Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Guadalupe Appraisal District seeks new Seguin facility; commissioners approve supporting resolution 3–2
Summary
The Guadalupe Appraisal District asked commissioners for support of a plan to acquire and renovate the former Mary Bierschein School in Seguin to address growth and space shortfalls; commissioners approved a resolution supporting the plan by a 3–2 vote, with the county's estimated share about $182,500 per year over 20 years.
Peter Statton, chief appraiser for the Guadalupe Appraisal District, presented the district’s 20‑year space planning proposal to the Guadalupe County Commissioners Court on May 27, saying the district’s current 5,200‑square‑foot facility is inadequate for increasing workloads tied to population growth in the San Antonio metropolitan area.
Statton said the district administers more than 87,000 active tax exemptions and ownership records for more than 90,000 taxpayers, and that appeals and in‑person services have increased. He told commissioners the district board approved a long‑term financing approach on May 7 so the appraisal district could present the plan to its taxing units.
Statton said the district settled on acquiring the former Mary Bierschein School at 216 East College Street in Seguin for a project that he described to the court as a roughly $10 million acquisition and renovation plan. He said the county’s probable annual share would be about $182,500 under a 20‑year financing plan, with first installment payments not required until 2027 under the terms Statton presented.
Statton said the proposed location provides flexibility and room for expansion beyond what can reasonably be achieved by adding on to the current facility. He also provided comparisons of square‑foot cost estimates: renovating the proposed site at an estimated $262 per square foot versus higher per‑square‑foot costs for other add‑on options to the existing building.
Commissioners asked about operating costs, energy use and future staffing; Statton said the appraisal district expects increased utilities in a larger facility (he estimated energy costs rising to roughly $50,000 annually) and noted potential energy efficiency retrofits to reduce that figure. The appraisal district’s projected county obligation was presented as an estimate and Statton said final allocations would be determined after presentations to the district’s taxing units.
After discussion, County Judge moved to approve a resolution supporting the appraisal district space planning project. The motion passed 3 yeas and 2 nays.
The court’s resolution commits the county to the financing framework presented as of the May 27 presentation; Statton told the court he must still present the plan and secure approvals from roughly three‑quarters of the district’s taxing units (about 21 of 28 voting units under his description) for the full financing plan to proceed.
Statton said the district’s board vote on the acquisition was 6–1; one board member had favored smaller, lower‑cost options. Statton and commissioners emphasized that costs may change over time and that the financing structure could be adjusted later (for example by future refunding).
The court did not set a separate county‑level appropriation in the May 27 session; the resolution records intent to participate under the financing plan Statton presented and notes the county’s estimated annual obligation.
