1 00:02:45,920 --> 00:02:46,520 Good 2 00:03:00,760 --> 00:03:05,880 morning and welcome to the August 20th session of the Vanderbilt County Property Tax Assessment 3 00:03:05,880 --> 00:03:10,680 Board of Appeals, if you would all please rise and join me in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. 4 00:03:13,060 --> 00:03:25,000 The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice for all. 5 00:03:30,410 --> 00:03:32,730 All right, roll call please. 6 00:03:32,730 --> 00:03:38,660 Chris Stewart here, Dan Humphrey, Chris Saker. 7 00:03:41,200 --> 00:03:42,960 Remaining meetings for the year. 8 00:03:43,200 --> 00:03:45,580 September 24th has been canceled. 9 00:03:46,300 --> 00:03:49,640 We do have meetings on November 5th and December 10th. 10 00:03:49,720 --> 00:03:52,060 Do we know of any conflicts at this time? 11 00:03:54,760 --> 00:04:04,420 If none, if any do arise, please let the county know of any conflicts in advance 40 days from the hearing date due to noticing requirements. 12 00:04:07,560 --> 00:04:13,100 For the folks in the audience today, generally we'll call taxpayers to the podium in order 13 00:04:13,100 --> 00:04:15,060 that they signed in on the clipboard. 14 00:04:15,980 --> 00:04:20,160 When it's your turn to speak to the board, please come to the podium, wait to speak until 15 00:04:20,160 --> 00:04:22,700 your appeal has been read into the record. 16 00:04:24,780 --> 00:04:29,700 Jackie Fox will read your name, parcel number, address, briefly summarize the county recommendation 17 00:04:29,700 --> 00:04:30,680 to the board. 18 00:04:31,800 --> 00:04:36,560 Once she's read the appeal into the record, you can begin your comments by clearly stating 19 00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:37,760 your name for the record. 20 00:04:38,720 --> 00:04:43,740 If you could, please limit your comments to the board to about 15 minutes to allow all 21 00:04:43,740 --> 00:04:45,780 taxpayers the opportunity to speak. 22 00:04:46,840 --> 00:04:49,320 This meeting is being live streamed and recorded. 23 00:04:49,640 --> 00:04:53,700 The county will provide you a post-it note if you need to give any sensitive information 24 00:04:53,700 --> 00:04:55,100 like your phone number or email. 25 00:04:55,960 --> 00:04:59,780 Please be careful not to state any sensitive personal data into. 26 00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:13,540 the public record. Any evidence that's submitted to the board can be given to April McDowell to be stamped, received. You can also email any photos or evidence to appeals at vandivergov.org. 27 00:05:16,640 --> 00:05:21,920 I think with that we can start with appeals and exemptions from the agenda. 28 00:05:29,660 --> 00:05:39,930 Yes. So on page eight of the exemption agenda, line 31. 29 00:05:39,930 --> 00:05:45,160 We have a 2025 exemption, 30 00:05:47,880 --> 00:05:52,980 Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana Inc., 220 North West 31 00:05:52,980 --> 00:06:05,900 6th Street, parcel 82-06-30-020-035.005-029, the taxpayer seeks exemption from property 32 00:06:05,900 --> 00:06:09,760 Taxation on the basis that it's property is used for charitable purpose, 33 00:06:09,940 --> 00:06:15,920 pursuant to the IC code 6-1.1-10-16 and 34 00:06:15,920 --> 00:06:19,460 fine arts specialty architecture, pursuant to IC code. 35 00:06:19,940 --> 00:06:22,880 6-1-1.1-10-18. 36 00:06:23,160 --> 00:06:27,280 The recommendation is for 100% taxable. 37 00:06:32,260 --> 00:06:33,480 Would you like to come to the podium? 38 00:06:40,220 --> 00:06:43,780 Thank you all, first of all, for being gracious to hearing us here for 39 00:06:43,780 --> 00:06:49,140 The second time Bill has been wonderfully gracious with his counsel and advice as well. 40 00:06:49,280 --> 00:06:50,260 I know you guys are as well. 41 00:06:50,600 --> 00:06:55,780 We've obviously talked about this at the link that the last meeting we sent you, even further detailed letters. 42 00:06:55,980 --> 00:06:58,840 So I don't want to bore you by regurgitating all of that again. 43 00:06:59,120 --> 00:07:03,880 I suspect you've come here with a pretty set decision on what you want to do. 44 00:07:04,060 --> 00:07:06,160 So I don't want to belabor the point. 45 00:07:06,320 --> 00:07:10,840 I will point out though that we, in addition, we've got two folks here with landmarks. 46 00:07:10,840 --> 00:07:17,320 Stephanie, who was here last time, along with Brad Ward, who's our illustrious leader over landmarks has come to join us as well. 47 00:07:18,560 --> 00:07:28,740 We're always at work here in Southwest Indiana on historic properties and he's doing that and so this lined up well he wanted to come put a face with the organization as well. 48 00:07:29,000 --> 00:07:33,580 So again, thank you guys for your time and effort and look forward to moving forward. 49 00:07:33,580 --> 00:07:33,640 Or 50 00:07:40,650 --> 00:07:45,060 does the board have any questions? 51 00:07:46,800 --> 00:07:52,660 I reviewed everything that was submitted and I really come down into two questions that 52 00:07:52,660 --> 00:07:58,500 I need to understand a little better and one was the submission date and the validity 53 00:07:58,500 --> 00:08:04,820 of the submission and my understanding is that there's a 30-day grace period that was missed 54 00:08:06,060 --> 00:08:14,240 And there's a, I guess a debate between subjective and objective, and I like it. 55 00:08:14,720 --> 00:08:21,320 Have you kind of covered your position on that because my understanding is it was a late submission. 56 00:08:21,680 --> 00:08:27,420 Yeah, and I don't think that we're challenging the fact that it wasn't submitted by the due date. 57 00:08:27,420 --> 00:08:55,200 I think we're saying that you can go back and correct those problems when they're objective factual errors, particularly from our perspective that I don't think we understood at least I didn't understand until after the day the grounds on which it was denied and when we saw that it was an objective in our position for the reasons we've outlined an objective basis that it was denied. 