Carmel committee reviews compliance for four tax abatements, votes to return reports to full council

The City of Carmel Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee on June 16 reviewed annual compliance reports for four property tax abatements and voted to return the matter to the full City Council without modification.

Nick Weber, City of Carmel, presented compliance filings for Alliance for Cooperative Energy Services (ACES); Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator; Schlage Lock; and ZP Investments/Zotech Partners, noting which companies met hiring and wage commitments and where reported spending lagged expectations.

The committee’s review covered both real and personal property abatements and the annual compliance reports that recipients must file with the designating body. Weber said the required reports are due May 15 each year and that the county uses those compliance figures to update tax bills in June and July.

Weber said ACES is in a five-year personal-property abatement with a 2028 project completion date. "The company has retained all its committed employees and has paid them slightly more than what they anticipated a year ago that they would be paying them," Weber said, and added that ACES met its new-job commitment of 14 and its 2024 wage target of $50.48 an hour but had not yet met its personal-property spending target.

On Midcontinent — which Weber described as a 10-year personal-property abatement first reported in 2018 — he said the company retained its committed employees, added slightly more jobs than expected (90 reported versus 84 expected) and paid substantially higher wages. Weber noted Midcontinent did not file a personal-property spending figure for 2024 but had previously reported spending well above its $2,500,000 commitment.

Weber reported strong results for Schlage Lock, another 10-year personal-property abatement first reported in 2018. "The company has retained all the employees they committed and has paid them more than 2 times what was expected of their retained jobs," he said. Schlage has added roughly 350 new jobs versus an expected 125, and salaries reported were substantially higher than anticipated; however, the company reported $700,000 in personal-property spending against an expected $2,000,000.

On ZP Investments / Zotech Partners — a 10-year real- and personal-property abatement first reported in 2021 with a project completion date of 2024 — Weber said the company retained committed employees and exceeded expected real-property and personal-property investment but fell short on new hires. He reported $60,000,000 in real-property spending versus $47,000,000 expected, and $11,000,000 in personal-property spending versus $1,000,000 expected; new hires were 89 versus an anticipated 300. Weber said the company told staff it invested in technology that reduced the headcount it otherwise would have needed.

Committee members asked about how abatements affect Carmel residents versus regional employees and whether the city could show the fiscal value of abatements compared with local benefits. Councilor Locke asked for more resident-location data and modeling to quantify the local return on tax incentives: "I just asked, I think it's good data, to kinda tell us what the impact of our abatements are, but it also gives us a bargaining chip as we start to build up that area with Zionsville and Boone County to say they should chip into to help us out." Weber said the required CF-1 compliance forms do not include employee residence by default but that staff could survey companies in future filings; ACES had signed an MOA requiring participation in a survey.

Locke also asked for a brief summary of Zotech’s abatement structure; Weber said it was likely a traditional 10-year sliding-percent abatement and that he would "confirm that and communicate to the council after the meeting."

After discussion the committee moved to return the compliance reports to the full City Council that evening without changes. Councilor Royal made the motion, Councilor Locke seconded, the committee called the question and the motion carried.

The committee’s review was the only item on the June 16 agenda and concluded after roughly 15–20 minutes of discussion.

What the committee did not do at the meeting was change or terminate any abatements; it transmitted the compliance reports and related materials back to the City Council for further consideration.