Laserfiche WebLink
March 25, 2002 <br /> Page 2 <br /> required, he would recommend that action to his clients. <br /> Council President Kelly asked what the definition of"compelling reasons"would be. <br /> Mr. Beitzinger noted that a roof or substantial repairs over and above the ordinary. <br /> Dr. Varner noted that the building is currently unoccupied and unused. If a waiver is filed and <br /> granted then it appears that the Council could legally go forward on the abatement resolution. If <br /> there is a legal way to go forward, he would support it. <br /> Council Member Aranowski noted that waivers have been considered by the Council on a limited <br /> basis in the past. <br /> Council Member Coleman stated that this is a"troubling situation". He cannot recall ever having a <br /> petitioner come to the Council and tell them that they did not have a basis in law to take or not take <br /> action. He stated that in this case the Petitioner wants it "both ways". Council Member Coleman <br /> stated that in every prior case, the Council has provided the opportunity to rehab and bring a <br /> building into full service where possible. In such cases, the Petitioner acknowledged that they <br /> have the responsibility to comply with the Council's rules. Regardless of the circumstances the <br /> Council must have compelling reasons to grant a waiver prior to taking formal action on the tax <br /> abatement request. He noted that to do otherwise would"open the flood gates".Under the current <br /> circumstances, without compelling reasons, he would not support the bill. <br /> Council Member Ujdak inquired whether the project would go forward without the tax abatement. <br /> Mr. Hall stated that they would. <br /> Mr. Hernly stated that standards and obligations are established by the Council, however there is <br /> no obligation for the Council to grant an abatement. Such action is based on the Council's <br /> discretion since there is no right to an abatement. <br /> Council Member Coleman noted that there must be an acknowledgement by the petitioners of <br /> noncompliance in order to go forward. <br /> Mr. Hernly requested that Bill No. 02-19 be continued to April 8th so that he could discuss this <br /> matter further with his clients. The bill was recommended to be continued. <br /> Council Member King then called for a presentation on Bill No. 02-20 which is a three (3) year <br /> real property tax abatement request for AAK Properties, Inc., for the property located at 131 South <br /> Taylor Street. <br /> Mr. Beitzinger reviewed his reported dated March 4, 2002 (copy attached).He noted that the <br /> principal members of AAK Properties, Inc. Include Michael J. Anderson, Peter J. Augustino and <br /> Scott M. Keller who are the principals of a law firm. They have acquired the property containing a <br /> building with 20,950 square feet and plan to relocate their law firm to this location. Extensive <br /> renovations are necessary. Additionally the dilapidated apartment building on the property will be <br /> razed. The total costs of renovations are projected to exceed $270,000. The report concluded that <br /> the petitioner meets the qualifications for a three (3) year real property tax abatement under § 2- <br /> 78.1 of the South Bend Municipal Code addressing "Office Developments Within the Fast Bank <br /> Development Area and Tax Abatement Impact Area". <br /> Community and Economic Development Committee <br />