SA.KOV Diagonal TV S I Good Morning.

The time is now 9.06 AM on Wednesday, January 22nd, 2026, in the City of San Antonio special session is called to order.

Madam Clerk, please call roll.

Councilmember Corr.

Councilmember McKee Rodriguez.

President.

Councilmember Via Gran.

Here.

Councilmember Mungia.

Councilmember Castillo.

Here.

Councilmember Galvan.

Here.

Councilmember Aldarete Gabito.

Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez.

Councilmember Spears.

Councilmember White.

Mayor Jones.

Here.

Ma'am, we have a quorum.

Great.

Thank you, Clerk.

This meeting will hear a briefing on the Wahalote Ranch Municipal Utility District.

We have a impending vote here on early February, so this briefing will help lay flat where we are and what we know.

Eric, over to you for the staff presentation.

Thank you, Mayor.

So uh yes, ma'am.

So the nine o'clock this morning is uh a special session on the Wahalote.

We wanted to have uh allow the council an opportunity in a briefing session to uh be able to discuss the issue.

Bridget will walk through uh where we stand right now.

Uh the project is in the city's uh extraterritorial jurisdiction, um, and the developer has submitted a petition requesting the city's consent on the creation of a municipal utility district.

Um Bridget uh White will brief the council on the details of the project, uh the municipal utilities request.

I did see we do have representatives of SAWs in the room as well in case there are questions, and with that I'll turn over to Bridget.

The site in question is in Northwest Bear County in the city of San Antonio's extraterritorial jurisdiction, or the ETJ, near the intersection of Scenic Loop Road and Babcock Road.

The site is approximately 1160 acres, and the owners are Wahalote Ranch Incorporated and Sydney and Marcy Edwards.

Lenar Homes of Texas plans to develop the site.

The project being proposed for the site is a 300 3,000 single family residential lot development.

The site is within the San Antonio Water System's Water Certificate of Convenience and Necessity, or CCN, and not currently within any entities CCN for sewer.

To finance the development of the property, the developers are requesting a municipal utility district or mud to be named Bear County MUD No.

Proposed improvements include on-site and off-site improvements, such as individual lot improvements, streets, utilities, drainage and grading, an off-site drainage extension to Scenic Loop Road, and the construction and operation of an on-site wastewater treatment plant.

Costs are anticipated to be approximately 150 million dollars with revenue anticipated to be 106.5 million dollars.

The use of a municipal utility district is outlined in the city's annexation and growth management policy.

Adopted in 2023, 2023, the policy conforms to state law while outlining how the city can manage growth through various growth management tools.

Identified tools include annexation, albeit limited given state regulations, special districts and agreements, and regional planning and coordination.

These tools are what the city can use to manage growth to the extent allowed under state law.

Under special districts and agreements, public improvement districts as well as water districts, one of which are municipal utility districts, are tools used to finance infrastructure.

The city has typically seen Chapter 382 public you public improvement districts that are created by the county come before council for consent for creation.

Generally, a municipality's written consent is required to create a district in a city's ETJ and for the district to exercise its full powers.

If the city does not consent to the district's creation, the landowner may seek an alternative creation process through a state agency or state legislation.

By participating in the creation of a district, the city of San Antonio has the ability to negotiate the terms of its creation.

As mentioned, a municipal utility district is being sought to develop several on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements, including an on-site wastewater treatment plant.

The developer could recover infrastructure costs through advalorm taxes, assessments in the issuance of bonds.

The Texas Water Code, specifically chapters 49 and 54, pertain to water districts and provide regulations on what is required for the creation of these districts.

As required, the developer submitted a petition to the city on November 10th, 2025 for the city's consent to the creation of municipal utility district with the MUD to be created by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or TCQ.

Unlike public improvement district petitions typically received by the city, a MUD petition has a 90-day requirement from its receipt for the city to consider the request.

Today is the 73rd day of the 90-day clock, and the request has been scheduled for the February 5th City Council meeting to meet this 90-day requirement.

I wanted to spend a few moments on the municipal utility district process and where we currently are in that process.

All special district requests undergo an administrative review, which typically includes determining the completeness of the special district request application and coordinating with other city departments and external agencies.

Planning commission is then briefed and they will hold a hearing to consider the item.

The planning commission was briefed on this request on December 17th of last year and held a hearing on January 16th last Friday.

At that hearing, the item before them was to make a recommendation to city council on whether or not to consent to the creation of the MUD in the city's ETJ with an executed development agreement.

A motion to deny passed 5.4.

In two weeks, City Council will consider whether or not to consent to the creation of the MUD in the city's ETJ.

As you can see from the top line, if City Council chooses to approve consenting to the creation of the MUD with an executed development agreement, the item would then go to TCQ for the developer to go through the process of creating the district.

If, however, City Council chooses to deny its consent to creation or take no action, the developer can then move to file a petition for wastewater services with the city and negotiate an agreement with SAWS.

A petition received would start a hundred and one 120-day clock for an agreement to be negotiated.

If no agreement is reached between SAS and the developer within 120 days, the developer can proceed to TCQ for them to consider creating a district.

If, however, an agreement is reached between SAS and the developer to provide wastewater services, the developer can proceed with development.

It should be noted that it would not prevent them from submitting a petition for a special district for funding the improvements to be made in the district.

Since the petition was brought forward, several concerns have been raised regarding the project, notably the on-site wastewater treatment plant, its location over the contributing zone of the Edwards Aquifer, and conservation issues.

To date, the following actions have occurred.

SAS approved the utility service agreement for water with conditions related to sewer in February 2022.

The master plan, the master development plan, was approved by both Bear County and the City of San Antonio in February 2023 and March 2023 respectively.

The wastewater permit was approved by TCQ in October 2025.

And SAWS provided responses to environmental questions raised and brought forward by a city council consideration request in October and November of 2025.

In accordance with Section 212.172 of the Texas Local Government Code, the city negotiates a development agreement with all special district requests for consent to creation.

The development agreement serves as a contractual agreement between the city and the current as well as future owners of the property.

The development agreement is filed with the county and runs with the land.

The proposed Bear County MUD No.

