Mayor Yoder's Cozy Deal

[goatfootedballoonman]

I was a little surprised at the description of the \"grant\" program for reimbursement of expenses related to the attainment of \"Shovel Ready\" status. Is it truly only available for application after the fact? It's great that they have program to assist communities in the work. But it's not a very budget friendly or fiscally responsible way to run the ship at the community level and I think it could keep communities from participating. It's a bit of a gamble.

Matt, I would guess that the reason for making the grant available only after Shovel Ready status has been attained is to avoid reimbursing communities for expenses that don't ultimately result in a Shovel Ready designation. Other grants operate on the same basis: You have to have incurred expenses and met certain goals before you receive any money. As a result, there is some risk involved.

[matt_s]

Matt, I would guess that the reason for making the grant available only after Shovel Ready status has been attained is to avoid reimbursing communities for expenses that don't ultimately result in a Shovel Ready designation. Other grants operate on the same basis: You have to have incurred expenses and met certain goals before you receive any money. As a result, there is some risk involved.

I have no problem with payment after the expense is incurred. However, I think it would be pretty simple to set up a project pre-approval process whereby communities can apply for the grant based on a submitted timeline and scope of project. Once approved they would have a fixed period (obviously longer than the proposal in order to account for unforeseen problems) to apply. Once completed, they submit the certification for approval and receive the reimbursement. Any community that fails to finish their project in the allotted time forfeits their award and the money can be given to another project.

[goatfootedballoonman]

I have no problem with payment after the expense is incurred. However, I think it would be pretty simple to set up a project pre-approval process whereby communities can apply for the grant based on a submitted timeline and scope of project. Once approved they would have a fixed period (obviously longer than the proposal in order to account for unforeseen problems) to apply. Once completed, they submit the certification for approval and receive the reimbursement. Any community that fails to finish their project in the allotted time forfeits their award and the money can be given to another project.

Sounds like a good idea to me. There are lots of grants with similar parameters.

[Mike_Walter]

That said, if your position is that no private property owners seeking Shovel Ready certification should be assisted with public funds, regardless of their occupation, I respect that. I disagree with it, but I sympathize with that position much more than I do the position of denying only the Mayor that privilege.

I think I've made it pretty clear: 1) The program is bad policy. Period. 2) Property owners should repay the money when their property sells. 3) It was Mayor Yoder's responsibility to demand a reimbursement provision, and he's benefiting from his failure to do so.

Our economic situation certainly is grave, but I don’t believe the use of public funds to make private (or soon-to-be public) land more attractive to prospective businesses is either unreasonable or imprudent. I’m curious about your opinion of programs like the Community Economic Development Fund that uses Federal CDBG funds to purchase equipment or fund real estate improvements for businesses that hire 51% or more low- to moderate-income employees; or of municipalities using TIF funds to do the same thing (only without the LMI requirement); or of the State making grants to companies to assist them in training their workforce. Do you think the government should forsake entirely such involvements in economic development? (I don’t necessarily want to start another debate with that question; I’m just curious about your stance.)

Haven't given this much thought. I try to deal with what comes before the Council for a vote. I will say this, however: Anything that entangles government so completely with the fortunes of a particular business that it interferes with the enactment and enforcement of reasonable environmental and occupational health and safety rules is bad.

Mike, you’ve stated your position eloquently and convincingly. We have fundamental differences on this topic, but you’ve been consistent, and I respect that. Now I humbly offer this advice: If you can’t convince the council to revoke their assent to the Mayor’s and others’ certifications that you oppose, you might at least ensure that the City only pursues the State’s Shovel Ready designation and not the redundant “site certification program” offered by the Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership, unless the NIRP certification can be achieved at no additional cost. As far as I can tell, the NIRP program offers no advantage over the State program, and the State program at least offers the possibility of partial reimbursement with a grant.

I can't ensure anything where City policy is concerned. The Council isn't exactly a disinterested jury. As the "Loyal Opposition," I can only point to the majority's mistakes and to alternatives that should have been considered but were not. If Mayor Yoder failed to inform us of an alternative to the DCEDP program, then that's another strike against his stewardship in this matter.