Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission adopts RDC plan amendment to carve out Lot 4 for TIF financing tied to INEEO food‑packaging project
Summary
The Henry County Planning Commission on Sept. 18 found the RDC’s amended redevelopment plan for HSN Lot 4 consistent with the county plan, allowing the RDC to pursue a separate TIF allocation area for a prospective food‑packaging manufacturer identified in the record as INEEO.
The Henry County Planning Commission on Sept. 18 voted to find that the Redevelopment Commission’s (RDC) amended plan for the HSN subdivision — carving Lot 4 into its own tax increment financing (TIF) allocation area — conforms to the county plan of development. The determination clears a statutory step so the RDC may proceed with a formal public hearing and final resolution.
Penny York of Newcastle Henry County Economic Development said the amendment would remove Lot 4 from the original redevelopment area and allow the RDC to use TIF financing for a prospective food‑packaging manufacturer identified in the record as INEEO (presentations used various spellings). York told commissioners the lot is about 8.03 acres.
Jim Milliken, attorney representing the redevelopment commission, told commissioners the amendment "has nothing to do with any obligation out there" and that the proposal would carve the lot as its own allocation area so financing could be based only on that lot. Commissioners noted that the incremental assessed value of the proposed HSN Lot 4 Allocation Area is zero because it is currently bare ground.
The presentation stated the prospective project would create 50 new jobs by 2031. The planning commission moved and seconded a determination under IC 36‑7‑14‑16 and voted unanimously to find the amended plan consistent with county development plans; the chair announced the motion carried. The commission’s approval is a required step before the RDC holds a public hearing and adopts a final declaratory resolution, and the matter was scheduled to be forwarded to the Henry County Board of Commissioners for consideration on Sept. 24.
No amounts for TIF revenue, bond impacts, or specific tax abatement terms were provided to the planning commission in the materials introduced at this meeting. A commission member asked whether the proposed arrangement was a "traditional abatement"; the packet and discussion did not provide details of any abatement structure. The attorney for the RDC said prior bondholder obligations were analyzed and the amendment would not adversely affect bondholders according to the record presented.
Next steps recorded in the meeting: the RDC will hold a public hearing and adopt a final resolution if it chooses to proceed, followed by action from the county commissioners. The planning commission record does not show that the planning commission set conditions on its consistency determination.
