Consultant urges Scurry County to use Chapter 312 pilot payments to stabilize tax revenue for small projects

Tom Dubois, an economic development consultant and CPA, told the Scurry County commissioners court that the state's Chapter 312 property-tax statute can be used as a flexible tool to stabilize property-tax receipts and make small or capital-intensive projects bankable.

"It's the Chapter 312, and they call it the property tax abatement statute," Dubois said, adding that the statute can be structured to accept a flat or front-loaded payment rather than annual, valuation-driven tax receipts. He offered an example of a battery energy storage project valued at roughly $3.4 million and explained how a county could accept a single up-front payment or a guaranteed annual payment to remove valuation volatility for both the developer and the county.

County officials asked how such a pilot payment would interact with existing abatements and per-megawatt approaches used for energy projects. Dubois said counties retain broad discretion to negotiate payment rules and that the pilot structure can be tailored (for example, a guaranteed $100,000 per year or a single discounted upfront payment) to meet both county revenue needs and developer financing requirements.

Supporters said the approach could open the door for projects that fall below the county's current minimum valuation thresholds. "It takes the variable out for the financing company," one commissioner said, noting that stabilizing the expected tax stream can make smaller manufacturing or storage projects more attractive to lenders.

Staff and commissioners discussed implementation logistics: a pilot-payment option would only affect the portion of property tax the county controls (it would not change school-district or special-district tax rates), and the court would need to draft amendments to its tax-payment guidelines and hold a public hearing before adopting any new schedule. Staff recommended adding an "exhibit" to the existing guidelines to cover projects in the $1 million to $15 million range while preserving discretionary review for larger projects.

The court agreed to schedule a public hearing on proposed guideline amendments and asked staff to publish notice consistent with the county's 30-day posting requirement and newspaper publication timelines. The hearing will be scheduled to align with the county's upcoming rate-and-budget calendar so commissioners can consider the change in the same decision cycle.

The court did not adopt a formal policy at the meeting; commissioners directed staff to prepare draft guideline language for the public hearing and to circulate financing and payment-model examples for review.