Travis County Commissioners Court
January 24, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 7
And actually, number 7, consider and take appropriate action on amendment to the economic development agreements with hewlett packard's tandem and ed bluestein's location to combine and average the employee and property value requirements.
mr. Nellis, do you have a quick explanation?
>> basically in summary, what hewlett packard had asked for an amendment where they could combine their employees and their investment from both locations to meet the combined requirement under the agreement.
planning and budget didn't have any issues with that.
I nomar yet that worked up the -- I know marietta worked up the amendment.
do you have any issues with it?
>> makes sense to me.
they've exceeded the number of employees if you allow the combination.
>> they've met both requirements, if in fact you combine the two different sites.
so we recommend approval.
>> I have a couple of questions.
>> okay.
>> with regard to -- you said that there is a possibility that they wouldn't meet their property value enhancement.
is that in there or am I missing the mark here?
that they were exceeding their full time equivalent but with regard to the property value, should they not mike the final requirement, it would be reduced on a pro rata basis.
>> I think that there was a possibility
>> [ inaudible ].
so we put in that section that allowed the pro rata.
that's the only thing we need to make a determination right above 2.4, the percentage, because the proposal was that they could go below it if we reduced it, but how far below?
and I think pbo had recommended 15%.
we don't have that completed, so we need the court to either agree or 10 percent or -- we don't want the agreement to just -- well, you can just go down to five percent of what you were supposed to do and we'll still say it's okay.
so we were going to say no more than 15% below what was required and still be in compliance and then we'll reduce the rebate amount by that same percentage.
>> one thing that has -- I think that we should consider in our internal discussion with regard to a pro rata discussion in case they don't meet their 500 million, is that they are on a substandard road.
and I think that they are the dominant beneficiary of that substandard road and the cost of bringing that road up to county standards is about 460,000?
>> right.
that's right.
they had all the property fronting one side of the road and another group of folks on the other side of the road.
it is between 450 and $500,000 to bring it up to a standard that we can accept on to the county's system.
>> and so my ask to staff is as we are looking at the possible pro rata reduction in case they don't meet the 500 million that we consider it holistically along with the substandard road and the cost to the county of prying that road up to compliance -- of bringing that road up to compliance since they are the predominant beneficiary of that infrastructure, of that public -- what would be a public infrastructure.
>> that might be something the court would want to consider in determining that percentage amount, how far below.
>> exactly my point.
>> again, we had looked at 15%.
that was just a suggestion.
the court could take that or less than that or more than that.
>> could we spare a week to take a look at the possible interrelation of the pro rata reduction and the substandard road request?
>> I think that's not a problem.
do you, marietta?
>> I don't have a problem with that.
is that a problem?
no problem.
>> we'd be glad to bring it back.
>> as far as the job value, the salaries, all the other things that -- also the site on 183 and the combination of all of these, right now what you are suggesting is that because of -- it's actually exceeding some of the requirements, and you're basically recommending that we approve this, but we need another week to look at this other suggestion.
>> we'll be glad to take a week.
>> because -- which I don't mind doing that.
but everything else looked like it exceeded expectations to some degree, especially if you combine both the particular property that hp had under this particular concept.
so anyway, I wanted to move for it, judge, and I guess --
>> taking another week doesn't bother me since we have other issues too.
one is that it seems to me if that's your approach there needs to be a policy change.
I'm impose -- it seems unfairness since I'm imposing it on this particular contract.
to my knowledge we have not done that before.
and I think it requires a lot more consideration than in this particular amendment.
historically we have focused on those two and I don't recall us really requiring that any road be brought up to county standard.
substandard -- it's a private road, right?
>> it was platted public, but since it's not been accepted on to our system, it behaves like a private road.
>> yeah.
they're a private road standards that we have used and in fact, we used one -- did one last week.
>> in this case, judge, it's the pavement that's really bad.
it's all cracked up.
and the curb is settling.
and the only way really to fix it is to just rehabilitate all of the pavement structure.
there's a difference between public and private in that regard.
>> but if it's not a public road it's not our responsibility.
>> that's true.
>> we could choose not to rehabilitate it and leave it a non-accepted road.
but I think given its condition and given its -- the user group that is utilizing it, it's highly improbable that we will do nothing and allow it to continue to degrade.
>> I think eventually we are going to be asked to participate.
we have been approached by hewlett packard several years ago to talk about that, but didn't get very far with them at that time.
>> maybe they have an interest in doing it.
I think we ought to let them respond if they are voluntarily agreeing to do it, it's one thing.
for us to impose it is another.
and I guess I would be against imposing it because it would be a dramatic shift in policy.
at the same time, though, I have no problem with leaving that road as it is.
and as long as that's understood, when they come forth and say we need help building this road, then I'm willing to consider all creative options, which is what we've done historically.
the reason I voted for the one last week is that -- and it wasn't really consistent with our substandard roads policy, but it looked like the residents out there had gotten together and agreed this is how we want to proceed.
and as a public entity I thought there was some value in us making it happen.
and I guess I feel the same way about this one.
>> judge --
>>
>> [ inaudible ].
I'm ready to vote, but out of courtesy of the situation, you requested a week and we always grant that, so I want to look at it and see what comes out of it.
>> judge, to be clear, I'm not asking that there be a punitive aspect to this look-see.
my hope is that we will be able to keep creative options alive for a week while we discuss how it might have an interplay in the pro rata -- a possible pro rata reduction that actually may not even occur.
I think it's in -- hewlett packard has made it clear that they're interesting in having this road upgraded.
so this might be a way for us so ex-penelope died is as far as participation with hewlett packard just as we did last week with the neighbors on a substandard road program.
project.
>> we'll hear from them next week.
>> .
>> that's January 31st, right?
>> yes, it is.
>> miss porter?
you know you're my calendar person.
>> this also acts as a through-way for the neighbors of wells branch as well.
so it's not solely to hewlett packard's benefit.
this is a neighborhood collector for the community of wells branch.
>> right.
>> I think Commissioner Huber had asked for our consideration of waiting until she can attend on the other items that we have here.
but we can go into executive session.
deece was here a minute ago.
are we waiting on outside legal counsel on that redistricting item?
do you know, deece, whether we're waiting on legal counsel for the outside redistricting item?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> 17 is not on Commissioner Huber's list.
17 is to -- do we need to take 17 into executive session?
>> I don't think so.
>> almost every time this comes up, we talk about violations at tceq.
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.
Subscribe for updates