Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Commission <br />Regular Mee �edevelopment <br />ing - September 21, 1979 <br />6. NEW BUS11NESS <br />b. (cohtinued) <br />Mr. Donaldson made a motion to approve Change <br />Order #2 with Charles Brown Maintenance Co., <br />Inc. reducing contract by $500.00, at the <br />address of 533 E. Indiana Avenue, seconded by <br />Ms. Auburn, and the motion was unanimously <br />cariried. <br />c. Co m ission a n approval requested for Resolution RESOLUTION #591 <br />#59 encouraging the Common Council of APPROVED <br />Sou h Bend, 'Indiana, to be an urban <br />dev lopment area. <br />Mr. Ellison: Members of the Commission... In its <br />last session the legislature passed a State Law <br />all wing a ten year tax abatement in certain <br />development areas which are generally described <br />as -edevelopment areas. The new statute requires <br />tha the Common Council, by resolution, designate <br />are s to be urban development areas in order that <br />a p titioner can then receive a ten year abatement <br />of roperty taxes on improvements to the property. <br />Thi abatement is based on a formula allowing for <br />1000 abatement the first year and is reduced to <br />5% batement by the tenth year. <br />The Common Council has a resolution set for action <br />on 3eptember 24, -1979 to designate the entire IND. <br />R-65 area as an urban development area. In light <br />of the fact that the Commission has authority over <br />the area, the staff and I thought it might be <br />appropriate for the Commission to pass a resolution <br />enc uraging the Council to designate the urban <br />development area thereby enabling First Bank and <br />Rahi Properties to petition for tax abatement. <br />Mr. Nimtz: I have considered this for quite some <br />tim , and as part of the team on the legislation, <br />my luestion to the Commission is whether we should <br />rec mmend the urban development designation for the <br />entire R -66 area at the present time. Although I <br />believe the final authority is in the City Council <br />rat er than the Commission, I feel this designation <br />sho ld be considered project by project or parcel <br />by arcel. <br />Mr. Auburn: As a newcomer, can you explain to me if <br />thi is how it has always been done, and the advantages <br />of hat approach? <br />-5- <br />