Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waller County approves nine tax abatement agreements for Twinwood Business Park development
Summary
The Commissioners approved nine tax abatement agreements with Urban Twinwood Number 2 LP covering multiple speculative commercial buildings in Twinwood Business Park (Reinvestment Zone No. 12) in Brookshire.
Waller County Commissioners on Wednesday approved nine tax abatement agreements with Urban Twinwood Number 2 LP for speculative commercial buildings at Twinwood Business Park in Brookshire.
County staff told the court the agreements cover property in the Twinwood Business Park Reinvestment Zone No. 12, commonly referred to in the record as Discovery Hills Commerce Center, located generally south of Twinwood Parkway, west of Woods Road, east of FM 359 and north of the Waller–Fort Bend county line. The developer will construct the buildings in two phases, county records and the developer said.
Mark Overton, representing Urban Companies, said the project will be delivered in two phases and that the company typically sells the smaller buildings to owner-operators rather than leasing them. “We’re doing this development in 2 phases. We’re going to do, was it 5 buildings in the first phase and 4 buildings in the second phase,” Overton said. He described the product as smaller commercial/industrial buildings used for warehousing or light manufacturing.
The nine buildings and the estimated construction costs discussed in court were: Building 1 — about 46,800 sq. ft., estimated $3,565,224; Building 2 — about 31,200 sq. ft., $2,376,816; Building 3 — about 40,560 sq. ft., $3,089,861; Building 4 — about 54,080 sq. ft., $4,119,814; Building 5 — about 54,080 sq. ft., $4,119,814; Building 6 — approximately 54,600 sq. ft., $4,157,354; Building 7 — about 33,280 sq. ft., $2,535,270; Building 8 — about 46,800 sq. ft., $3,565,224; Building 9 — about 20,080 sq. ft., $2,139,134. Those figures were given as estimates during the meeting.
Commissioners voted to approve the agreements by voice/hand vote with no opposition recorded on the transcript. The approvals are limited to the tax abatement agreements described in the meeting record; no additional land-use or zoning approvals were disclosed during the discussion.
The court moved directly from the presentation to a voice vote after the developer’s remarks and approved the item.
Notes: The agreements apply only to the buildings and not to land, inventory or other assets as stated in the meeting discussion.
