Valparaiso building had housed Porter Co. child support office — but now it doesn’t
The owners of an office building in downtown Valparaiso are asking for a tax exemption for office space rented to Porter County to house child support services, but child support moved out of the building in mid-December.
The county’s Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals is scheduled to discuss the request, made by an attorney representing the owner of 15 N. Franklin St., on Monday.
Porter County Assessor Jon Snyder said he’s not aware of any exemptions granted for entities that have moved out of a building. The space for the child support office was eligible for the exemption because it’s considered a political subdivision.
“I scratch my head over this,” Snyder said. “Hopefully the board can reach a quick decision on it.”
The lease for the space, which is now tied up in court as county officials and the building owner battle over its validity, is still in force, said Christopher Buckley, the attorney representing 15 Franklin, LLC, which owns the building.
“PTABOA and the assessor don’t have the authority to evaluate a contract. That’s up to the judge,” he said.
A 10-year extension for the lease for the child support office caught county officials off guard last year, because they had planned for child support to move to the former jail at 157 Franklin St., purchased as part of a facility upgrade to house 911 communications and several county offices.
A third party law firm determined in October that the lease agreement, which took effect in 2000 and had multiple extensions, did not follow state statute and was invalid. The county council also voted at the time not to fund the rent for this year as a result of the legal opinion.
In mid-December, child support moved into a temporary space at 157 Franklin St., the former site of a Mexican restaurant, and will move into a permanent space elsewhere on the first floor within the year.
Shortly after the move, attorneys for 15 Franklin, LLC threatened to sue county commissioners and the prosecutor’s office for breaking the lease, asking for $526,543.92 to cover the rent through Dec. 31, 2024, its remainder.
County officials have since asked for a declaratory judgment, seeking a ruling that the lease and its extensions are void because the lease didn’t follow state statute.
But Buckley said the county is in default of the lease because it vacated the building before the lease came to an end.
“It’s irrelevant whether the tenant is physically occupying the premises or not,” he said.
The building owner had an application in to renew the exemption for this year in the fall but pulled it after the lease was deemed invalid.
Over a 10-year period during which the building owners previously had an exemption, they received $87,695 in tax breaks, Auditor Vicki Urbanik has said.
The exemption, Buckley said, is really for the benefit of the county, which would be paying property taxes to itself.
“You’re taking property taxes out of the equation. You’re not going to pass that on to the taxpayers,” he said.
The board, Snyder said, can approve the tax exemption without a hearing Monday or request a hearing on the matter, but can’t deny the exemption without a hearing.
“If they did (request a hearing), I would certainly schedule one as quickly as possible,” he said.
PREVIOUS ARTICLE
