[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[2:45] Good
[3:00] morning and welcome to the August 20th session of the Vanderbilt County Property Tax Assessment
[3:05] Board of Appeals, if you would all please rise and join me in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
[3:13] 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.
[3:30] All right, roll call please.
[3:32] Chris Stewart here, Dan Humphrey, Chris Saker.
[3:41] Remaining meetings for the year.
[3:43] September 24th has been canceled.
[3:46] We do have meetings on November 5th and December 10th.
[3:49] Do we know of any conflicts at this time?
[3:54] 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.
[4:07] For the folks in the audience today, generally we'll call taxpayers to the podium in order
[4:13] that they signed in on the clipboard.
[4:15] When it's your turn to speak to the board, please come to the podium, wait to speak until
[4:20] your appeal has been read into the record.
[4:24] Jackie Fox will read your name, parcel number, address, briefly summarize the county recommendation
[4:29] to the board.
[4:31] Once she's read the appeal into the record, you can begin your comments by clearly stating
[4:36] your name for the record.
[4:38] If you could, please limit your comments to the board to about 15 minutes to allow all
[4:43] taxpayers the opportunity to speak.
[4:46] This meeting is being live streamed and recorded.
[4:49] The county will provide you a post-it note if you need to give any sensitive information
[4:53] like your phone number or email.
[4:55] Please be careful not to state any sensitive personal data into.
[5:00] 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.
[5:16] I think with that we can start with appeals and exemptions from the agenda.
[5:29] Yes. So on page eight of the exemption agenda, line 31.
[5:39] We have a 2025 exemption,
[5:47] Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana Inc., 220 North West
[5:52] 6th Street, parcel 82-06-30-020-035.005-029, the taxpayer seeks exemption from property
[6:05] Taxation on the basis that it's property is used for charitable purpose,
[6:09] pursuant to the IC code 6-1.1-10-16 and
[6:15] fine arts specialty architecture, pursuant to IC code.
[6:19] 6-1-1.1-10-18.
[6:23] The recommendation is for 100% taxable.
[6:32] Would you like to come to the podium?
[6:40] Thank you all, first of all, for being gracious to hearing us here for
[6:43] The second time Bill has been wonderfully gracious with his counsel and advice as well.
[6:49] I know you guys are as well.
[6:50] We've obviously talked about this at the link that the last meeting we sent you, even further detailed letters.
[6:55] So I don't want to bore you by regurgitating all of that again.
[6:59] I suspect you've come here with a pretty set decision on what you want to do.
[7:04] So I don't want to belabor the point.
[7:06] I will point out though that we, in addition, we've got two folks here with landmarks.
[7:10] Stephanie, who was here last time, along with Brad Ward, who's our illustrious leader over landmarks has come to join us as well.
[7:18] 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.
[7:29] So again, thank you guys for your time and effort and look forward to moving forward.
[7:33] Or
[7:40] does the board have any questions?
[7:46] I reviewed everything that was submitted and I really come down into two questions that
[7:52] I need to understand a little better and one was the submission date and the validity
[7:58] of the submission and my understanding is that there's a 30-day grace period that was missed
[8:06] And there's a, I guess a debate between subjective and objective, and I like it.
[8:14] Have you kind of covered your position on that because my understanding is it was a late submission.
[8:21] Yeah, and I don't think that we're challenging the fact that it wasn't submitted by the due date.
[8:27] 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.
[8:55] We feel that the statutory authority is there for you guys to go back and correct that.
[9:01] Again, I don't think that there's any question that this is an exempt purpose that it should
[9:08] be exempt.
[9:09] The only question here is whether the fact that the request for that after the fact is acceptable.
[9:18] And again, it has always been exempt until this occurred.
[9:25] There has been no real change in terms of what Landmarks has been doing.
[9:30] So we just want to correct so that it is properly taxed.
[9:36] So there was no changes in the circumstances between, and it was owned in 23, and it was exempt in 23?
[9:45] Correct me. You know, Stephanie, the dates of the ownership of the top of your head.
[9:50] I assume you guys have records of that too.
[9:56] Yeah, I think we assumed ownership in 2023.
[9:58] That was an example prior to...
