Jsimonds58 said:

---

I don't think anyone has done anything criminal, but I do think we should hold out politicians to a much higher standard than just " not a criminal" I think it's very much a bad look that a grazing lease has been granted to a close friend of the mayor, who then has the mayor running his cattle there. On land the taxpayers paid for and up to this point at least we are unaware that it even went out to the public for a bid to graze.

---

Go back and read the last few pages. A nonprofit does not have to send out a lease for bid. You ask for bids on things you buy, not lease to others. This doesn't pass the dollar threshold anyway. Finally it involves income for the nonprofit, not a biddable expense.

Again not going to get into it with you anymore. You haven't remotely attempted to be objective this whole time so there is no point

cslifer said:

---

I read it. They said "the annual tax savings are significant"….except the annual taxes are zero…they mention nothing about taxes for a future owner. I would hope that an organization looking to sell land for business development wouldn't be selling it to someone that has an ag exemption, it doesnt do much so far as the tax base goes.

---

Takes 5 years to get an ag status. BBC maintains the ag status through the lease. When they find a developer, the developer has the option to maintain the ag status until they develop the property. You wouldn't expect that to be multiple years, but it might be valuable to the developer during the planning and permitting of the project, although they would need someone to continue to have cows there during that time.

You could also find a developer interested in developing the a portion of the land in the short term while maintaining the ag status on the rest and then develop the second portion after development of the first. Not uncommon for a residential neighborhood to be developed in stages.

The ag use has value beyond current year tax roles.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

cslifer said:

---

I read it. They said "the annual tax savings are significant"….except the annual taxes are zero…they mention nothing about taxes for a future owner. I would hope that an organization looking to sell land for business development wouldn't be selling it to someone that has an ag exemption, it doesnt do much so far as the tax base goes.

---

Takes 5 years to get an ag status. BBC maintains the ag status through the lease. When they find a developer, the developer has the option to maintain the ag status until they develop the property. You wouldn't expect that to be multiple years, but it might be valuable to the developer during the planning and permitting of the project, although they would need someone to continue to have cows there during that time.

You could also find a developer interested in developing the a portion of the land in the short term while maintaining the ag status on the rest and then develop the second portion after development of the first. Not uncommon for a residential neighborhood to be developed in stages.

The ag use has value beyond current year tax roles.

---

Thank you. Very well stated.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

The ag use has value beyond current year tax roles.

---

Appreciate the objective info.

techno-ag said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

I don't have an axe to grind, what I do have is a problem with is folks potentially abusing the powers afforded to them as elected officials.

And if you can't see the ethical issues at play here I don't know how to help you.

---

What was unethical? That a field was leased for $1? I think it was for the sake of convenience. Again, standard rate was $167/mo. They dealt with someone they knew and trusted and set up a token payment. They weren't trying to make money off the deal.

---

My understanding is that the whole purpose of the BBC is to make money. Am I incorrect?

---

Well, it's a non profit. If they make a profit off the lease that wouldn't be kosher, I think.

---

They can't show a profit, on paper, at the end of the year. They can most definitely bring in money.

Well maybe it's something different.

Quote:

---

The Bryan Business Council was established in 1982 to promote, aid, improve, and enhance the business community of the City of Bryan and its vicinity in order to make the area a more attractive location for business and commercial enterprises.

Since that time, the BBC has created and operated the 200-acre Bryan Business Park, provided economic and other assistance to numerous businesses, and offered advice to the Bryan City Council on areas pertaining to economic development.

---

That's from their own website. So while they themselves might not make money, their goal is to make Bryan more attractive to business.

https://building.bryantx.gov/bbc/

As a government entity, they should have placed the grazing lease out for bid. There really is no disputing that. Now, I can't find anywhere where they MUST accept the highest bid. However, a $10 lease is really a joke of an amount, and there are any number of cattle folks who would LOVE that kind of deal.

The true crux of the issue is the lack of transparency in above.

techno-ag said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

I don't think anyone has done anything criminal, but I do think we should hold out politicians to a much higher standard than just " not a criminal" I think it's very much a bad look that a grazing lease has been granted to a close friend of the mayor, who then has the mayor running his cattle there. On land the taxpayers paid for and up to this point at least we are unaware that it even went out to the public for a bid to graze.

---

Go back and read the last few pages. A nonprofit does not have to send out a lease for bid. You ask for bids on things you buy, not lease to others. This doesn't pass the dollar threshold anyway. Finally it involves income for the nonprofit, not a biddable expense.

---

Not sure about non profits, but government entities in Texas most certainly have to get bids to sell or lease public property. I believe the threshold is 10k, but the value of this "grazing lease" is more than that

BiochemAg97 said:

---

cslifer said:

---

I read it. They said "the annual tax savings are significant"….except the annual taxes are zero…they mention nothing about taxes for a future owner. I would hope that an organization looking to sell land for business development wouldn't be selling it to someone that has an ag exemption, it doesnt do much so far as the tax base goes.

---

Takes 5 years to get an ag status. BBC maintains the ag status through the lease. When they find a developer, the developer has the option to maintain the ag status until they develop the property. You wouldn't expect that to be multiple years, but it might be valuable to the developer during the planning and permitting of the project, although they would need someone to continue to have cows there during that time.

You could also find a developer interested in developing the a portion of the land in the short term while maintaining the ag status on the rest and then develop the second portion after development of the first. Not uncommon for a residential neighborhood to be developed in stages.

The ag use has value beyond current year tax roles.

---

And that is a blatant example of abuse of the intent of ag evaluations. Not illegal, ag exemptions are frequently abused, but the intent is not to lower the taxes of a developer who has plans to take the land out of ag production.

Snoodish said:

---

With Gutierrez lawyering up now, I wouldn't think it would be much trouble for a subpoena to be issued to TexAgs to find out the identities of some of you running your mouths about Gutierrez.

---

Remember this...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

techno-ag said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

I don't have an axe to grind, what I do have is a problem with is folks potentially abusing the powers afforded to them as elected officials.

And if you can't see the ethical issues at play here I don't know how to help you.

---

What was unethical? That a field was leased for $1? I think it was for the sake of convenience. Again, standard rate was $167/mo. They dealt with someone they knew and trusted and set up a token payment. They weren't trying to make money off the deal.

---

My understanding is that the whole purpose of the BBC is to make money. Am I incorrect?

---

Well, it's a non profit. If they make a profit off the lease that wouldn't be kosher, I think.

---

Not the profit aspect. If it is say $2000 a year (very low assumption on my part, based on the average grazing lease for the state of Texas), then a nonprofit can easily "spend" that amount at the end of the FY. No profit.

To get the $1/year lease you must be "known and trusted", your words, that is the real issue. The number of possible leasees is thus greatly reduced and therefore unfair to all (except a very few).

BlueMiles said:

---

I'd invite anyone to watch the video just above this post and please tell me how the pilot knew ALL of these details, unless his story is true.

---

I watched the video. I think the pilot was mistaken with some of his accusations. I think terms the YouTube guy used like holding the plane "hostage" and demanding a "ransom" for its release were mischaracterizations designed to enrage people and earn clicks.

The YouTube guy says he'll leave the video up "forever," but he swipes KBTX footage and puts it in his video. I would not be surprised if YouTube gets a takedown request for copyright violation.

All discussion about damages goes through the insurance company not the pilot. They made it sound like the mayor demanded the pilot pay him personally.

The real story is how facts can get twisted for internet hits.

doubledog said:

---

Snoodish said:

---

With Gutierrez lawyering up now, I wouldn't think it would be much trouble for a subpoena to be issued to TexAgs to find out the identities of some of you running your mouths about Gutierrez.

---

Remember this...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Assuming no wrongdoing occurred, I have to question why this issue has been treated the following way.

