Travis County Commssioners Court
May 27, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 37
Now let's call up item number 37, which is to consider request from endeavor real estate group llc for financial incentives on the domain development project and take appropriate action.
>> good morning, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> thank you for allowing us to speak again to you about the domain project that we are working on. My name is kirk rudy. I work for endeavor real estate group, a local company founded in 1999. This is one of my colleagues, bries miller, who is also with endeavor real estate group and david armbrust is our legal counsel who has been working with us on this project. We have passed out to you a hard capital of the presentation that -- copy of the presentation that we made to you a few weeks ago just to refresh your memory about the domain. But i'd like to just do that also just to give you an idea of what we're talking about again. The domain project is located at the former ibm manufacturing and industrial campus just east of mopac and west of burnet road and north of braker lane. The components of the project will include anywhere from 500,000 square feet to 670,000 square feet of retail and shopping space. It will include anywhere from 300 to 600 residential rental units. And approximately 175,000 square feet or four acres of public areas for people to enjoy that will include outdoor cafes and claz is as and water features. Plazas and water features. The project will generate significant benefits for our region. Specifically we're anticipating that the project will create approximately 1500 temperature jobs and approximately 1100 permanent jobs. It will also generate a significant increase in our renal's tax base. We are anticipating that over a 20-year period that had process will increase the county's receipts of ad valorem taxes by nine million dollars after it would make the investment that you all are contemplating today. We anticipate that number to be $40 million to the county over a 40 year period. Again, net of or after the investment. 40 years is the typical life of a project like this. Anticipate that this project will generate approximately $500 million to all of the taxing jurisdictions in our region over a 40 year period. Again, after public investment. That would be to the Austin independent school district's, to the city of Austin, Travis County and to capital metro. In addition, a fund is being established to assist small businesses to locate at the domain, and there is a significant affordable housing component at the domain that will comply with the city's smart housing program. We are here before you today to ask you to contemplate an investment in this project. The investment is unique in a number of ways, but maybe most notably is that it is what has been referred to as a performance-based investment. And by that it might be contrasted to maybe some other investments that have been done in this region in the past where jurisdictions have invested money initially or put up money initially to help a project happen. That would not be the case with this project. We're asking the county to consider reinvesting 50% of the ad valorem taxes that are collected or generated rather from the project over a 20-year period. Those payments would be made back to the project if and only the county collects that money, that ad valorem taxes that are generated from that project. We anticipate the value to the project to the developer, if you will, of that investment on a present value basis to be approximately $3.7 million. I also want to update you on a few things that have happened since we visited last about this. As you may know, we have also made an investment request from the city of Austin to invest in the domain. Specifically that request was to reinvest 25%, also on a performance-based basis, to reinvest 25% of the ad valorem taxes generated to the city over a 20-year period. And 80% of the sales taxes generated from the project for years one through five of that project to go down to 50% of the sales taxes from that project for years six through 20. There are a number of performance guidelines that the developer has to meet in order to be eligible for that investment, such as creating a-million-dollar small business endowment fund, and allocating 10% of the residential units to comply with constituent's smart housing program. On Thursday, may 15th, the city council voted on that investment package and it was passed by a vote of six to one. We have also put a schedule on your desk, I hope, that illustrates specifically what we are projecting in terms of ad valorem tax generation to the county from this project over a 20-year period. You will see in the second column that that number over a 20-year period is $18.7 million, and so if there's a 50% sharing, again, after those are collected, there will be over a 20-year period about $9.3 million of additional ad valorem taxes in the Travis County coffers. Again, what it illustrates at the bottom, illustrated back to present value dollars, that is about $3.7 million to the project. And really what that means to the financial feasibility of the project is the developer would be indifferent to receiving $3.7 million today and no money over time or nothing today and the sharing that's illustrated on that schedule over a 20-year period. It's the same -- it's the same economic value to the project to the developer.
>> so we would appreciate your support and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.
>> I have asked pbo to look at this and as far as what the implications would be as far as the impact on -- as far as the tax concerns. And now I guess it could come up because I really want to make sure that what I'm doing and what I'm looking at, to look at the future impact of how we end up dealing with this. So if I could have pbo come up and possibly intertwine what their findlings were on there -- findlings were on this, I really would appreciate it. Maybe not at this time, but before this discussion is over with, I really would want to hear from pbo as far as some of the things that they did or run through as far as the numbers are concerned also. I want to make sure that we're all in concert and we're looking at the same thing. So I'm kind of requesting pbo to maybe go through some of the numbers they ran per my request.