[10:08] And I remember
[10:14] reading that there was reference to the sole reason for the denial. I don't know
[10:20] was there was one specific issue, I went back and looked at my notes and my
[10:30] recollection was my concern was related to it wasn't currently being used for
[10:37] not-for-profit use it wasn't being there wasn't I guess the phrase that the
[10:42] tax board uses is concrete steps moving toward a charitable use and there was
[10:47] there's no restrictions in place that would
[10:48] encumber the property to only be used for a charitable use.
[10:53] Am I correct on those facts?
[10:54] Well, I would push back on that.
[10:56] I mean, I think it was being used for charitable use
[10:58] at the time.
[10:59] I think the evidence was there for that.
[11:04] I don't know at what point are covenants.
[11:08] I don't think we'll go ahead.
[11:10] Yeah, come on, come up Brad.
[11:11] Brad would know more about that.
[11:17] Morning.
[11:18] Brad Ward, president of Indiana Landmarks.
[11:20] I forgive me, I joined in April of this year, but the charitable intentions of the building
[11:26] under Indiana landmarks use was to be the steward in which we could position it for an
[11:32] opportunity for reactivation and reuse in the community.
[11:35] The intention here is to keep it standing.
[11:38] At that particular time when Indiana landmarks entered into the agreement with the YMCA,
[11:44] their intentions were to demolish it, their intentions were to bring it down into rubble
[11:48] and we'd be at a baseline that would not be at all purposeful because we'd have a vacant lot in downtown.
[11:55] And so they were very gracious in working with us in identifying and understanding there's a lot of integrity,
[12:00] a lot of historical charm and character that that particular building brings as well as use if we can identify the appropriate reactivation plan.
[12:10] So Indiana landmarks entered with that intention.
[12:13] 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.
[12:24] 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.
[12:42] 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.
[12:53] 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.
[13:02] We would not be the developer, we would, that's not our core business, our objective is to sustain, revitalize and
[13:09] and maintain these buildings
[13:10] until the right full reactivation purposes use.
[13:14] So we're on that path.
[13:15] We're making great progress, particularly as IEDC
[13:18] and the lily refunds and the ready funds
[13:20] are being reactivated, which is really important
[13:23] because you have to have those various vehicles
[13:25] in place to fulfill some of these aspirations
[13:28] and work with the various entities
[13:31] that can bring it to life.
[13:32] But on the short, our intention was to step in,
[13:36] avoid it being demolished, avoid it being rubble,
[13:38] that being gone forever and since then we've been doing everything we can to bring people
[13:43] into it to figure out what that next step looks like and we're feeling confident we're getting
[13:47] close.
[13:48] The challenge is obviously any kind of unanticipated expenditures beyond what it takes to the cost
[13:55] the carrying cost of the facility.
[13:57] They were not planned for and it would deplete our resources capacity and probably put us
[14:04] back into the position of turning it back over to the Y, for it to be demolished before we completed our efforts and debtors.
[14:13] So as part of your program though, there's no, there's no incumbrance on a charitable purpose.
[14:19] Well, there's two points on that.
[14:20] 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.
[14:28] But beyond that, any time Indiana landmarks turns it over or transfers it to someone else,
[14:34] that's when the covenants are put in place to ensure it does.
[14:36] While Indiana landmarks has it, it follows its, you know, it's, it's governing documents.
[14:43] 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.
[14:50] When and if a landmarks transfers it to someone to continue making good use of it,
[14:55] That's when landmarks make sure there are covenants in place and there are hundreds if not
[15:00] 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.
[15:26] So, Rupert was for profit.
[15:29] So, the use itself was for profit.
[15:32] But the preservation is not a use issue.
[15:38] It's the look and design and materials.
[15:40] Well, the preservation is, really, ultimately, the landmarks nonprofit purpose.
[15:45] And I don't think that's in question.
[15:47] I mean, there's been case law with Indian landmarks actually at the tax court,
[15:53] several times, to reaffirm that.
[15:54] And I think I referenced even one of those in the letter that I provided to you.
[15:58] So this is absolutely an exempt use.
[16:01] So you referred to, was it by Go County?
[16:06] It was an office occupied by landmark?
[16:10] That particular one, yes, yeah.
[16:12] Yeah, I think that a little different because you were occupying it and you occupied it is a terrible use.
[16:18] Well, there are other cases with landmarks as well that, you know, we're confident this is an exempt use.
[16:25] I mean, I mean, that's been litigated.
[16:29] In fact, as I recall, I think the, if not Craig, the other attorney you guys had on the phone agreed to that.
