On November 12, 2025, the County Council voted to approve bill 60-25. That bill eliminated most of the County’s tax abatement ordinance and replaced it with next to nothing.
A large coalition of community organizations and individuals came together in 2009 to pass the tax abatement ordinance. That coalition included, among others:
— AFL-CIO Central Labor Council
— Community Forum for Economic Development
— League of Women Voters of the South Bend Area
— Martin Luther King, Jr., Senior Men’s Club
— Michiana Group of the Sierra Club
— Northeast Neighborhood Council
— South Bend NAACP
— St. Joseph Valley Building and Construction Trades Council
— St. Joseph Valley Project
The principle of the original ordinance was that taxpayer money should only be used to subsidize companies that were providing real benefits to the community.
The ordinance created a point system that specified benefits that a company could choose to provide, and the more benefits, the longer the abatement.
These benefits included, among others
— employing local construction workers as well as contractors
— meeting energy-efficient standards on buildings
— paying company workers decent wages, as well as benefits such as pensions, training, day care, and transportation assistance.
In addition, the ordinance required the company to
— have an affirmative action plan
— pay all workers a wage at least sufficient to provide an income above the federal government’s definition of poverty
— sign a Memorandum of Agreement, a legal document stating the commitments made by the company receiving the abatement, as well as the conditions under which the County can terminate the abatement or require that tax savings received by the company be repaid.
We know that the Council did not strictly follow this ordinance in recent years, but what was the reason for eliminating it?
The benefits in bill 60-25 refer only to local construction companies and average wages, and a statement to obey the law. Everything else in the existing ordinance is gone.
Twice in 2024 the four Democrats on the Council, along with Rep. Schaetzle, defeated an attempt to repeal the existing ordinance. So why did this coalition sponsor a bill that will essentially do the same thing – especially since two members of the current Council were strong proponents of the ordinance when it was originally passed?
Bill 60-25 makes sense if the point of abatements is simply to attract companies to the County, and if reducing requirements and taxes is the best way to attract them.
In contrast, the ordinance passed in 2009 was based on the idea that the taxes paid by County residents should only be used to attract companies that are providing real benefits to the community. Paying taxes without corresponding benefits would be a real loss to all of us.
