Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDC denies Pure Development waiver, approves a shorter 3‑year abatement with EDC fee
Summary
Pure Development asked the Franklin EDC to waive noncompliance tied to a missed Form 3 22 filing after a second Form 11; the commission denied the waiver but approved a separate 3‑year, reduced abatement and EDC fee for a spec building build‑out.
Franklin's Economic Development Commission declined Pure Development's request for a waiver of noncompliance over a missed Form 3 22 filing but approved a separate, shorter abatement for build‑out on the same spec building.
Staff explained that a second Form 11 — a tax assessment notice reflecting a building's final assessed value — was issued in June 2024 but the required Form 3 22 was not filed in time. That omission meant taxes for the affected portion had been calculated without the abatement; staff outlined that if the commission denied a waiver the company would lose the first year of the abatement for that portion and taxes would be reconciled by the county.
Jesse Sadoway, speaking for Pure Development, acknowledged the mistake and said internal mail issues during a move and a litigation hold on email led to the missed filing. He told commissioners the company had paid the first tax installment because it wanted to avoid further problems and that 33% of the building is leased. "I paid the full amount, because I didn't want to create more of a kerfuffle," he said.
Commissioners expressed concern that this was the second similar waiver request and questioned the size of the prior tax savings. After deliberation a motion was made and the commission voted to deny the waiver of noncompliance; staff noted the company may take the matter to the city council and encouraged attendance at that hearing.
Separately, Pure Development sought a $558,289 request for real‑property build‑out on the northern portion of the spec building (C2025‑03). Commissioners found the required abatement criteria (paragraphs 5a–e) were met and then approved a modified abatement: a 3‑year term with an EDC/ADC fee, rather than the requested five‑year schedule. The motion to grant the 3‑year abatement with the EDC fee passed by voice vote.
The commission recorded both actions in the meeting minutes and invited the company to work with staff to ensure paperwork and future filings are correct.
