Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Council approves Pin Oak Road interlocal agreement and two easements for right of way

City of Katy City Council · March 23, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of Katy approved an interlocal project agreement with the Katy Development Authority to participate in Pin Oak Road widening using Metro funds, and separately accepted two small easements totaling $14,266 for right of way.

The City of Katy on March 23 approved an interlocal project agreement with the Katy Development Authority (KDA) to support Pin Oak Road widening between the I‑10 frontage road and Katy Fluellen Road, with Metro funds identified as the source for project expenses. Council also approved two related easement purchases that staff said are needed for the project.

Council voted to accept a 0.004‑acre public right‑of‑way easement from Ancient Warrior LLC for $6,308 and a 0.004‑acre easement from D and J Wagner Properties LP for $7,958; staff reported both acquisitions were approved by the KDA on March 16. City staff described the interlocal as a master agreement under which specific purchase agreements for easements and other transactions will be finalized later.

During discussion one council member said it "just seemed like we're doing it backwards" to approve the master interlocal while the attached purchase‑agreement forms contained blank amounts; staff replied the interlocal establishes the project framework and the specific purchase amounts appear on subsequent agenda items. The council approved the interlocal and the easements by voice vote and the motions carried.

The council packet lists Metro funds as the source for right‑of‑way purchases; staff noted two easement expenditures of $6,308 and $7,958 for signal construction and related work. No roll‑call vote tally by name was recorded in the public transcript; the meeting minutes should list formal vote records.