Travis County Commissioners Court
October 7, 2008
Item 24
24.
consider and take appropriate action on request from city of Austin regarding the creation of a tax increment financing (tif) reinvestment zone for the seaholm redevelopment project, including the following: a, presentation regarding the project; b, county endorsement of the project.
c, waiver of 60 day notice requirement for public hearing to receive public comment on the project; d, designation of county representative on project; and e, appointment of county representative to tif zone's board or waiver of the right to appoint a member.
so in a is a -- basically a presentation from the city on the project and there is a brief presentation.
right?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> yes.
thank you, Commissioners court.
my name is rodney gonzalez.
I'm the acting director for economic growth and redevelopment services for the city of Austin.
and what you have before you right now is a presentation regarding the seaholm redevelopment project.
I can go through the presentation if you would like.
I have presented the same information to the health care district.
and to Austin community college next week I will be present the same information to Austin independent school district.
as the judge has mentioned, there is part of the state law procedures regarding setting up a t.i.f.
the city is not requesting participation from any of the jurisdictions.
the only participating jurisdiction is the city of Austin.
the development that we're talking about is the seaholm or redevelopment is the seaholm power plant along cesar chavez.
I can go -- I can quickly go through the presentation if you would like.
>> just hit the highlights if you would.
not requesting financial participation.
you are not requesting financial participation, but you are requesting endorsement of the project, membership on the board if we -- if we choose to do so.
>> uh-huh.
>> so you are asking for participation, but not financial participation.
>> and actually on that item, I'm -- on b, that wasn't a request by the city.
we had sent a letter back on June 25th and the letter never had asked for an endorsement of the project.
it did ask for participation on the board, however, you are correct in that regard.
we did ask that per state law you have the right to nominate a board member to the t.i.f.
board.
however, you can choose to waive that to your liking, we will appoint someone else.
I'm not sure --
>> if we take no action does that stop the project?
no.
it doesn't stop the project at all.
state law what happens is there's a requirement that we notify the various jurisdictions of what we're intending to do to give you the option to participate on the board.
as well as if we did ask for financial participation, you would have the option to participate as well.
however, as I mentioned we're not asking for financial participation.
but we are asking that if you would like to participate on the board, please name a member and if not please waive that.
and we'll go on with selecting another member to the board.
>> all right.
what about waiver of the 60 day notice requirement?
>> yes, now that is something that we are asking that you proceed with.
so that way we can have the public hearing and adopt ordinance on November 6th.
if you choose not to waive that 60 day requirement, then it looks like we'll have to delay that ordinance until November 23rd.
but we certainly would appreciate your waiving that 60 day notice requirement.
that would allow us to --
>> instead of 60 days notice, you want to give how much notice?
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> the -- yes the letter went out on September the 5th.
I want to say that the county actually received it about the 10th of September.
so 60 days would have been November 10th, so just four days short of the 60 day notice requirement.
>> but you all requested last week that we postpone it?
>> yes.
I have to apologize about that.
we did.
we did have to request to postpone that.
that wasn't because this information was ready we had -- I was supposed to be here, I couldn't, I had some obligations in the city and my backup couldn't make it as well.
>> but we received the notice and put it on the court's agenda fairly quickly.
>> yes, you did, I appreciate that.
>> seven day notice requirement for that.
the city requested one week postponement after we had it on there.
I guess my -- I would like to give as much notice as possible then.
the intention of giving advance notice is to give residents an opportunity to come to the public hearing and provide input if they choose to do so.
given that today is October 7th.
what's an appropriate notice?
>> what we're going to do is -- ourselves is we are planning if you do provide the 60 day waiver requirement, to have a public hearing of which there will be a seven day notice for that public hearing on November 6th.
we are going to be posting the public hearing notice in the statesman for the public to -- as well as our website and things like that.
so what we do is we provide a seven day notice of a public hearing.
>> well, my personal position is there is a reason why the law gives 60 days.
that is a long time, though.
but to go from 60 days to seven, that is a big reduction.
