County officials on Monday discussed proposed updates to Mills County’s tax‑abatement guidelines under Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code, including new requirements for road‑use agreements, a possible bond to secure removal of energy facilities, and annual job‑creation certifications.

The guidelines and criteria draft was presented by Jeff Allen, who described how the county can define job requirements and include penalties for failing to meet promises. Allen said the draft currently defines a full‑time employee as someone who “works 2,080 hours in Mills County,” and that the competitive market wage is a defined term that can be set by commissioners or established through industry analysis and “not less than essentially $15 an hour.”

The presentation emphasized flexibility in the guidelines for different project types. Allen said abatements often include a clause that reduces the abatement percentage if a developer creates fewer jobs than pledged: “On the job‑creation requirement … there would be a penalty on it,” he said, adding that applicants generally must provide an annual certificate showing the number of jobs created over the base.

Why it matters: commissioners are considering several large energy projects, including solar, that involve substantial capital investment but typically create few permanent jobs. The rules would let the court require financial assurances and clearer reporting to protect county roads and the tax base.

Details and discussion: the draft adds section 4(b)(9), requiring anyone seeking an abatement to meet with the precinct commissioner to develop a road‑use and maintenance agreement tailored to the affected county roads. Allen said some agreements have required developers to pave or otherwise improve specific miles of county road they will use.

On decommissioning, Allen noted there is “a state law requiring a removal security” for many energy facilities but said the state schedule often delays posting the security until the 20th anniversary of a project’s start, which can be later than the useful life of some improvements. He recommended the county consider a stronger or earlier bond requirement for solar sites and other energy facilities.

Commissioners asked how reinvestment zones operate when a proposed project straddles county lines. Allen said Mills County can create a reinvestment zone that covers only the Mills County portion and noted other counties sometimes use reinvestment‑zone decisions as leverage in negotiations with developers.

Public comment and audit question: resident Karen Wesson Francis, a retired CPA and auditor, recommended the county add audit language to the guidelines so officials can verify applicant claims on jobs, wages and local purchasing commitments. Commissioners and Allen discussed adding audit language either in the guidelines or directly in individual abatement agreements; Allen offered to provide sample contract language.

Next steps: commissioners did not take a final vote on the guidelines at the meeting. Allen said he would send draft abatement language, including certificate and penalty language, for the court to review.

Ending: the court instructed staff to continue refining the draft language and to circulate sample abatement agreement provisions that would allow annual certification of jobs and penalties for underperformance.