08-29-06 Community & Economic Development

Home Browse Search

COMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 2006 Conznzon Council -Tuesday, August 29, 2004 - 6: 00 p. n~. PROJECT FUTURE FUNDING Attendance: Councilmember'sKehy, Puzzello, Kirsits, Kuspa, Pfeifer, President Rouse, and Citizen Member Marty Wolfson Others in Attendance: Chuck Bradford, Rita Kopala, Martha Lewis, Sharon Kendall, John Daly, Greg Jones, Mayor Luecke, Jamie Loo -South Bend Tribune, City Clerk John Voarde Chairman Roland Kelly, started the meeting at 6:00, stating the purpose of the session was to discuss past, present, and future funding levels for Project Future. In the past by resolution the Council agreed to contribute $110,000 per year towaxd Project Future. Fnr 2007 through 2011 the Council has been asked to increase the amount of annual support by $10,000 to $120,000. Citizen Member Wolfson suggested that Project Futuxe needed to justify the reasons for the increase. He felt the Council needed to know more about Project Future i.e.}their mission, goals, objectives, accomplishments, performance measures, and overall budget. Chairman Kelly and President Rouse agreed, stating communication between the Council and Project Future was key. The current perception that there is not enough info coming from Project Future was problematic for the Council as they try to develop an understanding of and support for Project future stated President Rouse. Sharon Kendall, Executive Director of South Bend's Community & Economic Development Department rose to explain and defend the important role Project Future has played partnering with the city and other keystone groups building Metronet, and their future commitment to developing Innovation Park, a proposed high-tech paxk near Notre Dame. Citizen Member Marty Wolfson maintained that the Council needs mare information before it can make an informed decision whether the dollars are being well spent. Roland Kelly asked Sharon Kendall to expand on the role Project Future plays in the very competitive arena of economic development. Kendall described Project Future as a source point of infoxmation about the community far those interested in making an economic investment in the area. Project Future has the data base, the contacts, and the expertise in economic development to respond quickly and effectively when opportunities are presented. As a result of Project Future serves as the best marketer of the economic advantages of locating here. Partnering with the city, Project Future serves to effectively promote and broker potential economic investment. John Daly expressed concern that what Project Future promotes may not reflect what people want i.e.} Tandu. More communication, even in light of typical confidentiality requirements, was seen as necessary. Roland Kelly said it would be a mistake to cut support to Project Future when investment in economic development so critical to the area. Kirsits stated a need for more Project Future budget information. Namely, where does their money come from and where does it go. Pfeifer questioned the advisability and length of future financial commitment to Project Future given Project Future's apparent lack of accountability.