By Don Steen
Staff Writer n reporter@psci.net
The Spencer County Council held a public hearing ahead of their regular June 17 meeting, with the proposed natural gas plant north of Rockport taking center stage. Specifically, the hearing sought public comment on whether the county should support the project with a property tax abatement and creation of an economic revitalization area. While a fairly standard practice for any new development, this hearing quickly sparked significant opposition, resulting at the very least in delaying any tax abatement for the project.
The natural gas plant, to be built by Tenaska across US 231 from American Electric Power’s facility, has been moving forward steadily since the project’s announcement this spring. The county commissioners recently rezoned the property necessary for the project, and will be considering an economic development agreement to set conditions for county support going forward.
Such an agreement would be closely linked to a personal and real property tax abatement on the Tenaska project. The EDA would ensure the company meets all its agreed obligations, particularly with regard to investments in the county and job creation.
As the governing financial entity for the county, it fell to the Spencer County Council to determine whether a tax abatement was appropriate. The abatement in question was plotted out on a 10-year schedule, where Tenaska would pay 10% of its taxes after the first year, 20% the next, and so on until the abatement is retired. This abatement structure aims to help mitigate the build out cost of new developments or expansions to existing industries.
Abatements such as this are common, with one recent recipient being Superior Ag. This project, however, sparked a great deal of opposition from a packed audience.
First to speak was Charlotte Ayer, who also spoke in front of the commissioners at their last meeting. She reiterated her concerns about the project’s impact on her property and the local environment, expressing concerns about noise and increased traffic.
Ayer argued the county council should rely only on the company’s plans and projects to make a decision.
“Things don’t always work the way they’re presented,” she said.
Frank Wike, who also opposed the Grandview Solar project, urged council members to do more research into Tenaska’s other projects. He asserted the company acts as a monopoly and uses that power to manipulate prices and local governments.
John Stoker asked if the county council was prepared to publish an official cost-benefit analysis of the project for the public to review.
Councilman Aaron Benton said no formal analysis is prepared, but that the math had been reviewed on the matter.
Stoker also expressed concern that future tax changes from the state might put further strain on local governments. He questioned whether it was wise for the council to forgo new revenues for so long under those circumstances.
“They’re changing the whole structure,” Stoker said. “Is it premature?”
Mary Hess of Southwestern Indiana Citizens for Quality of Life told the council that studies are available assessing the impact of Tenaska’s other projects, including one in Virginia.
“Do your due diligence,” she said.
Rock Emmert followed up, noting that Indiana regularly ranks lowest, or among the lowest, in air quality across the country. He said that Spencer County is worse than several major metropolitan areas combined in terms of air quality.
Emmert argued this region has been essentially relegated to housing industries that others would prefer not living alongside. He also expressed concern the state’s regulations and enforcement were inadequate, and institutional inertia would carry any project forward regardless of local opposition.
“Can we shift the pendulum?” he asked. “Whose responsibility is it?”
Gretchen Adkisson questioned why Tenaska had chosen a site that was not already zoned for industrial use. Ruth Wike chimed in, noting that the property neighboring AEP on the east side of US 231 might be more appropriate.
“There are industrial places this could go,” said Wike.
Sally Kirpatrick expressed concern about small-particulate pollution and local health risks, especially given the prevalence of other polluting industries in the area already. She also questioned whether 20 full-time jobs was worth the impact to the area.
“I think we’re doing ourselves a disservice,” she said.
Some concerns could be addressed immediately, by council members or company representatives.
For example, one resident asked if Tenaska’s project was associated with a data center, or AEP’s own plans for a natural gas or small-modular-reactor conversion. The answer was “no” on both fronts.
Tenaska is working with AEP to secure requisite access to transmission lines and other easements, but the two projects are entirely separate. Likewise, Tenaska’s power plant is not being built specifically for a data center. Power generated would be sold into the grid.
Another question centered on potential threats to the region’s aquifer. Before the June 17 meeting, it seemed likely that the aquifer would be a source for water for the project, but that has since changed.
Company representatives confirmed the natural gas plant would most likely focus on securing water from the Ohio River, and discharge according to state regulations. The plant would require about six million gallons per day once in operation.
The council closed the public hearing after more than half an hour of public comment. However, discussion continued when the property tax abatement and economic revitalization agreement came up for a vote.
Councilman David Fromme questioned the value of a 10-year abatement, arguing that the county would benefit more from simply collecting 100% of tax revenue from the start
Councilman Aaron Benton noted the economic development agreement, to be negotiated later by the commissioners, would entail financial benefits in the meantime.
Councilman Justin Grose asked whether a modified schedule could be agreed to, such as a five-year tax abatement.
Company representatives noted that this project was anticipating a 10-year abatement, as this was the standard for other developments in the county. They could not state for certain if a five-year abatement would keep the project feasible, but noted that no abatement at all might make other locations more enticing.
Ultimately, the Spencer County Council voted against a property tax abatement for Tenaska by 2-5, with only Councilmen Benton and David Gogel voting in favor. It should be stressed, however, that council members might be amenable to a revised abatement schedule, contingent on certain conditions being agreed to beforehand.
Fromme asked if the abatement and economic revitalization area could be settled after the commissioners had wrapped up negotiations regarding the economic development agreement with the company. He emphasized his desire to get the best possible deal for the county.
Commissioner Heather Gries said she would welcome more opportunities for local officials to review the issue. However, she also cautioned that a failure to offer any incentive to the company might cost the county a potential $1 billion investment, and substantial new tax revenue that could extend well beyond a decade.
In other business
• The Spencer County Council is also preparing for budget hearings.
• Approved additional appropriations in the amount of $9,500 for ambulance safes and $75,000 for overtime for paramedics.
• Approved several additional appropriations for the sheriff’s department, including: $4,000 for uniforms, $56,000 for gas and fuel, $36,960 for ballistic vests, $36,000 for inmate prescriptions, and $109,000 for inmate medical costs.
• Approved an additional appropriation in the amount of $19,500 for jury costs.
• The next meeting of the Spencer County Council will be held at 5 p.m. Tuesday, July 21, in the Commissioners Room of the Courthouse.
FEATURED PHOTO: The crowd from the Spencer County Council meeting filters out to continue informal discussions in the Courthouse Rotunda after a surprise vote against a standard 10-year property tax abatement for Tenaska’s proposed natural gas plant. The council may consider other options, such as a five-year tax abatement, possibly with other conditions negotiated by the Spencer County Commissioners in their separate negotiations toward an economic development agreement with the company.
– Photo by Don Steen
