Travis County Commissioners Court
March 27, 2007
Item 5
Due to technical difficulties some caption files may be incomplete.
5. Consider and take appropriate action on city of Austin waller creek tunnel project.
>> we are very happy to be here. What I just passed you out was letters that we recently received endorsing the project from the Austin rowing association which was located on the outlet at the immediate stakeholders are supporting the project and the second letter of support is from the african-american chamber of commerce which I believe Commissioner Davis was particularly interested in. We just wanted to say that we received a wide range of support throughout the city for in project and we hope that you are able to enter into a financing arrangement with them and we are here to answer any...
>> ...projects in precinct 4 they flood because the topography of Travis County is such that it all kind of drains down like a funnel. So this obviously would be one of those projects that would flood one of those areas. And so I think from -- from after a lot of thought about -- about why would I support this project, it would be to continue supporting flooding. That goes on in precinct 4 in southeast Travis County. As well as other places east of i-35. And again let me say that it's topography in Travis County and there may be a little bit of environmental racism every once in a while, but, you know, you also have to kind of pay attention to the topography. It's all running downhill, down into the southeast area, other areas east of i-35. So I guess that would be my major deal there. I guess as the project progresses, I would like to stay in touch with you all because I also know that there's an elderly housing just I guess south, close to the mouth into town lake. And I would like for us to -- to take extra care to take care of the existing housing developments that there are where -- where elderly, where, you know, people who don't have the resources to deal with -- with the growth and the value that will come with the project. We need to look out for them. I would not like to see those families pushed out of precinct 4 and the families we can take extra care for that. Wanted to make sure that we got that in to watch it.
>> I will say two things to your comments. One this is primarily a capital improvement flood control project and we recognize what you have said and recently during the January flooding there was actually a woman missing that is presupposed no longer with us because of the flooding. That is another major feature of this project. The current design does not have any plans to move the elderly housing that's located next to four seasons and we don't anticipate needing to do that.
>> that's good to hear. Just when projects get going, they kind of take off in different directions and whoever is in our way we just kind of say well, you know, progress has got to take place first. Let's not do that or we will move you somewhere else. You know, they are elderly. They really I think they like to stay where they are. And so I just want us to be careful. Just really careful about -- about not shoving them out of the way in any way. So...
>> ...aspect of the project. The they also has additional plans for green spaces and parks; is that correct?
>> as you may know, Commissioner eckhardt, there is already a trail that exists there, the waller creek trail. It would be included within our parks budget and need for improvements as every other park and trail item is. Then also as development will occur along the creek, we would be in connection with the site plan that's actually winding its way through boards and economics asking for -- boards and commissions asking for parkland dedication fees, which we have already been receiving on many downtown properties.
>> the addition, I assume that the parkland pard fees would go toward the morning glory park the -- at the inlet and the amphitheater at the outlet, is that how that would be funded?
>> yes.
>> okay dollars, it included everything. The debt service is based on issuance of about $125 million.
>> about $105 million judge. We have some of the original bond proceeds on the end.
>> $105 million.
>> right.
>> the county requested 50% tif would be satisfied that issue -- debt issuance as much as we can for 20 years.
>> also the operations and maintenance expense. So let me clarify what I just said to Commissioner eckhardt. The pard would continue to maintain waterloo park such as it is right now, but the actual maintenance of the new structures that will be in the waterloo park as far as it relates to -- to cleaning the screens, for example in the inlets and outs would be part of the o and m on the project itself.
>> but the morning imloar park and amphitheater itself are not part of this $125 million package.
>> they are.
>> they are part of it?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> the trail system that is part of it?
>> s that not part of.
>> our 50% of the new revenue goes toward this big project for 20 years. After that, our obligation is satisfied.
>> that's correct.
>> that's correct.
>> all right.
>> so there are park and grean space aspects, but primarily flood control measure and the park -- park aspects of it are ancillary or secondary to its flood control aspects.
