Cities weigh new law allowing bigger tax breaks

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Communities across the state are trying to decide how they will use a new law that provides them more flexibility to employ economic development incentives but could increase pressure to give companies more tax breaks.

The law allows cities and counties to waive all taxes on new business investment, such as equipment and buildings, for up to 10 years. It also lets localities funnel back to the company, rather than to government units, up to 100 percent of the local option income taxes paid by the new employees a company hires.

Proponents of the law say the leeway it provides will help make Indiana municipalities more competitive in attracting jobs. But some economic development and government officials worry that it could give businesses more leverage in negotiations by pitting communities that can’t afford to utilize the incentives against those that can.

“It’s a race to the bottom almost,” said David Bottorff, executive director of the Association of Indiana Counties. “This tool is out there now, so the pressure can be applied to get locals to use it.”

Leaders from Develop Indy, the economic development arm for Indianapolis, and city officials say they’re still in the process of analyzing the law and evaluating whether—and to what extent—the city will use it. Any policy changes would have to be approved by the Metropolitan Development Commission.

Previous state law prescribed a formula that local governments had to follow in giving abatements on real and personal property. Under the law, city officials would calculate how much a business would pay in new taxes and reduce that by a certain percentage every year.

For example, a 10-year abatement on real property would reduce taxes by 100 percent in the first year but only 5 percent by the 10th year.

Any deductions only applied to the company’s new investment in the property, not the existing assessed value—a point that remains in the new law.

But the new law allows communities to alter the abatement schedule as they see fit, based on factors such as the company’s amount of investment and how many jobs the business says it will create.

It also allows communities to offer income-tax credits as a hiring incentive, but excludes from that benefit companies moving from one site in Indiana to another.

Indiana Rep. Mark Messmer, the Jasper Republican who authored the law, said cities with sophisticated economic development operations already could have found ways to maximize tax abatements under the old law. But “this would allow it to be a lot more cookbook,” Messmer said, particularly for cities such as Jasper, which hasn’t used tax abatements in the past.

In fact, early discussions of the law change surfaced after a task force in Jasper identified expanded abatement power as one way to make that community more competitive for jobs.

The Jasper City Council is beginning to work on an ordinance that would outline its abatement policy. But city officials such as Mayor Bill Schmitt, who finishes his final term at the end of this year, are urging caution that when the city moves forward with incentives, it doesn’t give away too much of its tax base.

That concern is shared by groups such as Washington, D.C.-based Good Jobs First, which advocates making communities more accountable for economic development incentives.

Thomas Cafcas, a researcher with the group, said 24 states allow for some sort of property-tax abatement. He said that allowing full abatements for up to 10 years isn’t unprecedented but is a potentially dangerous policy.

“If you’re eating away at the property tax and you’re eating away at the income tax—if you’re eroding these stable forms of taxes, then what’s left?” Cafcas said.

Messmer said those fears shouldn’t overshadow the residual benefit a community receives, such as new residents moving in and new jobs created. And, he points out, communities eventually receive the full value of the new investment once the abatement expires.

“It’s increasing jobs and development to your local economy,” Messmer said. “You’re just delaying the increased revenue to one, three, five, seven years down the road.”


    JON, are u kidding? You think people are doing okay on $7.25 an hour? How long have you been living with your parents? I'm not saying raising the min. wage to $14 - $15 is the answer, because businesses would just start shifting their production to countries like Mexico and China, and smaller businesses simply couldn't afford it unless they are EXTREMELY profitable, which could take years, but to assert the one can actually LIVE on $7.25 an hour in this country - pay rent, buy food, pay for insurance, pay utilities, maintain a car, etc and etc - is just ridiculous.
  • Another example of breaks for elite business
    With a state that is forced to cut everything but the governor’s highways and prisons....this is another break for elite business owners. The business income tax cut was not enough to give Mitch's friends.

    Mitch will publish more fake accounting which will say that screwing the citizen tax payers is good for the state. Mitch doesn't seem to believe corporations have any obligation for state revenue.

    At the rate Mitch is working to kill the middle class: each taxpayer will be forced to pay corporations an additional kickback. Free just is not good enough.

    Let’s consider doing this the other way, give each homeowner a tax break for going to work at a new corporation!!!! Talk about savings!!!
  • economics
    No government should be able to set a false floor on the economy, including labor, unless it is deemed unlivable. People seem to be doing okay at the current $7.25, why should we DOUBLE the minimum wage for, well no reason whatsoever? It's not like inflation has gone sky-high.
    • living wage
      No company should be able to take advantage of any tax breaks unless they are willn to pay a livable wage of at least 15 an hour

      Post a comment to this story

      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

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

      2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

      3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

      4. If you only knew....

      5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.