Laserfiche WebLink
property tax form in April 2010 and at that time they listed the acquisition of the property <br /> with a value of$71,777.00. There was never an application for an exemption on the <br /> new property at the new location. When they realized the mistake they submitted the <br /> letter requesting the exemption. Mr. Zitterkopf stated that the same statutes apply so <br /> they would have to request a waiver. <br /> Arnold questianed if the equipment was listed at the new address and it was not the <br /> YMCA 2008 would have had to be updated and the new property if in a different taxing <br /> district so they would have to file a new application. <br /> Lancaster questianed if they the considered only th� one Iocation, but the new personal <br /> property was not listed. <br /> Attorney Galen Stehlik was present the property was purchased in September 2009 fram <br /> Snap Fitness with a value of$56,399.00. They are tax exempt and always have been. <br /> Mr. Zitterkopf stated that he cannot help but think there is some confusion regarding the <br /> persona praperty tax return and the exemption application for the personal property. The <br /> tax return had a ane line entry stating the value of the equipment that was purchased <br /> and there was an itemized list but it was on the tax return not on an exemption <br /> application. <br /> Jeffries stated that it was their intent to do the right thing. <br /> Deputy County Assessor Shirlee Mudloff stated that they did not request an exemption. <br /> Arnold stated that he wants to be consistent and you can see that they though they <br /> complied with what was necessary and it was their int�nt to da what was necessary not <br /> realizing that if you have 2 different locations you have to file to two forms. He feels that <br /> there would no harm to approve this exemption. <br /> Lancaster stated that she agrees they do a service and have limited funds. <br /> Lancaster made a motion and Arnold seconded to approve the exemption applicatian for <br /> the YMCA for the property purchased fram Snap Fitness. <br /> Arnold questioned if the caunty is challenged would the liability go back to the YMCA <br /> and Mr. Zitterkopf said it would. <br /> Quandt stated that he alsa believes the intent to file was there but are we opening the <br /> donr to other taxpayers. <br /> Jeffries stated that each case is on individual basis and you cannot blanket every case <br /> he would just like to help. <br /> Mr. Zitterkopf stated that he informed the board of the laws and does not know what the <br /> effect would be. People are to report and pay taxes and the YMCA is tax exempt. He <br /> did express concern that if the church is denied and the board approve the YMCA they <br /> need to take a long hard look at their decision. <br /> Arnold questioned if there was a penalty and if so could that be waived. <br /> 2 <br />