Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakeway council agrees to continue staff review of $37M incentive request for Square at Lakeway
Summary
Council directed staff to continue evaluating a developer'requested, performance'based incentive package (umbrella development agreement, TERS, Chapter 380) capped at $37 million over 25 years and asked staff to include independent financial and retail analyses and stronger investor protections; the motion passed 6'1.
The Lakeway City Council voted 6'1 on July 13 to direct staff to continue work on the developer'requested economic-incentive package for the Square at Lakeway while incorporating additional protections and independent analyses. City Manager Joseph Mollis explained staff'level analysis of three scenarios presented by the applicant: Scenario A (maximum density with parking garages) produced the highest projected buildout and city receipts and underlies the developer'requested cap of $37,000,000 over a proposed 25'year term.
Mollis said, "As proposed, the applicant is suggesting a maximum term of 25 years and a cap of $37,000,000." He summarized fiscal projections the applicant provided, including an estimated city share of about $48,400,000 across 25 years under Scenario A and projected annual revenue to the city of roughly $5,300,000 in the model year '26. The applicant (identified in the record as Haitham Dallet/Dallette) told the council the package is performance'based and urged a binary decision to continue staff work: "Tonight, just a simple answer. Yes, go forward with an incentive agreement. No, we don't want an incentive agreement."
Public comment at the meeting split sharply. Supporters told the council the project had been years in the making and argued incentives were necessary to achieve the intended community center and tax base; one longtime resident said the project is "in double overtime with no score." Opponents called the request a "bailout" and questioned whether anchors or tenants will materialize, with one commenter calling the post-demolition circumstances a "bait and switch." Council discussion focused on independent financial and retail market analysis, clawback provisions, reporting/audit rights, transferability of tax-rebate mechanisms and whether the city should withhold commitment until the road and other infrastructure are complete. The motion to continue staff analysis and to incorporate the mayor pro tem's investor'protection requests passed 6'1.
Council instructed staff to return with independent analyses, clearer performance thresholds and proposed contract terms (including successor/assign provisions and clawbacks) before any formal approval of tax'rebate or Chapter 380 agreements. The motion does not approve any incentive agreement; it authorizes further study and negotiation.
