10-09-17 Community Investment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2017, DCI presented to the Council some of the changes and updates to state law that allow more flexibility with the tax abatements. Given that this formula wasn't available when this abatement was initially approved, and given that nothing has been done with the property itself yet, we would like to modify this to help spur things along. This is a brand new building on the property. We are seeking to modify the existing abatement from a nine (9) year tiered abatement to a one hundred percent (100%) six(6)year abatement. Jeff Smoke, Great Lakes Capital located at 112 W. Jefferson Boulevard, stated, Mr. Buckenmeyer gave a great presentation and I am here to take any questions you may have. Committee Chair Ferlic opened the floor to questions from the Committee and Councilmembers. Committeemember Smith asked, Isn't this just approving a public hearing for the amendment of the abatement? Mr. Buckenmeyer replied, Yes, we are going through the whole process again having the public hearing and then voting on it at the next meeting. Committeemember Tipps asked, What is the difference in dollars that the City will be receiving or losing with this change? Mr. Buckenmeyer replied, This makes the abatement more favorable to the investor. This is a critical piece of commercial real estate that isn't present elsewhere. Committee Chair Ferlic then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. Mr. Wolfson stated, I am concerned with moving to one hundred percent (100%) abatements. How much money are we going to give away? Jorden Giger, 61455 Druid Lane, stated, I am not hearing the basis of why we should be granting all these abatements. We have literally begged Mr. Mueller to give $10,000 to a project for the community but then you give hundreds of thousands of tax-payer dollars away without blinking an eye. Ms. Kesim asked, How green is this new building? I want to make sure it is environmentally responsible. Mr. Buckenmeyer replied, The only reason we are going back is because the existing abatement hasn't been acted upon. This will not set a precedent. We can't go back otherwise. We also always encourage sustainable building. Committee Chair Ferlic moved the floor back to the Committee for further comment or main motions. Committeemember Kelly made a motion to send Bill No. 17-68 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember Smith seconded this motion which carried with four (4) ayes and two (2) nays (Committeemembers Williams-Preston and Tipps). Bill No. 17-64- River West Development Area Expansion 5