58 00:08:55,200 --> 00:08:59,960 We feel that the statutory authority is there for you guys to go back and correct that. 59 00:09:01,580 --> 00:09:08,980 Again, I don't think that there's any question that this is an exempt purpose that it should 60 00:09:08,980 --> 00:09:09,580 be exempt. 61 00:09:09,720 --> 00:09:18,440 The only question here is whether the fact that the request for that after the fact is acceptable. 62 00:09:18,440 --> 00:09:24,340 And again, it has always been exempt until this occurred. 63 00:09:25,020 --> 00:09:29,740 There has been no real change in terms of what Landmarks has been doing. 64 00:09:30,200 --> 00:09:34,340 So we just want to correct so that it is properly taxed. 65 00:09:36,910 --> 00:09:44,330 So there was no changes in the circumstances between, and it was owned in 23, and it was exempt in 23? 66 00:09:45,050 --> 00:09:49,030 Correct me. You know, Stephanie, the dates of the ownership of the top of your head. 67 00:09:50,110 --> 00:09:51,910 I assume you guys have records of that too. 68 00:09:56,520 --> 00:09:58,620 Yeah, I think we assumed ownership in 2023. 69 00:09:58,620 --> 00:09:59,980 That was an example prior to... 70 00:10:08,120 --> 00:10:10,400 And I remember 71 00:10:14,490 --> 00:10:20,250 reading that there was reference to the sole reason for the denial. I don't know 72 00:10:20,250 --> 00:10:30,590 was there was one specific issue, I went back and looked at my notes and my 73 00:10:30,590 --> 00:10:37,510 recollection was my concern was related to it wasn't currently being used for 74 00:10:37,510 --> 00:10:42,370 not-for-profit use it wasn't being there wasn't I guess the phrase that the 75 00:10:42,370 --> 00:10:47,290 tax board uses is concrete steps moving toward a charitable use and there was 76 00:10:47,290 --> 00:10:48,970 there's no restrictions in place that would 77 00:10:48,970 --> 00:10:52,390 encumber the property to only be used for a charitable use. 78 00:10:53,110 --> 00:10:54,450 Am I correct on those facts? 79 00:10:54,910 --> 00:10:56,410 Well, I would push back on that. 80 00:10:56,550 --> 00:10:58,410 I mean, I think it was being used for charitable use 81 00:10:58,410 --> 00:10:59,010 at the time. 82 00:10:59,770 --> 00:11:01,250 I think the evidence was there for that. 83 00:11:04,670 --> 00:11:08,110 I don't know at what point are covenants. 84 00:11:08,630 --> 00:11:09,590 I don't think we'll go ahead. 85 00:11:10,370 --> 00:11:11,330 Yeah, come on, come up Brad. 86 00:11:11,330 --> 00:11:12,810 Brad would know more about that. 87 00:11:17,500 --> 00:11:17,800 Morning. 88 00:11:18,400 --> 00:11:20,340 Brad Ward, president of Indiana Landmarks. 89 00:11:20,340 --> 00:11:26,620 I forgive me, I joined in April of this year, but the charitable intentions of the building 90 00:11:26,620 --> 00:11:32,540 under Indiana landmarks use was to be the steward in which we could position it for an 91 00:11:32,540 --> 00:11:35,440 opportunity for reactivation and reuse in the community. 92 00:11:35,680 --> 00:11:38,100 The intention here is to keep it standing. 93 00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:43,660 At that particular time when Indiana landmarks entered into the agreement with the YMCA, 94 00:11:44,320 --> 00:11:48,380 their intentions were to demolish it, their intentions were to bring it down into rubble 95 00:11:48,380 --> 00:11:54,680 and we'd be at a baseline that would not be at all purposeful because we'd have a vacant lot in downtown. 96 00:11:55,480 --> 00:12:00,700 And so they were very gracious in working with us in identifying and understanding there's a lot of integrity, 97 00:12:00,900 --> 00:12:09,820 a lot of historical charm and character that that particular building brings as well as use if we can identify the appropriate reactivation plan. 98 00:12:10,340 --> 00:12:13,160 So Indiana landmarks entered with that intention. 99 00:12:13,160 --> 00:12:23,760 And our focus has been since then to determine what is the best and highest use of the building and of the facilities and what will create the most significant public benefit. 100 00:12:24,360 --> 00:12:42,800 And it's our determination at this current state as we stand today, that it's further development into affordable and into market rate housing opportunities that along with the reactivation of the space will not only be a benefit to downtown in terms of urban density. 101 00:12:42,800 --> 00:12:53,200 in terms of a gathering space and a keen use of the building, but also an improved return to the property taxes long term versus it just being demolished. 102 00:12:53,600 --> 00:13:02,220 So our intent is to be the steward, to be the state, essentially the trust, the care holder, to get it to that end user. 103 00:13:02,980 --> 00:13:09,340 We would not be the developer, we would, that's not our core business, our objective is to sustain, revitalize and 104 00:13:09,340 --> 00:13:10,960 and maintain these buildings 105 00:13:10,960 --> 00:13:13,820 until the right full reactivation purposes use. 106 00:13:14,140 --> 00:13:15,400 So we're on that path. 107 00:13:15,540 --> 00:13:18,060 We're making great progress, particularly as IEDC 108 00:13:18,600 --> 00:13:20,920 and the lily refunds and the ready funds 109 00:13:20,920 --> 00:13:23,180 are being reactivated, which is really important 110 00:13:23,180 --> 00:13:25,180 because you have to have those various vehicles 111 00:13:25,180 --> 00:13:28,060 in place to fulfill some of these aspirations 112 00:13:28,060 --> 00:13:31,040 and work with the various entities 113 00:13:31,040 --> 00:13:32,560 that can bring it to life. 114 00:13:32,860 --> 00:13:35,800 But on the short, our intention was to step in, 115 00:13:36,080 --> 00:13:38,680 avoid it being demolished, avoid it being rubble, 116 00:13:38,680 --> 00:13:43,780 that being gone forever and since then we've been doing everything we can to bring people 117 00:13:43,780 --> 00:13:47,960 into it to figure out what that next step looks like and we're feeling confident we're getting 118 00:13:47,960 --> 00:13:48,380 close. 