[3. Call Meeting to Order]
[00:00:08]
>>> GOOD EVENING WHERE YOU KNOWS AGAIN.
WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED. THIS IS A CALL HEARING FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION OF THE HANWHA HEARING ON THE APPLICATION Q CELLS.
A QUORUM IS PRESENT. ANY CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS?
>> AT THIS TIME WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[5. Convene Public Hearing A. Application of Hanwha Q Cells Americas Holding Corporation (Comptroller Application No: 2089) - Attorney Kevin O'Hanlon - Presenter]
DR. PERERRA? >> THANK YOU MADAME PRESIDENT.
WE HAVE OUR BOARD ATTORNEY HERE WHO WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION.
>> MADAME PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M KEVIN O'HANLIN.
I'M THE ATTORNEY ON THIS PROJECT.
IT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION, THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY COME UP AND I'LL DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO AN ENVELOPE THAT SHOULD BE TO YOUR RIGHT HAND SIDE THAT'S ON THE DAIS THAT I LEFT THIS MORNING. I'LL ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THIS REPORT IF THE IS FIRST I'LL SUMMARIZE.
HANWHA Q CELLS IS A KOREAN COMPANY CONSIDERING A SITE AT LANCASTER ISD PARTIALLY IN DALLAS ISD.
MORE ON THAT IN A MINUTE. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLAR PANEL MANUFACTURING FACILITY. THIS FACILITY IS UNIQUE IN SOME RESPECTS IN THAT THERE ARE FOUR STAGES OF MANUFACTURING STARTING WITH THE CREATING OF THE SILICONE BARS FROM WHICH THEY CUT THE WAFERS FROM WHICH THEY PRINT PHOTO CELLS TO THE PHOTO CELLS WHICH A CHIP MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND THEY PUT THEM IN
RACKS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. >> CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE ENTIRE FACILITY IS ABOUT 1.(500)000-0000.
THE PART ORIGINALLY THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR LANCASTER ISD WAS ABOUT 1.4. ABOUT $1.7 BILLION.
DALLAS WAS GOING GET ABOUT $300 MILLION FOR ITS FACILITIES.
DALLAS DECLINED TO DO IT. THE COMPANY IS CONSIDERING ALTERING THEIR FOOTPRINT A LITTLE BIT TO PUT MORE OF IT IN LANCASTER ISD. IF DO YOU THAT.
REFERRING YOU TO THE CASEY REPORT.
ONE QUESTION THAT WE HAD WAS WHAT EFFECT WILL THAT -- THEY'RE ASKING -- LET ME GO BACK AGAIN. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A TAX LIMITATION AGREEMENT WHICH IS $80 MILLION ON THE MNO TO REDUCE THEIR TOTAL TAXES PAID TO $80 MILLION DURING THE TEN YEARS OF THIS AGREEMENT. AS I SAID, IT IS FOR MNO PURPOSES. IT DOES NOT COUNT FOR INS.
THE PROPERTY IS FULLY TAXABLE FOR INS PURPOSES.
QUESTION ONE THAT WE HAD WAS WHAT EFFECT WILL THAT HAVE ON THE DISTRICT'S DEBT SERVICE? IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASEY REPORT REFERRING YOU TO PAGE 8 OF THAT REPORT THERE'S A TABLE OVER THAT DESCRIBES THE PROJECT VALUE AND WHAT DEFECT OF THE INS RATE WILL BE. THIS OF COURSE ASSUMES THE PROJECT IS BUILT ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL SPECS THIS TABLE WAS DONE PRIOR TO THE DPAL DAL DECISION AND ALL THAT.
[00:05:01]
SO THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL VALUE PROPOSED FOR LANCASTER.IT COULD GO UP AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE DALLAS DECISION.
BUT DEFECT OF THE TAX RATE WILL BE AFTER FULL CONSTRUCTION A HIGH IN VALUE YEAR ONE WHICH IS 27 -- 26, 27 OF A $0.12 REDUCTION. THAT WILL ESSENTIALLY PROBABLY BE PERMANENT BECAUSE THE MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT TENDS TO BUT DATED AND THINGS AS NEW DEVELOPMENTS GO.
NOW, THAT ASSUMES THIS MODEL WAS BUILT ON THE FACT NO NEW BOMBS.
THAT WAS USING YOUR EXISTING BOND PORTFOLIO OUT THERE.
AND THERE'S NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE PREDICTED WHAT ACTIONS YOU DID WITH RESPECT TO BOND ISSUES BUT WHEN YOU SEE A TEN CENT REDUCTION IN DEBT SERVICE EVERY TAXPAYER IN THE DISTRICT GETS A TEN CENT REDUCTION. ORIGINALLY 12, TEN CENT REDUCTION IN THEIR TAXES OVER -- BECAUSE THIS PROJECT IS HERE.
THAT IS BECAUSE WHEN THE VALUE GOES ON ON THE ROLLS AND IT'S FULLY TAXABLE, IT INCREASES THE TAX BASE WHICH REDUCES THE NUMBER OF CENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR ANYBODY TO PAY IN ORDER TO RAISE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE WHICH IS PRINCIPLE DUE DURING THE YEAR AND INTEREST.
OKAY. SO THERE IS BY ITSELF TEN CENT REDUCTION OR UP TO $0.12 REDUCTION. THAT'S NOT A FUNCTION OF THE AGREEMENT EXCEPT INDIRECTLY. BECAUSE IT'S NOT -- IT'S EXEMPT FROM TAXES DIRECTLY SO THE AGREEMENT IS NOT WHAT GIVES YOU THE REDUCTION OF DEBT SERVICE TAX.
IT THAT THE AGREEMENT INDIRECTLY CAUSES THAT BY INDUCING THEME BUILD HERE. IF THEY BUILD HERE THEN YOU'LL HAVE THAT EFFECT. COMBLEEPZ BUT IT'S NOT A DIRECT EFFECT BECAUSE DEBT SERVICE IS NOT COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT ITSELF.
WHAT REVENUES WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE DISTRICT ASSUMING NO AGREEMENT. AND OVER THE LIFE OF THAT PERIOD IT'S $1.3 BILLION. ABOUT $71 MILLION A YEAR.
IF YOU CAN SEE THAT. IT VARIES A LITTLE BIT.
IN TERMS OF WHAT'S OUT THERE BUT THAT'S THAT.
THE SECOND IS THE VALUE LIMITATION LOAN.
THAT'S PAGE THREE. SIX, RUNS THE SAME MODEL WITH THE LIMITATION. SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. BETWEEN THE TWO.
THERE'S A DIRECT COMPARISON BETWEEN --
[00:10:05]
>> YOU GET MORE STATE AID. BECAUSE WHERE AN EQUALIZE SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM IN THE STATE. SO THE STATE -- THE STATE IS ESSENTIALLY MAKING UPMOST OF THE REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE REDUCTION IN VALUE THAT YOU DO. THE REASON WHY THEY DO THAT IS PART OF THEIR PROCESS IS AS REQUIRED BY LAW TO RUN IT THROUGH THEIR OWN MODEL AND THEY HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT OVER A DIFFERENT TIME CYCLE THEY USE A 25-YEAR TIME CYCLE IN WHICH TO BREAK EVEN. THEY USE DIFFERENT SOURCES OF REVENUES OTHER THAN DISTRICTLY LOCAL PROPERTY TAX.
THEY USE SALES TAX CONSEQUENCES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, PAYROLL TAXES AND ALL OF THAT, THAT ARE BUILT INTO THEIR MODEL.
THE STATE COMES OUT OVER A 25-YEAR PERIOD, THE STATE COMES OUT AHEAD FOR HAVING GRANTED THIS SUBSIDY.
IF THEY DON'T THE CONTROLLERS OFFICE CANNOT ISSUE THAT CERTIFICATE. SO WHEN THEY ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE, THEY'VE SAID THAT WE'VE RUN IT THROUGH OUR MODEL, THE STATES GOING TO GET ITS MONEY OVER EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE PAYING A SUBSIDY OVER THIS TEN-YEAR PERIOD THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEIR MONEY OUT OVER 25 AND THAT'S THE CONTROLLER'S JOB TO CERTIFY THAT. BASED ON THE DATA THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED. WE ALSO HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE FIRST YEAR OFF OF THIS AGREEMENT HAD A NEGATIVE TAX ON DISTRICT REVENUES AND THE ANSWER IS NO.
IF YOU LOOK AT TABLE THREE, AND YOU LOOK AT DP ONE WHICH IS THE FIRST YEAR AFTER THE LIMITATION PERIOD, THE REVENUES IN THE DISTRICT ACTUALLY GO UP NOT DOWN.
