05 - City Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 8 the document reflected a change of instead of creating 30 new jobs that Paris Warehouse 107 was to retain 30 jobs, which meant they were not required to increase their payroll by $470,000. Council Member Clifford said Paris Warehouse 107 themselves had proposed to both the city council and the PEDC they would create 30 new jobs and increase their payroll, but the final contract that was signed by Mayor Curtis Fendley did not require them to do that. Council Member Clifford said he did not find anything in the city council minutes where any discussion was made regarding the alteration of the terms of the contract and questioned who would have removed such a critical important item from the contract. He said employment was an obvious goal for encouraging economic development and abatements were granted on the basis of presumed economic development. He said it appeared that the council mandated the formation of 30 new jobs and the council authorized the mayor to execute the contract containing 30 new jobs. He questioned if the entire contract was negated, since the actual contract that was executed was different than what the Council approved. Council` Member Clifford said he believed that Council would the legal advice to see if the passage of a contract that substantially differs from the description of the contract given to the city council is even legally binding. Council Member Clifford thanked Mr. Godwin for bringing to his attention this huge problem with the contract. He said he first pointed out to Mr. Godwin a few weeks ago that the building that was the subject to the 2006 abatement had never been built and of course Mr. Godwin was incredulous when he showed this to him. Council Member Clifford said after Mr. Godwin met with Paris Warehouse 107, Mr. Godwin told him that this apparently had all been a mix up. He said Mr. Godwin explained that Paris Warehouse 107 was now maintaining that the 2004 abatement was actually the legitimate abatement all along and that the company decided not to build the building that was the subject to 2006 abatement. Council Member Clifford said it appears that virtually no one was even aware of the 2004 contract until it was rediscovered a few days ago and that absolutely no compliance documents appear to have ever been submitted regarding this 11 year old contract. He also said the compliance terms of this contract appear to have never been fulfilled and consequently this contract should be deemed invalid due to the absence of all mandatory compliance documents. Council Member Clifford said legal council would also be needed to evaluate whether the absence of all mandatory compliance documents negates the contract. Council Member Clifford wanted to know if the 2004 contract was the abatement agreement in effect, why would Paris Warehouse 107 present a document to the PEDC stating that the warehouse was substantially completed on September 9, 2006. He also questioned what building exactly was Paris Warehouse 107 referring to that was completed in September of 2006. Council Member Clifford reiterated that the aerial photographs document that nothing at all was built during that time period and yet a document was given to the PEDC regarding the costs of the warehouse, and the dates of the abatement period at the top of this document were taken right off the 2006 contract. He also said at that time Paris Warehouse 107 represented that they had indeed built a warehouse in 2006, but now they were saying they actually did not build a warehouse in 2006 but that it was built in 2005. Council Member Clifford again questioned why documents were presented to the PEDC stating that the building was completed in