Laserfiche WebLink
NOTE: <br />In May of 1996, several contractors filed for <br />residential tax abatement. At that time, the validity <br />of the residential tax abatement areas was being <br />questioned. As it turned out, the residential tax <br />abatements that were filed were withdrawn by the <br />Petitioners. In some instances, the filing fee was <br />already submitted to the Controller's office. None of <br />these petitioners asked for refunds. A majority of the <br />checks for filing fees were not submitted to the <br />Controller's office. Some petitioners came in or <br />called and asked for their checks back. The remainder <br />of the checks were put in the vault in case the <br />Petitioners came in. <br />On November 17, 1997, Sandy Parmerlee, prepared letters <br />to be sent to the Petitioners returning their checks. <br />The receipt book notes this action. While going <br />through the checks submitted for the residential tax <br />abatements, it was discovered that a check that was <br />received in May of 1996 for a rezoning at 601 Blaine <br />Avenue was inadvertently stuck in with the residential <br />tax abatement checks. As the date of the check is May <br />22, 1996, it was not run through to the Controller at <br />this time. A review of the actions of the Common <br />Council reveals that the request for rezoning at 601 <br />Blaine was continued indefinitely. I discussed this <br />matter with JoAnn Harper, Chief Deputy City Clerk, and <br />advised that I did not feel comfortable asking for a <br />new check at this time considering that the rezoning <br />has been continued and may never come before the <br />Council again. It was decided that the May 22, 1996 <br />check would be put with the ordinance for this <br />rezoning. Should the Petitioner ask that the matter <br />come before the Council again, the Petitioner will be <br />asked at that time for a new check to cover the filing <br />fee. <br />Sandy Parmerlee <br />11 -17 -97 <br />