My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-25-08 Redevelopment Commission Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
06-25-08 Redevelopment Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2008 11:45:59 AM
Creation date
7/21/2008 2:27:25 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Rescheduled Regular Meeting -June 25, 2008 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) <br />A. Public Hearing <br />(1) continued... <br />speculatively but is fully leased. He noted <br />that in addition to the aforementioned $SOM <br />of TIF revenue expected to be generated by <br />this large project, it is also projected to <br />generate $ l OM in county income tax and <br />$4. SM in hotel motel taxes by 2022. <br />Mr. Blake asked what cost to the city is <br />expected over the next fourteen years in <br />order for the Portage Prairie project to <br />generate the revenue Mr. Perri just <br />mentioned. Dr. Varner responded that Gary <br />Gilot has estimated $30M in expenses for <br />roads and sewers. <br />Ms. Jones opened the Public Hearing on <br />Substitute Resolution No. 2456 for whoever <br />wished to speak. <br />MR. WOLFSON: Marty Wolfson, 809 Park <br />Avenue, South Bend. I just want to say that <br />my testimony today is representative of the <br />viewpoint of the coordinating committee of <br />the Community Forum for Economic <br />Development. The decision today, there's a <br />tendency to think of it as a costless decision <br />that we'll really have to do it to get it in <br />before the July 1 deadline, that there's no real <br />money being committed at this point. In a <br />sense, that's certainly true. But I think there <br />are some real costs to this. Although no <br />additional money is being committed over <br />and above the $1.6M spent on Dylan Drive <br />already, the representatives of Holladay <br />Corporation have made clear that they intend <br />to come back to the Redevelopment <br />PUBLIC HEARING ON SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION <br />No. 2456 <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.