PrintPack has requested a tax abatement from the Council – really, from the taxpayers of Monroe County. The property in question is on West Vernal Pike, west of Curry Pike. Both the Chamber of Commerce and the Bloomington Economic Development Corp have suggested we approve it. The first vote – taken over a week ago – showed most of the Council agreed (5-1 vote, with my vote as the sole ‘no’ vote).
The property in question is within the boundary lines of a TIF (tax incremental finance district). This means that all property and personal (in this case equipment) taxes do not go to County General, they go to the TIF’s fund. The money is used for improvements in infrastructure development. In fact $900,000 was spent from this TIF’s fund to build a road and bring utilities and sewer service to the property PrintPack purchased for their building.
A tax abatement would allow the company to pay nothing in taxes in year one, and then gradually increase to 100% payment of taxes within 10 years. Again, any tax dollars paid in a TIF go to the TIF, not to the County’s General Fund.
Tax abatements – even outside of a TIF – are problematic. A company will claim that they will leave the area if they are not granted a (major) relief from their taxes. Who are we competing against? The threat may be real or imagined. And why do we then blame the government if a company leaves? Isn’t the company responsible for the decision? A tax abatement is a legal form of extortion.
Why the ‘no’ vote? Here are my top five reasons:
1. A tax abatement should not be made in a TIF. This company has already requested the benefit of a road and sewer – and received a $900,000 benefit from you, the taxpayers. A tax abatement is, in essence, a second bite of the apple. And one is enough.
2. The PrintPack situation did not come to the attention of the Council until very late in the game. The decision to tear up green space and build a new factory is presented to us as a “done deal”. The possibility of refurbishing an existing building (there are so many vacant buildings on the west side!) has been dismissed. In addition, there is an opportunity for PrintPack (or any other company in the County) to attain a low-interest loan as part of Federal Stimulus funding. This could be used to refurb an existing facility – and would save them a great deal of money. However, they want a new facility. As a result, their existing facility (within the city limits) will be abandoned and a green field will become another industrial lot.
3. PrintPack will employ the same number of people in the proposed facility as they do in the existing facility, with the possibility of adding 4 or so additional jobs. Of the 151 employees, 53 live in Monroe County. The abatement request totals $ 2.3 Million. This is a very high price to pay for 53 county residents’ jobs. And the rest of the employees who reside in other counties? This county’s residents will be paying for the jobs of other county residents.
4. Is it a coincidence that PrintPack is at the end of a 10-year tax abatement with the city? This is an old trick utilized by Wal-Mart across the country – get a tax abatement in one entity, and when that runs out, move a mile or two away – into the next entity and another abatement.
5. While PrintPack will pay nothing into County General, they will receive all of the services and benefits the County has to offer. For example, law enforcement, fire, road maintenance, etc. Let’s look at the fire department, for example. PrintPack is a manufacturer of packaging, including products like bread bags. Plastics are toxic – whether they are the air, water, or land. Will the local fire station need to spend time training firefighters on dealing with plastics as hazardous materials? Will they need to purchase new equipment? The taxpayers of this County will pay for all of this. Not PrintPack.
I think PrintPack pays their employees well and they provide benefits and bonuses. This is great. But while they have won a few awards for creating environmentally friendly products, let’s remember they are producing plastic products.
Last week, someone suggested that a ‘yes’ vote shows support for free enterprise. There is no free enterprise in corporate welfare.
I am pro-business. I own a business. I support green businesses, small businesses and those which re-use existing buildings rather than building on green space.
This is another example of our shrinking available farmland being utilized for new industrial development.
We can do better. We can do much better than this.
Thanks, Julie, for your thoughful and complete research and evaluation of this situation with PrintPac. I listed to the WFIU story and am so thankful that you are taking a careful look at the situation. Personally, I would be very uncomfortable voting in favor of PrintPac getting receiving more abatements. . .the county and local government have already done much. The loss of future jobs is a concern, but we also have to maintain our respect for past and future businesses who do not get such sweet deals. Keep-up the great work!
Julie, I like the way you are thinking about and articulating the tax abatement issues. Stay the course, I am, but one, but I strongly agree with you. I voted for you and supported your campaign just for these your forward and strong thinking on these types of issues.
