Titus County tables Chapter 381 participation for Anderson Town Crossing anchor until Jan. 12
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
County commissioners heard a presentation about a proposed Chapter 381 agreement to support a 55,000-square-foot national outdoor retailer anchor at Anderson Town Crossing but voted to table action until Jan. 12 so city approvals and full agreements can be reviewed.
Titus County commissioners tabled consideration of a proposed Chapter 381 economic-participation agreement for Anderson Town Crossing, a retail development that developer representatives said would include a 55,000-square-foot anchor store and job and investment commitments.
Jason Claunch of Catalyst Commercial presented the county with confidential packet materials and described the prospective anchor as a major national outdoor retailer with roughly 22,000 employees nationally and about $5,930,000,000 in annual revenue. Claunch told the court the anchor would commit to at least 75 employees and about $11,000,000 in capital and tenant improvements and estimated first-year sales at roughly $13,000,000.
Claunch said the county's proposed participation would be performance-based and capped at $1,000,000 over a proposed 10-year term; he described the Chapter 381 mechanism being considered as a sales-tax participation tied to net-new sales from the specified project. Claunch told commissioners construction permits would need to be applied for within 12 months and a certificate of occupancy obtained within 24 months of permits issued, and he said the development timeline had been compressed by the user's requirements.
Commissioners asked for clarity about whether the county's participation would be limited to that specific anchor (it would), whether EB-5 or citizenship fast-tracking were involved (Claunch said none), and whether a final contract existed (Claunch said no agreements had been signed; materials had been provided confidentially). Claunch also noted potential coordination needs with TxDOT for signalization and discussed the possibility of piggybacking city or third-party compliance and audit services.
Given outstanding city action and requests to review the packet and the draft agreement, a motion was made and seconded to table the item until the Jan. 12 commissioners meeting so the county could review the city’s action and the agreements. The motion carried with the court voting 'Aye.'