Development Agreement is being negotiated with the developer at this time and includes proposed terms noted on this slide.

The development agreement will one incorporate development controls that I'll go into more detail in the next two slides.

Two, have the developer agreeing to a third-party conservation easement holder in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 183 of the Texas Natural Resources Resources Code.

Note owners agreeing to provide increased road network access points for the single family residential subdivisions within the district property, which are located within fire and flood prone areas.

Include language pertaining to the district's debt, including a cap on the district's bond issuance of 150 million dollars, the timing on when the last bonds can be issued, and the ability for the city to charge customers within the district a post-annexation surcharge as permitted by the Texas Water Code to compensate for its assumption of obligations of the district if the city were to choose to annex at a future date.

Also allow for SAWS to review all plans for construction and as bill documents containing the seal of a professional engineer as well as plans for operation of the wastewater treatment plant prior to initiation of the plant's operations and also allow SAWS access to the reuse system at all times for inspection and testing.

Also note subdivision regulations apply which apply in the ETJ that the developer would comply with.

Examples include the tree ordinance, the water quality protection ordinance, irrigation permitting, street connectivity and signs.

And it would require that the owners provide annual updates to the city on the progress of the development, and finally, pay the city an operations assessment fee of 175 dollars per built residential unit for a total of $525,000.

The wastewater service development controls shown here and on the next slide are some of those included in the settlement agreement between the city and municipal operations related to discharge of treated domestic affluent from a wastewater treatment plant, as well as the sewer-related provisions SAWS negotiated with the developer into the USA for SAS to provide water to the development.

Some of the development controls include the plant being operated and maintained by an A-level operator, setting aside 50% of the project as open space, 30% impervious cover restriction, the discharge permit only serving the development, soil supplementation to allow for adequate soil absorption, complying with SAWS's backflow prevention requirement, monitoring of the wastewater treatment plant, on-site personnel for adequate notification purposes, and design and construction of wet wells to contain peak design flow.

In summary, City Council is to consider the request for a consent to the creation of a municipal utility district on February 5th.

As mentioned, the item will also include approval of a development agreement as a condition of the city's consent.

The development agreement is in the final stages of negotiation with the developer and would contain the proposed terms previously mentioned on slide eight.

City Council has three options.

The council can choose to one approve consent to the creation of the MUD with the executed development agreement, two, deny consenting to the creation of the mud, or three, take no action.

As of the development agreement is a condition of the city's consent, it would only be entered into when city council considers the request on February 5th.

It may not be entered into later if city council were to choose to deny, and if TCQ were to approve creating a municipal utility district.

Mayor, this concludes my briefing on the Wahalote Ranch Municipal Utility District.

Staff is available for questions.

Thank you for that presentation, Bridget.

A couple of clarifying questions on slide.

When you talk about slide seven, some of the concerns raised, I want I know some have pointed to SWERI analysis that has spoken to some of the concerns.

My understanding is that we've reached out to Sweary for them to provide differing level of analysis to counter uh what SAS has provided, and they have not returned anything to us.

So at this point, we are utilizing SAS's analysis.

Okay, just wanted to make sure everybody was on the same page when it comes to that.

Would you also please clarify so everybody's on the same page uh regarding the status of this with a county?

The status with the county.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, so because the development is in the ETJ, it requires that the county and city review the MDP.

So they did review the MDP and they approved it in March of 2023, and then the city approved it in February.

They approved it in February of 2023, and the city approved it in March of 2023.

Okay, thank you for that.

We'll move on to uh to public comment.

We have several individuals that have signed up to speak.

Um I will call folks up in the order that they signed up.

Everybody will have three minutes to speak.

All individuals will and groups of three, excuse me, will have a total of nine minutes.

Uh the first individual is Sofia Rios.

And because there are so many folks that are here to speak, I would ask, I'm gonna call the person who's gonna speak and then the person who's right after them, and if that person would line up right behind the speaker, so we can go through it pretty quickly, okay.

So Sofia Rios, please, followed by Justice Atrastea, Adrastea.

Okay.

Sofia Rios?

Okay.

Justice Adrastrea.

Mesha White.

Cheryl Laurie.

Damian Romero.

Is this the right list?

Okay.

Okay.

Damian Romero.

Olivia Vowell.

Peter Bea or Bella.

Okay.

Pete my two.

Okay.

Um Jane Sam's, if you you'd come up then, please.

You have a total of six minutes.

So I'm on the list, I've got Peter Bella, Kate Hallfeist, and then Jane Sam's.

Is there a group of three that you intended?

Yeah, okay.

All right.

So Peter, who are you giving your Peter, you're giving your time to Jane Sam's?

Okay.

So then Jane, Jane Sam's, um, you'll come up first, please.

And you're Susan Bevins.

And Susan Bevins, okay.

What numbers?

Uh, okay, so Susan Bevins, Pete Bella, and Jane Sam's.

Okay, they have nine minutes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Mayor, uh Council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Kate Hallfeist.

I live in the city of Grey Forest, and I'm speaking as a member of the Scenic Loop Holotus Creek Alliance.

I'm here this morning to urge you to vote against the municipal utility district proposed by Lenar Holmes.

And it comes down to one overriding issue: water.

Beneath San Antonio flows the Edwards Aquifer, a vital life source for our city, clear, clean, and naturally filtered.

Its waters have sustained generations, nourished our landscapes, and supported our communities.

It is the largest single source drinking water for San Antonio, and also one of the most vulnerable.

Because the Edwards is a karst aquifer, water flows rapidly through fractures, faults, caves, and conduits with very limited natural filtration.

Contamination introduced at the surface can reach the aquifer quickly and unpredictably.

Once compromised, this resource cannot simply be fixed or replaced.

The decision you make in the coming weeks will determine whether the Edwards Aquifer remains pure and abundant for future generations, or whether we accept preventable harm.

More than 1,500 residents formally opposed this project at TCEQ, with 400 appearing in person to speak out against it.

Just days ago, over a hundred and fifty residents opposed the mud before the Planning Commission.

In every hearing in the past three years, not a single person has stood up in favor of this development.

