Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missouri City residents object to plan for MUD 26 water facility on land long shown as park
Summary
Residents and several elected officials called the proposal a 'bait‑and‑switch' at a June 22 joint City Council–Planning & Zoning hearing after staff said a 6.69‑acre tract long promoted as parkland could also host a future above‑ground water facility; no vote was taken and the case moves to P&Z July 8.
Residents and elected officials pressed the city and Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 26 on June 22 over a request for a special use permit for an above‑ground water facility on a 6.69‑acre tract long identified in public materials as a future park. The joint City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission meeting heard multiple speakers say they were surprised and upset that a water plant might be sited adjacent to homes.
“My name is John Fletcher. I live in Hunters Green Subdivision... I would ask you to consider it moving to another place,” resident John Fletcher told the joint meeting during the public‑comment period, summarizing the neighborhood’s central objection: the community had expected a park, not a utility facility. Several council members and commissioners echoed that concern and called for documentation of what voters and property buyers were told when the land was purchased.
City staff framed the hearing as an opportunity for public input, not a decision. Assistant City Manager Shashi Kumar said the item requires a specific‑use permit (SUP) because the proposed above‑ground tanks and related equipment are not permitted by right; she also said any official recommendation will come later to Planning & Zoning (scheduled July 8) and to City Council (tentatively Aug. 17).
Chris Burke, the project engineer representing the district, told the meeting the park and water facility were planned to coexist and that the water plant is intended as a redundant water source for the district. “The water plant is a future facility. They don't have funding for that water plant yet but that will likely be future bond funds,” Burke said, adding that the district has completed tree planting and prepared drawings for a shared driveway and parking area that would serve both park and utility functions.
Council and commissioners pressed staff and the applicant for additional detail: when the land was purchased, what bond language (if any) described the purchase, whether residents were properly notified, whether bond funds could be used for park construction, and whether alternative sites or interconnects to neighboring districts could provide redundancy. Council members asked staff to return with a timeline of purchases and bonds, permit records, and a technical failure analysis of the district’s aging well.
No formal action was taken; staff and the applicant said answers and a draft ordinance or recommendation will be provided to Planning & Zoning in July and to council later in the summer. The public hearing record will be part of those future considerations.
