02-23-09 Common Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2009 maintains that there is other property available that the City could buy at a later date and just hold off. This doesn’t need to happen right now. She stated that she would sign paperwork right now and say that she will sell her land when the City is ready and she knows that the guy that owns the property south of her is shopping his property around that has no buildings on it that would have to be torn down. His name is Joe Lichtner; he owns 18 acres and blow straight through. She stated that the City is jumping the gun on this, there are plenty of people who have land there who would sell it much cheaper because there are no buildings on the property. She stated that the City is jumping the gun and haven’t done the homework and this is a huge mistake. Kathie Bieschke, 24440 Adams Road, South Bend, Indiana, stated that the point that Ms. Jentz is making that this is not a rush, rush deal. She stated that there is only one building out their at Portage Prairie and it is only being half used by a company that needed some overflow storage/warehouse space. She stated that there is not a line of businesses rushing to build in Portage Prairie, so why spend the money on this kind of project now. Rita Kopala, 66559 Ivy Road, Lakeville, Indiana, stated that she is opposed to this bill. Jerry Niezgodski, 2930 Bonds Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he knows that this is a forgone conclusion, but he still wants to know why the City is using TIF money for this instead of Major Moves money. He stated that according to the Mayor’s description of what Major Moves is to be used for is ideal for this type of development. He stated that the money should not be used from TIF. In Rebuttal, Mr. Inks clarified the question asked by Councilmember Rouse about remonstrators, he assumed that the meeting in question was the appropriation hearing at the beginning of this year, not going back to June of 2008, when the Redevelopment Commission expanded the area to include Portage Prairie, so if the meeting in question was the Portage Prairie expansion meeting in June, Mr. Zmyslo is correct, there were several remonstrators there. If the meeting in question was the appropriation meeting held earlier this year, in which they set aside funds for this project, he stated that he doesn’t recall any remonstrators being for there at that meeting. Councilmember Rouse stated that he was asking about the $350,000 that was appropriated from TIF money in the Redevelopment Commission. He stated that he was speaking specifically of that issue. Mr. Inks noted that to answer the question regarding TIF versus Major Moves money, is that City policy states that they keep the principle amount of Major Moves money and just use the interest coming off of that to fund projects. In this case because the benefit if for a TIF area, and when the agreement with Holladay was initially put into place, it was envisioned using TIF money, it seems appropriate at this point to proceed on the original basis with the exception that the state law had changed and cannot use TIF money initially, so they went to use the Major Moves money on a very short interim basis and then use the TIF to reimburse it, thus conserving the major moves principal, that is consistent with City policy and also for fulfilling the intended use of TIF per the agreement of almost a year ago that that would be the source of funding for this property. Mr. Rouse stated that there seems to be some confusion, as he understands what they are talking about, the Redevelopment Commission had entered into some type of agreement or negotiation with Holladay Corp. to purchase this property. Mr. Inks stated yes, that is correct. Mr. Rouse stated that then later the TIF money would be used after Major Moves would reimburse them for the investment that they have already made in the property. Is that correct. Mr. Inks stated that in general that is correct, the Commission did have an agreement with Holladay that dates back to February 2008, that was at a time when the law allowed the Commission to amend its development areas without going throughout any other 21