Today you'll hear about many factors that must be weighed.

You'll hear about long-term infrastructure, financial and regulatory risks related to a mud.

You'll hear concerns about failed wastewater plants, and about the safety implications of placing a high density development in this ultra-sensitive location.

But you'll also hear something else.

A solution that prioritizes long-term stewardship over short-term convenience.

Good planning is not measured in months or fiscal quarters.

It is measured in decades, in the health of our water, the safety of our communities, and the future we leave behind.

The choice before you today is not just about development.

It's about the responsibility and a decision about whether about whether San Antonio knowingly introduces avoidable risk to its drinking water supply.

I'd like to close with a quote, a quote from Councilman Mungia.

As the City Council appointee to the Planning Commission, I personally led the charge by making the motion to deny the developer's MUD request for the Wahalote Ranch Project.

I am proud to report that this motion succeeded, and we are officially recommending denial to the city council.

The risks to our aquifer and the long-term safety of Bear County are simply too high to ignore.

Ma'am, thank you.

You can submit the rest of your comments for the record.

Oh, I had I had three extra minutes.

Your name, ma'am.

Okay, so Susan.

Because you had six total.

Yeah, I'm almost done.

She's on 23.

She's line.

Aurora, she's number 23.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you to everyone who showed up to advocate for our community.

My stands firm.

I will be voting no on this measure at City Council next Thursday.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, so now this is the Peter Bellard, Chain Sam's group.

Is that right?

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Maybe you have six minutes.

Great.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mayor and the City Council.

Thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Jane Sams, and I live at 21035 Sam's Ranch Road on Scenic Loop and on the land that has I live on the land that was my late husband's for over 140 years, which was very precious to him.

And it's right next door to the Wahaloti Ranch.

As we know, a MUD is a scheme by developers to issue bonds to build infrastructure, including wastewater treatment plants and impose taxes on their own residents to pay it back.

Recent reports in the Houston Chronicle published also by the San Antonio Express News have documented how MUDs have been promoted statewide by developers as boosting affordable housing, but rather have resulted in the opposite, while also straining the local governments.

Among the findings are as follows.

New home buyers frequently have been hit with high property taxes that are double or triple of those of the county or neighboring cities, plus monthly fees for basic services from trash pickup to police protection, shattering the illusion of affordable housing.

Many home buyers are lured by attractive price lists that haven't been able to stay because of the high taxes and the fees calling into question the sustainability of the developments.

MUDs have resulted in higher taxes for residents outside the developments, even as cities and counties have been held on the hook to protect the services or provide the service for even to maintain maintain the infrastructures of MUD.

Those costs often cannot be fully recouped, falling on all existing taxpayers and property owners, such as all of us in this room and outside to expand our roads, our police staff, and to provide other services.

Moreover, MUDs often function like invisible or permanent local governments, but without the same level and service and upkeep, and without the same accountability and you, our local government would lose total control, would have none.

Essentially, developers with deep pockets can just come in, walk away, leaving unsuspected homeowners and local governments holding the bag.

I personally have knowledge of this because of my sister, Paulette Reynolds, who lives in a mud near Katy, and close on the outside of Houston, and she pays nearly $3,000 a year in mud taxes and fees, in addition to her regular tax property taxes.

She is living in her home since 2012 and is a widow and is essentially then this adds essentially another $40,000 to her original price of her own.

That's $40,000 that she's having to pay that she didn't count on having to pay.

And it grows each year.

She also sent me an article from a neighbor or next door neighbor that says, quote, hi neighbors.

This is our first year in Texas.

We are at total shock of our mud tax.

It's like half of the danging mortgage.

Anyone else has this shock or know how we can get it reduced.

It's dang near almost or more than our property tax.

How do we say this to all the people that are moving into Texas into MUDs that are not aware of this happening to them, just like my sister Paulett's neighbor?

I think it's a shame that we do that.

This clearly would not be providing affordable housing with a number two MUD in our county or for San Antonio.

I respectfully ask and encourage you to deny the MUD for all of the above reasons that I have given.

Thank you.

Jim Burbiglia, followed by Diana Duncan.

Good morning.

I'm Chaplin Colonel Jim Burbilia.

Uh 24 years in the Army, 10 years in the Air Force, and I'm here today because I'm a member of the MUD board number one.

Have you ever wondered why there's no board number two?

Because it's such a terrible idea.

It takes 150 million dollars and borrows it at whatever interest, and then we have to pay it off to people who moved in.

Nobody told me I was gonna do this.

Nobody said, you know, here's what you have to pay somewhere in the papers, maybe it was, but I didn't see it.

My friends didn't see it.

Nobody in San Antonio Rance saw it.

But 39 years later, we're still paying.

And the developer is living comfortably in Austin, he never paid a dime of it.

He borrowed the money just to give you an idea of how corrupt this mud board can be.

When he set up the payment, it was nine percent.

And it was you cannot pay it back.

And so we wait until 2027 to pay it back.

And then it's nearly impossible to get rid of the mud if you look at Texas law.

You see, this is an autonomous body of five people appointed at first by the developer, later on elected, but it's autonomous.

And so things like this can happen.

A group can get together and vote themselves 400 a meeting each, and nobody can do anything about it.

Second, they can hire a lawyer because he's a buddy of the president.

$700 an hour.

We do the same thing under our reform government for $150.

They hired a very nice secretary who worked about three hours a week, and she was paid $39,000 plus change a year.

We do the same thing for less than 16,000.

Sir, if you have additional remarks, you can submit them for the record.

Sir, if you have additional remarks past your time, you can submit them for the record.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Diana Duncan, followed by Lauren Hernandez.

Okay.

Lauren is giving Diana her time.

The next person after this then will be Stuart Burnbum.

Can I put this on the So I'll have three minutes or six minutes?

Thank you very much.

Okay.

And then if you want to pass this around, is that allowed if you all want to touch this, you can have it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for uh being here today.

Thank you for your time and your service.

My name's Diana Duncan, and I live in San Antonio out in Bear County.

Um I'm originally from New York, but now even when I was living in New York, the Edwards Aquifer was known to me.

Somehow it's in my consciousness.

