Travis County Commissioners Court
January 31, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 18
Item no.
18.
consider and take appropriate action on the following: amendment to the economic development agreements with hewlett packard's tandem and ed bluestein locations to combine and average the employee and property value requirements; and a substandard road agreement regarding improvements to tandem blvd.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> planning and budget.
on -- regarding a, this is an amendment to -- to combine some of the reporting requirements for the two -- two hewlett packard locations.
I would just -- I don't know if you talked about this last week, but on the third page of the agreement under 5.1.1 c 2, there is a blank percentage, p.b.o.'s recommendation is that there would be 15%
>> [indiscernible] company considered out of compliance with the agreement.
otherwise, I am here to answer any of your questions.
>> katy, what is the amount in play if hewlett packard does -- if we were not to make this amendment.
>> if we were to not do this amendment, they would be out of compliance at the ed bluestein location.
they have well over the required requirement on the
>> [indiscernible] and tandem site.
we have a 60% rebate.
I have not seen their tax form but they would lose about $115,000.
>> with regard to the tandem location, I don't have any problem with aggregating the f.t.e.
for consideration of this amendment.
but I have a larger desire to see our tax abatement policies and actions more integrated in with our service delivery, because of course a tax abatement means that we are not getting the revenue sources for which we -- with which we pay for the infrastructure improvements that these businesses will need.
since they are moving -- are they moving -- what percentage of their employee base are they moving over to tandem.
>> they have moved most of them.
I don't know what their full fte count is, but 48 I think at ed bluestein and almost 500 at tandem.
I'm not quite sure what happened, you know, in their business strategy where they moved everybody to tandem.
>> that is absolutely their business decision.
but it does have an impact on us with regard to they have moved 500 employees on to what is a substandard road.
so that is a large demand on a road that is inadequate to -- to handle it long term as a privately maintained road.
so that is something that we will pick up.
just to -- I would like us to have a more holistic approach to this because about $115,000 is in play with this amendment, which I agree with.
and about $500,000 is in play with regard to the substandard road.
for which they would not be entirely on the hook for, that we would -- we have asked for a 30% contribution from the -- from the beneficiaries and they account for half of those beneficiaries.
is that about right?
>>
>> [indiscernible] all of the property on one side of that road.
then the other side is owned by three different parties.
>> I would -- I would like to see this move forward as a holistic piece.
holistic defined as what is your business impact on our infrastructure.
and what is our abatement to you mean to that impact.
it is a consideration that we make when we determine whether or not to give a tax abatement and it should be a -- a consideration when we determine whether or not to amend an abatement.
>> so you are putting the substandard road issue into it?
>> yes.
and what policy would govern that?
>> we have actually our abatement policy has lapsed.
but -- but this was given under our abatement policy.
>> so you believe our abatement policy has -- if expired would cover b if it were -- if it were still active?
>> I believe that our abatement policy that has now lapsed did entertain -- entertain what the load on the public infrastructure was to determine whether or not to give an abatement.
>> but we've had a substandard road policy for probably 20 years, I helped put the first one in place or the only one in place.
it had never been wrapped into economic incentives.
>> I'm suggesting if it has never been, it should be.
>> I'm suggesting there ought to be a policy, if you believe that.
I don't think this company ought to be singled out for such an approach.
it may be that it makes all of the sense in the world.
I don't know if it makes all of the sense in the world to apply it arbitrarily, which we would be doing today.
we have a substandard roads policy which we have invoked many times for many substandard roads and did you have a conversation with hewlett packard about the road?
>> I did talk with their attorney, jerry
>> [indiscernible] and his letter is in the backup.
>> what does the letter say?
>> it says that they are interested in working with us to get the road up to standards so it could be maintained by the county, but they would like to have some assurance that the other property owners on the other side of the street will contribute as well.
>> which is absolutely reasonable.
>> yeah.
I agree.
>> I don't think we ought to delay approval of a until b takes place.
if -- on b, we normally expect some contribution from residents that benefit.
and if the other three property owners can get with hewlett packard and Travis County and do this road in the future, I have no problem with it.
I do have a problem with tying the two together, though.
I don't think we ought to do that.
I think it would be a bad precedent for us.
it may be that it's time to readvise a substandard roads policy and I'm willing to do that.
we really have done a whole lot more projects lately with h.u.d.
money, but are these commercial properties that we're talking about on the other side of the road?
>> yes.
>> normally, we've been working with residents more than businesses.
however, money is money.
and so -- so if we can work that out, I think we ought to.
>> I would add, if you don't mind, I appreciate where Commissioner Eckhardt is coming with this, but we are talking about mitigating an issue on a road that -- that -- that we don't maintain.
we -- we do deals with developers all the time where if they need to improve access to their property, they will build a left turn lane to get in there or they will beef up the pavement if it's not up to snuff, but it's always been a county-maintained road.
this is a little bit complicated because it's essentially a private road.
it would start out that way.
so you would have to accept it on to this system in its current condition, I think.
before you can go in and improve it.
maybe, gentlemen -- it is -- it just complicates things is all.
>> anything else?
>> no, sir.
>> move approval of a.
>> second.
>> 18 a.
discussion on the motion?
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Davis, Huber, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I'm voting against not because I don't believe that the basis for the amendment is appropriate.
I'm voting against it because I believe we should although at this in total.
and not just for hewlett packard, but for any tax abated or tax rebated circumstance.
>> voting against for the stated reason.
29 --
>> I assume that that amendment included the 15% that we mentioned earlier?
for the termination?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
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