HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-29-06 Community & Economic DevelopmentCOMMUNITYAND 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.
She wondered about Project Future's efforts to create jobs for the inner-city, far the
people who most need them. Pfeifer also suggested along-term financial commitment
sometimes breeds an "entitlement attitude" further compromising accountability and
responsiveness. Greg Jones, representing labor, challenged Project Future to
communicate its focus for the future so that other groups could better position themselves
to assist economic development efforts. At Councilmember Kelly's request, the Mayor
made closing comments. He spoke to the value of this discussion underlining the need to
align our vision of the economic future of the area.
Councilmember Kelly adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfizlly submitted,
~l elly, Cl~la~rpers
Community and Economic D velopment Committee