Laserfiche WebLink
February 10,2003 <br /> Page 2 <br /> would address quality and would not reward those who"have a record of poor citizenship or are <br /> delinquent on paying property taxes". He noted that several changes directly resulted from the <br /> many changes in the governing state law. Council Member King noted for example that instead of <br /> utilizing the 3-6-10 year categories for tax abatement, that state law now authorizes tax abatement <br /> from 1 to 10 years. The new program would have a "base abatement" and a tiering concept for <br /> adding on additional years if the party meets the proper thresholds. He then referenced <br /> Sec. 2-76.2 Abatement Tiers <br /> Sec. 2-76.3 Base Abatement <br /> Sec. 2-76.4 Add-On Abatement <br /> which set forth how points would be awarded. He noted that he asked Don Inks to look backward <br /> on projects which received abatement under the current ordinance to see how they would fare <br /> under the under the new ordinance which will be addressed layer. <br /> The MOA would set forth commitments, rights and entitlements and what the Council would be <br /> entitled to do if there is non-compliance. Council Member King stated that such publications as the <br /> Wall Street Journal have reported on how successful Indianapolis has been in enforcement their <br /> MOAs. Disqualifications from eligibility would include the applicant being delinquent or in <br /> default;a record of violations showing a consistent pattern. <br /> Don Inks of Community and Economic Development stated that he reviewed data primarily from <br /> 1998-2001. During that period of time 122 years were abated. Under the new regulations 113 <br /> years would be abated. He concluded his remarks by stating that there is a good basis for the <br /> proposed base and add-on abatement program. <br /> Mike Beitzinger of Community and Economic Development stated that the City will be using the <br /> Indianapolis MOA as a guide. He noted that it was used once for the Honeywell agreement. The <br /> Council Attorney noted that there was good "give and take" during the negotiation process of the <br /> Honeywell agreement. <br /> Jon Hunt, Director of the Department of Community and Economic Development stated that there <br /> are some projects currently in the pipeline, but with an effective date of August 15, 2003 that that <br /> time table is workable. <br /> Council Member Pfeifer inquired if a company asked for four (4) years of abatement and did not <br /> qualify, they would not come before the Council. Mr. Beitzinger stated that was correct. <br /> Dr. Varner noted that the"safety valve" or enlargement of powers of the Council addressing those <br /> areas not specifically anticipated is still in place. Council Member King stated that the language in <br /> that area is identical to that which has been in place for the past several years <br /> Council Member Coleman noted that a tremendous amount of work has gone into this Bill. <br /> However, he sees the language on page 37, § 2-84,9 B as a"back door" to getting an abatement. <br /> He noted that this has often been called a"special exception"and is reluctant to have such a"catch- <br /> all". He stated that he would prefer an amendment to the ordinance. <br /> Council Member King asked if there were questions on the ordinance. There were none. <br /> Community and Economic Development <br />