>> they are ancillary to it, Commissioner. That's a good question. When -- when -- let me just provide you a little bit of history in the answer. When this project originally got kicked off with the passage of the bond proceeds in 1998, the director of the drainage department at that point who was over the project was the former director of parks and recreation in the city. And he realized that -- that part of the problem that we had with the initial design of the project to begin with was that the inlet was sized too small and it needed to be increased. So we could capture all of the flood water coming down the creek. He realized at the same time that we weren't just going to be able to put a concrete gash up in waterloo park. There are some sort of amenities built into it sort of a combination of maintenance and parkland features. If you remember there was sort of a bridge that goes across it. Access the tunnel and clean it, also used in dry conditions by pedestrians this is multi-tasking, flood control infrastructures.
>> I think that this is -- as a flood control measures I think this project is a win for both Travis County and the city of Austin. I think that -- that as a -- as a green space and parks project it's also when -- for the city of Austin but that portion of it goes beyond what we are talking about today. Beyond Travis County's involvement. Certainly I think that we -- it's certainly a win also for downtown developers. I expect that the city will find a way for the downtown developers to make appropriate contributions toward that parkland that also rebounds to them beyond the increased tax -- the increased tax valuation that will go to pay for the flood control device. One option that I understand that's on the table is a restructuring of pard fees for -- for basically the subdivision of air space in the cdbg, central business district, did I get that right, yes? I think that's a very good sign. Speaking as a resident, not as a Travis County Commissioner, we have no power over that nor do we want it. But that's a very good development I think that if the pard fees are restructured so that downtown development, the subdivision of air space essentially contributes toward that park space and will go toward the building of this green space, like morning glory park, like the auditorium at the outlet, like the trail system throughout downtown specifically the waller creek trail system. I think that's a very good development. I understand that's in the works. Could you all speak to that?
>> actually that is an ordinance that is winding its way through boards and commissions currently, many of our recent downtown developments the clb tower, fairfield, even recently concordia that passed the developer actually stepped up and negotiated with the neighbors on a private covenant agreement to contribute funds to the pard improvements that were adjacent to the development.
>> of course those that are adjacent to the development they had -- they have every -- they have a vested interest in -- that's a good thing and so that's the market at work. Their vested interest in contributing toward those adjacent pieces. I fully expect there will be business district participation in the improvement of their jeapt properties. I'm hoping also if we as citizens in the city of Austin those of us who are -- can support also a -- a pard funding system for -- for the downtown pard system irrespective of whether it's adjacent to a property owner's property or not.
>> the -- the current system has dealt with properties closely adjacent because of the interest in the neighbors actually involved in the zoning negotiation. And we just have to be careful with trying to fund one particular area of town at the expense of the parks in the -- in the outlying suburbs and owe owned of town. So that's --
>> that's why it seems most logical just to have a straight fee, a straight pard fee for the subdivision of air space. It just goes into the pard, I'm just advocating for closing that loophole.
>> okay. It looks like that is closing, I'm applauding that, that seems to be the most logical way to capture some portion of that windfall to downtown developers from this project to go toward parks.
>> okay
>> ...exactly. So far -- something that has recently come to my attention is the possibility of a commission like we have, the waterfront overlay commission where we have various stakeholders actually sit on that commission and we of course want to ask representatives from the county to sit on that commission to deal with issues like setbacks, shading, noise, parkland dedication, these type of issues. But there's two different ways that it has been done throughout the country. One way is to where that commission sits on the issues and then it goes directly to council. Another way where that commission considers the issues and then it still wind its way through the planning commission or the zoning and platting commission. We just haven't discussed that yet or flushed that out. Mayor pro tem betty dunkerly and i. But we fully expect to put something in place like that. But that's not important now. That's a much, much later process in terms of dealing with the development. Because we have to still construct the tunnel, that's going to take a number of years.
>> of course.rticipating.
>> that's a long way.
>> this is one way.
>> but it will be a number of years Commissioner Daugherty before something like that.
>> sure.
>> well I guess we have to deal with the can he of whether -- to what extent that you would want a commission involved in the design, but it will be a number of years before or months at least before something like that will be perfected because the development associated with the tunnel will take time.
>> I just want to be real careful when we start throwing the terminology of affordable housing, all of that stuff right. What we are after here is we are after taking this property and making it very valuable. Knew want affordable housing go down there and try to build on it right now because you are not going to find a piece of property that's less expensive than what it is right now. But whenever you start taking stuff out of the floodplain, start making this stuff worth $20 a foot versus what it is now, which is our challenge in this community with affordable housing.
