By David Slone
Times-Union
WARSAW — Mobile home owners in Kosciusko County will need to continue to pay property tax on their homes for the foreseeable future.
After several months of discussion, the Kosciusko County Council voted 6-0 Thursday to deny a property tax exemption ordinance for mobile and manufactured homes in the county.
Councilwoman Joni Truex was not present.
In bringing the ordinance back up at the council’s meeting, President Mike Long reminded everyone that back in July County Assessor Gail Chapman and Treasurer Michelle Puckett brought the mobile home property tax exemption ordinance before the council after state legislation went into effect on July 1.
Chapman and Puckett first brought SEA 183 to the council’s attention in April.
Indiana SEA 183 allows counties to end mobile home personal property assessments. It would apply only to mobile homes assessed as personal property, not mobile homes assessed as real estate.
“We, at that time, discussed it a lot. We’ve discussed it a lot since then, and I wanted to bring it back up at the November meeting so that we could hopefully put this thing to bed in one way or another before the end of the year,” Long stated before asking for the rest of the council’s input.
Councilwoman Sue Ann Mitchell said, “I would like to say that I appreciate the fact that the treasurer and the assessor brought this information to us because that’s what’s supposed to happen. It’s the council’s decision. And I can tell you, in talking to council people all over the state of Indiana, there are no other assessors and treasurers who have been moving forward in the process to try to provide councils the information. So I did want to applaud the girls.”
She said she sat down with the assessor’s and treasurer’s office and they talked through the whole process. Having previously served in the treasurer’s office, Mitchell said she did mobile home assessments and understands the whole process.
“There are things in these steps that are very, very difficult. Difficult to do, hard to make happen. But at this time, given where we’re at, knowing that the state is looking at the total structure of property tax, I think we might be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we went ahead and did this now,” Mitchell said.
“I think we’re going to have to wait. I know there’s an 186-page tax bill that’s coming out and that’s only the beginning of it. Perhaps even a total revamp of how we do things, and I am just afraid that if we move forward with this now, we will have done something that we can’t undo because once we quit, there’s no going back.”
If people don’t pay their taxes, she pointed out that mobile homes can be sold, though it’s not an easy process.
“But I think if we let the public know that if you don’t pay your property tax, you’re probably not going to have that mobile home by some way,” she said. A person’s income tax refund can be commandeered by the county, too, if they don’t pay their property taxes.
At this point, though assessing mobile and manufactured homes causes a great deal of work for county offices, Mitchell said she doesn’t think the exemption is the right thing to do.
Councilman Tony Ciriello said he was on the same page as Mitchell. “I don’t see that at this point in time we can go forward with approving this ordinance because of the changes that will be coming next legislative session and, as you said, once you go one way you can’t go back the other way, and I think we need to let it play out at the General Assembly next year and see what they come up with,” he said, making a motion to not approve the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kimberly Cates said the council could always revisit it after they see what the tax law changes are going to be.
Councilman Dave Wolkins seconded Ciriello’s motion to keep the mobile home tax in the county and the motion passed.
Earlier in the meeting, attorney Steve Snyder, representing Louis Dreyfus, presented a declaratory resolution to the council to start the process requesting a tax abatement for the company in Claypool.
“The request that is before you tonight is for additional abatements for a $50 million project that Dreyfus has in the works. They haven’t started it yet,” Snyder said. “We’re looking at new manufacturing equipment of $23,052,000, logistics equipment of $600,000, IT equipment of $311,000 for personal property in the amount of $23,963,000. In addition, they will be investing $26,250,000 into real estate improvements.”
Snyder said that one of the things that makes this abatement request “a little unique” is that “this is an expansion to increase bean processing capacity as it relates to oils, glycerin and lecithin. The goal is to increase capacities and efficiencies because they’re running at a maximum. They want to be able to take in more beans and put out the product from these beans at a greater rate and in a more efficient process.”
He said they can utilize a lot of the existing equipment to do that, but they have to expand that equipment and the facilities to maintain that capacity. They don’t necessarily need to increase the number of employees Dreyfus has, so there will only be two new employees to help handle the additional capacities coming in as the current employees will be able to handle the increased capacity, he stated.
The two new employees will earn an annual salary between $60,000 to $75,000.
For a personal property abatement, Snyder said they’re suggesting three years would be appropriate, and for the real estate improvements five years.
“This is simply the declaratory resolution that gets us started. A month from now, if you approve this, we’ll be back for a confirmatory hearing. No waiver will be required because they haven’t started anything yet,” Snyder said.
Long asked when it was anticipated the construction would begin. Snyder said Jan. 1, 2025, with completion by the end of 2026.
Long said the county abatement committee has met on the request and as of Thursday they don’t have a formal recommendation ready for the full council. That will be presented at the Dec. 12 council meeting before any vote on the abatement request is taken.
Mitchell made a motion to approve the declaratory resolution for the abatement so the request can be moved forward and it can be studied deeper. Cates seconded the motion, which passed 4-2. Voting against the motion were Ciriello and Councilman Dave Wolkins.
