• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Tax Breaks for Big Industry Beef Pllant

Econ101

Well-known member
Beef plant's tax records will be public



Aberdeen News

American News

11/30/2006

South Dakota (SD), US

American News Editor's note: News Line provides answers to questions about what's going on in northeastern South Dakota. The question - which might have been edited - was either recently called in to the American News News Line or was generated from discussions American News employees are hearing around town.



Q. Northern Beef Packers is going to get a tax break in the form of a tax increment financing district. Does that mean that the company's records will be open to the public? What is the plant going to cost the taxpayers? Are the taxes going up?



A. All tax records are public information, said Sheila Enderson, Brown County treasurer. The amount of property taxes paid and when they are paid are available to the public. So is the way the TIF money is divided to pay expenses, said Colleen Skinner of the state Department of Revenue and Regulation.



In a TIF district, property taxes generated by new developments are used to pay for improvements on that property. The increase in the value of the property as improvements are made raises the taxes charged on the property. In a TIF, the difference in taxes between the original assessed value and the improved value - the increment - goes toward the cost of the improvements as opposed to a local government. That continues until TIF-qualified costs are paid off, up to 20 years. And that information is available to the public.



Skinner said a business' overall finances are not open to the public just because a TIF is granted.



Northern Beef Packers officials say the plant will pay roughly $743,000 in property taxes a year. That total includes money to the county, school district and township. Until the TIF is paid off, that money will be used to pay TIF-related expenses. After the TIF is paid off, local governments will share the money. Granting the TIF does not increase property taxes for Brown County residents.



aberdeennews.com



A Community Divided Over Beef Plant



KSFY



Almost 2,000 signatures are now in the hands of Brown County Commissioners regarding the Aberdeen beef plant.



"Several of the commissioners have indicated in the past few weeks that they would consider accepting the petition if we got sufficient numbers available," says Attorney, Dave Fransen. "There was no indication yesterday as to what they may do."



Some residents of Aberdeen are upset that the beef plant will be receiving TIF, or tax increment financing. This program allows the beef plant up to 20 years to repay property taxes. People who signed the petition want to force this into a county wide vote. Fransen says, "One thing that we found in circulating these petitions is that there is some deep division in this community over this issue and they need to be resolved so the community can move past that." He says, "The quickest way for that to happen is for the county commission to accept these petitions and schedule it for a vote."



State's Attorney Mark McNeary says that Brown County Commissioners are under no obligation to bring this to a vote because state law says that administrative actions are not subject to a referendum. Mayor Mike Levsen is in support of the beef plant. "Even though they may have 1,800 signatures, 18,000 Brown County voters decided not to sign that petition. There is broad support for this in the area and I'm sure that will prevail." Levsen says, "We need this for our beef industry."



If Brown County Commissioners vote against a referendum the petition could eventually appear before a judge.



The Brown County Auditor is now in the process of verifying the signatures of the petition. Commissioners will decide on Tuesday whether there will be a county wide vote.



By: Dawn Crawley



ksfy.com
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I have some rental houses. I wish the government would fix them up and then let me pay for that fixing up through property taxes over the next 20 years.

I guess only big companies worth billions in capitalization are allowed to get these type of tax breaks to help them get richer.

I guess I haven't hired enough lobbyists to bribe enough politicians.

Whenever I improve my property, I have to pay both for the improvements and the increase in property taxes that result from it.

It is time to stop corporate welfare. The CEO should invest in projects only if they pay in the free market like the rest of us have to do. If you have to have a big tax break to invest, maybe the investment isn't good enough to do in the market place. It is socialism for the benefit of corporations (really called fascism).

Corporatism should be more accurately defined as fascism, as it is the merging of corporate and state power.---Benito Mussolini, leader of fascist Italy during WWII.
 

mrj

Well-known member
South Dakota has no packing plant which can process more than a few head of cattle per day.

We have millions of cattle.

We have a South Dakota Certified Beef program which requires the cattle to be born, raised, fed, and processed within SD.

That project cannot grow to meet the demand for the beef without a processing plant capable of handling daily kills typical of large plants in other states.