119 00:13:48,800 --> 00:13:55,620 The challenge is obviously any kind of unanticipated expenditures beyond what it takes to the cost 120 00:13:55,620 --> 00:13:57,160 the carrying cost of the facility. 121 00:13:57,640 --> 00:14:04,020 They were not planned for and it would deplete our resources capacity and probably put us 122 00:14:04,020 --> 00:14:12,480 back into the position of turning it back over to the Y, for it to be demolished before we completed our efforts and debtors. 123 00:14:13,500 --> 00:14:18,900 So as part of your program though, there's no, there's no incumbrance on a charitable purpose. 124 00:14:19,080 --> 00:14:20,440 Well, there's two points on that. 125 00:14:20,560 --> 00:14:28,800 First of all, Indian and Landmarks by its very mission, it's charter by its 501C3 status has to use it for the charitable purpose. 126 00:14:28,800 --> 00:14:34,040 But beyond that, any time Indiana landmarks turns it over or transfers it to someone else, 127 00:14:34,140 --> 00:14:36,840 that's when the covenants are put in place to ensure it does. 128 00:14:36,900 --> 00:14:43,500 While Indiana landmarks has it, it follows its, you know, it's, it's governing documents. 129 00:14:43,800 --> 00:14:49,640 It's, it's, it's 5-1-C, for C-5-1-C-3 status, so it keeps it a historic property at that point. 130 00:14:50,620 --> 00:14:55,420 When and if a landmarks transfers it to someone to continue making good use of it, 131 00:14:55,420 --> 00:14:59,840 That's when landmarks make sure there are covenants in place and there are hundreds if not 132 00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:26,360 There are thousands of those throughout the state, including here in Evansville. I mean, a great example is the Brewerberger downtown. I mean, landmarks took possession of that. And when landmarks had it, it didn't need to put a covenant on itself, because that's what it does. That's its governing documents. But when it then has the Brewerberger come in to use it, then there are covenants and other agreements in place that require it to sustain historic nature and property. 133 00:15:26,360 --> 00:15:28,580 So, Rupert was for profit. 134 00:15:29,160 --> 00:15:31,620 So, the use itself was for profit. 135 00:15:32,240 --> 00:15:38,120 But the preservation is not a use issue. 136 00:15:38,480 --> 00:15:40,280 It's the look and design and materials. 137 00:15:40,520 --> 00:15:45,700 Well, the preservation is, really, ultimately, the landmarks nonprofit purpose. 138 00:15:45,980 --> 00:15:47,180 And I don't think that's in question. 139 00:15:47,180 --> 00:15:53,040 I mean, there's been case law with Indian landmarks actually at the tax court, 140 00:15:53,140 --> 00:15:54,820 several times, to reaffirm that. 141 00:15:54,820 --> 00:15:58,200 And I think I referenced even one of those in the letter that I provided to you. 142 00:15:58,380 --> 00:16:01,520 So this is absolutely an exempt use. 143 00:16:01,700 --> 00:16:04,260 So you referred to, was it by Go County? 144 00:16:06,680 --> 00:16:09,480 It was an office occupied by landmark? 145 00:16:10,300 --> 00:16:11,920 That particular one, yes, yeah. 146 00:16:12,480 --> 00:16:18,300 Yeah, I think that a little different because you were occupying it and you occupied it is a terrible use. 147 00:16:18,340 --> 00:16:25,960 Well, there are other cases with landmarks as well that, you know, we're confident this is an exempt use. 148 00:16:25,960 --> 00:16:29,240 I mean, I mean, that's been litigated. 149 00:16:29,240 --> 00:16:35,780 In fact, as I recall, I think the, if not Craig, the other attorney you guys had on the phone agreed to that. 150 00:16:35,860 --> 00:16:42,060 I think the question is simply the deadline issue and whether this is an objective thing that can be corrected. 151 00:16:42,360 --> 00:16:48,160 I mean, this is certainly an exempt used to hold it and preserve it for use. 152 00:16:48,420 --> 00:16:55,440 Even if that following use is a for-profit venture, if your purpose is to preserve historic buildings. 153 00:16:55,440 --> 00:16:59,220 I mean, that's why we were granted 501-C3 status, that's charitable use. 154 00:16:59,840 --> 00:17:01,860 I mean, the IRS itself has come to that conclusion. 155 00:17:02,660 --> 00:17:06,780 Chris, I'd like to answer your question about the original filing for 24-pag-25. 156 00:17:07,280 --> 00:17:12,860 The county received a form 136 filing with supporting documentation from the taxpayer. 157 00:17:13,580 --> 00:17:20,740 Upon reviewing the documentation, the county determined a site visit would be necessary to assess the subject's property exempt. 158 00:17:20,740 --> 00:17:25,060 The county spoke with the representative for the taxpayer, and the representative 159 00:17:25,060 --> 00:17:28,740 explained that the taxpayer intended to hold the subject for two years. 160 00:17:29,240 --> 00:17:33,400 After the two-year period of pass, the taxpayer intends to either sell the subject 161 00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:38,040 property to a developer with plans to make the building on profit, or give the property 162 00:17:38,040 --> 00:17:41,820 back to the previous owner, per the representative for the taxpayer. 163 00:17:42,060 --> 00:17:45,080 If returned to the previous owner, the building would be demolished. 164 00:17:45,320 --> 00:17:46,780 That was why it was denied. 165 00:17:47,380 --> 00:17:50,720 They intended to sell it after two years if something didn't happen. 166 00:17:51,180 --> 00:17:52,440 So it was just being held. 167 00:17:52,820 --> 00:17:57,480 There were no real plans for it to be not for profit. 