I mean I -- I guess -- I would start off thinking that if the state suggests 60 days, we ought to do that.
but if we want to shortcut it, shorten the period, then I would give it at least 21, 30, I would give it at least three our four weeks.
>> okay.
>> am I being unreasonable on this.
if you give seven days notice requirement, you would advertise it in the newspaper.
you got to do that like what 14 days in advance?
>> seven days is the state requirement, yes.
and just to make you aware of the council actions taken so far, back on April 10th council approved the master development agreement with the developer.
then back at the end of August, council approved the preliminary project and financing plan, that was submitted to you on September 5th along with the letter.
of course people had the -- had the opportunity to speak about the project as well.
and in there mentioned the 60 day notice requirements, things of that nature.
so there have been some public actions to date with regard to the project.
but if you sent us notice on September 5th you had effectively waived the 60 day requirement.
>> no.
the -- the letter on September 5th was -- was, number one, notifying you about the preliminary project and financing plan and then outlining dates when future council action would take place.
and on there we had asked that if you would, waive the 60 day notice requirements, so that way we could get the final action done in an extinguish shows manner.
-- expeditious manner.
we notified the county as well as the other jurisdictions, we intended to adopt the final plan on November 6 which was short of 60 days.
>> right.
follow me.
your September 5th notice was received by my office on September 8th.
>> okay.
>> right?
>> yes.
>> if you plan to take action on November 6th.
>> 6th.
>> you had effectively waived the 60 day notice requirement.
or you had waived our right to insist on following the law.
>> no.
on that we had said if you do happen to waive the 60 day notice requirement, we'll approve the final plan on November 6th.
but we did mention however if you choose not to, that we would take the final plan to city council on November 23rd.
so we didn't mean to --
>> I think we ought to suggest to the city that we are willing to waive the 60 day notice requirement, but we believe that 30 days advance notice ought to be given or 21 days, that's three weeks.
what harm will that do?
>> to my knowledge, not any harm.
>> what if we do 21 days?
>> well, obviously, what we're saying is that we would like to have as much time as possible.
personally it's not like I want to get in the way of the city, especially since they are not asking us for participation in this thing.
but 60 days is there for probably good reason.
but as much as we can give them, I think council would probably agree with that.
>> to go from 60 to 7 though --
>> I understand.
the other action that will be taken by council, on October 23rd council will take an action to set a public hearing.
so before -- we can't just make a public hearing notice on our own.
council actually has to make a date to set a public hearing.
so on October 23rd, council will -- will choose to set a public hearing.
if all of the jurisdictions pass the 60 day waiver requirement, then council will choose to have the public hearing on November 6th.
if for whatever reason you choose not to have that 60 day waiver refresh my memory, council will have that public hearing on November 23rd.
>> okay.
so if he we do the 21 day notice refresh my memory, you will still be able to do it on November 23rd.
>> at the end of notice owe.
>> he my motion is to waive the 60 day refresh my memory, but to strongly recommend 21 days advance notice.
>> second.
>> any discussion of that?
>> so if they do October the 23rd, they are going to set the date which will probably be what, ronnie, sometime the first of November?
>> yes.
>> it's going to be -- because, I mean, to have it on November --
>> they wouldn't be able to do it the 6th.
>> the 23rd they can.
>> they have an alternative date of the 23.
>> we will have the posting requirement ready to go to the statesman the day after council makes-- sets the public hearing, that will be the 24th.
so then that would be seven days to the end of October.
then another six days for when the public hearing takes place, that's 13 days.
so your request of at least 21 days would knock us back -- earlier I said November 23rd, it's actually November 20th that the next council meeting would be after November 6th.
>> could they live with November 20th?
>> we could live with November 20th.
it's just as a matter of formality, if we had opted to go to November 20th bewouldn't have asked for the 60 day waiver requirement.
we would have just continued in the process, the 60 days was there so you had received the letter on September 8th, 60 days after that was November 8th.
any day after that council could have held the public hearing and adopted the final plan because the county and the other jurisdictions were provided 60 days notice.