INSTEAD OF 71 THEY GO TO 83. SO IT'S NOT A NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE COMING OFF OF THIS AGREEMENT AFTER THAT.
THEN IT REVERTS BACK TO KIND OF THE NORMAL STANDARD OF 71.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE VALUE COMING ON HAS AN IMPACT FOR A SINGLE YEAR IN YOUR -- IN WHAT'S BASICALLY A COLLECTION RATE.
WHICH GENERATES STATE AID. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS IS -- THESE ARE PROJECTIONS. 2 REASON -- AND NONE OF THOSE PROJECTIONS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY POSSIBLE FUTURE CHANGES BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO DO. THIS IS TAKING CURRENT LAW AND EXTENDING IT BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE.
THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN PREDICT WHAT TO DO.
WHAT THE LEGISLATURE WILL DO IN TERMS OF CHANGES.
WE HAVE THE BASE CASE IN TERMS OF THE BASE CASE IS WHAT THE REVENUES THE DISTRICT -- THE BASE CASE IS TABLE TWO.
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE DISTRICT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IN THE EVENT THAT IT HAD NOT DONE THE DEAL.
AND THEN WE RUN THAT -- AND WE RUN THAT BASE CASE EVERY YEAR BUT IT'S NOT ON THE MODEL. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE -- THAT'S IN THERE. THE CASEY MODEL IS STATIC BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO PREDICT TAX RATES AND ACCOUNTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE AT THIS POINT AND IF WE DID IT WOULD OBSCURE THE EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT ON YOUR RESUME.
WE'D KIND OF GET LOST IN THE NUMBERS.
SO IN IS A CLEANER WAY TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND HOW THE AGREEMENT WORKS.
SO FOR THE AGREEMENT USING A STATIC MODEL WE'RE GOING TO USE ACTUAL VALUES TOWARD THIS PROJECT THAT ARE SUPPLIED BY THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. DPRZ AND THEN WE'RE SIMPLY GOING TO -- AND WE'RE GOING TO RUN THE NUMBERS ABOUT WHAT YOU -- BY THE REVENUES YOU WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IN THE BASE CASE THAT IF YOU HAD NOT HAVE DONE THE AGREEMENT AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO RUN IT -- APPLY THE LIMITATION AMOUNT INSTEAD OF THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT'S FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THIS PROJECT ONLY.
AND WE'RE GOING TO RUN IT AGAIN. SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE JUST THAT ONE NUMBER. IF THERE'S A DIFFERENCE -- THE COMPANY HAS TO PAY IT. WE DO NOT TRY AND PREDICT WHAT THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO DO BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW.
[00:15:05]
WHAT WE DO IS TRY AND MEASURE THE EFFECT OF ANY DECISION THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE ON FUTURE DISTRICT REVENUES AND PROVIDE A WAY TO RECOUPE THOSE. ALL RIGHT.THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS. IT'S WHY IT'S -- RECOUP.
SO THAT'S THE REVENUE PART OF IT IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOU'LL GET. WE HAVE BEEN DOING THESE FOR 20 YEARS. WE DID THE VERY FIRST ONE IN 2002. SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE NOT LOST A DIME ON THESE. THAT'S BECAUSE THE WAY WE MAKE THE CALCULATIONS THAT THE COMPANY IF THEY DO LOSE MONEY IN THEORY THE COMPANY HAS TO MAKE IT UP.
NOW THERE'S AN ARTIFICIAL LAW BUILT INTO THIS -- IT'S NOT INTO THE AGREEMENT. IT'S BUILT STATE LAW.
THE SECTION IN THE TEXAS EDUCATION -- SECTION 48.256 D.
LITTLE D. THAT PROVISION WAS ADDED IN 2019. IT WAS ADDED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE REPRESENTED THAT SPEAKER'S HOME DISTRICT. HAD A BUNCH OF 313 AGREEMENTS.
IT WAS PUT IN BECAUSE WHEN THE STATE DECIDED TO GO FROM PRIOR YEAR VALUES TO CURRENT YEAR VALUES, DISTRICTS WITH 313 AGREEMENTS LOST A LOT OF MONEY. THAT'S BECAUSE THE LOSSES -- IT'S NOT A STRICT LOSS. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY COST.
UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM, WE TAX THE STATE -- SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM ON THE LOCAL VALUES FROM THE YEAR BEFORE THE YEAR IN QUESTION. THE LOCAL DISTRICT YOU LEVIED ON THE LOCAL VALUES. THOSE WERE SUBMITTED TO THE STATE. WHICH GOT TURNED INTO STATE VALUES. THEY DID AUDITS AND VARIOUS THINGS BUT THAT PROCESS TOOK A YEAR AND SO WHEN THEY WERE RUNNING THE SCHOOL FINANCE MODEL AT TEA UNDER THEN CHAPTER 42, CHAPTER 48 NOW THEY DID IT WHEN THEY MADE THE CHANGES, THEY USED THE PRIOR YEAR VALUES. A.
>> HAVE ALL THE COMPARISONS. THE REVENUE PROTECTION PAYMENTS WHICH ARE CALCULATED FROM A SERIES OF ELEMENTS INCLUDING 48 PART 256 ARE $14 MILLION OUT OF THE NET BENEFIT TO THE DISTRICT OF 25. ALL RIGHT.
SO THERE ARE ABOUT 06% OF THE VALUE THAT YOU'LL GET.
SO WITH THE DISTRICT IF WE ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT STANDS TO MAKE BASED ON CURRENT PROJECTIONS OF THE VALUE AND STUDENT ACCOUNTS, $25 MILLION OVER THE LIFE OF THIS AGREEMENT ON TAP OF THE SCHOOL FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
YOU'LL NOTICE WITH AND WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT IT DIDN'T DO MUCH FOR YOUR REVENUES. THIS ADDS $25 MILLION OVER THE YEARS. IT'S NOT EVEN WILL YOULY DISTRIBUTED. IT TENDS TO PILE UP IN MATERIAL YEARS. THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE LOSS
[00:20:02]
CALCULATIONS BASED UPON THE TECHNICAL LOSS CALCULATION BASED ON THE 48256 D CALCULATION BASED ON THE NEW VALUE GOING ON BUT THE REST OF IT IS WHAT I CALL 88 PAYMENTS.THERE'S A STATIC CALCULATION IN THIS.
WE USUAL 8 BASED ON YOUR CURRENT CALCULATION.
YOU'RE IN AN INTERESTING POSITION WITH TO THIS BECAUSE QUESTION NOT CREATE A REINVESTMENT ZONE FOR THIS PROJECT. THE FORT WORTH END OF THIS PROJECT WITH WHICH YOU ARE COMPETING HAD -- YOU'RE IN -- CALLED AN ENTERPRISE ZONE. THE ENTERPRISE ZONE DOESN'T CONSCIOUS IS COVER -- COVERS WITH THE AREA THAT WAS DALLAS AND LANCASTER IN THE DEAL. THE COMPANY BECAUSE THE DALLAS I TOLD THANK YOU OTHER NIGHT THAT THE DALLAS BOARD HAD NOT DECIDED TO TABLE IT -- THERE WILL NOT BE ANOTHER MEETING.
SO THE COMPANY IS LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY OF TRYING TO PUT THE PROJECT IN LANCASTER. IF THEY CHOOSE THIS SIDE.
AND THE TAE THEY HAVE TO FIND PROJECT IN THEIR APPLICATION WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT. IN TERMS OF THAT IF THEY DO THERE WILL BE THE DALLAS SECTION OF THE VALUES WOULD BE ADDED TO THE NUMBERS THAT ARE ON THE SPREADSHEET IN FRONT OF YOU.
NO PROMISES IN TERMS OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE ENGINEERING ON THAT WHAT'S POSSIBLE OR NOT BUT THAT'S OUT THERE. IN TERMS OF THAT.
DALLAS CANNOT FIX IT. IF THEY DON'T MEET AND THEY INTENDED NOT TO MEET BETWEEN NOW AND DECEMBER 31ST.
AS OF DECEMBER 31ST, IT EXPIRES. THEIR AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
THAT'S PROSECUTETY MUCH IT. WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 20 YEARS. THE COMPANY ALWAYS GETS PAID.
THE REASON WHY IS WHOEVER ENDS UP WITH THIS PROPERTY ONE THEY DON'T EARN THE TAX BREAK UNTIL THEY HAVE BUILT THE AND PUT THE EQUIPMENT IN. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO IT. THEY START GETTING THE TAX BREAK UP FRONT. IT'S A PROMISE THAT WE MAKE A PROMISE THAT WE WILL DO THIS IF THEY BUILD IT.
