Dozens of business owners, property owners and the Downtown Management District (DMD) addressed the Nueces County Commissioners Court on Tuesday urging the court to restore or retain the county's previous 100% participation level in downtown tax-increment reinvestment zone (TIRZ/TIRS) incentives.

Speakers representing downtown businesses, arts organizations and property owners said TIRZ incentives have acted as a catalyst for private investment, credited the DMD with bringing $210 million in private development tied to roughly $20 million in incentive dollars and asked the county not to reduce its match. "Without the tourism (TIRS) money, a lot of those façade and building rehabs would not have happened," said Casey Lane, owner of the House of Rock, one of several downtown proprietors who said repairs and façade work were possible because of tourism/reinvestment incentives.

Others, including commissioner court members and at least one public commenter, argued the county faces budget constraints and that long-term policy should seek a more balanced return from TIRZ arrangements. Commissioner John (first name not always audible in the transcript) and other commissioners said the county has limited resources and must weigh priorities across precincts; one commissioner said the county's last few state funding changes have tightened available revenue and argued the county cannot sustain previous participation percentages across all TIRZs.

Several local officials and the DMD executive director said downtown has moved from a blighted area to a regional destination and that continued county support would help sustain momentum. Arlene (DMD) said the downtown TIRZ has produced a roughly 10-to-1 private investment return since it began and that the downtown management district has overseen investments that reduced vacant buildings from 26 to seven.

After hearing more than a dozen public comments and extended discussion among commissioners, the court voted unanimously to table two agenda items that would have rescinded the court's July 23 action and to postpone final decisions on a countywide TIRZ policy to a later meeting. The court specifically tabled agenda items 12 and 13 to the Sept. 24 meeting to allow more time to develop a formal county TIRZ policy and to negotiate with the city and other taxing entities. Commissioners said the delay was intended to give staff and elected officials time to reach consensus on a renewal and future TIRZ policy that would address renewals and new proposals.

County staff and several commissioners said they intend to return with a drafted TIRZ policy that would describe county participation rates, how renewals should be evaluated, minimum community benefits and whether the county should receive more immediate returns as part of future agreements. One commissioner described a proposed policy draft that would generally reduce county percentages versus the city by 5-to-10 percentage points and would add additional criteria for renewals. A second commissioner asked that any negotiations include a clear signal that the county intends to remain a partner even if the participation rate is adjusted.

No ordinance, new contract or final change was approved at the meeting; the court's action was to postpone final votes until after the court adopts a formal TIRZ policy and completes negotiations with other taxing entities.