It's not just a local feature, but it's an it has a national reputation, respected as one of the most important and sensitive groundwater systems in the country.

I'm here today to speak in opposition to the proposed MUD number two for Wahalote, and explain why approving it would place public health and our water supply at risk.

At the heart of the issue, as Jim mentioned, is governance.

If this MUD is approved, the city of San Antonio would have no oversight or enforcement authority over the wastewater treatment plant or water quality.

That would mean no elected officials directly accountable to the public.

No meaningful transparency and no effective mechanism to enforce safety standards.

If there is a leak, a system failure, or ongoing compliance, it is the public and not the developer that bears the consequences.

San Antonio has shown remarkable foresight in protecting its groundwater.

Since 2000, the city has invested nearly 50 million dollars to purchase land in and around the Wahalote ranch to safeguard the aquifer.

Approving this mud would undermine that investment and erase decades of careful planning and tax-funded protection, tax-funded payer protection.

Last October, the TCEQ issued a permit allowing a wastewater treatment plant to discharge and spray treated effluent over land located in this sensitive environment.

And it is not just the Edwards Aquifer contributing zone.

It is also the Trinity Glen Rose recharge zone.

So remember that.

Now I brought a piece of the Holotus Creek with me, and you all are looking at it.

Many people may not realize this, but karst geology is described as Swiss cheese like that rock.

Water moves rapidly through the fractures and underground conduits with little to no national natural filtration.

A failure would threaten private wells and the drinking water supply of more than 2.5 million of us.

The risks here are real and they're documented.

It's not a hypothetical if, it's a when.

Of the 16 wastewater treatment plants located over the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone, only four meet drinking water standards.

And of those four, three have been out of compliance within the last three years.

One was fined for serious violations.

And while the water may look clean, it is not to type one human contact standards.

And in practical terms, that means the permit allows treated sewage to be used to recharge our aquifer.

We cannot wait until people get sick to take action.

Moving forward with this plan could risk putting the seventh largest city in our nation on a boil water notice.

For all these reasons, lack of governance, public health risk, and the city's prior investments in the long-term protection of our water supply.

I respectfully urge you to recommend denial of MUD II to the Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Stuart Burnbaum and Nettie Burnbaum, are you together?

I'm giving my time to stew it.

Okay, six minutes, sir.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the mayor and council for uh addressing this very important issue, not just for San Antonio, but for the surrounding area that uh relies upon uh the Trinity aquifer.

My name is Stuart Bernbaum.

I live in Holodas.

I'm asking you to reject the mud application to develop the Guajalote Ranch.

I have a doctoral degree in geology.

I am an emeritus associate professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at UT San Antonio.

I am also on the board of the Trinity Glen Rose Groundwater Conservation District, in whose jurisdiction the Guajalote Ranch lies.

Now, I'm not saying this to toot my horn.

I just want to develop some level of expertise for what follows.

I also have to say that my comments are mine alone.

They do not represent the Trinity Glenrose Groundwater Conservation District, nor do they represent UT San Antonio.

But as a professor, there will be a quiz.

So I hope you're taking notes.

So during my research career at UTSA, I studied limestone, cost, water chemistry.

I'm very familiar with the fragility of cost aquifers, and I'm extremely concerned about the impact of Lenar's Home's proposed project on the Holodus Creek watershed, specifically the inevitable contamination of first the Trinity Glen Rose aquifer, followed by contamination of the Edwards Aquifer, in which the Trinity is a major contributor in this watershed.

I'd like to speak as an expert in the science being ignored by all involved with the project, specifically publications by the United States Geological Survey, the Edwards Aquifer Alliance, and recently the Southwest Research Institute.

The overwhelming evidence is that the Trinity Glenrose Aquifer is in hydrologic communication with the Edwards Aquifer and contributes a significant volume of water to the recharge of the Edwards.

The City of San Antonio has an obligation to protect the water resources of over 1.5 million San Antonians, as well as the water of the city's neighbors who rely on the Trinity Glenrose aquifer.

Claims by SAW's CEO Puente to the contrary, the Trinity Glenrose does in fact recharge the Edwards in the subsurface.

Mr.

Puente invokes the presence of the informally named Camp Bullis Hydrological Unit that acts, in his words, as a barrier to contamination from the Glen Rose into the Edwards.

Research does indeed find that the Camp Bullis layer is of low permeability, and throughout many portions of its extent.

However, when rocks are involved in faulting, as we have here in the Balcones fault zone, the rocks are subjected to cracking, fracturing, and become excellent conduits of groundwater flow.

Quoting from SOAR's website, the Edwards Aquifer is an intensely faulted and fractured carbonate limestone formation that lies within the Balcones fault zone.

The storage capacity, flow characteristics, water producing capabilities, and efficient recharging ability make this geological anomaly one of the most wondrous aquifers in the world.

The Trinity Aquifer is likewise involved in the Balconics Fault Zone, and it is a fault contact with the Edwards, and is also fractured, thus providing communication between the aquifers.

To quote a description from a U.S.

geological survey publication, those faults with sufficiently large displacement may juxtapose the Edwards and Trinity aquifer bearing units and provide groundwater flow from the upper or lower Trinity into the Edwards.

Overlying the Camp Bullis member is the cavernous hydrostratigraphic layer, and it's described in the same USGS publication as quote, an abundance of caves is indicative of generally well developed fracture channel and cavern porosity.

Porosity of the cavernous member is primarily associated with fractures and caves and thus is interconnected and more permeable relative to that of the underlying Camp Bullis member.

So even if the Camp Bullis member is impermeable, when that wastewater is introduced on the surface, it's going to sink into the cavernous member, which is very permeable.

And when it reaches the Camp Bullis member, it's not just going to stop, it's going to flow laterally until it reaches a permeable fracture, or as pressure builds up, it will rise to the surface to spring flow, and that will contribute to the base flow of the streams in this area.

So I'd like to quote again from the U.S.

Geological Survey the Trinity Aquifer also provides recharge to the edges of Edwards Aquifer by supplying base flow to several streams in the catchment area that flow south and down gradient over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone.

