doubledog said:

---

GSS said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

davido said:

---

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.

---

Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.

---

Deflection, deflection, deflection......

---

This... Ag exemption, $1 leases to all etc...

Has anyone noticed that Techno nor any of the COB,BBC,Mayor,Dorn supporters will answer this question?

Does anyone (on this board) believe that awarding this $1/year lease to a "known and trusted" individual, without vetting other qualified lessees is above board and without suspicion?

---

I have answered this question a few times upstream.

1- They are under no obligation to put this out to bid by any law that I am aware of
2- That said there is literally no way for it to be below board if #1 is true
3- As a business owner, taxpayer, employer and philanthropist in both cities this does not move the needle for me. Doesn't even make the needle quiver.

I know all parties involved locally and they are all outstanding men who literally do a ton for our community and I have felt they are being unfairly misrepresented this whole time. I have reserved judgement the whole time, in both directions, as we wait and see what all comes out through the legal process. My position has not changed through all of the different iterations of outcry, from calling these men "crooks" "greaseballs" "extortionists" etc. to now focusing on solely on the lease process.

I know there is a certain courage attained by the anonymity of posting on a forum under an alias, I have not hid or concealed my identity or insulted or name called any poster or person involved in this, and I would hope that would gain some points with people.

EliteElectric said:

---

doubledog said:

---

GSS said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

davido said:

---

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.

---

Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.

---

Deflection, deflection, deflection......

---

This... Ag exemption, $1 leases to all etc...

Has anyone noticed that Techno nor any of the COB,BBC,Mayor,Dorn supporters will answer this question?

Does anyone (on this board) believe that awarding this $1/year lease to a "known and trusted" individual, without vetting other qualified lessees is above board and without suspicion?

---

I have answered this question a few times upstream.

1- They are under no obligation to put this out to bid by any law that I am aware of
2- That said there is literally no way for it to be below board if #1 is true
3- As a business owner, taxpayer, employer and philanthropist in both cities this does not move the needle for me. Doesn't even make the needle quiver.

I know all parties involved locally and they are all outstanding men who literally do a ton for our community and I have felt they are being unfairly misrepresented this whole time. I have reserved judgement the whole time, in both directions, as we wait and see what all comes out through the legal process. My position has not changed through all of the different iterations of outcry, from calling these men "crooks" "greaseballs" "extortionists" etc. to now focusing on solely on the lease process.

I know there is a certain courage attained by the anonymity of posting on a forum under an alias, I have not hid or concealed my identity or insulted or name called any poster or person involved in this, and I would hope that would gain some points with people.

---

Thank you that is not what I asked.

1. no bid is necessary, but was any other potential lessees vetted?
2. If no other potential lessees were vetted, then you say that is "ok" because there was no bidding process
(circular argument)
3. If there is only one "known and trusted" lessee, then is that not suspicious (lack of transparency)?
Could that not lead to numerous conflicts of interest?
4. Small issues and conflicts, that do not move the "needle", escalate quickly.

This is not criminal conduct on our "outstanding" men, it is a gross error in judgement (IMHO)

Quote:

---

I know all parties involved locally and they are all outstanding men who literally do a ton for our community and I have felt they are being unfairly misrepresented this whole time. I have reserved judgement the whole time, in both directions, as we wait and see what all comes out through the legal process. My position has not changed through all of the different iterations of outcry, from calling these men "crooks" "greaseballs" "extortionists" etc. to now focusing on solely on the lease process.

I know there is a certain courage attained by the anonymity of posting on a forum under an alias, I have not hid or concealed my identity or insulted or name called any poster or person involved in this, and I would hope that would gain some points with people.

---

Completely separate from if it's above or below board or on board or no board for the lease agreement...do you not find it odd if the pilot's initial claim turns out to be true that Gutierrez contacted him and implying he was the decision maker of that property, claiming damages, etc. when he has absolutely no affiliation with it?

doubledog said:

---

Thank you that is not what I asked.

