Austin | Q2 Stadium (Austin FC) | Complete - Page 14

mostly_afk · #**261** Posted **Apr 14, 2019, 5:14 PM**

According to the Statesman, SB 1771 is scheduled for a hearing this Tuesday (April 16th). Here is a good article on how to testify before the committee.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/04...texas-capitol/

It's ironic that in a session where our elected heroes are amped-up to restrict the growth in property taxes, that they would consider a bill that would increase taxes and discourage economic growth. All because the owner of the tax supported COTA is afraid of competition.

I seriously doubt that any benefit would come from the bill. If it passed, AISD is likely to grant an abatement. They have already said that any tax revenue that would come from the stadium would just get sucked by the state in recapture. Why help the state when AISD could just grant an abatement. The county and hospital district are a different matter. If taxes are applied the stadium, I have read there is a clause that allows for financial terms to be reworked. I can see community benefits get reduced since PSV would be paying taxes for similar benefits (i.e. swap low income housing for the hospital district low income health care property taxes).

GoldenBoot · #**262** Posted **Apr 14, 2019, 7:48 PM**

Sooooo...how will this bill force PSV to pay property taxes on an asset they don't own? The City of Austin will own the stadium. PSV is just building it and has a lease to operate it. I don't believe they (PSV) ever "possess" (or have a leasehold on) the property.

I think I'm missing something. Maybe I aught to reserve some time and read the entire proposed bill?!?

mostly_afk · #**263** Posted **Apr 14, 2019, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Sooooo...how will this bill force PSV to pay property taxes on an asset they don't own? The City of Austin will own the stadium. PSV is just building it and has a lease to operate it. I don't believe they (PSV) ever "possess" (or have a leasehold on) the property.

I think I'm missing something. Maybe I aught to reserve some time and read the entire proposed bill?!?

It's a short read and poorly written. Basically, it says the current exemption would only apply if a tax entity grants an exemption. I'm not sure who would get the tax bill, but ownership wouldn't stop the taxes. For example, the tax code does say that "...Property owned by the state that is not used for public purposes is taxable." I can't think of any examples, but if the state could end up paying property tax then I don't see a reason why it couldn't be pushed to subdivisions (cities), but then again, I am not a lawyer and I would be last person ever to ask to help with preparing your income tax return.

Again, if anyone does choose to testify or comment to their elected heroes, it would be best to emphasize that opposition is to increasing property taxes, since this what the fiscal note says would happen. Fight increasing property taxes.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86...l/SB01771I.htm

loonytoony · #**264** Posted **Apr 16, 2019, 9:51 PM**

Any news on this one? Hearing was today.

mostly_afk · #**265** Posted **Apr 17, 2019, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytoony

Any news on this one? Hearing was today.

Not much to report, except that Greely (with PSV) said that property taxes would impair the financials for the stadium and put the project in jeopardy. If the bill became law, the project would at least stall until AISD, Travis County and the hospital district vote to grant an abatement.

I think I understand Bettencourt's point. Basically, what if AISD worked a deal with PSV to redevelop Burger, with the new stadium being non-taxable. The city would experience an increase in cost associated with public safety and transportation with no source of funding. Bettencourt asks if it would okay for AISD to place this burden on the City? I think this is bunk since scenario already happens with high school football and the city has made no complaint about the supposed burden.

If you interested in watching the replay, here's a link. It starts at the 1:10 mark.

http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaP...?clip_id=14266

Novacek · #**266** Posted **Apr 17, 2019, 1:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mostly_afk

I think I understand Bettencourt's point. Basically, what if AISD worked a deal with PSV to redevelop Burger, with the new stadium being non-taxable. The city would experience an increase in cost associated with public safety and transportation with no source of funding. Bettencourt asks if it would okay for AISD to place this burden on the City? I think this is bunk since scenario already happens with high school football and the city has made no complaint about the supposed burden.

Bettencourt has no point.

If he was really worried about it, he'd be seeking to repeal section 25.07 entirely.

All of his supposed arguments also apply to anything else exempted.

(To say nothing about state exemptions and the burden they place on Austin).

Not to mention a stadium places no burden on AISD. And as for the county, they'd just take the taxes and spend it in unincorporated areas like they do with the rest of the taxes I pay.

Novacek · #**267** Posted **Apr 17, 2019, 1:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mostly_afk

Not much to report, except that Greely (with PSV) said that property taxes would impair the financials for the stadium and put the project in jeopardy. If the bill became law, the project would at least stall until AISD, Travis County and the hospital district vote to grant an abatement.

I hold out some hope that Greely/PSV certainly aren't going to say anything different from the above. They're certainly not going to say "sure, go ahead and tax us".