>> exactly.
>> I mean it's easy to tell a developer say we want you to have some affordable housing while you are paying $30 a foot.
>> [laughter] you tell me how to do that, I mean, unless I'm going to build somebody, you know, 14 square feet, I mean, which is not something that you can live in. So I don't, I mean, this deal is not a deal that I want to get wrapped up in with affordable housing and all of that. I mean I guess we can talk about that some other time. But, you know, it's real hard to talk about this and affordable housing as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> [indiscernible] are you finished? Thank...
>> ...had a long history, this is my home, I was born here in Austin, Texas. I remember very, very severe floods down waller creek as a kid. I remember a whole bunch of stuff that happened along waller creek as a kid. This, along with the open space, park, improvements in investments in a lot of things something very critical to this community. Commissioner -- I almost called you Commissioner cole, I --
>> councilmember cole.
>> don't promote her yet
>> [laughter]
>> councilmember cole I remember when you all came here last time, talked about a lot of diversity.
>> person or organizations that were included in opposition of -- of the source of what you are doing
>> [indiscernible] which we have it in writing. But getting back to the opposition, the opposition being that -- that which is the city thing and I think that needs to be echoed just as much as support for this, that is the -- the -- the pid type of property improvement district and the process of them being overlaid, stuff like that. I just thought that need to be laid out because there is some opposition to the structure itself is not the best structure to move forward. Of course, I understand that it has been laid out to me and you maybe can elaborate on this councilmember cole, been laid out to me that there -- 51% of the landowners have to be in agreement to allow something like that to happen as far as the pid. The existence of a pid. 40% of the property itself along the opportunity alignment as far as what we are looking at as far as the property alignment from waller creek all the way down to town lake, 40% of that is owned by government. So there are some -- some scenarios and things that I think that may need to be hashed out or spoken about to let -- make sure that those persons have opposed this, making sure why they are opposing it, trying to make sure it was also laid on the table. That's why I brought that up, that can be a project, supposed to be fine, the intent as far as Travis County is concerned is to -- in my opinion is to look at this as we have looked at other floodplain issues and reduce floodplain and bring the property out of the floodplain for use and we have done that drainage project other floodplain projects in different parts of the county. We have done that. And -- within our decisions and within the scope of the things that we do here. Saying all of that I think that somewhere that opposition that have -- have -- have spoken to me and other members of this court as far as this is concerned what I just mentioned I think need to be maybe flushed out a little bit. Can someone address those concerns?
>> ...you would have the increase in value and more taxes on top of a pid, on top of a pid. We just have not seen the support for that. As Commissioner Davis has brought out, we have done flood improvement projects throughout the city. We are doing one now in bog boggy creek and and onion creek. We have never asked the land overs to pay directly for that. We look at it as a core government function. Perhaps john stephens will say something to that.
>> I think council member co cole has expressed the proper well. When you look at the project the--project shunce that we have made for thetivetive d for the tif, the city would apply its rate and the county would apply its rate to the assessed value. When you consider that the city is pledging 100 percent of its property tax over that 20-year period and asking the county to pledge 50 percent of its property tax, that means the increase to the property owners in that area there would be somewhere on the order of 60 cents, a tax rate of about 6 60 cents. So it's not likely we would get a petition from half the property owners, even if it were five cents or ten cents but certain lir at 60 cents we are not going to get any takers on that. We looked at that but determined it was not going to be an option for our ability to finance revenue, we asked our our planning and budget office to do a financial analysis and proposal. Mr. Nels was involved in that. Could you in four or five sentences give us the highlights that basically show whether or not this makes good financial sense for Travis County.
