The issue of the city’s policies on issuing tax abatements came up again during Monday night’s regular meeting of the Indianola Board of Aldermen.
No action was taken on two issues related to tax incentives.
First, Alderman Sam Brock took a stab at rescinding tax abatements he and his fellow board members granted to businessman Sam Rosenthal back in June.
However, Alderman Darrell Simpson asked the city’s attorney if a person could cancel a motion they didn’t make.
“No, and in this case you’ve granted a right to someone. If you take it back its like taking property without due process, that right has already been granted by the city,” said Attorney Gary Austin.
Brock said his position was that the incentives are being offered to various businesses and he wants to know, “Do they qualify? Do they not qualify?”
Brock asked what procedures were in place to determine who was eligible for the tax incentives.
“The whole thing comes down to being equal and fair with everybody, not partial,” he said.
Simpson agreed with Brock and added that he would like for everybody to get a tax break but just wanted to make sure it was all done the same so there would be no reprisals.
Austin informed the aldermen that there is already an existing policy that is set forth by state statutes, which authorizes a central business district that is essentially all of U.S. 82.
According to a statement made by Simpson and earlier by Austin, if an abatement is granted and state auditors later determine that it should not have been, then the business owner would have to repay the amount abated plus interest.
During the discussion Brock asked which was the “right” procedure, for a business to make a request to the city or for the city to extend the offer to the business.
“They’re both right,” said Austin.
He explained that if a large business were looking to locate here the city would likely contact that business with an incentive to entice them.
Alderman Ruben Woods, who was conducting that portion of the meeting, suggested coordinating their efforts through the Inspection Department so the board will be aware of when new businesses locate in the city.
In addition to trying to cancel that enticement, certain members of the five-panel board endeavored to grant an incentive to businesswoman Maple Campbell, owner of Platinum Plus Care on U.S. 82, although she had been previously denied.
Campbell presented a letter that she said proves she requested tax abatements in 2016 and corroborate her statement that she asked for the incentive in time.
“It wasn’t no 10 months into this project as was stated to the county board and in the newspaper,” said Campbell.
Campbell also said that Rosenthal was aware of the document and she is sure Rosenthal received the letter because he called her.
That is an issue the two were unable to reach a consensus on because based on the dialog there appeared to have been more than one call. She claims to have phone records so Rosenthal challenged Campbell to produce the phone records and questioned why she didn’t bring them with her.
In addition, Campbell stated that she tried to come before the board early on but was denied the opportunity.
Alderman Gary Fratesi said he would like for Campbell to bring any paperwork that supported her stand to Austin so he could analyze the information to see what the board can “legally do.”
Brock objected, “Sam Rosenthal didn’t bring nothing. If we’re going to be fair, let’s be fair or we drop the subject altogether.”
Brock again suggested cancelling Sam Rosenthal’s inducement and developing a universal policy before any more are given.
“Now you can’t throw one group under the shed and put the other one out there in the sun,” he said.
Austin then reminded Brock that the businessman brought in construction plans and specs that were reviewed by the board.
After the discussion continued for a short time, Alderman Marvin Elder asked that it be redirected to Campbell’s situation. Continued unfruitful dialog between Rosenthal and Campbell prompted Fratesi to reiterate his aforementioned statement, which drew a response from Elder.
Addressing Fratesi and the mayor Elder stated, “She’s talking to the right people tonight, this board, not the attorney. So we need to correct the wrong deed that’s been done. So we need to handle this business tonight for Ms. Campbell. We’ve been kicking this can down the road too long.”
Elder made the motion to revoke Campbell’s earlier denial, but Simpson challenged if he could legally do so.
“Well if you don’t want it, just say nay,” insisted Elder. Simpson said he wasn’t against granting the reduction, but it needed to be done the right way.
Brock said the problem is Sam Rosenthal is able to get the tax incentive for renovating an existing building, but Campbell is not. Simpson explained that they were told Campbell didn’t make her request in time. The discussion developed into a shouting match.
At one point, Rosenthal banged the gavel and called for the attorney’s opinion.
“If y’all want to grant this to her go ahead,” Austin said. He noted that the state auditor would set it aside when they are going over the city’s records. If it is not proper then Campbell would have to repay the incentive.
Austin then suggested that Campbell set up an appointment with him because he may be able to help her with the issue.
Woods asked her what she wanted to do and she opted to meet with Austin.