168 00:17:58,440 --> 00:17:58,960 Yes. 169 00:17:59,140 --> 00:18:03,820 And I guess that's one of the places where I struggle is I think the Indiana Tax Board has taken 170 00:18:03,820 --> 00:18:09,020 the position that pure ownership does a qualify for exemption or the charitable use. 171 00:18:09,120 --> 00:18:13,900 It has to have something, I think they use the term concrete steps that's working toward 172 00:18:13,900 --> 00:18:19,520 putting something in place that's going to push that through, restricted covenants, something along that line. 173 00:18:20,180 --> 00:18:26,360 I'm not seeing any of that here, and so I'm struggling with it actually qualifying based on just the ownership of it. 174 00:18:26,660 --> 00:18:30,560 Yeah, and certainly, again, going back to what our mission is and what our vision is and 175 00:18:30,560 --> 00:18:36,100 why we have charitable status is to step in to these opportunities to preserve buildings, 176 00:18:36,320 --> 00:18:41,080 preserve the physical and the built environment that makes up our community. 177 00:18:41,080 --> 00:18:45,300 And these are tangible assets that render our history. 178 00:18:45,560 --> 00:18:49,400 They render our purpose and our value in terms of what brings community. 179 00:18:50,080 --> 00:18:55,240 And so when I look at, in this particular case, this particular property, it has had a long 180 00:18:55,240 --> 00:18:59,160 life of bringing great value to this community that we want to preserve and protect. 181 00:18:59,760 --> 00:19:04,680 And in terms of what is its highest use for the community and for the city. 182 00:19:04,880 --> 00:19:10,740 That is also the liberties that this organization has that are really pretty exciting in terms 183 00:19:10,740 --> 00:19:16,160 of its mission and vision is how do we most bring it to its highest use today? 184 00:19:16,640 --> 00:19:18,720 And how do we make it relevant in today's terms? 185 00:19:19,000 --> 00:19:25,260 It no longer can serve as a gym, gymnasium in terms of the why has exhausted that use, 186 00:19:25,420 --> 00:19:29,940 the schools have exhausted that use, other youth groups have exhausted that youth. 187 00:19:30,120 --> 00:19:36,540 Now believe me, we've looked at all the opportunities and all the options that might be befitting to the community needs. 188 00:19:36,540 --> 00:19:40,360 We look at the assessments of what there are opportunities to fulfill. 189 00:19:40,980 --> 00:19:46,560 In this particular case, when we look at its location in a downtown community, we believe 190 00:19:46,560 --> 00:19:52,620 the highest reactivation use is to turn it back over to the taxpayers payroll, to put 191 00:19:52,620 --> 00:19:59,020 it back into the property value that it can generate in terms of housing and in terms of 192 00:19:59,020 --> 00:19:59,880 a community ask. 193 00:20:00,900 --> 00:20:29,580 So, our job is to figure out what that highest use is, and to be there to steward that process. Believe me, if it could stay a gymnasium and had purpose for a school or a YMCA, the Indiana landmarks wouldn't have been at the table. Certainly, we would have opened and entertained the opportunities to put covenants and put restrictions on in terms of how it gets changed, facade-wise, and things of that nature that maintain that integrity. 194 00:20:29,580 --> 00:20:34,980 and maintain that characteristics that are important to its history, its architectural history. 195 00:20:35,220 --> 00:20:39,680 But we're continuing to look for the highest value and that's what we look at with all of our 196 00:20:39,680 --> 00:20:45,080 properties, whether they be residential, whether they be in this case a former school property, 197 00:20:45,300 --> 00:20:50,600 whether they be a commercial building, your name that we are aligned with a tremendous amount 198 00:20:50,600 --> 00:20:57,100 of different physical assets that are all intended to try to bring value and bring integrity to the 199 00:20:57,100 --> 00:20:58,220 community in a long term. 200 00:20:59,820 --> 00:21:02,660 If I could jump in with a couple of points of clarification. 201 00:21:04,460 --> 00:21:10,940 The preservation of architecture and historic buildings under Indiana law has been found 202 00:21:10,940 --> 00:21:12,720 that it could be a charitable use. 203 00:21:13,620 --> 00:21:23,140 Art is included in the Indiana code that defines what its charity, art and public use, architecture 204 00:21:23,140 --> 00:21:24,120 falls under that. 205 00:21:24,120 --> 00:21:32,860 But again, you must look to the use of the actual property just as nursing homes can be charitable or they can be run for profit. 206 00:21:33,360 --> 00:21:35,780 You must look to the predominant use of the property. 207 00:21:36,500 --> 00:21:39,740 Early education can be for profit, can be charitable. 208 00:21:40,380 --> 00:21:41,660 Again, we have to look. 209 00:21:43,460 --> 00:21:52,780 Second, this decision, the exemption, the burden is on the petitioner to prove that they qualify for the exemption. 210 00:21:52,780 --> 00:22:22,760 That burden, this board held a hearing, the petitioner was offered the opportunity in 2024 to carry that burden and to prove that this board found among a number of factors that Jackie recited, that that burden was not met, so that decision about whether the use of property by an exempt organization of a resolution. 211 00:22:22,760 --> 00:22:31,840 In the results in an ancillary profit, that issue, while it might have been a factor, it wasn't cited by the board as the sole factor or the only factor. 212 00:22:33,180 --> 00:22:41,600 And I don't know, the clarification that I mentioned last time was just because that was mentioned in the assessors report. 213 00:22:41,740 --> 00:22:46,460 And I wanted this board to be advised of the current state of the law. 214 00:22:46,460 --> 00:22:58,020 that that's not an automatic presumptive denial for and for exempt status when there is an ancillary profit making transaction. 215 00:22:58,720 --> 00:23:06,820 Now, you still, again, for the overall exemption and the charitable determination that you have to make, 216 00:23:07,300 --> 00:23:11,560 you again have to look to the predominant use and whether the petitioner has carried its burden. 217 00:23:11,560 --> 00:23:26,100 Now, Indiana law says that ownership is not enough if we had a black line straight rule that said, if a not-for-profit owns a building, it is exempt. 