Travis County Commissioners Court

March 27, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 28

View captioned video.

Now we do have somebody here on the apple item, right.
anybody get comments on apple?
okay.
Twenty-eight is to consider and take appropriate action on the economic development agreement with apple, inc.
we go into executive session with consultation with attorney and economic development negotiations exceptions when we go.
and so with those comments please come forward and give us your name, we will be happy to receive you coming.
y'all go into executive session, leroy, or open court stuff, too?
good afternoon.

>> hello.
my name is todd roblusky.
judge, I had exchanged emails with you and I don't know if you can answer me or not but the main point of my question is do we know if the -- the emerging technology fund is the -- the money promised by the state is -- it requires accounting participation in order to now get the funds that the city -- because the city was reporting that if they didn't sign on, that they wouldn't get the state money, either, which put a lot of pressure on the city.
do we know if the county -- the county's participation relieses as well?

>> we know what the law says.
the law says it requires local participation but it doesn't require that all of the locals participate.
there has been assertions that this instance, in this this instance, the state would require both the city and the county, but the law itself does not say that.
is that correct, marietta.

>> their policy reads that way but they negotiate, I believe, each instance the application is made, it's judged on a case by case basis and the state can put different requirements on each one.

>> it is their discretions to --

>> yes, and I would say it's actually at the governor's discretion, since he really --

>> this Commissioner's court took action -- positive action and transmitted to the governor's office at least a partial approval of a economic development agreement with apple.
we did that some time ago.
based on that local support and the support that the mayor sent for the city council, the governor's office or the state funds, that was a part of the application that was considered for the state to aa ward the -- for the state to award or the 21 million so the short answer is that the state relied on actions of this Commissioners court to support an economic development agreement with apple.
the specifics of that agreement have not totally been ironed out, but you did have some language and approval of this court that went to the state that was used in their determination to award apple 21 million.

>> but --

>> okay.
and I told the representatives that I thought the court would favorably consider, that was March 18 in a meeting in this building so the answer seems to be we think the law requires it.
if not, the governor --

>> no --

>> the state policy says local and the way it's phrased is city, county and/or school districts but the difference, then, is the state negotiates the application based on what the applicant brings forward and as leroy has said, our initial indications as well as the city's initial indications were a part of of apple's application to the state and the state's response to apple with their funding.

>> so the negotiation may require it.
but the law does not?

>> right.

>> so it is the governor -- did the governor's office indicate to us they needed city and county to be supported early on?
can any of you recall?

>> I don't --

>> I couldn't answer that.

>> I think the answer to your question is I think we are boxed in to be supportive.

>> oh, really.
well, obviously I can see --

>> I do not think that we are boxed in.

>> I don't, either, I think the governor can do whatever he wants.
that's the way I read the legislation.
where I am going with this is to simply say, look, they are already getting 29 million or so.
do they really need any more?
I mean, really?
do they --

>> they may not get that.
the state would still be in a position, from my understanding, to say the application that was granted was based on these other assumptions.
if those assumptions change, then the state's position could change.
I don't know.
we will know --

>> we can go into executive session and hash that out because I will assert and I are will ask -- I believe the county is in the same position just as the governor's office could pull out of this, if the negotiation does not pan out as they wish, so could the county.

>> yes.

>> the reason I asked that question is because it doesn't seem like the county has a bunch of money laying around as per the discussion we just heard.
I don't even know -- I didn't see a back up on the agenda for this item, so I don't even know what the county is offering.
can y'all lay that out for the public?
because we only seen it reported in the papers.
we heard $6 million but we have had very little time to look at this and I can just sum this up by saying, could you put this of off for another week until the public gets a chance to look at it but I do want to mention it, since you said this was hashed out in March, there has been a major update, which is that our competing state, which is phoenix, and the six sites that we were -- that they reported we were competing against, are now absolutely out of the competition and that is verified by the mayor of the city as well as the governor of arizona.
so if this is -- if they are going to come here -- we all heard this before.
if they are going to come here, anyway, what's the point of offering incentives.

>> what are we looking at, can we see that?

>> the Commissioners court has takens has agreed to -- to negotiate with apple for rebate agreement, up to 15 years with 80% rebate for the first ten years.
we have no percentage agreed to for the second one and I imagine we will talk about this afternoon.

>> we is have not negotiated the elements to get to the 80%, either?

>> right.
we have to work on parameters as well of the agreement.

>> I can tell you that even though that was a March 8, I have had two meetings with apple.
one was March 9 and one was yesterday.

>> whatever we want to do, we will take some time to reduce to writing.
soil's not like there is any final action today.

>> there is not going to be final action today.

>> my guess is we will come out and give some indication of where we stand.
rewe really ought do that.

>> I agree.

>> but it will take some time for us to finalize everything, come up with a written contract, I would say several weeks.

>> I think there are a number of citizens that are concerned that today was going to be a signed, done deal and very little public input so I appreciate that.

>> okay.

>> I appreciate that.

>> thanks for your patience.

>> I am hear for

>> [indiscernible]

>> [laughter]

>> you may want to keep sitting there, then.
because when we go into executive session, we can be anywhere from 40 minutes to 2 hours.

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.