>> sounds like as good a time as any.
>> I think he's sharing it with all the members of the court, so all of us have the same backup.
>> maybe it's for pbo to see the project numbers. The e-mail that I sent each of you late Friday evening was run off of the backup of the city of Austin, which obviously is a little bit different than what was shared today. In that backup the city was going to do a 52/48 percent split. Obviously it changed, but during the process I ran -- I cannot have the backup that they're reading from today. And our numbers when we calculated it out at a freeway/60, the numbers were different than what was presented here and I do not do a present value calculation.
>> do you have that schedule? . Could you give me that?
>> one correction. You are right, I said the investment request from the city was 80% of sales taxes for the first five years and then 20%. The city came back and increased that by two percentage points, and that money would actually be going back from us to the city to go into the city's affordable housing trust fund. So that -- actually, they actually agreed to something greater than we had requested, but in effect it is going back to that trust fund and it will not stay with the project.
>> so the sales tax revenue?
>> that's the sales tax.
>> if I'm reading correctly what you did, you did this based on the current tax rate of 46-60. While it is impossible for us to predict what our tax rate is going to be come September, it isn't going to be 4660. So you are basically locking in on a number in terms of what do we know today in terms of what our rate is because obviously that rate will fluctuate, perhaps up, perhaps down, depending on what the effective tax rate is, is that correct?
>> right.
>> I just took what's known today and I understand there's a four-year commencement provision I think in the city. So whatever the tax rate is at the time the project is completed would obviously be more exact.
>> may I also just make another comment. Charles is the economist on our team, and we have some backup schedules to illustrate how these numbers were derived. I do know that there was over a 20-year period an inflation factor that he used in terms of valuation. I don't recall him changing the tax rate, but I do think he assumed that inflation factor, and we're happy to get those to you.
>> okay. I would think, you know, pbo could get that information. We'll get it back to the court.
>> I guess my concern is what we're dealing with now as far as current tax rate, I think Commissioner son lighter brought a good point up. However, looking at what the city did and basing it on a 42/48 ratio --
>> I think the city actually ended up doing a 25%. Am I correct? [overlapping speakers].
>> on the ad valorem.
>> 20% of ad valorem and 80% of sales tax.
>> I'm trying to see something in writing before me based on what pbo is also analyzing as a checks and balances to make sure that it's had not that I'm not supporting this. I don't want anybody to think that, but I would like to make sure that what is the very prudent thing and I want to make sure that what we're dealing with are the numbers that I can kind of reallydepend on and rely upon as far as going to some type of action. And another concern that I have is coming up with some kind of policy. And I think that was reflected in this letter also. In other words, -- and this is performance based. This is something kind of new to me. I can remember some time ago when we tried to stimulate economic development in this community. Of course, we had some economic development programs that were basically geared for eastern Travis County, and I'm talking about something called the olden tear prize zone. I don't know if you guys remember that, but that was something that never did come to bass the way it really -- pass the way it really should have. We talked about employment opportunities that really didn't happen the way they should have in that community. And, of course, personally I am really trying to stimulate economic development in my precinct. And that's one of the geelz I'm trying -- goals that I'm trying to reach. However, if we do this in support of what domain is bringing us, then there will be others probably coming also, so I think in my mind it's very appropriate, according even to this letter that we have to come up with some kind of general policy because I'm really a strong supporter of economic development, but I think we need to have a policy directive involved with all this too otherwise somebody is going to be throwing rocks at us and me and saying you did it for the domain and then not us. So I'm really concerned about a general policy and I think that's something that's very appropriate that we do have a policy directive. Because as you know, I'm really trying to get, again, economic development for this quadrant of the county that really has been, I guess, left outdoors when it comes to economic development. We don't even have a movie theater over there to go to as far as the type of movies like at tinseltown and all these other kind of places where you have to go way up to Pflugerville to see a movie or way down south. We don't have those kind of things over there. So retail development and all these other kind of things that we need in this community in my mind we need to be pushing forward in the direction. So a policy in my mind would be something that we need to look at also. Like I said, I do not oppose what you're doing. I support it, but I think I need -- right now I think I need some better numbers working with pbo to see what the overall figures would be after this is basically investigating and dug out by pbo as that other request that I made. I hope you can understand that as far as numbers are concerned. I got to know exactly what I'm talking about here and how much -- what kind of impact would that have based on what we're looking at now as far as the impact is concerned. Again, the numbers are going to change because, again, there may be a tax increase in Travis County. Right now it's 44660 for a 100-dollar valuation. That may be something that we mandate and another thing that cause us to increase taxes. I'm not going there on that, but I would like to have some type of figures with what I'm dealing with today.
