Santa Fe council postpones public hearing on proposed Megatel TIRZ after residents protest flooding, wastewater concerns
Loading...
Summary
Council delayed the continuation of a public hearing on a proposed 1,059.693‑acre Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) tied to the Megatel development until March 27 after multiple residents raised flooding, wastewater and quality‑of‑life objections during public comment.
The City Council of Santa Fe on Feb. 13 voted to postpone the continuation of a public hearing on establishing a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) covering approximately 1,059.693 acres, generally south of FM 517, west of Cemetery Road and east of Algoa/Friendswood Road.
The council’s action follows public comment from residents who said they oppose elements of the Megatel project and have filed or planned to file protests with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Donna Vaughn of the Magatell area said she and neighbors submitted a protest to TCEQ and cited increased flooding, noise, and concerns about a proposed wastewater discharge. Callie Cook of Jack Beaver Road urged council to consider the project’s impact on the area’s rural character and schools; other residents raised similar concerns about density and infrastructure.
Why it matters: the TIRZ would enable a developer-led redevelopment strategy that often uses captured tax increments to fund infrastructure in the project area. Residents said they are worried about stormwater capacity, proximity of wastewater handling to wells and yards, and rapid population growth tied to the development. Council did not take final action to create the zone; the postponement moves the next hearing to the March 27 meeting and leaves open both public review and formal consideration.
Council action and immediate next steps: A council member moved to postpone the continuation of the TIRZ public hearing to the March 27 council meeting; the motion carried on a roll call vote. The council’s postponement preserves further public comment opportunities and gives staff and the developer additional time to provide requested materials, including a traffic and tourist plan referenced in council discussion.
What speakers said: Donna Vaughn said property owners along the proposed development boundary had 30 days to file TCEQ protests and reported seeing higher yard and ditch water levels; she asked council members to sign a protest letter. Callie Cook said she bought 10 acres to have a rural lifestyle and said a large subdivision there would change the community’s character and strain schools and wells. Other speakers described long family histories in the area and urged the council to delay or oppose the development.
Limitations and outstanding items: At the hearing council members said key materials from the developer — including a requested plan referenced by staff — were not yet complete or delivered to the city. Staff and council asked the developer for the outstanding items and noted the public hearing had been extended several meetings; the postponement was presented as a way to avoid repeatedly reopening the item without the full packet of documents.
Forward look: The council set the continuation for March 27. Residents said they intend to pursue administrative protests with TCEQ; the council’s future work session and packet materials should show whether the developer supplies the additional engineering, drainage, wastewater, or traffic studies residents requested.
