Laserfiche WebLink
percent (50 %) would pay as much as four point three percent (4.3 %). South Bend's residential <br />indicator is off the charts considering that the EPA believes two percent (2 %) is high. We are <br />almost double what they consider to be a high indicator. Our median household is thirty three <br />percent (33 %) less than the national average. If you take these drivers which are very frightening <br />and very motivating and combine that with the success we had so far with local South Bend <br />innovations that gives us the motivation to continue to look for alternatives. <br />Mr. Fahey stated that our combined plan is so high compared to other local cities because out of <br />South Bend, Mishawaka and Elkhart we send approximately eighty percent (80 %) of the <br />combined sewer overflow that is entering the river. <br />Mr. Fahey summarized that this is a massive federally mandated project, currently the City is <br />trying to re- engineer different options and come up with a final alternative by the end of the year. <br />With that plan they will be regulators in late 2016 and start the renegotiation process. Hopefully <br />in the end we will have a plan that is cheaper, greener, more flexible, adaptive, and socially <br />beneficial. <br />There is some other positive news as well that it's going through at a national level. There is the <br />Water Resources Development Act which is potentially going to change things nationally to <br />some extent. It would mean that the EPA has to revise the manner in which it undertakes the <br />financial capability assessment. That could work in favor because they no longer will be able to <br />use the median household income as a benchmark but other figures as well. Right now is not the <br />most exciting time for an update because a lot of the results at the moment are still being honed <br />in on and we have a lot of things coming up very soon. <br />Committee Chair Dr. Varner stated for the benefit of the new Councilmembers he is going to <br />give a really quick background as far as the Council is concerned. The Consent Decree, when it <br />was signed, did not have a Council signature on it anywhere. That is something that has to be <br />noted, nor does it have an ordinance in support of it. When the Mayor decided to sign it, it was <br />an executive session where the Public Works Director at the time asked the Council to pass a <br />resolution in support of clean water. No Councilmember in the twenty (20) years this has gone <br />on was involved in any of the discussions. The original proposal was that once we got to the four <br />(4) year deadline, we would have this review. With regard to what has transpired recently, there <br />is a number of people alarmed at the size of the costs and have encouraged the Administration to <br />go back and take a serious look at this project. Carrying this out to the five (5) year deadline for <br />review makes absolute sense. It looks like there has been progress but there is a lot more the <br />Councilmembers will need to know as this progresses. <br />Committeemember Oliver Davis asked about the other benchmarks besides the median income <br />and asked Mr. Fahey to elaborate on that. <br />Mr. Fahey responded that at the moment the proposed legislation says that they must consider <br />other alternatives. Some of the new things looked at could include the personal income tax <br />collected, the bond rating of the City, the unemployment rate relative to the national average and <br />a few other criteria. We have not really assessed which would be most beneficial to the City <br />