The St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners voted Nov. 18 to approve ordinance 67-25 (which becomes bill 60-25), a comprehensive revision of the county's tax-abatement ordinance. The measure was moved, seconded and recorded as passed by the commissioners.

At the meeting resident Steve Francis of Judy Lake Drive, Clay Township, urged the commissioners to reject the ordinance or return it to the county council for more public work, saying the draft ‘‘removes the affirmative-action part of the current ordinance’’ and replaces it with a requirement only that companies comply with federal equal-employment laws and submit a form to the county’s economic-development office. ‘‘It does not require any seeking out or recruitment of qualified candidates,’’ Francis said, arguing the change would weaken local efforts to connect disadvantaged candidates with abated projects.

An unnamed commissioner speaking in support acknowledged the prior removal of affirmative-action language this summer but said the new ordinance includes three provisions the speaker supports: a required average salary equal to 125% of the county’s average individual wage (the speaker cited a county average near $56,000 and said the new requirement would set an average of about $70,000), a requirement that developers invest a majority of construction dollars with local companies where practicable (including contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and consultants), and a reporting requirement that petitioners comply with and report their equal-employment opportunity policies and filings so the county can confirm documentation is on file.

Francis also cautioned that the local-contractor language includes a ‘‘where practicable’’ caveat he said could be applied broadly for very large projects and urged the board to focus abatements on smaller, locally anchored businesses that hire locally. The supporting commissioner said the board should monitor how the ordinance operates and added that the commissioners could send comments back to the county council for future review.

The board moved to approve ordinance 67-25. The recorded votes in the meeting transcript show the commissioners voting "Aye" and the motion carrying. The ordinance was discussed at length before the motion and is expected to be reviewed periodically as it is implemented.

What happens next: The board approved the ordinance as presented; commissioners said they expect to review how the ordinance operates over the coming months and may send notes to the county council for further revision.