1. no bid is necessary, but was any other potential lessees vetted?
2. If no other potential lessees were vetted, then you say that is "ok" because there was no bidding process
(circular argument)
3. If there is only one "known and trusted" lessee, then is that not suspicious (lack of transparency)?
Could that not lead to numerous conflicts of interest?
4. Small issues and conflicts, that do not move the "needle", escalate quickly.

This is not criminal conduct on our "outstanding" men, it is a gross error in judgement (IMHO)

---

If no bid is necessary why would there be a need to vet anyone? There is no obligation to do so and the revenue (or lack thereof) is insignificant in the larger picture of this property.

If you dropped a penny in a storm inlet would you climb down in the storm sewer and fetch the penny or simply walk on?

What I am saying is I don't care that nobody else was asked,

TAMU, COCS, COB, both ISD's and Brazos county all have dollar amount thresholds that they are allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for goods and services. without any bid process or council approvals or quorums. FE they may have a 20k threshold for electrical services/work that they can just get done without need for any due diligence or obligation to find best value, a lot of that work goes directly to my competitors because they are used to using them for that work even though we have never been given opportunity to do it. That's just how it is and I am OK with it.

EliteElectric said:

---

I have answered this question a few times upstream.

1- They are under no obligation to put this out to bid by any law that I am aware of
2- That said there is literally no way for it to be below board if #1 is true
3- As a business owner, taxpayer, employer and philanthropist in both cities this does not move the needle for me. Doesn't even make the needle quiver.

I know all parties involved locally and they are all outstanding men who literally do a ton for our community and I have felt they are being unfairly misrepresented this whole time. I have reserved judgement the whole time, in both directions, as we wait and see what all comes out through the legal process. My position has not changed through all of the different iterations of outcry, from calling these men "crooks" "greaseballs" "extortionists" etc. to now focusing on solely on the lease process.

I know there is a certain courage attained by the anonymity of posting on a forum under an alias, I have not hid or concealed my identity or insulted or name called any poster or person involved in this, and I would hope that would gain some points with people.

---

As long time businessmen, both have done an incredibly bad job, in articulating the circumstances of how the lease was initiated and obtained, the primary beneficiary, the maintenance of the lease, and the blame game on the airplane landing, and its effects.

EliteElectric said:

---

doubledog said:

---

GSS said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

davido said:

---

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.

---

Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.

---

Deflection, deflection, deflection......

---

This... Ag exemption, $1 leases to all etc...

Has anyone noticed that Techno nor any of the COB,BBC,Mayor,Dorn supporters will answer this question?

Does anyone (on this board) believe that awarding this $1/year lease to a "known and trusted" individual, without vetting other qualified lessees is above board and without suspicion?

---

I have answered this question a few times upstream.

1- They are under no obligation to put this out to bid by any law that I am aware of
2- That said there is literally no way for it to be below board if #1 is true
3- As a business owner, taxpayer, employer and philanthropist in both cities this does not move the needle for me. Doesn't even make the needle quiver.

I know all parties involved locally and they are all outstanding men who literally do a ton for our community and I have felt they are being unfairly misrepresented this whole time. I have reserved judgement the whole time, in both directions, as we wait and see what all comes out through the legal process. My position has not changed through all of the different iterations of outcry, from calling these men "crooks" "greaseballs" "extortionists" etc. to now focusing on solely on the lease process.

I know there is a certain courage attained by the anonymity of posting on a forum under an alias, I have not hid or concealed my identity or insulted or name called any poster or person involved in this, and I would hope that would gain some points with people.

---

Well said. The lease was legal and ethical. Full stop.

EliteElectric said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Quote:

---

Completely separate from if it's above or below board or on board or no board for the lease agreement...do you not find it odd if the pilot's initial claim turns out to be true that Gutierrez contacted him and implying he was the decision maker of that property, claiming damages, etc. when he has absolutely no affiliation with it?

---

---

"Claim" being the important word here. One of the first responders on scene told me they were the ones who told the pilot the "Mayor" owned the property, because they assumed he did when it was his cattle. If Bobby overstepped his bounds and tried to go Mafioso on the pilot not only would it be odd, frankly it would shock me. A cattleman seeking damages from lost revenue does not seem odd to me

---

Which begs another question. Why would a first responder on scene be under the impression that the mayor owned the property?