>> we'll be glad to look at the numbers generated by the project and get back to court.
>> is that something that you guys can deal with?
>> yes, sir. We can give you updated numbers. May I make a couple of comments related to the numbers as well as the policy, which I understand. When we first started working on this project, we recognized a financial gap that needed to be closed in order to make it a viable project. The size of that gap was approximately $30 million on a present value basis. Initially we went to the city to request from them approximately $20 million of that $30 million. The vote that was done a couple of Thursdays ago, if our project pans out to the way we think it will pan out, we expect -- we anticipate that the value of this investment will be slightly under $20 million, $19.8 million. They were concerned, as you are, about the numbers. What if the tax rates go up, what if the values go up? We want to make sure that we put a cap on that investment.
>> okay.
>> our original plan was to go and -- and still is to approach both the county and capital metro to try to make up the difference between the $20 million that the city agreed to and the $30 million or $10 million between the two. And in our mind specifically we thought a request of five million from the county and five million from capital metro would get there. So that is a very inarticulate, long way of saying I understand you're concerned about the numbers getting out of hand. We wou be okay if you all wanted to cap your investment on a present value basis at five million dollars. Your schedule that you have in front of you anticipates that the value will be 3.7 million, but I understand your concerns about inflation, I understand your concerns about values and so therefore we would be amenable a cap. With that said, whatever happens to those values, the county also will benefit as well because they're keeping 50% of what's being generated by that project. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> I just waferbted to make sure those folks that are listening out there may have some of the same ideas that you were having as far as bringing it before the court, on performance based prongs such as this, would nothrow rocks at us because whatever this court decides to do, as stated before, I can support this project; however, there are some hinges that I want ironed out. I think in the interim as far as the numbers are concerned. The numbers are kind of fluctuating on me a little bit here. I would like to make sure that I capture that and get a true grasp of what we are dealing with, something in writing from our standpoint as far as the county's standpoint as far as what the numbers are for us. Based on current tax rate in -- in the hope that it stays current tax rate during this next budget cycle. No guarantees on that, but I'm supporting that it stays below at tax rate or below tax rate. That's my position on that. However, again, I think that we need to, this project is a good example of how we can stimulate this economy, as you front the $130 million to get this project, stuff like that, getting off the ground. You come back and do wt we need do to get the benefit and realize that, but of course it would still be based on performance. I think the bottom line, in my opinion, is performance based projects as opposed to just other projects. I have seen those things and they have collapse and didn't really, a lot of them have, didn't really do what they were intended to do. Again I can support this, but I would prefer [indiscernible] p.b.o. -- let me ask you this, I said -- you said time, how much more time? Sir.
>> time, huld like --
>> we would very much prefer to have the county take action today. We are working very diligently on lining up users for the project now. It's been difficult until recently because we haven't been able to commit that we have a project.
>> let me ask leroy this question then. Leroy, how long did it take you to run those numbers based on what we have now, today?
>> condemnationer [indiscernible], if I might respond on your numbers, the numbers are projections into the future. What we know for certain today is your tax rate today, we know that they are planning on a project of approximately $130 million, which is going to substantially increase the county's tax base. Beyond that, in terms of the inflation increase and the value of the project or your tax rate next year or five years from now, that's all somewhat speculative, no one knows for sure, so we are trying to take a snapshot in time today.
>> right. I understand that, but I guess I would like to get an answer from leroy as far as how long you think it would take to run those numbers based on what we have now, today. That's -- I need that answer.
>> it kind of depends on how much in depth do you want us to go into the projections. I projected Friday based upon a little bit different information at a 50/50 split at the current tax rate of 4660, the 50% would be 302,900-dollar per year on 130 million dollar investment. That multiplied by 20 years is 6,058,000. You know, it's close to what -- they had accelerators in the tax rate and I think those are reasonable projections without looking at it. I mean, I was just handed this projection here for the next 20 years, but I would assume --
>> so your numbers were less than ours, considerably less than ours?
>> right.
>> we projected closer to $9 million. So if your numbers are right, the county's investment would be less. Significantly less.
