City verifies tax amendment for DuraMark, approves Springmill Station signage

The front of DuraMark headquarters at Southpark Drive in Westfield. (Submitted image)

By Noah Alatza

The Westfield City Council met July 24. The next meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Aug. 14 at City Hall, 130 Penn St. For more, visit westfield.in.gov.

What happened: Council verified tax abatement for DuraMark Technologies.

What it means: The council previously approved a 10-year personal property tax abatement for DuraMark in December 2012. DuraMark produces safety labels and branding decals for manufacturing companies. The state originally offered DuraMark up to $350,000 in conditional, job creation-related incentives, which it received. After DuraMark Technologies Inc. finished construction of a new $2 million, 18,000-square-foot headquarters in Westfield last August, the company returned to the Westfield council and requested benefits of the previously approved real property tax abatement for the project on the same terms and subject to the same restrictions as the previously approved measure. It would save the company nearly 50 percent on the property taxes for the project during the next 10 years. Savings would top $280,000, according to city spokeswoman Erin Murphy.

 

What happened: City approved Issuance of Westfield Redevelopment District Tax, 7-0.

What it means: City councilors unanimously approved the issuance of revenue bonds for the Westfield Redevelopment Commission. Westfield would save $370,000 a year. The bonds are reviewed on an annual basis, according to Matthew Skelton, Westfield’s Director of Economic and Community Development.

 

What happened: The Spring Mill Station Planned Unit Development was approved unanimously.

What it means: A public hearing was held on the PUD at a July 11 advisory plan commission meeting. The new ordinance calls for removal of an existing sign at 161st Street and Springmill Road, and the addition of two monument signs, along with a drive-thru for a future coffee shop. Despite concerns about the project from residents who live on the north and south sides of the property, the APC forwarded the resolution to council, 7-0. On that favorable recommendation, the city council also approved the measure, 7-0.