|
REGULAR MEETING January 14, 2019
<br /> twenty, thirty, forty percent (20%, 30%, 40%). You know, initially, we issued a $5 million parks
<br /> bond. I love parks but then we increased it to $50 million. Sometimes it has to be about priorities
<br /> and infrastructure needs to be a priority. But when you have, and I think Notre Dame's most recent
<br /> ALICE Study that just came out showed a forty-three percent (43%) working poor rate, until we
<br /> know what those lifeline rates will be and what those thresholds will be, it's hard to say, hey, let's
<br /> go forward with this and we will work out all the details later. How about we have all the details
<br /> first(1St),and then approve or not approve a measure? Because,not only that,we are going to hear
<br /> again that we don't have the money for this or that project. As Councilmember Davis stated, we
<br /> don't know what the CSO bill will be. But I expect, in the coming months, we are going to hear
<br /> from this Administration, hey, we've got $100 million to move the train station downtown. So
<br /> again, what are our priorities? What are our needs and what are our wants? We seem to have put
<br /> a lot of money on our credit card for our wants and not our needs, and now we are paying enough
<br /> on interest, so we don't have money to cover our basic needs, so the answer has not been going to
<br /> our best and brightest to cut back a little bit instead of our asking citizens to. No, they come out
<br /> with their hand out again and say, hey, let's just tax a little bit more money when we are already
<br /> the second (2nd)highest taxed County, income-wise in the State, and tied for the highest property-
<br /> taxed County in the State. These are not things to be proud of Again,until we have more answers,
<br /> it's not fair to move forward with this today. To say these lifeline rates are going to be great, we
<br /> don't know what they are yet. How can we go forward with it until we know what it is?
<br /> Sue Kesim, 4022 Kennedy Drive, South Bend, IN, stated, I've watched this Council for three (3)
<br /> and a half years. I've watched you give millions upon millions in TIF dollars to private developers.
<br /> The original purpose of TIF, the very original purpose of creating TIF was for infrastructure.
<br /> Infrastructure means sewers, water, streets, public safety, things like the Century Center. We've
<br /> been dealing with CSO, Combined Sewer Overflow for ten(10) years now. $150 million has been
<br /> spent on CSO. Shouldn't CSO have solved a lot of these problems? This proposes to bring in $1.2
<br /> million a year but will require a $600,000 new software program to handle the differentiation in
<br /> the fees since it will not be applied to everyone evenly. Forty percent (40%), as Jason mentioned,
<br /> are designated as struggling, actually forty-three percent(43%). We have a lot of seniors in South
<br /> Bend who are on a fixed income. We have a lot of people minimum wage and waiters, when you
<br /> say twenty-four dollars ($24), how many more tables is a waiter or waitress going to have to bus
<br /> to pay that? I mean, you need to think at street-level. I think there is a priority setting problem.
<br /> Infrastructure and citizens, first (1St). I think you need to find the funding elsewhere other than
<br /> putting one(1)more thing on the citizens. Cut back on abatements. Hundreds of millions of dollars
<br /> have been given in abatements. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been given in TIF. And yet,
<br /> here we are supposed to add onto the citizens for their monthly expenses. To me, that is
<br /> unconscionable. You know, you seem to be willing to vote for any request that comes by and I just
<br /> think it's the wrong priority. I say through the fourteen (14) budget hearings, as you know, I just
<br /> feel the priorities aren't straight. I think you need to go back to the drawing board and find a
<br /> different way to fund this that doesn't involve, once again, pickpocketing the citizens' wallet.
<br /> Jennifer Robinson, 3902 Greenmont Drive, South Bend, IN, stated, I'm here tonight about the
<br /> water. I also believe our TIF funds should have been used for our water. We have also been giving
<br /> a lot of abatements I don't agree with. It seems like we are giving millionaires tax abatements that
<br /> are not needed. I also called around to the other utilities, even Chicago is less than what we pay
<br /> for delivery. It doesn't matter whether we use five dollars ($5) worth of water or ten dollars ($10)
<br /> worth of water, my water bill is still high because of the delivery fee. Chicago's is twenty-nine
<br /> dollars and forty-nine cents ($29.49). I called Niles and theirs was very low as well, Mishawaka's
<br /> is low, Osceola's is lower than ours. The only one (1) closest to us was Buchanan and theirs was
<br /> thirty dollars and forty-four cents($30.44)for the people with the non-meter. I hope you also,what
<br /> Sue said, look at your budget and try to figure out another way to pay for this instead of charging
<br /> people in the County and the City for this. Our seniors can't afford it and people on minimum
<br /> wage can't afford it either. Whether twenty-four dollars ($24) sounds like a lot to you all, I know
<br /> you probably make more than most of the people here, but it is a lot of money. Thank you.
<br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to defeat Bill No. 61-18. This motion failed with the
<br /> lack of a second.
<br /> 18
<br />
|