• November 24, 2014

Developer wants Killeen endorsement for project

More discussion on agenda Tuesday for proposed MUD in city’s future jurisdiction

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:30 am

Disparate opinions on the Killeen City Council have made it difficult to negotiate a major land deal that has been in the works for more than two months.

Local real estate mogul Bruce Whitis has asked the council to endorse his 1,400-acre residential development south of the city limits for the creation of Bell County Municipal Utility District No. 2. Bell County MUD No. 1 exists near Belton.

The city’s endorsement will be necessary for Whitis to pass his MUD-2 bill during the 83rd Legislature.

With state approval, the MUD — independent of the city — will establish a new taxing entity in Bell County, governed by a board elected by voters who live in the district.

MUD taxes pay for utilities, including water, wastewater, electricity and waste collection.

“The most planned community in Bell County,” as Whitis calls it, also may be the largest development in the county, expected to bring more than 4,500 new homes to a four-mile-long track abutting the Killeen city limits at Chaparral and Trimmer roads.

“It is a rare opportunity to have a project of this size and to do a true master plan community,” Whitis said in an interview earlier this month.

If the project is approved by the Legislature, Whitis said he would plan to break ground in two years.

Waiting for the council’s endorsement, the developer has delayed a deal to close on the land, which it does not currently own.

Killeen plans to annex the area in the next 15 to 20 years — MUD or no MUD — and the council wants to ensure what is built on the site is appropriate for the city, although it is currently in the county’s jurisdiction.

Underpinnings

At a workshop this Tuesday, the council is scheduled discuss the consent agreement to the MUD, which contains legal stipulations including building standards and financial obligations that the developer must follow until the land is annexed.

The council plans to vote on the consent agreement at its Feb. 26 meeting.

The challenge of the negotiations has been crafting the regulatory language to enable the council’s vision of a “walkable” community without making it impossible for the developer to sell the homes, said Sean Compton, land planner for TBJG Partners in Austin.

Compton said the development will include pocket parks, neighborhood pools, shared-use paths and a landscaped median parkway — the extension of East Trimmer Road.

“What we are trying to do is create a neighborhood, not a subdivision,” Compton said.

The agreement will dictate how the developer can build a product 15 or 20 years from now, in a market that is difficult to predict, Compton said.

“You need to build flexibility into the plan,” he said. “Look at cars and how much they have changed in 20 years.”

During the more than two months of debate — most in closed-door sessions — several members of the council expressed the fear that low standards will result in another Killeen subdivision of densely packed low-cost homes.

At last week’s council workshop, Councilman Jared Foster said the minimum standards in the current plan were “antithetical” to the city’s comprehensive plan, a document that is supposed to guide the city to smart growth.

“I don’t want there to be one more monolithic, somewhat run-amuck housing development in the city of Killeen,” Foster said.

According to the draft agreement, the maximum density of the development is three residential dwellings per acre — a ratio that at least four council members thought was too dense.

City Planner Tony McIlwain said the average density in the city is slightly more than three dwellings per acre.

Others members said that placing too many restrictions will not give the developer the flexibility he needs to make the development profitable.

“If it doesn’t work for them financially, then they can’t do it,” Mayor Pro Tem Michael Lower said. “It’s not that they won’t do it; they can’t do it.”

The biggest boon for the developer — and potentially the city — would be the $17 million in roads, parks and water and sewer infrastructure that residents of the MUD will pay for through taxes.

The plan is to set property taxes in MUD-2 higher than the city’s taxes, which at 74.28 cents per $100 valuation are currently the highest in Bell County.

If the city annexes the MUD after the debts are paid, it will get the infrastructure for free.

If the city annexes the land before the bonds are paid, residents of Killeen would assume the MUD’s bond debt.

Out of bounds

Some aspects of the city’s plans to impose regulations on an area outside of the city limits remain legally questionable.

The city does have the right to practice eminent domain outside the city limits if it is in the interests of the city, Mayor Dan Corbin said during Tuesday’s meeting.

