[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6149653,"mediaKeyId","5511263-aab166f6ea392ac84e0d763e607554db","parentId",5511263,"title","Council delays vote on body‑camera fee ordinance after hours of public comment","audioSeconds",7545,"startMs",2042000,"endMs",9587000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5511263-aab166f6ea392ac84e0d763e607554db&start=2042&end=9587","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5511263-aab166f6ea392ac84e0d763e607554db/thumbnail_2042000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6149653/South-Bend-City/St-Joseph-County/Indiana/Council-delays-vote-on-bodycamera-fee-ordinance-after-hours-of-public-comment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149653-ecdbeaccac937101973eaef61d8b35c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770945272&Signature=DxOOQBHq1GtNInJGM6SbSE7ZC86AnTohTsRtGbo1hJX1YV1mw3zreO5IkQBER79CfbfMXpplTOnb0jhNJjRDPWhQyqTdPsSNz2P3e0J7vFG-rA-reUePt8kYnjTXxH1GngTloAkdotxmDmZc1K2T3NOSvSKOKJuFoNHnnttTFcONuv8~eC9iIONzwaHlz-zG7Gm8DMW5owjudXYwW7c-wGjsxt2Tbsoca04t3t-Ya8sbHDTZOexIJ66x-rVoqBE3hC9xttiBuKvGBc8a0xk~0dxPIARm5eeC8X-cFXfQKgOh73UYd2LgEJZZPeRlOKy2jW6CYzQ6yqGDxcq6JKoZ9g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","South Bend City, IN","date","2025-07-31T05:04:44.43Z","article","The Common Council on July 28 deferred consideration of an ordinance that would revise the city’s public‑records fee schedule, including a mechanism for recovering the direct costs of reviewing and redacting law‑enforcement recordings.

City attorney Jenna Thoreau told the council Bill 43‑25 updates Section 2‑2‑10 of the municipal code to incorporate a separate fee schedule and to add a statutory option to recover the direct costs associated with producing law‑enforcement recordings. Thoreau said the ordinance would not apply to records delivered electronically by e‑mail when feasible, and she described other exceptions under state law — for example, criminal discovery, subpoenaed records, and inspection rights for people defined as “requesters” by statute (including people depicted in a recording, victims, and certain property owners and occupants).

Key points from the administration: Thoreau and assistant city attorney Kylie Connell said the volume of requests for law‑enforcement recordings has grown since the city began using body cameras in 2018; the legal team reported 611 requests for body‑worn footage since 2018 and said the annual average since 2020 is about 103 requests, rising to an extrapolated average of roughly 151 requests when recent trends are included. Thoreau said more than half of requests in a typical year come from business entities (media, attorneys, insurance companies) rather than individual residents, and she provided counts of requests likely to be classified as victims who may inspect footage without paying: 2023 — 10; 2024 — 12; 2025 (to date) — 11. The legal team estimated about 18 staff hours per week are dedicated to reviewing recordings.

How the fee would work: The proposed schedule bases fees on actual review time (an hourly rate) intended to recover staff time for redactions and related production work; Thoreau said redactions are required under state law for certain categories (juveniles, deceased persons, medical information, certain victim/witness safety concerns, and other confidential information). Connell said municipalities around Indiana have adopted similar fee approaches; the administration identified 16 cities and 5 counties that have comparable schedules. State law directs how fees for law‑enforcement recordings may be used, and Thoreau said the ordinance directs those fees to the law‑enforcement training fund to defray equipment, storage and production expenses.

Council members asked for clarifications: Members asked who qualifies as a statutory “requester,” whether inspection rights allow a person to view a video without paying, how often the same recording is requested more than once, and whether the fees would disproportionately affect low‑income residents. Thoreau and Connell said inspection under the statute is available without charge to qualifying requesters but that copies provided under the public‑records (APRA) process would be charged per the fee schedule; they emphasized an intake process to help narrow requests (for example, by identifying the officer who wrote the report) before full production.

Public hearing and reaction: More than two dozen residents and civic organizations spoke in opposition during a lengthy public hearing. Speakers included parents, advocacy groups (NAACP and Black Lives Matter South Bend), journalists, the Saint Joseph County Libertarian Party, and residents who said the fee structure would be a “tax on transparency” that would prevent marginalized residents from obtaining records. Commenters also urged the council to fund any needed staffing through the city budget rather than charging requesters. Several speakers noted the city and county budgets already pay for the cameras. The South Bend Police chief and assistant city attorneys answered procedural questions and said the intent is to recover direct production costs rather than create a revenue stream.