I see them fighting this bill, and hopefully making the argument that in the future it will apply to a whole lot more than McKalla, despite them grandfathering in all the existing projects. I guess we'll see how much money Epstein has been spreading around.

Then it has to get through the Governor, and I guess we'll see how much bad blood there is between him and Epstein.

If it gets to that point, then PSV pauses and has to go to the taxing entitites. They still have a few carrots to offer on that side, especially in regards to the practice facility.

Failing that, PSV _may_ still stick around, and literally pull and Epstein. I could see them suing Travis County and claiming that the construction cost doesn't represent the fair market value of a soccer-specific stadium, and instead is only worth pennies on the dollar. Essentially, its functionally useless to any other entity that doesn't have a MLS franchise.

Maybe also argue that they only have a "possessory interest" in the property ~20 days out of 365. Not sure how well that would fly.

freerover · #**268** Posted **Apr 18, 2019, 11:22 PM**

So the Columbus Crew are averaging 12.3k fans after 4 home games which is technically down from last year's average. The fan base had convinced itself that the problem was people hated PSV but the reality might be people in Columbus don't care too much about the team outside of a small core fanbase.

freerover · #**269** Posted **Apr 30, 2019, 9:54 PM**

I believe the Zonning Commission will have the MLS rezone on their agenda for next Tuesday. Hopefully it'll be an uneventful approval.

zrx299 · #**270** Posted **May 1, 2019, 1:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freerover

So the Columbus Crew are averaging 12.3k fans after 4 home games which is technically down from last year's average. The fan base had convinced itself that the problem was people hated PSV but the reality might be people in Columbus don't care too much about the team outside of a small core fanbase.

They all jumped on the Bluejackets playoff hockey bandwagon.

Columbus fans are a fickle bunch, unless it involves Ohio State.

smith_atx · #**271** Posted **May 1, 2019, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zrx299

They all jumped on the Bluejackets playoff hockey bandwagon.

Columbus fans are a fickle bunch, unless it involves Ohio State.

Better have one of our council members fly up for support.

drummer · #**272** Posted **May 1, 2019, 3:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by smith_atx

Better have one of our council members fly up for support.

You mean move up permanently, right?

Novacek · #**273** Posted **May 2, 2019, 1:13 PM**

The first response to the stadium permit is up in CoA's database (no link provided due to it being a database search).

I haven't noticed any fatal flaws yet, mostly just a _lot_ of i's and t's and hoops to jump through.

some of the responses specifically note they'll be obsolete when the LI-PDA goes through.

loonytoony · #**274** Posted **May 2, 2019, 4:37 PM**

"Senate Bill 1771, which was drafted with the #AustinFC stadium in mind, left pending but w/ a substitute added. Would no longer apply to the MLS stadium."

https://twitter.com/ChrisBils/status...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

ahealy · #**275** Posted **May 2, 2019, 4:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytoony

"Senate Bill 1771, which was drafted with the #AustinFC stadium in mind, left pending but w/ a substitute added. Would no longer apply to the MLS stadium."

https://twitter.com/ChrisBils/status...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

freerover · #**276** Posted **May 2, 2019, 5:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytoony

"Senate Bill 1771, which was drafted with the #AustinFC stadium in mind, left pending but w/ a substitute added. Would no longer apply to the MLS stadium."

https://twitter.com/ChrisBils/status...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

He paraphrased it as the law would grandfather in anyone who has a deal in place before Sept 1, 2019 or anything voter approved.

This could change again in reconciliation if both the house and senate pass the bill. Hopefully not though.

urbancore · #**277** Posted **May 2, 2019, 8:18 PM**

Looks like we are in the clear boys.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...longer-applies

freerover · #**278** Posted **May 2, 2019, 8:31 PM**

Agenda for the May 7 rezone and the stadium isn't on it. I guess it'll be on the May 21st agenda.

Syndic · #**279** Posted **May 2, 2019, 9:06 PM**

These COTA losers got handed yet another L. Couldn't be happier.

GoldenBoot · #**280** Posted **May 2, 2019, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndic

These COTA losers got handed yet another L. Couldn't be happier.

Yes. However, this is just going to further galvanize their hate of the project and their efforts to kill it.

This battle seems to have been won. But, the war is still far from over.

Epstein and COTA are going to fight this till the very end. It's all about finances. He & COTA are treading water and the fielding of a MLS team and opening of its stadium - in the middle of a highly populated area - could be their death knell. Why would you go see old has-beens on the Bold when you don't have to drive to far to see young, major league professionals. Also, that stadium will be a huge draw for concerts (over Austin 360).

On a side note - I'm tickled that attendance has been struggling at Bold games. Hee, hee!