218 00:23:26,700 --> 00:23:39,960 Indiana law does not follow that. Indiana law just, even if you have exempt status from the IRS or from any other regulating agency, that's just evidence to be used by this board 219 00:23:39,960 --> 00:23:44,520 to determine if the predominant use of the property is charitable. 220 00:23:46,080 --> 00:23:54,960 So I just wanted to make those two points that it's not a presumptive bar if they made some profit on this transaction. 221 00:23:55,180 --> 00:24:02,740 If there are overall goal of preservation was still the predominant factor of that. 222 00:24:03,280 --> 00:24:08,220 I believe that all the members of the board were on that decision of 2024. 223 00:24:08,220 --> 00:24:12,040 Before, regarding the exemption, they found that it did not qualify. 224 00:24:12,540 --> 00:24:18,400 There was an opportunity for landmarks to timely appeal that board's decision. 225 00:24:19,540 --> 00:24:23,140 And they did not exercise that option. 226 00:24:23,760 --> 00:24:28,580 So now they're back trying to undo what was done a year ago. 227 00:24:29,220 --> 00:24:34,980 And again, we must focus on what this board, what we can do here today. 228 00:24:34,980 --> 00:24:43,320 So I just wanted to raise a couple of those points to answer your questions if that clarified 229 00:24:43,320 --> 00:24:43,820 anything. 230 00:24:44,980 --> 00:24:48,360 Can I say something, the voice from above? 231 00:24:49,540 --> 00:24:53,920 This is Brian Kusimano, hope I raised it all right. 232 00:24:53,920 --> 00:24:59,980 I was just going to say, you know, as to the issue of the three-year... 233 00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:29,740 We'll go back in terms of the appeal window. You know, it's kind of confusing because it says in there that denial, you know, you can, you can go that route for the denial of an exemption or deduction and one of the provisions of code. But my understanding and the tax court sort of repeatedly has said you have, you have to show it's completely objective determination. And so to the issue if we're going back to 24 as to 234 00:25:29,740 --> 00:25:38,000 an exemption certainly sounds to me like there was a subjective determination that was made about 235 00:25:38,000 --> 00:25:44,620 whether the property was exempt or not. It's I think the objective criteria that are typically 236 00:25:44,620 --> 00:25:52,860 looked for for that three year go back are things like you know it got back to the office and oops they 237 00:25:52,860 --> 00:25:58,720 put the exemption on the next door neighbor rather than the property in question that would be an 238 00:25:58,720 --> 00:26:04,400 objective air that we could correct and go back three years. But my interpretation, 239 00:26:04,660 --> 00:26:09,420 I think the tax court's interpretation has been, you know, a situation like this is 240 00:26:09,420 --> 00:26:17,660 more of a, you know, subjective, fact dependent inquiry that the board engaged in and, you know, 241 00:26:17,760 --> 00:26:24,080 for that reason, I would just, you know, just if I'm putting my two cents in, argue that 242 00:26:24,080 --> 00:26:30,780 But I think I don't know that that avenue, this avenue, was really open to them in this case. 243 00:26:33,810 --> 00:26:38,250 Well, if I could go back to Chris's earlier question on the use, and I know we just heard from the voice 244 00:26:38,250 --> 00:26:42,490 above that he doesn't think that matters, but to the extent you guys are considering 245 00:26:42,490 --> 00:26:47,030 that, I want to reiterate that it wasn't just simply ownership. 246 00:26:47,630 --> 00:26:49,090 I mean, that's not all that was happening. 247 00:26:49,630 --> 00:26:51,850 This board was working all the time. 248 00:26:51,850 --> 00:27:19,730 I mean, on a weekly basis to preserve it, both from the physical standpoint in terms of maintenance, upkeep and repair, but also critically, repeatedly week in week out working with the mayor's office with other regional officials and state officials to find funding and a developer to make sure it could be used and occupied and saved because obviously if you don't have somebody that's able to use it, the building gets demolished and therefore it's not preserved historically. 249 00:27:20,210 --> 00:27:23,170 That's the use and that's what landmarks does. 250 00:27:23,430 --> 00:27:29,070 And then once it is transferred, there is almost always some sort of covenant or agreement 251 00:27:29,070 --> 00:27:34,750 on how it can be used, but also in terms of the physical nature of it. 252 00:27:34,870 --> 00:27:36,750 So it was not just ownership. 253 00:27:37,030 --> 00:27:38,770 I just want to make that clear for the record. 254 00:27:38,970 --> 00:27:43,330 It wasn't landmarks just owned it and then sat back and okay, let's just see what happens, 255 00:27:43,570 --> 00:27:43,690 right? 256 00:27:43,690 --> 00:27:43,750 Right. 257 00:27:44,010 --> 00:27:52,290 I mean, there was a definite, you know, very significant effort made to maintain the 258 00:27:52,290 --> 00:27:54,930 physical, preserve it physically and find a better use. 259 00:27:56,050 --> 00:28:00,470 And I appreciate that and really appreciate what you do. 260 00:28:00,730 --> 00:28:02,630 I mean, it's an important mission. 261 00:28:04,270 --> 00:28:10,930 The challenge I have is that the phrasing of concrete steps that are being taken by the 262 00:28:10,930 --> 00:28:18,550 organization that owns it to ultimately get to a charitable purpose is a critical component of 263 00:28:19,330 --> 00:28:25,250 considering if it's exempt while and not for profit owns it and without any kind 264 00:28:25,250 --> 00:28:29,510 of covenants or restrictions in covering the property for its future use, 265 00:28:29,670 --> 00:28:37,830 I just don't see how I can get there because you could during this time be preserving it, 266 00:28:37,830 --> 00:28:41,190 But ultimately, you're not taking steps for a charitable purpose because you're not locking 267 00:28:41,190 --> 00:28:42,230 into the charitable purpose. 