TC 2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1oz3 A ' February 21,2012 Fellow Board Members: We are being asked to approve tax abatement for PacMoore when by their own admission they still have 15 employees that have not been hired to fulfill the last tax abatement according to statement made to the Redevelopment 1 Commission at a meeting earlier this year. I In the 513-1 dated 3/8105 this Corporation estimated they would have 100 employees by the end of 2009 with an verage pay of$14.14 per hour. That figure has not been met as of this date. n January 1,2012 a new SB-1 was submitted by this Corporation stating they currently had 93 employees and would be hiring an additional 25 employees. The estimated start date is April 2012 with an estimated competition date of December 2012. 1 would like to know if that means they will hire the 15 employees still required to fulfill the first tax abatement and another 25 employees to fulfill the current tax abatement? The Company states they still have six(6)years left on their original abatement to fulfill the SB-1 obligation. They have six(6)years of tax abatement left due to the way tax assessments are assessed and when the taxes are due. That does not affect the date that the other obligations of the SB-1 are due with a date of December 2009 for the hiring of new employees. SB-1 filed 3/8/05 shows--in additional to manufacturing equipment; a start date of August 05 and completion date of December 09. The number of estimated employees is 100 by December 09. CF-1 for 2006 was not found by the Clerk's office. i CF-1 filed 4117/07 shows actual employees of 50, but an estimated 100 by 2009 CF-1 filed 4/30/07 shows actual employees of 70, but estimated on the SB-1 a number of 100 ggi CF-1 filed 5/13/08 shows 60 actual employees, but an estimated number of 100 1-1 filed 5/14/08 shows 60 actual employees, but an estimated number of 100 CF-1 filed 5/6/09 shows 67 actual employees, but still an estimated number of 100 CF-1 filed 5/11/10 shows 65 actual employees,but an estimated number of 100-it is at this point that they have not met their obligation for the number of employees shown in the original SB-1 and the Town Council should have taken action. CF-1 filed 5/12/11 shows 85 actual employees, but still an estimate number of 100. SB-1 Filed 1/16/2012 shows current employees of 93 with an estimated additional employees of 25 with an estimated completion date of December 2012 I will give credit to this Company as being consistent in filing the required CF-1 each year, except for the year of 2006. 1 do not, however,find that they have been forth coming in being compliant with the employment of workers as promised on the original SB-1 from 2005. Part of the blame for this should be laid on the shoulders of this Council for not taking action in 2009 when the Company had not met their obligation. It was at that time that a claw back should have been instituted. l erefore, based on the above information and the consistent pattern of not complying with the SB-1 contract between is Company and the residents of Mooresville in the past, I will be voting to deny this SB-1 request. All of the above information is from documents provided by either the County or Town Clerk's records and are a matter of public record. Virginia Perry—Mooresville Town Council Member