05-24-71 Council Meeting Minutes
Common Council Meeting Minutes
05-24-71 Council Meeting Minutes
7/17/2013 9:12:51 AM
7/16/2013 4:06:15 PM
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Council Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING - RECONVENED <br />Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, reconvened in the <br />Council Chambers in the County City Building on Monday, May 24, 1971, at 9:01 P. M. The meeting <br />was called to order by Council President Robert 0. Laven, who presided. <br />REPORT FROM COMMITTEE ON MINUTES <br />To the Common Council of the City of South Bend: <br />Your Committee on the inspection and supervision of the minutes would respectfully report that <br />they have inspected the minutes of May 10, 1971 meeting of the Council and found them correct. <br />They therefore recommend that the same be approved. <br />/s/ Robert 0. Laven <br />Isl Janet S. Allen <br />Isl Albert E. Palmer <br />There being no objections, the report was accepted as read and placed on file. <br />CITIZENS REQUESTS - MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS <br />Council President Laven introduced County Councilmen Richard Larrison and Al E. Paszek. In,re- <br />sponse to Mr. Laven's statements regarding the County Council's position to withhold additional <br />appropriations, Mr. Larrison read the following letter: <br />"Miss Allen and Gentlemen of the Council: <br />I am Richard Larrison, member of the St. Joe County Council. In reviewing the statement <br />made by Mr. Robert Laven on May 0, 1971 regarding MACOG, I am here to defend our position <br />in the decision to withhold additional appropriations. <br />If Mr. Laven had investigated the County Council's action on MACOG he.would have noted <br />that we did in fact have many reasons for denying MACOG additional funds at that time. <br />On several occassions the County Council sat in meetings with some of the leading citizens <br />of South Bend., The first was when Mayor Allen appeared before the County Council. He <br />was asked to look into the budget. We received his promise. But that was all -- No action. <br />The area Chamber of Commerce asked for and received a meeting with the Council. They <br />agreed that the budget was out of line and promised to see if it was possible to get <br />one that everyone could live with. Again promises -- No action. The Area Man Comm. in <br />a meeting with the County Council again agreed, but this time the Council did receive a <br />so- called revised budget. The only difference being the planner was dropped for the re- <br />maining 8 months and the rest of the budget was pro rated to the end of the year. Is this <br />what you call a completely revised budget, when in fact nothing in the budget was altered <br />in any way? <br />HUD has stated many times that MACOG could be operated very effectively with a part time <br />director. With this statement, why do we have to go all the way to Grand Rapids to pay <br />a man $16,500 for a part time job? Many feel that an elected official from one or more <br />of the member counties should run MACOG. Attorney fees are also an unnecessary item in <br />the budget. If MACOG would be operated the way it is supposed to be set up, the plans <br />will have been formulated by each county's Area Plan Comm., who already have their own <br />attorney. These two jobs alone could save the taxpayers over $20,000. <br />As for transportation -- $2,700.00 for a car, $450.00 for gasoline and $250.00 for maintain- <br />ing this car is bad enough, but to add $1,200.00 for travel expense is something else. <br />This adds up to $4,600.00 for transportation for a part time job. <br />The County Council is not opposed to MACOG, just the way it is being set up. It's orig- <br />inal intent was to be ? co ordinating agency, but it is developing into a master planning <br />agency. <br />Elected officials in several communities which are members of MACOG have stated that MACOG <br />should be reorganized to best serve everyone. <br />Mr. Laven, you stated on T.V. that the city of South Bend has a surplus of money and if <br />the County Council did not pay MACOG, the city would. Well, Mr. Laven, it seems to me <br />that if the city has such a surplus of money you would be looking for a way to cut the <br />tax rate in the city instead of working so hard to spend it. <br />As to the statement that the County Council failed to pay its share to MACOG. We have <br />already paid $7,695.00 and have supplied the working staff for MACOG through the Area <br />Plan Comm. After all who pays their salary if it's not St. Joe County. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.