Noblesville council weighing 10-year tax phase-in for SMC

July 25, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Fast-growing SMC Corp. of America plans to spend $6.1 million on equipment to expand production and distribution capacities at its North American headquarters in Noblesville.

The city’s Common Council this week unanimously approved a request to gradually collect personal property taxes on the equipment, saving SMC nearly $400,000 over 10 years. (Update: Council unanimously approved the tax break on Aug. 13.)

SMC employs about 680 at its sprawling Noblesville operation and has promised to add almost 100 positions there by 2017. (The average salary, according to the abatement request: $48,250.)

The company, which makes pneumatic and electric automation equipment, had 460 workers when it relocated to Noblesville’s Corporate Campus in 2008. It has invested over $67 million at the site since then, said city economic development chief Judi Johnson.

Last year, the city approved a 10-year tax phase-in for an expansion that brought the size of SMC’s facility to nearly 1.5 million square feet.

Although the current abatement request doesn’t include a jobs pledge, Johnson is encouraged by the company’s continued investment in Noblesville—not to mention outside recognition like its recent ranking by Forbes magazine as one of the 50 most-innovative companies in the world.

“The promise of future growth is there,” she said.

If the abatement goes through as expected, SMC plans to install the new equipment over the next 18 months.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Employes 680?
    There are almost 700 people working at this facility in Noblesville? I hadn't even realized the place even opened up yet. Not a whole lot of activity/traffic going on over there for 700 people working there.
  • Have you been in the building?
    Doubtful - how could you possibly know this from the "activity" in the area? Have you been in the building or seen the pure size of it? Speaking without knowing.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT