By Jim McCormick

Regarding continued funding of the Kendall County Economic Development Corporation (EDC), the issue is about responsibility and holding an agency that receives city and county funding 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.” 

Two years ago when the EDC was being promoted to the community by the leadership of the Boerne chamber, many presentation programs were conducted to illustrate the purpose, objectives and benefits of the EDC.

In each of those programs the themes regarding the benefits of such an organization to this community were consistent:    

n 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.

n Assurance that residential development would not be pursued.

n Development that would allow for greater conservation and control of our limited and precious resources.

n 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 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 city and county’s development and resource conservation objectives. Some examples include:

n Pursuing residential development. Neither the city nor the county has given any indication of support to the Esperanza development. Thus, no mandate or charter exists to justify the actions of the EDC board members to lobby our state representatives on behalf of a residential developer. 

n 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.

n Concerning conservation of water resources, representatives of the Esperanza developer and the EDC have testified at court and council 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 and /or use it however they like. And most likely, that allocated water would be used for other additional residential development.

n 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 residential 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.

The failure to correct those statements has now put the city and county in a position of having a “perceived” commitment to funding. This is illustrated by the comments of speakers in court and council hearings and writers in the papers referring to a “gentleman’s agreement” and “three-year commitments” for EDC funding.

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 city and county and that is not aligned with the objectives of the city and county.

Every resident in our community funds the EDC through the taxes they pay to the county, city or both. As citizens of this community, we need to consider continued funding of the EDC in the light of: who is paying for, and who is actually benefiting from the actions of an agency that is behaving in a manner that the EDC currently finds itself.

If the decision of our elected officials is to continue funding, it is imperative that steps are taken to reiterate the city and county’s objectives as it relates to what the their expectations and interests are, as well as entering into a written agreement with the EDC that any current and future funding by the city and county to the EDC is contingent upon the EDC acting in a manner that specifically reflects the objectives and interests of the city and county