|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />FEBRUARY 27. 2017
<br />Councilmember Gavin Ferlic thanked everyone present for their patience and their comments.
<br />Councilmember Ferlic stated that he is completely in support of the plan, pointing out that the
<br />plan lays out more than the height of a project. He stated, It calls for mixed use, it calls for
<br />restaurants, it calls for retail, it calls for grocery, it calls for pharmacy, it calls for increased
<br />density. That's what the plan is all about. So, for me, this is an easy decision to support the plan,
<br />support the vision of the East Bank neighborhood, and look forward to having some great
<br />amenities and some great development in that area.
<br />Councilmember John Voorde stated, The more you find out, the more you think about the
<br />importance of what we are doing and the importance of getting it right. Councilmember Voorde
<br />stated that there has been a longstanding desire for a pharmacy and grocery store on the east side
<br />of the river. He contended that saying no to one - hundred and fifty (15 0) feet on the Island is not
<br />going to cripple that vision. He asked, Do we believe that the east side of the river should be
<br />unique and mixed -use? Regional Cities did. They are willing to commit $4,900,000 to a guy who
<br />says he wants to do mixed -use development. Councilmember Voorde went on to explain that the
<br />City was willing to put $5,000,000 toward the Commerce Center project and a tax abatement for
<br />ten (10) years instead. This, he explained, meant that if the project takes two (2) years to be built,
<br />the City would be waiting at least twelve (12) years to see any tax money back. He stated, I
<br />know that's not really on the table right now, but it ought to be, because the most important job
<br />we have as City Councilmen is to be responsible, fiscal stewards of the financial resources
<br />available to us. To put this package together and give it to a developer just because we want to
<br />keep momentum going and just because he is going to bring a supermarket and pharmacy here
<br />and a six - hundred (600) space garage —it's not the best way to go. Councilmember Voorde
<br />stated that experts in city planning have weighed in and discouraged taking this route; that Mr.
<br />Lykoudis stated that this violates so many tenets of city planning; that there are violations to the
<br />process itself of changing the vision. He stated, I think it is an irresponsible fiscal package to
<br />begin with. If you would just compare it to what I read in the paper on Sunday that's happening
<br />in Mishawaka— they're doing a tax incremental finance contribution, but they are doing it in the
<br />form of the tax incremental finance bond, and the money from that bond will replenish the tax
<br />incremental finance fund which we ought to cherish for all kinds of things we never even
<br />dreamed we could use tax incremental financing for before. Councilmember Voorde emphasized
<br />that TIF is not a bottomless pit of money, especially if $5,000,000 are given away without a
<br />return for over a twelve (12) years. He stated that he would like to make a motion to continue the
<br />bill until the next Council meeting, to have yet unheard developers and other experts speak on
<br />the matter of this text amendment to the Council and public.
<br />Councilmember Oliver Davis stated, We should not be stuck in the past. We can move forward.
<br />Councilmember Davis stated that he sees no reason to have another meeting to discuss this bill.
<br />He also pointed out that though it might have taken Councilmember Broden four (4) months to
<br />draft the past text amendment, public discussion had not been held for four (4) months. He stated
<br />that this issue has been discussed from September of 2016 until this evening, adding, To say that
<br />we have only discussed this for eleven (11) days is to use alternative facts. It is time for us to
<br />move forward. We asked people to come to make compromises. We had meetings to make
<br />compromises. We did that. Councilmember Davis continued by stating, To want to be a
<br />developer in South Bend right now, we are really sending the message that it's going to be some
<br />tough stuff. Go to Mishawaka, go to the County —they will work with you. Come to South
<br />Bend —we give you the tenth degree. You may not want to come here. That's not good for South
<br />Bend. That may have been good when you all did it in the past, but that is not the way we need to
<br />move forward in today's world.
<br />Councilmember Karen White stated, No one will debate the support for economic
<br />development —but there's always a "but." No one will debate the need to have a grocery store or
<br />pharmacy —but there's a "but." When we talk about the vision, there's a "but." When we talk
<br />about plans, there's a "but." Councilmember White stated that the Council needs to regard this
<br />issue holistically. She asked her fellow Councilmembers that wish for another meeting, What
<br />would change? Would the outcome be different? I don't think anyone is saying throw the vision
<br />away, throw the plans away. What we are saying is that, as we begin to move forward, we have
<br />to be flexible and we have to be mindful in terms of our decisions.
<br />11
<br />
|