|
REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2018
<br /> Councilmember Davis asked, So there are no more of those that are coming before us?
<br /> Mr. Mueller stated, There could be, there could be project delays that cause it as well.
<br /> President Scott stated, We did talk about this in committee, and one (1) note that I brought up is
<br /> that since I've been on Council the last seven (7) years, we've had four (4) directors of DCI. I
<br /> think they're being proactive to try to understand and correct the policy. You can set a policy, and
<br /> there will be a basic standard that you're concerned with,and I agree with that. Then,you're going
<br /> to have to look at it on a case by case basis. Some projects go through on time, everything is by
<br /> the book and its fine. As new cases come up, they're going to be able to expand to the proper
<br /> policy.
<br /> Councilmember Ferlic stated, I agree with Councilmember Davis that any sort of policy changes
<br /> in the next month or two (2), DCI could come before Council and explain the new policy moving
<br /> forward, I think that would be beneficial.
<br /> Council President Scott explained,If they are on the books and they've been voted on by this body,
<br /> by state statute they have to come back to us and we would have to vote on those changes like we
<br /> are going to do tonight.
<br /> Councilmember Davis stated,You want everything to be caught up,but then you bring out another
<br /> good point, that how do you establish a case by case basis when we have all eleven(11)here, and
<br /> we don't have the time to actually go through each of the eleven (11) to evaluate each situation?
<br /> That's where my concern is. I'm at peace.
<br /> Councilmember Broden asked, One (1) or two (2) projects actually had no investment per your
<br /> chart and per what was submitted. Could you clarify what the actual investment going forward is,
<br /> if we were going to be granting that particular extention?
<br /> Council President Scott interjected,And these resolutions were brought forth by DCI. Each of the
<br /> stakeholders are here for support data for DCI's resolution. If anyone has any questions for them,
<br /> we can bring them up. This is different than usual because they are not the actual petitioners in
<br /> this case.
<br /> Mr. Mueller stated, Starting with the Liberty Tower, the original investment across all four (4)
<br /> pieces was roughly $30 million. They've already invested $38.5 million for the hotel and garage
<br /> components. They're estimating an additional $15 million. They've already matched their
<br /> commitment toward investment.
<br /> Councilmember Broden asked,For Imagineering Enterprises, I think it would be instructive for us
<br /> as Council as we are looking to extend this, with regard to that particular project,to note that they
<br /> didn't hit all of the marks. Going forward, what is going to be the specific level of investment?
<br /> Perhaps the individuals could address that better.
<br /> Mr. Mueller stated, For Imagineering, It's not changing the terms of the abatement at all, it's just
<br /> changing the designating period.
<br /> Councilmember Broden asked, With regard to precedent issues, and a full understanding of
<br /> additional petitioners coming before us,what is your sense? This is eleven(11),and we've already
<br /> done four(4) or five(5)previously. What are we looking at before the end of theme or in 2019?
<br /> Mr. Mueller stated, This takes care of those from 2015 and 2016, we've tried to figure out a way
<br /> forward where we don't have these moving forward. There is a time between 2017 and 2018.
<br /> We've reached out to folks,but people are always optimistic that they won't need to make a change
<br /> before their deadline is here, so there are probably a few more that may come. There are actually
<br /> a few delays that the projects might encounter. You look at the results of all of these abatements
<br /> and the growth of downtown investment, these projects wouldn't happen without the incentives.
<br /> Booms and busts have come and gone and South Bend hasn't seen that level of investment. From
<br /> the Administration's perspective, as long as they're hitting their investment targets and their other
<br /> substantial commitments, we'll do that every day of the week because it's a great thing for the
<br /> City. Tax abatements are only on the increase of revenue,so it should more appropriately be called
<br /> tax phase ins, because you're not losing any revenue. These projects wouldn't have happened,
<br /> and we wouldn't be abating anything because nothing would have been generated. For these
<br /> projects, we're losing zero (0) tax dollars, but adding over time. Council, over time, has
<br /> demonstrated that they believe in this, too, and that these are wins for our community.
<br />
|