OKAY. >>> I HAVE -- IN -- WE'VE ONLY
[00:26:55]
HAD TWO COMPANIES GO UNDER IN TERMS -- ABANDONED.FAILURE TO MAKE COMPANIES FROM ONE TO ANOTHER AND THEY CATCH THE OPERATIONS.
WE'VE HAD TWO WHILE BOTH OF THEM WERE SALES TO OTHER COMPANIES THAT DECIDED THEY WERE NOT GOING TO DO THE PROJECT AND WE COLLECTED EVERY DIME ON THE PENALTY ON US.
WE SENT THEM A BILL. THERE WAS SOME ADDITION COMFORT WITH RESPECT -- DISCOMFORT WITH RESPECT TO THAT BUT WE COLLECTED IN THOSE CASES.
WE'RE COMFORTABLE THAT THE AGREEMENT IN ITS FORM IS BASICALLY THE AGREEMENT ITSELF IS LARGELY ADOPTED BY THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THEY TOOK THE AGREEMENT FROM I WROTE THE FIRST ONE BEFORE THE CONTROLLERS OFFICE WE DID THE FIRST ONE OF THESE IN 2002. WE DID PROBABLY THE FIRST 150 BEFORE THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE.
THE CONTROLLERS OFFICE GOT AUTHORITY OVER THE AGREEMENT ITSELF IN 2009. THEY ADOPTED A RULE -- THEY ADOPTED THE FORM VIA A RULE WHICH IS WHY IT HAS A CONTROLLER'S OFFICE NUMBER ON THE BOTTOM OF IT IN THAT FORM.
THAT FORM WAS TAKEN FROM OUR PRIOR THIS HAD NOT -- THE WAY WE'RE DOC THIS HAS NOT CHANGED MUCH SINCE 2002.
[00:30:29]
>> ARE YOU READY FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
>> ARE THERE ANY? >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
. >> P KEVIN WHILE IT'S FRESH ON EVERYBODY'S MEMORY THE INFORMATION YOU JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE ADA ABOUT THE NUMBER OF KIDS THAT ATTEND, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT'S NOT JUST A NUMBER OF KIDS IT'S ALSO THE AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE. OVER IN TEXAS WE COUNT THE NUMBER OF DAYS BY ATTENDANCE AS WELL.
IT'S NOT JUST WE HAVE 7100 KIDS AND DON'T GO BY THAT ADA.
WE GO BY HOW MANY ARE ATTENDING. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 71 AND THE 68.
>> I WANT TO JUST BE CLEAR. >> TECHNICALLY, IT'S KNOWN BY TA
>> JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. THANK YOU.
. >> SO YOU STATED THAT DALLAS DID
IN FACT DENY. >> THEY TABLED IT.
OKAY. WHAT THE BOARD PRESIDENT SAID WAS THEY WERE GOING TO HOLD THE ITEM AND SO THEY DIDN'T VOTE YES OR NO.
THEY JUST DIDN'T VOTE. >> OKAY. SO THE INFORMATION THAT WAS MADE AVAILABLE PUBLICLY IS NOT CORRECT AS FAR AS THE
DENIAL? >> THE EFFECT OF THEIR NONACTION WITH NO BOARD MEETING IS A DENIAL.
>> OKAY. SO -- >> BUT THEY TECHNICALLY STILL HAVE TIME TO ACT BETWEEN NOW AND THREE DAYS NOTICE THEY CAN CALL A MEETING AND DO IT. I JUST DON'T -- I'M JUST -- I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING SO.
>> OKAY. >> SO IT'S NOT FINAL FINAL YET BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE TIME TO ACT BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR -- I CHECK THIRD DEGREE MORNING AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THEY INTEND TO TAKE IT UP.
>> OKAY. SO THE NUMBERS THAT ARE WITH THAT INFORMATION BEING KNOWN THE NUMBERS THAT ARE PRESENTED THESE WERE NUMBERS -- THESE ARE NUMBERS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL OFFER IS THAT CORRECT? OR ORIGINAL DISCUSSION. I WANT TO JUST CONFIRM THAT.
>> WHICH NUMBERS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
[00:35:37]
IT'S NOTES A LOT OF INFORMATION PRESENTED AT THE FIST MEETING.THE SECOND MEETING IT KIND OF LAID OUT AN IDEA MORE OF A SALES APPROACH ON WHY WE SHOULD GO WITH IT WHICH WAS THE FUNDS THAT WERE BEING PROVIDED. YOU EXPRESSED AN INTEREST THAT YOU WANTED TO HOLD FILES. WE HAD A REQUEST.
WE PUT THE ENTIRE FILE OF THIS WHOLE THING IN A DROPBOX AND SUBMITTED IT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT WHO THEN TRANSMITTED IT TO YOU. WE RETRANSMITTED THAT DOCUMENTATION IN NOVEMBER. SO YOU'VE HIT SINCE THAT.
WE PASSED OUT AN EARLIER VERSION OF THE CASEY THING DATED AUGUST 29TH TRAIPSED MITTED TO THE DISTRICT -- TRANSMITTED TO THE DISTRICT. ON THE FIRST MEETING WITH MOLLY FROM MY OFFICE YOU WERE GIVEN A SPREADSHEET AND TOLD IT WAS PRELIMINARY AND YOU WERE GIVEN COPIES OF THE APPLICATION.
>> AND AS FAR AS THE -- YOU STATED THAT THERE WAS -- THIS PROJECT WOULD LOWER THE DISTRICT TAXES AND I WANTED TO CLARIFY WERE YOU SPEAKING OF THE DISTRICT TAXES PERMANENTLY, TEMPORARILY, AND IF YOU CAN PLEASE CLARIFY HOW LONG.
>> YES, I WILL. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASEY REPORT, AND YOU LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT TABLE FIVE THERE'S TWO KINDS OF TAXES IN THE DISTRICT. I'LL REFER TO THE FIRST ONE AS THE INS TAX. SOME CALL IT DEBT SERVICE TAXES.
THERE IS A PROJECTED -- THE BEGINNING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION ON THIS, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LAG BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO START IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN THERE'S -- IT RAMPS UP WHILE IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION IT'S NOT VALUED THAT HIGH BUT ONCE IT GETS BUILT AND IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE ROLL FOR UP TO $1.3 BILLION, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT BY THE WAY IF YOU -- LOOK AT THAT CHART, AND YOU KIND OF SEE THE MAGNITUDE HERE IF YOU LOOK AT THAT YEAR IN WHICH IT'S 1.395 WHICH IS VL 1.
[00:41:57]
IT'S NOT PIMPLY ABOUT IN. AND THE REASON WHY IS THAT THE WAY MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS IN THE 80S WE HAD SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION. THERE WAS ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT SCHOOL FINANCE EQUITY. I WAS THE LAWYER FOR THE STATE IN THAT CASE. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN SCHOOL FINANCE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. BUT BECAUSE OF EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS, WE CREATED A FOUNDATION SCHOOL PROGRAM IN THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT WORKS BASICALLY THE FOLLOWING WAY.CHAPTER 48 OF THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE CREATES A SERIES OF BASICALLY KIND OF ENTITLEMENTS.
>> AND THEY FIGURE HOW MUCH OF THAT PAYMENT YOU WILL -- YOU CAN PAY OF THAT ENTITLEMENT FROM YOUR LOCAL TAX BASE AT THE COMPRESSED TAX RATE THAT THEY CALCULATE TO ANOTHER SECTION.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY THEY WILL SEND YOU SOME.
IT EQUALS PAYMENTS. IF YOU HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY THEY'LL TAKE IT BACK. THAT'S CALLED RECAPTURE.
SO WHEN YOU ADD -- I'LL GET TO TIER TWO IN A MINUTE BUT BASICALLY WHEN YOU GO TO CURRENT YEAR VALUES IN THE OLD BILL YOU GOT TO TAX IT ONE YEAR WHAT I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER BUT NOW WE HAVE CURRENT YEAR VALUES SO WHEN I PUT A BILLION DOLLARS ON YOUR TAX BASE, UNDER THIS SYSTEM ALL THE STATE IS GOING TO DO IS
REDUCE YOUR STATE AID. >> EXCEPT WHAT THEY CALL THE
[00:46:30]
GOLDEN PENNIES WHICH ARE THE FIRST EIGHT CENTS OF THE TIER TWO RATE. SO IF YOU HAVE A BIG INCREASE IN YOUR VALUES THEY CAN HAVE SOME EFFECT ON YOU THAT YOU WOULD KEEP OUR FORMULA IN THE AGREEMENT TAKES THAT INTO ACCOUNT. IF BY VIRTUE OF ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT YOU DON'T GET THE REVENUES FOR THE GOLDEN PENNIES BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING MORE THAN THE STATE AID AND YOU LOST IT, THAT'S DEFINED AS A REAL LOSS AND THE COMPANY HAS TO PAY IT.THAT'S ALL KIND OF BUILT IN. BUT BECAUSE OF ALL OF THIS PUT TOGETHER YOU DON'T GET SCHOOL DISTRICTS DON'T GET MUCH FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR SIGNIFICANT VALUE INCREASES BECAUSE THE STATE BECAUSE OF SCHOOL FINANCE EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPELLED BY THE MULTIPLE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT KEEP YOU FROM GETTING THE
ADVANTAGE OF THAT. >> WE'LL NO DOUBT WILL ASKED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: WHY DO ALL THE RICH PEOPLE GET THE TAX BREAKS AND I DON'T. OKAY. HOW COME -- THAT HARDLY SEEMS FAIR. IN TERMS OF THAT.
