Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Pedevelopment Commission <br />Regular Me ing - October 9, 1987 <br />6. NEW BUSIINESS (Cont.) <br />b. Conjtinued... <br />The property is properly zoned for the <br />proposed use. The property is located in <br />an area designated as a Tax Abatement <br />Impact Area and is also located in a Tax <br />Incremental Financing Allocation Area. <br />Mrs. Kolata noted that the legal <br />description provided was a description of <br />the property and various easements. She <br />suggested that Mr. Marcus talk to the <br />City Attorney about amending the petition <br />to escribe only the property itself and <br />notl the easements. <br />Mr. Marcus explained that the <br />improvements to the property were to <br />increase the warehousing and distribution <br />operation currently in business there. <br />He aoted that a misunderstanding of the <br />questions on the petition had resulted in <br />an error in the number of jobs proposed <br />to De created by the improvemements. <br />Question #4 asked the number of jobs to <br />be created by the rehab project itself. <br />He derstood that to mean the actual <br />construction work involved and had <br />answered "4 ". In fact, 25 new jobs would <br />be reated as a result of the rehab. The <br />25 new jobs would qualify Ivy Tower for a <br />ten year abatement. He would target 200 <br />of he new jobs to the Job Training <br />Ms. Auburn asked that this petition be <br />tabled until the October 23 meeting so <br />that the corrected information could be <br />Ms. Schwartz noted that none of the <br />inf rmation is changed. The petition, as <br />pre ented, includes the correct <br />inf rmation in item #26. There is no <br />ch ge of representation by the <br />Det'tioner. <br />Ms.�Auburn stressed the significant <br />dif erence in impact betwen the three and <br />mom <br />