My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-26-71 Council Meeting Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
1971
>
07-26-71 Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2013 9:14:15 AM
Creation date
7/17/2013 8:34:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Council Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
7/26/1971
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 1971 <br />COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (Continued) <br />ORDINANCE (Continued) <br />Mr. James A. Bickel, City Controller, stated that after passage of the ordinance, time will be <br />allowed for publication of the budget. Miss Guthrie stated tax increases went from 16% in 1957 <br />to 70% in 1968. South Bend is the city with the seventh highest tax bill among cities of com- <br />parable size - $350,000 or 164 on the rate. This she felt was unfair. Council President Laven <br />stated that the public hearings on salaries was being held right now and the implication that <br />this ordinance is unfair was unfounded. Mr. Kenneth Buhle, Business Representative for 400 City <br />workers with Teamsters Local #364 of Indiana, 6,000 strong, stated that the 1.4% merit increase <br />to teachers comes out over a 5% increase. Mr. Buhle presented the following letter: <br />of " <br />"TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, SOUTH BEND COMMON COUNCIL: July 26, 1971 <br />The Teamsters Local Union No. 364 of South Bend, Indiana, Mr. Roland <br />Wardlow, President, would like to go on record as favoring the Wage <br />and Salary Committee's recommendation of a 5% increase to all South Bend <br />City Workers. We are in favor of the 5% figure not because it is what <br />we asked for in negotiations or what we truly believe to be a decent wage <br />settlement but because we feel realistically this was the limit that could <br />be approved at this time. <br />The 5% figure in no way represents a pay increase or an increase in buy- <br />ing power to the City Employee. It is unlikely to even cover the pro- <br />jected cost -of- living for the year 1971. Public Employees trade at the <br />same market place as do all other employees in the private sector. They <br />have been hit by the same runaway inflation that others in the private <br />sector have experienced. They are entitled to at least an increase that <br />protects what they already have. <br />We know there are many people who suffer from rising inflation and those <br />on a fixed income suffer most, but even Social Security has been in- <br />creased greatly in the last year and now has a built -in cost -of- living <br />to insure the retiree against inflation. <br />A point for the taxpayer to consider is that the City, in order to perform <br />its duties, has to compete against private industry for its manpower. If <br />the City is forced or badgered into paying substandard wages, the only <br />losers will be the taxpayers themselves because substandard wages usually <br />bring substandard performance. <br />In closing, I again would like to support the 5% wage increase recommended <br />by the fees and salary committee as the rock bottom figure -- well within <br />the Presidential Guidelines for non - inflationary settlements. <br />Thank you for your consideration on this subject. <br />Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers <br />Local Union No. 364" <br />Mrs. F. S. Wlodarski, 1869 Riverside Drive, South Bend, Indiana, Member of the St. Joseph County <br />Fair Tax Board, submitted the following letter: <br />it July 26, 1971" <br />"TO: Members of the South Bend Common Council <br />RE: Proposed Salary Ordinance for 1972 <br />Gentlemen and Mrs. Allen: <br />In considering the above - identified ordinance, we urge you to keep <br />in mind the bond appropriations made throughout the year, rising costs <br />of welfare, and in particular, the Portage Township poor relief <br />situation. <br />We feel the proposed 5% increase is not in line with the ordinances <br />passed by contiguous cities and the County. <br />We recommend: <br />1. A 3% or cost of living increase for the deserving civil <br />city employee in the lower half of the salary bracket. <br />2. Freeze or lower incomes over $14,000.00 for some uniformity <br />for comparable work and responsibility. Remember some of our taxpayers' <br />incomes are at the poverty level. <br />3. Consider consolidating some department heads' positions <br />with assistants. <br />4. Allow no new personnel. <br />Due to the failure of the state legislators to provide tax relief <br />for the property owner, it is encumbent upon our City Council to help <br />provide that relief. This can only be accomplished by curtailing <br />expenditures at every level. <br />Yours very truly, <br />/s/ Faith A. Martin, Secretary <br />ST. JOSEPH COUNTY FAIR TAX ASS, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.