Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSM 06-12-80SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING June 12, 1980 1200 County -City Building 9:00 A.M 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard Presidin Officer: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, South Bend, Indiana 46601 President 1. ROLLICALL rs Present: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President Mr. Lloyd E. Robinson, Sr., Vice President Mr. Robert J. Cira, Assistant Secretary Ms. Paula N. Auburn, Member s Absent: Legal) Counsel: Redevelopment Staff: News Mr. A. Peter Donaldson Mr. Kevin J. Butler Mr. Carl Ellison, Executive Director Mrs. Ann Kolata, Director Mr. Kevin Horton, Assistant Director Ms. Ann Bathon, Acquisition Specialist Mr. Bill Fox, Relocation Specialist Mr. Paul Falduto, Employment Targeting Asst. Mrs. Jane Zimmerman, Executive Secretary Mrs. Hedy Robinson, Secretary Mr. Derrick Campbell, Work Study Student Media: Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, Reporter, South Bend Tribune Mr. Ed Ballotts, Photographer, South Bend Tribune Mr. Brent Speraw, News Director, WRBR Radio Mr. Pat Scanlon, Reporter, WNDU Guests: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Ernest J. Szarwark, Attorney at Law Mr. William Rigney, Vice President of Mossburg & Co. The Chair announced that the Minutes of t e Regular Meeting of Friday, June 6, 1980, are not completed, as they are in draft form. Therefore, no action will be taken on them at t is meeting. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Ther were no claims to present to t e Commission. MINUTES NOT COMPLETED FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 6, 1980 THEREFORE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN NO CLAIMS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL South Bed Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 4. COMMUNICATIONS Ther were no communications to present to t e Commission. 5. OLD BUSINESS Ther were no old business to present to t e Commission. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. ommission authorization requested for e otiation and execution of "A reement For Professional & Technical Services" etween the City of South Bend, Depart nent of Redevelopment and Craig Hill, R onroe- Sample, pending legal review. rs. Kolata: This is for a contract for he preparation of maps for the Monroe - ample project that we can use to print ff of and have parcels delineated. r. Craig Hill will complete the work or us. The estimated value of the ontract is about $250.00 or slightly ore than that on an hourly basis. r. Ellison: Are negotiations still oing on? rs. Kolata: No. The draft of the ontract is being studied by legal ounsel. r. Butler: I have no comments at this ime because I haven't quite finished eading it, but I should have it com- leted by the end of the day. Ms. Auburn made a motion to approve the negotiation and execution of "Agreement for Professional & Technical Services" between the City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment and Craig Hill, Re: Monroe - Sample, pending legal counsel review, seconded by Mr. Cira, and the motion was unanimously carried. 2 NO COMMUNICATIONS WERE PRESENTED NO OLD BUSINESS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION COMMISSION APPROVAL GRANTED FOR AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL SERVICES WITH MR. CRAIG HILL RE: MONROE- SAMPLE South Bed Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW OUSINESS (continued) b, ax abatement request from Mossber & Co. elative to an area commonly referred to e street. r. Ellison: As the Commission is aware he Common Council a month or so ago, aased an ordinance which established a ew procedure for the consideration of etitions for tax abatement. The Council rdinance was designed to make more clear he local process to be used in considering hose petitions. Under the ordinance a roperty owner petitions the Council for ax abatement. The Council through the ity Clerk, then refers the petition to he Commission. The Commission has a 0 -day period in which to report its indings to the Human Resources Committee f the Council. Our job is to examine the rea in question and make a finding of hether the area in question qualifies or a tax abatement from a condition tandpoint. The staff undertook an nvestigation and prepared a report hat is included in your packet. The rea in question is further delineated n the back of the report on a map. When e say area, we are referring to the exact rea for which tax abatement was petitioned. he report concludes that the area does of qualify because the area does not eet the condition tests that are called or under the tax abatement statute. he petitioner provided some photographs, long with their petition, and we took ome color photographs of the site as well. r. Ellison pointed out the area in question the Commissioners from a colored aerial otograph). The site is located on East nroe a couple of lots West of Fellows reet. The site includes Mossberg's Office/ ctory facility, a warehouse, small commercial ructure, an improved parking lot, and an improved vacant lot on which the small mmercial structure, sits. The project lls for an erectjon of a 14,000 sq.ft. dition apparently on the improved parking t and on the east of the factory /office cility. Based on our investigation of 3 South Be d Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. continued.... Mr. Rllison continues... the area, the report contains an explanation section in which we indicated that a visual inspection of tat area took place and that conc