It was a close thing last night. One more no vote and it was over. There are 120 very well paid manufacturing jobs at that plant and there will be at least 25 more added by the expansion. According to the economic development commission report approximately 20% of those employees currently live in Arnold. The millions of dollars in construction jobs are sorley needed in Jefferson County. It is a good thing this passed as the real estate, personal property and utility tax revenue currently generated by the can plant supports this region's schools, library district, fire and ambulance districts. The salaries and wages are spent in the area too.

I suggest there are two good follow up stories. One is why Michelle and Doris voted to close the plant as their no votes surely were cast that way. The closure would have sent the work represented by this plant to the competing states of Colorado, New Jersey or Florida. This was a win for Missouri. The second follow up story I suggest is for Doris to explain how eliminating these jobs and idling the can plant is good campaign strategy as she runs for mayor in April. Is her blind hatred of everything related to Arnold so important as to risk losing this can plant?

I suggest a third story for the fine folks at Patch. Tell us if the Arnold plant really would close without this Arnold-financed addition, or if that claim is a) an A-B scare tactic to get incentives from Arnold or b) a scare tactic by Arnold to justify the incentives? Would A-B really walk away from the $5 million it spent on the Arnold facility the past two years, away from the plant closest to its flagship brewery?

How about we get some hard numbers instead of all of these estimates? Why have we not been told us exactly how many jobs are currently there and exactly how many live in Arnold? My source says 12 workers at the can plant live in the City of Arnold.
If A-B has a normalized profit of 5 billion 815 million in the last six months, then the estimated 14.5 million tax abatement on real and personal property over a twenty year period shouldn't be that much of a burden for them to conduct business here.
There is always a downside to a story, some times the down side outweighs the up side, that's how we as a city and consequently our citizens and taxpayers have ended upside down on the CVS project and our children will be paying for that and the Arnold Commons and Arnold Crossroads/Drury for 15 to 40 years in the future.
The council and the people deserve to know the whole story, not just the part that sounds good. Council is repeatedly given only minimal information in order to make major decisions. Once the "right" decision is made, then all of the pitfalls start to come to light. This is not the way things are supposed to be done. Decisions need to be based on all of the information, we owe that to the citizens and those who will be required to pay in the future.

Arnold used a Missouri financing program called Chapter 100 bonds. It is in RSMO Chapter 100. It was put in place by the Missouri legislature years ago to allow any Missouri city, county, town or village to compete by keeping and enticing such projects. A simple explanation:

http://www.stlrcga.org/Documents/Incentives/MO_Ch%20100%20Bonds%20Detail.pdf

Arnold worked with AB-Inbev in St. Louis. Yes, you may infer that they would have pulled out of Arnold. The can plant is nearly 25 years old and past is useful life. The Pevely plant was 20 years old and is closed. You can still see it from I-55. AB-Inbev is a Belgian-owned brewery whose chairman is a Brazilian. They care nothing for the benefit or loss to Arnold. Write what you like, this was a huge win for Missouri, Jefferson County and Arnold. I am absolutely delighted that we were able to keep these jobs in Arnold and add more. To differ with my colleague’s statement, that absolutely is a role of local government.

This is AB-InBev’s largest construction project in the world right now and it is happening here. These manufacturing jobs are kept here. The added job opportunities are added here. The construction jobs are coming here. The tax revenue stays here.

If after this you still think Arnold did something underhanded by following state law to attract the largest corporate employer in our region, feel free to contact your state representative.

Because something is legal, does not necessarily make it right. Can individuals or small businesses expect to pay no sales tax on new equipment or additions to their buildings? The big picture is AB-InBev is going to make at least 14.5 million more than they would have if there were no Series 100 bonds. No one gets the opportunity to buy these bonds because they are being held by AB InBev. Will they also get a tax deduction for the interest they are paying themselves on those bonds? In addition, the citizens of Arnold are paying for the new and improved sewer that will handle the additional flow from the plant. AB sold three can plants and a lid plant in 2009 for a combined total of $577 million. That leaves them with five can plants, here, FL,CA, NY,and CO and two lid plants, FL and CA in the U.S. They currently supply over 40% of the cans they need for themselves in addition to providing cans for a soft drink manufacturer.
We have locally owned small businesses in town who could use some of the cooperation that is so readily bestowed upon these larger corporations, that might help them grow. We have citizens who need to be hooked up to sewers, sewers that need to be built to service their needs and repaired. We have streets that are deteriorating and many other problems to solve, yet we are giving away future revenues? Who is next in line for taxpayers to be on the hook paying for their latest project?

What AB can plant in Pevely was closed that was 20 years old and when? The only factory in Pevely that I can see from Highway 55 is the Gobain facility and last time I drove by there were cars in the parking lot and smoke coming out of their stacks.

The real story seems to be Arnold was blackmailed by AB-InBev into giving them special treatment by threatening to "take their ball and play elsewhere" if Arnold didn't give them a 20 year tax abatement. “Ward 3 Councilman Paul Freese said, "It may be unfair, but if we didn't work with AB-InBev, they would have left.” Phil Amato told Patch …"It would have been a disaster had the council not approved the measure because the company has already started its expansion,". So you really believe that after they’ve put more than 5 million into this they’d walk away if the city expected them to pay the same taxes everyone else is expected to? I’d say “the city blinked first”.
That is over 14 million dollars the city and area won't see go towards the much needed infrastructure problems we have, the school district, fire and ambulance care, etc. Not to mention the wear and tear the company will put on that same infrastructure they get the privilege of using without contributing fairly like we, the rest of the taxpayers do.

It is NEVER the proper role of government, federal, state or local, to pick winners or losers. And that is exactly what Arnold did. Try being most other businesses in town and ask for the same benefits and you'll get a resounding "no". A better solution would have been for government to "get out of the way" and not have such stifling regulations. That would make our city "business friendly".

Thought I would share this Missouri Chapter 100 success story: http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/comm/reports/GAFO_Mamtek.pdf

Where can individuals apply for the job openings at the plant in Arnold?