|
REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2018
<br /> Councilmember Davis asked, What responsibility have we put on the companies themselves to
<br /> keep up with the record keeping when it comes to this kind of situation? There is a benefit to
<br /> getting an abatement,but it is a caviar kind of thing. Therefore, since you get those kinds of things,
<br /> there is a responsibility they have. We can always put a lot of pressure on the Assessor and put the
<br /> blame there, but I also believe there is a role for us and a role for those that are getting the
<br /> abatements.
<br /> Mr. Mueller stated, The first (1St) concern is are they making the investment in our community,
<br /> and are they creating the jobs that they promised. Second (2nd), we help remind them that they
<br /> have paperwork to fill out every year, so we send out reminders. For the most part, the tax
<br /> recipients remember to fill those out. Whatever is in their memorandum of agreement is required
<br /> of them.
<br /> Council President Scott opened the floor to Council for questions. There were none.
<br /> Council President Scott opened the floor to the public for those wishing to speak in favor of Bill
<br /> Nos. 18-42, 18-43, 18-44, 18-45, 18-46, 18-47, 18-48, 18-49, 18-50, 18-51, 18-52. There were
<br /> none.
<br /> President Scott opened the floor to the public for those wishing to speak against Bill Nos. 18-42,
<br /> 18-43, 18-44, 18-45, 18-46, 18-47, 18-48, 18-49, 18-50, 18-51, 18-52.
<br /> Sue Kesim, 4022 Kennedy Drive, stated, I think there is a need for change in policy on the
<br /> abatements, especially since in reviewing it, the Council and the City gave out $36 million in
<br /> abatements in 2017, $25 million in abatements in 2016, and from 2011-2017, $117 million in
<br /> abatements. I think it is excessive, and there needs to be tighter parameters. Especially when I
<br /> saw that many of them created no jobs, or less than 10 jobs. I think as Councilmember Davis said,
<br /> it's a caviar thing. I noticed in the packet there is no ROI and no dollar amount. I thought that
<br /> would have been helpful to the citizens. It is best practice to give TIF or abatement,but not both.
<br /> I would hope that you would do that. There are negative numbers on the time left on some of the
<br /> reports. I don't know if they're getting the abatement beyond what was voted on by Council.
<br /> There are also figures missing in the 2017 report, so it would be great to have complete data to
<br /> work with.
<br /> Jason Banicki Critchlow, 3822 W. Ford St., stated, particularly when it comes to the JSK
<br /> Development ones, it is one(1)thing for them to build a couple of hotels. When we gave them the
<br /> parking lot for$1,they agreed to buy the Hall of Fame for$1.5 or$1.6 million if I recall correctly.
<br /> But they didn't do their due diligence to see if they could use the Hall of Fame in the way that they
<br /> intended. When that didn't work out, we still allowed them the tax abatement, but now we've
<br /> backed the purchase price off over$1 million out of the tax payers' pocket. So now not only have
<br /> we given them the property to build the hotel and the tax abatement for the property, now we
<br /> negotiated $1 million off of the purchase price. When we keep having to change the parameters to
<br /> match them, why should we continue to give them these excessive abatements? In terms of the
<br /> Liberty Tower, it's great to say that he's going to invest all of that money. I know some of the
<br /> insiders on that project, and he is not investing that money because it is going great. He is going
<br /> to lose money on that project, which means he is less likely to do another project. It's great to say
<br /> hey, its $53 million and it's all this extra money. It's not because the project is going well, it is
<br /> because it is not going well. It is not going to be a profitable project, and it is not going to reflect
<br /> well for future projects downtown. Yes, tax abatements are only on new dollars, but when you
<br /> look at the Liberty Tower project, they made sure to empty the Chase Tower before seeking the
<br /> abatement so when they're seeking it,taking a building that was once relatively full,then half full,
<br /> then emptying it completely before seeking an abatement. You've pushed down that appraised
<br /> value very far and now you're seeking an abatement on what you hope to be at least half full now,
<br /> and eventually a relatively full building again. So you're only taking an abatement on these phased
<br /> in things with that project, but you've depressed the value to start, so you're giving yourself an
<br /> unfair starting advantage at the taxpayer's expense.
<br /> Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205, South Bend, IN, stated, We've talked about these abatements many
<br /> times. Prior to offering abatements, we had development. We are coming to a fiscal cliff that you
<br /> keep talking about because of lack of tax dollars, yet you want to give the tax dollars away. Not
<br /> only are we giving them abatements,but we are also giving them tax dollars for the projects. Some
<br /> of these projects we've seen up thirty percent (30%) or larger of investment of tax dollars into the
<br /> 9
<br />
|