Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Fee Waiver topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council waives $16,030 in permit and inspection fees for Homeward Bound’s Carwick Village; vote 5‑3 after public debate

2866123 · April 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Michigan City Common Council approved a resolution waiving building permit and inspection fees for the Homeward Bound Carwick Village affordable‑housing project; council discussion included fiscal concerns from the controller and public testimony both supporting and opposing the site choice. Vote was 5 in favor, 3 opposed.

The Michigan City Common Council on Tuesday approved a resolution waiving building permit and inspection fees for Homeward Bound Village’s Carwick Village project, a nonprofit affordable‑housing effort, by a 5‑3 vote.

What the council approved The resolution, introduced by Councilwoman Moldenhauer, waives permit and inspection fees tied to the Carwick Village project. Council members and the clerk recorded the waived‑fees amount as $16,030; combined with a previous $50,000 city grant the project has received, the total city contribution was described at the meeting as $66,030 toward the development.

Why it mattered: funding and location Council debate centered on two themes: fiscal restraint and local impact. City Controller Mary Lynn Wall addressed the council and noted that building‑permit revenues are an important general‑fund revenue source (the controller said building permits were budgeted at $520,000 for 2025), and she urged awareness of the effect of fee waivers on the city’s budget. Several council members said they were sympathetic to the nonprofit goal but cautious about further revenue reductions while state and local budgets face pressure.

Supporters and project details Dan Granquist, a Homeward Bound board member, said the project will prioritize Michigan City residents and that referrals would come from local shelters and service providers. Junior Pressel, a construction manager for the project, and other presenters described the Carwick Village concept as a cooperative affordable‑housing model; organizers said property is being secured and multiple funding sources (county contribution, foundation and in‑kind donations) are combined to move the project forward.

Public comment Public testimony was mixed. Supporters, including Tommy Kolovic and Sal Dunlap, praised the project as a positive reuse of the former St. Anthony site and said it would provide needed housing and services. Neighbors, including Tom Nazamek and Paul Frisboinski, voiced concern that the chosen site is in a residential area close to schools and taverns and urged stronger guarantees on resident screening, security measures and a commitment to prioritize Michigan City residents.

Council vote and next steps After debate the council voted 5 in favor and 3 opposed; President Belinsky and Councilmen Dabney and Tillman cast the three no votes. Council members who voted yes included Councilman Beatrice, Doctor Cora, Councilwoman Lee, Councilwoman Moldenhauer and Councilman Nelson.

The resolution passed on Tuesday’s meeting; project leaders and city staff said the group will continue to work on funding, finalize cooperative bylaws and return as needed to request further city actions.

Votes at a glance (items recorded during the meeting) - Resolution waiving permit and inspection fees for Homeward Bound Carwick Village: approved 5‑3; waived amount cited as $16,030; combined city contribution (grant + waived fees) cited as $66,030. - Appointment to Michigan City Scholarship Review Committee (Kamisha Williams): approved by voice vote, 8‑0. - Motion to table amendments to the city’s removal of weeds/grass ordinance on second reading: approved 8‑0 (the council tabled the ordinance to allow sponsors to reconcile competing amendments and provide more time for review).

Ending: City staff and project leaders said they will return with application and bylaw language to prioritize local residents and with additional budget/impact information if future city funding is requested.