Debate Continued
He cited that a development would cost the city money in services it must provide to an area and losing half the income tax revenue to help pay for these services could make it fiscally risky for the city.
?“It raises the question of whether this agreement would make commercial development a losing proposition and put us in a negative situation,?” said Wisniewski.
Councilman Mike Sabatino said the proposal has several points not in the best interest of the city, including the annexation restrictions and the elimination of the city?’s right to conform its own boundaries. He said he?’d ?“hate to see us giving away income tax?” which could result in the need to raise taxes for the rest of the citizens to make up for the loss of revenues.
Councilman Ted Hackworth said the proposal, ?“walks away from our growth management plan, which defines our expected development revenues. Looking at our budget, I?’m not sure we have the resources to do huge economic development outside of our borders.?”
However, Councilman Keith Smith said there is no actual economic development agreement before council and therefore nothing concrete to debate.
?“We need a starting point,?” said Smith, who said there have been several versions of the agreement floating around. ?“We need to see a document that all seven council members can consider. I don?’t know if all seven council members have even seen the same document.?”
Questioning the process
Councilman Jeff Fix, who did not attend the finance committee meeting due to a prior engagement, has been the city?’s representative in the economic development agreement talks with Violet Township, a fact that also generated criticism.
Wisniewski indicated that maybe having one council member doing the negotiations on behalf of the city was the wrong approach, noting that type of task normally falls to the city manager, development director or law director. He added that he would prefer that any further discussion regarding an economic development agreement with Violet Township be conducted in public.
?©2005 Messenger Newspapers
He cited that a development would cost the city money in services it must provide to an area and losing half the income tax revenue to help pay for these services could make it fiscally risky for the city.
?“It raises the question of whether this agreement would make commercial development a losing proposition and put us in a negative situation,?” said Wisniewski.
Councilman Mike Sabatino said the proposal has several points not in the best interest of the city, including the annexation restrictions and the elimination of the city?’s right to conform its own boundaries. He said he?’d ?“hate to see us giving away income tax?” which could result in the need to raise taxes for the rest of the citizens to make up for the loss of revenues.
Councilman Ted Hackworth said the proposal, ?“walks away from our growth management plan, which defines our expected development revenues. Looking at our budget, I?’m not sure we have the resources to do huge economic development outside of our borders.?”
However, Councilman Keith Smith said there is no actual economic development agreement before council and therefore nothing concrete to debate.
?“We need a starting point,?” said Smith, who said there have been several versions of the agreement floating around. ?“We need to see a document that all seven council members can consider. I don?’t know if all seven council members have even seen the same document.?”
Questioning the process
Councilman Jeff Fix, who did not attend the finance committee meeting due to a prior engagement, has been the city?’s representative in the economic development agreement talks with Violet Township, a fact that also generated criticism.
Wisniewski indicated that maybe having one council member doing the negotiations on behalf of the city was the wrong approach, noting that type of task normally falls to the city manager, development director or law director. He added that he would prefer that any further discussion regarding an economic development agreement with Violet Township be conducted in public.
?©2005 Messenger Newspapers