268 00:28:42,310 --> 00:28:48,770 You could sell it for a profit organization, and so that's why I struggle, is if there 269 00:28:48,770 --> 00:28:52,390 was a restriction or covenant in place that ultimately says this has to be used for 270 00:28:52,390 --> 00:28:54,890 a charitable purpose, I could probably get there. 271 00:28:55,510 --> 00:28:55,550 Okay. 272 00:28:56,930 --> 00:28:58,830 Yeah, and I think Brad would say something. 273 00:28:58,950 --> 00:29:02,210 Brian, if you could clarify, I think you indicated that the three-year retroactive 274 00:29:02,210 --> 00:29:05,770 application had been pretty clearly interpreted by the tax court. 275 00:29:05,770 --> 00:29:08,490 Obviously, that statute was enacted in 2019. 276 00:29:09,270 --> 00:29:10,710 Could you just, from my purposes, 277 00:29:11,170 --> 00:29:13,630 what case law since 2019 are you citing? 278 00:29:14,170 --> 00:29:15,490 Are you thinking having in mind there? 279 00:29:16,750 --> 00:29:18,310 I don't have it on the top of my head. 280 00:29:18,510 --> 00:29:19,010 I apologize. 281 00:29:19,510 --> 00:29:21,190 I'm not sure off the top of my head, 282 00:29:21,450 --> 00:29:24,510 but there have been cases since 2019 283 00:29:24,510 --> 00:29:25,870 interpreting that statute. 284 00:29:26,210 --> 00:29:30,890 And substantively, it's very similar 285 00:29:30,890 --> 00:29:32,390 to the language before that as well. 286 00:29:32,390 --> 00:29:33,330 All right. 287 00:29:34,790 --> 00:29:34,850 Go ahead. 288 00:29:35,090 --> 00:29:35,230 Yeah. 289 00:29:35,670 --> 00:29:37,430 And Chris, thanks for your comments. 290 00:29:37,750 --> 00:29:43,850 And again, just a reminder, if the building was marketable and it was a profit-driven 291 00:29:43,850 --> 00:29:46,330 capacity, we wouldn't be at the table. 292 00:29:46,890 --> 00:29:52,390 It would have been snatched up by the open market when the Y said, you know, our use is complete. 293 00:29:53,030 --> 00:29:58,690 So landmarks typically comes in, and its plan and its process is to do those various assessments 294 00:29:58,690 --> 00:29:59,910 to do those fees. 295 00:30:03,500 --> 00:30:29,980 We have a good understanding of the nature of the health of the physical building, to make sure that we have plans that support what we need to do to shore it up, to stabilize it, anything of that nature, how to secure it, to keep it in safe condition so that it might be passed on to a future steward. And then to Joshua's point, find what those avenues look like. And we exhaust all possibilities of what is for the highest probability. 296 00:30:29,980 --> 00:30:36,240 benefit to his point, many of those are meetings with other city officials, other organizational 297 00:30:36,240 --> 00:30:41,000 leaders, other institutions that have the data and have the understanding of what are 298 00:30:41,000 --> 00:30:46,620 the highest needs downtown, and how can we use our physical assets to support that work? 299 00:30:46,880 --> 00:30:49,120 And that's where Indiana Landmark stands in. 300 00:30:50,500 --> 00:30:57,500 We will only be, as far as our philanthropic dollars are being used at work here, it will 301 00:30:57,500 --> 00:30:59,960 It will be just to shore up and secure the building. 302 00:31:00,500 --> 00:31:14,880 Our mission is to preserve it while we own it, and while we retain it, and you are being given some of the highest technical capacity and technical assistance to do just that so that the building has an opportunity to see life again in its future use. 303 00:31:30,720 --> 00:31:42,180 We just noted as a reminder, we would not sell or gift a property to anyone without a covenant to continue to maintain the integrity of the building. 304 00:31:42,180 --> 00:31:45,680 And Indiana landmarks will continue to be that steward. 305 00:31:46,040 --> 00:32:09,440 So that's another responsibility that Indiana learned in landmarks bears is that in perpetuity, as long as the building is standing, we have to afford the resources and the technical assistance to provide, what does it take to keep these buildings in the shape that they're in, what types of skill sets are required to manage the carpentry, the masonry, whatever it may be, which are all unique skill sets in this trades. 306 00:32:09,440 --> 00:32:16,240 needs. So to a Stephanie's point, we would not exit without those covenants in place to our 307 00:32:16,240 --> 00:32:19,240 ability to protect and preserve the building going forward. 308 00:32:23,000 --> 00:32:24,640 So that any kind of covenant 309 00:32:24,640 --> 00:32:30,140 comes with a legal obligation to monitor and manage that going forward. And to Joshua's 310 00:32:30,140 --> 00:32:36,460 point, we have hundreds of covenants across the state that are consistently being monitored 311 00:32:36,460 --> 00:32:41,820 and managed by our team and our volunteers and our various interns that work with us for 312 00:32:41,820 --> 00:32:44,140 of the summer through different institutions. 313 00:32:45,240 --> 00:32:47,120 And I don't want to delay this or 314 00:32:47,120 --> 00:32:50,880 belabor this more than I need to, but just to the extent this is necessary for an appeal. 315 00:32:51,060 --> 00:32:54,680 I want to make sure the records very clear that we took concrete steps. 316 00:32:56,300 --> 00:33:03,380 And that would be to the extent we, to say we didn't, would be very much a surprise to the mayor's office to all the state officials. 317 00:33:03,380 --> 00:33:08,460 Many of who are monitoring this case, I mean, I think they would be surprised to hear that landmarks 318 00:33:08,460 --> 00:33:13,780 Is it doing anything given that there were weekly conversations about preserving it, making sure it's okay and that all as well. 319 00:33:14,260 --> 00:33:36,720 So as we look back, the fact that they were doing something, the fact that they claim now at this point, after the decision was made is nice, but unless this court, unless this board, determines that the decision to grant an exemption. 