Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning and 10‑year tax abatement tied to BW Cook relocation
Summary
The council unanimously approved a rezoning on McKinley Highway and authorized a 10‑year real property tax abatement to support BW Cook's relocation; staff estimated new payroll and modest first‑year tax receipts while the petitioner said the project may not occur without the incentive.
The Saint Joseph County Council on Nov. 12, 2024 approved a rezoning request and a related 10‑year real‑property tax abatement intended to facilitate the relocation of BW Cook to an unaddressed parcel on McKinley Highway.
Area Plan staff presented Bill 111‑24, a rezoning from single‑family to commercial for a roughly 3.7‑acre parcel, describing buffering (double row of evergreens), a loading dock at the rear, and site access from McKinley. Attorney Peter J. Agostino said the site would house a warehouse, office space and a training center and estimated employment would ultimately exceed 100 people; the petitioner anticipates adding about 18 jobs in the near term. Developer Mike Dobson of Diversified Real Estate told the council the facility would store finished product and include a call center with limited evening occupancy.
Economic development planner Terry O'Brien presented a related tax abatement request (Bill 110‑24) and noted the abatement would be a 10‑year real‑property abatement that is not within a TIF district so taxes generated during the abatement period would go to the general fund. O'Brien said current taxes on the vacant land are approximately $1,100 and estimated first‑year taxes would be "a little bit greater than the 3,000"; staff also provided an estimated 10‑year tax payment and an estimate of tax savings. He described the petitioner's expectation to bring roughly $5,000,000 in payroll to the county and that 64% of current BW Cook staff live in St. Joseph County.
During questioning, council members asked whether the project would have proceeded without the abatement; Agostino said there was a high risk it would not. The council discussed reporting requirements tied to an abatement and the petitioner's commitment to comply.
On roll call the rezoning and the abatement were approved, with recorded votes shown as 8‑0 in favor. The council recorded the motion and moved forward; staff emphasized the abatement's reporting requirements and noted the tax receipts would flow to the general fund during the abatement period.
Next steps: the petitioner must comply with reporting conditions associated with the abatement and pursue required site permits; the county will track compliance and employment and payroll outcomes as part of routine reporting tied to abatement agreements.