EliteElectric said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Quote:

---

Which begs another question. Why would a first responder on scene be under the impression that the mayor owned the property?

---

---

---

---

because he was there checking the status of his cattle and people know who the mayor is.

---

So he shows up to the property, accesses it without the need of anyone else (property owner or person leasing the land), says absolutely nothing and the first responder then just assumes he's the owner?

Or he says "hey these are my cattle, what happened here?" and the first responder jumps to the conclusion that he owned the property?

techno-ag said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

doubledog said:

---

GSS said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

davido said:

---

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.

---

Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.

---

Deflection, deflection, deflection......

---

This... Ag exemption, $1 leases to all etc...

Has anyone noticed that Techno nor any of the COB,BBC,Mayor,Dorn supporters will answer this question?

Does anyone (on this board) believe that awarding this $1/year lease to a "known and trusted" individual, without vetting other qualified lessees is above board and without suspicion?

---

I have answered this question a few times upstream.

1- They are under no obligation to put this out to bid by any law that I am aware of
2- That said there is literally no way for it to be below board if #1 is true
3- As a business owner, taxpayer, employer and philanthropist in both cities this does not move the needle for me. Doesn't even make the needle quiver.

I know all parties involved locally and they are all outstanding men who literally do a ton for our community and I have felt they are being unfairly misrepresented this whole time. I have reserved judgement the whole time, in both directions, as we wait and see what all comes out through the legal process. My position has not changed through all of the different iterations of outcry, from calling these men "crooks" "greaseballs" "extortionists" etc. to now focusing on solely on the lease process.

I know there is a certain courage attained by the anonymity of posting on a forum under an alias, I have not hid or concealed my identity or insulted or name called any poster or person involved in this, and I would hope that would gain some points with people.

---

Well said. The lease was legal and ethical. Full stop.

---

EliteElectric said:

---

TAMU, COCS, COB, both ISD's and Brazos county all have dollar amount thresholds that they are allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for goods and services. without any bid process or council approvals or quorums. FE they may have a 20k threshold for electrical services/work that they can just get done without need for any due diligence or obligation to find best value, a lot of that work goes directly to my competitors because they are used to using them for that work even though we have never been given opportunity to do it. That's just how it is and I am OK with it.

---

So if your competitor was given an electrical contract from say the BBC without even asking you, then that would be ok, as long as the value of the job (in this case at least $2000/year) does not exceed a certain limit?
Because that is what you are saying..

techno-ag said:

---

cavscout96 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

doubledog said:

---

GSS said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

davido said:

---

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.

---

Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.

---

Deflection, deflection, deflection......

---

This... Ag exemption, $1 leases to all etc...

Has anyone noticed that Techno nor any of the COB,BBC,Mayor,Dorn supporters will answer this question?

Does anyone (on this board) believe that awarding this $1/year lease to a "known and trusted" individual, without vetting other qualified lessees is above board and without suspicion?

---

I have answered this question a few times upstream.

1- They are under no obligation to put this out to bid by any law that I am aware of
2- That said there is literally no way for it to be below board if #1 is true
3- As a business owner, taxpayer, employer and philanthropist in both cities this does not move the needle for me. Doesn't even make the needle quiver.

I know all parties involved locally and they are all outstanding men who literally do a ton for our community and I have felt they are being unfairly misrepresented this whole time. I have reserved judgement the whole time, in both directions, as we wait and see what all comes out through the legal process. My position has not changed through all of the different iterations of outcry, from calling these men "crooks" "greaseballs" "extortionists" etc. to now focusing on solely on the lease process.

I know there is a certain courage attained by the anonymity of posting on a forum under an alias, I have not hid or concealed my identity or insulted or name called any poster or person involved in this, and I would hope that would gain some points with people.

---

Well said. The lease was legal and ethical. Full stop.

---

---

Please note, as has been pointed out on both sides, that is just your opinion. Granted, other posters on here share it with you. But it's still just an opinion.