EVERYBODY, IT'S NOT JUST HERE. TRUSTEES GET THAT QUESTION.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS THE BENEFIT BECAUSE OF THE ANSWER. YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WE UNDERSTAND THAT -- YOU'RE ELECTED OFFICIALS.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT. SO WE WANT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION TO BE IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED BUT IT'S STILL TRUE.
WE'RE DOING IT BECAUSE WE'RE PICKING UP $25 MILLION OVER THE
[00:50:02]
COURSE OF THIS THAT WE WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE HAD TO EDUCATE YOUR KIDS. BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT ANY OTHER WAY. WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD 2 ABILITY TO RAISE THAT MONEY BECAUSE THE STATE CAPS US OUT.SO WE'RE DOING IT FOR THE KIDS BUT IN THIS CASE WHEN HAVE YOU A PROJECT THAT IS THIS MUCH OF A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR TAX BASE THAT'S OUT THERE, THE TAXPAYERS ARE GETTING A SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE. BECAUSE WHEN THIS THING GETS BUILT THEIR MOM AND DAD IS GOING TO GET A $0.10 REDUCTION IN THEIR DEBT SERVICE TAXES. THAT'S ON TOP OF THE COMPRESSION. THAT'S ON TOP OF THE -- DOESN'T
HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. >> WITH THAT INFORMATION, YOU SAID WE'RE SPEAKING OF THE RESIDENTS CORRECT? WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO GET A TAX.
>> IT'S NOT JUST TRENTS. IT'S EVERY TAXPAYER.
BUSINESSES AND ALL THAT. >> I UNDERSTAND.
SO AS FAR AS TRENTS ARE CONCERNED CAN YOU GIVE US A HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER BASED ON SAVINGS LET'S SAY BASED ON A PROPERTY THAT'S BEING TAXED AT $4,000.
>> OKAY. I PROBABLY CAN. I NEED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BEFORE I DO THAT.
$350,000. >> MAKE IT 100 OR 200 OR
SOMETHING. >> 300,000 AVERAGE.
SO SIT A THIS YEAR IS THE FIRST YEAR THAT HOME SET EXEMPTION WENT UP TO $40,000. -- HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WENT UP TO $40,000 SO THAT 300,000, THAT $300,000 HOUSE IS ON THE TAX ROLLS IF IT'S A HOMESTEAD AT 260.
260, 4.3%. $0.43 IS -- LET ME FIND MY CALCULATOR HERE.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO CALCULATE THAT.
[00:55:03]
BUT A REALISTIC HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION IN THE HOUSE IN THAT AMOUNT WHERE FRARS THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND ALL OF THAT IT WOULD REALLY NOT BE A TRUE BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER EXEMPTIONS.>> HAVE A LOT AH TO DO WITH THEIR AGE.
>> THERE'S SOME ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEBT SERVICE AND THAT KIND OF
STUFF BUT -- >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION BUT AGAIN --
>> SFLOOEVENSON, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> YEAH. BASICALLY I WAS HOPING FOR MORE ON THE INS RATE BUT A 25% SAVINGS IS A SOLID SAVINGS.
I LIKE THAT AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TAKE TO THE PEOPLE IF WE
MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET IT. >> THAT'S 25% OF THE DEBT
SERVICE NOT -- >> THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING
BASICALLY. THE AGREEMENT DOESN'T TOUCH THE DEBT SERVICE AT ALL BUT IT ATTRACTS THE PLANT THAT GETS BUILT THAT REDUCES THE DEBT SERVICE.
>> THIS REPRESENTS QUITE A BIT OF SAVE LINGS FOR THE COMPANY
THE PROJECTED SAVINGS FOR THE COMPANY IF YOU LOOK AT K, COLUMN K, AND THERE'S A LITTLE ORANGE BOX DOWN AT THE BOTTOM.
IS $81 MILLION AND THIS REPRESENTS SAVINGS OF --
[01:01:13]
>> THERE'S OTHER FACTORS THAT WILL VARY THAT.
WHAT YEAR STUDENT ACCOUNT IS GOING TO DO BECAUSE THAT PUSHES OFF RECAPTURE. WHAT ARE THE VALUES OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES? THAT -- GOING DOWN REDUCES RECAPTURE GOING UP INCREASES IT. THE LIKELYHOOD OF THAT.
THERE WILL BE UNDOUBTEDLY BECAUSE THEY DO THIS EVERY YEAR THE AMOUNT AT WHICH THEY CALCULATE RECAPTURE GOES UP EVERY -- THEY RESET THE FORMULA ELEMENT SOMEWHAT THEY INCREASE THE BASIC A LOTMENT AND INCREASE THE TEAR TWO GUARANTEE DEAL RATE -- TIER TWO GUARANTEED DEAL RATE.
IT VARIES. IT CAN BE AS LOW AS 2 TO 3% OR AS HIGH AS 6%.
THEY GOT A LOT OF MONEY THIS TIME.
AS THE FUNDING ELEMENTS GO UP, IT'S A LONGER WAY TOWARDS WHEN YOU HIT RECAPTURE. BECAUSE THE ENTITLEMENT GOES UP.
>> SO HAVE YOU GOT ANY IDEA WHAT KIND OF DEAL THE CITY IS OFFERING AS FAR AS TAXES OR ANYTHING?
>> DO I HAVE WHAT? >> ANY IDEA WHAT THE CITY IS OFFERING? WHAT LANCASTER IS OFFER SNOWING.
>> NO, SIR. I HAVE NOT -- I HAD ONE MEETING WITH THE CITY TELECONFERENCE WITH THE COOPERATION EARLY ON -- CORPORATION EARLY ON IN THIS AND HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED WITH THEM AT ALL.
>> SO THIS LETTER THAT WE GOT FROM THE COMPANY TALKING ABOUT THE INTEREST IN OUR FINE CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT, DID THEY ALSO SEND A LETTER LIKE THAT TO FORT WORTH?
>> SURE. THAT'S WHAT THEIR APPLICATION IS. THE REASON WHY I SOLICITED TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I SOLICITED THAT LETTER BECAUSE THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HOW COMMITTED THE BOARD HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW COMMITTED THEY WERE TOWARDS A COUPLE OF THE THINGS KIND OF THE SUPPORTING ARE INTERNSHIP, SUPPORTING VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
AFTER THAT MEETING, I MADE THE PHONE CALL AND THIS WAS THE RESPONSE THAT I GOT IN TERMS OF THAT BECAUSE I TOLD THEM THE BOARD HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT AND WERE INTERESTED IN THEIR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THAT. PASSED THAT ON.
THAT'S NOT ATYPICAL IN THESE SITUATIONS.
THE COMPANY TO BE HONEST WITH YOU WHAT'S PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT IS THE AVAILABILITY OF A WORKFORCE TO DO THE JOB.
HR NOT GOING TO MAKE MONEY UNLESS THEY CAN DO THE JOB.
THEY LIKE THE WORKFORCE COMPOSITION IN THIS AREA.
THAT'S WHAT ATTRACTED THEM HERE. SO THEY ARE GOING TO INVEST IN THAT WORKFORCE BECAUSE SYSTEM OUT OF PUBLIC SPIRITEDNESS AND
[01:05:02]
SOME OUT OF PLAIN OLD SELF-INTEREST BECAUSE THEY NEED TRAINED WORKERS TO CARRY ON THE FUNCTIONS THAT WILL TAKE PLACE IN THIS FACILITY.SO IT'S A -- HOPEFULLY A MUTUAL BENEFIT.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?
>>. >> WELL MR. SMITH HAS QUESTIONS.
>> I DO HAVE A COMMENT. I READ THAT LETTER FROM THE GUYS. VP OF HANWHA.
