Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conyers council removes agenda item after heated debate over proposed apartment tax abatement
Summary
Councilmembers debated whether to signal opposition to a proposed residential tax abatement that a member said would cost taxpayers roughly $2.6 million over five years; after extended discussion the council voted to remove the item from tonight’s agenda.
A motion to remove item number 1 under New Business — a proposed resolution to state the city’s position on a residential tax abatement — passed after an extended council debate.
Councilmember (Speaker 1) introduced the agenda revision request, saying the resolution would instruct the development authority of the city’s position. Councilmember Speaker 5 argued the council needed to present a statement to the development authority because, he said, a proposed five‑year abatement for an apartment complex would cost taxpayers about $2,600,000 over that period and could open a precedent for future residential abatements. “This is not good … we are the gatekeepers for the city and for the residents,” Speaker 5 said, urging the council to keep the item on the agenda so it could vote on a resolution to oppose the abatement.
Other councilmembers pushed back, urging dialogue with the development authority and noting the authority’s role in negotiating deals they described as potentially beneficial. One councilmember (Speaker 4) said the development authority had crafted conditions that, in his view, would return revenue over time and included a requirement that 10% of units be affordable. He asked the council to “talk to the development authority so that they understand or we ... understand everything that they had to take into consideration when they made the decision.”
After roughly an hour of discussion and repeated exchanges about precedent, taxpayer impacts and the development authority’s process, the mayor called for a voice vote on removing the agenda item. The motion to remove item number 1 carried; the council then proceeded to other business.
The debate highlighted competing views about economic development tools and local oversight: some councilmembers emphasized protecting the city’s tax base and setting clear limits on residential abatements, while others stressed the development authority’s role and the potential for negotiated long‑term community benefits.
The meeting record shows councilmembers later noted the issue has been discussed previously in retreat and finance committee settings; staff said the city manager would poll other council members regarding any follow‑up resolution to the development authority.
The council moved on to presentations, citizen comments and a public hearing after removing the item from the agenda.