Recharge may also occur through lateral subsurface migration of groundwater into stratigraphically younger Edwards rocks that are faulted against the Trinity Group.

Since I'm out of time, I'd like to say that asking you to do the right thing and deny the mud application.

Thank you.

Steve Lee, followed by Anisa Munson.

He's going to give me his time.

Hi.

I'm Neil Hernandez.

I own the largest cave system in Bear County, which is downstream from the Sor Plant.

I donate my time.

John Hernandez.

John Hernandez.

What is it?

Emilio?

John Neil Hernandez.

John, okay, so number 35.

Got it.

Okay.

And I have a handout that needs to be displayed here.

Do you have six minutes?

He has a handout.

Not a handout, but one that needs to be displayed.

Anissa Munson, you'll be next.

Okay, good morning.

Uh, and thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Steve Lee, and my family lives outside of Grey Forest on land that's been in my family for more than 160 years.

And we get our water from a well in the Trinity Glenn Rose aquifer.

We got involved in this issue because Lenar's development at Guajalote Ranch would release an average of one million gallons a day of treated sewage into the Holotus Creek watershed, which directly recharges the Trinity Glen Rose Aquifer.

That watershed also contributes up to 15% of the total recharge of the Edwards Aquifer, the principal water source for about 2.5 million people across this region.

Africa's planning commission meeting, a Lenar representative showed a map, which you which you see here, of other existing wastewater treatment plants in the contributing zone of the Edwards Aquifer where Guajolote Ranch is located.

David Grove, Lenar's regional president for Texas, said on Texas Public Radio that those plants are operating, quote, safely and effectively, unquote.

Well, that might not be their best talking point.

Because half of the 14 wastewater treatment plants in the contributing zone that have reported data violated discharge limits of dangerous pollutants during the past three years, and two have been fined, according to U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency reports.

The noncompliant findings included pollutants such as E.

coli, ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus, and total suspended solids.

And while LENAR maintains that the Guajalotea Ranch Plant would be advanced, three of the four most advanced plants currently operating in the area contributing zone, the treat for drinking water status, have been out of compliance during the past three years, according to the EPA data.

Notably, the only mud with a wastewater treatment plant in the contributing zone currently, the Meyer Ranch MUD in Comal County was cited for discharges exceeding permitted limits for nitrates and phosphorus for two quarters in the last three years, the data shows.

High nitrates are linked to blue baby syndrome in infants, causing brain damage or death, while high phosphorus produces algae blooms with toxins harming aquatic life and causing gastrointestinal illness and liver damage in humans.

We could provide you with those EPA reports if you'd like.

Also, LENARS plant would not be able to fully treat for persistent and dangerous compounds such as PFOS and PFOS forever chemicals, as well as heavy metals and poliovirus, all serious pollutants that, according to the U.S.

Geological Survey and the EPA, are present in a fluent and nearly impossible to remove once they enter the aquifer's highly porous carstone.

Finally, and also at the Friday meeting, another Lenar rep was asked about his company's own compliance record.

And he replied that he didn't have a good answer.

And he was right.

Because in 2019, LENAR violated significant provisions of a negotiated settlement agreement, as well as TCEQ issued permits to meet Clean Water Act requirements for its 4S ranch development in Bulverde.

And by then, it was too late to secure permanent protection of recharge features that were violated.

In light of all of this, why should LENARA be trusted now?

I respectfully ask you that you please do the right thing and deny this mud for LENAR.

Thank you again and for this opportunity to address you today.

Anisa Munn, followed by Austin Browning.

Browning.

Good morning.

I'll be donating my time to Lenette Munson.

Okay.

Number 32.

Austin Browning, you're next.

Oh, I should go first.

I should be Lynette Munson.

I was saying Austin is after you, ma'am.

You have six minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mayor and Council.

My name is Lynette Munson, and I represent the on behalf of the Cynicloop Pilotus Creek community.

Our community submitted a public records request.

Oh, I'm I apologize.

Our community submitted a public records request on November the 24th, 2025.

Request R024090112425, seeking all documents related to the fire marshal's review of the Guajolo tape branch master development plan.

We asked for three very specific categories of records.

Any recommendations or required modifications the fire marshal made to the preliminary MDP, whether those recommendations were included in the final plan, all documentation showing review or approval of the developer's proposal to use a single ingress and egress for the development of roughly 3,000 units, despite the unified development code requirement of two access points, and any documentations related to a roadway classification, including the claim that Cynic Loop Road is an arterial roadway, even though TextOt has not designated as such, and there are no and there are no projects that are funded to upgrade it.

The fire marshal's response was simple and alarming, as you can see.

We have no record response for your request.

The Bear County Fire Marshal's office has no has had no contact with the developer of this property.

Let me repeat, that's a 3,000 development unit, one of the largest proposed in this area has had no contact whatsoever with the Bear County Fire Marshal.

No review, no recommendations, no safety analysis, no approval for a single ingress point, no documentation supporting roadway classification claims, nothing.

This means the public, the county, the emergency responders are being asked to accept a massive development without any fire safety oversight at all.

This is not a paperwork issue.

This is a life safety issue.

And I take that very seriously.

Not only is it potential injury and death to the community members.

My family has a long-standing history of first responders.

My family was one of the founding members of the Myland Volunteer Fire Departments.

My grandfather served on the fire department for over 30 years.

My great uncle was a chief on the fire department, and now my daughter is a San Antonio Fire Department paramedic.

So when we talk about asking our first responders to accept additional risk in what they already have, that hits very close to home for me.

If the fire marshal has not approved a single access point, then the project does not meet the UDC.

And if the fire marshal has not been contacted, then the MDP is incomplete and should not be allowed to advance.

We are asking this body to insist on what should have happened from the beginning.

A full documented, transparent fire safety review before any action, any additional action should move forward.

Our community deserves development that is safe, that is lawful, and is grounded in real emergency response standards, not assumptions, not shortcuts, and not silence.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Austin Browning, followed by Judy Hall.

Good morning all.

Judy Hall.

So six minutes total.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mayor.

Good morning, Council Members.

