01-25-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2016 Councilmember Karen White thanked Mr. Zeeb for responding to her questions and stated it might be beneficial to share the question and answer with the Council. Mr. Zeeb reported the question Councilmember White had was the process related to residential tax abatements. Mr. Zeeb stated often they can be confused with commercial abatements since the process is very similar but it is not identical. If a property is residential it has certain specific requirements and that is why the ordinance the Council passes mentions the specific lot and determines it as residentially distressed. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand added the petitioners complete a form that explains why it is economically distressed and the situation regarding the bankruptcy of Lafayette Falls did qualify the lot to meet those requirements. Council Vice President Davis asked if the bankruptcy had not occurred then you may not have determined it as residentially distressed. Mr. Zeeb responded yes that it correct. He stated one of the things that Community Investment has done working with the Council and Clerks Office, for example regarding the Triangle Neighborhood and up near Notre Dame may qualify for residentially distressed through discussions they have identified areas where they would not take those abatements. We did go down to the lot and see what we are looking for such as a high frequency of empty lots that have remained empty for a long period of time. He stated this does change over time and as the neighborhood rebounds we will issue less to that neighborhood. Councilmember Williams Preston asked what the four bullet points are that you referenced about the qualifications on what is a residentially distressed area. Mr. Zeeb responded that he will send them to her as they are rather lengthy and he would be doing a disservice trying to quote them off hand at the moment. Councilmember Williams Preston stated she is asking because she is also curious about the language residentially distressed because she drove down there and thought it was a beautiful neighborhood and it didn't seem distressed me. She stated now that she heard his answers she can see where they are coming from and she stated she is glad that it sounds like they are not doing this because they have always done it this way. She also stated she may think other people who are not privy to these different codes may not understand but thinks going forward so everyone knows about the opportunity abatements can have especially in my district. She stated she simply wanted to take the moment to make sure we are getting this information out to the public and extend these wonderful opportunities. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated the commercial abatements rarely exceeded a fifty percent abatement. He stated this is the first time he has heard it being almost one hundred percent. He asked if there is anyway going forward to cap an abatement say at fifty percent. Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand responded not unless you amended the city code. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated he never thought anyone would think it would be one hundred percent over a five year period. He stated he is not saying this for the current bill but going forward for future abatements. Mr. Zeeb responded typically there is a sweet spot in residential abatements and it really depends on how much the house costs and in this instance since the assessed value was low enough it qualified for this much. He stated first movers are typically given the highest abatements and then those who come after in a neighborhood are given less. Councilmember Dr. Varner responded thank you for the clarification and maybe this should be looked at going forward. There was no one from the public wishing to speak in favor or against the bill. Councilmember Dr. Varner made a motion for the adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried. The resolution passed by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. 0