Pittsboro council approves real-property tax abatement for Faith Technologies, strips personal-property relief

The Pittsboro Town Council on March 3 approved a real-property tax abatement for Faith Technologies Incorporated while removing personal-property relief from the abatement and the related incentive agreement.

Council members voted to adopt the confirmatory resolution (recorded in the meeting as 2026‑04) that grants a staged real-property abatement — 100% in year 1, stepping down to 5% in year 10 — and explicitly strikes personal-property abatement. The council then approved the separate tax abatement incentive agreement (recorded as 2026‑05) with language pertaining to personal property removed. Both votes were recorded in the meeting as passing by 4–1.

The decision followed a public hearing in which residents and written correspondents urged caution about extending abatements to personal property. At the podium, Timothy Groggios, a township trustee, said he supported development but opposed personal-property abatements because those taxes are “front loaded” and provide early funding for services including the fire department. “I am adamantly against it. Period,” he said.

Two letters read into the record urged the council to protect the town’s tax base. In a letter read aloud, Kyle Martin of 108 Woodview Drive argued that construction was already underway and that Pittsboro should not concede additional revenue that supports schools and services. Linda Thompson, in a second letter dated Feb. 27, 2026, wrote that many businesses secure financing before seeking incentives and warned that personal-property abatements would reduce revenue for the town, fire department and schools.

Representatives for Faith Technologies told the council the company had moved quickly after receiving assurances and that the overall economic package — not the split between real and personal property — was the company’s primary concern. Ross Bennett, representing Faith Technologies (with Grama Thornton), said company representatives were available to answer outstanding questions. Mike Eicoff of Grama Thornton said the SB 1 form required by state law “was filed actually, in November” and that the filing preceded permit applications.

Council discussion centered on whether the confirmatory resolution could be modified and whether real and personal property should be considered together. Legal discussion during the meeting referenced statutory authority allowing a designating body to confirm, modify or rescind an abatement resolution after considering evidence; council members noted the body has modified abatement levels in past cases.

A motion to reject the confirmatory resolution for both real and personal property failed for lack of a second. After further discussion, the chair moved to approve the confirmatory resolution limited to real-property relief and removing personal-property abatements; that motion was seconded and passed 4–1. The council then approved the accompanying incentive agreement, also with personal-property provisions stricken, by the same recorded margin. Council members said removing personal property also removed a previously discussed $300,000 pilot payment tied to that component.

The meeting record shows the application for the abatement was submitted Nov. 11, 2025, the Economic Development Commission reviewed the application and made recommendations, and the council previously gave permission on Jan. 13 for the developer to proceed while the abatement request was pending. The project was described in the meeting as a proposed roughly 500,000-square-foot light-manufacturing building with an estimated cost of about $39,000,000 on roughly 48 acres; the company anticipated installing approximately $13,500,000 in new manufacturing equipment.

The council also approved routine drafts and claims and set its next meeting for March 17. With no further business the council adjourned.