>> Commissioner Daugherty? To me, this is not a matter of the dollars. They are as important to me as the precedent setting that we are doing here, guys. Because we have got -- we have got projections and even though we -- they are predicated on some things that we know are fairly accurate, that's not of issue, anyone can tell you that -- if somebody walks up to you and convinces you to give them 50 bucks, then in 10 years they will give you back, you know, a thousand. That's -- you go, yeah, sounds like a good deal to me, i'll do it, provided I don't die in 10 years. There's a great thing about this. The great thing about it is it's performance based. It really gives you an argument to go to your constituents and this community as a whole and say, "we are not out financing private investment." Because you all know, you all read the paper, it is a subject matter that is electrifying. The bad thing in -- in this is the precedent setting. If highland mall, if we do this deal on highland mall and comes to us in a year and says, you know what, we are going to do a $100 million facelift. Let me tell you how many people we employ, let me tell you what it's going to do, the increase that you are going to have, we are picking and choosing who we are doing these things for. I mean, nordstrom's is coming to Barton Creek. I don't know why somebody wouldn't have said, you know, in order to attract this huge retailer -- and I would like to make a comment that I don't think that retail is an economic generator. Retail needs discretionary income. What we are suffering from in Austin, Texas is job creation. Job creation where somebody is really making 55, $06,000 a year. -- 60,000 a year. I don't want people to get confused about that this is some huge generator, because the one thing that none of us can really get comfortable with is what is it -- does it take business away from other retail establishments in this community? And the truth of the matter is yes, it will. Now, how much? I don't know. I mean, it may be so insignificant that I would say you're right, it's insignificant, that's not an argument against it. The thing that -- and you all know because i've sat with you a couple of times and you know that I always circle back around to the precedent setting that we do with this. I don't know who to say no to in the event that we do it, and in the event that I just get convinced that it is a great economic boone. Now, the city with sales tax, it's a different deal, we don't participate in sales tax. So the city has an added advantage of looking at this thing and looking at it hard. Ad valorem taxes, you know, a lot less. So, I'm still trying to get comfortable with how do I balance those two huge things. Good performance, bad precedent setting. And I think that we as a community, I mean as a governmental entity, we have got to establish some -- some pretty iron-clad rules and regulations because as you all know, this is not the only tip that we are looking down the barrel of. I would like to think, I asked you all this when we were together, do you have to have the county's involvement in this thing to make your deal work. I know that you feel like yeah, you have got a 10 million dollar gap between your 30 and your 20, provided that capital metro, I think capital metro may give you 10 million. I mean, suggest that daryl says to give them 10 million [laughter] but that's -- that's what I'm -- what I want to say, you all know that I'm really grasping at what to do with this thing and being -- making the right definition. So I don't know whether you came up christian because of something I said.
>> I did. To perhaps give a little history to a similar circumstance that occurred in '95 and '9of, that -- '96 that might help you. Excuse my voice, this was when samsung came forward asking for a tax abatement. Now, it was a little bit different arrangement. But -- but the court and the city established a policy that said we will entertain any -- anyone who comes to us with a $50 million investment and a $250,000 per new employee investment in this community. Samsung as one, there was one other, an outfit called photronics that go an abatement provided, but it was anyone who meets this criteria. You might want to say in this time of downturn where the bottom is unknown, and swing up is still under debate, to say, okay, we would like an approach that says anyone with $100 million to invest in this community, we would like a policy established where that's the criteria. That might be then this -- this might include this project, but then it might also include a wide variety of other projects that would then consider such a policy. It would exclude someone with a small strip mall. But if I were a -- if I were a -- that's just a way to handle it. Now, would it take time to do the policy. But if you establish that as a threshold, say we would like staff to develop a policy with -- with legal counsel and yourselves from the standpoint of overall direction of the architecture of such a policy, in a month or two that policy could be developed, but as long as you hold the threshold. Now the question of whether or not that's a prerequisite to do some deal that's a different issue. But whether you can do the deal, then say we will entertain anything else, that is of such a magnitude. Because I assume that is what is so attractive. It's the magnitude. Not necessarily -- the impact, both economic and otherwise. That is -- that is why you are considering this seriously.
