Tax abatements have been a volatile issue for Kendall County — and will remain that way, for the time being.
The Kendall County Commissioners Court Monday declined to eliminate or restrict the tax abatement process, despite recent efforts by energy companies to use abatements on properties within the county.
“I think we need to look at tax abatement policy as a tool in our toolbox. It’s something that’s used extremely sparingly,” County Judge Shane Stolarczyk said. “If we don’t have it on the books, it takes us out of the game. It just keeps out options available. But it doesn’t hurt us to have it on the books.”
Abatements are tax breaks offered by a state or municipality on certain types of real estate or business opportunities.
Commissioner’s Court has fielded two tax abatement requests in recent months, both in the Comfort area: one from Bandera Electric Cooperative for buildings it plans to construct on its property, and a second by a firm planning to to create a battery storage facility in Comfort.
Stolarczyk said Bandera Electric Cooperative has withdrawn its request, while the court has not heard back from Key Capture Energy.
“We threw the ball in (Key Capture Energy’s) court to come back when they are ready, and they’ve not done it,” Stolarczyk said.
“Personally,” he said, “I don't think they are going to come back for it, based on ... the outcry” from a Jan. 29 meeting, when more than 250 Kendall County residents packed Comfort Middle School for three hours, airing their objections to the firm’s efforts to locate a 100-megawatt battery storage facility on three acres of land in Comfort.
Despite the recent negative abatement interaction with the battery storage firm, commissioners balked at removing or suspending the program.
Precinct 2 Commissioner Andra Wisian said the county currently does not have a thorough application process, as realized in the Key Capture abatement effort. She wants the county to develop a method of oversight, to track a firm’s accountability once an abatement is granted.
“We need to demonstrate how this so-called increased revenue has been used to lower property taxes paid by residential taxpayers, which is one impetus,” Wisian said. “We need an audit process ... Are they still in business, with how many employees, are they doing what they said — how do we measure (its) economic benefits to the community.”
Stolarczyk favored retaining the county abatement program “but with some significant tweaks,” saying company requests will be considered on a case-bycase basis.
Precinct 4 Commissioner Richard Chapman said decisions on abatements fall squarely on the commissioners.
“I think the court has the capability of saying ‘No’ at any time,” Chapman said. “I would favor tweaking it in several areas, but I do think we need to keep it there, knowing we do not have to approve any abatement.”
The county’s existing abatement process expires in July and will come before the court for renewal. The county has the responsibility to adopt guidelines, which are not automatically renewed.
Wisian reviewed the abatement process as outlined in existing statutes.
The county judge, she read, provides the tax abatement agreement to the applicant for review and execution. Any tax abatement agreement not finalized within 45 calendar days expires. The court’s approval of a tax abatement may be rescinded by order of the court as well.
Precinct 1 Commissioner Christina Bergmann said retaining the abatement process could eventually benefit the county.
“I believe there are some changes that could be made. I think there are some tweaks to the guidelines and the application process that can make this a better thing,” Bergmann said. “But to say no completely, to all of it, could end up being detrimental to the community.”
The court plans to study the program once the July expiration deadline draws near.
Comment
Comments