>> how has everyone else dealt with this?
who all have you gone to so far.
health care waived the requirement.
a.c.c.
last name passed a resolution waiving the requirement.
mel waxler from aisd has confirmed that he's going to take the same action to the board next week to waive the requirement.
>> the problem is like a lot of other stuff, residents out there when they see drastic reduction will come to us and wonder why we approved it.
that's exactly what we are being asked to do.
it's would be a different thing if we could take no action and say it was the city's call.
by putting it on our agenda and formally waiving it we are part of the process.
and an active player.
I'm suggesting that I'm not so hung on 60, but I'm really trying to shy away from 7.
>> well, I think that can be done, right?
as long as it's not just seven days and then there's ample time to give citizens notice that they can participate in the public hearings.
I think that's the whole idea.
>> yes, at a minimum state law requires seven days notice to the public.
>> you can go beyond that and do a little bit more.
>> yes, what we would aim for is publishing the notice on October 24th, so in effect that would provide 13 days notice to the public.
that a public hearing is going to take place on November 6th.
if you choose to waive the 60 day notice requirement.
but I'm not -- November 6th date in my view is gone.
>> okay.
>> if my motion passes, it's gone.
the alternative date is the 20th, right.
>> yes, that is the alternative date is the 20th.
>> 14 days later is when they take action.
>> I just want to make sure that we're not throwing a wrench into their deal, the 20, if rodney if you think the 20th that you can go back and say hey, the county judge and the -- and the members that were there really think that it would be better, is that going to be okay with your group, do you think?
>> it would not be problematic.
we had allowed enough time to get this done.
we did -- we did.
the other jurisdictions as I mentioned adopted the 60 day waiver requirement we can get it done as quickly as possible.
>> I think that you have the attention of citizens with the city deals and they have been talking about this for a while, so I think they will probably be in tune enough to be able to show up at a public hearing.
>> we have had plenty of attention on this project and --
>> attention.
>> and as I mentioned November 6th was the target date and we certainly would like to meet that target date.
however, it is completely your purview as to whether or not to waive that 60 day notice requirement.
>> we are certainly are willing to waive the 60 day deal.
what we are dealing with now is where -- where the judge is the most comfortable in giving as many dates as we possibly could get out of it.
still not putting the city in a bind and if you are saying that the 20th if that does give it, you know, to that 21 day or right at it, the judge is more comfortable with it.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
now, explain the difference between d and e.
d is designation of a county representative on the project, e is appointment of a county representative on the board.
>> yes.
once again I'm not sure how these items got worded.
because on the letter we did ask for some type of staff contact.
if you will, so that way -- that might be what item d is.
so that way we as staff can communicate with the county staff.
however, with regard to e that's whoever you choose, that may be a Commissioner, may be a staff member.
something of that nature to represent the county on the board.
>> okay, mr. Rose, who in p.b.o.
is our -- is our -- likely t.i.f.
board member?
is it ms. Powell?
>> the court has historically appointed an executive manager if I understand correctly.
>> you would like to be -- you would like be to be the county representative --
>> if that's the desire of the court I will be happy to serve, sir.
>> the in the alternative the designee of your choice, that's my motion that we ask the executive manager of planning and budget to be the county representative to communicate with the city commuter plane indicates with the city up to the appointment of the board, when the board is constituted that mr. Rhoades be the county representative on the board.
and that if at some point in the future this is not a good investment of time because the t.i.f.
board is working so well, will do so without our membership, then we can take appropriate action.
but from the beginning I do think that it's important for us to remain a part, assist as much as possible, sort of know what's going on mr. Gonzalez.
>> we appreciate your participation, yes.
>> that's my motion.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
anything else on this item today?
>> that is it, thank you very much, Commissioners court for taking up the item to extinguish showsly.
>> thank you very much.
>> always a pleasure to see you.
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:
Tuesday, September 2, 2008 8:37 AM