>> but you do bring up a good point. That is this thing has the -- has a real potential to have a real effect on people who are out there competing. If I have somebody out there who has four acres on a major thoroughfare, they are saying you know what, I can't make my deal work, I can't get my deal off the ground, what makes -- it does make a difference that it's not a $100 million project and it's not employing 1500 people, not this and that. But you eventually get to a point where you really do start affecting -- we've had a huge deal in this community with the borders books and all of the folks at 6th and lamar. The city trying to grapple with whether or not they need to be making those sort of incentive investment opportunities for -- for the large folks. I don't want there to be an unlevel playing field. I understand that the concept of this thing, especially the date and time. We are just -- I mean, everybody is scratching their heads about how do you get something to -- how do you rlt put something on the ground that you can -- that you can put up here and say, okay, this was a great deal for us. I mean, I remember when you guys went out and bought that property. I mean, and -- that this was probably not the thing that was on the drawing board at the time because I think it was office space and whatever, we didn't have 8 8 trillion square feet of office space you probably wouldn't be doing a retail deal. I appreciate where you are coming from. But from the standpoint of policy setting, you all know that it -- well, probably make a lot of people nervous, that's not to say it can't be done, it won't be done, that I may look at it from a different angle. But I would be remiss in not going over with you each time. So thank you very much.
>> common?
>> christian, I'm really glad that you brought up samsung because that was actually one of the very first business decisions that hi to make when I came on this court. And when it co-came down to it, what was important was that we had established criteria and benchmarks that it wasn't a -- a deal, special deal just for samsung, but we basically said anybody that needs these benchmarks, meets these benchmarks, it was done with photronics and samsung, they are a photo masking outfit. For me what it came down to was we looked at what could that samsung property have generated in terms of property taxes if it had turned into any other kind of commercial property or it could have gun residential because -- become residential. We have this huge concentration of wealth, of investment on this property, that 40% of that huge investment was better than 100% of if it had gone any other kind of commercial or residential, which was going to be far less in terms what was we could have generated from that property. I think what was also important about the samsung deal was that there was an expiration date on our policy that basically says we recognize during this time period, judge, jorm, what was it -- I don't remember a five year policy?
>> two years.
>> even less. It basically said during this time period if you need it --
>> thank you, judge.
>> any time, christian. [laughter]
>> how many judges have we got there now --
>> it was two years. We are going to operate in a very confined area here because of the changing economic conditions, to say during this time period, it's going to make sense. Actually, our policy has expired and I guess we could have brought it back up when a.m.d. Was thinking about coming back, but it was going to have to be brought back to this court to say did the economic conditions still warrant that kind of an investment. It would seem to me that whatever we are looking at ought to have an expiration date in terms of consistency if we choose to go this direction, but during a certain time period, anyone else that comes in. So that we can be consistent and not say that say 10 years from now, let's hope everything turns around. We would still be offering this kind of deal. Because it may not be necessary. I think another thing that we would need to talk about is -- is how do we go about locking this down. What the city of Austin has, which we don't have before us today, is they actually have a contract. There's a -- there's a document that says here is our understanding of everything that needs to occur, the benchmarks and everybody locks it down in terms of expectations. We don't have a similar document in front of us today, so it's possible for us to give a -- here's what we are feeling, but we would have to get this thing locked down in terms of a document, we can't just change out the city for the county because it does go into things having to do with smart housing, other kinds of things that are just not our deal. So we would have to figure out what other kind of contractual document. I think what's also important is that to me it's not just any $100 million investment because somebody could have built a class a business project downtown in terms of office space, I don't think the city -- I mean, I don't think the county is looking at doing a rebate back on an office building because it's not something that's producing other kinds of -- of plus things for the economy in terms of sales tax and other kind of things. So I think we need to differentiate between office space, which we seem to have more than enough of right now as opposed to what's going on with retail. Two other things that I think are very important to me. The city of Austin vote was critical to me in terms of how does the city feel about this. And the council on a 6 to 1 vote, which says a lot, they want to do this deal. And while we are not required to be a partner, they certainly would appreciate partners in this. This is something in the desired development zone, something like this, we are not having any of those wars in terms of where something like this is located. It is in a place where the city wants to encourage this kind of development. And if I think back in terms of, you know, just what's happening with our sales tax base, the city of Austin is having some tremendous problems with sales tax eroding. It's not just because people are spending less. It's also because they are actually seeing many of their property tax, of their sales tax dollars go elsewhere. I can think of what happened in my own house hold, I spent my honey in new york city and -- my money in new york city and san marcos, neither of those is Austin/Travis County. The last thing that I would like to say is having made now 3 trips to the international downtown association to see what other communities are doing related to building tax base, sales tax base, property tax base, gone to pittsburgh, new orleans and just recently got back from memphis, I am amazed at what's happening around the country in terms of some very innovative out of the box kinds of things where the city and the county are coming together on these kinds of arrangements. Because circumstances warrant it in terms of trying to build a stronger community. This is out of the box. But it's the kind of thing that I can get behind, if we have the proper document that lays down what everybody's expectations are to meet -- to me it would be very important to have an expiration date and benchmark that's other kinds of -- benchmarks that other kind of projects could also have the opportunity of meeting so that this is not something special for just one group. Finally, this is a new business model and I just find it ironic that the city is looking to this kind of an agreement related to the domain, but this is not the kind of an agreement they have shuttled our way related to waller creek. Which is absolutely the opposite of this in terms of it's everything that I think that we have all expressed concerns about. That is there is a huge risk and what if the tax value doesn't come? There is the up front investment of infrastructure and so I would -- I would love to see something like this come our way related to waller creek as opposed to what we have informally heard. But that's on another subject matter. So I can get there, it seems like we need to lock down the agreements, have clear criteria, an expiration date, and also the kinds of projects that we would be looking at. Again, a cap just like the city of Austin had related to what is the maximum amount that can happen over that 20 year period.