Julie,
I understand and sympathize with all of your reasons for voting NO on the Printpack proposal. That being said, I would still urge you to consider voting YES, for the jobs, period. It is not good to be quasi-blackmailed, as you surely feel with this proposal, and there are some real environmental concerns that need to be addressed.
However, I have been assured (for what it”s worth) that the jobs will continue. I do think the fact they are not all in Monroe County should be of less consequence than you place on that point, since most of the money people earn here, apart from housing, will almost surely be spent in this county supporting businesses located here.
There are many many times, as you know, when votes you make are 49-51–very tough to determine which side to come down on. Jobs are basic here, and I worry a lot about the increasing lack of production, fabrication, manufacturing that used to be the basis of our non-university economy. The fearsome reality is that the only promises that we can hold people to are those made by the local goverment–you can’t count on business, or the university, or state government, for sure. You just have to do your best.
For what it’s worth. I wish you well, and will understand whatever, but I hope you will reconsider. Your friend
Charlotte
Hi Charlotte – Thank you for your note. I do appreciate (and share) your concern for the decline in manufacturing jobs. I just think that this entire plan could have proceeded in a much more environmentally sound manner. The North Star facility (on 50 acres) is now up for sale. I heard the other day that the asking price us just under $8 M. This is another example of a building that could have been refurbished instead of building a brand new facility on green land. We are now expanding our industrial base – but most of the buildings are empty. We can do so much better. In addition, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) does not require PrintPack to do much. 75 jobs and some sort of LEED certification (bronze would be my guess). If they add any jobs, their prediction is less than 6. That is disappointing as well.
I like PrintPack, I just don’t think they need a hand-out.
I respect your opinion greatly & appreciate your response….
Julie –
THANK YOU for the bravery and integrity of your decision. You are a true public servant.
We live on North Thomas Road on two acres — about two miles from the prospective PrintPak site. This is our first house. Since we purchased the property four years ago, we’ve planted over 200 native trees. Our property has been visited by rare and threatened birds not seen in other parts of the county.
We are deeply worried about PrintPack becoming our “neighbor.” Clearly, TIFs were created to redevelop brownfields, not destroy greenfields. However, the property is already a part of the TIF and we assume this cannot be revisited at this juncture of the “transaction.”
At this point, our biggest concern is the nature of the business — plastic! The hazards of plastics to human health are well-documented and, quite frankly, having a plastic factory nearby is a little scary. And this company is going to be making plastic bags to boot? Some communities have actually banned the use of plastic bags. In Monroe County, we pay ‘em to produce plastic bags en masse. Oil is a key component of plastic. Even mainstream media acknowledges that world production of petroleum is peaking. Shouldn’t the long-term viability of the company be examined? This is not the sort of “economic development” we should be fostering, let alone subsidizing. Good grief. We should be paying Printpak NOT to build.
Lastly, as you know, many of the homeowners in the area near the prospective plant are not wealthy folks. I doubt this sort of “development” would be approved in a more affluent area. The economic profile of nearby residents makes it even more important that taxes not be abated! Those funds could go toward more sidewalks or other infrastructure improvements.
An economic, environmental and social travesty.
We will write to the rest of the County Council. What else can we do to fight this?
Again, THANK YOU for your vote against this crazy abatement and for fighting the good fight.
With much gratitude,
stacy jane & vern
Thank you for your thoughtful addition to the discussion. It would be great to hear you speak at the public hearing on Tuesday October 6th, beginning at 5 pm in the Nat U Hill Meeting room on the 3rd floor of the County Courthouse.
You are correct in your assumption that the TIF boundaries cannot be visited at this juncture.
Regarding the plastics – my understanding is that they receive the plastic on rolls, print the design on the bags and then cut them. They have mentioned during a presentation that they have utilized corn-based plastic. It certainly is not the majority of what they do. (And of course, growing corn to make plastic brings its own set of concerns!)
I hope you can attend on Tuesday – it will be wonderful to hear from the local residents who are impacted directly by the placement of the PrintPack factory.
Thanks again!
Julie