perhaps from the city’s funds or things like that. The less the city puts into it I think the
less restriction we should place on the development process itself. So, I think that it is great that
there’s a voluntary effort which I am glad that the ICDA whatever it was has made it a category.
I think that it will be appreciated by folks that are looking for that sort of support and to the
extent it can be actually more if that is possible. I think that is great and I think if and when it
happens, I would like to hear back that it did happen. I would hope that you are able to do that
and I wish you well.
Councilmember Dr. Fred Ferlic: This is basically a private venture with non-city funds. The
government does a good job on what the government does with quality of life issues, water, and
sewer. The government does not do a good job when they start putting criteria and quotas on
things as far as private businesses. That’s one of the reasons why we don’t have the private
business development in South Bend like other cities do. So I applaud you for what you are
doing and thank you very much for creating jobs and a creating private investment in our city.
Councilmember Schey: Sure, I have a couple of things. First of all, in terms of the commitment
is it a good faith effort commitment or is it a written documented.
Nick Surak: When we check that box on the application that is something that we have submit
paperwork to the ICDA, to prove that we did what we did. When they come back to inspect and
audit that to make sure that we did. And if we did not, then you don’t get it, you basically built
something without any tax credits and then we are going to be writing a seven figure check to
our equity partner which we don’t want to happen.
Councilmember Schey: So, I ask this question because there are a number legal documents that
the city has to abide by on different projects and what we refer to as the bidder’s affidavit in
terms of inclusion in the project it’s simple a good faith effort which I’m always leery of because
in certain situations if I were to tell the IRS, I am going to make a good faith effort to pay my
taxes, that probably wouldn’t fly. So, this is more than a good faith effort, this is a concrete
commitment to the 4%.
Nick Surak: Yes, it is. The ICDA looks at anything you say you are going to do in your
application and you are going to be held responsible for, and so that extends to a whole different
variety of things. Say in terms of accessible features, we might say we going to include and have
a roof top (inaudible) you can’t just change your mind down the road and say you know we
meant to but.
Councilmember Schey: So, in terms of is it your cooperation that is an Indiana Certified Owned
Business?
Nick Surak: Yes, the developer is and the property manager is as well.
Councilmember Schey: So will the fact that you are a women owned business and your
developer is a women owned business, will those numbers count towards this 4% goal.
Nick Surak: No.
Councilmember Schey: It will not.
25
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
Nick Surak: No they do not.
Councilmember Schey: Is there any other component other than the, cause I think more
important than race and gender is the individual socio-economic status which is why again, and I
have probably said it so many times, it is because there is such a large number of residents in
South Bend living at or below the poverty level that the City is classified as an entitlement City
which makes us eligible for the Community Development Block Grant money that we receive
which supports the NNN. And I apologize, I realize people feel that I am being redundant but I
think that this is a point that bears repeating. The fact that the NNN is a community
development corporation that is and was established as a not-for-profit 501C3 to improve the
physical, social, and economic conditions of our cities neighborhoods and because of the source
of funding that supports the NNN, I feel that this tax abatement is unique and different from the
other tax abatements that have come before us. And I realize that the tax credit that you are
talking about is something different that is an investment vehicle that is sold on the open market
and people buy it, and you would receive like you said up to $8 million dollars or this separate
LLC for-profit LLC will receive the money. But I keep turning back to the NNN and I
appreciate all the neighbors that have come before us because clearly this project will have a
greater impact on their daily life, than residents that don’t live in that neighborhood, but still as a
City Council representative, that oversees the city’s budget of which a portion of the city’s
budget which the Council doesn’t you know have any determination in how much CDBG
money we receive on an annual basis but, it is part of the operating budget, I feel beholden to ask
these questions. People have said that they don’t quite understand why we are asking all these
questions about this tax abatement versus a tax abatement such as Federal Mogul or Tire Rack
those companies are big for-profit that don’t necessarily have the same goals or missions of the
NNN. The reason why the proposed community benefit, and it was proposed, it was, I would
th
ideally welcome an opportunity to continue this discussion for October 28, so that we could
have a meeting between now, a Community Investment Committee Meeting, between now and
thst
October 28, which would still get you and your application into the state by November 1. But,
I would welcome an opportunity to discuss a community benefit agreement further to help,
again, not race or gender but those people living at or below the poverty level and how are we
going to get those folks employed, because race and gender is distinct from income and I think
that the CDBG money that funds the NNN is awarded because we have so many people living at
or below the poverty level. So, I close with the fact that I think that this tax abatement could use
some additional discussion and consideration.
Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr., I want to say thank you to everybody who is here tonight,
listening to this issue and please keep coming out. Thank you for the presentation, I really do.