>> sure, be glad to. And mill tell berry and myself and met with john stephens and his staff and looked at the project shuns that were shared with the court. There's a waller creek tunnel project that we showed you that shows the city's hundred percent tax and the county's 50 percent tax on the increment of the valuation, with a base starting date of January 1 of '07. And on that pro forma, you will see that fiscal year 2009, that the projected county tax incremental amount to be redirected to the tif would be about $223, $223,190. Now, the important thing, when we look at it from the county's perspective, was that the city has designed our 50 percent tif to be for the period of a 20-year period, and it is based solely on the incremental increase in value. And as far as we can see, there's not a down side for the county. The city has taken the risk. If the project costs more, any of the operational type issues, the city has indemnified the county. We have worked through the numbers. As you can see, if in fact the project takes longer, the county's financial commitment to the project is actually less. So it's advantageous for the city to be very quickly establish the tif, which they intend to do during this summer, and start the construction project as quick as possible. You can see that over a 20- 20-year period, the project projected, and let me see, these are pro formas, the actual amount of the tif will be the county's tax rate is determined by Commissioners court times 50 percent of the incremental tax. So whether or not these pro formas are, how close those estimates are, the risk is with the city. And so, I can't emphasize enough that that was an important part of the design of this partnership with the city and the county, and that the county is going to receive the other 50 percent percent. So over this 20-year period of time, where it's project projected that the county would contribute to the tif $71 million, they would also be receiving $71 million...
>> ...right now from these properties, but this is the increment valuation starting January 1 of '07. So I'd have to get back with you, what the base is. But saying is that in fiscal year '09, they have projecteded, and we have looked at the the projection projections, and they seem reasonable, there would be 2 223,190 of money that would be directeded to the tif that Travis County would be receiving 223,000 additional revenue based upon the increased appreciation from January 1 of 507.
>> .
>> --of '07.
>> the amount we get today we keep getting.
>> that's right right.
>> of the new revenue, 50 percent goes to the county and 50 percent to the tif.
>> that's correct.
>> based on these f we are getting a couple hundred thousand now, in 20 years that's a couple million.
>> well--
>> here you are looking at a total of 50 percent representing 71.
>> that's correct. And in 2028, the project shuns show that 50 percent of the incregs would be 8.3 million.
>> okay.
>> to look at it on the county's side, we would anticipate the county would be receiving 8.3 million more dollars on the increased appreciation.
>> we are overry optimistic, the 50 percent locks us in and saves us.
>> that's correct.
>> the if it's lower, it's 50 percent of whatever the number is.
>> it's 50 percent of actual actual. You are not locked into 71 million. You are locked into 50 percent of the incremental increase on those properties designated in the tif, if we give 71 million to the ti tif, we receive 71 million of additional revenue also.
>> that's correctunderstand that there still has to be some mechanism in place and talce that we need to use such as an interlocal agreement. There are some things that we have discussed during this particular process that I think are paramount and I think those probably need to be maybe even reflected in the interlocal between the city of Austin and Travis County. When we talk about open space parks and stuff like that and improvements, those are things that, you know, we want to be sure it happens. Just an example. So, again, an interlocal, those folks that are saying, what whether happen, will it really reduce, da da da, there are some interlocal agreements language by law, that we can get involved with the city of Austin with that particular instrument that we can look at some things. I think Commissioner Gomez Gomez brought up some points about things we are trying to look at. Some of those things can be looked at in the interlocal agreement format. I want to be sure everything understand , there is another s. And some have come to give that. Please come forward at this time. Give us your name and we'd be happy to get your comments...
>> ...please. Okay. Good morning.
