There are residents of Eagle’s Bluff community who have expressed (sometimes vehemently) disinterest in the Cherokee County Development District No. 1.  Disinterested or not, there is some likelihood that it will be an election of residents and/or landowners that decides the district’s fate.

The opportunity to disband a political entity that has done nothing but tax you for its own benefit sounds almost too good to be true.   I’m urging you, when asked, to do exactly that – decide that CCDD No. 1 should be dissolved.  And the remainder of this comment is dedicated to itemizing the reasons.

Cross-Purposes to Chapter 383

The intent of Chapter 383 is to “provide incentives for the location and development of projects in certain counties to attract visitors and tourists.” In the earliest days of Lake Palestine Associates and the Eagle’s Bluff community, there may have been visions of facilities to draw public tourism.  Once the developer settled on a course to create a private community and golf course, however, the prospective benefits of the Development District were minimal.  Today, there are still minimal benefits to be derived within the letter and spirit of Chapter 383.

Taxation Without Benefit

Although it’s a relatively small amount, the incremental 0.5% sales tax collection on sales at Eagle’s Bluff Country Club is unwarranted.  Whether the tax is on food, merchandise or outside event services, the proceeds don’t return to the community anyway.  None of the $93,000 from sales tax collections has been used in the district. The money is in Austin – in the state’s general fund.  Without the district, sales tax levied by the Country Club would return to 6.75%.  Any money or assets of the district on dissolution would be delivered to the Cherokee County Commissioners.

Ambiguities About District Powers

The collection of taxes and the development of “projects” by Development Districts in Texas has not been without conflict or challenge.  As mentioned in a previous comment, the state Attorney General has written opinions specifically addressing questions about taxing authority of district boards, claims of misuse in private communities, etc.  Some of these conflicts have probably been resolved. Others probably have not.  If there’s a legal challenge to the propriety of actions by the board of CCDD No. 1, one thing is sure – it’ll cost money to resolve.

Legal Questions About Dissolving the District

As I write, our County Commissioner and the County Attorney are investigating how the district might be dissolved.  The statute is clear that the board itself can vote a recommendation to the Commissioner’s Court to dissolve the district.  What’s not clear is whether the residents and landowners of the district can vote the same recommendation, or whether the Commissioners can do so independently.  The answers to these questions may decide the requirements for:

Replacing CCDD No. 1 Board Members

Assuming the County Commissioners decide that the district board needs to be in place to dissolve (or continue) the district, our Commissioner admits that it’s not clear what protocol should be followed to evaluate nominations to the board.  The residency, age and voting qualifications are clear under the law, but there are questions of whether the County Commissioners could require a board member to be a resident or landowner in the district, or have a business interest in the district, or other criteria.  Having recently authorized then unauthorized a slate of board members, the Commissioners will likely act very deliberately on this topic.

Risk of Board Empowerment

One of our esteemed residents gave a fine summary of a major risk of continuing the operation of the district – the unintended consequences of empowering interested people to positions of authority.  A Commissioner from another precinct has even proposed nominating citizens outside the district as board members to preserve impartiality. Thankfully, our representative, Dr. Pinotti, expressed dismay at this proposal.  But it’s worth considering such risk and preferring instead to find a way to banish the district without it.  Upon purchasing lots, a number of us received federally-mandated Property Reports which identify an ad valorum (property) tax of $.60 per $100 valuation authorized by CCDD No. 1.  Although that’s likely to be an error, we really don’t need board members or lawyers giving it consideration.

Citizen’s Petition

Commissioner Pinotti has suggested that perhaps (subject to analysis by the County Attorney and others) the citizens of the district, identified as those residents registered to vote, could petition the County Commissioners to dissolve CCDD No. 1.  According to Dr. Pinotti, such a petition would require the approval of 51% of the eligible voters.  If such a petition is authorized, you need to sign it.  If you’re not registered to vote in Cherokee County and wish to sign the petition, you can register at any Texas DMV office or library.

Your Turn

However you feel about this issue, we’d like to hear from you. Click [redacted] below.  Be nice.

continued…