My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SM 08-08-80
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
SM 08-08-80
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 4:09:14 PM
Creation date
9/25/2012 2:41:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend Redevelopnmt Commission <br />Special.Mee ing — August 8, 1980 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS <br />e. Mr. Ellison continues.... <br />It is our impression that Hablin is <br />now in a situation where the petiti oner, <br />becau.se of timing, cannot qualify for five <br />year abatement and because of having started <br />construction, would be denied a ten -year <br />aba ement. Thus, because of imperfections <br />in the system and due to the absence of <br />having a local procedure some -six to nine <br />man s after the new law became effective, <br />Hab in would be penalized if we stick to <br />the procedure of the policy of not consider - <br />ing an abatement situation where a building <br />pe it has been issued or actual construction <br />started. It is our belief that Hablin did <br />indeed enter the project under the presumption <br />tha they would receive a tax abatement under <br />the five year statute. Because of the timing <br />difficulties in the absence of local procedures, <br />and as we understand it, a determination by the <br />auditor that Hablin cannot receive a five year <br />aba ement, they are now petitioning for abate - <br />men . Therefore, in the report we sought to <br />loo at the conditions from the standpoint <br />of what the condition of the former Frances <br />Shop was prior to the start of construction <br />to make a finding that conditions at that <br />t' were such that the property would indeed <br />qua ify for an abatement. In effect, the <br />report is really a rather technical.effort <br />to ggest that Hablin not be penalized. <br />Tha the Commission recommend to the Council <br />tha an abatement or designation be given <br />eve though construction has actually started <br />and completed in order to avoid penalizing a <br />domitown merchant whose efforts I think we <br />should encourage. I would be happy to answer <br />any questions you might have on the matter. <br />Mr. Robinson: Ubat effect will this have <br />if we grant this tax abatement when in <br />the past we have denied, and what is it <br />goh ig to do to us in the future. <br />Mr. Butler: It does not set the kind of <br />pre edent that would require us to permit <br />a t abatement or recommend tax abatement <br />in e future. I assume that the City <br />Couicil, which has the ultimate authority <br />-16- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.