---

and yours as well. I think the balance of the opinions favors my POV....... so, by definition, its not exactly "full stop."

Quote:

---

That's not an apples to apples comparison. First, it's a grazing lease that benefits BBC more than the leasee. Second, it can be revoked at any time with one month's notice to vacate. Third, yes the BBC board can ethically assign such a lease to whoever they think would serve them best. Not every bid for construction goes to the lowest bidder, either. And when that happens it's legal and ethical too. The board votes on these things and decides what's best for the organization.

---

it benefits the leasee tremendously. He saves a couple of grand a year in fees. He is not even running his cattle on it. Is he charging the mayor for the grazing? (that would be a good question to ask). He did state that the cows are there out of convenience to himself (otherwise, he would be traveling to Navasota to do AI where the mayor's ranch is). If the cows have to move on short notice, the mayor is gonna have to rehome them, not rafter D.

Herein lies the source of the disconnect in the discussion about this situation. The fallacy that something being legal necessarily means it is also ethical conflates the issues. When asked to discern between the two, those who ascribe to this logical fallacy cannot offer up any explanation for how Gutierrez' behavior was ethical aside from reverting back to a legal = ethical = legal ad nauseam circle of logic.

To ascribe to such an idea renders the different meanings of those two words pointless and avoids having to acknowledge that the former (legal) pertains to acting in accordance with the law while the latter (ethical) pertains to the concept of right and wrong. The two don't always overlap. To assert that they do would effectively eliminate any idea or expectation that elected officials have a duty and obligation to be transparent and avoid the appearance of impropriety, i.e. behave ethically, by reducing a determination of the appropriateness of an official's behavior to a binary legal-illegal only analysis. The indication here based on Gutierrez' actions (or inaction) is that he felt no such duty or obligation when those actions (or inaction) are viewed outside the legal = ethical logical fallacy.

I have repeatedly implored those who see no sign of even the slightest indication that Gutierrez did not possess a genuine desire or intent to be in any way transparent or avoid the appearance of impropriety to offer up a reasonable explanation for why he never took even one step at any point in this whole saga to demonstrate such a desire. So far, the only response I've received are hypothetical questions that are based on premises that we know are false due to information that's been released from the involved parties. To be fair, no one is required to offer up such an explanation just because I asked for one, but the refusal to do so while simultaneously continuing to advance the idea that Gutierrez has somehow achieved a position that places him above reproach merely because of a lack of illegality speaks volumes.

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

TAMU, COCS, COB, both ISD's and Brazos county all have dollar amount thresholds that they are allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for goods and services. without any bid process or council approvals or quorums. FE they may have a 20k threshold for electrical services/work that they can just get done without need for any due diligence or obligation to find best value, a lot of that work goes directly to my competitors because they are used to using them for that work even though we have never been given opportunity to do it. That's just how it is and I am OK with it.

---

So if your competitor was given an electrical contract from say the BBC without even asking you, then that would be ok, as long as the value of the job (in this case at least $2000/year) does not exceed a certain limit?
Because that is what you are saying..

---

That's not an apples to apples comparison. First, it's a grazing lease that benefits BBC more than the leasee. Second, it can be revoked at any time with one month's notice to vacate. Third, yes the BBC board can ethically assign such a lease to whoever they think would serve them best. Not every bid for construction goes to the lowest bidder, either. And when that happens it's legal and ethical too. The board votes on these things and decides what's best for the organization.

---

Wow, wrong on all counts.
1. The lessee benefits from an essentially free lease, saving him at the least $1999/year (average cost)
2. Any contract can have a month to month clause.
3. The BBC is ethically responsible to provide open and honest dealings with public property.
4. From what has been reported it appears, that the BBC did not vet anyone else.. So your lowest bidder analogy is wrong too.

Before the Mayor opened this can of worms, did anyone (beside those connected to the BBC) know about the $1/year grazing lease? I have talked to a lot of local ranchers in the last two weeks. They told me that they would have loved to have the $1/year lease, if only someone would have informed them.