Many other businesses have benefitted from tax increment financing and are paying off for the community due to the number of people employed, living in the community, and paying taxes into the local governments.

You don't have to do that in your community if you do not want to.

Luddites just like you who live in SD may yet prevent it from being done for a business that will benefit cattle producers.

TIF is a fact of life. Subsidized businesses cover virtually the entire spectrum and certainly is not limited to agriculture.

There certainly are benefits as well as problems associated with just about every feature of life and business in this nation.

There are certainly good people in all scales of business.

Perhaps there are not nearly so many devious, fraud perpetrating, greedy businessmen and officials at work in this nation as your scheming little conspiratorial mind thinks there are.

Those of you who would dismantle the systems currently working to provide consumers with the vast array of healthful foods as we have in this nation, IMO, represent far more danger to all of us and to our freedoms and way of life than does the TIF proposed to build a packing plant in SD.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Many other businesses have benefitted from tax increment financing and are paying off for the community due to the number of people employed, living in the community, and paying taxes into the local governments.

So the people end up paying the tax base while companies and investors reap the rewards of tax breaks. MRJ, investors should not need to be subsidized through tax breaks and communities should not shift their tax burden off of investors and onto the regular citizens.

If this beef slaughtering plant was a cooperative or owned by the public, you would have a point, but then again you would be developing socialism.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Stop the plant and see how much tax base there is.

The article says the plant will pay off the taxes over time, not that it won't pay them.

New taxes each year will accrue and after a certian period of time, the business will be paying those new taxes and the old ones financed.

Even if the plant was granted no property tax for 5 years with no payment ever, they would raise the tax base and be paying them after. No plant, no taxes paid ever.

The town I live near rejected a $50,000,000 grain terminal on a piece of land because the company wanted no property taxes for 3 years while building. That piece of ground is still empty 15 years later with no tax revenue for the town.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Stop the plant and see how much tax base there is.

The article says the plant will pay off the taxes over time, not that it won't pay them.

New taxes each year will accrue and after a certian period of time, the business will be paying those new taxes and the old ones financed.

Even if the plant was granted no property tax for 5 years with no payment ever, they would raise the tax base and be paying them after. No plant, no taxes paid ever.

The town I live near rejected a $50,000,000 grain terminal on a piece of land because the company wanted no property taxes for 3 years while building. That piece of ground is still empty 15 years later with no tax revenue for the town.

Jason, when it takes government to subsidize businesses to open a new plant, the free market is not working anymore.

When investors are allowed to bargain for a better deal with local or state governments, all other taxpayers lose and have to pick up their part of the tax burden.

Why should people with money get tax breaks people without money don't?
 

Jason

Well-known member
Why should people with money get tax breaks people without money don't?

I'll type this really slow for you econ.

Poor people, those without money, don't own property so don't pay property taxes.

A middle class person that owns some property for a home or small business pays property taxes.

A larger business that faces huge costs to start up sometimes gets a deal on their property taxes for a while because the money they bring into the community is more than the community will lose in the tax break they give.

It's called sharing. Like when your mommy asks you to share your toys when you play. They all might be your toys but if you share you get another little boy to play with you.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Why should people with money get tax breaks people without money don't?

I'll type this really slow for you econ.

Poor people, those without money, don't own property so don't pay property taxes.

A middle class person that owns some property for a home or small business pays property taxes.

A larger business that faces huge costs to start up sometimes gets a deal on their property taxes for a while because the money they bring into the community is more than the community will lose in the tax break they give.

It's called sharing. Like when your mommy asks you to share your toys when you play. They all might be your toys but if you share you get another little boy to play with you.

When the larger company gets a "deal" as you say, they are in a competitive advantage compared to the little companies who do not get a "deal". In doing this, the tax burden of one property is shifted to other property owners. It is plain old corporate and big business welfare at the expense of everyone else.

You can sell out the free market to big business if you want in Canada, Jason, just don't tell the U.S. citizens to do the same.
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
Econ101

Surely you are the most anti-corporate person I have observed. What is the common denominator of the great capitalistic countries in the world.

