06-26-95 Community & Economic Development

Home Browse Search

Committee Report Community and economic Development June 26, 1995 Page 2 The Council Attorney then requested that the Council hear under miscellaneous business Bill No. 95-51 which is a Resolution confirming the personal property tax abatement request for Steel Warehouse Company Inc. She noted that at the last Committee she had noted to the Committee Members that resent state laws have changed businesses which are considered a"Resource Recovery System". She noted that the las such enacted a new state law retroactively which eliminated the benefits availab le i types of businesses. She also noted that legislation was effective for the 1994 assessment year. She concluded that she had worked closely with the petitioner's attorney namely Mr.Ernest Szarwark of Barnes and Thornburg Law Firm to work out a Resolution at clearly acknowledge the state law and which could take advantage of the timetable if action was taken by the Common Council prior to July 1, 1995. Mr. Ernest Szarwark then addressed the Committee. He highlighted that fact that Steel Warehouse would not be entitled to any of the benefits it had properly applied for for personal property tax abatement when it filed its petition on March 1, 1994.He noted that at the state law level that Resource Recovery Systems had been controversial in light of the special status which they had been granted.In light of this apparently the new state law was enacted. As the Council Attorney noted, the proposed resolution would reaffirm the tax abatement previously granted by Section the 6-1.1-12-28.5. ommm Council and would be consistent with the provisions of Indiana Code response to questions raised by the Common Council, it was noted that there may be as many as 2 to 3 other businesses that would fall under this category however in light of the fact that no application or petition was filed with the Common Council that they would not meet the July 1, 1995 deadline. Mr.Beitzinger noted that he had been in contact with both the petitioner and the Council Attorney with regard to the drafting of this resolution and the recommended procedure. In response to a question raised by Council Member Luecke,the Council Attorney noted that she is confortable with the recommended course of action proposed this evening. following discussion, Council Member Zakrzew ski made a motion, Seconded by Council Member Puzzello,that substitute Resolution No.95-51 be recommended favorably to Council.The motion passed. It was noted that there was a correction made on page 1 of the proposed Resolution and that is why the substitute Resolution was necessary. There being no further business to come before the Committee the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Council Member Roland Kelly, Chairperson Community and Economic Development • Attachments