I APPRECIATE YOU PASSING ON THE CONCERNS BECAUSE THE LETTER DIRECTLY SPOKE ABOUT THOSE ELEMENTS YOU TALKED ABOUT AND I KNOW JOBS WAS A BIG CONCERN OF MY OWN SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERING THAT WE BROUGHT A LOT OF BUSINESS HERE TO THIS AREA AND UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF THE BUSINESSES SO IS HIRE OUTSIDE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S A HUGE CONCERN.
THANK YOU. I WANTED TO JUST SAY THAT.
>> AND IT GOES BEYOND THAT. CONVERSATION RAZE GONE BEYOND THAT. THEY ARE AWARE THERE IS A COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILE ANY THE AREA.
THERE'S ALSO NORTH TEXAS HAS FACILITIES IN AREA.
>> ANYONE ELSE? >> OKAY. SO YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE MAY MAKE CHANGES THAT COULD VERY WELL IMPACT THE DISTRICT IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE SPREADSHEET LET'S GO BACK TO THE ONE PAGE SPREADSHEET. WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO IS THIS: THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE COMES TO TOWN AND MAKES A CHANGE IN SCHOOL FINANCE FORMULAS EVERY TWO YEARS.
ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WAS PART OF THE PROBLEM IN TERMS OF HOW TO DO THESE. WE HAVE CREATED BASICALLY THE AGREEMENT ITSELF CREATES AN EQUATION.
IT EQUATES TWO EQUATIONS. ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION, WE PUT THE ELEMENTS OF THE THEN CURRENT SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM.
IT'S APPLES TO APPLES. THE ONLY THAT I THINK WE CHANGED IS ONE DATA ELEMENT. THAT DATA ELEMENT IS THE APPRAISED VALUE PUT ON BY THE APPRAISING DISTRICT WHICH THEY USE FOR DEBT TAX SERVICES VERSUS THE LIMITED VALUE.
SO WHEN IT CHANGES, THE LEGISLATURE -- THIS IS -- THE AGREEMENT IS TRANSPARENT TO WHETHER OR NOT YOUR REVENUES GO UP BECAUSE IF THE REVENUES GO UP THE CALCULATION WILL HAVE THEM GOING UP ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT EQUATION.
SO THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THAT ONE VALUE CHANGE ON -- AND IT COULD BE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG VALUE. BUT AT LAST IT.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PREDICT SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM ON SETTING THIS THING UP THE FIRST TIME WE DID IT.
TOOK ME ABOUT THREE MONTHS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS.
IN TERMS OF TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD PROTECT THE DISTRICT KNOWING THAT THE LEGISLATURE GOES ALONG AND CHANGES IT EVERY TIME.
WE DON'T TRY TO PREDICT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO DO.
WE MEASURE WHAT THIS AGREEMENT IS DESIGNED TO DO IS MEASURE THE REVENUE EFFECT OF YOUR DECISION TO GRANT THIS ON YOUR DISTRICT REVENUES FOR EACH YEAR THAT WE MAKE THE CALCULATION.
AND THEN THEY HAVE TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.
SO WE DON'T TRY AND PREDICT WHAT THE ELECT WHICH YOU ARE IS GOING
WHERE I WAS GOING WITH MY QUESTION IS AFTER CLARIFYING THAT THE LEGISLATOR COULD COME IN AND MAKE CHANGES IF HIT IS IN FACT A CHANGE THAT -- CAN YOU GIVE ME A SCENARIO, HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND IN WHAT SITUATION COULD A LEGISLATOR MAKE CHANGES THAT COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE DISTRICT AND BASICALLY, YES.
AND IN THIS PROJECT OR THIS AGREEMENT?
>> ALL RIGHT. I SUPPOSE -- WELL, NO.
[01:10:03]
THERE'S A PROVISION IN THERE THAT SAYS IF -- I WAS GOING TO SAY IF THEY GOT RID OF LOCAL PROPERTY TAX AND MADE A STATEWIDE PROPERTY TAX YOU WOULD LOSE THAT REVENUE BUT YOU DON'T.I PUT IN A PROVISION THAT SAYS YOU GET TO KEEP THAT REVENUE TOO. IT'S A LOSS IF THE STATE EVER TAKES IT AWAY FROM YOU. EVEN WITHOUT THE VALUE AND IT GOT APPRAISED DOWN LOW THERE WOULD BE A VALUE REDUCTION BUT IN THAT CASE, STATE AID WOULD KICK UP BECAUSE YOUR VALUES WENT DOWN. SO IT'S NOT TOTALLY CATASTROPHIC. WE'RE NOT DEPENDENT ON THIS FOR THE MAJORITY OF OUR REVENUES. THIS IS TRULY WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS FOR INCREMENTAL REVENUES, THE $25 MILLION AT THE EDGE OF
OUR -- TO AUGMENT OUR PROGRAMS. >> WITH YOU SAYING THAT, AS FAR AS -- SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT THIS WILL BE IN PLACE THAT WOULD AS FAR AS THE AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS THAT WOULD PROTECT THE DISTRICT.
>> NO. I CANNOT ASK THE COMPANY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY TAX EQUAL IN UNIFORM TAXATION ARTICLE 8 SECTION 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION APPRAISAL BY THE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT. IS WE WOULD TAKE ON A LOT OF THE BENEFITS. HOWEVER IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES WITH THIS COMPANY LET'S SAY THEY DECIDE NOT TO -- WE AGREE WE MOVE FORWARD BUT THEN THEY COME BACK AND SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THE 9 AH 350ESHG OUT THERE, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO DO 50% SO THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE AGREEMENT.
IT WON'T CHANGE THE AGREEMENT. IT WILL CHANGE THE EFFECTS OF THE AGREEMENT. LET'S GO THROUGH THE NATURE OF THIS. LET'S GO BACK TO THE SPREADSHEET FOR A SECOND. IF THEY ONLY PUT ON HALF OF THOSE, IT'S A CONSTRUCTION SLOT AND ULTIMATELY THEY DO IT AND THEN WE'LL RUN THIS ON THE ACTUAL VALUES OF THE APPRAISAL
[01:15:30]
DISTRICT. IN TEND IT'S NOT THE COMPANY'S DECISION OF THE VALUE. IT'S THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT'S DECISION OF WHAT THE VALUE IS ON THAT.IF THAT APPRAISAL DISTRICT IS LOWER, THEY GET LESS BENEFIT.
OKAY. SO THERE WILL BE A PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION IN THEIR BENEFIT. THERE WILL BE A SOMEWHAT OF A REDUCTION IN OURS. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GET 20 SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS DOPPED OUT AT 20% OF THE NET BENEFIT.
BUT IT'S ALL PROPORTIONALLY REDUCED.
SIMILARLY, IF THIS IS LOW AND EVERYBODY WANTS TO BUY SOLAR PANELS AND THIS GOES UP, THEN OUR TAKE INCREASES PROPORTIONATELY WITH THE VALUE. SO WE ARE NOT PREDICTING THERE'S A MODEL HERE THAT'S BASED ON THEIR NUMBERS.
BUT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ON THE VALUE FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WILL BE SUPPLIED FOR EVERY YEAR OF THIS BY THE APPRAISAL
DISTRICT. >> I UNDERSTAND THE APPRAISAL SIDE OF IT. I WAS JUST SPEAK ONNING THE BUSINESS SIDE OF IT. BUT I'M SORRY GO AHEAD AND
I'M SAYING THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT VALUES THEY HAVE A RIGHT UNDER STATE LAW TO APPEAL IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO AND LITIGATE IT. PEOPLE DO IT.
THEY GENERALLY DON'T. ESPECIALLY WITH -- THE VALUE AGREEMENT IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GETTING THAT MUCH OF A BENEFIT FROM IT BECAUSE IF I REDUCE -- IF I'VE GOT LIMITATION AGREEMENT IN PLACE, THEN -- AND I SAY IT'S A BILLION DOLLARS INSTEAD OF 1.3 KNOCKING IT DOWN FROM A BILLION DOESN'T DO ME ANY GOOD BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATION IS 80 MILLION.
SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FEEL THAT VALUE.
THERE'S NO RUSH FOR THAT LEGAL COST TO DO IT.
>> OKAY. SO AFTER OUR CONTRACT ENDS WITH THIS 313 CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THAT COULD POSSIBLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE
DISTRICT AND ALSO THE CITIZENS? >> OKAY. SO GOING BACK TO THE CASEY REPORT, LOOKING AT TABLE 5, THAT'S PROJECTED ON HERE.
