City, developers outline Westlake Village plan and $48 million in infrastructure investments

City staff and representatives of the Westlake Village development presented a multi‑year plan to the Waco City Council on Sept. 16 to bring a large master‑planned neighborhood into the city and to finance shared infrastructure needs.

Assistant City Manager Paul Kane told council and the public the negotiations to reach the current framework took about three years and were intended to avoid a municipal utility district in Waco's extraterritorial jurisdiction by instead annexing the land and using a municipal management district (MMD) to finance infrastructure. “We think we've landed in a really good spot, with regard to this development and with regard to the future of the city,” Kane said.

The development team described the project as roughly 6,568 acres with about 247 acres planned for single‑family development, roughly 243 acres to be preserved in Lake Waco's flowage easement as parkland, about 37 acres of internal open space, and just over 1,200 residential lots (including a small townhome tract of roughly 20 lots). Access would be from Highway 6 and Tom Ledbetter Road. Thomas Fletcher of Kimley Horn reviewed renderings and design commitments including sidewalks, a spine collector with a 10‑foot trail, a five‑acre resort‑style amenity center and a commercial tract along Highway 6.

Mindy Caney, the development team's special‑purpose district attorney, described the MMD proposal and its limits. "This district is a taxing entity, and so this district will levy taxes inside the boundaries of the district," Caney said. She said the MMD would be governed by a five‑member board (two city appointees, three developer appointees), would be permitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or the Texas Legislature, and that the district could not sell bonds until sufficient taxable value—she cited roughly $60 million—existed inside the district.

City staff and the developer presented an infrastructure summary the city said totals about $48 million across water, sewer and streets. Staff described the split as roughly $23 million attributable to the Westlake development (about a 50/50 split between city and developer for that portion) with additional costs accounted for by Spiegelville Road and adjacent developments already under way. Staff said the total wastewater need across the area is about $18 million (developers contributing roughly $10 million and the city about $7.8 million) and the water needs were shown at about $21 million (developer roughly $9 million; city roughly $11.7 million). City staff said most of that work is funded in the current budget package except for Tom Ledbetter Road improvements, estimated to occur in a later phase (around 2033 in the city presentation).

Council members asked for more detailed cash‑flow projections, year‑by‑year revenue and expense waterfalls, and clarifications on responsibilities for public safety and capital costs. City staff said estimated operational impacts at build‑out (roughly 10 years in the city's projection) included public safety costs of about $3.8 million a year (12 firefighters and six police officers estimated) compared with an estimated $4.8 million a year in new M&O revenue from new taxable value. Staff also said the city would acquire about 243 acres of parkland within the flowage easement at a price identified in the development agreement, payable at a later phase, to protect Lake Waco and provide parkland for the city.

Staff described a tentative schedule: a TCEQ application to create the district could be submitted in late 2025 with potential TCEQ action in 2026, and staff said the team was aiming for a final annexation and zoning action around the council's December meeting. Staff emphasized that all infrastructure and financial details remain subject to the formal development agreement, future council approvals and regulatory review.

Why it matters: staff framed the project as a strategic way to bring growth near Lake Waco into city limits while sharing costs with developers and oversizing utilities to benefit future growth. Council members asked for more detailed financial modeling and time‑phased projections before final approvals.

Plans discussed at the work session remain proposals; no formal council vote was recorded during the work session on annexation, zoning or formation of any district.