|
Kane council OKs tax relief at Handle plant |
|
Written by Publisher
|
|
Thursday, 10 September 2009 |
Photo by Ted Lutz
Susan, left, and John Shedio, center, anxiously wait Wednesday for the Kane Borough Council to consider their request for a partial 2007 tax exoneration for their property – the former Kane Handle plant. Also waiting for the decision are Ryan Shedio, rear, son of the property owners; Amber Hancharick, rear right, the executive director of the Kane Area Development Center; and Joe Marasco, front right, a Bradford attorney who represents the Shedio family. Council voted 5-1 for the partial exoneration, pending the review of the agreement by Borough Solicitor Tony Alfieri.
By Ted Lutz
Republican Staff
It appears the new owners of the vacant Kane Handle plant property finally will be receiving a partial exoneration for 2007 taxes.
The Kane Borough Council voted 5-1 Wednesday to approve the partial exoneration pending the review of an agreement by Tony Alfieri, a Smethport attorney who serves as the borough solicitor.
Council President Howard Kane and Councilmen Jim Salvamoser, Mike Merry, Lowell Gillespie and Dennis Drost approved the proposed tax relief plan.
Councilman John Gentilman said he voted against the proposal because the “agreement is not what I’m looking for” to settle the issue.
By a split vote, the Kane School Board previously approved a partial exoneration for the 2007 taxes on the property. The McKean County Board of Commissioners may act today to approve 2007 county tax relief for the site. The school board and borough council previously rejected a request for the tax relief.
John and Susan Shedio of Renfrew, Butler County, purchased the 14 ½-acre Kane Handle site from Ames True Temper in October 2006. They paid $70,000 for the property, including the vacant plant that had “seriously deteriorated” and was in “a state of disrepair,” according to the proposed exoneration agreement.
At the time of the purchase, the plant was on the county assessment books at $463,280. When the purchase was made, the Shedio family assumed the assessment would be lowered to $70,000 to reflect the true market value.
This adjustment, however, requires an appeal to the county Board of Assessment. Because the appeal was not made within 45 days of the purchase, the assessment for the 2007 tax year remained at $463,280.
Joe Marasco, a Bradford attorney who represents the Shedio family, told council Wednesday that “a breakdown in communication” led the failure to file the assessment appeal within the 45-day window.
He pointed out that the Board of Assessment dropped the assessment to $70,000 for 2008 and subsequent years. He said the Shedio family is up-to-date on all taxes for 2008 and 2009 and even paid taxes for 2007 — but only for a $70,000 assessment, not the $463,280 figure that was on the books that year.
Because the 2007 tax bills — with the higher assessment — have not been paid in full, the property had been placed on the list for a tax sale next Monday in Smethport.
With the tax sale pending, council was asked to reschedule its monthly meeting for Wednesday to consider the tax exoneration plan. Council normally meets the second Monday of the month.
Marasco said he expects that the Shedio site will be removed from the list of properties up for tax sale Monday.
Speaking at Wednesday’s meeting, John Shedio said his family still intends to eventually operate a “small sawmill” at the former Kane Handle site. Shedio now operates a sawmill in Slippery Rock. He already has used the Kane site as a log yard.
Susan Shedio told council that plans for the sawmill have been put on hold until economic conditions improve for the timber industry.
“Who could foresee this drop-off?” she said.
During a 40-minute discussion on the proposed exoneration, Gentilman wondered whether there is a “guarantee” that the property will be used for industry.
Susan Shedio said her family isn’t able to give a timetable for operating a sawmill in Kane.
“We can’t make promises we can’t keep,” she said.
Salvamoser pointed out that any future development at the site would “trigger” an increased assessment for the property.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 20 October 2009 )
|
