Legislature OKs new Fishers food-and-drink tax

May 1, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Fishers has state lawmakers’ permission to impose a 1-percent food-and-beverage tax, but local leaders aren’t rushing into anything.

Town Council President John Weingardt said officials will convene a special meeting—likely in the second half of the year—to solicit public input before making a decision on the levy, which could be used only to lower property taxes or support economic development efforts.

“It could still be voted down,” he said. “If we don’t have an economic development deal to hang it on, we might be hard-pressed" to approve a tax hike.

Fishers opted not to collect an additional 1-percent of food-and-beverage sales eight years ago, when a funding deal for Lucas Oil Stadium gave regional communities the chance.

Hamilton County was one of six counties surrounding Indianapolis that OK’d a 1-percent food-and-beverage tax to help build the venue. Half of that revenue is transferred to Marion County’s Capital Improvement Board, which owns the stadium.

At the time, municipalities could choose to institute an additional 1-percent tax for their own use. Officials in Carmel, Noblesville and Westfield seized the opportunity.

That extra 1 percent added $1.6 million to Carmel’s coffers last year, and Noblesville brought in almost $1.3 million. An analysis from the state Legislative Services Agency estimates Fishers could collect just over $1 million in both 2014 and 2015 if it imposes the tax.

Legislators sent a measure authorizing the new tax to the governor April 18. It became law April 30, even though Gov. Mike Pence chose not to sign it.

“While Gov. Pence supports the local control provided by the bill, he is not inclined to endorse this legislation that allows for a tax increase,” spokeswoman Kara Brooks said.

Fishers leaders have until Dec. 31 to decide whether to proceed.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT