Pulte seeks guidance on Atkinson Ranch MUD; wastewater timing and annexation for commercial areas are key issues

City of Georgetown staff and Pulte Group representatives presented a Municipal Utility District (MUD) proposal and land‑use concept for Atkinson Ranch, a roughly 361‑acre project in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) west of Williams Drive, and requested council feedback on whether to entertain an ETJ MUD application.

Nick (city staff) framed key policy issues — annexation, bond issuance and maturity, master development fee, UDC variances, wastewater availability and site connectivity. Pulte Group (Anaya Johnson, land‑planning manager; Steve Ashlock and Brian Beal, senior land executives) explained a revised land plan that responds to updated Atlas‑14 floodplain mapping and described the project’s proposed product mix, amenities and estimated infrastructure costs.

Why it matters: The decision to allow an ETJ MUD vs. insisting on in‑city MUD or annexation affects tax rates, developer financing, long‑term public infrastructure ownership and whether the city can secure sales tax and regulatory control over commercial areas. Wastewater capacity and schedule at the Northlands plant — and the potential need for an on‑site package treatment plant — materially change project economics.

Project summary and developer presentation

Pulte described a repurposed site plan after Atlas‑14 floodplain updates reduced developable acreage. The company now plans approximately 546 Del Webb (active adult) homes in the southern portion of the tract (a reduction of about 43% from an earlier concept) and commercial and medium‑density residential subdistricts to the north. Pulte said anticipated on‑site amenities include a multi‑acre amenity center, trails and community open space.

Infrastructure costs and wastewater options

Pulte estimated total infrastructure capital outlay near $85,000,000, with an off‑site roadway bill of roughly $3.4–4.0 million and off‑site water infrastructure near $800,000–900,000. Pulte said off‑site wastewater connections to the city would cost roughly $400,000–450,000; as an alternative if city wastewater capacity or timing is not available on the project schedule, Pulte’s engineers estimated a standalone on‑site wastewater solution would cost approximately $11,000,000 (package plant, spray fields, effluent ponds and associated works).

Policy requests and financial terms

Pulte requested ETJ MUD status. Under city MUD policy a MUD inside city limits typically faces different rate/maturity constraints and a maximum developer assessment level; Pulte said the economics “pencil” only under an ETJ MUD with a higher assessment allowance. Specific developer requests included a 30‑year bond maturity and a 20‑year issuance window (the city policy maximums are 25‑year maturity and a 10‑year issuance window), a proposed master development fee of 5% (staff policy figure is commonly 12%), and a 95¢ maximum tax rate for the ETJ MUD structure.

Council feedback and outstanding issues

Council members raised several consistent themes in the discussion:

- Annexation for commercial acreage: several council members said they expect or prefer that commercial parcels be annexed into the city limits so the city can capture sales tax revenue and exercise regulatory control; Pulte and staff responded that portions of the northern commercial/medium‑density area could be annexed if council desired and that would change the MUD footprint.

- Wastewater: multiple councilmembers, and staff, stated a clear preference for connections to the city wastewater system rather than an on‑site package plant adjacent to floodplain where possible. Staff said the Northlands plant timing (currently planned for later years) and procurement/sizing work remains a critical variable; city staff asked council for direction they could use in negotiating contingencies if city wastewater isn’t available within the developer’s timeline.

- MUD policy adherence: councilmembers urged adherence to existing policy on bond maturity and issuance windows, asked for stricter master‑developer fee alignment with city norms (several councilmembers suggested a figure closer to 10% or 12% rather than 5%) and emphasized the need to preserve development standards (architecture and public infrastructure quality). A number of councilmembers said they were open to a higher percentage of age‑restricted units only after seeing more detail but did not oppose Del Webb‑style active‑adult development generally.

- Connectivity and emergency access: council and staff discussed road network constraints, limited existing right‑of‑way on adjoining streets, and the need to plan safe emergency access. Staff and developers said potential solutions include constructing a Tejas Trail connection (where existing right‑of‑way reaches the parcel) and the possibility of crash‑gated emergency links to manage neighborhood traffic.

Next steps: Staff asked council whether to pursue an ETJ MUD application and requested direction on which policy variances council would permit. Council gave mixed feedback: several councilmembers endorsed annexing the commercial portion into the city and insisted on sticking with most MUD policy limits (e.g., 25‑year maturity and 10‑year issuance) and a higher master development fee, while also urging staff to pursue options that allow developers to proceed if city wastewater is delayed (for example, conditional approvals tied to connection timing or interim backstop solutions). Many councilmembers reiterated a preference for municipal wastewater service where feasible.

Speakers: presentation and Q&A were led by City staff (Nick) and Pulte Group representatives (Anaya Johnson and Brian Beal); multiple councilmembers asked technical and policy questions during the workshop.

Ending: Council did not take a final vote at the workshop but provided direction on key principles (prefer commercial annexation, require alignment with core MUD policy on bond windows and fees unless there is a strong justification, prefer city wastewater connection and seek contingencies if the city system is not available). Staff and the developer will continue negotiations and return with technical details and recommended policy adjustments if necessary.