Why would the landowner rent the property to a person that could block the necessary approvals needed by a development buyer?

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

TAMU, COCS, COB, both ISD's and Brazos county all have dollar amount thresholds that they are allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for goods and services. without any bid process or council approvals or quorums. FE they may have a 20k threshold for electrical services/work that they can just get done without need for any due diligence or obligation to find best value, a lot of that work goes directly to my competitors because they are used to using them for that work even though we have never been given opportunity to do it. That's just how it is and I am OK with it.

---

So if your competitor was given an electrical contract from say the BBC without even asking you, then that would be ok, as long as the value of the job (in this case at least $2000/year) does not exceed a certain limit?
Because that is what you are saying..

---

It happens EVERY DAY. Yes I am ok with it.

One thing we've definitely learned from this-

The fine citizens of Bryan, Texas need to keep a watchful eye on the mayor and the BBC going forward. THAT IS A FACT.

EliteElectric said:

---

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

TAMU, COCS, COB, both ISD's and Brazos county all have dollar amount thresholds that they are allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for goods and services. without any bid process or council approvals or quorums. FE they may have a 20k threshold for electrical services/work that they can just get done without need for any due diligence or obligation to find best value, a lot of that work goes directly to my competitors because they are used to using them for that work even though we have never been given opportunity to do it. That's just how it is and I am OK with it.

---

So if your competitor was given an electrical contract from say the BBC without even asking you, then that would be ok, as long as the value of the job (in this case at least $2000/year) does not exceed a certain limit?
Because that is what you are saying..

---

It happens EVERY DAY. Yes I am ok with it.

---

Would you be ok with it if it went to the son of the superintendent and that son had never won a bid from the ISD before?

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

TAMU, COCS, COB, both ISD's and Brazos county all have dollar amount thresholds that they are allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for goods and services. without any bid process or council approvals or quorums. FE they may have a 20k threshold for electrical services/work that they can just get done without need for any due diligence or obligation to find best value, a lot of that work goes directly to my competitors because they are used to using them for that work even though we have never been given opportunity to do it. That's just how it is and I am OK with it.

---

So if your competitor was given an electrical contract from say the BBC without even asking you, then that would be ok, as long as the value of the job (in this case at least $2000/year) does not exceed a certain limit?
Because that is what you are saying..

---

That's not an apples to apples comparison. First, it's a grazing lease that benefits BBC more than the leasee. Second, it can be revoked at any time with one month's notice to vacate. Third, yes the BBC board can ethically assign such a lease to whoever they think would serve them best. Not every bid for construction goes to the lowest bidder, either. And when that happens it's legal and ethical too. The board votes on these things and decides what's best for the organization.

---

Wow, wrong on all counts.
1. The lessee benefits from an essentially free lease, saving him at the least $1999/year (average cost)
2. Any contract can have a month to month clause.
3. The BBC is ethically responsible to provide open and honest dealings with public property.
4. From what has been reported it appears, that the BBC did not vet anyone else.. So your lowest bidder analogy is wrong too.

Before the Mayor opened this can of worms, did anyone (beside those connected to the BBC) know about the $1/year grazing lease? I have talked to a lot of local ranchers in the last two weeks. They told me that they would have loved to have the $1/year lease, if only someone would have informed them.

---

Sure they would have, but the board did not know them. Why go with an unknown person?

And again it was not advertised because it did not go out for bids, and that's ok.

---

Thank you, you just confirmed that the lease went to a "known and trusted" individual, i.e. a member of the good old boys club. The trouble with that scenario is that this is a closed loop and as an outsider it is difficult to break into and is thus at its root unfair to all others. Not a good look for a central Texas city.

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

TAMU, COCS, COB, both ISD's and Brazos county all have dollar amount thresholds that they are allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for goods and services. without any bid process or council approvals or quorums. FE they may have a 20k threshold for electrical services/work that they can just get done without need for any due diligence or obligation to find best value, a lot of that work goes directly to my competitors because they are used to using them for that work even though we have never been given opportunity to do it. That's just how it is and I am OK with it.

