Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presents 'The Lakes' subdivision; council discusses water, sewer extensions and potential city cost-share
Summary
A developer presented plans for 'The Lakes,' a proposed residential subdivision near Loop 304 with a lake/pond, a mix of lot sizes and an estimated property value of $55–$70 million at full buildout; staff said utilities would need extension and looped connections and estimated public-improvement costs and a potential 30% city cost share for certain public infrastructure.
A developer presented a proposed residential subdivision called "The Lakes" to the Crockett City Council on Aug. 21, describing a gated community with a 5–7 acre lake, a one-acre existing pond and a mix of "classic country" and "estate" lots.
The presenter said the project could include roughly 120–180 homes depending on final lot sizing (transcript gives ranges; exact lot count was not finalized) and estimated total property value at buildout between $55 million and $70 million. Staff and the developer discussed the need to extend city water and sanitary sewer lines along Loop 304; the area currently has electricity but no continuous water/sewer loop along the corridor.
City staff summarized a preliminary engineering estimate for public improvements (water and sewer construction) and said, per local options under state tax code chapter 212, the city can support up to a 30% public-improvement cost share if council chooses and if funding is available. Staff provided an example calculation that a 30% cost share on an engineering-based plan could equal a city contribution in the low hundreds of thousands (staff cited $380,000 as a 30% share on a $1,200,000 engineering estimate for certain items and described total public-improvement construction cost as about $2.6 million in one calculation) but they emphasized these are high-level numbers and final engineering and funding decisions would be required.
Council members generally expressed support for continuing discussions and asked staff and the developer to return with more-detailed cost breakdowns, market analysis and a clear financing plan before any formal commitment. No ordinance amendments or financial commitments were made at the meeting; staff said ordinance changes and funding allocations would be required for the city to provide cost sharing or to participate in construction of public improvements.
Council members noted potential economic-development benefits, including new ad valorem tax revenue and utility revenue, but also cautioned about timing, the market and the fiscal tradeoffs of committing city funds.