usions from that inspection was hat conditions appear to be well maintained and neat. In fact, Moss erg appears to be an excellent corporate citizen within the community. In a dition we looked at the tax assessment history of the property from 1968 to the last assessment and iound that while the increase in valuation lagged the city as a whole, we felt that the valuation was not that significant. Based on that and cther information as delienated herein, the report then concludes that the area does not qualify because conditions exist on the area in question which can be corrected by the regulatory process or b3 private enterprise, the area in question has not been bypassed or u derutilized, economic circum- stances have not deterred normal development, and the area in question has rot become undesirable for or possible of normal development because of lack of development or cessation of growth, deterioration of improvements, and character of occu ancy, age, obsolesence, sub - stan and buildings or other factors whic have impaired value or have prevented normal development of the property or use of the property. The staff would recommend that the Chair recognize Mr. Ernest Szarwark who is the attorney for the petitioner. Mr. I you at a imtz: Mr. Ellison let me interrupt or just one moment. Do you remember meeting of the Council one evening 4 South Be d Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. dontinued... r. Nimtz continues... hen a gentleman from Crowe Chizek poke with us and we determined that hey weren't eligible? Now was that ecause they had already started their uilding and this differs from that articular abatement? r. Ellison: In their situation they ad constructed a building on urban enewal land and the start of their onstruction period was prior to the ime the Council implemented the batement process, and also prior o the time of any ten years abatement eing granted locally. Our advice to hem was to rely on the previous statute. he Chair recognized Mr. Ernest Szarwark, ttorney for the petitioner (Mossberg & Co.): r. Szarwark: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ssentially Mossberg has no qualms as to the actual findings in the staff's excellent eport. Mossberg feels that it has been good corporate citizen, rather the question hat we are posing, and I think it is going o be a rather important one, in terms of ther people asking for tax abatement. "What s the area at which you are going to look when ou determine whether a particular parcel f real estate is entitled to tax abatement ?" ssentially, Mr. Ellison's report, looks at ust the property owned by Mossberg & Co., hich shows a very small parcel of real estate hat we own. It is true, we have kept up our eal estate very well, and we have always tried o modernize and keep the building in the best ossible condition, to keep it clean, and as r. Ellison said, a good corporate citizen. hat we are saying, however, is that you can't ust look at an isolated parcel of real estate ou have to look at the surrounding neighborhood. f you do look at the surrounding neighborhood, ou are going to find that there are a lot of roblems with it. The Southeast Area Planning rofile calls this a troubled neighborhood, 5 South Ben Redevelopment Commmission Special M eting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. continued... . Szarwark continues... ting that one problem it had was a rge number of vacancies both in terms 42 vacant structures and 120 vacant rcels of real estate located within nsus tract 17. The report futher nt on to state that vacant properties e (I am quoting here) "perhaps the st significant land uses in the entire ighborhood More recent Polk data s a tendency to rate neighborhoods on basis of a 1 - 4 scale. The four being e best possible area. In the Polk ting the particular portion of area which we are located, came out with 1 rating, which indicated a very troubled ighborhood. They also noted that there re a decline in commercial units, and increase in vacancies within this area. you take a look at the pictures that we ve passed around you can see that ecifically, just between the very small ea along Sample Street where we are cated, looking north to the right of ssberg's there is an empty building d to the left there is a service station at had apparently been abandoned and nverted to a retail outlet which is now osed. To the left there is a "junk rd" actually a demolition company. rectly in back of Mossberg's across tt Street there is a lot that is now ing rented for used trucks and vehicles ich are apparently in delapidated ndition. In other words, if you look the broad neighborhood, you will see at it is one that is severely troubled. st year this Commission and the City uncil determined that two pieces of al estate within a five block radius re entitled to tax abatement. I lieve that one of the pieces of real tate was the South Bend Toy Company. question is that, do we look at the rcel of real estate that Mossberg owns, do we look at the neighborhood. I would y that you ought to look at the neighborhood, herwise, we are going to be saying that O South Ben Redevelopment Commission Special M eting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BOSINESS b. Mlr. Szarwark continues.... people who take care of their property and take care of their real estate but who otherwise just happen to be located in a ad neighborhood to try to fight he trend, aren't going to be given any incentive to expand or to keep p their property or to build new ood additions. Whereas, someone ho has additionally traditionally let his property run down but