4 ms·

The shortfall represents the money not present assuming that Google DOES move in. If Google moves in, and they maintain the current tax rates on people current

The shortfall represents the money not present assuming that Google DOES move in. If Google moves in, and they maintain the current tax rates on people currently living in that municipality, then the shortfall is about 15k per Google head. If Google DOES NOT move in, there is no shortfall at all. Of course, they can just increase the taxes on people already there in residence. But again, rural area. Not a lot of money. So I expect it'd be more likely for them to try to get money from the state coffers to cover the shortfall. Not really sure what the plan is to cover the shortfall in the event that Google moves in using the subsidies outlined.

tptacek 8y ago
Help me understand. If Google moves in and pays property taxes, the county will see an additional $15MM (over 20 years). If they move in and don't pay property taxes, the county will not see that money. If they don't move in at all, the county will still not see that money. Game-theoretically, how is the county better off if Google doesn't move in?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  No no no no. I'm not speaking game theoretically here, because there are a good many more factors that go into determining a "win" than the financials. Now from a money perspective, they won't get money from Google if Google DOES NOT move in, and they won't get too much money from Google if Google DOES move in. This is because the expenses on the infrastructure improvements to support a 600 million dollar data center for 18 of those 20 years is higher than the $15 million bucks they're gonna get from Google. Those expenses are, obviously, not there if Google does not site a data center in that municipality. So if you want a, sort of, game theoretical optimum, then the question people on both sides of the issue should be answering are: 1 "What are the benefits to this municipality, or to the state, of Google moving in?" and 2 "What is the value of those benefits in tax dollars?" If the answer to 2 is greater than or equal to 15K per Google head, then you break even or profit. If it's not, then you lose.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I'm sorry, I'm lost. What are the expenses Becker (and the county) will incur if Google sites here? All we've identified so far is a 20MM bond for a waste pipe extension from the site, which doesn't appear to be part of Google's demand. Wisconsin coughed up (IIRC) over a billion dollars in direct infrastructure spending to support Foxconn. Nothing like that appears to be happening here; it looks like here we're just talking about property tax money, which Minnesota was not already expecting to receive, that they'll forgo in order to get Google to site here and not in Ohio. You refer to the expenses in infrastructure Becker will incur if Google sites here. What expenses are those? Becker isn't building the data center or even clearing the land: the land is owned by Excel Energy, which is selling it to Google, and Excel is also providing the power for the data center itself. What is the county spending to make this happen? Help me understand why Becker would turn this down? How do they stand to lose anything if Google plops a data center down here?
    - supernovae 8y ago
      Why should taxpayers have to take the risk for Google if the opportunity and reason for Google to be there is already there? If it's already win-win for everyone, why even have the tax abatement? Google being the extremely profitable company it is, shouldn't need to create liabilities for a market it's trying to promise jobs too. a lot changes in 20 years and if its anything like the telco industry it will mean they will rely on these incentives for everything they do in the future because people seem willing to give it to them.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        What risk are taxpayers taking?
        supernovae 8y ago
        They're taking on growth with an abatement on revenue
    - nightski 8y ago
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Google has to move in somewhere, tax breaks or no tax breaks, its a net loss for america as a nation, and a massive net gain for google.

tptacek 8y ago

Help me understand. If Google moves in and pays property taxes, the county will see an additional $15MM (over 20 years). If they move in and don't pay property taxes, the county will not see that money. If they don't move in at all, the county will still not see that money. Game-theoretically, how is the county better off if Google doesn't move in?

bilbo0s 8y ago
No no no no. I'm not speaking game theoretically here, because there are a good many more factors that go into determining a "win" than the financials. Now from a money perspective, they won't get money from Google if Google DOES NOT move in, and they won't get too much money from Google if Google DOES move in. This is because the expenses on the infrastructure improvements to support a 600 million dollar data center for 18 of those 20 years is higher than the $15 million bucks they're gonna get from Google. Those expenses are, obviously, not there if Google does not site a data center in that municipality. So if you want a, sort of, game theoretical optimum, then the question people on both sides of the issue should be answering are: 1 "What are the benefits to this municipality, or to the state, of Google moving in?" and 2 "What is the value of those benefits in tax dollars?" If the answer to 2 is greater than or equal to 15K per Google head, then you break even or profit. If it's not, then you lose.
- tptacek 8y ago
  I'm sorry, I'm lost. What are the expenses Becker (and the county) will incur if Google sites here? All we've identified so far is a 20MM bond for a waste pipe extension from the site, which doesn't appear to be part of Google's demand. Wisconsin coughed up (IIRC) over a billion dollars in direct infrastructure spending to support Foxconn. Nothing like that appears to be happening here; it looks like here we're just talking about property tax money, which Minnesota was not already expecting to receive, that they'll forgo in order to get Google to site here and not in Ohio. You refer to the expenses in infrastructure Becker will incur if Google sites here. What expenses are those? Becker isn't building the data center or even clearing the land: the land is owned by Excel Energy, which is selling it to Google, and Excel is also providing the power for the data center itself. What is the county spending to make this happen? Help me understand why Becker would turn this down? How do they stand to lose anything if Google plops a data center down here?
  - supernovae 8y ago
    Why should taxpayers have to take the risk for Google if the opportunity and reason for Google to be there is already there? If it's already win-win for everyone, why even have the tax abatement? Google being the extremely profitable company it is, shouldn't need to create liabilities for a market it's trying to promise jobs too. a lot changes in 20 years and if its anything like the telco industry it will mean they will rely on these incentives for everything they do in the future because people seem willing to give it to them.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      What risk are taxpayers taking?
      - supernovae 8y ago
        They're taking on growth with an abatement on revenue
  - nightski 8y ago
throwaway2048 8y ago
Google has to move in somewhere, tax breaks or no tax breaks, its a net loss for america as a nation, and a massive net gain for google.