Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting — August 28, 2014 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) <br />B. Northeast Neighborhood Development Area <br />(1) continued <br />in 2014). Part of the value of TIF is its ability to be responsive to business opportunities as <br />they present themselves. <br />Mr. Inks concurred but wondered if there would be value in deciding up front that the first <br />"x" amount would be used by Redevelopment, but the remainder be released to other <br />jurisdictions. <br />Mr. Ford agreed that this issue should be part of the conversation on City finances—cannot <br />think of TIF in isolation. So, if there are ways we can address all City needs together <br />particularly items relating to economic development —such as infrastructure costs —we <br />certainly are willing to do so in the name of fiscal stewardship. <br />Mr. Rompola added the AV which is created can sometimes be used as an incentive for <br />creating the AV in the first place —as was done in the South Side Development Area. <br />Dr. Varner stated this is the kind of discussion needed. To the administration's credit, we are <br />currently using a benchmark of approximately 15% for the maximum City investment in <br />projects. An additional discussion needs to include items such as: should we use TIF to <br />support a project that's in the pipeline or use TIF to drive projects which are not there yet. <br />One is a direct benefit, the other is speculative in nature. Historically, cities do not seem to <br />be too good at speculation. And, if we decide we are using the funds exclusively for the <br />direct benefit project then we could look at capping the TIF as suggested by Mr. Inks. <br />Initially, Redevelopment was set up to spend bond proceeds as approved by Council or grant <br />money, etc., not necessarily to approve speculative projects. All these issues are part of the <br />discussion which needs to occur —which is why he believes the proposed timeline is <br />constrained. <br />Consideration of Resolution No. 3228 — Upon motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Inks <br />and a majority approval, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3228 designating and <br />declaring certain areas as redevelopment areas and adding certain territory from the South <br />Bend Central Development Area for the purpose of amending the boundaries of the <br />Northeast Neighborhood Development Area and the Northeast Neighborhood Development <br />Area Allocation Area No. 1 and approving an amendment to the Development Plan for said <br />area. Ms. Schey cast a dissenting vote stating that it is because the geographic area of the <br />TIF has increased. She looks forward to the continuing discussion on the matter and may <br />change her mind at her later opportunities to vote on the issue. <br />