Laserfiche WebLink
South B <br />Special <br />6. NEW <br />b. <br />Redevelopment Commission <br />ting —June 12, 1980 <br />INESS <br />. Ellison continues.... <br />hat the Commission's job is <br />o look at conditions and make <br />report to the Council with <br />espect to the conditions. Then <br />he Human Resouces Committee of the <br />ouncil, based on additional informa- <br />ion provided by the petitioner, <br />etermines whether to then suggest <br />o the Common Council that it pass <br />declaratory resolution. This would <br />lean that the Committee would find <br />ur findings and evidence to be suffi- <br />ient. The Public Hearing process <br />,ould have to follow the same process <br />s we would follow in the case of a <br />leclaratory resolution. At a public <br />gearing; public benefits as well as <br />:he cost of the abatement to the city <br />could be considered. We did decide <br />:o provide some information however <br />n our report purely for information <br />purposes. <br />r. Robinson: We are not supposed to <br />ake biased position as taxpayers in <br />his community that if they relieve <br />ome of theirs, that we are going to <br />ick up the added expense? <br />r. Ellison: That is correct. The <br />ssue, as Mr. Szarwark presents it, <br />s a policy one and it is a legislative <br />ntent one. The way we read the <br />rdinance our job is to look at the <br />onditions in the area for which abate - <br />ent is petitioned, which is what the <br />eport does. Mr. Szarwark is indicating <br />hat we may be in error from a policy <br />tandpoint if the abatement is denied <br />s we would penalize a good corporate <br />itizen who is operating in an.area <br />hat is otherwise perhaps in trouble. <br />Ir. Szarwark's conclusion therefore <br />s that the Council may have intended <br />shat we look at the broader area. <br />Mr. Nimtz: Refresh <br />Area Plan also have <br />tion or report? <br />my memory, does <br />to make a recommenda- <br />0 <br />