Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
White County revives redevelopment commission and moves to set tax-abatement guidelines
Summary
County leaders said the redevelopment commission will take on tax-abatement reviews, asked for a council-established scoring guideline, and plan a small committee to produce draft guidelines for the next council meeting; staff emphasized improving SB1/CF1 compliance and declaring Economic Revitalization Areas per state statute.
County commissioners and staff spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing tax abatements, redevelopment commission (RDC) responsibilities and a new process the county will use to handle abatement requests.
Randy (economic development staff) described work to reactivate the RDC and proposed a flowchart for how abatement requests should move through the county: prospective applicants would submit the required SB1 forms (for real and personal property) and supporting documentation, those materials would be reviewed by economic development staff and the auditor, legal counsel and the RDC, and the council would see the RDC recommendation before any abatement is approved. Randy and other presenters said the SB1 submissions the county has received recently are often incomplete and the RDC’s involvement would help ensure complete applications and consistent scoring before requests reach the council.
Commissioners discussed declaring Economic Revitalization Areas (ERAs) — language for that requirement is in state statute, staff said — and the role of tax increment financing (TIF) districts. Commissioners asked that the process include fiscal analysis (Baker Tilly was mentioned as the typical vendor for impact and fiscal analysis) so the county and taxpayers can see the revenue effects of abatements. Staff said the county is already handling several pending requests that were submitted in 2023 and 2024 and that better procedures should prevent delays or unintended fiscal consequences.
Members discussed a scoring matrix used in other Indiana counties (the presenters referenced Lafayette’s framework and spreadsheet) and debated whether to adopt a binding policy or a set of standard guidelines. Several commissioners favored calling the county instrument a guideline rather than a rigid policy so the council retains discretion for unusual cases. The council president said he would establish a three-member committee of council members to draft guidelines (or a scoring matrix) for the council and RDC to use; commissioners discussed meeting times and an expectation to produce proposed guidelines by the next council meeting so pending projects would not be delayed.
Staff also summarized current and proposed projects that could be affected by a new process, including a site labeled 02/3165 (a two-square-mile area being evaluated for industrial development), Global Harvest and other leads submitted to White County’s economic development office. Commissioners and staff agreed on the need to ensure required CF compliance forms are filed (county staff said CF forms must be completed by May 1 to preserve abatement compliance records) and to improve communication between economic development, the auditor and assessor so abatements are processed on schedule.
No formal vote to adopt a policy happened at the meeting. Instead, commissioners directed staff to form the committee, to circulate exhibit B (real property) and exhibit C (personal property) drafts, and to return with proposed guidelines for council consideration.
