The following is a letter prepared by Henderson City Council member Elissa Yount for her colleagues in response to reports of planned incentives for a retail development.
When it comes to incentives for retail developers, there is not a lot of difference between giving incentives and writing a developer a check from the city, because what you are doing is giving money away. My question as an elected official is what are we going to get for giving up that money? If you are the developer who is getting the incentive perks, you will argue that jobs, sales taxes and future investments will more than make up for the money the city gives up in incentives. It would be easy to either be lulled or bullied into believing this. As the guardian of the citizens’ money, I would say show me the facts.
If and when Henderson offers any incentives for retail establishments, before considering the deal, we need a policy that insists we are shown reliable data that:
1- Projects the number of people to be hired; their hourly rate of pay; their hours in a workweek (31 or 40); their benefits; the number of workers expected to be on Medicaid.
2- Projects sales tax to be generated yearly.
3- Proposes a plan for security and policing of establishment.
4- Projects the value of all property to be built.
5- Promises a yearly report from company reporting on the costs and benefits of the incentive package.
6- Promises a money-back guarantee to the city if projections are not met.
7- Projects benefits reaped from us being a Tier I county.
Henderson should insist on these and other clear, written expectations. All incentive packages should be voted on by the elected body so the public will know whom to hold accountable. An appointed board of concerned citizens should not be empowered to offer tax money to developers.
Only when we have seen the cost benefit data will we be able to measure whether the outcome of the incentives will be beneficial for the city. In other words, is the deal a good deal for Henderson or only for the developers?
And what if the benefits do not exceed the costs? Then we need to have the courage to tell the developers, “Thanks, but no thanks. You need to go to a city that can afford a loss because Henderson cannot.”
The public does not need to be in the dark about this. They need to know that lost property tax means a real hit to our schools. They need to know the comparison between what other retail centers that were not offered incentives are having to pay per square foot for space when they have to pay property tax, as opposed to the retail center’s cost per square foot when they do not pay property tax. We are entitled to know the bottom line.
If Henderson will have enhanced sales tax from the future retail project that outstrips the loss of property tax, then it may be a good deal to consider.
If the new hires are local folks and will earn a decent living wage with benefits so they are not on Medicaid, then maybe it will be a good deal to consider.
If the retail area consistently provides its own security and if other shopping centers do not lose renters, then maybe we will be getting enough bang for the bucks we give up.
But we have to be smart enough and savvy enough in our negotiations to explore every avenue to be certain that the deal we are getting makes good business sense for our city. Again, we cannot be bullied or lulled into a decision. We must get the facts before the decision is made and base our decision on facts.
When all the facts are in, it may mean telling the retail developers we would love to have you here, but we cannot afford to lose money on the deal. You will have to play by the same rules as all the other developers in town. Maybe we can consider offering other deals (such as one that will keep your property taxes the same for a number of years), but we can’t offer you more than this and a great location. Take it or leave it.
— Submitted by Elissa Yount, City Council member (Ward 3 at large)