TCEQ refers Williamson County challenge to municipal utility district petition to SOAH and ADR

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality voted May 22 to grant Williamson County party status in a petition to create Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 60 and to refer the matter to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested-case hearing. The commission also directed that the case be placed into the agency’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program to run concurrently with SOAH’s scheduling process.

The action came after Williamson County’s attorney, Stephanie Albright of Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta, told the commission the county was seeking “party status as an affected party” and said the county’s concerns include how road powers and maintenance obligations could shift long-term costs to the county. “There’s nothing that requires [a MUD] to maintain the roads,” Albright said, adding that counties sometimes end up responsible for internal subdivision roads when a district or developer is unable or unwilling to maintain them.

Petitioner counsel John Scott, representing OP3 ATX Georgetown 2220 LP, said the petitioner expects to comply with county standards and argued that many of Williamson County’s requested conditions fall outside what the MUD creation process resolves. “Most of the relevant ones, the drainage issues, the roads, those were all things that they control through their internal process. We have to comply with that. We do not dispute that,” Scott said, adding that the county’s development-agreement requests had expanded beyond the scope of the MUD petition.

TCEQ staff and the executive director also participated in questioning. Kayla Murray, representing the executive director, said the agency’s practice has been to find counties have standing in similar cases and noted agency bond rules allow the commission to consider whether a district has necessary county approvals when evaluating financial assurances. Justin Tack of the agency’s Water Supply Division summarized the staff’s technical review of district-creation filings, saying the engineering reports typically address feasibility, tax base, costs, drainage and water/wastewater plans and that, historically, contested-case proceedings rarely change the figures originally submitted but have on occasion led the commission to deny petitions.

Commissioners debated whether to set a maximum hearing duration. Commissioner Katarina Gonzales proposed imposing a 180-day limit for this SOAH proceeding; other commissioners expressed concern about compressing SOAH’s schedule and the potential for rushed decisions. Ultimately the commission did not impose a fixed maximum hearing duration but did refer the county’s hearing request to SOAH and the agency’s ADR program.

A motion to grant Williamson County’s hearing request, refer the matter to SOAH for a contested-case hearing, and refer it to the commission’s ADR program passed on a voice vote. The motion was seconded and the panel recorded the motion as passed.

The commission moved on to new business after the vote; no further action on the MUD petition was taken at the meeting.

Votes at a glance

• Motion to grant Williamson County party status, refer petition to SOAH for contested-case hearing, and refer matter to TCEQ ADR program — Passed (voice vote; motion seconded).