Letter to Commisioner Lux
In being allowed only a brief time to address the Court’s October 22, 2007 session regarding agenda items 34 and 35, I was unable to discuss all of the relevant matters pertaining to the Kendall County Economic Corporation (EDC). Thus, I am submitting this letter which includes all of the issues for your review and consideration.
This discussion is about responsibility and holding an agency that receives county funding, in this case the EDC, accountable for adhering to its own representations and discrepancies. In this context, any discussion regarding the EDC is not about being “pro-growth” or “anti-growth”. But unfortunately, there will always be those that will attempt to paint it as such.
I attended several of the original presentation programs illustrating the purpose, objectives and benefits of the EDC including those for the Commissioners Court, Boerne City Council as well as the program for soliciting funding from private investors. In each program the themes regarding the benefits of such an organization to this community were consistent:
A. A focus on commercial development that would have the effect of increasing tax revenues from commercial sources and thereby relieve the tax burden that exists, then and now, on residential property owners.
B. Assurance that residential development would not be pursued.
C. Development that would allow for greater conservation and control of our limited and precious resources.
D. A recruitment process for new business that would not include tax abatements or other incentives. It was stated that incentives would not be necessary because this community would sell itself based on the quality of life, schools, location and environment.
Now we come to find that, after only two years of existence, the EDC has conducted itself in a manner that not only contradicts it original representations, but is also unaligned with, as well as detrimental to, the county’s development and resource conservation objectives. Some examples include:
1. Pursuing residential development. This pursuit has included lobbying state officials on behalf of the Esperanza development. Neither the city nor the county has given any indication of support to the Esperanza development. Thus, no mandate and no charter exist to justify the actions of the EDC board members to lobby our state representatives on behalf of a residential developer.
2. Using EDC funds for impact studies to support residential development. These impact studies are so subjective in nature that they can be made to illustrate whatever the producer wants it to.
3. Regarding conservation of water resources, representatives of the Esperanza developer and the EDC have testified at court hearings that this development would not use any of the groundwater that it has rights to by ownership of the property, thus implying a conservation of that groundwater. Yet they fail to disclose that those water rights will be assigned to another entity that will have the ability to allocate it however they like. And most likely, that allocated water would be used for other additional residential development.
4. Requesting tax abatements for new commercial development. From the beginning, utilizing tax incentives was addressed as a specific issue of concern. Due to the complexity of development agreements, appraisal issues and other specifics, future benefits to taxpayers are never guaranteed by additional development. Allowing tax incentives, at the least, lessens the chance of achieving any possible future benefits. At the worst, in the near term, it increases the existing tax burden on property owners. And at the best, presuming that there actually would be any future benefits, those benefits are prolonged to a future point in time that can not be determined now.
Concerning current and future funding by the county to the EDC, we are now witnessing the manifestation of the incorrect and misleading statements previously made by the leadership of the chamber and EDC. At numerous presentations for the EDC, Ron Warden, the then Chairman of the Boerne Chamber and now past Chairman of the EDC, stated that the city and county had committed to funding the EDC for three years. I sent him a letter, copied to the entire chamber board, pointing out that his statements were not only totally incorrect, but that those entities do not have the statutory authority to make that commitment even if they wanted to.
For someone in his position, and having a securities background, to make such a gross misrepresentation to potential investors was not only unethical, but has now put the county in a position of having a “perceived” commitment to funding. This was most recently illustrated last week y in commissioner’s court when one speaker referred to a “gentleman’s agreement” and the current chairman of the EDC referenced a “3 year commitment“ for EDC funding by the county.
The EDC, in its original format, could be a good thing for Kendall County. But that format has clearly changed. It could never be effective in its defined role when it is acting in a manner that is contrary to its own stated policies as well as acting in a manner that is detrimental to the county and which is not aligned with the objectives of the county.
Every resident in our community funds the EDC through the taxes they pay to the county, the city or both. In your capacity as an elected official, charged with determining the best course to take for insuring the best interest of the community, I encourage you to look at this matter of continued county funding of the EDC in the light of who is paying and who is actually benefiting from the actions of an agency behaving in a manner that the EDC currently finds itself.
If your decision is to continue funding, it is imperative that steps are taken to reiterate the county’s objectives as it relates to what the county’s expectations and interests are as well as entering into a written agreement with the EDC that any current and future funding by the county to the EDC is contingent upon the EDC acting in a manner that specifically reflects the objectives and interests of the county.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
James W. McCormick III
In being allowed only a brief time to address the Court’s October 22, 2007 session regarding agenda items 34 and 35, I was unable to discuss all of the relevant matters pertaining to the Kendall County Economic Corporation (EDC). Thus, I am submitting this letter which includes all of the issues for your review and consideration.