Corporations are not unique to th US. Europe is replete with them as is Asia. How about Toyota, Nissan, Sony, Krupp, ENI, BP, Royal Dutch, Hundyai, Daewoo, ad infinitum.

Your constant railing against these companies not being subject to "death taxes" is of course utter foolishness. Their owners are shareholders who do not live forever and are subject to such taxes. If you terminated corporate charters, say, every 100 years, who would be providing the world with oil, automobiles, aircraft, etc?

Your rhetoric against corporations is rapidly destroying you creddibility on this board. When you appeared, I thought you were a reasoned person. Now it looks like you are another SH with another agenda.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Cowpuncher said:
Econ101

Surely you are the most anti-corporate person I have observed. What is the common denominator of the great capitalistic countries in the world.

Corporations are not unique to th US. Europe is replete with them as is Asia. How about Toyota, Nissan, Sony, Krupp, ENI, BP, Royal Dutch, Hundyai, Daewoo, ad infinitum.

Your constant railing against these companies not being subject to "death taxes" is of course utter foolishness. Their owners are shareholders who do not live forever and are subject to such taxes. If you terminated corporate charters, say, every 100 years, who would be providing the world with oil, automobiles, aircraft, etc?


Your rhetoric against corporations is rapidly destroying you creddibility on this board. When you appeared, I thought you were a reasoned person. Now it looks like you are another SH with another agenda.

Cowpuncher, most of the corporations in the U.S. follow the rules and don't ask for handouts from government in the form of tax breaks. It has only been recently that corporations have pitted one community against another in order for them to get a better deal. The corporations not engaging in this type of "blackmail" have to compete with the new companies that are asking for the breaks. If you are going to give breaks, give breaks to all of them.

Why should corporations get tax breaks and not the citizenry who support those corporations? Better yet, treat them the same. No preferential treatment at all when it comes to property taxes.

I am not anti corporate. I am not for giving them breaks the rest of the people do not get just because they blackmailed local governments with their promise of more jobs. When the government has to give tax breaks this way, it is much like the earmarks in Congress. It gives some corporations benefits unevenly.

95% of corporations do not behave in this manner. Why should they have comparative disadvantages because the 5% of corporate welfare that is given?

Corporations are no more than groups of individuals who come together to produce goods. These corporations or groups of people should have no more advantages or rights in our country than you or I. If you are going to do it for one, do it for all.

I don't think corporations should "live" forever. When it comes to paying taxes, they should pay their fair share. More and more the corporations are paying less and less while everyone else is paying more in taxes. All the while the investors are getting their returns. Their returns should not be subsidized in a free economy. We don't have a market economy anymore when that happens.

You could talk about the advantages to a certain community all you want for giving these breaks and you would be correct. The aggregate of these actions cheats everyone else, however.

Corporations are a vital part of any free economy. That doesn't mean they should get preferential treatment and when the government has to bail them out or subsidize them, their business must not be good enough to be in a free economy. If they can't compete without subsidies, they are not viable. They should be able to fail just like you or I, not propped up by tax inducements and other protections while their investors take the earnings home.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One of the big problems I've seen with giving local/state tax breaks to Slaughter Houses is that usually they then create the biggest drain on the tax system...This comes from personal experience with a former local Packer...

They bring in the cheapest labor (usually illegals) that put a huge drain on the law enforcement, jails, Prisons, county health, hospitals, social services, welfare, etc. etc....- and it ends up putting a bigger and bigger burden on the local taxpayer...And a large share of the payroll never goes back to the community- instead being sent to families in Mexico, Nicarauqua, Honduras, etc.....

While they can be a gain to the ranching/cattle industry- they can be a huge problem with the rest of the community...Too bad some of these guys couldn't get their acts together and run an honorable, ethical, clean business-- but as I was told by our old slaughter house owner, "since all the big guys do it you have to follow suit to compete"......
 

Jason

Well-known member
Look at this issue.

R-calfers and whiners want more packers.