>> members of the commission I appreciate the opportunity to come to you today to talk about the waller creek touble. This is a long story for the city of Austin and hopefully we are taking a step in the right direction to solve this problem. This problem is really two pieces. One is the flood control piece and one is the economic development piece. I want the piece to the flood control piece first. In the early '80s I owned a house on jefferson street that backed up to shoal creek the memorial day flood I had six feet of water in my house and several people died in my neighborhood. The solution to the flooding on shoal creek wasn't to build a tunnel. The city took my property. They bought the property to increase the ability of the creek to handle the flooding when I worked for beverly give griffiths as an aid, we looked at the proper and determined that the frodding could be handled by an alternative to the tunnel. And that alternative was to do what we did on shoal creek, and that is to buy additional land in the floodplain of as commission Commissioner dougherty just said a few minutes ago, you can't get it any cheaper than it is today. So as a flood control measure, we can solve this problem a lot cheaper than what is being proposed today with regard to this waller creek tunnel. So what is the motivation for the tunnel versus acquiring floodplain lained and creating a drainage solution not depending on the tunnel? Commissioner dougherty hit it on the head. We're going to increase the value of the land in the floodplain right now significantly. The city's own estimate is billions of dollars of additional value is going to be created by taking this land out of the floodplain. Right now when we look at that $71 million that the judge was talking about going into the city's coffer coffers, that looks like additional money but that is used to pay down services that are required. So by paying down the tif, we take that money and plow it back into the tunnel and the rest of the community has to pick up the tab for the difference. I'm vice-president of the Austin neighborhood council, president of my neighborhood association, but I am here as a taxpayer today. We need to look at this as a business deal. If I was a business man and you came to me and asked me to give you so community along waller creek to come up with a pidon top of the pids they have, you're liable not to get a yes at 51 percent of the property owners. But let's thick about it as a business deal. The 105 million that we are talking about in addition to the 25 million that the city has already approved in bond election is less than one half of one percent of the estimated increased in property value for those properties. As a business person, would you increase one half of one percent of your potential profit today in order to realize three to six billion worth of investment income later? Seems to me what we are talking about is finding a way to help the local business community get the tunnel built today. Obviously, the developers and business interest don't have the financial resources to come forward with $150 million to see this through today. I think thought where the city and the county can come together and support putting the money on the table today to build the tunnel. But why can't we ask that same community thought going to directly benefit from this construction to come in when their land is redevelop redeveloped, at a much higher value, and pay us back for the money we would have spent for services provided by the city and county in the next 20 years. In other words, an additional pidon top of the tif that you are being asked to approve, would give the opportunity for the develop developers to pay backpay essentially a loana from the county and from the crit over the course of the life of this project. We hear a lot that these economic gopment schemes are in our business interest in the run. We make money for the city and the county. In the 20 some-d on years I have been watching these economic develop the sceeks, always sold to the public, it's going to be a great benefit, we are going to build tax base and have additional money for the community. Every year my property taxes goes up embed in these schemes actually turn out to be tremendous benefit for the developers, again, as Commissioner dougherty pointed out, and leave the taxpayers with rising property taxes. So I'm here today to ask you to go forward with the project, find a way to work with the city, but return to the taxpayers the money that we would increase in the front end through a pid, to pay us back at the end of the project when these projects...
>> ...that incremental wealth created by the project ?
>> I think restructuring of the park fees is long over overdue. I think it's a good idea. There's some concern in the neighborhoods that it's into the it's--it's not actually a done deal yet. We can't rely on the fact that it's going to happen for a justification for our actions today. We are already concern that the previous park land ordinance prorated the donation of the development due to the cost of land. In other words, in downtown if you divided a property up because your rand prices are in the 20-30 range you had to contribute more to park land dedication. That differential is not being covered by this new proposallve it's a flat fee per unit, which may make sense citywide but it certainly gives the downtown developers a buy in many regards.
>> and one fix forrer that would be to change from a flat fee per unit to a charge per square foot of subdivided air space. Correct ?
>> that is one idea being looked at, or prorated with regard to the development of the land cost in the various areas of the city.
>> okay
>> ...those questions to council member cole, they were basically from the conversation yesterday.
>> the Austin neighborhood council spoke before the public hearing before city council and brought up these issues. I know that as john stephens indicated, we have been discussing the idea of a pid for many, many years. It's not a new idea. They are very much aware of the community's interest in finding a different kind of financial--
>> as far as if I understood you correctly, you want the move forward but look at possibly looking at the city as far as some of your concerns.
>> I think the question asked was the property owners along waller creek, would you be willing to agree to a pidif that was necessary to get the funding for the tunnel the public improvement district already in place ?
>> one thing, the downtown alignance pidgoes to things like graffiti removal. The floodplain is another area, not totally in sync. It would have to be a different geographic area. The pid could be directly focused on repaying to the citizens the money that we invest in the front end. Doesn't necessarily have to be tide to anything other than that.
>> do you see any problems long range if we, in the layering of multiple pids? One concern I have with the funding mechanism with the tax increment finance district, this doesn't apply to this project, I think a t tif is appropriate for this kind of project, but I am concerned that if we go down the trail of multiple your lapping tifs with with width widths that also yo laugh, we have locked down revenue to specific geographicic areas at the expense of others.
>> well, we are spending $10 $105 million on this piece of property at the expense of spending it throughout the county or city. So it's a trade-off.
