Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Van Zandt County workshop weighs rules for using unclaimed-property funds on job growth
Summary
County economic-development representatives urged commissioners to use unclaimed property payments from the state controller to support primary-job creation, citing past performance agreements and measurable tax returns; staff and developers highlighted water, land control and infrastructure as principal constraints.
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County officials and economic-development leaders met in a workshop to discuss criteria for spending unclaimed-property and other controller-returned funds on local economic development, with presenters urging the court to target primary jobs and infrastructure that support employers staying and hiring in Van Zandt County.
County Judge (unnamed) opened the meeting by identifying the source and restriction on the money: “So this is not taxpayer money that we have, but it's being it's in our account,” and said the county has designated the funds for economic development. Pam Pearson of Wills Point Economic Development and directors from Canton and Van described recent projects and recommended performance-based grants tied to job creation.
Pearson said the county previously used the funds in performance agreements that require companies hire and retain local workers for 12 months before payments are released. “We have a performance agreement that allows us to revoke the money, revoke the property, anything that we need to if they don't meet our performance agreement,” she said. She told the court the county paid Brazos Trailers $25,755 in two steps (initial employee-based payments plus a later permitting reimbursement) and $15,000 to Midwest Tube Mills; the two companies are now projected to pay roughly $79,002 in property and special road taxes to the county this year, she said.
Representatives from Canton and Van described their approaches. Canton Economic Development said it is a type B development corporation and can fund a wider range of projects; it has acquired 86 acres to expand an industrial park and uses façade grants and other local incentives. Van’s EDC director emphasized water and scale constraints for a town of about 2,800 residents and noted a pending 54-home subdivision and a senior-living project. Participants said retail typically generates property tax but not county sales tax revenue, while primary employers bring payroll and broader economic benefit.
Speakers recommended structuring incentives so payments follow documented job creation and other performance milestones. The EDC representatives also flagged structural barriers that limit what incentives can accomplish: private ownership of key parcels, limited water supplies in parts of the I‑20 corridor, and lack of local control over large tracts of land and water rights. Canton’s director said, “When you don't own land and you don't control the land, it's really hard to develop it. We don't have a lot of infrastructure.”
Commissioners asked about tax abatements, workforce training partnerships and whether higher-education satellite campuses had been pursued; Canton and Wills Point staff said conversations are ongoing with local colleges and health systems about workforce training but no binding higher-education commitments were presented during the workshop.
The court did not adopt a new policy at the meeting but asked EDCs to bring formal proposals for how the county should allocate the unclaimed-property funds. “So bring us bring us your proposal and we'll deal with it,” the judge said at the close of the discussion.