Decision: After extended public comment and council discussion, a motion to table Bill 43‑25 to the committee of the whole on August 11 (with additional joint committee meetings to continue review) was approved by roll call (9–0). The chair indicated administrative staff will hold at least one informational session before the next council meeting and that the personnel and residential committees will meet jointly to address outstanding questions.

Next steps: The ordinance will be returned to the committee of the whole on August 11 for further consideration; the administration said it will supply additional materials, data and proposed clarifications before the committee reconvenes.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","07 28 2025 Common Council Meeting Recording Part 1","oneSentenceSummary","The South Bend Common Council on July 28 postponed action on Bill 43‑25, which would place a fee schedule on public‑records copies of law‑enforcement recordings, after an extended public hearing and questions from council members.","taxTitle","South Bend City, St. Joseph County, Indiana","taxId",3921,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6149659,"Council adopts special-exception to allow pre-K center at 1114 Mayflower Road",9172,504000,9676000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5511263-aab166f6ea392ac84e0d763e607554db&start=504&end=9676","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5511263-aab166f6ea392ac84e0d763e607554db/thumbnail_504000.jpg","/articles/6149659/South-Bend-City/St-Joseph-County/Indiana/Council-adopts-special-exception-to-allow-pre-K-center-at-1114-Mayflower-Road","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149659-a5cf93bc5586712af582dd2f1f26cabb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770945272&Signature=RQ9A~8abEYc9ZM5B8ENf9kLGTLuoDINzSDCIJhVDM4K0pEMcCNZmv8mPwmlQw3PT8dPOth6TCH1jBXxXDZr2U0gAmuaMYp4xYIlYuClwG-107jZv9Laoo0OL8jo~xzoIsP-m~ed~DzQANxQtjCdchYQJySIMutcbaaWrtke~QqWICTjiGB4ExpgtqWkwG-QVuwYjqeTv42cNgjDoZdaeSJW5QANtjpnrpVB4Xs5fLrZ9pi11B-LR2JitB49T3xh2BaqYNzBaeYXz3FTQsXTkvOrSUdG88vaQV7NVlKPun6zq30vUr8lXtKZGqauZaMShThtVgj6KvIvEYPlLDEdE2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The South Bend Common Council on July 28 adopted an ordinance approving a special-exception petition to permit an early‑childhood pre‑K program at 1114 Mayflower Road.

City zoning staff told the council the building has served as a daycare in the past and that the requested use — listed in the zoning code as “pre‑K, primary or secondary” — is appropriate for the existing structure and compatible with the neighborhood and the city’s comprehensive plan. Petitioner David Turner told council members he plans a program serving infants through 5‑year‑olds with a rolling enrollment capped at about 40 seats and said the operation will be a business (not a ministry) that will accept vouchers.

Why it matters: The project would restore a child‑care use to an existing building in a residential area and add pre‑K capacity in Council District 6. Council members asked how many seats the facility will offer, how it will serve children with developmental needs, and what staff qualifications the petitioner expects to have.

Mark Delaistritto, a city zoning specialist, said the petition requests a special exception under section 21 0 6 0 1 f 11 of the city zoning code and that the use is consistent with Comprehensive Plan guidance to coordinate with schools and institutions. Turner told council members the facility would not be a formal K‑12 school but an engaging daycare-style pre‑K program for children from about six weeks to 5 years, estimating no more than 40 seats and a rolling enrollment. He said he expects to pursue state credentialing and initially aims for a Level 2 or 3 pathway under state quality ratings.

Council discussion focused on access, equity and services. Vice President Thomas Morgan and other members pressed Turner on the number and ages of seats and whether the program will accept voucher recipients; Turner said the program will accept vouchers and intends to serve families from the surrounding neighborhood. Council member Bolton Simpson asked about neighborhood access; Turner said neighborhood families are intended to be served and that the operation will prioritize equity in enrollment. Members also asked whether the program will accommodate children with speech, developmental or IEP‑level needs; Turner said plans for specific service partnerships and accommodations are not finalized but that the program intends to provide family forums, parent engagement and individualized supports where appropriate.