The reason why is called vetting. The problem is that when we don’t vet the first thing
somebody runs out here and says that Council is just a rubber stamp of the Mayor. And then
when we do vet we are being obstructionists. So I am just trying to figure out where is the happy
medium at, I guess we need to be friends with everybody, well the truth is, and that’s not going
to happen. I think that you know that our job requires us to vet and vet properly. And vet in
such a way that it is a representation of the people who have elected us into office. So don’t take
offense to this, don’t take it personal, it’s part of the process, if you come in here as ask for a
government subsidy, government help, government welfare, that’s what it is really called, when
we get to the lower economical end of the bracket. And so, when we ask for these things to be
clear and understand that you will be asked questions about what you are doing and why you are
doing it. It’s nothing against you, it’s the fact that you are asking for something and in return we
are going to ask as well. And we need to be clear, so, but, I was just looking over this list I have
up here, of like all these different contractors that have gone out of business in the City of South
Bend, it’s well over 100. And, Oliver said something earlier today about the unemployment rate,
our unemployment rate is well over the state average, its well over the five county radius that we
are within, it’s well over the national average. So it would behoove us and we would be remiss
in the opportunity all nine (9) of us, to find out how we can as a Council restore and keep some
of that money back here in the city. We would be almost crazy not to do it. The truth is that 4%
is very small; it’s so small that it is only $320,000.00 of the $8 million dollar project. That’s
how small it is, it’s not even a drop in the bucket, and I can’t even get a street or curbs done for
$320,000.00. I can’t get the sidewalk done for $320,000.00. So that’s how small it is, and so
when you begin to divide that up amongst a company of folks to get a project done, there will not
be enough activity for that company to stay on that job for the duration of the job. And that has
26
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
nd
happened over and over again here in the city, more importantly in the 2 District. I have seen
the LaSalle Square project use tax credits, I’ve seen two museum’s use the tax credit on West
Washington Street, museum row as we call it now, I’ve seen the Rushton, we talk about A.J.
Wright and we talk about the Kroc Center and it’s the same story each and every time. Each and
every time there are going to use these tax credits or we are going to ask for a tax abatement, yes
you are using City money. It’s called tax dollars, guess what, when you don’t pay for the taxes
that you are abating those are tax dollars that you are supposed to be paying. When we use the
credit system, guess what, somebody is paying for that out of their pocket, it’s called State taxes.
So somebody is subsidizing this through their job, I am, and everybody else here that is
employed. So, when we begin to think that we are bigger than the cause that we said we are
going for we are missing the point. We have missed the point, the point is to make sure that the
money regenerates back through this community so that folks like the guys that are entrepreneurs
can have more business inside their business, more patrons, more folks can go to the store, more
people can become employed. For every dollar that is spent in this community, there is four
dollars that’s created, off this kind of construction project, that’s how those things happen. And
for us to continue to sit here and beat it down and say that it is a bad thing, it’s a private
developer, no, no by no means, this kind of project doesn’t happen without those incentives. It
does not, so clearly you need those incentives if it didn’t you wouldn’t be here. I am going to
say the moral compass of this community has to change back to fairness. This country has to
turn back to fairness; it’s going down the tubes. This point I am going to continue to make and I
hope that you make due on your 4%, I hope you do it 4 times, 4 times, times 4, which would be a
lot better than what we have right now. However, it’s up to you at this point, I am not in favor of
nd
this anymore, I can’t do it anymore. I just named about six projects that happened in the 2
nd
District or right outside the 2 District, the same population of folks who continue to keep
getting stepped on and kicked aside each and every time, based off of the law. I am not asking
for anything that is not already in the law, if I was asking for something outside of the law, yes I
am (inaudible), but the truth is it’s in the law, it’s in the details. You use federal dollars and
federal guidelines state x, y and z, that’s all day every day, that’s why we are living with the
MBE/WBE issues here in South Bend now, because no one wants to look at the numbers. No
one chooses to look at the numbers. If someone wants to file a federal lawsuit against the City of
South Bend, guess what, we get in a lot of trouble. Because no one wants to keep the numbers,
no one wants to enforce the codes, and that has been a problem repeatedly, over and over and
over again. It’s a fairness issue, you are going to hear more about the fairness issue after you
guys finish if you stay. It’s called fairness, we cannot continue to act like we don’t have a
problem. We have a problem, and it’s a true problem, and as bad as one side of the community
is going to hurt, the other side is going to hurt later on. It’s just a matter of fact, we are all part of
the same body, the same spirit, and if one side hurts the other side is going to hurt as well. I
digress.
There being no one else present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in
opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Dieter made a motion to adopt this Resolution.
Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted
by a roll call vote of six (6) ayes and two (2) (Councilmember’s Henry Davis, Jr. and Schey.)
BILLS – FIRST READING
BILL NO. 58-13 FIRST READING ON A BILL TO VACATE THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: 1. THE
FIRST NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY EAST OF
GEORGIANA STREET, WEST OF BURNS
STREET RUNNING NORTH FROM THE FIRST
EAST-WEST ALLEY SOUTH OF NAPOLEON
STREET FOR A DISTANCE OF
APPROXIMATELY 54.5 FEET TO ITS
TERMINATION POINT. 2. THE FIRST
NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY EAST OF BURNS
STREET, WEST OF DUEY AVENUE RUNNING
NORTH FROM THE FIRST EAST/WEST ALLEY
27
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
SOUTH OF NAPOLEON STREET FOR A
DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 56 FEET TO
IT’S TERMINATION POINT
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to refer this bill to the Public
Works and Property Vacation Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on
October 28, 2013. Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of
nine (9) ayes.