1) This forum deleting multiple threads related to the alleged incident.
2) A cease and desist from the Mayor's legal counsel against the YouTuber with its own set of facts alleging who leased the land and damages owed.
3) An impassioned response from the actual Lessee with a different set of facts stated regarding leaseholder and lease term info.
4) A statement from the city with their side of the story
5) Public records releases showing actual lease terms and leaseholder info.
6) A statement from the Mayor's legal representative which now calls into question the decision-making abilities of the pilot and almost feels like a preemptive smear against the pilot.

Am I missing anything?

I'm not alleging that anything illegal occurred. I am stating that these actions and statements lead to more questions. Taken at face value, they do not represent an open and honest dialogue. If everything is kosher, why start an attack on the pilot now? This whole saga just doesn't feel right.

FishrCoAg said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

cslifer said:

---

I read it. They said "the annual tax savings are significant"….except the annual taxes are zero…they mention nothing about taxes for a future owner. I would hope that an organization looking to sell land for business development wouldn't be selling it to someone that has an ag exemption, it doesnt do much so far as the tax base goes.

---

Takes 5 years to get an ag status. BBC maintains the ag status through the lease. When they find a developer, the developer has the option to maintain the ag status until they develop the property. You wouldn't expect that to be multiple years, but it might be valuable to the developer during the planning and permitting of the project, although they would need someone to continue to have cows there during that time.

You could also find a developer interested in developing the a portion of the land in the short term while maintaining the ag status on the rest and then develop the second portion after development of the first. Not uncommon for a residential neighborhood to be developed in stages.

The ag use has value beyond current year tax roles.

---

And that is a blatant example of abuse of the intent of ag evaluations. Not illegal, ag exemptions are frequently abused, but the intent is not to lower the taxes of a developer who has plans to take the land out of ag production.

---

Really? Doesn't seem like BBC sought out the ag valuation, but rather purchased the land with a preexisting ag valuation. Highly unlikely that there was a couple hundred acres of undeveloped grazing land that didn't have ag status. This is just maintaining the ag status until the use changes to something else. Exactly like every other piece of ag land that gets developed.

Given the law anticipates ag land being developed by requiring a 3 year rollback when it stops being ag, that seems entirely in line with both the intent and letter of the law. Pretty unlikely BBC is selling to a "developer" that is going to sit on it for years. Far more likely to sell to a developer with actual plans so at most it would be delaying rollback for a year maybe two, depending on how long it takes to get construction approval.

Wouldn't it be better to delay that rollback until it is in the hands of the developer rather than a nonprofit entity that is exempt from property tax? Oh look, maintaining the Ag valuation while BBC owns it is actually better for the taxpayer.

At this point I am unsure of what the BBC purpose ACTUALLY is. Half their holdings on brazoscad are mineral rights.

cslifer said:

---

At this point I am unsure of what the BBC purpose ACTUALLY is. Half their holdings on brazoscad are mineral rights.

---

Did they have surface rights on any of those at some point? I could see them selling land for development but keeping the mineral rights.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

FishrCoAg said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

cslifer said:

---

I read it. They said "the annual tax savings are significant"….except the annual taxes are zero…they mention nothing about taxes for a future owner. I would hope that an organization looking to sell land for business development wouldn't be selling it to someone that has an ag exemption, it doesnt do much so far as the tax base goes.

---

Takes 5 years to get an ag status. BBC maintains the ag status through the lease. When they find a developer, the developer has the option to maintain the ag status until they develop the property. You wouldn't expect that to be multiple years, but it might be valuable to the developer during the planning and permitting of the project, although they would need someone to continue to have cows there during that time.

You could also find a developer interested in developing the a portion of the land in the short term while maintaining the ag status on the rest and then develop the second portion after development of the first. Not uncommon for a residential neighborhood to be developed in stages.

The ag use has value beyond current year tax roles.

---

And that is a blatant example of abuse of the intent of ag evaluations. Not illegal, ag exemptions are frequently abused, but the intent is not to lower the taxes of a developer who has plans to take the land out of ag production.

