Christopher Allen, a consultant who has worked with Mills County on abatements, told the Commissioners Court that the county needs updated guidelines and criteria before voting on any tax abatements under Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code.

Allen said the guidelines give the court a minimum threshold for evaluating requests and noted an existing draft contains a common $10,000,000 threshold and a proposed job-creation requirement. “They’re only good for 2 years,” Allen said of previous guidelines, and he added that guidelines, by design, “don’t reduce your discretion with, tax abatements. They don't cause you to have to enter tax abatements.”

The court heard Allen recommend that Mills County adopt a detailed application form to collect consistent information from applicants and to consider adding explicit requirements for road-use agreements, reimbursement of county expenses and possible bonding or restoration securities for projects that disturb county roads or land. He also noted statutory steps the county must follow: public hearings on guidelines before adoption and a separate public hearing and distribution to affected taxing jurisdictions before designating a reinvestment zone.

Commissioners asked practical questions about enforcement and timing. Allen said statutory posting requirements apply: an abatement posting must be made 30 days in advance and designation of a reinvestment zone requires a separate public notice (he advised the court to plan for a 7-day newspaper notice for the reinvestment-zone posting). He suggested including recapture language required by statute in the abatement agreements and said security for site restoration is an option the county could require in particular cases.

The court directed Allen to prepare a revised draft and an application form that will include suggested language on expense reimbursement, road-use agreements and bonding so commissioners can review the package at the Sept. 22 meeting and prepare for the subsequent public hearings. No vote to adopt guidelines or a reinvestment zone was taken at this meeting.

Why it matters: The guidelines and the application form determine what kinds of economic investments the county will consider for tax relief, how the county protects roads and taxpayers, and whether the county can require restoration or other securities for projects that leave long-term impacts. Commissioners and the county attorney signaled interest in gating requests for projects with minimal local job creation (for example, many solar projects) while preserving discretion for other industry types.

Additional details: Allen told the court that counties the size of Mills often use fairly open criteria but that some counties set specific industry preferences or minimum job/investment thresholds. He recommended a detailed application to avoid inconsistent submissions, and he said the court can require applicants to reimburse the county for legal and administrative costs incurred while negotiating abatements.

Next steps: Allen will deliver a revised guidelines-and-application package to the court ahead of the Sept. 22 meeting; the court expects to review the draft, potentially modify it, hold required public hearings and then consider designation of a reinvestment zone. The court did not vote to adopt any guidelines or designate any zone at this meeting.