My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
R-1989-19
LaPorte
>
Legislative records
>
Resolutions - GR1000-05 Ordinances & Resolutions
>
1980's
>
1989
>
R-1989-19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2016 3:48:35 PM
Creation date
7/27/2006 4:40:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislative Records
Legislative Type
Resolution
Legislative No.
R-1989-19
Date
11/13/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />" <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />! <br /> <br />Annotation, page 5tt <br /> <br />e_- <br /> <br />I <br />" <br /> <br />effect of transferring employment. The term ..primarily" as used <br />here and elsewhere means a majority of the jobs must be new. <br /> <br />Section 2h4. Deals wit~_ the competitive problems created by <br />abatement. It .provides that the facility must JJe necessar~' <br />because the prospect cannot conduct businef?s using existing <br />capaci ty when a reasonable financial allo\/ance is made for the <br />improvements necessary to bring that existing property up to <br />specitication. This particular circumstance is appropriate to <br />office headquarters location. With 40 to 50 million square feet <br />ot empty office space in the community, it is hard to imagine a <br />situation where another office building would be justifi~d. o~ <br />the othcr hand, a corporate headquarters might be justified in <br />an area such as Clear Lake where there is a shortage'of office <br />space. It would be reasonable to abate because of the multiplier <br />eifect on jobs. In another case, if a company h~d u~ique office <br />requirements that could not be met with existing property, we <br />should be able to abClte rather than lose the jobs. Yet \Ie dQ !lot <br />want: to grant blanket exemption to office buildings (even tor <br />headquarters) that might add to the space glut, cause the loss of <br />taxes or put'owners at a diso.dvantage. If a developer or anyone <br />el~e can make a reasonable case that existing property can be <br />used efficiently, abatement will not be granted. <br />-. <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />- <br />Section 2i Describes and specifies taAable status of property en <br />the facility. <br /> <br />Section 3a. Informs the potential applica11 where to file an <br />-application for abatement. <br /> <br />Section 3b. Describes the information that. must be in the <br />application. Notice that the details filed with the applic~tion <br />are e~tensive and provide the necessary information for the <br />County to determine whether the abatement. complies with the <br />intent of these guidelines. In the case of modernization, it <br />requires a separate rendering of real and personal propert~es for <br />the purpose of establishing the base year value. Also notice that <br />the county io authorized to require such other financial <br />information as it may.deem appropriate. In this case, it may be <br />Clpprcpriate to look at the resources of the applicant, clearar,ces <br />\~i th respect to pollution or environmental impacts, and other <br />information. <br /> <br />Section 3c. Provides a show-cause hearing and a 30-day \/ait <br />period before the hearing to allow for thorough investigation by <br />the public and affected parties. <br /> <br />\ <br />( <br /> <br />Section 3d.' Provides for a speedy 60-day e::ecution of the <br />a?plication. It is required that the county notify the applicilnt <br />if the abatement will be approved or not. The approval re~olution <br />constitutes an intent on the part of the county to execute an <br />agreement. It illeo provides that. it tc:.kes a commisioner to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.