BY JENN McDOWELL
Soon, Hooksett voters will be charged with the duty of either accepting or rejecting a new financial plan for the proposed Cabela’s development off Hackett Hill Road.
On Tuesday, Oct. 23, polls at Cawley Middle School will be open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. to allow citizens to weigh in on the revised TIF district and reduced bond obligation.
Voters passed a financial plan at last March’s Town Meeting for a 300-acre TIF district and $18 million general obligation bond, putting the responsibility of the costs of development directly on the town.
Since then, the developer and town officials have come up with a new plan they said would be less complicated and reduce the town’s responsibility to fund the project.
After months of planning, Warrant Article 1 was submitted to the Town Council and Budget Committee, both of which recommend the article’s passage.
But many Hooksett residents are left wondering why, if the new plan is better for the town, it is once again being put to a vote.
The new plan
The financial plan outlined in Warrant Article 1 is different from the plan voters passed last year in two major ways.
First, this new article asks voters to approve a reduction in the size of the tax increment financing district, or TIF, from 300 acres down to 100 acres.
Tax revenues from the 200 acres excluded from the TIF would go directly into the town coffers.
At a Town Council meeting last month, councilors voted to approve the TIF reduction and include it as part of Warrant Article 1.
The 200 acres west of I-93 can easily be added back into the TIF district or can form a new one in the future, Council Chairman Paul Loiselle said.
At the time, Loiselle was against reducing the TIF, but now thinks it was a wise move. “I think the council did the right thing because there’s already significant interest in the properties west of 93” without them being included in the TIF, Loiselle said.
In the future, if a developer should want to build there, sewer improvements outside of the improvements being made for the proposed 100-acre Cabela’s TIF will need to be put in place.
Second, the article seeks to reduce the town’s obligation bond by $16 million.
Last year, voters passed an article approving the town to issue an $18 million general obligation bond for the project. As part of the new plan, that bond will be reduced to $2 million, which will be backed by a letter of credit by Miami and Pierce, a developer in the TIF building a Wingate Hotel.
The project developer, New England Expeditions–Hooksett LLC, will acquire the remaining $16 million through private lenders.
Over the next 20 years, the developer will pay off those private loans with taxes the development generates.
Marc Hughes, the financial advisor from First Albany Capital, who is representing the town on the development, presented the 20-year tax increment projections for the new plan at a Town Council meeting in September.
The town will refund the developer $1 million each year from their taxes to pay off the $16 million in private bonds borrowed.
The town will pay down the $2 million bond in a projected time period of five to seven years through taxes generated by the hotel, in the same way the Cabela’s project will be paid for.
In the first year, according to projections, the New England Expedition development will generate about $1.15 million, leaving about $150,000 in excess revenue which will go directly into the general fund.
Currently, the undeveloped area in question puts less than $100,000 in the town’s general fund,
according to Loiselle and Hooksett Town Administrator David Jodoin.
Over the entire 20-year period, according to Hughes, the town will get about $11 million in tax revenue from the TIF with the potential for tens of millions in the years after that period.
Why vote again?
Montagne Communications, the public relations firm representing the project’s developer, had a booth at Hooksett’s Old Home Day on Saturday, Oct. 6. Montagne employees Cassandra Pappathan and Darwin Cusack fielded questions about the project and the upcoming vote.
Cusack said they fielded many questions from Hooksett residents, most of them dealing with the upcoming vote.
“The most common question we got was, ‘Why are we voting on this thing again? We thought it was a done deal,’” Cusack said.
Loiselle said the council pondered the idea of not bringing the new deal to a vote because
“it’s a better deal,” but was advised to do so to make sure Hooksett residents understand exactly what it entails.
“We decided it was best that the public knew the complete scenario,” Loiselle said. “There is absolutely no money coming from the taxpayers.”
Jodoin said the council wanted to ensure voters understand the change in parameters from the first deal passed in March.
“It’s a different type of deal and a different structure,” Jodoin said.
He added that he wants to make sure residents know the council will seek to rescind the first $18 million bond deal if this one passes with voters.
He said some voters think the previous funding deal will still be in effect, and that the project has turned into a cost to the town in excess of $30 million.
“It’s not like we’re trying to keep an extra $18 million,” Jodoin said.
Contentions
Gene Bowdoin of New England Expeditions said he cannot see why voters would not pass the newly restructured deal if the last one was passed.
“If you hated the whole notion, that’s one thing,” Bowdoin said.
There are some residents in Hooksett who are against the project as a whole and others who believe the new deal is no better than the last one.
Some think there is a catch to the new deal, and question why the town would need to vote on something better than it already passed.
Hooksett resident Ed Groves called the deal “a wash,” adding that he does not think the town will benefit from the deal down the road.
He said he did not agree with the town giving Cabela’s a “tax exemption,” saying the town has not offered the same incentives to other businesses that came into town, such as Walgreen’s.
“There’s not two sides to it, there’s one side. The people that want this thing up there, they want it come hell or high water,” said Groves.
Deb Daigle of Montagne Communications said the developer realizes there is resistance in the town to the project, but that development is inevitable.
“There’s got to be progress too. I guess it’s just balancing it and keeping it in check,” Daigle said.