---

So if your competitor was given an electrical contract from say the BBC without even asking you, then that would be ok, as long as the value of the job (in this case at least $2000/year) does not exceed a certain limit?
Because that is what you are saying..

---

That's not an apples to apples comparison. First, it's a grazing lease that benefits BBC more than the leasee. Second, it can be revoked at any time with one month's notice to vacate. Third, yes the BBC board can ethically assign such a lease to whoever they think would serve them best. Not every bid for construction goes to the lowest bidder, either. And when that happens it's legal and ethical too. The board votes on these things and decides what's best for the organization.

---

Wow, wrong on all counts.
1. The lessee benefits from an essentially free lease, saving him at the least $1999/year (average cost)
2. Any contract can have a month to month clause.
3. The BBC is ethically responsible to provide open and honest dealings with public property.
4. From what has been reported it appears, that the BBC did not vet anyone else.. So your lowest bidder analogy is wrong too.

Before the Mayor opened this can of worms, did anyone (beside those connected to the BBC) know about the $1/year grazing lease? I have talked to a lot of local ranchers in the last two weeks. They told me that they would have loved to have the $1/year lease, if only someone would have informed them.

---

Sure they would have, but the board did not know them. Why go with an unknown person?

And again it was not advertised because it did not go out for bids, and that's ok.

---

Thank you, you just confirmed that the lease went to a "known and trusted" individual, i.e. a member of the good old boys club. The trouble with that scenario is that this is a closed loop and as an outsider it is difficult to break into and is thus at its root unfair to all others. Not a good look for a central Texas city.

---

I disagree it's unfair. If a cattleman wanted to be more involved in city affairs, he could show up at these meetings, maybe volunteer for some committees, get involved and get to know the BBC board members. Then, when that once in a lifetime temporary grazing lease for a nominal amount opens, maybe he too would be considered by the BBC board.

I disagree with the premise that not making this a bidding process is somehow illegal or unethical.

---

It's not illegal. I have served on multiple elected and appointed boards in my podunk community. Without exception the auditors send board members a form to fill out requiring disclosure of any interest in businesses or relationships with people that do business with the entity. I assume that would be the case here as well, so all the claims about BBC and COB not knowing about the mayors interest are BS if proper disclosure was made

I think it would be really interesting during discovery if the number of cows on the property, the frequency of them getting out, and how long specific cows were on that property comes out.

What I *think* that will show is that Gutierrez's cattle were on that land almost if not exclusively, for a really long period of time. Also, that they got out quite frequently, which will make his claim against the plane owner null and void. There's no way to say for sure when those cows got knocked up…

techno-ag said:

---

skeetboy3 said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

TAMU, COCS, COB, both ISD's and Brazos county all have dollar amount thresholds that they are allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for goods and services. without any bid process or council approvals or quorums. FE they may have a 20k threshold for electrical services/work that they can just get done without need for any due diligence or obligation to find best value, a lot of that work goes directly to my competitors because they are used to using them for that work even though we have never been given opportunity to do it. That's just how it is and I am OK with it.

---

So if your competitor was given an electrical contract from say the BBC without even asking you, then that would be ok, as long as the value of the job (in this case at least $2000/year) does not exceed a certain limit?
Because that is what you are saying..

---

It happens EVERY DAY. Yes I am ok with it.

---

Would you be ok with it if it went to the son of the superintendent and that son had never won a bid from the ISD before?

---

Are you saying Dorn is the mayor's son? Otherwise this is an apples to oranges comparison.

---

No, substitute best friend for son if it makes you feel better. He got the contract because of his relationship--that seems to be accepted by everybody, including yourself. He did not have a pre-existing cattle business relationship that allowed the BBC to know he was competent at managing the operation (and the reports about escaped cattle seem to back that up).

techno-ag said:

---

davido said:

---

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.

---

Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.

---

Leasing out a property that they paid over in excess of $12 million for a dollar a year just to maintain an ag exemption doesn't seem wise.

What is the high end of sales price per acre for similar land in the area? I've looked at a couple of smaller tracts and they were not $61K per acre. I realize the location makes this one special but damn.