Public commenters spoke in favor. Steve Castle (422 Kennedy Drive) urged attention to early literacy. Peggy Foster (business address listed) recommended phonemic‑awareness instruction at the preschool level. Turner replied that the program plans intentional literacy supports and family engagement activities.

Committee and final votes: The Zoning and Annexation Committee recommended the bill favorably. The committee of the whole sent Bill 30‑25 to the full council with a favorable recommendation by roll call (9–0). On third reading the full council adopted Bill 30‑25 by roll call (9–0); the ordinance was recorded as adopted later in the meeting.

Next steps: With adoption complete, the petitioner may proceed with permitting and state licensing steps required to open as an early‑childhood center.

","The South Bend Common Council on July 28 adopted an ordinance approving a special‑exception zoning petition to allow an early‑childhood pre‑K program at 1114 Mayflower Road.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6149648,"Residents ask council to act on long‑running nuisance at Catherwood Drive property",0,10106000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5511263-aab166f6ea392ac84e0d763e607554db&start=10106&end=10106","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5511263-aab166f6ea392ac84e0d763e607554db/thumbnail_10106000.jpg","/articles/6149648/South-Bend-City/St-Joseph-County/Indiana/Residents-ask-council-to-act-on-longrunning-nuisance-at-Catherwood-Drive-property","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149648-e8336247715f8ef35818a5dba456f82e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770945272&Signature=DVUHBlBT4oDQkgHU10aPz6jeGtx8656vCffRoIsMHz-PJ~vZMbtGRuhUwqs5UYS3iQKIQ6sTDlGylgaGPh3rQUOCa6rjkE1kFKIQ27QVtdNf3GHz0lE~QogA3UvlJipNDN2-O4H9kmMDBaYSQi~T4VRj0K861WaiEdpQl8XLzhQCqBbXp3bPBAApy64P7iLsPyNbA2Di4MnGy796TLINj2Ho0p5zMPBtIg8iLyp~QdmhyiE06w2UCcUg27XwOstiwoBZQH4BPoq-z7F8X3LtOBUXR9Bw6XjyQNzvAr-aUHCx-pcdyAYbZ~oIXQthrtVgaf03sSk21pYsC6EOYvc7xg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several South Bend residents used the privilege‑of‑the‑floor portion of the July 28 meeting to urge council action on an ongoing nuisance and safety problems at a property on Catherine/Catherwood Drive.

Residents described repeated incidents at the address they identified as 1353 Catherwood Drive (property owners referenced as deceased homeowners Eugene and Edith Gardner), and named current occupants as James Snodworth and Mandy Garnett. Complaints included frequent daytime and nighttime traffic; verbal and physical altercations; drug use and suspected overdoses requiring ambulance response; unpermitted outdoor burning producing large flames; repeated trespass onto neighbors’ yards; animals running loose; property modifications (a framed structure added without permits); and incidents of persons seen unclothed in public and attempts to break into vehicles.

Speakers included neighborhood residents who said policing and code‑enforcement action to date have been insufficient and who requested a faster administrative response. Residents said the situation has persisted since about 2021 and that they have documented incidents (video and other evidence). Council members and staff asked residents to provide contact information and copies of the videos and said they would forward materials to the clerk and relevant city departments. An officer at the meeting (Officer Born cited by residents) and staff were identified as contacts for follow‑up.

Why it matters: Neighbors described risks to children, pets and general neighborhood safety from ongoing criminal and nuisance activity. Residents requested targeted enforcement and follow‑up from code enforcement and police.

Council response and next steps: Council members asked residents to share evidence with the clerk and with police so staff could conduct a follow‑up. Council members noted they had heard similar reports in a committee meeting and said administrative staff and police would pursue enforcement and outreach. No formal vote or ordinance was taken; the matter was referred for administrative follow‑up.","Multiple neighbors raised public‑safety and nuisance complaints about a longstanding property at (reported) 1353 Catherwood Drive during privilege of the floor, describing drug use, fires, repeated trespass and aggressive animals; council members asked residents to provide evidence and said staff and officers would follow up.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council delays vote on body‑camera fee ordinance after hours of public comment

Council adopts special-exception to allow pre-K center at 1114 Mayflower Road

Residents ask council to act on long‑running nuisance at Catherwood Drive property