Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement Zima topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zima (Dandy) tax-abatement request tied to 350 jobs stalls after councilors question local benefit and labor commitments
Summary
Zima International (doing business as Dandy) asked for a 7-year personal-property abatement tied to a $42.8 million investment and 350 new jobs, but councilors questioned the distribution of inclusion payments, local hiring and labor practices. The committee vote was 5–5, so the item did not pass in committee and will be forwarded to the full council with the committee’s recommendation.
A proposal to approve a statement of benefits (SB1) and recommend a 7‑year personal‑property tax abatement for Zima International Inc., which operates as Dandy, failed to pass in committee after councilors raised questions about local benefits and workforce commitments.
Company representatives, including Tom Tate (global head of manufacturing, quality and training), described plans for an automated manufacturing facility at 6900 English Avenue and said the project would invest about $42,800,000 in machinery and IT equipment and create up to 350 net new jobs over the next seven years. “We respectfully request your approval for a statement of benefits in SB1 in the amount of 42,800,000 in accordance with Indiana code,” Tate said.
Councilor Andy Nielsen pressed why $10,000 of a 5% inclusion payment would go to the Cumberland CDC—roughly four miles from the site—and sought assurance more of the inclusion payments would benefit nearby residents. Vincent Ash, the developer with Loft Development Group, and project representatives said roughly $82,628 of the 5% inclusion payment would fund trail improvements and site maintenance near the project and that the $10,000 was requested by Councilor Hart to fund a study of blight in a nearby area. Councilor Ron Gibson asked whether minority‑owned businesses (MBEs) or union labor were involved in the build; the developer said they would follow up with specifics. When the committee called the roll, the motion produced a 5–5 tie and the chair said the item did not pass; staff advised it may be moved to the full council for a final vote. The committee’s 5–5 tie was recorded in the transcript; individual yea/nay names are partially recorded in the roll call but the transcript does not provide a complete, unambiguous tally by name.
