08-28-61 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilman Lehman stated that the South Bend Civic Planning Association had presented a letter which they wished read) and he directed the Clerk to read the following letter: Common Council City of South Bend South Bend, Indiana Gentlemen: August 26, 1961 Our analysis of the proposed 1962 Civil City budget points out that there has been, in the majority of instances, a very definite attempt to hold the line even to the point of seeming to cut salaries in one department. From conversations with officials we understand the studies by the administration and you will result in reductions which you all hope will bring proposed tax rate to the current rate. All of you are certainly to be commended for this. The difficulty of the tax payers to meet even present costs was definitely indicated by the proportionately lowered spring tax payments. The fact that you have already authorized borrowing funds to meet current operating costs indicates the need for continuing review of budgets with an eye to further savings. It is unfortunate that the elimination of certain budgets in the sum of $250,000.00 has been somewhat offset by new items and programs, some of which are required by law. As examples the legal requirement to budget for firemen and policemen eligible to go on pension and the longevity pay in these two departments, the new Fair Employment Practices Commission budget, and the $70,000 for taxes and'surveys in the Urban Redevelopment budget. I This brings up a particular point which has not yet been explained in all the newspaper coverage of the economic and planning surveys, and that is why these surveys are not under the City Plan Commission. They are stated to tie in with the parking survey which was made possible by the Tribune and was specifically requested to be placed under the Plan Commission. The City P1an'Commission has recently completed a master plan for the city and it would seem that a Comprehensive Planning Survey should follow from these and be a part of them. The City Planning Commission has representatives of the, Park and School Boards as well as the County Commissioners and the City Engineer, and the Council itself, and has been in existence for a much longer period of time. If the newer organiza- tion is going to take over so much of the planning it raises the question of do we have one too many boards and /or staffs? The decision by the city administration to purchase gas, oil, tires and tubes, batteries on'a bid basis seems to have already effected savings, if our study of expenditures for the first six months for these items is a criteria. We have compared these expenses for the first six months with the first six months as well as all of 1960. While it is not possible to make a definite recommendation as to specific savings at this time because we feel a full years experience will be a better test. We call this to your attention so that you too can be studying this as you seem to have done, and to be doing, on many of the city operations. We have noted, however, that some departments budget the same and sometimes larger amounts, without regard to actual spending experience. In the matter of the Street Department we note very heavy expense for the balance of 1961 and suggest this may acco in part for the 5C tax rate. We hope any reductions in Street Department expenditures for the balance of 1961 and for 1962 do not call for another year or two of no street sealing or patching. The $32,000.00 item changed from Jefferson bridge repair, at our request, to sealing and patching is listed in the budget at sealing only. If this covers patching under the one item then the city should, if it has not already, immediately begin work on this much needed program. The Park Department reduction is due in great part to a $40,000.00 gift during 1961 which was added to the current budget. We do not, recall this every being brought before the Council for appropriation before being spent and wonder if not, why not. We know the Park Board may rearrange its budget after the Council has appropriated it, but can they also increase it without Council approval or action? We also think a study should be made of fees for adult recreati4 such as dancing and bridge lessons. There should be a nominal fee for this just as there is for the materials used b; the small youngsters in the parks.' We intend to call this to the attention of the School officials since the school budget calls ..for $71,000.00 recreation budget in addition to the item in the city budget. Once again we find a change in budget procedure by Urban Redevelopment, This raises the point of just exactly how much is being spent by this department. In 1961 the total budget approved by the Council was $98,609 of which $46,000 was from federal funds (shown in the computation of the tax rate). There were some carryover items and a "no appropriation account" totalling $14,365.69 which is more than half of the $23,443.00 shown as spent in the first six month and leaves a difference of $9,077.31 is actually spent from the $98,609. If we add the $31,000 the Director says they will spend for the last six months of 1961 we have a total of $40,077.31 for the year. The 1961 budget total of $98,609 listed total personal services of $81,620. The 1962 budget total proposed at $150,360 lists personal services of $47,510 a reduction of $34,110. Why? The 1962 budget lists $15,000 for taxes. Why? The 1962 rate computation shows no credit for federal aid. Why? Does the administration or the Council know the total cost of this program? Should the budget carry the total amoun to be spent, with credits, if any, from federal or state? We believe the total of all items should be shown just as the committee of citizens recommended to the previous administration and council in the matter of elected officials salaries. After all, the tax payer is paying whether it be through local; federal or state taxes, and he should know just how much. If the Council has not already obtained this information we suggest they request it for them- selves as well as the public. The Tribune's leadership in financing the parking survey and assurance of obtaining half the financing of the proposed economic survey are commendable. We do believe must of this latter information should be already available in view of the booklet "Current Market Data" published annually by the newspaper, and it brings up the question of just how much of a survey is needed in this area. We.have a Master Plan for the city, a condensation of the Comprehensive Plan and the currently -in- progress Parking Survey, all done under the City Plan Commission. We have two surveys of the proposed city office building and propos.. ed city service building prepared under the Building Authority. And now a third city commission is asking to set up two surveys of the downtown and downtown fringe. Perhaps our greatest need is making one set of officials fully responsible for coordinating just what we already have, telling officials and citizens what may be necessary to com- plete the picture and what it may cost, and then all work together to get it. Good government does not automatically call for great expenditures. It does require careful management of available resources, and recognizing the ability of the people to meet the needs. We, like you, are trying to accomplish this