[16:35] I think the question is simply the deadline issue and whether this is an objective thing that can be corrected.
[16:42] I mean, this is certainly an exempt used to hold it and preserve it for use.
[16:48] Even if that following use is a for-profit venture, if your purpose is to preserve historic buildings.
[16:55] I mean, that's why we were granted 501-C3 status, that's charitable use.
[16:59] I mean, the IRS itself has come to that conclusion.
[17:02] Chris, I'd like to answer your question about the original filing for 24-pag-25.
[17:07] The county received a form 136 filing with supporting documentation from the taxpayer.
[17:13] Upon reviewing the documentation, the county determined a site visit would be necessary to assess the subject's property exempt.
[17:20] The county spoke with the representative for the taxpayer, and the representative
[17:25] explained that the taxpayer intended to hold the subject for two years.
[17:29] After the two-year period of pass, the taxpayer intends to either sell the subject
[17:33] property to a developer with plans to make the building on profit, or give the property
[17:38] back to the previous owner, per the representative for the taxpayer.
[17:42] If returned to the previous owner, the building would be demolished.
[17:45] That was why it was denied.
[17:47] They intended to sell it after two years if something didn't happen.
[17:51] So it was just being held.
[17:52] There were no real plans for it to be not for profit.
[17:58] Yes.
[17:59] And I guess that's one of the places where I struggle is I think the Indiana Tax Board has taken
[18:03] the position that pure ownership does a qualify for exemption or the charitable use.
[18:09] It has to have something, I think they use the term concrete steps that's working toward
[18:13] putting something in place that's going to push that through, restricted covenants, something along that line.
[18:20] I'm not seeing any of that here, and so I'm struggling with it actually qualifying based on just the ownership of it.
[18:26] Yeah, and certainly, again, going back to what our mission is and what our vision is and
[18:30] why we have charitable status is to step in to these opportunities to preserve buildings,
[18:36] preserve the physical and the built environment that makes up our community.
[18:41] And these are tangible assets that render our history.
[18:45] They render our purpose and our value in terms of what brings community.
[18:50] And so when I look at, in this particular case, this particular property, it has had a long
[18:55] life of bringing great value to this community that we want to preserve and protect.
[18:59] And in terms of what is its highest use for the community and for the city.
[19:04] That is also the liberties that this organization has that are really pretty exciting in terms
[19:10] of its mission and vision is how do we most bring it to its highest use today?
[19:16] And how do we make it relevant in today's terms?
[19:19] It no longer can serve as a gym, gymnasium in terms of the why has exhausted that use,
[19:25] the schools have exhausted that use, other youth groups have exhausted that youth.
[19:30] Now believe me, we've looked at all the opportunities and all the options that might be befitting to the community needs.
[19:36] We look at the assessments of what there are opportunities to fulfill.
[19:40] In this particular case, when we look at its location in a downtown community, we believe
[19:46] the highest reactivation use is to turn it back over to the taxpayers payroll, to put
[19:52] it back into the property value that it can generate in terms of housing and in terms of
[19:59] a community ask.
[20:00] 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.
[20:29] and maintain that characteristics that are important to its history, its architectural history.
[20:35] But we're continuing to look for the highest value and that's what we look at with all of our
[20:39] properties, whether they be residential, whether they be in this case a former school property,
[20:45] whether they be a commercial building, your name that we are aligned with a tremendous amount
[20:50] of different physical assets that are all intended to try to bring value and bring integrity to the
[20:57] community in a long term.
[20:59] If I could jump in with a couple of points of clarification.
[21:04] The preservation of architecture and historic buildings under Indiana law has been found
[21:10] that it could be a charitable use.
[21:13] Art is included in the Indiana code that defines what its charity, art and public use, architecture
[21:23] falls under that.
[21:24] 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.
[21:33] You must look to the predominant use of the property.
[21:36] Early education can be for profit, can be charitable.
[21:40] Again, we have to look.
[21:43] Second, this decision, the exemption, the burden is on the petitioner to prove that they qualify for the exemption.
[21:52] 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.
[22:22] 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.
[22:33] And I don't know, the clarification that I mentioned last time was just because that was mentioned in the assessors report.
[22:41] And I wanted this board to be advised of the current state of the law.
[22:46] that that's not an automatic presumptive denial for and for exempt status when there is an ancillary profit making transaction.
[22:58] Now, you still, again, for the overall exemption and the charitable determination that you have to make,
[23:07] you again have to look to the predominant use and whether the petitioner has carried its burden.