320 00:33:36,720 --> 00:33:44,620 is a purely factual and objective choice, then it's still, I'm concerned that this board 321 00:33:44,620 --> 00:33:48,800 doesn't have any authority to go back and change that. 322 00:33:49,460 --> 00:33:57,020 At the time of the hearing, a taxpayer, the person, the taxpayer seeking a charitable 323 00:33:57,020 --> 00:34:03,300 purpose exemption must demonstrate that it owns, occupies, and uses its property 324 00:34:03,300 --> 00:34:04,520 for a charitable purpose. 325 00:34:05,080 --> 00:34:10,360 Now, maybe they've come and shown that they have done that, but at the time the 326 00:34:10,360 --> 00:34:16,400 decision was made, at the time the decision was made, I understand the board's 327 00:34:16,400 --> 00:34:18,680 decision was that that burden was not met. 328 00:34:19,460 --> 00:34:25,260 And they're now trying to prove that a year later, maybe they've done a good job of 329 00:34:25,260 --> 00:34:32,980 doing it, that's for you guys to decide, but unless the decision to grant an 330 00:34:32,980 --> 00:34:43,480 exemption, unless you feel that that is purely factual and objective, then the three-year look back for correction of errors is in applicable. 331 00:34:44,540 --> 00:34:59,840 And the fact of the matter is that the appeal and the notice was filed belatedly and they had their time to appeal that determination if they thought that they did meet their burden in 2024. 332 00:35:00,000 --> 00:35:29,480 Or they did not appeal that timely. So now they're trying to, so now the question is, is whether we have the authority to do the three-year look back for correction of factual heirs. And all of this discussion about the, whether it demonstrated that it owns occupies and uses for the charitable purpose, I think is illustrative of whether that is an subjective or objective decision because there's a lot of factors. 333 00:35:29,480 --> 00:35:34,160 and it's not just as simple as ownership, check that box, or done. 334 00:35:34,760 --> 00:35:39,760 There's a lot of factors that go into it and it's not as simple as to say, 335 00:35:39,900 --> 00:35:45,620 well, that's common property that should have been subject to a 20% discount rate 336 00:35:45,620 --> 00:35:53,960 or that's farmland that has a certain type of soil type that we should have applied 337 00:35:53,960 --> 00:35:59,020 a higher discount factor for where you just can look at a map 338 00:35:59,020 --> 00:36:06,640 or look at the subject property and know objectively as a matter of common sense 339 00:36:06,640 --> 00:36:12,860 that it is what it purports it to say. I think all of this discussion about what 340 00:36:12,860 --> 00:36:17,780 they were doing, how they were doing it, how they carried forward, whether that's 341 00:36:17,780 --> 00:36:21,440 the predominant use or whether the predominant use was something for more 342 00:36:21,440 --> 00:36:26,860 profit generating. I think that the courts should consider that when they're 343 00:36:26,860 --> 00:36:30,500 making their decision as to whether this is an objective or subjective decision. 344 00:36:31,380 --> 00:36:35,560 I just would like to point out, I know that Brian and Craig will appreciate this but going 345 00:36:35,560 --> 00:36:40,420 forward the record will be important and I think the record needs to reflect and the transcript 346 00:36:40,420 --> 00:36:47,160 will reflect that at the time Stephanie who was here when this was raised wanted and offered 347 00:36:47,160 --> 00:36:53,400 and asked to provide more information about its use and that request was denied at the time. 348 00:36:53,400 --> 00:37:04,600 I don't want to be to that horse, but I did drop some comments in the chat, which for 349 00:37:04,600 --> 00:37:12,000 the team's meeting, which has the, I think the latest case on this issue, because I know 350 00:37:12,000 --> 00:37:13,680 that was requested. 351 00:37:14,240 --> 00:37:22,040 So, if you want that information, but yeah, tax court said that nothing about that legislative 352 00:37:22,040 --> 00:37:32,220 change in 2019, change the distinction between objective and subjective errors and whether the three-year look back is open or not? 353 00:37:34,730 --> 00:37:49,530 Yes, and in a case cited by Petitioner Mier Woods, they, that's a 2021, they kept the subjective and objective distinctions. 354 00:37:51,190 --> 00:37:55,290 kept them cared forward from the statutory change or update. 355 00:37:56,170 --> 00:37:57,010 If you will. 356 00:37:57,490 --> 00:37:57,650 Any 357 00:38:06,680 --> 00:38:07,120 other questions? 358 00:38:15,750 --> 00:38:17,510 All right, I will go ahead and make a motion. 359 00:38:17,990 --> 00:38:20,670 As you can see, the board is struggling a little bit with this, 360 00:38:20,890 --> 00:38:23,890 but I'll go ahead and make a motion that we accept the recommendation 361 00:38:23,890 --> 00:38:25,130 of the county for denial. 362 00:38:27,740 --> 00:38:28,200 I'll second. 363 00:38:30,760 --> 00:38:31,440 Chris Stewart. 364 00:38:34,080 --> 00:38:34,280 Yes. 365 00:38:34,720 --> 00:38:35,400 Dan Humphrey. 366 00:38:35,640 --> 00:38:35,820 Yes. 367 00:38:36,140 --> 00:38:36,660 Chris Saker. 368 00:38:36,960 --> 00:38:37,100 Yes. 369 00:38:40,940 --> 00:38:41,680 All right, thank you. 370 00:39:29,370 --> 00:39:31,570 Just a quick note on the information 371 00:39:31,570 --> 00:39:35,870 that Brian provided can we make sure that that's included as part of the record as well. 372 00:39:37,290 --> 00:39:42,140 From the chat, thank you. 373 00:39:56,220 --> 00:39:58,020 Next on the agenda. 374 00:40:00,000 --> 00:40:07,140 We have Kurt Eckert with Dellemuse LLC and actually he's, 375 00:40:10,560 --> 00:40:33,180 you actually have listed 1,000, 1, Allen's Lane and that is actually under the name of Loretta Neymar, trust, care of you. And that is, is that the parcel you want to talk about today? Yes. All the other parcels that we have, we're not going to challenge any of the recommendations. Okay. This is the only one that. So that is on page 30. 376 00:40:33,180 --> 00:40:46,460 3 of the appeals line 75, parcel 82-06-07-034-192.032-020. 