---

Really? Doesn't seem like BBC sought out the ag valuation, but rather purchased the land with a preexisting ag valuation. Highly unlikely that there was a couple hundred acres of undeveloped grazing land that didn't have ag status. This is just maintaining the ag status until the use changes to something else. Exactly like every other piece of ag land that gets developed.

Given the law anticipates ag land being developed by requiring a 3 year rollback when it stops being ag, that seems entirely in line with both the intent and letter of the law. Pretty unlikely BBC is selling to a "developer" that is going to sit on it for years. Far more likely to sell to a developer with actual plans so at most it would be delaying rollback for a year maybe two, depending on how long it takes to get construction approval.

Wouldn't it be better to delay that rollback until it is in the hands of the developer rather than a nonprofit entity that is exempt from property tax? Oh look, maintaining the Ag valuation while BBC owns it is actually better for the taxpayer.

---

If the developer will have to pay taxes on market value going back up to 3 years from date of taking out of ag production what benefit is there to maintaining ag exemption, unless they plan to not develop for greater than 3 years? BBC isn't paying taxes on it. And BBC may not have sought out the exemption but they chose to maintain it apparently.

New username day!

If they would inform us, we'd be informed internet bloggers. All the information we've gotten so far from parties involved seem very incongruent for the large portion of us. There's a few who seem to buy the story, but I don't.

Edits: spelling and grammar

UninformedInternetBlogger said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

Nom de Plume said:

---

I'm as curious as to why so many socks are posting and why people with Js in their handles are ranting (and posting personal negative Google business reviews) as I am in the actual topic.

---

Right! In 13 years in business (and using either my real name or business name to post here and everywhere else) we have gotten exactly 2 Google reviews that weren't 5*.

---

i think if you had enough people mark as "unhelpful" you can get it to go away, not sure

---

I reported both as unhelpful.

Sadly reasons like this are exactly why I never post opinions on anything controversial. I usually have an opinion but keep it to myself. It's sad it has to come to that.

The thread has shifted to "ag exemption" policies, versus the apparent sweetheart deal for a grazing lease, for a business deal already established for the cattle owner and the technical "lessee", with erroneous information disseminated by both parties regarding the lease.

With the big unknown is the claim for $270,000 in losses, and how it may be tied into a plane sitting in a pasture for almost three months.
Our cattle would have "recovered from the trauma" of being penned after the crash landing, in about 15 minutes after being released. The specifics of AI and embryo harvesting, and the significant claimed loss, will apparently be an insurance issue, but as stated by the Rafter D owner (land lessee):
5. The property is in close proximity to Rafter D Genetics and seemed to be ideal for housing the cattle in preparation for the next round of the embryo program which was scheduled to begin in early January 2023.

6. Rafter D Genetics worked with La Pistola Cattle to move their donor cows to the property to isolate them prior to starting the embryo program.

The land was used to hold the cattle, and keep them away from a bull...how did a 1-2 day interference by a plane result in such a monetary loss? And if the whole operation was negated, why are the cattle still on the property?

Surely Rafter D could find another cattle owner, then run the correct number of cattle (currently overstocked), and hopefully keep them on the property?

Also important to mention that it was claimed the contract was cancelled as a result of the "losses" yet for some reason those longhorns are still in that pasture as of yesterday.

That sure is interesting

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Also important to mention that it was claimed the contract was cancelled as a result of the "losses" yet for some reason those longhorns are still in that pasture as of yesterday.

That sure is interesting

---

The "losses" and "contracts", I believe, were for deliverables to South America and elsewhere in the world. Animal industries are a worldwide industry, just because livestock is sitting here doesn't mean it's git isn't earmarked for another part of the world.

Also those cows may have been rotated, so the cows you see today may not be the same cows that were there yesterday if that makes sense.

Which if that is the case would be perfectly fine, I think at least for me that's the kind of info we would like to hear from the mayor.