One is offered to them, in their back yard, and the response is;

Unfair tax breaks

Drain on the economy from criminal interests

Let's block this deal and keep the big packers buying the cattle this plant would take.

Yep you boys support small packers until one starts up in your neck of the woods and will label the beef as grown by locals.

Makes one wonder why you don't want that to happen?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason, the citizens of Aberdeen don't need a Canadian trying to tell them what to do in their community:

Aberdeen residents sue beef plant groups

ABERDEEN, S.D. (AP) -- Three Aberdeen residents are suing the groups involved in a beef processing plant south of town.

The lawsuit filed Friday afternoon is against Northern Beef Packers, H&S Land and Livestock and Hub City Livestock. Aaron Johnson, Roger Blum and Evelyn Blum, each of whom lives on Eisenhower Circle in southern Aberdeen, are the plaintiffs. Aberdeen attorney David Fransen represents them.

Northern Beef Packers plans to build the plant about a mile south of town near the city's wastewater treatment plant. H&S Land and Livestock owns the roughly 100 acres on which the plant will be built. Norg Sanderson and Dennis Hellwig of Aberdeen are partners in Northern Beef Packers and H&S Land. Hellwig also owns Hub City Livestock.

Johnson and the Blums are each asking for at least $75,000, according to the lawsuit. The amount could be more if so ordered by a jury.

Evelyn Blum also asks that the defendants "cease and desist in their actions and to abate their nuisance and anticipated nuisance."

Sanderson could not be reached Friday evening. Hellwig had not seen a copy of the lawsuit and declined to comment.

Simply put, the lawsuit claims that the defendants have decreased the property values of and disrupted the lives of the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit also claims that the defendants "annoy, injure and endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of the plaintiffs and other members of the neighborhood and the community at large."

For example, the suit claims, the beef plant will cause: loud noises, glare from lights, fumes and noxious odors, and an unsightly nature.

It also claims that the defendants have violated state and county zoning ordinances.

And the lawsuit claims that the present operation of Hub City Livestock "results in offensive, unpleasant, obnoxious, unbearable and foul noises and odors from cattle (and) other livestock, as well as from the general operation of" the sale barn. The lawsuit claims that amounts to trespass.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs ask that the case be granted class-action status because other homeowners have also been negatively impacted.

Fransen said he couldn't talk about specifics of the case. But he said the lawsuit is separate from cases that might be filed against Brown County and the city of Aberdeen.

Fransen sent the county commission and city notice that Johnson, the Blums and Arthur Griepp, who also lives on Eisenhower Circle, plan to sue both local governments for actions they have taken clearing the way for the beef plant.

The county and city earlier this year approved rezoning the land south of Aberdeen on which the beef processing plant will be built from agricultural to unrestricted industrial. On Oct. 31, the county commission approved a resolution creating a tax increment financing district for the plant.

In a TIF district, property taxes generated by new developments are used to pay for improvements on that property. The increase in the value of the property as improvements are made raises the taxes charged on the property. The difference in taxes between the original assessed value and the improved value -- the increment -- goes toward the cost of the improvements as opposed to a local government. That continues until TIF-qualified costs are paid off, up to 20 years.

A group of local residents is circulating petitions hoping to refer the county's granting of a TIF to the beef plant to a public vote. Even if the 1,185 necessary signatures are collected by Nov. 28, it's not clear whether the TIF will be referred to a public vote because there is disagreement as to whether a TIF resolution can be referred. A previous petition drive to refer the rezoning failed.

My purpose in presenting this topic is that corporations are negotiating better tax deals for themselves while the regular citizen has been left in the cold and ultimately footing the bill.

This is a LITTLE tax break compared to some:

Million-Dollar Jobs

A speech by Chris Bell to the Galveston County Central Labor Council
December 06, 2005

Thank you for allowing me to visit with you this evening. It’s an honor to share the stage with my good friend and former colleague Nick. And Shane, I wish you the best of luck running against Ron Paul. I served with Ron Paul in Congress. Ron Paul was a colleague of mine. And Shane, you’re no Ron Paul, which as far as I’m concerned, that’s a heck of a point in your favor.