>> right. That's why we structured ours as 50 percent so 50 percent of the revenue is still available for needs throughout the county.
>> I understand that. But again, we're taking taxpayer dollars coming from all four of the precincts to this one area. If you create a pid it basically returns that investment to the same geographicic...
>> ...you figure out what we would get without these improve improvements over the next 20 years, it pales in comparison to what 50 percent represents after the improvements. The difference is really sort of staggering. I guess I'm having a little problem with this because in every public project , somebody benefits and the closer you are to a good public project, the greater your benefit. If you live in a rural area with a dirt road, your property probably has one value. Let say a little development comes in there and the county come out to paves for everybody. Those that live on the road benefit and those that use it. Many people never go on that roadlve hopefully, wherever they live, at some point there will be a nice county road to their property too. If you lack at ten specific projects, those who live, residents who live closest to those ten specific projects probably benefit a lot more than the rest of the Travis County residents. But hopefully in time, they will receive a similar benefit from some public project. When I look at flood and drainage control projects, I'm visualizing some of our rural areas that really are low water crossings and we kind of try take them on as many annually as possible. But the sooner we take yours on, the safer you will be and probably raise the property value.
>> judge, your example of a rural piece of property having a county road in front of it if you took the cost of that road versus the increase of the land, and figure that ratio, I would be more than glad to take that percentage with regard to this project.
>> okay.
>> I find that what we have here is a huge differential.
>> sure.
>> and that differential is what concerns us. Why is it that with such enormous property value increase, that the business community has no way of coming to the table with some funds to offset what the community is putting up on the front end.
>> I'm going to throw out--
>> let me finish this up. The voters approved flood drainage project.
>> correct . When was that voter referendum ?
>> '98.
>> '98. So eight or nine years later the powers that be at the city have the idea that in addition to doing that we really ought to go in and make other improvements that will enhance the area and produce substantial long-term benefits for city of Austin and Travis County residents now, okay. Is that a valid point? On the other hand, the is who who--the question is who benefits most, and direct fitwill go to the property owners that are closer. I can understand that. But what about the public benefit from having a project of this nature in or near downtown Austin ?
>> I think there are two points here. The eight or nine years since the public bond election was passed, until recently the pressure on downtown development is pretty limited. What we are seeing is a huge opportunity now for downtown development that now this project is moving forward, you know, incredible pace. In order to get these properties into the market as soon as possible to deal with this opportunity cost. The other side, when we look at the long-term benefit of this, one of the reasons that people have suggested that we need this water feature in downtown, to compete with other cities, we have heard this, compete for what? To bring more people to Austin? To bring more high-end employment to Austin? We forget. We have the greatest water feature in the state of Texas. We already have a huge downtown' '--amenity that we could make better, a whole lot cheaper, but turning the waller creek in a butte fall natural environment. We can do that within the existing money we have. The question is, the extra money, are we getting a reasonable return on that investment, and whether or not business community should share in that...
>> I wanted to ask essentially about the property tax issue of it. Fundamentally, is this a fundamental issue of our inability to capture the incremental wealth through the property tax? Do you think that the property tax will capture some portion of that increase, incremental increase in wealth due to this public works project ?
>> I think it will. The question is, does it catch enough to pay for the additional services that this growth will demand from our city government, our county government. And to us, it appears that it doesn't. If it did, why would our property taxes continue to escalate to such a degree where many of the middle class people in our neighborhood can't afford to live here anymore.
>> part of that of course, is pressure not from waller creek tunnel but actually from above, the state and federal level, that services are being cut so we are required to pay for more and more do you agree with that ?
>> certainly is a factor in that but not the only factor factor. I think that we have to look at it holistically and ask ourselves what is it that's happening with regard to where dollars are coming from and how we are spending them. Do we spend in such a fashion to get the greatest return for the citizens.
>> hmm. In essence, the the--the nut of the problem is whether our taxes and our fees are adequately capturing increased wealth as a direct result of public works.
>> I think that's a major part of it. As you know, a lot of the negotiations between neighborhoods and developers as council meckmember cole mentioned, we realize the property tax increase from development isn't sufficient to cover the community's needs, whether affordable housing, money for park land restoration of riparian ways whatever it is the neighborhood needs that are beyond the scope of the city and county can provide, the neighborhoods are forced to negotiate those things as , I'm. I'm here on behalf of the women's chamber of commerce. We support the project. I don't know if you want to wait to hear hey.