Bally hasn't cared about keeping p the land quality that has contribut- d to area blight is going to be per - itted to invest more funds to rebuild, to expand and I feel it is unfair to enalize someone who has kept up their roperty. It is unfair to say that benefits only go to those people who have let their property run own or who have bought run down roperty. I think that is the arrow question before this Commission end I hope that it will adopt a more xpansive reading of that taken by he staff report. r. Cira: How much land do you plan n purchasing? r. Szarwark: We already own the land. r. Cira: Well, you have the present arking lot on it is that correct? r. Szarwark: Yes sir, that is correct. r. Robinson: Is it your position that ecause of the other elements on the ther side of Mossberg's that the aluation of that property has gone own? Ir. Szarwark: Yes sir. If you take a look at the entire neighborhood, you vill find that the entire neighborhood... 7 South Bead Redevelopment Commission Special Meeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. Mr. Robinson: I am not talking about he neighborhood, I am talking about our neighbor. Do you feel they have ecreased the value ofthe property that Mossberg owns? . Szarwark: Certainly. . Cira: I can see why you are that chnical, because if you are going be purchasing some additional operty, but you are not, you are st going to utilize the property at you presently own. What are u going to use for parking if you e going to build on your parking lot? Mr. Szarwark: We have directly behind ossberg some additional real estate which has been rented out. The lease xpires in December of this year, and at that point in time the lease will not be renewed and that land is already suitable for parking space, as a matter of fact, it is paved. I believe there is a fence surrounding the lot also. It is just a question of repairing he fence and using that as property. There is also a parcel of land across he street. It is vacant. And it will be leased for parking while the building is being built. Mr. Cira: What is the cost of your planned project? Mr. Szarwark: It is $750,000, exactly. Mr. Cira: Over ten years what will that save in taxes? Mr. Szarwark: $12,500 a year approximately. Mr. Butler: That, of course, would be the average. Mr. Ellison: That information is purely illustrative. As I see it the Commission's job is not to determine public benefits directly. As I understand it, it is 8 i South B Special 6. NEW b. Redevelopment Commission ting —June 12, 1980 INESS . Ellison continues.... hat the Commission's job is o look at conditions and make report to the Council with espect to the conditions. Then he Human Resouces Committee of the ouncil, based on additional informa- ion provided by the petitioner, etermines whether to then suggest o the Common Council that it pass declaratory resolution. This would lean that the Committee would find ur findings and evidence to be suffi- ient. The Public Hearing process ,ould have to follow the same process s we would follow in the case of a leclaratory resolution. At a public gearing; public benefits as well as :he cost of the abatement to the city could be considered. We did decide :o provide some information however n our report purely for information purposes. r. Robinson: We are not supposed to ake biased position as taxpayers in his community that if they relieve ome of theirs, that we are going to ick up the added expense? r. Ellison: That is correct. The ssue, as Mr. Szarwark presents it, s a policy one and it is a legislative ntent one. The way we read the rdinance our job is to look at the onditions in the area for which abate - ent is petitioned, which is what the eport does. Mr. Szarwark is indicating hat we may be in error from a policy tandpoint if the abatement is denied s we would penalize a good corporate itizen who is operating in an.area hat is otherwise perhaps in trouble. Ir. Szarwark's conclusion therefore s that the Council may have intended shat we look at the broader area. Mr. Nimtz: Refresh Area Plan also have tion or report? my memory, does to make a recommenda- 0 South Bead Redevelopment Commission Specialf�eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. dontinued.... r. Ellison: They do, however, there s a strategic problem here as I see t. If the Commission finds that the rea does not qualify from a condition tandpoint, in order to satisfy the tate statute, the Human Resources ommittee or someone would have to ind that the conditions warrant the batement. Conditions are the "kicker" or the abatement; not economic need. r. Cira: Mr. Ellison, if you apply or tax abatement you must reside in "blighted" area. r. Ellison: The exact property that ossberg owns that is being petitioned n our opinion is not blighted. r. Cira: They aren't going to purchase ny of the area which is "blighted" area or their addition so how can they qualify? r. Nimtz: Mr. Szarwark's position is hat the strip along there by Good ousekeeping looks good, but his osition is that if you look down Fellows treet and Tutt Street ect, things ren't too good, isn't that right r. Szarwark? . Szarwark: That is exactly right. r. Ellison: I think I concur ith him. I don't think there is ny question, in fact, the report escribes the a_rea,`for which the.abate- ent is petitioned as a pocket of ealth in an otherwise declining esidential neighborhood. I think t is a rather precise and exact escription and it is accurate. r. Robinson: If we were to reject his petition could the other agencies ive a plus vote and the project be ent back to us for re- consideration. . Butler: It would not have to come 10 South Bed Redevelopment Commission Special �eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW OUSINESS b. Mr. Butler continues.... ck to us for re- consideration. . Nimtz: The City Council can whatever they want to. r. Ellison: I do think that the City ouncil will have to in any event ake a finding which suggests that onditions that the statute require o exist. That has to happen first efore you can proceed further in he process. If in fact the Common ouncil's intent was to look at broad area then I presume the uman Resources Committee would to that and would come to its own 'inding. Hr. Szarwark: The problem is that if this committee gives a negative vote on it, I would think that tax abatement probably would be dead, because certainly the Common Council has decided to look to this group as a body of expertise when it comes to the quality of neighbor- hoods and the quality of land with the City. If you take.a look at the procedures for tax abatement, it is long and involved but it is fairly precise. This group is looked upon as having a body of expertise with respect to specific quality of the environment, of the neighborhood, and of land within the City. Area Plan is looked upon as having a body of expertise in terms of the overall land use. It might be that a piece of property is very badly delapidated and should be redeveloped but not in a particular way that somebody is proposing. For example, building a smelting plant in downtown South Bend. On the other hand, the Human Resources Committee presumably was put in the process because it has the duty of laying benefits weighing benefits to be done by the Redevelopment against the taxpayer's cost. I think that if you had a negative report from 11 South Bed Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. Mr. Szarwark continues..... ne of these third groups it s very unlikely that the City ouncil is going to approve the ax abatement, simply because he procedures are very laid out. hey are looking to people for their xpertise. As I said before, I don't hink it was the intention of either he City Council or the state when t passed the neighboring legislation o just a specific local parcel of real state. r. Ellison: Mr. Szarwark, I believe he problem is that I don't think the ouncil intended to look at broad areas, ecause if we look at broad areas and etermine that conditions exist for an batement, what we would wind up doing s abating the entire area. I think he Commission's attitude previously, nd I believe the Council's as well, as to consider abatements on a case y case basis not on an area by area asis. r. Szarwark: That is because you ave to consider other things when you re giving an abatement. Namely, for xample, is the particular use of real state which is going to be made by he person seeking abatement consistent ith the overall development of the ity. Is the project one which for ne reason or another because of the mall number of jobs to be created or ecause of potential disadvantageous spects of the development plan one hich the taxpayer benefit is just oing to be outweighed by other aspects. think these are the reasons why the ouncil decided to go on a case by case asis rather than for example as Elkhart as done, just declare areas of the town edevelopment areas. They have followed hat route by the way. I don't think he City Council wanted to just look at ndividualized parcels. What happens 12 South Bed Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. Mr. Szarwark continues... hen you have situations like his where you have good corporate itizens who want to expand in a eighborhood which beautification xpansion would be highly desirable specially given the declining area f surrounding property, the values nd make up of the surrounding property. r. Cira: But, you are not purchasing ny additional property, that is the ig hang up. If you purchase a block could understand why you would ualify, but you own the present pro - erty there and you are just going to dd on to the parking lot, and you ave an option across the street. I an't see where it is going to be any - ore of an asset to the neighborhood han you are right now. You are an sset to the neighborhood, there is o question about that. r. Szarwark: Certainly they plan on eeping up their property and they are oing to beautify it. Cira: We have to be careful because will leave the door open to some other titioners, who are businessmen in is community. r. Szarwark: If you have someone who as a good establishment in a good area, it seems that they shouldn't be entitled to a tax abatement, and there is no ay they would be entitled to it. Under he program we have a situation in which r. Ellison has asked the Council to accept. When you have the situation, let us say you have a prime piece of real estate, in a very good area of own, one which is welded up, something like an Industrial Park for example, he land is selling like hotcakes, but... you have one individual corporation there ho is letting his land run down, the uilding run down, everything is not in good shape, everything is outmoded, 13 South Bed Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW OUSI b. Mr. Szarwark continues... t is an eyesore in the neighborhood... ou are going to say granted it is 11 very good, prime industrial ground nd somebody else would be glad to buy t and move in, but it is run down, herefore it is entitled to abatement. Ir. Ellison: No, Mr. Szarwark. In that ituation what you would do is enforce he codes. If an area is otherwise pwardly trnasitional with respect to is overall condition, and