[23:11] 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.
[23:26] 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
[23:39] to determine if the predominant use of the property is charitable.
[23:46] So I just wanted to make those two points that it's not a presumptive bar if they made some profit on this transaction.
[23:55] If there are overall goal of preservation was still the predominant factor of that.
[24:03] I believe that all the members of the board were on that decision of 2024.
[24:08] Before, regarding the exemption, they found that it did not qualify.
[24:12] There was an opportunity for landmarks to timely appeal that board's decision.
[24:19] And they did not exercise that option.
[24:23] So now they're back trying to undo what was done a year ago.
[24:29] And again, we must focus on what this board, what we can do here today.
[24:34] So I just wanted to raise a couple of those points to answer your questions if that clarified
[24:43] anything.
[24:44] Can I say something, the voice from above?
[24:49] This is Brian Kusimano, hope I raised it all right.
[24:53] I was just going to say, you know, as to the issue of the three-year...
[25:00] 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
[25:29] an exemption certainly sounds to me like there was a subjective determination that was made about
[25:38] whether the property was exempt or not. It's I think the objective criteria that are typically
[25:44] looked for for that three year go back are things like you know it got back to the office and oops they
[25:52] put the exemption on the next door neighbor rather than the property in question that would be an
[25:58] objective air that we could correct and go back three years. But my interpretation,
[26:04] I think the tax court's interpretation has been, you know, a situation like this is
[26:09] more of a, you know, subjective, fact dependent inquiry that the board engaged in and, you know,
[26:17] for that reason, I would just, you know, just if I'm putting my two cents in, argue that
[26:24] But I think I don't know that that avenue, this avenue, was really open to them in this case.
[26:33] Well, if I could go back to Chris's earlier question on the use, and I know we just heard from the voice
[26:38] above that he doesn't think that matters, but to the extent you guys are considering
[26:42] that, I want to reiterate that it wasn't just simply ownership.
[26:47] I mean, that's not all that was happening.
[26:49] This board was working all the time.
[26:51] 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.
[27:20] That's the use and that's what landmarks does.
[27:23] And then once it is transferred, there is almost always some sort of covenant or agreement
[27:29] on how it can be used, but also in terms of the physical nature of it.
[27:34] So it was not just ownership.
[27:37] I just want to make that clear for the record.
[27:38] It wasn't landmarks just owned it and then sat back and okay, let's just see what happens,
[27:43] right?
[27:43] Right.
[27:44] I mean, there was a definite, you know, very significant effort made to maintain the
[27:52] physical, preserve it physically and find a better use.
[27:56] And I appreciate that and really appreciate what you do.
[28:00] I mean, it's an important mission.
[28:04] The challenge I have is that the phrasing of concrete steps that are being taken by the
[28:10] organization that owns it to ultimately get to a charitable purpose is a critical component of
[28:19] considering if it's exempt while and not for profit owns it and without any kind
[28:25] of covenants or restrictions in covering the property for its future use,
[28:29] I just don't see how I can get there because you could during this time be preserving it,
[28:37] But ultimately, you're not taking steps for a charitable purpose because you're not locking
[28:41] into the charitable purpose.
[28:42] You could sell it for a profit organization, and so that's why I struggle, is if there
[28:48] was a restriction or covenant in place that ultimately says this has to be used for
[28:52] a charitable purpose, I could probably get there.
[28:55] Okay.
[28:56] Yeah, and I think Brad would say something.
[28:58] Brian, if you could clarify, I think you indicated that the three-year retroactive
[29:02] application had been pretty clearly interpreted by the tax court.
[29:05] Obviously, that statute was enacted in 2019.
[29:09] Could you just, from my purposes,
[29:11] what case law since 2019 are you citing?
[29:14] Are you thinking having in mind there?
[29:16] I don't have it on the top of my head.
[29:18] I apologize.
[29:19] I'm not sure off the top of my head,
[29:21] but there have been cases since 2019
[29:24] interpreting that statute.
[29:26] And substantively, it's very similar
[29:30] to the language before that as well.
[29:32] All right.
[29:34] Go ahead.
[29:35] Yeah.
[29:35] And Chris, thanks for your comments.
[29:37] And again, just a reminder, if the building was marketable and it was a profit-driven
[29:43] capacity, we wouldn't be at the table.
