Travis County Commissioners Court
March 9, 2010,
Item 25
>> for those with the Commissioners court this afternoon, the rest of the open court agenda will be called in the following order: 25 next.
that's the foreign trade zone.
then we'll go to the 2010 census item, 27, then we will take up 19 and 20.
after which we'll call up number 28, the campo item, then call up a-1.
25 is to consider and take appropriate action on letter requesting that Travis County be included within the service area of foreign trade zone number 183, sponsored by the foreign trade zone of central Texas incorporated.
how you doing?
names?
and I'd be happy to get your comments.
>> I'm
>> [ inaudible ].
>> adrianna cruz, vice-president of global corporate recruitment at the Austin chamber of commerce.
>> (indiscernible), with ernst & young.
>> welcome to all of you.
>> good afternoon.
>> we've got a short powerpoint we were going to run through with you to give you a little bit after background.
we should have it up here in a second.
>> while you are pulling it up, to whom do I give thanks for the really great backup memo?
it's really well done.
>> it was a collaborative effort.
thank you.
>> very nice.
>> she was not surprised to get it, she's just thankful.
>> [ laughter ] right, Commissioner?
>> nicely done.
>> for those who don't know you well would think you were trying to express shock and amazement at receiving it.
>> [ laughter ]
>> I understand that you have some specific questions related to tax that we might be able to answer for you.
>> I had some questions last time when this did come up.
i asked for it to maybe delayed a little bit because there was some information that I was seeking.
of course, since then I've had a chance to talk with the chamber and folks in that particular area.
and they did express to me, and they even sent me some e-mail explaining a lot of things.
and of course, since then I've even had a chance to talk with our county attorney to ask an explanation of some things that I still wasn't sure on the legal side of things as far as this particular foreign trade zone that we have before us now.
and of course, after those questions were answered, I feel pretty comfortable because before I really wasn't sure of what it was all about until I started digging and uncovering a lot of things.
but through that effort of inquiry on our end, those -- again, those questions have been answered.
and as stated earlier, each one of these particular situations, if it come back and we zone a certain area, it still comes to this commission ers court to deal with on an individual case-by-case basis.
so those kind of explanations I can kind of live with.
so I have no problem with this at this point.
all of my questions, judge, are from the last setting and they have been answered.
>> okay.
who would like to see the presentation?
who is ready to move now?
>> I am.
>> you're not that eager to give the presentation, are you?
you want a vote.
>> we're happy to --
>> you want a favorable vote, right?
>> sure.
>> questions?
>> I had one, judge.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> I know that last time this came up before Commissioners court, Commissioner Huber brought up the fact that sometimes that this may just be the corner of a warehouse.
i haven't been able to find anything that that doesn't exist, but also some of the other things that I brought up previously haven't been addressed, and I haven't found the Commissioner that's been able to address them.
but one of the things that I understand is this is a waiver on property taxes.
that's correct, right, a waiver on property taxes?
it's not a waiver on property taxes?
and are these foreign exchange zones, which I guess first off I'll just say I'm going to disagree with that, but are these -- are they bound by fema and osha and eeoc, things like that?
>> yes, they are.
>> and do you have any documentation that would support that?
>> with me?
no, but there's plenty of federal authority about case law on what's excluded or included in foreign trade zone jurisdiction and what's excluded relates to customs duties, not to osha or fema or trademark or jones act or anything else that might happen to businesses that are operating within the zone.
>> do you know if this is similar to the -- one of the places that they have -- I know a lot of it is associated with high-tech industries.
i think there's one location off burnet road, off of rutland.
there's dell, like a port of entry where they ship computers out.
>> the dell facilities are part of the foreign trade zone.
>> right.
and one of the things that was mentioned is all the high paying jobs.
i do know for a fact that that facility, because I have worked at it, it's basically all temp service jobs.
and so I'm just saying some of the claims that I felt that the Commissioners court made earlier -- I'm just basically taking issue with the Commissioners court on this.
i haven't found any of these places producing any high level jobs.
they seem to be just temp level jobs.
you go in at the door, there's a metal detector, almost everybody that works there is working for some temp agency.
i just -- I'm not sure that some of the claims that have been made really are -- are how it's been represented to the community is really how it really is.
i'm just opposed to it, and I think also one thing -- maybe this may be the only thing that we'll agree on, but I clearly understood this court to say that the -- I lost my whole train of thought there.
basically some of the claims I heard, I guess they were just really too' numerous to mention.
some of the claims I heard I just didn't think that -- the fact is there hasn't been any backup to the questions, you know, I guess the proof or -- I guess the proof in the pudding is what I'm looking for.
so I apologize for lose mig train of thought.
>> would you like me to send a copy of the backup that I have?
>> yeah.
>> what this is about --
>> I remember, judge.
>> this is an expedited process rather than filing individual applications, having those processed.
this will give it expedited process for companies that are interested more than anything else.
>> that was the item that I was going to mention.
it is understood that this is harder to get out of or next to impossible, if not impossible, but there is nothing stopping this from going on now as it is.
this is basically an ability to put this on a fast track, and so there's nothing stopping this from happening in the first place, but that was the point I wanted to make.
but at the same time if you approved this, it would make it near impossible to undo it.
and so that's -- I'm just trying to approximate find out what's the motivation of this court to do something that they could already do.
are we clear on that?
they can already do this?
it is just this puts this on the fast track and why would you want to put something on the fast track that if you find out later is not such a great idea that you would then be in a situation where it would be a near impossibility or a am more arduous, difficult task to back out of.
>> my understanding is that it puts it on the fast track with regard to the administrative actions at the federal level, and gives us as a Commissioners court a say in the process where under the long track we do not.
and I also -- I recall reading, and I just don't see it, that if the federal trade zone isn't utilized within a certain period of time, it sun sets automatically.
under the fast track system, but not under the long track system.
so those are two big benefits for us.
as you say, companies can do this already without us, but this new process actually appears to be an improvement over the longer process.
because we do get a say and it has an automatic sunset provision if the company doesn't utilize the benefit.
and it's not real property taxes that they're exempt from, it's inventory.
>> so there is --
>> taxes on their inventory.
>> I guess that's the distinction, the difference on the taxes.
but are these companies also -- in essence are we going to have companies that are going to have to provide more barriers to employment to people due to the fact that maybe some of these companies are not going to hire english-speaking people?
>> I have no information on that.
and also, as you well know, I would have no prejudice whatever for a company that hired non-english-speaking people.
but I will say, as you know, I am no fan of tax incentives but under this particular provision -- first of all, it's -- it is essentially out of our hands since it's a federal issue.
and we're riding coattail on what I think is an improved process, but secondly this does seem an appropriate policy use of tax breaks in that the inventory is being imported in.
it's in order to level the playing field so that companies don't go over seas for manufacture.
that's what it's designed to do and it was designed to do that back in the 1930's when it was first implemented.
>> did y'all get a chance to look at any of the information I gave you with jerome coursey, trusted travellers, trusted contain irs and those type issues?
>> is that what you gave us before?
>> yes.
>> in court?
>> yeah.
okay.
>> we'll read t.
>> all right.
anyway, I just wanted to speak out in opposition against it.
for the record, I don't have any problems with our english or german or spn naish speaking people in our community.
i just think that these are coming from companies that maybe -- there's not a lot of people in Travis County that speak.
>> any other questions, comments?
move approval of the request.
>> second.
>> discussion of the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you very much.
sorry about the short -- sorry about ending your presentation there.
>> you made my day.
>> [ laughter ]
>> thank 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, March 9, 2010 2:53 PM
