The Greensburg City Council cleared the runway for a number of projects at its monthly meeting but proceeded with caution before rushing into flight.

The airport project had the potential to take off Monday as the Council contemplated ordinance 2007-4, which would form a new city only board, and 2007-3, which would permanently dissolve the county’s involvement with the airport.

The members considered passing the 2007-4 on its second and third reading, which would put the new Board into effect, but Council president Glenn Tebbe felt things should be taken slow in order to be put in proper order.

He proposed amendments to the ordinance that would define term limits for board members and who would appoint them. While the years a member could serve on the aviation board was not defined, John Dooley, president of the current board, said those were already put in place by Indiana codes. Tebbe also wondered if the Mayor should appoint two members and the Council three. In addition, he suggested the terms be staggered to avoid confusion and the possibility of stagnation. The Council agreed and voted to appoint two people, one by the Mayor and one by the Council, for two-year terms at the onset. This would allow for the members’ term limits to be staggered.

Since the ordinance was amended, 2007-3 was tabled to avoid dissolving the current board before a new one could be put in place.

The Council also discussed three tax abatements at length. One for Schreiber and Whitaker involved the low-income housing project in the works by Developmental Services Inc. (DSI), which was tabled last meeting. Dawn Galloway, representing Keller Development, returned with the requested information showing the need for the housing. The Council appreciated the statistics but was unsure for whom the abatement would be granted. Schreiber and Whitaker currently own the land. Keller Development is constructing the project, and DSI would be the eventual owners. However, Galloway noted, DSI is a non-profit organization and cannot own anything. She stated another entity, Tree City Estates LP, would be created on receipt of the grant and abatement to manage the property with DSI as a silent partner. She added until the grant was given there would be no reason to create the company, which left the Council uneasy as to whom would receive this abatement.

“I’ve never given and abatement to someone before I knew who I was giving it to,” member Gary Herbert said.

The Council also discussed the benefit of the 10-year abatement. Mayor Frank Manus, however, ended the discussion. He made it clear DSI employs about 100 people who may not otherwise have a job. Many of those people would be living in this facility.

“So if you don’t exist, then 100 people would be out of a job?” Manus asked DSI representatives. “Folks, let’s give them the abatement.”

The Council agreed, granting it unanimously to the project not the developers.

However, the other two abatements were not as cut and dried. Street Corner Group came to before the Council seeking a 10-year abatement on $6 million in real estate and a 5-year one on $1.1 million for a new hotel. The business expects to employ 27 in the 100-plus room facility. While the Council had approved hotels in the past, it speculated on the need for a such a facility and if it deserved an abatement. Melanie Maxwell, tourism director, said Greensburg is growing as a vacation destination and could use the extra rooms as of yesterday. Member Larry Bower did not discredit Maxwell’s perception but he felt it should not be the deciding factor.

“You saying you need more rooms, I understand. However, it’s like a used car salesman saying it’s better having 1,000 cars rather than 12. I take your comments in the context given,” Bower said.

After much discussion, the Council granted the abatement. However, member Helen Gardner wanted it made clear abatements should not be expected upon purchase of real estate.

“This is something we’re going to look at each time. Just because we’ve given it now doesn’t mean we’ll give it later,” she said.

That idea was seen in the other hotel. Holiday Inn Express returned seeking a renewal of its previous abatement on $3.4 million. The Council, however, was not satisfied with the number of employees currently working at the facility. Originally, Holiday Inn stated it would employ 43, but never reached that goal. It currently employs 19 whose salaries equal $229,142. This sparked a detailed discussion.