San Patricio County Commissioners Court on a voice vote approved participating in an expansion of Reinvestment Zone No. 1 in the City of Sinton and authorized an interlocal agreement to be executed on the county's behalf.

The vote implements language in a second amendment to a contract tied to county-owned property in the area and delegates authority to the county judge to sign the interlocal agreement. Commissioners said the county is contractually obligated to participate under the terms of the earlier purchase agreement with the developer.

Commissioners pressed city staff and the county's representative for clearer documentation. The city manager described the expansion in plain terms: "The initial TIRS is the property that's here beside you, where we're currently developing the housing and the retail... The expansion into TERS number 2 is the property across the street surrounding all of the courthouse, bounded by the highways on both sides..." He added that the county's approval would authorize a "50% tax reimbursement, incrementally" to fund infrastructure into the development and that the reimbursement period would run for "30 years or until bonds are paid off." Those descriptions were given during the meeting by the city manager and were used to explain the proposal to commissioners.

Several commissioners asked why the packet lacked Exhibits A–D and maps showing the exact area proposed for the reinvestment zone. One commissioner said, "It would just make it easier for me as a commissioner if when these are submitted, they actually have the exhibits that go with them. There's a map that shows me what's going on." County staff said the documents were prepared by bond counsel and that the expansion generally follows the area around the annex and Somerset development but did not provide the missing exhibits during the meeting.

County counsel and staff indicated the item stems from an existing contract with the developer and that the city and developer had requested the county's participation. After discussion, commissioners proceeded with the motion and the court approved the authorization and interlocal agreement.

The court record shows the motion passed; the agenda packet did not include the zone exhibits shown in the interlocal materials, and commissioners requested that future submissions include map exhibits and clearer attachments so members can review the precise boundaries and financial terms in advance.