John Jessup
HANCOCK COUNTY — Leaders have approved more agreements outlining incentives for large industrial developments and payments to the county.
The contracts are estimated to bring in millions of dollars that officials want to funnel directly toward public safety and education services. But some officials feel the negotiations could do more to secure benefits for the county’s future.
The agreements focus on buildings designed for logistical purposes in western Hancock County, many of which are planned on speculation without a specific occupant yet.
Six of the agreements address individual buildings that Carmel-based Lauth Group is developing, which total over 4.1 million square feet with an estimated investment of over $300 million.
Five of the buildings will be in the developer’s planned business park north of County Road 350N between County Roads 700W and 800W. One building is planned for the northeast corner of County Roads 800w and 200N.
One of the buildings addressed in the agreements — a 554,000-square-foot structure — is nearly complete and fully leased by Yusen Logistics. Brady Jacoba, vice president of business development for Lauth Group, said the property’s sale is imminent. Construction has started on one of the other buildings, which will be over 1 million square feet.
Three agreements also address three buildings that VanTrust Real Estate, based in Kansas City, Missouri, has planned for the northeast quadrant of County Roads 700W and 400N, totaling nearly 1.8 million square feet with an estimated investment of almost $92 million.
All of the agreements call for tax breaks for the projects that gradually diminish over the course of 10 years.
Most of the contracts also call for economic development payments to be made from the developers to the county. The agreements single out public safety and education as destinations for those funds — two areas officials say have been hit hard amid new large developments securing tax breaks and locating in tax increment financing districts, where much of the taxes don’t automatically go to those services.
All told, the recently approved contracts with Lauth and VanTrust estimate a total of nearly $14.3 million in economic development payments to the county over the 10-year spans of the agreements. The agreements also estimate a total of about that same amount in taxes to the county over the same time period.
The agreements with Lauth call for the county to negotiate forgivable loans for the developer of over $4.1 million for infrastructure like roadwork as well as water and sewer services.
The Hancock County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the agreements earlier this month.
Those agreements along with the ones the county already has in place make for an estimated total of over $32.5 million in economic development payments by the time each decade-long accord concludes. When accounting for the property taxes those projects are also estimated to owe, the total amount to the county is about $65 million.
John Jessup, president of the county commissioners, said he’s negotiating another batch of economic development agreements with builders estimated to draw about $28 million more in economic development payments.
Council seeks more involvement
Members of Hancock County’s other board of elected officials think there’s room for improvement in the economic development agreement process.
Keely Butrum, a Hancock County Council member, expressed concerns over Jessup being the county’s sole negotiator for the agreements. She said someone from the council should be involved too, as it is the county’s fiscal body and the agreements have a lot to do with funds the county will receive.
Butrum also thinks the county can push developers for more concessions, like land that could be used for future amenities such as parks or sites for a future fire station or sheriff’s department satellite station.
She noted as well that while the economic development agreements distinguish funds for public safety and education, the total amount of money estimated to come to the county via the agreements nets out to the same total it’d get under the county’s former tax abatement process.
The county should negotiate harder on that front, Butrum continued, including possibly offering tax breaks less generous than the status quo.
“We don’t have to incentivize a dollar for a spec warehouse to come be a profiteer here,” Butrum said. “And when we do, if we want to offer them less than the max amount of incentives available by the state of Indiana, I think we should certainly be considering that.”
Mary Noe, a county council member, said she thinks the economic development agreements should be structured more in a way that dedicates distinct destinations for the funds coming into the county.
“I thought that we could do a better job of putting them (developers) on the hook for things that are very specific,” Noe said, adding she feels the practice has been very “boilerplate” and could benefit from taking a closer look at the intricacies of each project to determine what other gains for the county could be possible.
But Jim Shelby, also a council member, said that could prompt developers to question why they’re not all being treated the same.
“If we’re going to be a business-friendly county, you have to be consistent,” Shelby said.
Jessup and fellow commissioner Marc Huber defended their motivation for and current approach toward the economic development agreements and said they share the desire for the county to benefit further from the ongoing development boom. Jessup said he submitted a draft plan on how to break up where economic development payments will go. Huber said that while Jessup is the only one directly involved in the negotiations, he maintains communication about them with the other two commissioners.
They said they’d be happy to include a council representative in the economic development agreement process.
“I very much want to improve communications,” Jessup said. “You can’t negotiate by committee, but we can definitely make sure that we’re having all those conversations. I’m willing to put anybody at the table that wants to be at the table.”
The council voted to assign that responsibility to Noe, with council member Kent Fisk explaining she has the most experience working with tax increment financing and tax abatements.
The debate also extended to plans for hiring two administrative assistants for the commissioners, one of whom will help specifically with the officials’ mounting economic development duties. Council members voted 4-2 earlier this week to approve annual pay for the assistants — one at $47,500 and the other at $45,500 — with Bill Bolander, Jeannine Gray, Fisk and Shelby voting in favor and Butrum and Noe voting against. Robin Lowder was absent.
Butrum believes the commissioners need the extra help, but couldn’t support funding a position she believes would further isolate the economic development agreements from the county’s fiscal body.
Debate extended further to where the commissioners’ future office will be located. Noe thinks it should be in the Hancock County Annex while Jessup is leaning toward the county’s E-911 office.
