10-05-10 Community & Economic Development Committee

Home Browse Search

~('~~ Z'~ Cr '~~~._ y -' L~.- ~--~. ~ra~:~: ~4' -• COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE October 5, 2010 Chairperson Timothy Rouse called the Community and Economic Development Committee meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Committee Members Present: Timothy Rouse, Ann Puzzello, Karen White (5:20 p.m.), Henry Davis (5:25 p.m.) Other Councilmember's Present: David Varner (5:15 p.m.), AI Kirsits, (5:10) Oliver Davis (5:25) Other's Present: (See Attached Sign-In Sheet) Agenda: Bill No. 61-10 Tax Abatement Filed by Project Future Chairperson Rouse noted that he and Committee Member Ann Puzzello were present. By 5:25 the other two committee members had arrived along with three other Council Members. Chairperson Rouse opened the hearing by briefly recounting the Council's efforts to craft an abatement ordinance that would both welcome new investment in the city as well as hold petitioners accountable for commitments to local hiring not only for construction; but ongoing employment as well. The Council correlates granting abatements for investments with investment in human capital. Chairperson Rouse then introduced pat McMahon head of Project future, who in turn introduced Phil Newbold who provided some framework for the business community's approach to abatements reflected in Bill No. 61-10 which he said would lay out the welcome mat for new investments, albeit with caveats for "corporate responsibility" in the community. After Newbold's opening remarks Pat McMahon distributed a four page handout summarizing the main philosophy found in the "business" bill. He described the four criteria considered for a tax "phase-in" as he preferred to describe it as opposed to abatement. The basic criteria McMahon described were 1.) the $ amount of the investment 2.) the number of jobs created 3.) the type of jobs and 4.) whether the business was currently local. Tied to these basics would be incentives for businesses to be good corporate citizens in the community. He said these "bonus opportunities" would make the bill unique in Indiana. In this approach the petitioner's benefits would have to be earned every year with comparisons made to previous year attainment. This approach would create a "carrot" for business to induce good corporate behavior. A business could only claim what it earned. It was felt this elimination of a sea of paperwork, objective criteria superseded subjective judgment and a lack of airing "dirty laundry" would create and foster a business friendly climate. To support the approach Bill No. 61-10 advocated McMahon added that petitioners should pay a living wage or they need not apply. He also suggested new businesses be given a three year grace period to get their feet under them before paybacks are counted. Further testimony of support came from Paul Cafiero speaking for the Chamber Board of Directors and Jeff Rea newly appointed leader of the Chamber of Commerce who hoped common ground and cooperation could be found.