if there s an isolated property that is deterior- ted, and stands out like the eyesore, he typical governmental response is o undertake code enforcement to use he regulatory process. As I see it he problem is that neither the ommunity nor the Council or Commission ants to provide disincentives to usiness, certainly not to Mossberg. t has indeed been a very good corpor- te citizen, and it does indeed have ery well maintain property as was oted. Tax abatement from a legis- ative standpoint, a state legislative ne, is not primarily a business de- elopment ingentive. What it is, s an incentive that is designed o correct blighted conditions. The undamental problem that we have is hat the project will not address lighted conditions because we ind that there do not substantial onditions which might be considered lighted ones in the area. Ir. Szarwark: The extent to which ,ou show development in an area, in broader area, that is going downhill, nd to the extent that you show expan- ion, you show that none of these properties are going to be kept up .re going to be improved. You do reate an atmosphere within an area therein development can occur. Certainly f corporations or executives looking .or persons to locate their corporations 14 South Bed Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW 3USINESS b. Mr. Szarwark continues... ee that within their neighborhood re building, standing, and keeping p thier property, the firm will ikely say that this is a good place o go in. The property values would e low because they have been tradition - lly run down, the people are keeping hem up and they are probably going o do a continuing investigation in here, so lets buy some real estate hile it is low; let us build here ather than someplace else where verything looks just great, but eal estate prices are higher. So, ou create an incentive, you create n atmosphere where corporations are illing to take the gamble on the est. On the other hand, if you ust say that people are keeping up heir property in a blighted neighbor - ood.that is fine, but no tax abatement o expand or improve, you are going to nd up with a certain type of stagnation. don't think that this Commission wants o see these areas. r. Ellison: The problem I see is that he businesses incentive-is not tax abate - ent. It is probably some other form f public assistance. The fundamental urpose of tax abatement is to cause he cessation of elimination of deterio- ating conditions which when added together ommonly are called "blighted ". Theoretical - y, a redevelopment treatement which would resumably have to address those kinds of onditions. The proposed project or edevelopment treatment will not directly ffect those conditions. Certainly, it ould add to the area but it is not mproving unimproved real estate, eliminat- ng substandard buildings that exist on he site correcting land use, or any f the traditional things that the ommission has to consider in considering edevelopment plans of its own. The uestion is not whether business incentive s necessary. Rather, the question efore the Commission is whether the rea (the abatement area) from a condition 15 South Be d Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. Mir. Ellison continues.... tandpoint exhibits those qualities hich warrant an incentive to cause edevelopment treatment to take place. r. Butler: This is the first petition hich has been filed with the Council nd submitted to the Redevelopment epartment for its review under the ew procedures. It is my interpreta- ion of the ordinance that we are to ook at the specific property on which he project is going to be redeveloped. n the ordinance itself I believe there s considerable language that leads to hat conclusion. Beyond that, the epartment was involved in the develop - ent of the process itself. This matter as considered during the development f the process, and it is my understanding hat the intent was to limit the review y the department and then ultimately y other bodies who are going to be ooking at it, to the specific arcel in question when it comes to he issue of whether the project is oing to be developed or going to occur n land that has been bypassed or under - tilized due to economic circumstances hich have deterred normal development. s Mr. Szarwark i rtdi Cates as a rule the ouncil when ultimately making the ecision, is going to look to our recom- endation along with recommendations y other bodies. However, our recommend - tion as based upon the report is directly elated to that interpretation. If the ouncil determines that our interpreta- ion is wrong then of course, they are of going to follow, that is,:assuming f the Commission were to adopt the taff's report. r. Szarwark: May I ask the Commission or this, then? I think that there is general agreement with respect to the acts, namely that our parcel of real state is not blighted but that the eighborhood is such that general onditions.... 