Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gateway Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers present 'Gateway at Hutto' concept and ask council to consider 35‑year TIRZ to accelerate infrastructure
Summary
Kaplan Development presented a mixed‑use Gateway at Hutto proposal covering about 265 acres and described a proposed 35‑year tax increment reinvestment zone (TIRZ) with 50% participation and use of TIRZ bonds to fund wastewater, stormwater and road improvements including widening County Road 137 and adding a traffic signal. Developers asked for staff/ legal dialogue to fast‑track a final agreement.
Derek Pompey of Kaplan Development told the council the Gateway at Hutto project would be a mixed‑use development on roughly 265 acres at East Wilco Highway and County Road 137, offering about 600,000 square feet of retail, a hotel/conference center, office space and residential areas that step down to adjoining neighborhoods.
Pompey described a proposed Hutto Gateway Public Improvement District and a tax increment reinvestment zone (TIRZ) limited to the development area, with a proposed 35‑year term and 50% participation. He said the TIRZ proceeds would be used to construct public infrastructure tied to commercial parcels — wastewater, stormwater and roadwork, including widening County Road 137 and a turn lane with a signal at East Wilco Highway — and that Kaplan plans to construct improvements as the project develops rather than deposit fees into a passive fund.
“We've been working on this site with the Wolf family for three years…our plan is to actually construct it as we go,” Pompey said. He noted staff and legal questions will be discussed in executive session later that evening and requested council guidance so the developer could bring a near‑final agreement back quickly. Council members asked about public access to the project's lakes, fishing policies (WCID control and easement negotiations), sales‑tax capture limits for the city and how a TIRZ would interact with a PID and potential hotel occupancy‑tax strategies.
Councilors praised the property's topography and asked staff to confirm water availability, clarify legal distinctions between PID and TIRZ reimbursements, and work with the developer and WCID to pursue public amenity options. Developers emphasized they were not seeking action that night, only feedback to expedite final documentation.