If you don’t mind too much, I’d like to take my few minutes tonight to talk about an idea I had about what Texas can do to help create and retain jobs for Texas businesses by investing in people. And don’t worry, I’ve got a lot of Rick Perry jokes in here, but this might be an issue that is near and dear to the labor movement and to anyone who wants to get Texas turned around and moving in the right direction.

Pretend for a second that you’re the Governor for a day and have a choice to make about how to fund economic development. Don’t bother taking notes. This is an easy one.

You could put our tax dollars into what one think tank called the state’s “most reliable state-funded program that creates jobs, upgrades worker skills, and grows the economy.” Sounds good so far.

This program has financed training for 15,559 new jobs and 28,832 existing jobs at a cost of only $900 per job over the last three years. And the best part is that this program helps existing Texas businesses, not out-of-state corporations.

Behind door number two is a $300-million boondoggle that a friend of mine in the state house called “the biggest and most political slush fund ever in Texas.” You know how this game works. A big corporation says it wants to move, and states start throwing millions of dollars at it in corporate subsidies.

And if this made us all fat & happy, that would be one thing. But listen to how much this costs you. In two years, this program spent two hundred and fifteen million dollars on the non-binding promise of about twenty-two thousand, eight hundred jobs. Even if these promises all magically come true, that works out to a little over nine thousand dollars per job.

We can invest in Texas by investing in our people, or we can subsidize out-of-state corporations and hope that they keep their promises.

The obvious choice is to pick door number one, the Skills Development Fund that the Center for Public Policy Priorities calls “Texas’ most successful state-funded workforce training program” and credits with creating an additional $72 million in statewide payroll.

But Rick Perry’s choice is door number two: his precious Texas Enterprise Fund. Basically, it’s a pot of three hundred million dollars that he can give away to out-of-state corporations, and there’s not a darn thing that anyone in this room has to say about how it’s spent.He doesn’t have to make regular reports, he doesn’t need to submit to outside accounting, and he doesn’t even need to make sure that the corporations do what they promised. This sucker is all carrot, no stick.
"If you remember one thing I said tonight, remember this. My economic development plan is to invest in Texas by investing in our people."
-Chris Bell

This is why people I talk to all around the state say that Rick Perry just doesn’t get it. I’m beginning to think that Rick Perry can’t lead a silent prayer. [pause] See? I told you I had some Rick Perry jokes in here.

The more you learn about the Texas Enterprise Fund—this Rick Perry slush fund—the more you worry about the direction we’re headed in Texas.

Let’s start with how they funded it in the first place. In 2003—the same session in which they kicked almost a couple hundred thousand kids off of the children’s health insurance rolls—Rick Perry and the legislature raided the Rainy Day Fund to create this corporate slush fund. We’re not talking tax breaks and rebates here—these are straight cash payments. In fact, Texas is one of only eight states in the country that just hands out cash to corporations like this.

And that would be OK, maybe, if the corporations needed the money. But take Countrywide Financial Corp., for example. It’s the nation’s
number one mortgage company. Some of you might write them checks every month.

Last year they turned a net profit of two-point-two billion dollars. That’s billion with a B, and, you know, bully for them. But when they said they wanted to move their corporate headquarters, Rick Perry gave them twenty million dollars to move to Richardson. That sounds like a lot of money, but think of this: That’s less than
they paid their CEO that year. It seems that Rick Perry can’t tell the difference between economic development and encouraging corporate greed.

There are so many unbearably absurd stories coming out of
the Texas Enterprise Fund.

Look at the generous ten million dollars that Rick Perry gave to Tyson chicken to set up shop in an old Oscar Meyer factory in Sherman. Tyson promised to create sixteen hundred jobs, but who do you think is going to do those jobs? If their history in Arkansas is any guide, it’s going to be undocumented workers from Mexico and Central America, according to Human Rights Watch.

Bad enough that Rick Perry is using your tax dollars to subsidize out-of-state corporations. Now he’s spending your tax dollars to subsidize illegal immigration.

