College Park Industries seeks industrial development district in Mount Clemens; residents voice opposition
May 17, 2024 | Mount Clemens, Macomb County, Michigan
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Mount Clemens City Commission held a public hearing on an application from College Park Industries Inc. to establish an industrial development district (IDD) at 350 Church Street under Public Act 198 of 1974, a preliminary step that would allow the company to apply for an Industrial Facilities Tax (IFT) exemption.
City staff explained that tonight's item was the IDD public hearing to gather comment from the assessor and affected taxing jurisdictions; any decision on an IFT abatement itself would come at a later meeting. Camille Silva of Macomb County Planning and Economic Development told the commission that an IFT does not mean the city "gives money" to a company; rather, the exemption typically applies to 50 percent of the increase in taxable value that results from new investment and is performance‑based. "The way that it is abated is it is what's called performance based," Silva said, adding that the company will continue paying existing taxes on the current assessed value and pay 50 percent on the incremental increase from improvements.
Members of the public raised opposition. Gloria Haller charged that a previous abatement granted to another company had not produced promised jobs and urged the commission to seek recovery before approving or considering additional abatements. Haller said prior recipients had not met expectations and that the city had effectively lost revenue while residents bore higher taxes. Other residents echoed concerns about fairness to existing homeowners and small businesses.
Joe Wicker, speaking for College Park Industries, outlined the company's 27‑year history in Macomb County, described planned facility improvements and new equipment for precision manufacturing, and said the company expected to add some positions tied to research, development and production. He emphasized that the company would continue to pay taxes on existing assessed value and that the abatement would apply only to incremental assessed value on new investment.
The commission opened and then closed the public hearing by motion and roll call; no vote on an IFT abatement occurred that night. Staff and county planning said any abatement terms (length, percentage, and performance criteria) would be determined in a separate process and are at the commission's discretion.
City staff explained that tonight's item was the IDD public hearing to gather comment from the assessor and affected taxing jurisdictions; any decision on an IFT abatement itself would come at a later meeting. Camille Silva of Macomb County Planning and Economic Development told the commission that an IFT does not mean the city "gives money" to a company; rather, the exemption typically applies to 50 percent of the increase in taxable value that results from new investment and is performance‑based. "The way that it is abated is it is what's called performance based," Silva said, adding that the company will continue paying existing taxes on the current assessed value and pay 50 percent on the incremental increase from improvements.
Members of the public raised opposition. Gloria Haller charged that a previous abatement granted to another company had not produced promised jobs and urged the commission to seek recovery before approving or considering additional abatements. Haller said prior recipients had not met expectations and that the city had effectively lost revenue while residents bore higher taxes. Other residents echoed concerns about fairness to existing homeowners and small businesses.
Joe Wicker, speaking for College Park Industries, outlined the company's 27‑year history in Macomb County, described planned facility improvements and new equipment for precision manufacturing, and said the company expected to add some positions tied to research, development and production. He emphasized that the company would continue to pay taxes on existing assessed value and that the abatement would apply only to incremental assessed value on new investment.
The commission opened and then closed the public hearing by motion and roll call; no vote on an IFT abatement occurred that night. Staff and county planning said any abatement terms (length, percentage, and performance criteria) would be determined in a separate process and are at the commission's discretion.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