YOUR REVENUES IN THE 11TH YEAR WHICH IS THE FIRST YEAR AFTER THE AGREEMENT COMES OFF, ONCE THE AGREEMENT -- ONCE THE $80.10 YEARS LIMITATION AMOUNTS EXPIRE THE TEN YEAR PERIOD, THEN IT GOES BACK ON THE ROLLS AND IT'S TAXABLE VALUE.
IT'S WHATEVER IT IS, WHATEVER THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT IS.
SO THE LIMITATION IS WHAT WE PUT ON IT AND WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO BUT EACH YEAR THERE'S GOING TO BE AN APPRAISED VALUE ON THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DO IT FOR DEBT SERVICE SO WE'RE GOING TO KNOW. THEY STILL APPRAISE IT.
WE'LL KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE P1 -- VP 1 ON TABLE -- EXCUSE ME. TABLE THREE VP 1 THE ACTUAL REVENUES GO UP. IT'S BECAUSE OUR COLLECTION RIGHTS GO UP AND WE EARN GIVEN OUR CURRENT TAX RATE WE EARN A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TIER TWO MONEY UNDER THE SYSTEM AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW. WHO KNOWS.
BUT WE WOULD BE PROJECTED TO ACTUALLY GO UP FOR ONE YEAR BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE THE HIGHER COLLECTION RATES THAN
ANTICIPATED. >> SO WE WILL RECEIVE -- THE
DISTRICT WILL RECEIVE. >> YES.
>> OKAY BUT HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE RESIDENTS?
>> THE RESIDENTS WILL BE -- THE RESIDENTS WILL -- THE DEBT SERVICE WILL BE THE DEBT SERVICE WILL BE THE SAME TEN CENT REDUCTION. TRENTS WHEN THE PROPERTY GOES ON REMEMBER BECAUSE OF MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM WORKS IT WON'T HAVE ANY EFFECT AT ALL ON THE RESIDENTS. YOU MAY GET AN ACTUAL -- YOU MAY
[01:20:06]
GET THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS. YOU CAN'T KEEP DOING THIS INDEFINITELY BECAUSE YOU RUN OUT OF MONEY BUT ASSUMING THAT IT WOULD BE IN PLACE THEN THE -- THAT EXTRA MONEY MAY CAUSE YOU TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION FOR THAT YEAR WHICH WOULD ALLOW US ANOTHER TAXPAYER DECREASE.>> OKAY. SO THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THAT.
NOW AS FAR AS THE COMPANY IS CONCERNED, I KNOW THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED BEFORE BUT JUST TO GET CLARIFICATION, ARE THERE ANY -- WHAT ARE THE CHEMICAL EFFECTS? WHAT IS -- IN AN ENVIRONMENT SENSE THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THIS ENTERPRISE THAT WOULD WANT BE.
>> WHAT ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT ACTUALLY WOULD BE USED IF THERE WAS A SITUATION THAT CAN IMPACT LANCASTER.
>> THAT CAN IMPACT WHAT? >> LANCASTER, THE DISTRICT.
THE CITIZENS AS FAR AS CHEMICALS.
AS FAR AS IF ANYTHING WAS JUST SO HAPPENED TO --
>> IT IS UN-LUKELY GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE ENTERPRISE.
OF THIS TYPE OF MANUFACTURING THAT THIS IS GOING TO CREATE SUCH AN INCIDENT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S REQUIRED TO DO A PERMIT, THIS IS NOT A REFINERY. THIS IS NOT -- THIS IS NOT A FOOT LONG CHEMICAL REFINERY OR THING OF THAT NATURE THAT HAVE TO HAVE MORE MITIGATION STRATEGIES IN TERMS OF WHAT'S OUT THERE. SO CATASTROPHIC EVENT GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE UNDERTAKING IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT IT WOULD BE ANY KIND OF THING OFF OF THE PLANT GROUNDS.
>> AS FAR AS IMPACTS ANYTHING WAS TO TAKE PLACE THERE IS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT NOT EVEN IN ONE OF THE SLIDES IT STAYS NEW INDUSTRIAL GAS MANUFACTURING FACILITY IS THAT NOT -- THAT'S
WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME. >> YES.
THEY ARE -- THEY ARE MAKING SOME OF THEIR MODIFYING SOME OF THE GAS IN ORDER TO DO THEIR PROCESSES.
YES. LEAS SGLAP BUT IT'S NOT LIKE -- I DID ONE TWO DAYS AGO FOR AIR PRODUCTS.
WE'VE DONE A BUNCH OF INDUSTRIAL SCALE PLANTS THAT DO THIS COMMERCIALLY THAT SELL IT. THEY'RE DOING IT FOR THEIR OWN USE. THEY'RE NOT IN THE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS. THEY'RE IN THE MODIFICATION OF THESE FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. THEY'RE NOT SELLING ANYTHING
THAT THEY MODIFY OFF THE PLANT. >> I UNDERSTAND.
>> SO THEY'RE NOT DOING COMMERCIAL QUALITIES.
ALL THEIR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES ARE FOR THEIR OWN USE OTHER THAN OBVIOUSLY MAKING THE SOLAR PANELS.
THEY'RE NOT IN INDUSTRIAL GASES. THERE IS SOME OF THAT ALL OF THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE PERMITTED.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTION PHRASE THE BOARD?
>> OKAY. SO AS FAR AS WHAT'S TAKING PLACE WITH WHAT HAS TAKING PLACE JUST TO CLARIFY WE DO NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION NEW INFORMATION BECAUSE OF THIS NEW INFORMATION THAT HAS COME OUT SO JUST CLARIFICATION INFORMATION WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS THE -- IS OLD INFORMATION WHICH WOULD KIND OF BE IRRELEVANT TO WHAT WE WILL HAVE TO REVISIT BASED ON THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WOULD
[01:25:03]
BE RECEIVED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DALLAS AND ARE IN FACT LOOKING TO 90% COMING TO LANCASTER.AND NOT IN ANY REALTIME SENSE. LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICATION ITSELF FOR BOTH LANCASTER AND DALLAS, BOTH OF THE APPLICATIONS HAD -- WERE FOR THE ENTIRE FACILITY. SO THE DEFINITION OF THE DEFINITION OF THE APPLICATION WAS FOR THE WHOLE KIT AND CARCINOMA BOOEDAL. THEY SHOWED A TRACT OF LAND THEY PUT BOXES ON A PIECE OF PAPER SHOWING US THE INITIAL LAYOUT.
THEY DON'T HAVE SITE PLANS RIGHT NOW.
IT'S GOING TO BE A WHILE BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY MICROLOCATE BEFORE WE GET SITE PLANS AND DRAWINGS. UNTIL WE DO, WE WON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS IN THE DISTRICT. THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT I WOULD CONSIDER DOING LIKE DOING A MINOR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OR OTHER THINGS WITH DALLAS TO TRY TO GET IT ALL DOWN THE ROAD IF IT LOOKS LIKE THEY CAN'T GET IT ALL IN LANCASTER.
I WOULD LOVE IF DALLAS DOESN'T WANT TO THE I WOULD LIKE NOT TO HAVE THAT VALUE ESCAPE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE 100% OF THAT IN THE DISTRICT SO WE WILL PURSUE THAT BUT THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE ENGINEERED DRAWINGS, SITE LAYOUTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT TYPICALLY ARE NOT AVAILABLE.
>> OKAY. MY LAST QUESTION, WELL, POSSIBLY, WHO ALL ARE YOU
REPRESENTING IN THIS DEAL? >> YOU.
>> AND. >> I DID ALITO, FORT WORTH, AND I'VE WORKED ON DALLAS. I WASN'T THE PRINCIPAL THERE.
>> SO AS FAR AS THIS DEAL WITH THIS COMPANY YOU'RE STATING WE ARE THE ONLY ONE YOU'RE REPRESENTING?
>> I DON'T REPRESENT THE COMPANY.
I REPRESENT ALL OF THE DISTRICTS.
YOU HAVE TWO THINGS AS A RESULT OF THAT.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT I TOLD YOU IF THERE WAS A CONFLICT I WOULD GET OUT.
THERE'S A REASON WHY AN ADVANTAGE I DID THE SAME THING IN TAYLOR ISD FOR TAYLOR AND MAINER ISD TOGETHER AND THAT IS -- IT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO WAS TO NEGOTIATE A DEAL THAT WOULD NOT PIT ANY OF THE DISTRICTS FINANCIALLY AGAINST EACH OTHER AND WE DID THAT. EVERYBODY OF THE DISTRICTS HAS IMPACTLY THE SAME DEAL. ALL RIGHT.
NOW THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PLANT LOCATION IS NOT IDENTICAL.
YOU HAD A BUNCH MORE THAN DALLAS.