Look at the six hundred thousand dollars that the state gave to Cabela’s to build outdoor super stores in Buda and Fort Worth. Usually, retailers do not get economic development subsidies because retail jobs aren’t what we’re after. They’ve got low pay and bad benefits.

So to cover up that they were throwing good money after bad jobs, Rick Perry’s administration described Cabela’s as a tourist destination that will draw travelers from as far away as Mexico. And maybe it is. Maybe the people in Houston who own Academy Sports and Outdoors might like to visit the Cabela’s in Buda to see where their tax dollars went – and see if they agree that their new competition is really a tourist attraction.

And when it comes to Rick Perry, if you look long enough, you’re going to find a money trail. So I guess I wasn’t too surprised when the Houston Chronicle reported last August that thirty-five million dollars went from the slush fund to a biotech company in The Woodlands whose major investors not only contributed more than a quarter million dollars to Perry, but one of them also guaranteed a one-point-one million dollar loan to his campaign in 1998. Rick Perry has given a whole new meaning to the old saying, “You get
what you pay for.”

And all of this might be OK if Rick Perry’s prized slush fund were investing in Texas and really creating all those jobs he’s bragged about. Here is where the façade falls down and we find out the dirty little secret behind all those big promises. Rick Perry says that he spent more than two hundred million dollars to bring more than twenty-two thousand, eight hundred jobs.

But earlier this year, the Legislative Budget Board reported how many jobs had actually been created. Anyone want to guess how many jobs we got for two hundred and fifteen million dollars?

It wasn’t twenty-two thousand, not by a long shot.

Anyone have any guesses?

The truth is so awful it makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. For two hundred and fifteen million dollars, the Texas Enterprise Fund only created two hundred and seventy-five jobs as of January 31. Two-seventy-five. That’s about a million bucks a job.

Some of those jobs will become real in the future, maybe ten years down the road, maybe someday, if we squeeze our eyes shut and wish really hard, but right now we’re paying way too much to do way too little.

You’ve heard Republicans talk about how they hate government. How they want a smaller government that they can drown in a bathtub. After seeing the mess they make of things when they’re in charge, I fully sympathize with them. If I were this bad at something, I’d hate it, too.

But I draw a different conclusion. I think of Rick Perry as an inspiring leader. No, seriously. He’s inspired me to run for governor. See, I told you there would be jokes.

Rick Perry is misusing this slush fund that is spending too much to create jobs that never seem to materialize, and you know what he’s doing? He’s raiding the Skills Development Fund to sweeten the subsidies for out-of-state corporations. That’s right. Rick Perry’s taking money meant to protect your jobs and using it to bribe out-of-state corporations.

Here’s how it works: Texas employers pay unemployment insurance taxes, and point-one percent of those taxes fund the Skills Development Fund. In the last legislative session, though, Rick Perry got the legislature to take two-thirds of the money and fund the Texas Enterprise Fund.

This creates the painfully absurd situation of Texas employers funding efforts to import their competition. It’s wrong, it’s unethical, and it’s got to stop.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. We can get this turned around and headed in the right direction.

Let’s protect Texas jobs and invest in Texans first. We should make sure the Texas Enterprise Fund stops raiding the funding for the Skills Development Fund.

I think the raid should go the opposite direction. For every dollar that Texas businesses want from the Skills Development Fund, we only have forty cents. This is the most successful job creation
program we’ve ever had. I say the Texas Enterprise Fund should fully fund the Skills Development Fund before we throw money at out-of-state corporations.

And if accountability is good enough for the schoolchildren of Texas, it better be good enough for our governor. Basic accountability shouldn’t be too much to ask when we’re giving away hundreds of millions of our tax dollars. There needs to be outside accounting, annual reporting and strict standards. Calling
a sporting goods store a tourist attraction is just dumb and dishonest.

Finally, we can keep bribing companies till the treasury’s empty, or we can apply the radical notion of common sense to the situation. Companies move jobs to where the best-educated workers are. Everyone
in this room knows that we will lift the next generation into the New Mainstream when we have a governor who realizes that an investment in education matters more than yet another taxpayer subsidy for a big box superstore.