My name is Austin Browning, and I'm the treasurer of the Sandloop Colotus Creek Alliance, and we represent a neighborhood in San Antonio that will be directly impacted and affected by the Guadalupe Ranch Project.

I'm here to share two serious concerns that affect the public.

First, the people of San Antonio and Bear County should not be responsible for the financial risk of 150 million dollar MUT.

This project is allowed only because of a special exception limit to 1,000 homes.

Nearby landowners have confirmed there will be no additional access or exit allowed, meaning the project cannot grow beyond this size.

The risk should stay with the developer, not the taxpayers.

First slide, please.

On this slide, the developer document incorrectly labels City Loop Road as a secondary altered road.

They do this because the city does not allow our project this large to be built more than one mile from an true arterial road, like 1604 or I-10.

But the truth is, according to Text Dot, the Alamo Area MPO, CNIC Loop Road is actually a collector road.

Next slide, please.

On this slide, you see the traffic study was approved, does not protect the public.

It mainly benefits the developer.

Next slide.

The developer is only requested an improvement to a small section of the intersection of Babcock and C.

Nigel, which is a couple hundred feet east and west or north and south.

The rest of that expense will be buried by the San Antonio and the Bear County residents.

That cost could escalate to over 200 million dollars to fix the road to make it an Ontario Road way.

There are no schools, there are no stores, there's no grocery stores or services within five miles of this development.

This means residents will have to drive to Bandera Road or Loop 1604 or to I10.

The next slide, please.

As a result, the traffic will increase from approximately 5,000 trips per day to over 30,000 trips per day.

On a small two-lane rural road, shown in the slides.

The costs and the fix to expand these roles will fall on the public, not the developer, because the developer will be long gone by this time.

Please consider the greater good for our community and recommend that the city council deny this mud.

The developers should pay for their own costs, not the taxpayers.

We encourage you to vote no on MUD number two.

I thank you for your time and appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

Thank you.

Michael Schick, followed by Ken Kemp.

Madam Mayor, uh Mr.

Kemp and I are in the same neighborhood.

We'll be addressing the same issues a tag team.

Permission to speak.

Collective six minutes.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael Michael Phillips, you'll be next.

Good morning.

My name is Michael Williams Schick.

I'm here today to raise serious concerns about the hardship variants granted to the Guahoote Ranch subdivision in November 2022.

This variance was approved based on representations made by Lenar's engineering firm, Pape Dawson, in a letter to the Development Services Office.

In that letter, Pape Dawson claimed that permanent emergency access would be provided at three points along the northern boundary of the proposed subdivision as well as to the south and the west.

Sadly, that claim is a is disturbingly false.

The neighborhood to the north of Wahalote Ranch is a private gated community called the Canyons at Scenic Loop.

My backyard abuts the east side of the Wahoote Ranch.

I find it astonishing that no one from Lenar or Pape Dawson has ever contacted the canyons to request or confirm access, emergency or otherwise.

In fact, as you'll soon hear from Mr.

Kemp, our board president, the canyons have made our position perfectly clear.

We are a private gated subdivision, and Wahoote Ranch will not be gated.

Granting access would effectively convert the canyons into an open access community, which homeowners categorically reject.

Additionally, both neighboring ranches to the south and west have publicly stated their strong refusal to grant access through their land.

Texas law is clear unless an easement is granted or streets are publicly dedicated.

A private subdivision cannot be compelled to provide access, emergency or otherwise.

The presumptuous claim that any kind of access will be provided as if this is an fate accompli, is not only speculative, it is misleading at best and perjurious at worst.

To compound matters, the variance appears to have been approved by an engineering associate without professional seal.

This raises serious questions about the procedural integrity and legal validity of the approval itself.

In light of these facts, I respectfully urge the city council to reexamine the basis of the hardship variants, require documented proof that's written of grant and emergency access before given any further approvals.

Investigate whether misleading representations were knowingly made to the city officials, and ensure that variances in the future are reviewed and signed by licensed professionals with appropriate authority.

Finally, I was on holiday in Maui last month, staying a couple of miles from Lahaina.

Two years ago, more than a hundred people died in that Lahaina fire, including many who died trapped in their cars because of clogged roads.

Council members, the only existing uh and permanent ingress and egress to the landlock Wahoo Ranch is a narrow choke point, which you can see circled there in pink.

This is the checkpoint.

This is the only ingress and egress onto the two-lane CNICLEP road.

Why any developer would put the lives of thousands of men and women and children at risk is beyond comprehension.

Please deny the mud.

It's not just a matter of technical compliance, it is a matter of public trust, legal integrity, and community safety.

Please vote no on MUD.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Ken Kemp.

I reside in the canyons at St.

Nicaloop, which is a property owners association and functions as such.

Our roads are private, owned by the association.

And the uh as president of that association, there's been no contact with us, and there will be no permission granted to Lenar to use our private streets for public use by that new development.

Thank you.

Mike Phillips, followed by Lisa Pack.

Yep, we'll do that.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Michael Phillips.

I'm a councilman with the City of Grey Forest.

Today I'd like to talk to you about the costs and consequences of flooding along Cenic Loop Road.

It's important to note that you'll see on the map there that the City of Great Forest owns about 0.75 miles of Scenic Loop Road.

And I'm here to tell you that we will never widen that stretch of Scenicloop Road.

It's not going to happen.

Further, that little stretch north of Grey Forest up to Babcock, where you see the word gate, the county cannot afford to widen that portion of Cine Cloop Road.

And I'll tell you why about that later.

So according to Sweary, the Hillows Creek watershed gets about 2.8 inches of rainfall per month.

Now that one million gallons per day on average that Lenar plans to discharge onto the Guilote Ranch greenspace equals about 2.3 inches of rainfall per month, effectively doubling the rainfall going into the Lotus Creek, which crosses Cine Cloop Road several times as it flows into and through Grey Forest.

The City of Grey Forest already has to close its one low water crossing on Cine Cloop Road here at Blue Hill Pass a couple of times per year due to flooding.

My best guess, based on my research, is that's gonna cost that would cost the city about 10 million dollars.

That's 10 years of our budget.

We're never gonna widen that.

