Montgomery council debates developer reimbursement, drainage and scope in draft MOU for 32‑acre BCS Capital project

City of Montgomery officials spent more than two hours Wednesday night reviewing a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) with BCS Capital for a proposed 32‑acre development, focusing on stormwater work, road improvements and a developer reimbursement formula the packet labels a “3 80 agreement.”

The MOU presented to the council is nonbinding, and city staff said it is a framework to negotiate a later development agreement. “An MOU is not binding by nature,” City staff member Catherine said while describing the document's role. Staff outlined proposed public improvements the developer could construct — including waterline extensions, sanitary and storm sewer upgrades, and potential roadway work on Buffalo Springs and C.B. Stewart — and a reimbursement mechanism capped in the draft at what staff described as “not to exceed $4,000,000.”

Council members repeatedly questioned the not‑to‑exceed figure and the scope of reimbursable work. A council member noted that Buffalo Springs improvements alone were estimated in discussion at about $2.5 million and asked why the city would reimburse up to $4 million. Catherine said the higher figure could include off‑site drainage and sewer connections not shown in the base line items: “there's still a $1,700,000 drainage in the vicinity number,” she said, describing potential off‑site storm sewer upgrades needed to route runoff into Seward Creek.

Council members pressed whether the draft would require the city to pay 100% of certain improvements. “I won't reimburse 1¢ of the cost, not 1¢,” one council member said, expressing opposition to full reimbursement. Staff replied that the draft uses “not to exceed” language to limit the city's exposure and that the final numbers should be sharpened before coming back for action.

Drainage was a recurring concern. Staff said drainage studies would be updated to current rainfall methods (referred to as Atlas 14) and must show no downstream adverse impacts. The draft contemplates private storm sewers and private drainage easements in some places, while other work might be public infrastructure eligible for reimbursement or impact‑fee credit.

The draft also references use of a nearby retention feature identified in the packet as Rampey (Rampy) Lake to receive runoff from the project. Councilmembers sought clarity on ownership and on whether enlarging or improving the lake would be a reimbursable public work; staff said the lake belonged to a private property owner and that state law requires runoff go to a retention pond rather than an open ditch.

Multiple council members urged the developer and staff to return with tightened dollar figures and clearer allocation of costs between public and private work. Catherine said the draft was provided to the developer with redline comments and that tonight’s discussion was for policy direction only: the item would return for formal action at a future meeting. “This is just good faith so that we're gonna work together,” she said.

What happens next: staff advised the council to “sharpen your pencil on the numbers” and suggested the MOU — with revised reimbursement caps and clearer descriptions of which improvements would be reimbursed and which would remain private — come back for action at the next council meeting.

Clarifying details from the discussion are included below. The council did not take a final vote on the MOU at this meeting.