Fort Bend County Commissioners Court creates Reinvestment Zone No. 34 near FM 762/FM 1994, Judge Wong abstains

RICHMOND, Texas — Fort Bend County Commissioners Court voted 4-0, with County Judge Daniel Wong abstaining, on Monday to create Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a roughly 3,057-acre tract near the intersection of FM 762 and FM 1994 in Precinct 2, clearing the way for the county to eventually consider tax abatements for development in the area.

The vote came after a brief public hearing in which no residents spoke, though two speakers — Jim Rice, chair of the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority and president of Rice and Gardner Consultants, and Jeronimo Cortina, author of the Fort Bend 2050 report — addressed the court during the earlier public-comment period to urge approval, arguing reinvestment zones help the county compete for major employers and let new tax value generated by development help pay for infrastructure such as roads, drainage and utilities.

Before the vote, Wong disclosed a conflict of interest under Chapter 176 of the Texas Local Government Code related to Tesla, filing a conflicts disclosure statement (Form CIS) and announcing he would abstain from the item. Assistant County Attorney Carlos told the court the zone’s creation is a procedural step required under state law before the county can negotiate any specific tax abatement; any actual project would return to Commissioners Court for a separate vote, with an additional opportunity for public comment at that time.

The reinvestment zone item passed with commissioners Grady Prestage, Vincent Morales, Andy Meyers and Dexter McCoy voting in favor and Wong abstaining, according to the vote called from the bench.

The zone’s creation dominated less time than a pointed political exchange that opened the special meeting. Precinct 1 Commissioner Prestage, who said he had returned to the court specifically because Wong agreed to abstain from the reinvestment zone vote, used his remarks to renew a broader challenge to Wong’s authority to serve as county judge, a dispute that is currently before the courts.

Prestage argued that if Wong could step aside to avoid a conflict involving his business interests, he should likewise step aside from other county business while his authority is being litigated. “If Mr. Wong can step aside to protect the integrity of a vote involving a company with which he has business interests, why won’t he step aside to protect the interest and the integrity of the people’s business?” Prestage said.

Prestage also criticized the elimination of a longstanding agenda-briefing process that allowed county departments to vet proposals before they reached the court, saying it had led to “consequential items” appearing “at the eleventh hour without adequate departmental review or public scrutiny.” He cited the firing of an unnamed tenured staff member and said Wong had placed an item on Thursday’s agenda to restructure the County Attorney’s office, stripping staff, funding and authority from County Attorney Bridgette Smith Lawson. Prestage characterized the move as “political retribution” against Smith Lawson, whom he noted was reelected twice and named the Texas District and County Attorneys Association’s 2026 Civil Practitioner of the Year.

Separately, Prestage objected to a renewed push to eliminate associate judge positions in the county, saying the court had already debated and rejected linking the creation of two new district courts to the elimination of those judgeships after hearing from judges, attorneys and the Fort Bend Bar Association. He said any new effort to revisit that decision should come with supporting data and public testimony rather than being addressed “at the eleventh hour.”

Wong did not directly respond to Prestage’s remarks during the meeting, instead noting procedurally that he was “currently just running this meeting” and that the court was “here to move the people’s business forward” before proceeding to the reinvestment zone hearing. No other commissioners offered comment on Prestage’s statement.

On the reinvestment zone itself, Prestage asked what additional opportunities the public would have to weigh in as specific development projects are proposed within the zone. County staff said future projects seeking incentives would return to Commissioners Court with specifics, and the public would again have a chance to speak for or against any project at that time.

The reinvestment zone designation itself does not commit the county to any tax abatement or incentive agreement; it is a prerequisite under Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code that allows the county to negotiate such agreements with businesses that later propose projects within the zone’s boundaries.

The meeting, which was called as a special session, lasted about 15 minutes.

Also at this meeting:

• Two residents spoke during public comment in support of creating Reinvestment Zone No. 34: Jim Rice, chair of the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority, and Jeronimo Cortina, author of the Fort Bend 2050 report.
• Commissioner Prestage referenced a separate agenda item, expected before the court Thursday, that would restructure the County Attorney’s office; that item was not before the court Monday.
• Prestage also raised concerns about a renewed proposal to eliminate associate judge positions in the county, a matter he said had previously been debated and rejected by the court.
• Judge Wong filed a Local Government Officer Conflicts Disclosure Statement (Form CIS) regarding Tesla and abstained from the Reinvestment Zone No. 34 vote.
• The public hearing on the reinvestment zone drew no additional speakers and was closed on a motion from Commissioner Meyers.