Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Smithfield amends tax‑stabilization rules to give council discretion over tier schedule
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing and debate about negotiation flexibility and taxpayer protections, the council approved amendments to the town’s tax stabilization ordinance that keep a tiered schedule as guidance but allow the council to deviate by vote; the body also approved a conforming amendment to an Organogenesis tax stabilization agreement.
The Smithfield Town Council on April 1 approved amendments to the town’s tax‑stabilization ordinance that remove strict, prescriptive tier amounts from binding requirements and instead recognize a schedule as a guideline while expressly allowing the council to deviate for a particular application by vote.
The public hearing and council debate lasted more than an hour and focused on whether the ordinance should contain fixed investment thresholds tied to specific maximum stabilization terms (for example, tiers referencing amounts such as $2 million, $5 million, $10 million and $50 million in past drafts) versus leaving such details to negotiation and administrative guidance. Town staff and councilors said the ordinance previously constrained the town’s ability to negotiate agreements in real cases; other councilors argued that clear thresholds protect taxpayers.
Chris (staff) told the council the amendments were drafted to preserve the ordinance’s application process and minimum requirements while removing prescriptive language that had complicated past negotiations. He said the ordinance’s application and findings provisions would remain in place and that the council could continue using investment level, job creation and other factors to determine stabilization length.
After extended discussion, the council approved changed language in section 3‑21‑19 to read essentially that “the length of any tax stabilization agreement shall be determined by the following schedule based on the applicant’s level of investment” and “shall be subject to the requirements of this article unless otherwise determined by a vote of the Smithfield Town Council.” Councilors described that phrasing as preserving guidelines while restoring the council’s ability to approve exceptions in specific cases.
The amendments respond to problems identified during the town’s negotiation with Organogenesis (also discussed at the meeting). Following the ordinance change, the council held a separate public hearing and approved a conforming amendment to the tax‑stabilization agreement between Organogenesis Holdings Inc., Organogenesis, Inc., and DVIP Technology Way LLC to resolve inconsistencies between two previously voted versions of that agreement; attorney Joe Carnevale represented Organogenesis and said the red‑line amendments in the agenda packet reconcile the two versions.
During debate councilors reiterated that investment amount alone is not the only factor: the town will consider job creation, community benefit, infrastructure impacts, and other findings called for in the ordinance. Several councilors asked staff to prepare or maintain procedural guidance (rules and regs or a template) to aid negotiations without tying the council to rigid thresholds.
The public hearing attracted testimony from residents and other commenters in support of making negotiation more practical; one resident urged the council to “get them in the door first” and then work out terms. The council voted to adopt the ordinance amendments and then approved the Organogenesis amendment; the meeting record shows motions passed though detailed roll‑call tallies were not specified in the transcript excerpts.