[29:46] It would have been snatched up by the open market when the Y said, you know, our use is complete.
[29:53] So landmarks typically comes in, and its plan and its process is to do those various assessments
[29:58] to do those fees.
[30:03] 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.
[30:29] benefit to his point, many of those are meetings with other city officials, other organizational
[30:36] leaders, other institutions that have the data and have the understanding of what are
[30:41] the highest needs downtown, and how can we use our physical assets to support that work?
[30:46] And that's where Indiana Landmark stands in.
[30:50] We will only be, as far as our philanthropic dollars are being used at work here, it will
[30:57] It will be just to shore up and secure the building.
[31:00] 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.
[31:30] 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.
[31:42] And Indiana landmarks will continue to be that steward.
[31:46] 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.
[32:09] needs. So to a Stephanie's point, we would not exit without those covenants in place to our
[32:16] ability to protect and preserve the building going forward.
[32:23] So that any kind of covenant
[32:24] comes with a legal obligation to monitor and manage that going forward. And to Joshua's
[32:30] point, we have hundreds of covenants across the state that are consistently being monitored
[32:36] and managed by our team and our volunteers and our various interns that work with us for
[32:41] of the summer through different institutions.
[32:45] And I don't want to delay this or
[32:47] belabor this more than I need to, but just to the extent this is necessary for an appeal.
[32:51] I want to make sure the records very clear that we took concrete steps.
[32:56] 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.
[33:03] Many of who are monitoring this case, I mean, I think they would be surprised to hear that landmarks
[33:08] Is it doing anything given that there were weekly conversations about preserving it, making sure it's okay and that all as well.
[33:14] 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.
[33:36] is a purely factual and objective choice, then it's still, I'm concerned that this board
[33:44] doesn't have any authority to go back and change that.
[33:49] At the time of the hearing, a taxpayer, the person, the taxpayer seeking a charitable
[33:57] purpose exemption must demonstrate that it owns, occupies, and uses its property
[34:03] for a charitable purpose.
[34:05] Now, maybe they've come and shown that they have done that, but at the time the
[34:10] decision was made, at the time the decision was made, I understand the board's
[34:16] decision was that that burden was not met.
[34:19] And they're now trying to prove that a year later, maybe they've done a good job of
[34:25] doing it, that's for you guys to decide, but unless the decision to grant an
[34:32] exemption, unless you feel that that is purely factual and objective, then the three-year look back for correction of errors is in applicable.
[34:44] 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.
[35:00] 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.
[35:29] and it's not just as simple as ownership, check that box, or done.
[35:34] There's a lot of factors that go into it and it's not as simple as to say,
[35:39] well, that's common property that should have been subject to a 20% discount rate
[35:45] or that's farmland that has a certain type of soil type that we should have applied
[35:53] a higher discount factor for where you just can look at a map
[35:59] or look at the subject property and know objectively as a matter of common sense
[36:06] that it is what it purports it to say. I think all of this discussion about what
[36:12] they were doing, how they were doing it, how they carried forward, whether that's
[36:17] the predominant use or whether the predominant use was something for more
[36:21] profit generating. I think that the courts should consider that when they're
[36:26] making their decision as to whether this is an objective or subjective decision.
[36:31] I just would like to point out, I know that Brian and Craig will appreciate this but going
[36:35] forward the record will be important and I think the record needs to reflect and the transcript
[36:40] will reflect that at the time Stephanie who was here when this was raised wanted and offered
[36:47] and asked to provide more information about its use and that request was denied at the time.
[36:53] I don't want to be to that horse, but I did drop some comments in the chat, which for
[37:04] the team's meeting, which has the, I think the latest case on this issue, because I know
[37:12] that was requested.
[37:14] So, if you want that information, but yeah, tax court said that nothing about that legislative
[37:22] change in 2019, change the distinction between objective and subjective errors and whether the three-year look back is open or not?
[37:34] Yes, and in a case cited by Petitioner Mier Woods, they, that's a 2021, they kept the subjective and objective distinctions.
[37:51] kept them cared forward from the statutory change or update.
[37:56] If you will.
[37:57] Any
[38:06] other questions?
[38:15] All right, I will go ahead and make a motion.
[38:17] As you can see, the board is struggling a little bit with this,
[38:20] but I'll go ahead and make a motion that we accept the recommendation
[38:23] of the county for denial.
[38:27] I'll second.
[38:30] Chris Stewart.