It's the silence and inconsistencies that keep arising unaddressed that have folks upset.

Right now it's looking more like some rule benders who already utilize their positions for personal gain, are attempting to use this as an opportunity for a financial windfall, be it from the plane owner or insurance companies.

It should be fairly straight forward to explain how damages have now piled up to $270k as a result of a plane sitting in a field.

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Which if that is the case would be perfectly fine, I think at least for me that's the kind of info we would like to hear from the mayor.

It's the silence and inconsistencies that keep arising unaddressed that have folks upset.

---

I don't know if this is the case with what's currently going on, but, the few times in my life I have had to retain counsel in matters of business (usually when someone won't pay me, or their is a dispute about the amount owed), I have ALWAYS been instructed by my counsel to let my counsel do the talking.

I do know this, 100% of the time the truth comes out, not always when we want it, but it eventually comes out,

Which as a private citizen makes complete sense, the rub that we all have here is he is also the mayor. The mayor needs to clear some very murky looking things up to his constituents

EliteElectric said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Also important to mention that it was claimed the contract was cancelled as a result of the "losses" yet for some reason those longhorns are still in that pasture as of yesterday.

That sure is interesting

---

The "losses" and "contracts", I believe, were for deliverables to South America and elsewhere in the world. Animal industries are a worldwide industry, just because livestock is sitting here doesn't mean it's git isn't earmarked for another part of the world.

Also those cows may have been rotated, so the cows you see today may not be the same cows that were there yesterday if that makes sense.

---

If isolation from a bull (for AI work and embryo harvesting) is the goal, rotation of the cattle makes zero sense.

Also lost in the discussion are that both parties have not commented on the routine escape of the cattle, not illegal, but certainly not "neighborly"...and the trauma of being routinely rounded up from nearby property and road right-of-ways...(often with LEO assistance).

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Which as a private citizen makes complete sense, the rub that we all have here is he is also the mayor. The mayor needs to clear some very murky looking things up to his constituents

---

But this is private business between Rafter D, La Pistola and the airplane owner and it's surety. You can want all you want to but you will probably be left wanting.


There is good reason the youtube click seller is taking down and editing the videos, he's probably going to be a defendant in suit. This will all play out in the courts and I am guessing all parties will be forced to keep quiet during that time.


***eta****

By forced I mean urged by counsel

GSS said:

---

The thread has shifted to "ag exemption" policies, versus the apparent sweetheart deal for a grazing lease, for a business deal already established for the cattle owner and the technical "lessee", with erroneous information disseminated by both parties regarding the lease.

With the big unknown is the claim for $270,000 in losses, and how it may be tied into a plane sitting in a pasture for almost three months.
Our cattle would have "recovered from the trauma" of being penned after the crash landing, in about 15 minutes after being released. The specifics of AI and embryo harvesting, and the significant claimed loss, will apparently be an insurance issue, but as stated by the Rafter D owner (land lessee):
5. The property is in close proximity to Rafter D Genetics and seemed to be ideal for housing the cattle in preparation for the next round of the embryo program which was scheduled to begin in early January 2023.

6. Rafter D Genetics worked with La Pistola Cattle to move their donor cows to the property to isolate them prior to starting the embryo program.

The land was used to hold the cattle, and keep them away from a bull...how did a 1-2 day interference by a plane result in such a monetary loss? And if the whole operation was negated, why are the cattle still on the property?

Surely Rafter D could find another cattle owner, then run the correct number of cattle (currently overstocked), and hopefully keep them on the property?

---

There is a remote, highly unlikely possibility that the plane crashed at the precise time embryos needed to be transferred or AI needed to be performed, but no one has given any details to establish that, nor have I seen anything to document the actual monetary loss (i. e. How many cows, embryos, value of each one, etc. ). If it ends up in the courts those figures will be essential to establish damages. I suspect the value is overstated as the starting point in a negotiation.

If cows can be spooked by planes, seems odd to be doing AI so close to an airport.