Laserfiche WebLink
whose partners have made significant contributions for many years to the <br />improvement of the economic and cultural vitality of the City of South Bend. <br />B. The Property stood vacant and in an increasing state of disrepair for <br />approximately two years, before the Petitioner stepped forward with a plan to <br />purchase, rehabilitate and occupy the Property at enormous cost to the Petitioner. <br />C. The Petitioner made inquiry into the availability of tax abatement on <br />the increase in assessed value of the Property that will result from its <br />rehabilitation, as early as November of 2001, but was informed erroneously that <br />the Property was not in an area that would qualify for tax abatement or that would <br />be given favorable consideration for tax abatement. <br />D. The Property is in fact located within the East Bank Development <br />Area, an area within the City of South Bend that has been targeted by the <br />Common Council for favorable consideration of tax abatement for redevelopment <br />and rehabilitation of office space, under section 2- 78.1(c)(6) of the South Bend <br />Municipal Code. <br />E. The fact that the Property is located within the East Bank Development <br />Area was not made known to the Petitioner until late January of 2002. The <br />Petitioner contacted the South Bend Department of Community and Economic <br />Development and initiated the completion of the tax abatement petition and <br />statement of benefits promptly upon learning of this status. <br />F. The Petitioner gave express instructions to its contractor not to allow <br />demolition of the interior of the Property to begin until such time as the statement <br />of benefits had been filed with the South Bend City Clerk, as filing agent for the <br />Common Council. <br />G. Notwithstanding these instructions, the contractor began such <br />demolition on February 4, 2002. The statement of benefits and tax abatement <br />petition were first filed with the City Clerk the next day, February 5, 2002. The <br />tax abatement petition was filed again by the South Bend Department of <br />Community and Economic Development on February 19, 2002, as noted in the <br />first prefatory recital of this Resolution. <br />H. Although demolition was initiated on February 4, 2002, without the <br />Petitioner's knowledge or consent, before the statement of benefits was filed, <br />there was no remodeling, repair, betterment, enlargement or extension of the <br />Property (collectively, "Rehabilitation" as defined in section 6- 1.1- 12.1 -1(6) of <br />the Indiana Code) that would have given rise to an increase in assessed valuation <br />of the Property until after February 5, 2002, the date on which the statement of <br />benefits was first filed in accordance with the requirements of section 6- 1.1 -12.1- <br />3 of the Indiana Code. <br />I. The Petitioner acknowledges and respects the long - standing policy of <br />the Common Council to require that the economic revitalization area declaratory <br />resolution be adopted by the Common Council before a building permit is <br />obtained and before rehabilitation begins. <br />J. The Petitioner's contractor obtained a building permit on or about <br />February 8, 2002, and initiated rehabilitation activities soon after demolition of <br />the interior of the Property was completed. The building permit and the initiation <br />of rehabilitation activities took place before the Common Council had adopted a <br />declaratory resolution, in violation of the Common Council's policy. <br />K. If the Petitioner had received correct information concerning the <br />location of the Property within the East Bank Development Area when it first <br />made inquiry in November or December of 2001, there would have been more <br />than adequate time for the Petitioner to have completed the tax abatement petition <br />process, and for the Common Council to have heard the petition and to have acted <br />