Even if the county gave us the money, the citizens would run us out at the tip of torches and pitchworks if we tried to widen that.

It's not gonna happen.

Further north, you're gonna see this next slide.

Here is Sam's Ranch Road.

There's it's kind of hard to see, but there are two low water crossing gauges there.

That whole stretch of low water crossing is about two-tenths of a mile.

My best guess is with Sam Ramps Road on the on the left there and another private drive.

Raising that up to just culvert level is about it would cost the county about 40 million dollars just for that two-tenths of a mile stretch with all the off ramp and uh the raising up to culvert level.

The county can afford to widen Cenic Loop Road between Babcock and Bandera.

So talked to you about uh the costs of widening of preparing Scenic Loop Road for flooding.

Now I'm gonna talk to you about the consequences.

So the one-third of Grey Forest homes are at risk for flooding, doubling the effective rainfall in Holod Creek watershed along the uh Helotus Creek will double the their risk.

We've had significant loss of property along Scenic Loop Road and many near misses in living memory, including a school bus loaded with children.

And finally, ladies and gentlemen, we've had loss of life.

Please note that this was not a low water cross.

And you can see there, this is northbound Cenicloop Road approaching Manchaka that is a raised bridge over Hilotus Creek.

Approving this project means doubling the chance of another tragedy like the loss of Miss Raphael.

Thank you for not putting my constituents at increased risk.

Thank you for saying no to this mud.

Lisa Pack, followed by Philip Manna.

Good morning, Councilman and Mayor.

My name is Lisa Murrays Pack.

I live at 15760 Cine Cloop Road, and I'm the secretary of the Holotus Creek Cine Clupe of Lotus Creek Alliance.

Raised through sales tax revenue was used by the Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan to purchase more than 50 million dollars of Hilotus in the Holotus Creek watershed alone.

This area was deemed environmentally sensitive in the 2010 North Sector Plan.

I have private property along that, which includes almost a half a mile of Lotus Creek.

So I am person and I have an easement.

I'm personally invested in this flight.

Dr.

Francine Romero, head of the EAPP program, has concluded that the program has been adapted to the city's need to protect the recharge and contributing zones beyond the regulatory authority that they have.

Why would the city and city council jeopardize all of this investment by helping a developer to build a high density residence neighborhood in this area?

The Wadahood Dranch property with its car's geology, faults, fractures, and lack of soil, provides a direct conduit to the Trinity Glenrose Aquifer and then the Edwards Aquifer.

In a 1996 Pape Dawson engineering report, who is Lenar's engineers, it stated that this was environmentally sensitive and shouldn't be built on.

Why did they change their mind?

The proposed one million gallons or more a day of the treated sewage jeopardizes all of this, regardless of how they disperse it, most especially San Antonio's drinking water.

As one of the last large undeveloped properties in the Holotus Creek watershed, an EAPP conservation easement would protect and preserve the 1,970 acres, 97 acres, uh in perpetuity.

Why not pursue that?

At the very least, I request that you deny the proposed MUD.

Thank you.

Philip Manna, Kathy Manna, you're together.

Okay.

And then Randy Newman, you'll follow.

I'd like to allocate my time to Philip Manna.

Thank you.

You have six minutes, sir.

Randy Newman, you'll never you're next.

I'm the president of Alamo Farmstead's Babcock Road Neighborhood Association and the planning chair of the Heedner Leon Creeks Community Plan.

And I've actively participated in various plans with the city, including the North Sector Plan as well as the SA Tomorrow Plan.

I want to talk about one being a plan partner, two, what Lenar got to bypass with regards to the ETJ, three, who needs a MUD, and four concessions.

So regarding the plan partner, I always find it disingenuous when a developer plans comes to a planning discussion and discounts any of the various approved plan components of our city's comprehensive master plan.

During planning commission meeting, Lenard discounted the relevance of the 2010 North Sector Plan simply because of its age.

Our various city plans are adopted as components of the city comprehensive master plan and remain relevant until they are updated or embodied within a newer plan.

Until our community finishes the SA Tomorrow Plan, the North Sector Plan is the city's guiding star for any of this development in this community.

These plans are not made in a vacuum and take months to years to develop with input from the city council and DSD teams working with developers, realtors, businesses, residents, and citizens.

All these competing parties come together as partners and work with this plan to build them.

I always hope that a developer wishing to join neighbors within the community does so as a partner.

But this has not been the case with Lenar.

They have zero outreach with uh we have zero outreach from Lenar as we went through this process.

Regarding what LENAR got to bypass with the ETJ.

Within city limits, a major development requires a lot of reviews, approvals, and communication.

Had this replat um process occurred within the city, a DST, significant DSD would have would have showed lots of uh problems uh with regards to this uh request.

Um the land use change uh and the North Sector plan says it's supposed to be country tier, one lot per 10 acres.

So it's one lot bigger than 10 acres.

And then the medium density is what they're proposing here, which is 11 lots per acre.

So went from one for 10 acres to 11 uh in one acre, and lots that are 35 by 140 versus acreage lots.

Buffers within city limits.

UDC requires density transitions that prevent um sub-medium density residential lots from abutting low density residential properties.

So in this map here, so can you bring up the second page here?

So we see that um the way that the outlight the second next page, um, you'll see that we have um there's supposed to be buffers across that if this was done in the city of San Antonio, and so it's not here within regards to this plan.

Um roadway review, the major collector abutting this property would have been uh desired uh deemed incorrect be simply because of the size of the SA plan tomorrow seeks a major arterial roadway, and so this is not that.

This is the major collector, so it's significantly under uh undersized.

These all of these efforts within the city would have triggered a public planning commission meeting uh to review the change requests, a public planning commission meeting to uh review the um replat, a public zoning commission for the zoning change, and the city council approval, and none of that happened here simply because of this ETJ.

By simply choosing the ETJ property with which is only two miles outside of city limits, Lenar has been able to bypass really a lot of what's been happening, and they're doing things by right, which is honest.

So they are they are by right able to do this.

Um but they're bypassing uh and they don't have to take the option of choosing to do it by right.

And so so you know, so that's that's a big difference here.