>> we are ready to hear you right now.
>> okay. It is my flesh to flesh--my pleasure to be here on behalf of the women's chamber of commerce. The chamber has passed a resolution in favor of construction of the tunnel. The main reasons that we did so than we ask the county to join the city in the funding is because, as Commissioner Gomez mentioned earlier, this would decrease the risk to life property due to flooding, possible economic development, the fact that repayment of debt would not fall to the generally public the generation of jobs that would benefit all workers, including women and minoriti minorities. For all those reasons as well as others, the Austin chapter of the women's chamber of commerce of Texas passed...
>> I'm I'm chashly best, executive director of the downtown chapter of alliance and I'm here to represent what I am very confident would be the position of the most affected property owners who would be affected in the tiv district. These affected property owners certainly will be, we all of us predict, will be somewhat beneficiaries of increased property values. But along with those increased property values, I know you realize, obviously, their taxes are going up. I think that at the time that this body approves this if you indeed approve it, I think the valuations will take a little jump tomorrow. And those increased values and the development that this project will allow to occur, that incremental increase in taxes is coming directly out of the pocket of the land orts. And of course, that's the funding that will pay for this project without increasing the generally tax rate or without increasing real estate taxes on the rest of the community. That's the whole point of a ti f. I think that's the strongest argument. We also will be, there will also be additional fees on development on the park land gop gop--development, the downtown Austin alliance representing the property owners are in support of that. We are in support of additional park fees for resident sal develop the. That funding will be available of course for the creek side improvements in...
>> ...increase the taxes much more on the property owners is inappropriate. One thing that we tend to to forget about, the property owners, the closer you get to the town lake, the more damage there is from flood, from erosion and that type of thing. To the benefit of property owners up north on the watershed, they have been able to drain water from their properties, enhancing the value of their properties, to the detriment of the property owners closer to town lake. That's, and so many of these properties that are in the downtown area close to town lake , are not really developable. That has decreased the values. That's why the tax take is so minimal. Also want to emphasize one other thing. The tax increase is caused by this project, caused by increased values which we all predict, not only goes to the aisd and the county, the county will continue to receive half of that increase, and the crit will also generate additional sales tax from this project, and the acc, all of the tax taxing entities will get increased taxes from this project, which will take the pressure off of increases for an increase in aisd and community college taxes. So we think this is not a wind fall for the property earns on. They are going to get to place significant increase in taxes. And the tax incremental district enables this project to be paid for by and large by those increased taxes. And we...
>> ...me very serious flooding problems. And a flooding control project, of course, bringing these properties out of the floodplain and hopefully to do further things with them, of cows that will be an increased value. Once you bring a property out of the floodplain and you can use it, increases the value of the that property. But I'm concerned about a lot of things. Flooding is one of them. We are experiencing today, as I sit here , experiencing serious flooding problems that we have in the eastern Travis County. I think Commissioner Gomez probably also mentioned something that happened downstream. And we have to deal with those things. Of course, when we can provide relief from those type of flooding situations, we do it the best we can. But I think this here project f my opinion, is something that is going to help us alleviate some of the flooding problems that we have here in this community. So I just want to let you know. You mentioned the downtown area, as you get down to town lake and stuff like that, the more severe the flooding. I can remember when it was bad all up and down waller creek, I can remember some homes there not too far from waller creek. I can remember then the seriousness of the uncontrol uncontrolled flow of water here in this part of the community, not only, still significant in still parts of this county. So somewhere along the line we have to address it one step at a tile and deal with getting some type of control over some of these flooding situations. So I just think it's pretty critical, paramount that we do this one way or the other because it's definitely a need. Not discreditinging anything that jeff has come up with and any of the opposition has come up up with. That's why I brought those point up earlier. The opposition has brought some points to us and stated those points. But again, I'm lookinging at the point of flood control and bringing about a closure to some significant flooding events that have taken place there. So, but I thank you for your comments and I know there is still some seriousness on the back end as far as going towards town lake on the...
>> I'm with the Austin rowing club.
>> okay.