This discussion is about responsibility and holding an agency that receives county funding, in this case the EDC, accountable for adhering to its own representations and discrepancies. In this context, any discussion regarding the EDC is not about being “pro-growth” or “anti-growth”. But unfortunately, there will always be those that will attempt to paint it as such.
I attended several of the original presentation programs illustrating the purpose, objectives and benefits of the EDC including those for the Commissioners Court, Boerne City Council as well as the program for soliciting funding from private investors. In each program the themes regarding the benefits of such an organization to this community were consistent:
A. A focus on commercial development that would have the effect of increasing tax revenues from commercial sources and thereby relieve the tax burden that exists, then and now, on residential property owners.
B. Assurance that residential development would not be pursued.
C. Development that would allow for greater conservation and control of our limited and precious resources.
D. A recruitment process for new business that would not include tax abatements or other incentives. It was stated that incentives would not be necessary because this community would sell itself based on the quality of life, schools, location and environment.
Now we come to find that, after only two years of existence, the EDC has conducted itself in a manner that not only contradicts it original representations, but is also unaligned with, as well as detrimental to, the county’s development and resource conservation objectives. Some examples include:
1. Pursuing residential development. This pursuit has included lobbying state officials on behalf of the Esperanza development. Neither the city nor the county has given any indication of support to the Esperanza development. Thus, no mandate and no charter exist to justify the actions of the EDC board members to lobby our state representatives on behalf of a residential developer.
2. Using EDC funds for impact studies to support residential development. These impact studies are so subjective in nature that they can be made to illustrate whatever the producer wants it to.
3. Regarding conservation of water resources, representatives of the Esperanza developer and the EDC have testified at court hearings that this development would not use any of the groundwater that it has rights to by ownership of the property, thus implying a conservation of that groundwater. Yet they fail to disclose that those water rights will be assigned to another entity that will have the ability to allocate it however they like. And most likely, that allocated water would be used for other additional residential development.
4. Requesting tax abatements for new commercial development. From the beginning, utilizing tax incentives was addressed as a specific issue of concern. Due to the complexity of development agreements, appraisal issues and other specifics, future benefits to taxpayers are never guaranteed by additional development. Allowing tax incentives, at the least, lessens the chance of achieving any possible future benefits. At the worst, in the near term, it increases the existing tax burden on property owners. And at the best, presuming that there actually would be any future benefits, those benefits are prolonged to a future point in time that can not be determined now.
Concerning current and future funding by the county to the EDC, we are now witnessing the manifestation of the incorrect and misleading statements previously made by the leadership of the chamber and EDC. At numerous presentations for the EDC, Ron Warden, the then Chairman of the Boerne Chamber and now past Chairman of the EDC, stated that the city and county had committed to funding the EDC for three years. I sent him a letter, copied to the entire chamber board, pointing out that his statements were not only totally incorrect, but that those entities do not have the statutory authority to make that commitment even if they wanted to.
For someone in his position, and having a securities background, to make such a gross misrepresentation to potential investors was not only unethical, but has now put the county in a position of having a “perceived” commitment to funding. This was most recently illustrated last week y in commissioner’s court when one speaker referred to a “gentleman’s agreement” and the current chairman of the EDC referenced a “3 year commitment“ for EDC funding by the county.
The EDC, in its original format, could be a good thing for Kendall County. But that format has clearly changed. It could never be effective in its defined role when it is acting in a manner that is contrary to its own stated policies as well as acting in a manner that is detrimental to the county and which is not aligned with the objectives of the county.
Every resident in our community funds the EDC through the taxes they pay to the county, the city or both. In your capacity as an elected official, charged with determining the best course to take for insuring the best interest of the community, I encourage you to look at this matter of continued county funding of the EDC in the light of who is paying and who is actually benefiting from the actions of an agency behaving in a manner that the EDC currently finds itself.
If your decision is to continue funding, it is imperative that steps are taken to reiterate the county’s objectives as it relates to what the county’s expectations and interests are as well as entering into a written agreement with the EDC that any current and future funding by the county to the EDC is contingent upon the EDC acting in a manner that specifically reflects the objectives and interests of the county.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
James W. McCormick III
2 comments:
I don't think the County should give the EDC a dime.
More appropriately, if the EDC deliberately violated the basis for the County's previous contribution, the County should demand their money back.
The EDC obviously has no concern for the citizens of this County; their allegiance is to the national developers. They are nothing but wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Post a Comment