>> Commissioner, could I clarify one point. Just on what we are asking for. Which hopefully addresses something that you have raised. We are not asking for you to enter into a contract just like the city has. Chapter 380 doesn't apply to counties. And our request to the county, what we would like for you to do is for you to authorize the execution and negotiate of interlocal -- an interlocal agreement with the city to create a t.i.f. That would be subject to the city's 380 agreement that they have just approved and the terms and conditions that you would add to your tich, which could be -- to your t.i.f., Which could be a cap on the amount of participation, it could be the policy issues that you have addressed. But again we are -- we are asking you to move forward in terms of authorizing the -- us to work with your legal department, the city's legal department to negotiate and execute or at least negotiate an interlocal agreement that would come back to you, perhaps, as a final document and then you would have that to vote on, but we would like to move forward, if we can.
>> well, let me just add in terms of I would basically ask our attorneys to tell us what is the best way to do this because I don't necessarily think interlocals with the city of Austin may or may not be the easiest way to do this. It can take an awful lot of time to work through the city of Austin process, no offense, it seems like we ought to stand on our own related to what we want to doork the same way on the samsung agreement. A tax abatement. That was a Travis County policy, Travis County contract with samsung, it just keeps the city out of it because quite frankly they are doing their gig, we are being asked to do our gig, I would leave it to our attorneys to tell us if that's the direction that we choose to go.
>> a couple of questions. Then I would have a motion. This is [indiscernible] right now.
>> yes, sir.
>> the county's tax revenue is how much annually?
>> it should be on the schedule leroy. The first year before the I don't have it in front of me, is it 30,000?
>> 30,000.
>> yeah.
>> practically nothing.
>> 30 thoirks 277 -- $3,277 or close to it. And if we -- $30,277 or close to it. 50% of the new revenue would be basically 11, 12 times that? [multiple voices]
>> how important is the county's participation?
>> it's important, sir.
>> will this project happen without our participation?
>> this project, now that the city has agreed to invets in this -- invest in this project, the likelihood that it will happen is high. But not in the state that we have described it. We still have this projected $10 million gap. And we will have to make significant adjustments to it. We will have to go back to the drawing board. To redesign and value engineer the project. But I don't want to -- to sit here today and tell you that it won't happen without your investment. It will be something different than what we had planned today.
>> okay. Where is the city on its contract? Time-wise?
>> we are hoping to final the city contract realistically probably next week.
>> if the county votes to participate the construction will commence when?
>> we are anticipating that construction will commence in the fourth quarter of next year. And the project would be open in the first quarter of '06, those are the current plans. First or second quarter of '06.
>> can we, between now and next week, calculate the amount that [indiscernible] gave us for the city includes the 25% real estate tax is, 08% protected sales tax --
>> 80% for the first five years, 50% for the last 15, yes.
>> can we apply those percentages to say revenue from property taxes and sales taxes at the city this year? And two years ago?
>> calculate --
>> my guess is they probably have this. Could they give it to us?
>> I'm not sure I understand. The lapped hasn't been generating sales taxes because there's no improvements on it unless I'm misunderstanding.
