Dec 16, 2025 – Commissioners Court
by Christina Drewry | Dec 17, 2025 | Weekly Update
Commissioners Court Notes
Please note: All agenda items are considered PASSED unless indicated otherwise.
OPEN SESSION:
2. Consider and take necessary action to approve a tax abatement agreement with Tyler Hotel Partners LP, pursuant to Texas Tax Code, Chapter 312, and authorize the county judge to sign all related documentation.
Comments:
As your Smith County Commissioner for Precinct 1, I proudly voted NO today on the proposed 50% property tax abatement under Chapter 312 for The Blackstone boutique hotel in downtown Tyler.
No Abatement=No Financing
The tax abatement was necessary for the hotel to obtain financing from their bank for the project. Why? Because without the tax cut, the project’s cash flows look too shaky—the bank sees it as a high-risk bet in our mid-sized market. But suddenly, it’s not too risky for our taxpayers to shoulder the extra burdens from all those visitors? Just like the banks protect their money from risk, your County Judge and Commissioners are supposed to protect yours.
Tax abatements like this shift the burden straight onto YOU, the taxpayers. How does a downtown boutique hotel fix our rural roads, boost public safety, or help John and Jane Taxpayer out in the county? It doesn’t. Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers with your money.
Are You Really A Republican?
True free markets don’t need government handouts to succeed.
My NO vote stands for limited government, fair competition, no cronyism, and protecting YOU from favoritism for the connected few.
The Commissioners Court voted 4-1 to approve the tax abatement request, with your Commissioner casting the sole “no” vote. As always, I’m here to discuss this or any other Court action with you—feel free to reach out!
3. Consider and discuss a presentation on Road Bond Project by Grassroots America, Tom Fabry.
We reviewed a presentation delivered by Grassroots America – We the People PAC titled “Smith County Road Bonds – Independent Assessment: Road Bond Deliverables, Timelines and Financials.”Below is my summary of the key findings from this independent assessment.
GAWTP Findings
That’s it. No suspicion of wrongdoing needed. No public notice required. No waiting for the next meeting. We can vote at any regular Commissioners Court meeting to order the audit and hire an outside firm to do it.
We heard the full presentation from Grassroots America and listened to everyone who spoke during public comment. A lot of you are understandably upset about the delays, rising costs, and lack of clear information—and I take those concerns seriously. Like you, I am a taxpayer of Smith County.
That information will come back to us as an agenda item at an upcoming regular meeting, probably in January. We’ll discuss it openly, hear more from the public, and then vote on the best way forward. I’m committed to getting this resolved responsibly and transparently. Please keep coming to meetings, speaking up, or reaching out to me directly—your voice matters. Thank you for caring about Smith County.
PUBLIC HEARING:
This deal would have the county forfeiting about $37,000 a year in property taxes for 10 years—totaling roughly $370,000—from hardworking taxpayers. All to help secure financing for a private project. In return? Maybe $10,000 in sales tax revenue—if the hotel hits 58% occupancy. Even under good conditions, that doesn’t come close to replacing what’s being given up – especially when you consider the added cost of visitors on law enforcement, EMS and road wear. It is estimated that the 22,000 visitors that the hotel may see in a year will cost $110,000 in city and county services. If the county bears 30% of that cost, that’s $33,000 in county services. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze here.
A YES vote directly contradicts core Republican Party of Texas principles and platform planks that I fight for every day, like:
• Plank #78: No corporate welfare. We oppose subsidies and special tax breaks for favored companies.
• Principle #9: Free enterprise unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.
• Principle #9: Free enterprise unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.
Groups like Texas Public Policy Foundation and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility call these Chapter 312 deals exactly what they are: corporate welfare.
Sadly, I doubt many of my colleagues have even read the Republican Party of Texas Platform, Legislative Priorities, or Rules—they might not know they exist. I do. I didn’t just pay a fee to get on the ballot; I live by what YOU, the grassroots Republican voters, decided at Convention in the 2024 TX GOP Platform.
Today’s approval may even qualify as a censurable offense under Rule 44, for opposing our party’s core principles. It counts toward the three required for formal censure by a County.
Next time you’re talking to “Republican” candidates running for office, ask them: Have you actually READ the Texas GOP Platform, Priorities, and Rules?
The platform isn’t optional—it’s the foundation of what defines us as Texas Republicans, decided by YOU at Convention.
We need leaders who actually know and uphold the principles grassroots voters expect, not just those who simply buy their way onto the ballot.
PRESENTATION
Comments:
Overview
• The presentation critically evaluated the county’s Road Bond Program, highlighting significant delays, incomplete deliverables, and substantial cost overruns.
• It is based the county’s own data, including the Road & Bridge Department’s presentation from March 11, 2025.
• It is based the county’s own data, including the Road & Bridge Department’s presentation from March 11, 2025.
Project Timeline and Delivery Shortfalls
• The program, originally planned as a 6-year initiative based on a 2015 engineering assessment, is now in its 9th year.
• Road conditions have worsened due to accelerated deterioration and intensified traffic patterns.
• Phase 1 Progress:
• Road conditions have worsened due to accelerated deterioration and intensified traffic patterns.
• Phase 1 Progress:
• Approved plan included 259 project segments.
• Only 62 segments completed from the Phase 1 list.
• Additional: 11 from Phase 2 list and 25 not on either approved list.
• Total completed with Phase 1 funds: 98 segments (40% of planned).
• Unfinished Phase 1 segments: 197.
• Duplicates were identified in the R&B list.
• Only 62 segments completed from the Phase 1 list.
• Additional: 11 from Phase 2 list and 25 not on either approved list.
