Resident Jennifer Neuffer appeals Penn Township assistance denial; commissioners affirm township

At the St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners meeting on May 19, resident Jennifer Neuffer appealed Penn Township’s denial of township assistance, telling the commissioners she supplied tax and unemployment documentation and disputing the township’s finding that she had “wasted resources.”

Neuffer said she applied for rent and utility assistance and that she had given her son $1,600 in January but that the township’s denial letter incorrectly called that a recent waste of funds. “I applied for township assistance, for rent, assistance at the time, and electrical assistance,” Neuffer said. “...I sent him $1,600, and she said that I wasted funds within the last 30 days. I didn't do that.” She also described living in an inhabitable unit lacking proper ventilation and said she was pursuing landlord remedies.

A township representative, identifying herself as Jennifer from the Penn Township Trustees Office, told the commissioners the office denied the application for three reasons: the household’s gross income exceeded the township’s eligibility guideline for a household of three (the township’s stated threshold was $2,277 gross for the prior 30 days), a $1,600 tax‑refund payment to the applicant’s son was treated as a nonhousehold use or “wasted resource,” and the applicant’s court record indicated eviction status. The Penn Township representative said the office prorates tax refunds across three months when calculating income, and that, using the applicant’s declared unemployment and a prorated portion of her tax refund, the township calculated a 30‑day gross of $3,443.67, over the guideline. She also said Mishawaka Utilities records showed an outstanding balance of $519.29 at the relevant time.

Neuffer rebutted that she paid her bills after receiving tax refunds and that the $1,600 was sent in January before she fell behind. She said she could provide bank statements showing the payment date. “I have the receipt of my bank statement that shows me paying him $1,600 in January,” Neuffer said.

Commissioners questioned both sides about the period used for income calculation (30 days versus prorating a tax refund over three months), the source documents (tax papers and unemployment paperwork), and whether the existence of eviction proceedings documented online precluded township assistance. After the exchange, a commissioner moved to affirm the township’s decision; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote, affirming the denial of assistance.

The hearing record contains competing factual claims: Neuffer said the payment to her son occurred earlier than the township’s look‑back window and that her bills were paid when she received her tax refunds; Penn Township staff said their documentation and prorated calculations showed the household exceeded eligibility and that the refund funds were not used solely for household necessities. The board’s action was to affirm the township’s decision; the commissioners did not order a rehearing or remand in this session.

The commissioner action was procedural and final for this meeting: the township denial was affirmed and recorded on the meeting minutes. The meeting moved on to other agenda items after the vote.