2000-09-13 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I - I This last item does come back to bother me, especially when I see a 557,000 ending oalance assuming we do not build our expansion project in Centerville. As I have mentioned In our previous discussions and meetings with Rehbein representatives, I nave a strong desire to set this matter settled fairly for all parties involved. However, it appears that everyone wants Northern Forest Products to assume the risks of the "what ifs" and uncertainties relating to the future. When we left the last meeting with all parties involved, the plen was to attempt to see if something could be put together to reasonably account for the shortfall in the available tax increment. What I see en the table right now is an approximate 557,000 end ctTlF district balance and an offer for a $9300 tax abatement. It seems that every time Ehlers puts together a new schedulee, the ending balance shortfall grows. When you consider the `act that my original schedule showed Northern Forest Products receiving 5200, 691.18 of principal and Interest over the 11 -year life, the fact that a 557,000 balance will remain is pretty significant. The possibility that this could even grow to be a larger amount If class rates go down (without an actual true overall tax rate decrease to me) makes me wonder how much of an incentive there was for Northern Forest Products tc locate in Centervilie. I am appreclative of your offer for the one -year tax abatement If this Is the only option we have to reduce the spread between the original schedules and the current schedules, it would obviously not make sense for me tc decline this offer. However, due to the fact that such a large amount remains, 1 would not be willing to share more than Northern Fores; Products' share of the shortfall. I will not algn ary documents until Rehbein's share of the exposure relating to items # 1 & # 3 is evaluated end corrected in the payment schedules. I do not feel thatt our future expansion plans should be relevant to resolving this situation. I feel that if we decide to expand, our expansion should be viewed separatey in terms of a community analyzing whether assistance should be provided for the expansion, As we have analyzed our need to grow, we have determined recently that rail access could be a significant factor in our ability to be competitive in a new product line we have a ently introduced. I have lad discussions w th a oinmercial developer in Hugo regarding land that is available on rail, and Hugo is offering TIF for these lots. My reason `for telling you this Is tc be honest about the decisions we are facing In choosing the best option for our future. My desire is tru:y to stay in, and grow our business In Centervilie. I would like to propose ar. alternative solution for you to consider. My proposal would consist of a tax abatement similar to what you are offering, but would extend for 5 years after the TIF district ended, This could be similarly capped at the $25,000 annual amount, end would be contingent en Northern Forest Products adding a minimum of 5400.000 of market value sometime before 2002. I feel this would be a good incentive for us to expand in Centerville, as the original TIF note would most likely be paid in full, AND we would be receving an Incentive directly related to our exparslon that would be sign.ificant enough to forego rail access. If this could be accomplished, t would feel it would not be necessary to assess the Rehbein balance for the exposure related to Items # 1 & # 3 above. If we did not expand In Centerville, the 1 -year tax abatement assistance would still be in effect 1 Z0017i sw nC0ttd ,MS32aOd Nii�Za0N C688 87,4 TSB TY3 CZ :hT d3.e 00.60/00