THAT WAS NOT A NEGOTIATED DEAL. THAT WAS THEIR ORIGINAL LAYOUT.
WE HAD THE SAME THING IN ALITO AND FORT WORTH.
THE PERCENTAGES WERE MORE EVEN OVER THERE.
BUT THE DEAL IS IDENTICAL. >> LIT BE THE NEXT ATTEMPT 56 THE HERING.
>> IF YOU COULD PLEASE CONTINUE. THANK YOU.
>> THAT'S IT. YOU GOT THE SAME DEAL AS EVERYBODY ELSE. THE ONLY VARIANCE -- DIFFERENCE IN THE AGREEMENTS ARE THOSE THINGS OVER WHICH WE HAVE NO CONTROL WHICH IS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN YOURS AND THE ADJOINING DISTRICT AND YOUR AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE.
OTHER THAN THAT, THOSE ARE NOT TERMS THAT ARE DEFINED IN THE AGREEMENT ANYWAY. THOSE ARE CALCULATED.
IN BOTH CASES THEY'RE CALCULATED.
SO THE WORDS ON THE PAPER ARE IDENTICAL.
>> NOT AT THIS TIME. >> OKAY. BOARD ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTION FREEWAY AUD AUDIENCE?
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE TIME IS 7:30. >> THANK YOU.
[7.A. Consider and adopt Findings on the Application of Hanwha Q Cells Americas Holding Corporation (Comptroller Application No: 2089), for an Appraised Value Limitation on Qualified Property]
>> WE HAVE ACTION ITEMS. FIRST ACTION ITEM IS TO CONSIDER AND FINDING OF APPLICATION, THE HANWHA, THE COMPTROLLER 2089 ON LIMITATION.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >> HEARING NONE. MS. WHITFIELD?
[01:30:09]
>> I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN AS FAR AS INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED. UP TO DATE INFORMATION BASED ON THE CHANGES THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE ARE NOT IN FRONT OF US IN ORDER TO HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION. IN MY OPINION I DO BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE HAD A WORKSHOP ON THIS. IN CLOSED SESSION THERE WAS NOT MUCH TIME SPENT ON THIS.
SOME OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WAS TO ME MINIMUM, UNCLEAR, AND REPETITIVE.
BUT NOT FULLY I GUESS -- RELAID OR DISCUSSED. THE QUESTION AND THE CONCERN WAS THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I DO HAVE A CONCERN AS IT RELATES AND I EXPRESSED THAT ONCE PRIOR TO THAT I DID FEEL THAT THERE COULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AS FAR AS THE DEAL GOES, EVERYTHING SOUNDS GOOD.
OF COURSE, MONEY ALWAYS SOUNDS GOOD WHEN IT IS FAVORABLE AND SEEMS LESS RISK RISKY. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE DISCUSSION IT WAS TALKED OVER MORE AS FAR AS THE RISK IS CONCERNED.
HOWEVER, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE ARE RISKS. AND OF COURSE, THERE ARE RISKS IN AREAS THAT I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE DISCUSSED EVEN IF IT WAS IN A WORKSHOP TO GET CLARIFICATION. THIS IS A BIG PROJECT AND A MAJOR DECISION.
THIS IS A BIG DECISION THAT COULD POSSIBLY POSITIVELY IMPACT LANCASTER ALTOGETHER AND THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CON SIDE OF THIS SITUATION AND -- I DON'T FEEL WE HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US TO WEIGH BOTH.
WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT BENEFITS OF EVERYTHING, BUT NO ATTENTION WAS PAID TO THE CON SIDE OF ANYTHING. IF THERE WERE ANY DISCUSSIONS MADE OUTSIDE OF THE CLOSED SESSION IN WHICH WAS CLEAR THAT THE FIRST ONE WAS FOR THE APPLICATION, THE NEXT TWO IT WAS TO ME JUST FLEW BY. HE TALKED -- BUT, IT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION TALKED AROUND A LOT OF THINGS AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS ASKED FOR WE TRIED TO FOLLOW-UP TODAY TO TRY TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS ASKED FOR A MONTH AGO OR TWO MONTHS AGO, OR WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT, I THINK IT WOULD ONLY BE FAIR THAT WITH THE PRO'S THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO US, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING THAT WE DISCUSS IS MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, THAT THE CITIZENS, THE DISTRICT WAS FULLY EDUCATED ON THE CON'S ITSELF BECAUSE THIS ALSO IMPACTS EVERYONE. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, ITS -- I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF THIS THAT I'M NOT I WEAR OF THE DETAILS OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS. BUT, WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED AS FAR AS THE THREE MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE HAD, IT WAS NOT A DETAILED DISCUSSION AND AGAIN THE INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED IT WAS PRESENTED IN A TIMELY MANNER, IF ANY, TO REVIEW, AND NOW WE HAVE NEW INFORMATION BECAUSE DALLAS HAS TABLED IT AND/OR BACKED OUT. SO, THAT'S NEW INFORMATION ON TOP OF THIS INFORMATION WHICH MAKES THIS INFORMATION PRETTY MUCH IRRELEVANT.
IT GIVES YOU A BASIS OF HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE TO REVIEW IT.
BUT, AS FAR AS THE NEW INFORMATION AND HOW THAT IMPACTS US WITH DALLAS NOT MOVING FORWARD BUT COMING INTO LANCASTER, IT IS ON A MUCH MORE LARGER SCALE THAT ALSO SHOULD BE REVIEWED SO WHEN WE ARE MAKING A DECISION WE ARE DOING IT DUE
[01:35:06]
DILIGENCE TO OUR CONSTITUENCY AND THE DISTRICT AND WHAT HAVE YOU AND MAKE A CONFIDENT DECISION BASED ON FACTS NOT JUST A PRETTY PICTURE.SO, THAT'S THAT. >> [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> GO AHEAD.
>> FIRST OFF -- LET ME BE CLEAR; THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION.
ALL RIGHT? I HAVE PRESENTED THE DOCUMENTS THAT I WAS READING IN MOST LOCATIONS AND I [INDISCERNIBLE] -- SECOND THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I DISCLOSED THAT RELATIONSHIP IN THE FIRST, SECOND AND THE THIRD AND AS I SAID IF ANYBODY HAD AN ISSUE IF THEY COME AND I WOULD WITHDRAW. AND WITHDRAW FROM ALL OF THE DISTRICTS. NO ONE DID. WITH RESPECT TO THE RISK, I HAVE DISCLOSED AS IT IS MY LEGAL DETAIL. I'M LAWYER IN THIS.
MYA ASSESSMENT OF ALL OF THE RISK, THE BENEFITS AND THE POSSIBLE FAILURE MODES AND I HAVE DONE THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THAT. THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION.
LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS; THERE'S NO MORE TIME. I WENT TO THREE MEETINGS AND CLOSED SESSIONS AND ANSWERED ALL OF THE QUESTIONS WHAT WERE ASKED OF ME ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND SOME WERE MORE THAN AN HOUR EACH WITH RESPECT TO THAT.
AND THE APPLICATION WAS IN THE ROOM AT THE TIME AND AVAILABLE TO THE TRUSTEES.
IF YOU DO NOT DECIDE THIS TONIGHT, YOU HAVE DECIDED THIS.
IF YOU DO NOT VOTE, DO NOT APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, THIS PROJECT WILL NOT -- YOU CAN'T PICK IT UP NEXT YEAR. THIS IS IT. OKAY? SO, I'M SORRY IF YOU HAD MORE INFORMATION. IF YOU WANTED MORE INFORMATION, I WOULD HAVE GLADLY SUPPLIED IT. YOU HAVE EVERYTHING.
YOU HAVE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF EVERYTHING AND YOU HAVE HAD IT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.
WITH REGARD TO OUTSIDE CONVERSATIONS, I HAVE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE OF THIS, NOT WITH THE TRUSTEES. I HAVE ADDRESSED WITH TRUSTEES IN POSTED MEETINGS, MOSTLY IN CLOSED SESSIONS THAT IS AUTHORIZED TO 551.82. AND I HAVE MET MULTIPLE TIMES WITH THE APPLICANTS SO I COULD UNDERSTAND THE PROJECT SO I CAN BRING YOU QUESTIONS TO YOUR INQUIRES WHEN I HAVE DONE. I HAVE GIVEN YOU EVERYTHING THAT I KNOW ABOUT THIS PROJECT. I HAVE WITHHELD NOTHING AND IT IS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD
FOR ITS CONSIDERATION FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS?
>> HOLD ON. MR. STEVENSON. >> I FEEL LIKE I HAVE THE INFORMATION I NEED TO MAKE A GOOD EDUCATED DECISION FOR MY CONSTITUENCY.