>> which actually operates on town lake. We have about 400 members that operate out of the town lake rowing center, which is at the end of trinity, basically as waller creek interconnects with town lake lake. Having been out on the water this morning, I can tell you there is a drastic need for some of the work that would be part of this project. And having hit some of the debris on my way, I can tell you it would be much appreciated from our standpoint. I did want to say that the rowing club is very much in support of the project. We see it being a benefit for the community. And we see it actually drawing more attention to town lake as the great resource that it really is for this community. And we simply wanted to pass along our support of the I'm going to present you all with letters of support from us. The main thing that we want to emphasize is that we want to play a role in the design process so that as the project unfolds, it continues to take into account the resource that the rowing center why I was raising the question, I think if we have stakeholders at the table talking about things that need to go in, I think it would really be helpful. Thank you...
>> ...confuse to go have multiple taxing jurisdictions, we have the option to combining those today. We simply can create one pid that serves multiple functions. There's nothing that requires to us have multiple pids to do this. I think there is a way to lessen the confusion. We all pay multiple layers of taxation in our country. I don't see that that is a reason to eliminate the opportunity for the business community to come to the table and pay back the citizens for the cost of this tun...
>> ...that you said and let me make a comment or two. You're right, the things that continue to be asked, why do we have all of this wonderful growth in this community and my taxes continue to go up? You have forgotten more about this stuff than I know know. You were there. Unless government finds a way to institute process improvement measures, it is a cost. It is how do you keep government from growing. Now, not to say that there are plenty of businesses that we probably could identify that perhaps don't pay the necessary freight on what it takes for them to operate. And I will tell you, charlie I bet you that also if somebody gets a bump tomorrow, somebody is going to go down and file with art cory, let me tell you why, don't give me an increase in this thing because I'm not witnessing anything. One of the things that we got to really watch is that this is not going to really have any effect really on value at least until the thing is done because every property owner is going to go down and protestment if they get--protest. If they get a bum just because it's coming, if I'm a property owner I'm going to say, then get me when it gets there. Don't get me this bump just because it's coming because I don't know. And of course, they will have in tow every attorney in the world that knows how to go down there and fight that. So I don't know that we are going to witness great appreciation out of this thing right off. I think that's something that we need to be hindful of. Of course--mindful of. I want to say, I'm very complimentary of the city, and thank you for bringing this to us. If we can't pass a deal like this where we have 50 percent on increased value, I mean, as I say, I wish people would bring us these kind of deals all day long because I do think that eventually this will be a huge economic boon. Maybe you got me at the wrong time because I just got from san antonio with sweet 16 and watching eight billion people on a creek down there that they turned into something that you just go, my god, look at all this commerce going on down here. We are probably thought going to benefit as much as the city with sales tax and hotel folks and people coming in and staying in hotels and this and that. I do think we need to be careful of that and stay on top of the fact that we really do have the value. I think the judge asked a great question, do we really think, I know that these are just projections, but we are saying that in 2009, that we are going to witness 446 million worth of increased value of which we are going to get half, which is 223. I would be surprised if we witness that in 2009 because I think until something gets built and finished down there, that property owners are going to say, don't give me this added value on this thing because I'm not witnessing anything right now. Yes, they are putting things in the ground and they are going to do all these kind of things but I think they are going to be very positive for the area. So, jeff, I mean, I think the point that you make, you immediately got me clicked on, that is why in the world do my taxes keep going up if we have all this wonderful stuff going on. I will tell you that government, county government and city government and state government and federal government, if we don't find a way to lasso what it takes to operate government, because the line keeps getting longer for people that need services. I do think that is incumbent on us and everybody as taxpayers wants us to run a good efficient show. I think this is so overwhelmingly good for us because it truly is going to bring value. And I'm very willing to say to robert knight and everybody down there, when this thing gets done, get what, I mean, that piece of property that you didn't pay much for, you are now sitting in the cat bird seat because you have a very expensive piece of property. And we have got to pay for it with the added values on the thing.
>> ...the drainage issues is that if we can control them upstream, then the folk who never come to court to give their opinion live downstream. With you they always feel the impact of those floods. And so, that concerns me a lot...
>> ...in to participate in the tif and work together to put together an appropriate contract, designate appropriate county staff at the appropriate time to handle the county'
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:00 AM