Council accepts VCS Capital utility and economic feasibility study after prolonged debate

The Montgomery City Council voted to accept a utility and economic feasibility study for the VCS Capital commercial and multifamily tract (development number 2415) after extended discussion and objections from several council members.

The study, paid for by the developer, examined potential water and wastewater needs, roadway and drainage improvements and high-level fiscal impacts for a tract near Buffalo Springs Drive and County Road 105. Staff said the study used assumptions supplied by the developer, including an estimated water/wastewater demand in the range of roughly 60,000'80,000 gallons per day depending on final uses.

Councilmember Sam (last name not specified in the transcript) moved to table the item to Feb. 11; that motion did not carry. A subsequent motion by Councilmember Sheryl Fox to accept the study passed. During debate members expressed concern that the developer had not finalized a land plan and raised multiple questions about drainage responsibility, zoning (a rezoning would be required for multifamily outside the planned development area), the timing of Planning & Zoning review and the study's reliance on developer assumptions.

Staff said the study estimated possible capital improvement costs near $3.5 million if the city and developer completed all recommended scopes, or roughly $2.8 million for the improvements immediately adjacent to the property. The consultant noted an estimated additional city property tax revenue at full buildout of about $360,000 per year (using current tax rate and a 95% collection assumption). Impact fees shown in the report included approximately $348,000 for water and $334,000 for wastewater based on assumed meter counts and capacities.

Councilmembers repeatedly requested written guidance from the city attorney on how prior drainage agreements or expired provisions apply to the tract; staff said an attorney memorandum on drainage and on Buffalo Springs Architectural Control Committee authority was in progress and would be provided to council. Several members said they were not opposed to the development study itself but wanted additional time to review the materials, see P&Z input and have the attorney's memo on drainage and zoning implications before advanced approvals.

Staff emphasized the study is not binding on the city, that the developer is paying for the study and that subsequent development steps (rezoning, platting, development agreement) would be required before any physical work or city commitments. The motion to accept the study carried; staff said the study will also be presented to Planning & Zoning at the next available meeting for their review and comment.