11/16/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 9 September 2006. He said if a 2004 contract was indeed the abatement contract in effect, then by the terms of that contract the abatement ended in 2011. He quoted the contract, "said abatement shall extend for a period of 7 years beginning January 1, 2005, that obviously indicates the agreement ended at the end of 2011." Council Member Clifford questioned why taxes were abated at 100% during 2012 and 2013. He said the invalid 2006 abatement agreement regarding the warehouse that was never built did extend until 2013, but it did not even permit al 00% tax abatement at all. He said it seemed that the terms of both contracts that were the most beneficial to Paris Warehouse 107 had been applied to the same property. He also said the 100% abatement starting in 2005, that was in the 2004 contract had been applied while the time -frame of the 2006 contract extending all the way to 2013 had also been applied, which appeared to be how 8 years of 100% abatement occurred, but that was speculation. Council Member Clifford said if the 2006 contract was invalid, and it clearly was invalid because the warehouse was never built then the abatement unquestionably ended in 2011. He said there was absolutely no reason why all taxes in 2012 and 2013 were abated, and those taxes were abated because of a warehouse that was never built and they should immediately be assessed by all 3 taxing authorities. Council Member Clifford gave the following conclusions: "The 2006 contract that extended from 2007 -2013 that started with an 80% tax abatement for the first 3 years then dropping 16% per year is obviously a completely invalid contract. The reason it is invalid is that the warehouse, the subject of this abatement was never constructed. This contract is the only contract referred to by either the PEDC or Paris Warehouse 107 throughout the timeframe of the abatement. This is also the only contract that permitted an abatement of taxes during 2012 and 2013. The 2004 contract lasted from 2005 -2011, this is the contract that I have been informed that Paris Warehouse 107 now contends is the valid contract. It provides no abatement of taxes at all during 2012 and 2013. There is no evidence that any of the 8 mandatory sworn reporting documents were ever filed with the City of Paris or the PEDC. In particular the initial reporting document had to be sworn to and filed before the abatement could even begin. Also, the contract signed by then mayor Curtis Fendley differed substantially from the agenda information sheet given to the Paris City Council as the requirement to create 30 new jobs. A requirement proposed by Paris Warehouse 107 was completely omitted from the contract that mayor Fendley signed. All taxes plus interest should be immediately assessed by the City of Paris, Lamar County, and Paris Junior College for the years of 2012 and 2013. There is absolutely no valid contract or agreement that permits the abatement of these taxes. We need to obtain legal advice regarding the legality of 2004 contract since there is no evidence that any of the required mandatory compliance documents have ever been submitted." Council Member Clifford said the signed contract differed substantially from the agenda information sheet approved by the city council and that Council needed to obtain legal advice to see if this also might negate the entire contract. He said he spent countless hours researching all of this, but did not plan to do that when he began this and in fact had just planned to review it. However, he said the more he looked into it the more he realized the complete inaptitude of the PEDC and to a lesser degree, the City of Paris, regarding abatement compliance. He said they have completely advocated their responsibility to the citizens of Paris. Council Member Clifford explained that when a tax abatement was granted, the citizens of Paris have to make up the loss