Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-83 Human Resources & Economic Development QlDmmntrirt P}tDl't ain tit &mown &u ntil of tip Mfg of EtDnd� HUMAN RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The April 11 .> 1983 meeting of the Human Resources and Economic Development Committee was called to order at 5 :00 p.m. by its chairman Councilman Taylor in the Council informal meeting room. • Persons in attendance included, Councilmen Serge, Beck, Crone, Voorde, Zielinski, Szymkowiak, Taylor and McGann; Attorney Ernest Szarwark, Attorney Warren McGill, Attorney John Gourley, Attorney Larry Ambler, Mr. and Mrs. Gorny, Jon Hunt, Dick Maginot, and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss various bills and regulations referred to Committee which are set for public hearing at tonight' s Council meeting. Councilman Taylor noted that the petitioner has requested that Resolution F regarding 244 South Olive Street as a tax abatement area be contLnued until the next regular meeting of the Common Council. The Committee then reviewed Resolution 9A which dealt with 1116 South Main for consideration as a tax abatement area. The Council .Attorney noted that the Redevelopment staff determine that the area did qualify for tax abatement consideration and that it was within a tax abatement area. It was further noted that the Redevelopment Commission gave no recommendation on this petition. .Attorney Ambler introduced his clients, Mr. and Mrs. Gorny, and reviewed the various steps that his clients had taken on this project. He noted that in July, 1982 they first contacted the City, however no one informed them that a project would not qualify for tax abatement consideration if a building permit had already been issued. It was noted by Mr. Hunt that this was correct and that old tax abatement forms were still on file with the various City offices. The project without tax abatement would total $41,786 and with tax abatement $21,101. Six new jobs would be created with more businesses to come into the area. Councilman Voorde stated that the "sloppy procedure" in the Redevelopment office should be taken into consideration. Councilman Szymkowiak stated that the new building beautified the area. Councilman Crone and Voorde expressed concern over the Redevelopment Commission' s action of a "no recommendation being given" . In light of the various "slip-ups" by the staff the Commission should have made a favorable recommendation. Councilman Beck noted that she would like to have an Executive Session with the Commission to discuss an area of threatened litigation. • Following further discussion by the Committee, a motion was made .by Councilman Serge seconded by Councilman Beck that Resolution 9A be recommended favorably to Council thereby designating 116 South Main an area qualifying for tax abatement consideration.. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Taylor then reviewed Resolution 9E which concerned 4600, Western Avenue for tax abatement consideration. The Council Attorney noted that the staff made a recommendation that the area in question did qualify for tax abatement consideration since the area in question was undesirable and would have a beneficial public affect. The Redevelopment Commission sent the petition down without recommendation noting that it was not located within a tax abatement impact area and that it did not qualify for slum and blight consideration. •wcc rw[.• . •/m.12mI • co. Page 2. Human Resources and Economic Development Committee The Commission further questioned whether the project would go forward without tax abatement. Councilman Taylor noted that the company, namely Whiteford Kenworth, Inc. was being involuntarily relocated' in light of the Olive-Sample overpass. Attorney Warren McGill explained that the project :without tax abatement would total ,$354 ,,;790, and with tax abatement would total $179,169, with the total amount abated being $175,621. The average annual cost of abatement would be $17,562. He noted that this company, employs 250 employees and that 50 jobs would be directly related to this project. A fact sheet was then handed out (copy attached) . Mr. McGill stressed that their first choice was to remain in -South Bend and that additional construction jobs would be created. A total of 3 new jobs and a savings of 50 jobs would be the result if tax abatement, was granted- representatives of Whitefore .Kenworth, Inc. were then introduced to the Committee. Attorney John Gorley spoke in opposition to the tax abatement. He noted that they were properly compensated when the land was taken by the County. He gave the analogy to the Economic Development Bonds which were misused. Councilman Taylor stated that he was "bullish" on tax abatement when jobs are at stake. Councilman Voorde stated 'that, each petition for tax abatement consideration must be weighed on its own merits. He then quoted from a March 12, 1981 South Bend Tribune article where the Mayor views tax abatement more conservatively. Councilman Voorde called for an open meeting of the Council and Redevelopment to discuss the underlying policies and procedures regarding tax abatement for real and personal property. Upon questioning it was noted that a Goshen contractor would be involved inconstruction and that local concrete people and blacktop people would be used. Councilman Serge stated that he was in favor of the tax abatement. Councilman Taylor stated that the Council should "walk the extra mile" since they were "kicked out of their location by local people" . Following further discussion Councilman Beck made a motion seconded by Councilman Serge that Re solution 9E be recommended favorably to. Council. The motion .passed unanimously. Councilman Taylor then called upon the Council Attorney to review Bill No. 28-83 which would amend the present scrap and junk yard ordinance. Mrs. Cekanski-Farrand explained that the bill would allow 'the - Council to review on a case by case basis any new application for a junk yard license which specifically did not meet the 1,000 foot restriction. The Council by a separation Resolution could waive the 1, 000 foot limitation if it found that the new project would be located at least one-half of the distance away, or that a majority of the affected property owners gave approval or that the majority of the business would be located within an enclosed structure. It was noted that this would allow companies like the Swedish firm which would like to locate in South Bend, to do so. All other scrap and junk yard regulations regarding inspections, buffer strips, etc. would be in force. Following discussion, Councilman Beck made:`a motion snuonded by Councilman Serge that Bill No. 28-83 go to Council favorably. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business to come before the Committee the meeting was adjourned at 5 :55 p.m. Robert Taylor, Chairman