I have called for nothing less than a moon shot for schools
with the specific goal of having the best public schools in the country within ten years. We need to start paying
teachers a good wage, stop censoring their textbooks, and teach them something more important than how to take yet another standardized test.

If you remember one thing I said tonight, remember this. My economic development plan is to invest in Texas by investing in our people. I want Texas to waste less money on corporate subsidies and invest more money in classrooms.

This is the direction I want to go. Together, we can get Texas turned around and headed in the right direction. I can’t wait to get started, and I hope you’re on board. Thanks for inviting me to your holiday party. Let’s enjoy ourselves tonight and over the holidays, because next year we have a lot of work to do together.

Thank you.

The Tyson Sherman plant :

Tyson Foods Will Open $100 Million Plant in Texas

The food processing company will receive $10 million in incentives for their new plant in Sherman.

[ 2/14/2005 ] By: Bill King, Chief Editor Print This Article Reprint/License This Article E-mail This Article To A Friend
Texas Facts & Contacts

Tyson Foods announced in late January its decision to open a major case-ready meat plant in Sherman, Texas, which will employ as many as 1,600 people.

The company will spend about $100 million to renovate the former Oscar Mayer plant in Sherman, with initial operations expected to begin in early 2006.

The 537,000 square foot plant will become Tyson Food’s largest case ready operation, producing pre-packaged cuts of fresh beef and pork that are ready for retailers to place directly into the meat case.

Portions of beef and pork will be brought to Sherman from other Tyson Foods beef and pork packing facilities for processing and packaging. The pork products will be marketed under the Tyson brand name, while the beef products will be sold in unbranded packaging.

The Sherman facility, which will have the capacity to handle more than 6 million pounds of product per week, will serve retail outlets in Texas and nearby states.

The growth of operations is expected to create as many as 1,600 jobs during the next two to three years. Most of the jobs will involve cutting, trimming and packaging product.

Tyson Foods also has case-ready meat operations in Amarillo, Texas; Goodlettsville, Tenn.; and Council Bluffs, Iowa.

The company will receive $7 million from the Texas Enterprise Fund and $3 million in work force training funds from the Texas Workforce Commission.

The Texas Enterprise Fund provides the state with a “deal-closing fund” to respond quickly and aggressively to opportunities to bring companies and jobs to Texas.

The fund can be used for a variety of economic development projects, including business incentives.

To be eligible for Texas Enterprise Fund support, a project must demonstrate a significant return on the state’s investment and strong local support.

“We’re excited about proceeding with this project, which represents another step in the evolution of our case-ready meats business,” said John Tyson, chairman and CEO of Springdale, Ark.,-based Tyson Foods. “The strong business climate put Texas in the running for this new operation and the Texas Enterprise Fund closed the deal.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jason said:
Look at this issue.

R-calfers and whiners want more packers.

One is offered to them, in their back yard, and the response is;

Unfair tax breaks

Drain on the economy from criminal interests

Let's block this deal and keep the big packers buying the cattle this plant would take.

Yep you boys support small packers until one starts up in your neck of the woods and will label the beef as grown by locals.

Makes one wonder why you don't want that to happen?

Jason- Could it be some look at a situation the way it actually is-- the FACTS-- instead of some who are always looking at it thru rose colored glasses :???:

The fact is some industries put a huge drain on local/county/state services...In fact right now with some of the energy and mining industry the state is looking at making them pay MORE taxes than normal prior to the industry opening and then give them back the credits as the years go by-- so that they can gear up these government services to provide the need when it hits....Kind of a pre-tax- or a Bonding....Which makes some of these industrys then much more appealling to the general public when they know they won't have to be paying all the cost.....

Personally- I'd love to see the plant built...But I live 300 miles away and don't pay taxes there or live there....
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Portions of beef and pork will be brought to Sherman from other Tyson Foods beef and pork packing facilities for processing and packaging. The pork products will be marketed under the Tyson brand name, while the beef products will be sold in unbranded packaging.
What they want is a Prosessed in US label,Cause COOL is coming.
 
Top