Most Popular Stories
- ‘Little Luckenbach’ could link Sam’s Town Point to $270M South Austin entertainment district
- City Council moves toward enshrining remote work options
- ABOR report highlights striking disparities in housing affordability
- As Austin grows, real estate leaders look at state of city’s character, reputation
- City releases new telework standards for its employees
Discover News By District
Council votes to oppose legislation for Carma Development
Friday, May 1, 2009 by Austin Monitor
City Council on Thursday unanimously voted to follow staff’s recommendation to oppose legislation, currently in committee, that would facilitate creation of five special development districts, akin to Municipal Utility Districts, in
The 2,300-acre site west of the
Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio) and Rep. Trey Martinez Fisher (D-San Antonio) have bills in committee that would create a special tax zone allowing Carma to issue its own bonds to pay for infrastructure, rather than creating a Public Improvement District in which the City of
Council Member Laura Morrison said, “It’s my sense that there are some inherent risks in the structure itself, both in terms of the district having control as well as the fact that because we didn’t understand it thoroughly—that in fact the legislature would be the ones to have control—all of which makes me uncomfortable.” She expressed a desire to work with the developer to have a general framework, “to see if we can expand the tools that folks like Carma would then be able to use.”
“I’ve heard other colleagues say this is the kind of development that we actually worked really hard to help foster last legislative session,” said Mayor Pro Tem Brewster McCracken.
Smith said in consultations with Carma it was clear that the prior strategy “was not something in their development paradigm that they were willing to accept at this time.”
Council Member Sheryl Cole said,” This is a very complicated deal… and all these things are very concerning because of
In the meantime, Cole expressed hope that staff would be able to work up a generic agreement similar to the SH 130 bill. “It’s very important to me that we get the area in SH 130 actually developed. We have a major problem with the infrastructure costs and staff has to be able to address that.”
One of Carma’s attorneys, Nikelle Meade of Brown McCarroll, told In Fact Daily she was uncertain whether her client would want to continue discussions with the city. She said, “There were some really good reasons” why developers opposed the SH 130 legislation that would have given the city the kind of control the City Council wants.
“One of the big reasons the legislation failed was that very issue, a control issue,” she said. “So instead of giving the city control, we’ve been offering ways to get to the bottom of why that control was desired. It’s not like we couldn’t change our minds, but we feel really strongly that the people who are having to issue the bonds and be taxed should control the board of directors. We don’t think it should be the city.”
She estimated the project, known as
In response to a question from City Manager Marc Ott as to how the staff should proceed, Council Member Mike Martinez added an amendment to the motion asking the manager to “bring an item from council at the next council meeting so that we can clearly understand how we move forward… so that everyone’s issues and desires are respected.”
You're a community leader
And we’re honored you look to us for serious, in-depth news. You know a strong community needs local and dedicated watchdog reporting. We’re here for you and that won’t change. Now will you take the powerful next step and support our nonprofit news organization?