• Total completed with Phase 1 funds: 98 segments (40% of planned).
• Unfinished Phase 1 segments: 197.
• Duplicates were identified in the R&B list.
• No clear timeline or funding source identified to complete the remaining committed roads.
Financial Summary and Overruns
• Original bond issuance (Phases 1 & 2): $84.5 million.
• Total funds available (bonds + interest + supplemental appropriations): $144.1 million.
• Costs to date: $74.3 million.
• Projected additional cost for Phase 2: $60.9 million.
• Total projected cost (Phases 1 & 2): $135.2 million.
• Cost overrun: $50.7 million (60% over original forecast).
• Phase 2 shortfall: $35.2 million.
• Total taxpayer exposure: Approximately $185 million in sunk costs
• Additional issue noted: $7 million discrepancy between summary and detailed reports (March 11, 2025).
• Total funds available (bonds + interest + supplemental appropriations): $144.1 million.
• Costs to date: $74.3 million.
• Projected additional cost for Phase 2: $60.9 million.
• Total projected cost (Phases 1 & 2): $135.2 million.
• Cost overrun: $50.7 million (60% over original forecast).
• Phase 2 shortfall: $35.2 million.
• Total taxpayer exposure: Approximately $185 million in sunk costs
• Additional issue noted: $7 million discrepancy between summary and detailed reports (March 11, 2025).
Recommendation from the Presentation
• Grassroots strongly advocated for an independent forensic and compliance audit, citing:
• Significant under-delivery on voter-approved commitments.
• Poor expense management and lack of accountability.
• Material impact on taxpayers.
• Poor expense management and lack of accountability.
• Material impact on taxpayers.
This assessment raises serious concerns about the management and execution of the Road Bond Program.
In court last week, there was some confusion about when in Texas, the law gives the County the power to hire an outside, independent accountant to audit any part of county finances whenever we think it’s a good idea.
There are two main ways we can do this:
In court last week, there was some confusion about when in Texas, the law gives the County the power to hire an outside, independent accountant to audit any part of county finances whenever we think it’s a good idea.
There are two main ways we can do this:
1) The “emergency” way (harder and rarer) This requires strong reasons — like suspicion of missing money or serious mistakes. It involves a formal resolution, public newspaper notice, waiting until the next meeting, and everyone on the court agreeing. Almost never used unless something really bad is suspected.
2) The easy “public interest” way (the one that applies here) This is from Texas Local Government Code § 115.031(i). All the court must do is say: “We believe an independent audit would best serve the public interest.”
2) The easy “public interest” way (the one that applies here) This is from Texas Local Government Code § 115.031(i). All the court must do is say: “We believe an independent audit would best serve the public interest.”
We didn’t vote to launch a full independent forensic audit right then, but we did take solid next steps. We asked our staff—working with the Purchasing Department, County Auditor, and Road & Bridge team—to put together a clear cost estimate and scope for an independent audit and look into better ways to show progress publicly.
I rarely respond to public comments in my reports, but this one stood out as particularly significant. Former Commissioner Pam Frederick shared her perspective during the public comment period, and I felt it required a rebuttal due to the clear differences in our views and ideologies. The issue was important enough that I addressed it directly in a post on my official Elected Official Facebook page.
Micro-Managing or Basic Accountability?
If you’re not already following my page, you’re missing out on timely updates from the county and real-time information about what’s happening beyond our weekly Commissioners Court meetings.
As a Smith County Commissioner, I respectfully disagree with former Commissioner Pam Frederick’s suggestion during public comment that our role is simply to trust the “experienced and professional people that know their job” and avoid what she called “micro-managing” the skilled professionals serving our county.
The job of a Commissioner is not blind trust—it’s responsible oversight. We have a clear fiduciary duty to protect taxpayer dollars, which means actively monitoring how bond funds and department budgets are spent, tracking progress against promises made to voters, and holding staff accountable when projects fall years behind schedule and costs balloon.
Micro-Managing or Basic Accountability?
Click the link below to get to my page and then click the “Follow” button:
The fact that we’re now in year nine of a six-year road bond program—with significant overruns and unfinished commitments—didn’t happen because Commissioners were overseeing too closely. It happened, in part, because previous Courts, including the one Mrs. Frederick served on, did not require regular, transparent updates from the County Engineer on Phase 1 and Phase 2 progress. There were no consistent quarterly reports, no routine reconciliation of expenditures against deliverables, and insufficient performance measures to ensure voter-approved bonds were delivering results on time and on budget.
Good stewardship isn’t micro-management—it’s basic accountability. It’s asking tough questions, demanding clear data, and making sure the professionals we hire are meeting the goals we set with public money.
I believe this difference in philosophy—whether commissioners should provide active oversight or largely defer without close review—may well explain why voters chose not to return Ms. Frederick to office in the 2024 primary. The people of Smith County expect their elected officials to watch over their tax dollars carefully, not just trust that everything is being handled properly behind closed doors. At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of this county rests squarely on the Commissioners Court—we answer directly to the voters, and under the Texas Constitution and state law, we have a clear duty to oversee the county budget, set the tax rate, approve expenditures, and ensure taxpayer funds are spent wisely and legally. That’s the standard I’ll continue to uphold.
War Room Texas: Interface Editor Note: Credit for original article to Commissioner Drewry | Smith County Commissioner's Court Website https://smithcountycommissioner.com/standing-for-transparency-in-smith-county ; and original article goes on to address other topics beyond bond | December 2025
MAN AND WOMAN
FOR THE WORKING
Texas
Why I Voted NO on $370K Boutique Hotel Tax Giveaway + Road Bond Scrutiny
just cuz it ain't here
don't mean we don't care
If you don't see yo topic,