>> from a project of this magnitude, I'm really trying to get apples to apples.
>> yeah.
>> I think only the city could do that.
>> I don't know.
>> then I'm asking p.b.o. To make a phone call to them and ask 'em. I would be surprised about the calculation, anyway.
>> are you asking if -- if the city could -- could locate 130 million dollar project and see what the sales tax is being generated off of that?
>> roughly, right.
>> roughly.
>> two years ago.
>> yeah. I'm really just trying to figure out the county's -- trying to confirm the county's contribution to the city's.
>> uh-huh.
>> and doing it right now is one thing, doing it two years ago is another.
>> okay.
>> if there's a whole lot harder --
>> oh, I understand what you are saying.
>> -- than I think it is don't do it. I'm thinking a phone call to them will get it.
>> and/or with charles. I think charles as a consultant has been helpful and we have worked with him before.
>> here's my motion. We do need some legal advice on this. I move that a subcommittee of the court, this is what precinct is this?
>> 2.
>> that Biscoe and Sonleitner work with the county attorney's office and planning and budget and the applicants and the city of Austin to the extent that it is feasible on putting together a draft policy that sets forth appropriate criteria and a -- and a draft contract that sets forth appropriate terms and conditions. And to extent that an interlocal with the city of Austin is important, that we do that. Wherever we need to bring the t.i.f. And t.i.f. Considerations into play, let's do that. The motion basically is designed to indicate our inclination to participate. But our position that it would make sense to us to have a policy in place and a draft contract that we can look at specifically. What I have in mind is us getting with the city of Austin, trying to figure out if they have added any more detail to their proposed contract than we have in what we have received and to extent that we can, we try to mirror that and if we deviate from it, basically, there are reasons for doing that. And I pick Commissioner Sonleitner because the project is in precinct 2 and myself, because the county judge needs more work, [laughter], but what I tried do was get some sense of where the court is today. And work on that. The other thing is my guess is it will take about two weeks to do this. But we will be communicating with you, negotiating, et cetera, between now and then. As well as probably members of the court getting input. The county attorney will not -- would not like for us to exchange e-mails, but to extent that there are comments that you want to provide in addition to what's provided today, if you will send those to marry yet take, we will be -- marietta who will be working on the contract and/or goal -- and our goal is to get this to the members of the court at least the Thursday or Friday preceding the Tuesday that it would be on the court's agenda to give members an opportunity to --
>> [indiscernible]
>> right. I think we are looking at June 10th. Tuesday, June 10th.
>> judge, is that a realistic deadline in terms of the 10th? Since this is a short week and -- I'm not -- I don't think this is delaying in terms of providing you with intent, trying to get realistic here in terms of -- [multiple voices] I'm thinking especially getting together with the city of Austin, I would feel more comfortable with us taking three weeks, just have that -- plenty of time to be able to read the documents.
>> my thinking is we ought to go ahead and expedite our part to the extent that we can. If getting an interlocal with the city of Austin takes more time -- [multiple voices]
>>
>> they have a very limited schedule.
>> the other thing --
>> couple of days before [multiple voices]
>> swearing in.
>> when I looked at the draft county that the city is looking at, we could taylor it to the contract, but I don't know if we need to start from jach. Add provisions to be added, delete one that's ought to be deleted. Working from the draft I think enables us to expedite is a whole lot more than what we would be able to do otherwise.
>> I was thinking if we could take a look at the photroics and samsung agreement as well, they are different things but performance based. [multiple voices]
>> policy.
>> yes, sir, especially on the policy.
>> that was a long motion with a longer explanation.
>> sorry.
>> but it did get a second from Commissioner Sonleitner. Any more discussion of that motion?
>> judge, I would like to say that again I really appreciate you coming down and of course as I stated earlier, I could support something that's performance based and also as this project is, also the creation of jobs is very important for this -- this economy. And we get more folks doing that, I think we can kind of turn some things around. In my opinion, this is a turning point beginning of maybe a possible turning point for this area who is really feeling the economic crunch downturn, very appropriate, I think in my mind that we head in this direction, thank you all again, I really appreciate it.
>> thank you, sir.
>> all right.
>> the idea of having the policy does promote even handedness [multiple voices]
>> I think the policy is very important [multiple voices]
>> clear expectations.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Sonleitner, yours truly in favor. Voting against show Commissioner Daugherty. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you. See you soon.
>> appreciate it.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 27, 2003 7:52 PM