However, overseeing the right-of-way on county roads could be an overstep.

As part of the agreement, the developer agreed to spend $4.1 million rebuilding Chaparral Road, a county-owned road, because of the expected increase in traffic. If the Chaparral Road project costs more than $4.1 million, Killeen would pay the remaining cost, according to the current draft agreement.

The council also requested that the buildings constructed in the MUD meet basic city building codes. However, the city has not found a method for enforcing the codes without sending inspectors, who are paid through city salaries, into the county properties.

County buildings are not required to meet building codes.

Increased revenue

The city of Killeen plans to sell water and sewer services to the development, which will generate revenue for the city without the regular up-front cost of building infrastructure.

The Whitis group has asked that the city pay the $17,000 certificates of convenience and necessity for the potential homes, in exchange for in-kind services. CCNs are required in order for a public entity to provide water to residents and must be obtained through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

The city also stands to gain from sales tax, since most of the residents would shop in Killeen.

Tough compromises

Over the next two weeks, the council and the developer will look for compromises on the land deal that, if done right, both agree will ultimately benefit the city.

Compton said the agreement has to have flexibility but also accommodate certain values that are important to the community.

“There’s only so much you can put into design standards,” Compton said. “At some point you just say this is a partnership and we have to trust each other.”

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

4 comments:

  • Hacksaw posted at 7:05 am on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Hacksaw Posts: 44

    Pretty good deal really; for the developer. Get the tax payers to fund the utilities that have to be installed then he gets to sit around and count his money for two years before he starts to build. Then, maybe, the city will annex the land and assume all the costs of city services.
    All created by your good friends in the Texas Legislature in Austin.
    Welcome to the big time folks.

     
  • Viktor posted at 7:00 pm on Sun, Feb 17, 2013.

    Viktor Posts: 317

    Come on Eliza! Clearly this developer wants his own city. Many will want to move to Pottersville. Oops I mean Whitisville or whatever they want to call it. People will be clamoring to pay high taxes to lay down infrastructure while relying on nearby Killeen to use their police force to keep the peace.

     
  • Viktor posted at 11:16 am on Sun, Feb 17, 2013.

    Viktor Posts: 317

    Let's say this idea was proposed by Joann. Could we then expect Jared to be more agreeable?

     
  • Eliza posted at 9:40 am on Sun, Feb 17, 2013.

    Eliza Posts: 866

    @ “At some point you just say this is a partnership and we have to trust each other.”-------

    The partnership would also include, the thousands of tax payers who make up the city of Killeen ,and who as has been told, in the future, could also have an interest. Can they place a trust in the Whitis project?

    Since most of the discussion about this project has been done behind closed doors in work shops,The people/citizens themselves haven't any knowledge concerning it ,and which the council are suppose to have gathered in their interest.

    With the number of purposed housing units, plus the park areas, pools, paths and other greenery additives to make up the described, supposed dream community,
    It would seem to the visionary, what some have said they fear,a densely packed group of housing.
    Which can end up instead of looking like a community after a few years, look rather like someone's idea of a project instead.

    I believe the below statements, are a problem before approval should be given by the city council for its tax payers to become involved in the Whitis project.
    Killeen is having a hard time at the moment making certain its own codes are being followed by citizens, without having to be concerned an area which at the time are under no code regulation. And then there is the problem of city money going to pay for city workers going into county territory to work.

    And then too ,who will police the area of 4,000 houses and the people living there? Would it be county, city ?

    With Killeen having had a problem, and still in need of more safety and security protection,with just 1 added person per house, its adding on a lot of responsibility to Killeen's law enforcement agency if they are the ones who would be deemed responsible.

    -----------------------------
    The council also requested that the buildings constructed in the MUD meet basic city building codes. However, the city has not found a method for enforcing the codes without sending inspectors, who are paid through city salaries, into the county properties.
    County buildings are not required to meet building codes.