My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1 RDC Packet 12.19.22
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Agendas & Packets
>
2022
>
12.19.22
>
1 RDC Packet 12.19.22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/15/2022 5:35:45 PM
Creation date
12/15/2022 5:35:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting – December 8, 2022 <br />Matt Barrett, a resident, asked for a sense of the difference between the interest <br />rate of just a TIF bond and a general obligation bond. <br />Emma Adlam, Baker Tilly stated the interest rate difference would be if we did a <br />pure TIF fund or if we did the property tax backup bond issue. The pure TIF bond <br />for the tax-exempt public infrastructure project we were estimating around 6 ¼% <br />true interest cost and for this bond issue with the backup we are estimating around <br />5.45%. <br />Matt Barrett asked why two parking garages. Is there a cost difference. <br />Mr. Bauer states one of the garages would be a cast-in-place garage which would <br />include housing built on top of it. The other parking garage would just be a pre- <br />cast garage. Part of the reason for the garages is different amenities in each <br />block. Both blocks contain housing and then one block contains a health and <br />fitness center. The other contains medical office space, retail space and the sky <br />bridge over to Memorial Hospital. The larger garage could serve as parking for <br />memorial employees as well as for the residents of the housing there and those <br />utilizing the office and retail space. Then the other garage would be primarily for <br />residents of the housing units around that garage, and then people coming to the <br />Beacon health and fitness center. <br />Mr. Barrett asked about private investment. <br />Mr. Bauer stated Great Lakes Capital is the developer of the health and lifestyle <br />district. Beacon as a partner is the current property owner of the site. <br />Commissioner Wax asked if the city is anticipating being a part of the bigger <br />picture. <br />Mr. Bauer stated as part of our negotiations, we are looking at parking rates for the <br />new FTEs that are created by the tower expansion and for the employees to park <br />within one of these structures. There could be a bulk rate for employees. No TIF <br />funding is going towards the tower, but one is not successful without the other. <br />This is our full contribution. There is also $11.9M of Ready grant funds towards <br />this. The tower site wouldn’t be eligible for a tax abatement. <br />Matt Barrett asked what happens to Memorial’s current space. <br />Mr. Bauer states it is part of an on-going conversation that we are having but there <br />is no news to share. We are having active conversations. <br />Commissioner Sallie suggests inviting a representative from Beacon to come and <br />present what they are thinking of doing with the vacant space when the health and <br />lifestyle center is moved on campus. That way we don’t speculate what will be. <br />Mr. Bauer states that we would be happy to reach out and invite them but they will <br />not have an answer but we can invite them in the first quarter of 2023.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.