Council hears private‑partner pitch for 160‑acre City Center; consultant says public liability limited, timeline shortens

Manville — Developers explained a public‑private partnership option for the city’s proposed 160‑acre City Center at the Manville City Council workshop on Aug. 4, outlining a financing approach that would use revenue‑producing components of a mixed‑use development to pay project debt rather than raising property taxes.

The pitch came from Kevin Matoka, president of Stonehenge Holdings, a Texas‑based real‑estate development firm. “We are a real estate development firm. We work with political subdivisions of the state of Texas,” Matoka told the council during a 50‑minute presentation and Q&A.

Matoka and the council framed the proposal as an alternative to a long phased build paid primarily with municipal debt. The firm said it would perform initial design and market diligence under an interim services agreement at its own cost, present a guaranteed lump‑sum price and deliver the project under a capital‑lease or revenue‑bond repayment model that would not count as a general obligation on the city’s balance sheet.

Why it matters: Council members said they want a path that avoids raising property taxes, reduces time‑to‑market for the project and ensures the city maintains control of the asset. The City Center proposal is central to long‑range plans for the 160‑acre site and could shape land use, traffic and tourism proposals for years.

What Stonehenge described: Matoka told the council the model emphasizes revenue generation — hotels, retail, event space and an amphitheater — and would seek third‑party guarantees on price and schedule. “We are able to deliver the project substantially faster,” Matoka said, noting a first phase could be completed in roughly 32–36 months if structured as a phased P3. He added the company typically defers some debt service during construction and uses revenues from hotels and leased space to cover early payments.

Council questions and concerns: Councilman Keith Bonner led questioning. “What’s this gonna cost the taxpayers?” he asked. Matoka replied that the financing model is structured so the city would not start debt service until the revenue stream ramps up, and that third‑party market studies and pre‑leases would be required before the city commits. “You don’t finally make a decision on any project until we go through this entire process,” Matoka said, adding that cost overruns would be Stonehenge’s responsibility under a guaranteed‑price delivery.

Councilwoman Crystal Sarmiento said the selling point was avoiding a direct tax burden and moving the project forward without a voter bond fight. She asked for simple messaging to explain the structure to residents; Matoka answered that the model lets private capital assume much of the early cost while the city preserves control of the asset.

Schedule and next steps: Council members signaled interest in soliciting other firms. Council expressed support for issuing a request for qualifications (RFQ) to identify qualified teams; several members explicitly asked staff to place an RFQ item on a future agenda so the city could compare firms. Matoka recommended an initial due‑diligence phase followed by an interim services agreement, paid primarily for by the private partner’s third‑party consultants, to produce final plans and a guaranteed price.

What the city emphasized: City staff described the Stonehenge presentation as informational and said the city is not obligated to pursue that firm exclusively. The mayor asked staff to prepare an RFQ so the council could evaluate multiple partners and models before making any commitment.

Ending: The council did not vote on any project authorization at the meeting. Instead members directed staff to return with an RFQ process and additional financial analysis if council wants to explore public‑private delivery more deeply.

Speakers quoted

- Kevin Matoka, president, Stonehenge Holdings — “We are a real estate development firm. We work with political subdivisions of the state of Texas.” - Councilman Keith Bonner — “What’s this gonna cost the taxpayers?” - Councilwoman Crystal Sarmiento — “The appealing thing about this is hearing you say that it’s revenue generating versus a tax burden on our citizens.”