MY CONCERN IS WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS AND WE HAVE A LOT TO CONSIDER.
THIS IS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THAT ANY OF OUR CONSTITUENCY TO HAVE FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON, THE NAME OF THE COMPANY OR WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS WITH THIS DISTRICT. I FIND THAT WITH DEEP REGRET. AND THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF VALUE TO OFFER AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU -- >> IF I COULD RESPOND TO THAT.
JUST IN THE NATURE. I UNDERSTAND THE THING ABOUT THE PUBLIC PROCESS.
BUT, ECONOMY -- THAT IS BECAUSE THE COMPANIES DON'T -- THEY ARE NEGOTIATIONS WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE. THEY DON'T LIKE TO DO IT IN PUBLIC.
THEY WILL WALK AWAY. IT IS NOT LIKE WE ARE TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING FROM THE CONSTITUENCIES. IT IS THE NATURE OF THESE BEASTS THAT THEY ARE DONE IN CONFIDENCE. SO, THEY HAVE TO RELY ON THE EXPERTISE AND THE TRUSTEES AND LOOK OUT FOR THEIR INTERESTS IN THIS. IT IS THE NATURE OF THE
[01:40:04]
BUSINESS. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. IN A FEW DAYS, THIS PROGRAM ENDS. THAT'S WHY WE ARE UNDER THE GUN AND THE CONSTITUENCIES
HAVE NO REAL INFORMATION. >> THANK YOU. >> MS. MORRIS.
>> [INDISCERNIBLE] -- YOUR LEGAL FIRM -- FROM SEATING IN MY SEAT FOR DISTRICT 6 I APOLOGIZE FOR THE ACCUSATION OF THIS. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
I GUESS MAYBE I AM THE ONLY ONE THAT -- DROPPED BOX. MAYBE I WAS.
BUT ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND A LITTLE BIT MORE WAS IN THAT DROP BOX.
I AM STATING FROM MY SEAT THAT NO ONE THAT HAD BEEN WITH THE CITY AND HAS BEEN INVOLVED AND LIVING FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND OWNED PROPERTY AND SEEN THE WAREHOUSES BEING BUILT, IT IS NOT EASY TO THINK WHAT COULD BE PROJECTED.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE -- FROM MY SEAT. IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, I WANT
MY NAME ON IT. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS ORLOR
COMMENTS. >> I WILL GO AHEAD BEFORE YOU MAKE YOURS.
>> BASED ON THE INFORMATION, THANKS FOR THE INFORMATION AND IT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WOULD'VE TAKEN ADDITIONAL TIME OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING TO READ. I DID REVIEW DROP BOX AND THE OTHER INFORMATION SENT TO US. I THINK THIS OPPORTUNITY IS AN ADVANTAGE FOR NOT ONLY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BUT THE CITIZENS OF LANCASTER. BASED ON THE RISK, WE CAN'T FORESEE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. BASED ON THIS, AS YOUR ATTORNEY, YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE BEST INTEREST AS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND YOUR JOB IS TO PROTECT US AND I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS AND I THINK THIS
WILL BE AN ADVANTAGE TO OUR COMMUNITY. >> MS. WOODFIELD.
>> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO STATE, IF THIS PASSES AND THIS TURNS OUT TO BE A GREAT, YOU KNOW, ORDEAL FOR THE DISTRICT, THEN THAT IS AWESOME.
AND IF IT DOESN'T, THEN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY TAKE HEED TO WHEN MAKING DECISIONS, ESPECIALLY MAJOR DECISIONS BECAUSE THIS IS A MAJOR DECISION.
>> AS IT RELATE -- I'M NOT ACCUSING ANYONE OF ANYTHING. MY CONCERN DURING THE -- MY CONCERN AS FAR AS THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I STATED IT COULD BE LOOKED AT AS CONFLICT OF INTEREST ESPECIALLY BASED ON HAVING AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ALL DISTRICTS AND HOW THIS COULD BE REVIEWED AND BROKE DOWN. NOW, DURING THE TIME THAT I ACTUALLY GESTURED AND STATED FROM MY CONCERN, IT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WAS IN THE FIRST MEETING AND WAS DURING THIS FIRST MEETING IN WHICH DURING THAT MEETING I WAS BEING TALKED OVER AND CUT OFF WHEN I WAS TRYING TO SPEAK DURING THAT TIME.
I DO BELIEVE IT WAS -- I DON'T HAVE THE MONTH -- I'M SORRY.
I THINK IT WAS THE SECOND MEETING WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT UP WHEN IT WAS MENTION -- YOU MENTIONED, IF YOU FELT THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU WOULD, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD DISCUSS IT OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
AND AS I TRYING TO VOICE MY OPINION I WAS CUT OFF. I WAS -- AND SPOKEN OVER WHICH IS NOTHING, YOU KNOW, NEW, I WANTED TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR.
>> MA'AM PRESIDENT, IF I COULD MAKE A STATEMENT. >> MR. JONES.
>> THIS 313 AGREEMENT, THE STATUTE ENDS AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
THAT'S WHY WE WERE PRESSURED TO GET THIS ITEM DONE. I HAVE VISITED WITH SEVERAL SUPERINTENDENTS WHO WERE IN PROCESS OF EXECUTING 313 NOW AND IT IS BENEFITTING THEIR
[01:45:08]
SCHOOL DISTRICT HUGELY. IT IS A BENEFIT FOR US FROM A FINANCIAL SIDE.LOOKING AT IT FROM AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT, LOOK AT THE CTE PROGRAM, IT PROVIDES THE STUDENTS FOR INTERNSHIPS AND SEVERAL OTHER THINGS.
GOING BACK I THINK 2016, WHEN WE PARTNERED WITH UAND T DALLAS AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE TEACHERS MASTER'S DEGREES AND THEY WERE ABLE TO PAY FOR THAT.
AND IT BENEFITS THE STUDENTS AND GRADUATING AT A HIGHER RATES AND MORE ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIPS. FROM A LEGACY PERSPECTIVE, IF ASKED WHAT IS YOUR LEGACY, THIS WILL AFFORD LANCASTER ISD TO BE THE BENCHMARK THAT WE HAVE BEEN AS IT RELATES TO THE EDUCATION AND FOR THE CAPACITY FOR THE EDUCATORS.
IF I CAN MAKE THE MOTION, I WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT. >> OKAY.
LET ME CALL FOR IT, MR. JONES. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> I WILL CALL FOR THE MOTION. >> I MOVE TO DON'T FINDINGS AS PROPOSED BY THE DISTRICT'S CONSULTANTS AND OH COUNCIL TO HANWHA, FOR
APPRAISED VALUE AND QUALIFIED PROPERTY. >> MOTION BY MR. JONES.
>> SECOND? >> SECOND BY MR. CLOOUS AND THE ADOPTED BY THE FINDINGS AND ON THE APPLICATION OF HANWHA AMERICAN HOLDING INNER CORPORATION OF APPRAISED ON QUALIFIED PROPERTY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD?
>> I WILL CALL FOR THE BOARD. >> MR. SMITH.
>> YES. >> MS. WOOD FIELD. >> --
>> M-MORRIS. YES. >> AND MR. STEVENSON.
[7.B. Consider and approve Agreement with Hanwha Q Cells Americas Holding Corporation (Comptroller Application No: 2089), for an Appraised Value Limitation on Qualified Property]
>> MYSELF, MOTION PASSED. >> PASSED 6-1. >> AND CONSIDER APPROVAL WHEN HANWHA AMERICAN HOLDING DISCUSSION 2089 FOR APPRAISED VALUE -- LET ME SEE. OKAY. NO.
MAKE SURE IT WAS NOT DUPLICATED. IT IS CONSIDERING HANWHA SALES AMERICAN COMPTROLLER NUMBER 2089 FOR APPRAISED FOR QUALIFIED PROPERTY.
THE BOARD WITH THE ACTION ITEM. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?
>> HEARING NONE? >> IS THERE A MOTION? >> MA'AM PRESIDENT, I MOVED TO APPROVE 2089, AND THE AGREEMENT FOR HANWHA AMERICAN'S HOLDING FOR
APPRAISED VALUE LIMITATIONS ON QUALIFIED. >> SECOND.
>> SECOND. >> I WILL TAKE THAT. >> AND SECOND BY HAMILTON.
AND HANWHA ACCUSED AMERICAN HOLDINGS CORPORATION, CAMP STROLLER APPLICATION NO 2089
ON QUALIFIED PROJECT. >> I WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE. >> YES.
>> YES. >> VOTING YES MYSELF. VOTING PASSES.
>> NEXT ITEM IS GERMAN. AYE. >> OKAY.
>>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.