377 00:40:47,830 --> 00:40:50,060 Again, 1,001, Allen's Lane. 378 00:40:50,640 --> 00:40:55,960 The value is $140,600 and the recommendation is for 137-1. 379 00:41:03,150 --> 00:41:06,770 The tax may submit an appeal with rental information for the subject. 380 00:41:06,770 --> 00:41:11,270 They applied the subject with the Grocerant Multiplier, 381 00:41:20,360 --> 00:41:25,380 a value of 166,200 was produced from the Grocerant Multiplier. 382 00:41:26,000 --> 00:41:30,240 The county reviewed the parcel via Pictometry and made appropriate data changes. 383 00:41:30,720 --> 00:41:35,140 So the recommendation was reduced from 140,000, 600 to 137,000. 384 00:41:37,670 --> 00:41:39,230 State your name for the record, please. 385 00:41:39,490 --> 00:41:44,350 Yes, my name is Kurt Eckert, so I'm going to turn it with a law officer, Trimble and Joel, half a devil muse LLC. 386 00:41:44,350 --> 00:41:48,870 who is the contract purchaser of the property at 1,0001 Allen's Lane. 387 00:41:49,310 --> 00:41:51,850 I appreciate you guys taking the time to talk with me this morning. 388 00:41:54,010 --> 00:42:00,710 In this particular case, the only thing that my client's requesting is additional time in order for them to have an appraisal done on the property. 389 00:42:01,390 --> 00:42:09,150 They feel that for various reasons that the appraisal will come down less than what the finding has been of the tax board or the assessor's office. 390 00:42:09,890 --> 00:42:14,030 And so they're just requesting an extension to be able to have that appraisal done. 391 00:42:14,030 --> 00:42:17,030 and then to submit that information to the assessor's office. 392 00:42:19,800 --> 00:42:21,180 Can he has no objection with that? 393 00:42:23,680 --> 00:42:28,900 I'll make a motion to table to allow the taxpayer time to facilitate an appraisal for the counties review. 394 00:42:29,620 --> 00:42:30,020 Second. 395 00:42:32,220 --> 00:42:32,660 Christyward? 396 00:42:32,820 --> 00:42:32,960 Yes. 397 00:42:33,300 --> 00:42:33,940 Dan Humphrey? 398 00:42:34,100 --> 00:42:34,280 Yes. 399 00:42:34,520 --> 00:42:35,020 Chris Sager. 400 00:42:35,280 --> 00:42:35,400 Yes. 401 00:42:36,020 --> 00:42:36,340 Thank you. 402 00:42:36,820 --> 00:42:37,000 All right. 403 00:42:37,140 --> 00:42:37,420 Thank you. 404 00:43:19,910 --> 00:43:24,630 With the exception of the appeals that have been voted on our table today we would like to have a motion 405 00:43:24,630 --> 00:43:29,670 from the board to accept the county's recommendations on the remaining appeals and exemptions on the agenda. 406 00:43:30,070 --> 00:43:41,990 So I need to abstain from two taxpayers on the assessment recommendation and then one on the exemption. 407 00:43:42,290 --> 00:43:43,330 So I don't know how we want to do that. 408 00:43:43,710 --> 00:43:48,950 So let's, which will, well, yeah, let's vote on those separately. 409 00:43:49,070 --> 00:43:55,610 Yeah, the ones that he's abstaining from, let's pull those from the consent vote on those individually and 410 00:43:55,610 --> 00:43:59,510 specifically, and then it was an old national bank, 411 00:44:01,770 --> 00:44:06,170 Riverwind Properties LLC, and U of 412 00:44:06,170 --> 00:44:06,290 E. 413 00:44:09,790 --> 00:44:15,110 And U of E was in the exemptions. So no single bank, Riverwind Properties, 414 00:44:22,670 --> 00:44:23,490 two exemptions, 415 00:44:25,630 --> 00:44:30,870 one exemption, which is U of E, and then the other, which U of E, all of the U of E's? 416 00:44:30,950 --> 00:44:31,130 Yes. 417 00:44:31,490 --> 00:44:37,050 Okay, so that's three. And then Riverwind Properties, what is that? 418 00:44:37,050 --> 00:44:45,660 Oh, just the old national property on the old national bank and reserve one property 419 00:45:07,540 --> 00:45:09,940 Okay, so we'll start with the old national properties. 420 00:45:12,140 --> 00:45:33,300 Okay. Okay, we'd like to have a recommendation for an agreement with the county recommendation for old national bank. Parcel 82-06-26-017-121.035-027-4500 Washington Avenue. 421 00:45:38,830 --> 00:45:42,530 I second. Dan Humphrey. Yes. Chris Saker. 422 00:45:42,530 --> 00:45:44,310 Yes. 423 00:45:47,560 --> 00:45:59,560 Riverwind Properties, parcel 82-06-22-012-055.007-027, 2267 East Illinois Street. 424 00:45:59,780 --> 00:46:02,970 We accept the county's recommendation. 425 00:46:03,350 --> 00:46:03,790 I second. 426 00:46:04,330 --> 00:46:05,110 Dan Humphrey. 427 00:46:05,470 --> 00:46:06,150 Yes. 428 00:46:06,510 --> 00:46:07,070 Chris Saker. 429 00:46:07,390 --> 00:46:07,650 Yes. 430 00:46:08,230 --> 00:46:08,570 Thank you. 431 00:46:19,800 --> 00:46:26,080 University of Evansville, parcel 3308 South Frederick Street. 432 00:46:26,080 --> 00:46:47,430 8, 82-06-28-013-067.019-027, University of Evansville, 2004 Lincoln Avenue, 82-06-27-013-077.021-027, 433 00:46:47,430 --> 00:47:03,610 7, and University of Evansville, VP for Fiscal Affairs, 3304 South Frederick Street, 82-06-28-013-067-020-027. 434 00:47:09,180 --> 00:47:20,890 University of Evansville attention, VP Fiscal Affairs, 312 South Frederick Street, 82-06-28-013-067. 435 00:47:20,890 --> 00:47:38,610 .018-027 and University of Evansville attention VP of Fiscal Affairs, 320 South Frederick Street, 82-06-28-013-067.016-027. 436 00:47:39,150 --> 00:47:41,390 Move, we accept the county's recommendation. 437 00:47:41,990 --> 00:47:42,190 Second. 438 00:47:42,930 --> 00:47:43,730 Dan Humphrey. 439 00:47:43,910 --> 00:47:44,130 Yes. 440 00:47:44,390 --> 00:47:44,910 Chris Sager. 441 00:47:45,230 --> 00:47:45,390 Yes. 442 00:47:45,390 --> 00:47:45,510 Yes, 443 00:47:48,600 --> 00:47:59,860 so now with the exception of the appeals that have been voted on our table today, we would like to have a motion from the board to accept the county's recommendations on the remaining appeals and exemptions on the agenda. 444 00:48:02,200 --> 00:48:04,120 I'll move that we accept those recommendations. 445 00:48:05,260 --> 00:48:05,780 Second. 446 00:48:05,780 --> 00:48:13,340 Chris Stewart, Dan Humphrey, Chris Sager, we are adjourned.