Freeport council clashes over EDC settlement, title questions and parkland swap as developers press to proceed

Freeport — The City Council spent much of its April 6 meeting debating a proposed settlement by the Freeport Economic Development Corporation (EDC) that would convey property interests to private developers in exchange for required infrastructure work and residential construction.

The agreement, as presented by city staff, would resolve outstanding ownership and development claims involving lots in the Velasco townsite and require Glendale and AMG to finish roads and related infrastructure and deliver certificates of occupancy for units by Dec. 31, 2027, under liquidated‑damages provisions. City staff described a cost‑sharing formula and a $500‑per‑day damages clause after a cure period.

Why it matters: Council members disagreed sharply about whether the settlement is a litigation resolution or a new public project that would legally require an EDC public hearing, two council readings and a 60‑day waiting period before EDC funds could be spent — steps intended to provide public notice and an opportunity for protest under state law.

"My position is that it is a new project," EDC‑side critic Chris Duncan told the council, arguing the settlement differs from an earlier 2018 agreement in parties and financial obligations and therefore triggers the procedural protections for projects that require public spending. "This project or this agreement is not between the original developer... and it does require the EDC to spend money," he said.

Developers and the EDC pushed back. One developer, who said his team had provided budgets, engineering and proof of funds, told council: "We've done the homework" and said the work could have been underway if not for legal and procedural delays. EDC director Robert Johnson said he delivered documentation to city staff and that the EDC's work had been limited to research and negotiating options to resolve the litigation.

Council members and the city attorney described a split in legal opinion between the EDC counsel, who says the EDC may settle litigation on its own, and the city attorney, who advised following the project rules to avoid legal challenge. Multiple council members repeatedly urged the parties to follow the statutory process unless attorneys present a clear, written legal basis to do otherwise.

No final council vote on the settlement was recorded during the meeting. Council members agreed to attempt an expedited schedule: a public hearing at the next EDC meeting, two separate council readings at separate meetings and, if necessary, a special council meeting to permit a timely second reading. Several members said they want the process completed quickly but in a way that is legally defensible.

Council also flagged a related dispute over the city’s Second Street property and possible parkland swap with Texas Parks & Wildlife. Councilman Matamoros presented emails alleging that earlier staff direction and confusion about who could negotiate with TPWD created conflicting expectations. EDC counsel and city officials said the EDC is the sole named party in ongoing litigation over certain parcels, which complicates direct city negotiation until legal issues are clarified.

What remains unresolved: The council left the settlement without a recorded passage and directed staff and the EDC to pursue either legal consensus or the standard project process (public hearing and two readings) on an accelerated timeline. The council also asked for clearer, dated deliverables from staff and counsel so timeline needs can be tracked against court and contract deadlines.

Next steps: Staff and counsel will work to deliver a written legal analysis and, if needed, schedule a special meeting to complete the required readings and vote. The EDC plans to appear at its next meeting and present materials; the council discussed scheduling a special council reading within days if the paperwork and public notice can be completed.