Mount Pleasant council and Titus County discuss Chapter 380/381 incentives to attract 50,000‑sq‑ft anchor retailer
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
City and county officials reviewed proposed Chapter 380 (city) and Chapter 381 (county) agreements to support a 50,000+ square‑foot sporting‑goods anchor at Anderson Town Crossing, including performance benchmarks, a proposed 95% sales‑tax rebate schedule and projected first‑year sales of $13 million. No vote was taken at the workshop.
Officials from the City of Mount Pleasant and Titus County on Wednesday outlined proposed Chapter 380 and 381 economic‑development agreements intended to bring a 50,000‑square‑foot anchor retail tenant to Anderson Town Crossing, saying the deals are performance‑based and require no upfront city or county general‑fund payments.
The presentation, led by a city official and developer Jason Claunch of Catalyst Commercial, described the tenant as a Texas‑based sporting‑goods/outdoor retailer that would invest an estimated $11–12 million in building, parking and site infrastructure, create about 50–60 full‑time jobs within 36 months and is projected to generate roughly $13 million in sales in its first year. Claunch said the store’s presence would catalyze additional tenant interest for seven planned pad sites at the development.
City staff said the proposed Chapter 380 agreement would rebate 95% of the city‑portion of sales tax generated by the anchor to the developer for up to 15 years or until a capped dollar amount is reached (city cap shown in staff materials). The county’s Chapter 381 proposal would mirror the city’s structure at 95% for up to 10 years or until a separate cap is reached. The agreements, staff said, are performance‑based: the developer must deliver the project, the store must open and meet revenue and job benchmarks before any rebate is paid.
‘‘This anchor store would not come here but for these agreements,’’ the city presenter said, describing the agreements as a ‘‘but‑for’’ policy tool (the presenter emphasized the but‑for test is a local policy standard, not a statewide legal requirement). Jason Claunch told the bodies the anchor and developer negotiated a lease structure to meet lender requirements and that rebate payments are designed to make the financing work for the developer.
Financing consultant Jim from Hilltop told the council and commissioners the controller’s office typically receives monthly sales‑tax reports that can be used to calculate reimbursements and that the city can require the anchor to sign a release allowing the controller to identify business‑level sales for auditing. Frank Garza, an attorney with DTRG, noted the agreements include reporting and audit safeguards and that reimbursement is tied to actual sales tax collections.
Concerns raised during discussion included whether local contractors would be used for site work (a development partner said horizontal/site work is typically locally procured but anchor tenants often select building contractors), traffic and service‑cost implications, and whether county counsel would obtain outside review of the county’s draft agreement. County treasurer Dana Wall asked whether the county’s 381 draft had been externally reviewed; staff said the city’s 380 draft had been prepared and that the county’s version would be circulated for review.
Workshop materials presented sample projections showing first‑year city sales‑tax generated by the store at about $146,250 and a city rebate of 95% of that amount; staff also showed estimated ad valorem (property‑tax) revenue accruing to the city, county and local taxing entities over 10–15 years. Officials repeatedly emphasized the structure does not require the city or county to provide upfront cash from general or utility funds and that rebates are paid only after sales tax is generated and verified.
No formal action was taken at the workshop. Staff said the latest draft of the Chapter 380 agreement would be distributed and the Chapter 381 draft would be provided to commissioners for review before any future vote. The project’s proponents and consultants said the agreements are intended to be a performance‑based, low‑risk mechanism for attracting a retail anchor they argued is needed to support long‑term retail viability in Mount Pleasant.
The city and county did not vote on the agreements at the workshop; staff said materials and final drafts will be made available ahead of the bodies’ next formal meeting when any vote would occur.