16 South Belnd Redevelopment Commission Special Meeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. continues... r. Ellison: I did not say that. r. Szarwark: Generally, the conditions f the neighborhood are such that economic incentives are appropriate for the neighbor - ood, and if the Council would be willing to do that I would appreciate it if they would make that sort of finding. ssentially, it would be up to the City ouncil,to say—well, our intention hen we passed the original ordinance as to look at the individual parcel, herefore they can pick up your finding, nd the individual parcel does not merit ax abatement, or that our intention hat is, the intention of the City Council, as to look at the broader area in which ase they could pick up on your findings n the broader areas. Otherwise, it is ertually impossible for the City Council o come to the conclusion that tax batement would be proper since they ould have no opinion from this group s to the character of the broader area. r. Ellison: Mr. Szarwark, I would ust note that we did discuss the areas omewhat. We referred to the community evelopment plan and the overall NSA. think that examination of that plan ould back up the comment that the SA has experienced steady residential ecline for at least fifteen years and hat the overall area is certainly eclining. Ir. Szarwark: What I would like, Ir. Ellison is a specific statement hat the general area is such that conomic consentives are appropriate f we focus on the general area, ather than on'the narrow parcel. If e would have that then essentially he next step would be to get an pinion or to go before the Human esources Committee, which would ave some of the same people on it o draft the ordinance, and probably 17 South Beld Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. Mr. Szarwark continues... I ould give us some idea what their ntention was. This is a very important uestion and it is something which is robably going to come up again and gain, and if you would be willing to ive that sort of report we could let he body that enacted the legislation ecide what its intention was for future urposes. r. Nimtz: To refresh everyones recollect - on Mr. Ellison and I were meeting before he Council defending Mr. Szarwark on ome other project before the tax abate - ent was completed. It was at that time hat the Council decided upon our recom- endation to go by project by project asis rather than area. r. Szarwark: I wish to thank the Commission or your time. r. Nimtz: Do you have any comments regarding r. Szarwark's last recommendation? r. Butler: I do believe that the language n the last printed page of the draft eport does really provide that kind f information to the council...... pecifically that "deterioration and under - tilization conditions that exist within he NSA as a whole, do not specifically xist within the area in question. Indeed he industrial area for which tax abatement ansideration is petitioned is clearly a ocket of health within and otherwise eclining residential neighborhood ". . Nimtz: We will be having a hearing is summer concerning the Monroe - Sample . Ellison: The NSA includes much more an Monroe - Sample; it is basically every - ing from Monroe Street to Ewing, over Miami and back down to Main Street. is a large area. South Bed Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW OUSINESS he Chair recognized Mr. Rigney, ice President of Mossberg & Co. r. Rigney: We have not only been good commercial neighbor but we ave been a good neighbor to the eople in that area. That is in pite of the fact that we have omplete glass windows that are bout 25 ft. high, and in the past 5 years since that new addition to he building was added on, there have een only two occasions whereby damage as done to the windows or to our roperty. I think the people in that rea appreciate us for keeping up ur property in the way that we do. am asking your indulgence to onsider our request for tax abatement. r. Ci'ra: What effect does that area ave on your business? Saying that ou are in active area and you would ove out to the Airport Industrial ark would not affect your buying usiness now would it? r. Rigney: What we originally put n our new addition (I believe it as in 1958) we had considered looking t property elsewhere, but Mr. Mossberg ad roots here and he absolutely refused o let an architecture or anyone else alk him into moving anywhere else. We ave had reluctance from people who have anted to come to us, especially if hey had to come at night. I really on't feel this has affected our business n any way. r. Nimtz: The record shows that you ave been good citizens and good neighbors. r. Cira made a motion to approve the eport of the Redevelopment Staff that he area commonly referred to as 301 East ample Street does not qualify for tax batement, seconded by Mr. Robinson and he motion was unanimously carried. 19 COMMISSION REJECTION OF TAX ABATEMENT REQUEST FROM MOSSBERG & CO South Bead Redevelopment Commission Special eeting. June 12, 1980 6. NEW OUSINESS b. dontinued.... r. Nimtz: Mr. Rigney let me say this o you, I thine there -has been a good iscussion here and.I think under the nterpretation of the ordinance, it is he only thing we can do. I presume hat when we have the hearing, that he whole area there is going to be ound to be blighted. I feel the taff is right under.the strict inter - retation of the ordinance. I would e pleased to talk to the Council as o what the area is down ther if Mr. zarwark would like me to, but under he strict interpretation of the rdinance, the staff report is correct. 7. PROGRESS REPORTS here were no progress reports to present o the Commission. 8. NEXTICOMMISSION MEETING The ext regularly scheduled South Bend Re- development Commission Meeting will be held on J ne 20, 1980, at 10:00 A.M. 9. ADJ There befor moti c by Mr carri MENT being no further business to come the Commission, Mr. Robinson made a n that the meeting be adjourned, seconded . Cira and the motion was unanimously ad. The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 A.M. ME NO PROGRESS REPORTS PRESENTED NEXT COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNMENT South BE Special ;nd Redevelopment Commission Meeting- June 12, 1980 A a.,L� L end Carl Ellison, Executive Director 21