Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the County Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hill County adopts 2026 investment policy, approves tax-abatement assignment for Hillsboro BESS project

Hill County Commissioners Court · January 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Hill County Commissioners adopted a new 2026 investment policy, recorded banking changes tied to a bank merger, and approved an addendum assigning part of the OCI Hillsboro Solar tax-abatement to Hillsboro BESS Project, LLC with an extension to Dec. 21, 2028 and a $50,000 fee.

Hill County Commissioners on Jan. 27–28 unanimously adopted the county’s 2026 Investment Policy, recorded banking updates tied to a local bank merger, and approved a tax-abatement assignment for a large renewable-energy project.

The court voted to approve the 2026 Hill County Investment Policy on a motion by Commissioner Jim Holcomb and seconded by Commissioner Larry Crumpton, with County Judge Shane Brassell and all commissioners voting "Aye." The court also "observed and recorded" a Cadence Bank certification and an RFP notice prompted by the merger of Citizens State Bank into Cadence Bank.

Commissioners approved (1) an addendum to a tax-abatement agreement originally with OCI Hillsboro Solar, LLC that assigns a portion of that project to Hillsboro BESS Project, LLC and extends the agreement to Dec. 21, 2028, and (2) the corresponding tax-abatement agreement as assigned. The addendum carries a $50,000 extension fee. The motions were passed with unanimous votes: motions were made by Commissioner Martin Lake and seconded by Commissioner Scotty Hawkins; the court recorded "Aye" votes by the County Judge and all commissioners.

Why it matters: tax-abatement agreements affect the county’s property-tax revenue base and are commonly used to incentivize large energy and industrial projects. The court’s action formalizes an assignment of project responsibilities and a schedule extension; the record lists the extension date and the $50,000 fee but does not provide further fiscal projections or estimated impacts on county tax receipts.

What the court did not disclose in the minutes: the record does not specify the total value of the underlying project, the exact parcels affected, or any negotiated performance conditions beyond the extension and assignment. The minutes also show that discussions about business prospects and incentives occurred in executive session under Texas Government Code Sec. 551.087 (see separate item).