07-22-96 Community & Economic Development

Home Browse Search

� t Committee Report Community and Economic Development Committee July 22, 1996 Page 2 He noted that when the action taken on this particular Bill was made on April 10, 1992,that he was a member of the Redevelopment Commission. He noted that he has made full disclosure with regard to the conflict of interest statute as well as Supreme Court Ethical Guidelines. He them reviewed a history of the proposed tax abatement he meticulous went through the statement of benefits form (copy attached) which was filed in a timely fashion upon the adoption of Resolution Nos. 1934-92 and 1935-92.He noted that the petitioner,the South Bend Tribune was not aware of a problem until the State Board of Commissioners indicated in April of 1996 that in their determination the petitioner did not qualify since the machinery was at the location but was not in workable condition.He noted that his client had timely filed the statement of benefits form and that the specific issue was one of interpretation. He noted that the completion date was listed as June-December 1994 and indicated that his client as a tax payer had fully complied and performed pursuant to the local guidelines and the state law. Council Member Coleman noted that Mr.Szarwark had presented a time-line with regard to all action talked by both the petitioner and counsel on this matter. In response to a question raised by Council Member Luecke, Mr. Faccenda noted that everything was filed timely and that his client took reasonable action upon being denied the tax abatement as a result of the State Board of Tax Commissioners interpretation. Council Member Coleman noted that this matter had been continued from the last meeting in light of the fact that 2 Council Members were absent and full deliberations of an entire 9 Member Council were important. The Council Attorney also noted that she had checked the official records from 1992 and that all matters were in order and the petitioner did comply with all regulations at that time. Council Member Luecke noted that the 2 year time frame was a local requirement and not a state law requirement. He stated that the Tribune has complied and he believed that the Council should go forward. Mr. Beitzenger noted that the Form 11, the Notice of Assessment must be filed with the County Auditors office and that the overall question involved in the case involving the South Bend Tribune involved the definition of"installed".He noted that the equipment in question was defiantly at the Tribune office but was not totally functioning. Council Member Luecke again spoke in favor of the proposed Resolution and Council President Kelly also spoke in favor. Mr. Faccenda noted that the state law permits a counsel to take such action with the new state law taken affect on January 1, 1995. The Council Attorney noted for the record that the Council had taken previous action under the new state law which was permissible.