[38:34] Yes.
[38:34] Dan Humphrey.
[38:35] Yes.
[38:36] Chris Saker.
[38:36] Yes.
[38:40] All right, thank you.
[39:29] Just a quick note on the information
[39:31] that Brian provided can we make sure that that's included as part of the record as well.
[39:37] From the chat, thank you.
[39:56] Next on the agenda.
[40:00] We have Kurt Eckert with Dellemuse LLC and actually he's,
[40:10] 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.
[40:33] 3 of the appeals line 75, parcel 82-06-07-034-192.032-020.
[40:47] Again, 1,001, Allen's Lane.
[40:50] The value is $140,600 and the recommendation is for 137-1.
[41:03] The tax may submit an appeal with rental information for the subject.
[41:06] They applied the subject with the Grocerant Multiplier,
[41:20] a value of 166,200 was produced from the Grocerant Multiplier.
[41:26] The county reviewed the parcel via Pictometry and made appropriate data changes.
[41:30] So the recommendation was reduced from 140,000, 600 to 137,000.
[41:37] State your name for the record, please.
[41:39] 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.
[41:44] who is the contract purchaser of the property at 1,0001 Allen's Lane.
[41:49] I appreciate you guys taking the time to talk with me this morning.
[41:54] 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.
[42:01] 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.
[42:09] And so they're just requesting an extension to be able to have that appraisal done.
[42:14] and then to submit that information to the assessor's office.
[42:19] Can he has no objection with that?
[42:23] I'll make a motion to table to allow the taxpayer time to facilitate an appraisal for the counties review.
[42:29] Second.
[42:32] Christyward?
[42:32] Yes.
[42:33] Dan Humphrey?
[42:34] Yes.
[42:34] Chris Sager.
[42:35] Yes.
[42:36] Thank you.
[42:36] All right.
[42:37] Thank you.
[43:19] With the exception of the appeals that have been voted on our table today we would like to have a motion
[43:24] from the board to accept the county's recommendations on the remaining appeals and exemptions on the agenda.
[43:30] So I need to abstain from two taxpayers on the assessment recommendation and then one on the exemption.
[43:42] So I don't know how we want to do that.
[43:43] So let's, which will, well, yeah, let's vote on those separately.
[43:49] Yeah, the ones that he's abstaining from, let's pull those from the consent vote on those individually and
[43:55] specifically, and then it was an old national bank,
[44:01] Riverwind Properties LLC, and U of
[44:06] E.
[44:09] And U of E was in the exemptions. So no single bank, Riverwind Properties,
[44:22] two exemptions,
[44:25] one exemption, which is U of E, and then the other, which U of E, all of the U of E's?
[44:30] Yes.
[44:31] Okay, so that's three. And then Riverwind Properties, what is that?
[44:37] Oh, just the old national property on the old national bank and reserve one property
[45:07] Okay, so we'll start with the old national properties.
[45:12] 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.
[45:38] I second. Dan Humphrey. Yes. Chris Saker.
[45:42] Yes.
[45:47] Riverwind Properties, parcel 82-06-22-012-055.007-027, 2267 East Illinois Street.
[45:59] We accept the county's recommendation.
[46:03] I second.
[46:04] Dan Humphrey.
[46:05] Yes.
[46:06] Chris Saker.
[46:07] Yes.
[46:08] Thank you.
[46:19] University of Evansville, parcel 3308 South Frederick Street.
[46:26] 8, 82-06-28-013-067.019-027, University of Evansville, 2004 Lincoln Avenue, 82-06-27-013-077.021-027,
[46:47] 7, and University of Evansville, VP for Fiscal Affairs, 3304 South Frederick Street, 82-06-28-013-067-020-027.
[47:09] University of Evansville attention, VP Fiscal Affairs, 312 South Frederick Street, 82-06-28-013-067.
[47:20] .018-027 and University of Evansville attention VP of Fiscal Affairs, 320 South Frederick Street, 82-06-28-013-067.016-027.
[47:39] Move, we accept the county's recommendation.
[47:41] Second.
[47:42] Dan Humphrey.
[47:43] Yes.
[47:44] Chris Sager.
[47:45] Yes.
[47:45] Yes,
[47:48] 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.
[48:02] I'll move that we accept those recommendations.
[48:05] Second.
[48:05] Chris Stewart, Dan Humphrey, Chris Sager, we are adjourned.