06-08-09 Common Council Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING JUNE 8, 2009 Councilmember Rouse stated that he appreciates Councilmember Puzzello’s comments. However, he stated that tax abatements are not an entitlement that is why the Council reviews each one. He stated that this Council selectively decides on how it is going to award tax abatement. He stated that the law does allow, it doesn’t demand tax abatement. Just because a citizen comes and applies for a tax abatement doesn’t mean they are going to automatically be granted. Councilmember Rouse stated that he is not calling for a moratorium on tax abatements; however he doesn’t understand how this Council can continuously look at new money and give away old money. He stated that he doesn’t understand how the Council can look at the shortage in the general fund which comes from property tax and consistently give tax abatement where it would induce the fund that the city has. He doesn’t understand that, but prior to HB 1001, tax abatement did not impact the budget, since HB 1001 it does, because the levy could always be increase, the tax levy cannot be raised now. He stated that if the Council wants to have a discussion on the moratorium, they can do that, but understand since HB 1001, there is a cap on how much that this city can charge in property tax, prior to HB 1001, there was a 5% that could be floated with the tax levy, this is a new day people and the Council can’t happen about what happened yesterday. The Council has to function and make decision based upon the parameters that have been given to date. He stated that he is not against tax abatement and in some cases they are warranted, but the general conception that tax abatement is an entitlement is not realistic today, when the city is talking about cutting 50 firemen and 40 police officers and wonder where the money is coming from. He stated that this is his personal opinion, but that is the way he sees the world today. Councilmember Varner stated that when this has happened in the past that a lot has been left out or the basement was dug or a permit was issued before the abatement was granted, didn’t this have to come back to the Council as a special exception? Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that it has always been a two step process. The first resolution was a waiver, suspending the rules with regard to a building being built and a permit being pulled. That waiver was heard at one meeting and then there was a separate Declaratory Resolution was heard at another meeting. Councilmember Varner stated that with regard to HB 1001, if it has done nothing else it has caused a lot of confusion and concern that he has. He stated that abatement was created to make taxes more even by living in the city as opposed to living in the county. He stated that with the adoption of HB 1001, if the assumption is made of the assessment process is legitimate and even, fair and accurate across the board, a $100,000 home in the county will pay essentially the same taxes as a $100,000 in the city, then that discrepancy has disappeared with the adoption of that. He stated that does it make sense to continue abatements, as has been suggested when there is no longer a tax differential. The Council went from trying to create evenness and now if tax abatements are created they will be creating a tax advantage and it is something that the Council needs to have more discussion on before they come to a conclusion. He stated that whoever buys this house is going to be taxed on the sales price of the house and 1% as a maximum and they will have already the tax abatement built in compared to their neighbors. He stated that is how he interprets it; however, he may be just as confused as everybody else. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that Bill No. 09-42 is mute, because it would be contingent upon the passage of Bill No. 09-41, which was defeated. RESOLUTION NO. 3973-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPOINTING AN AGENT/NEGOTIATOR TO REPRESENT THE COMMON COUNCIL AND ADDRESSING THE CITY ADVISORY NEGOTIATING TEAM FOR THE 2009 POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT NEGOTIATIONS 17