My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-13-99 Council Meeting Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
1999
>
12-13-99 Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2013 11:25:16 AM
Creation date
4/22/2013 11:16:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Council Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
12/13/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1999 <br />and Indiana Code 6- 1.1 -12 et. seq. <br />SECTION III. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption <br />by the Common Council and approved by the Mayor. <br />s /Sean Coleman <br />Member of the Common Council <br />Councilmember Kelly indicated that the Community and Economic Development Committee <br />discussed this tax abatement at its meeting this afternoon and sends it to the Council without a <br />recommendation. <br />Mr. William Faust, Engineering Manager, Uniroyal Technology Corporation, 2001 West <br />Washington Street, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this Resolution. Mr. Faust <br />informed the Council that Mr. Jim Elgin, Vice - President and General Manager, was also present. <br />Mr. Faust indicated that they are requesting support for this Confirming Resolution for the <br />construction of a new eighteen thousand (18,000) square foot addition to their building as described <br />during the Public Hearing on the designating Resolution. <br />Mr. Faust stated that he understands that there is some concern with their selection of the contractor <br />for this project. He informed the Council that they received four (4) bids and the decision was based <br />on the value of the project and the quality reputation of the Butler building system that they have <br />selected. The contractor they intend to use does use local subcontractors and they have been told <br />that typically sixty per cent (60 %) to seventy -five (75 %) per cent of the work is performed by union <br />contractors. The contractor works with all thirteen (13) local trades. He sited the dollar amounts <br />spent by this contractor on subcontractors on previous projects. <br />A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. <br />There was no one present wishing to speak to the Council in favor of this Resolution. <br />Mr. Eric Brown, 926 East Oakside, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this Resolution. He <br />stated that he is not against tax abatements when they fit into an economic development plan for the <br />community with part of that plan being to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of the <br />community. He noted that the contractor that has been selected is from Elkhart County and this does <br />not benefit the citizens of South Bend. <br />Ms. Jean Troutman - Poole, 302 South Coquillard, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is not against <br />tax abatements when they are responsible. However, Uniroyal is not a good corporate citizen. She <br />urged the Council to vote against this abatement. <br />Mr. Mike Kruk, 449 South Phillipa, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he also is not against giving tax <br />abatements to responsible corporate citizens but Uniroyal is not a good corporate citizen. He asked <br />that the City reject this request for tax abatement. <br />There was no one else present wishing to speak in opposition to this Resolution. <br />In rebuttal, Mr. Faust reiterated that they received four (4) bids, two (2) from South Bend general <br />contractors and two (2) from contractors in the Michiana area. They went with the best value for <br />their dollars and they have been told by that contractor that they will utilize local union <br />subcontractors. <br />Councilmember King stated that at the last Council meeting two (2) members of the Mishawaka <br />Common Council spoke to this Council and recommended that they not adopt this Resolution with <br />their reasoning being the history of Uniroyal in Mishawaka. He noted that it appears that Uniroyal <br />has consistently made decisions based on what is good for Uniroyal and not for the good of the <br />community and they have made a choice to choose what is good for Uniroyal and not the community <br />and he therefore will not be supporting this Resolution. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.