| Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
After more than three hours of public testimony and questions to city of Austin officials and developer representatives, Travis County commissioners took no action Tuesday on a proposed Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone for the Dog’s Head development in southeast Austin.
“We are not saying ‘No’ today, but we would like some more time to think it through and come back with some ideas of our own,” Travis County Judge Andy Brown said.
Under the TIRZ, developer Endeavor Real Estate Group would build infrastructure such as water lines, streets, bridges and sewer lines, with the county reimbursing a significant portion of those costs over time using the new property tax revenue generated within the the Dog’s Head development.
In all, the proposed TIRZ agreement calls for Travis County to dedicate 50 percent of that new property tax revenue from 2027-2061, an estimated total of $520.2 million that would be steered back to the developer instead of the county’s general budget fund.
The decision comes as local officials weigh the merits of a project expected to reshape one of the last large, undeveloped tracts in eastern Travis County, which the city recently annexed. Commissioners said they wanted more time to evaluate whether the proposal reflects county priorities, including affordable housing commitments, community input, flood protection, environmental safeguards and protections against displacing residents living near or in Dog’s Head.
Credit: Endeavor Real Estate Group
Tuesday’s decision to delay marks Travis County’s first major public review of the financing proposal before the Austin City Council considers adoption of a plan to create the TIRZ and the preliminary project and financing plan during a July 23 public hearing.
Under the proposed TIRZ the city council is considering, the city would return 75 percent of incremental property and sales tax revenue generated during the first 20 years to the developers, followed by 66 percent during the following 15 years. That would reserve an estimated $1.6 billion in tax dollars for the development of Dog’s Head infrastructure.
Residents seek time
Against that backdrop, more than two dozen residents, environmental advocates and community leaders urged commissioners to delay their decision, saying that more time is needed to review key documents about the 2,600-acre project’s environmental impacts. They also have raised concerns about environmental racism. Dog’s Head’s largely Hispanic and lower-income population was not made aware of the development until just a few days before the project was unveiled at a May 21 city council meeting.
Austin land-use planner Robert Heil said responsible development requires public engagement and environmental review, not a rushed approval process.
“We need to get it right, not by skipping steps, not by shortening the public process, not by throwing out the environmental review,” Heil told commissioners.
“It’s really critical to have community involvement,” Precinct 2 Commissioner Brigid Shea said. “I think that’s what’s caused so many problems along the way is people have no idea what’s actually proposed for this development.”
‘Two faces’
Supporters said the project would create public infrastructure and generate new tax revenue, while developer attorney Richard Suttle said it would also reclaim land altered by decades of aggregate mining.
Representing the developer, attorney Richard Suttle said Dog’s Head has “two faces.” He said it’s an environmentally sensitive river corridor and a property shaped by decades of mining activity. The project would reclaim disturbed areas while preserving natural features and building public infrastructure, Suttle said.
Credit: Endeavor Real Estate Group
That property description has been a point of contention throughout the approval process. Opponents have said that characterizing portions of the site as “blighted” minimizes the ecological significance of the Colorado River corridor to justify the proposed TIRZ incentives.
‘Protecting the neighbors’
Flood risk was also an important part of the discussion.
“The river’s a wild animal,” Dog’s Head resident Lee Edwards told the commissioners. Edwards, who is also president of the Southeast Colorado River Neighborhood Association, cited decades of experience of the river rising 20 feet in his backyard.
Shea said stronger flood protections would be essential before the county could move forward.
Commissioners also questioned how much of the project’s vision is guaranteed under the proposed agreements.
Planning documents outline 12,395 housing units, including approximately 2,479 affordable units (20%). Under the proposal, affordable rental units would be reserved for households earning less than 60 percent of metro Austin’s median family income, while sales of affordable homes would have to be priced for households earning 80 percent of that amount or less. City officials said the developer would be responsible for the first half of the affordable housing units, and the remainder would be developed in partnership with the city if residential development occurs. The agreement does not require housing to be built.
“An area should not have to gentrify in order to get investment,” Precinct 1 Commissioner Jeff Travillion said. “I want to make sure that we are protecting the neighbors that are there.”
‘Mystery tenant’ and data centers
Commissioners and residents raised concerns about the proposed inclusion of a “Fortune 100” initial tenant – which has not been identified – and the agreement’s lack of a prohibition on data centers. The developer and city officials have said the project needs to be expedited to land the unknown tenant. City council has already signed non-disclosure agreements with that company for a project tangential to the development, according to the city’s legal team.
“This mystery tenant makes many people extremely nervous, particularly when there’s no clear delineation where you say we will not allow data centers there,” Shea said. “That’s an enormous concern all across the state.” Planning documents identify a proposed “Tesla Road Extension” bridge that would connect Dog’s Head to Tesla’s Gigafactory across the Colorado River.
Commissioners also referenced concerns that Austin City Council Member Mike Siegel had raised about whether taxpayers could ultimately be responsible for repaying Dog’s Head infrastructure bonds if the development failed to generate sufficient tax revenues.
City officials disputed that characterization, saying the city’s general appropriation pledge improves the financing terms of infrastructure bonds without directly subsidizing the project.
“We need a little more time to work things out and make sure that we’re protecting the water, land, dark skies and the people most involved,” Precinct 3 Commissioner Ann Howard said.
County staff said they will continue discussions with city officials and the developer to provide commissioners with additional information after the Austin City Council revisits the issue on July 23.
Shelby Ligon is the government reporter for Austin Free Press.
