Page | of 2 Robert Padmore - Confidential - Penn Paul Eckert 2012 Oty Counal 4/23/2012 1:41 PM Confidential - Penn Jensen, Nicole ‘Mayor and Counc, Please see the emi below just received by Nicole from Penn's attorney, I's just additional information. Nicole will summarize in Gosed Session Thanks, Paul >>> "Carl Sottosant” 4/23/2012 1:14 PM >>> Ncoe, |Lwte n response to your Apel 11 letter (below). As you know by now, despite the abrupt nature ofthat letter, Mz. Snyder responded prompty and in deal to both the Mayor and to MRHD representatives. Those letters Include @ great dea of deal and I urge you to carefull review those detas withthe Mayor, Clty Counsel and the Cty Manager Before pesons are cast in stone. In addon to his welten response tothe letter, consistent With Penn's multiple efforts over the last several months, Mr. Snyder has reached out to Cy representatives and MRHD members and made genuine efforts to move this projec forward. Notably, Penn has made. ‘Substantial concession to date (fr Instance, agreeing tothe mandate of a downtown locaton, agreeing toa 300 millon dolar investment in the project without eny faancing eontngeney, making the Cy whole with respect tots current docking revenve, creating entirely new beneicaries such asthe school district and County, shelving of our current sgnicant investment in the boat ~ which Penn has only owned for approximately 7 Years, and coordinating with MRHD on project components such as the multpurpose entertainment venue, 2.) We have now reached the pont where we perceive that we are simpy negotiating against ourselves. Stated diferent, Peon cannot be expected to deregad ts current Investment, Invest 100 milion dol in the ‘new project and then turn round and increase the revenue share of is partners who have no capt at risk. ‘As such, we simply do not agree with any implication in your letter that Penn's efforts have not been Constructive or that there is some “inal and bestofler” pending. In fac, those sorts of ultmatums are contrary to the dear crection ofthe IRGC and not productive. In any event, despite what we believe to be unwarranted behavior by both MRHD and the City (particularly statements that the Gy Is done negotating) at the IRGC ‘meeting and subsequently with the media, Inthe interest ofthe region, the various constituents and of course the employees, we prefer to not delim the past. Wie have now all been urged strongly by the IRGC to redouble our efforts to ind solution. In short, we want to Continue to dlscuss any open tems with your team as so0n as posible. To that end, we suggest near term face to face meetings between Penn and Cy representatives. Such a meeting would be especlly useful to enable Penn to dspel the faved concusion tha te Cy would be worse off under Penn's proposal. Notably, the y's ‘oncusion fs only sound fone assumes that project property tax wil not be increased over the course of 20 years. ‘Since Penn has now reduced its terms to both a power point presentation and subsequently a detaled term sheet, we think it would be useful o see a near term detaled written response frm the Cy describing al open |ssues and concems. That wil enable us to evaluate the issues globally and respond global. \We look forward to forging a near term resolution that Is far, benefits the many consttuents and provides an ‘excting catalyst for downtown development. /S077F4AOWCICCWCICC_POST100136316615C57C15077... 10/29/2012 filex/C:/Temp/XPprpwiPage 2 of 2 Cort Sottosants VP and Deputy General Counsel Penn National Gaming, Ine — Orginal Message —~ From: Nicole Jensen ‘To: Steven Snyder Ce: Cal Sottosrt; Tim Wimott; Tom Burke Sent: Wed Apr 11 17:18:54 2012 Subject: Cy of Sioux Cy, Towa and MRHD Mr Snyder, Please find the attached letter for your review. Ths letter has also been malls to your attention via regular mal. I would request confirmation as to your receipt of this email message. | appreciate your attention to this mater, and we willbe awating your response ‘Thank you, Nicole Nicole M. Jensen-Harris, City Attorney Cy of Sioux Cty 405 6th Street P.O. Box 447 Sioux Gy, lowe 51102 Ph cia) 279.518 ex (212) 224-5203 ‘This e-mail (lcuding attachments) covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521, is confdental and is legally privileged. This message and its attachments may also be privleged ‘and attorney work product. They are intended forthe individual or entity named above. If you ae not the Intenced recent, you have received this transmission in eor and are hereby notified that any reading, Drnting, retention, distribution, or copying ofthis communication Is strictly prohibited by law, Please noiy the ‘Sender by replying to this message, and then delete I fram your system. ‘Thank you. filex//C:/Temp/XPgrpwise/S077F4A0WCICCWCICC_ POST100136316615C57C15077..._ 10/29/2012([o2S20%2] Rober Padmore - RE" New Casino Facly — Page? Fro ‘Bob Scott To: ‘Steven Snyder ce: "pauleckert@sioux-cly org" , “mark@mudfiap Date: 471472012 2.21 PM Subject: RE: New Casino Faciliy ‘Attachments: dummy txt; dummy tt; dummy.bet | nave to be perfectly honest and tell you my personal opinion of your deal thas the potential to put the city ina position after year 20 to have less revenue than we presently have under our ‘existing agreement. | must tel you ths is disappointing to me to say the least. | for one would ‘never vote for your deal as proposed. We give you the land and you want a deal that only you ‘can renew without any negotiations on our part. Do you really feel ike this isa fair deal because from my view itis not? think tis time for me to vist with our council and see what direction they want to go but | will recommend that we not accept your deal and we cease negotiations ‘because we are futher away today than we were 3 weeks ago. | am assuming as we requested that this was your final and best offer. | am not sure where MHRD or the city staffis on this matter but ths is where am at. Thank-you for your time and maybe the council wll view your deal as acceptable, From: Steven Snyder {mailto:Steven, Snyder@pngaming com] Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:59 AM To: Bob Scott Ce: pauleckert@sioux-cityorg: mark@mudap com; Tom Burke; Tim Wimott Subject: RE: New Casino Fait Mayor: ‘See our response to each of your questions below inal capital letters: From: Bob Scott {maito:bob@rescotteo.com] ‘Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 5:43 PM To: Steven Snyder Ce: pauleckert@sioux-cit.org; mark@mucflap.com, Tom Burke; Tim Wilmott ‘Subject: RE: New Casino Faciity | have a few questions about your propos. 1, __Atthe end of your 20 years ofthe development agreement are you agreeing to Keep the property tax value atthe evel it takes to retire the bonds on the parking ramp or are proposing {0 be able to go in and try to reduce your valuation? WE UNDERSTAND FROM OUR NEGOTIATIONS WITH CITY STAFF THAT DURING THE TERM OF THE TIF WE MUST ‘AGREE TO A BASELINE PROPOERTY TAX VALUE SUFFICIENT TO AMORTIZE THE TIF BONDS. WE WOULD AGREE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AS STAFF HAS INDICATED, TO NOT APPEAL ANY VALUATION WHILE BONDS ARE OUTSTANDING. 2. Whatkind ofa term are you looking for because | have heard 99 years and quite frankly that doesrrt work for me. but | am only speaking for myself. YOU WL SEE IN OUR PROPOSAL TO THE CITY THAT WE EXPECT A 20 YEAR LEASE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT \WITH THE CITY FOR THE NECESSARY PARKING FOR OUR PATRONS AND OUR EMPLOYEES, THIS LEASE WOULD ALSO HAVE FOUR 20 YEAR RENEWAL TERMS AT