BILL NO. 59-13 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21
OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE,
ARTICLE 1, BASIC PROVISIONS, TO ADD A
NEW SUBSECTION RELATIVE TO THE
REZONING OF EXISTING STRUCTURES;
ARTICLE 2, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO
REVISE STATE SWIMMING POOL CODE
REFERENCES; ARTICLE 4, INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS, TO REVISE SCREENING
REQUIREMENTS; ARTICLE 5 PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, TO REVISE AN INCORRECT
CITATION; ARTICLE 7, GENERAL
REGULATIONS, TO REVISE CERTAIN
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES, AND
TO REVISE INCORRECT CITATIONS
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Dieter made a motion to refer this bill to the Area
Plan Commission. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of
six (6) ayes.
BILL NO. 60-13 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNICL FOR THE CITY OF
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING
$21,000.00 FROM THE PALAIS ROYALE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND (FUND 450)
FOR REPAIRS TO THE HISTORIC
EXTERIOR/INTERIOR OF THE VENUE
Councilmember Dieter made a motion to refer this bill to the PARCS Committee and set it for
Public Hearing and Third Reading on November 11, 2013. Councilmember Varner seconded the
motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
(Councilmember’s Oliver Davis, Schey and Gavin Ferlic left the Council Chambers at this time.)
BILL NO. 61-13 FIRST READING ON A BILL AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 736 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, 906,
908 & 910 PORTAGE AVENUE,
COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Dieter made a motion to refer this bill to the Area
Plan Commission. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of
six (6) ayes.
28
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
BILL NO. 62-13 FIRST READING ON A BILL AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 605, 613, 617, 621 NOTRE DAME
AVENUE AND 823 SORIN STREET,
COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 4 IN THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Dieter made a motion to refer this bill to the Area
Plan Commission. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of
six (6) ayes.
(Councilmember Oliver Davis back in the Chamber at this time.)
BILL NO. 63-13 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF
THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO
REINSTATE ARTICLE 2, SECTION 17-27.1
HAULED SEPTIC WASTE
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Dieter made a motion to refer this bill to the Utilities
Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on November 11, 2013.
Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of seven (7) ayes.
BILL NO. 64-13 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 2, OF
THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ADJUST SEWER RATES AND CHARGES
INCREMENTALLY THROUGH 2017
This bill had first reading. Councilmember Dieter made a motion to refer this bill to the Utilities
Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on November 11, 2013.
Councilmember Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of seven (7) ayes.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business to come before the Council at this time.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Council at this time.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
David Newton, 701 W. Sample, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is the officer that was not
helped by Chief of Police Teachman, when a fight broke out at the Martin Luther King Center.
He stated that he would like to know what the report said that was conducted by the Indiana State
Police. He urged the Council to get that report released and made public.
Greg Brown, 1238 Diamond, South Bend, Indiana, thanked Mr. Newton for coming out tonight.
He stated that they need to know what happened at the Martin Luther King Center. He urged the
Council to investigate and release the report.
Jesse Davis, P. O. Box 10205, South Bend, Indiana, stated that transparency and trust are the key
to any administration. He questioned the Mayor’s deployment to Afghanistan next year. Was it
29
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2013
mandatory or did he volunteer. He urged the Council to send a letter to the Department of
Justice to exempt him from being deployed. He stated that the Mayor ran for the office with the
trust of the voter’s and he needs to be here to finish out his term.
Sam Brown, P. O. Box 1976, South Bend, Indiana, representing Citizens United for a Better
Government, urged the Council to release the report from the Indiana State Police on the incident
at the Martin Luther King Center.
Kurt Janowski, 101 N. Michigan, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is the owner of Café
Navarre. He urged the Council to consider the 2-way smart streets and to also keep Police foot
and bike patrols downtown. He stated that they promote a safe downtown image.
Theodore Roberts, 2617 Frederickson, South Bend, Indiana, spoke regarding the investigation of
Police Chief Teachman. He stated that when he was being investigated and going before the
Board of Safety for disciplinary actions, his personnel file was made public. He doesn’t see the
difference between Police Chief Teachman’s personnel file and his. He also stated that another
Police Officer, Lt. Ross did the same thing and was never disciplined.
Chuck Smith, 118 W. Battell, Mishawaka, Indiana, stated that regarding Mayor Buttigieg’s
deployment, deployment is deployment and records are sealed by the Pentagon. He stated that
he is an American Veteran and this issue is a double edge sword. Mr. Smith stated that things
that are being said regarding the Mayor’s deployment are not true.
Don Schefmeyer, 300 S. St. Louis, South Bend, Indiana, East Bank Village, stated that he would
very much like to keep the Police foot & bike patrols. He stated those patrols promote a good
public image and safety in an area that is being revitalized. He urged the Council to keep
funding in the 2014 budget for those patrols.
Robert Smith, (no address given), representing the Martin Luther King Center Men’s Club,
stated that there has been just too much time spent on police issues.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, President Derek D. Dieter adjourned
the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
ATTEST: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
John Voorde, City Clerk Derek D. Dieter, President
30