Again, going back to the partnership.

So who needs a MUD?

During the planning meeting, Lenar stated that they were going to develop this property with or without the MUD.

Why are we having this discussion?

So that should be in the story right there.

So, in a suburb near Dallas called uh Midlothian City, uh, the city council determined that developers should not be driving the development in and around their city, and instead, developers should comply with how their city wants to develop.

And so recently passed a resolution that opposes the formation by a developer of any and all special districts, including MUDs in their city and their ETJs.

They cited that special districts have been improperly used by certain developers to avoid compliance with city and county infrastructure plans, and that city and county governments should have the proper authority to regulate growth of their respective cities and counties.

This means uh for MUDs proposed by developers in Mythilodean or Middlothian, um, the city has already stated its rejection, requiring the TCEQ to act against local desires if they want to move forward.

And so records show that TCQ generally does not act against the locals' desires.

And so uh City of San Antonio should consider a similar resolution and reject the MUD request as TCQ will likely not act against uh these desires.

Finally, what concessions do we have?

The language of the SAW's consent agreement appears vague, lacking enforceable definitions, uh no measurable thresholds or operational requirements.

Um so how do we uh manage anything that's not binding and specific with with regards to MUD, especially after it's created?

So they kind of you know walk away and we don't have any control anymore.

Once the MUD is established, we believe that little exists to bind the consent agreement.

Components of our UDC do provide governance of the Edwards Aquifer contributing zone located uh within the ETJ and should be explored.

Um in UDC 105, it brings up this notion with regards to the drainage plan, which is adopted by the city, which includes a report by Pete Dawson, which says Holotus Creek is uh a lead into the groundwater.

So I would uh ask for you to reject us.

Randy Newman, followed by Susie Dickerson.

Uh Susie Dickerson is donating her time to me, as is Tracy Smith.

Tracy Smith.

Okay, nine minutes, sir.

Thank you.

Mayor, council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

My comments focus on risk versus reward, the risk versus reward of approving or rejecting the proposed MUD for the Wahalote Ranch project.

This is not a typical MUD request, and the usual instinct to approve in order to extract concessions does not serve the city's long-term interests here.

But before I go further, I want to note that the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, approximately 80 nearby residents, the Cineclu Pilotus Creek Alliance, the City of Grey Forest, and Ann Topperwine have filed a lawsuit for judicial review in Travis County District Court yesterday, challenging the wastewater permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to municipal operations, LLC, the contractor for Lenar homes.

This underscores the seriousness of the concerns surrounding this project.

Wahlodi Ranch sits on a highly sensitive recharge zone.

The stakes here are not about road widths or park lands.

The stakes are clean water and aquifer preservation.

A concession cannot be negotiated.

Contamination cannot be undone.

We've heard claims that a denial simply pushes the developer to the TCEQ or the state legislature.

That's technically possible.

Those who understand these processes agree that approval after a city rejection is highly unlikely.

A no vote does not create an unregulated MUD.

It strengthens the city's negotiating position by signaling that aquifer protection is non-negotiable.

Even if the city approves the MUD, enforceability in the ETJ is limited.

A MUD board is initially controlled by the developer and is not obligated to honor every concession that the city might negotiate.

This includes the nine concessions saws extracted in its water services agreement.

Once water is connected and an independent MUD board takes over, one that did not negotiate these terms, the enforceability of those concessions become uncertain.

If they cannot be enforced, they are not protections.

A denial of this permit triggers 120-day period for further negotiation, particularly with SAWs, which cannot extend sewer service into the ETJ without your city council approval.

That gives the city significant leverage.

Contrary to what you've been told, a no vote does not necessarily reduce the city's influence.

In fact, it increases it.

It ensures that any future negotiations begin with aquifer protection and enforceable agreements as prerequisites.

Approving a MUD gives away the city's strongest leverage.

Once the MUD exists, the developer controls the board, and the city's ability to enforce concessions becomes uncertain.

That is the real risk here, not the risk of saying no.

A no vote preserves the city's negotiating power and ensures that development, if it occurs, happens responsibly and with enforceable protection.

This decision is about how development occurs, who controls it, and whether the city can enforce the protections it promises to the public.

Throughout this briefing, you've heard numerous reasons to be concerned about the developer's processes, from public safety issues to procedural problems to environmental risks that cannot be reversed.

Unregulated or lightly regulated development atop the balcony's fault zone, especially high-density development, discharging up to a million gallons per day of treated wastewater, poses an unacceptable risk to our fragile aquifers.

San Antonio needs affordable housing, but a mud here does not provide it.

Instead, it adds six-figure costs to every home while placing the city's primary drinking water source at risk.

We're left with a proposal that threatens public health, threatens affordability, and threatens the water supply of the nation's seventh largest city, all to benefit a developer whose interests are not aligned with the long-term health and safety of this community.

A hundred and ninety years ago, perhaps the most famous letter in Texas history left an old building just a few blocks from here.

A small group of citizens standing for a large ideal sent a message that still echoes in this city's memory.

If you'll permit me, I'd like to take a bit of poetic license to recreate the spirit of that moment for us today.

City Hall, San Antonio, Texas, January 22nd, 2026.

To the people of San Antonio and all who depend on the Edwards Aquifer.

We stand at a moment of consequence.

A proposal has been placed before you that would bring high density development, a million gallons a day of wastewater discharge, and an unaccountable MUD board directly atop one of the most fragile recharge zones in Texas.

The developer has asked for approval without enforceable protections.

They have offered concessions that may not bind a future MUD board, and they seek to shift long-term risks to the public while keeping the benefits for themselves.

We answer this request with a simple truth.

San Antonio's water is not negotiable.

Our aquifer is not replaceable.

Our health is not for sale.

Then I call upon the council in the name of public safety, in the name of responsible stewardship, and in the name of every family who relies on clean water to stand firm and reject this mud.

If this call is neglected, the consequences will be borne not by the developer, but by the people of this city in higher housing costs, weakened aquifer protections, and risks that cannot be undone.

Let it be known that we did not shrink from this moment.

Let it be known that we defended the resources that sustain us for the aquifer, for the public, and the future of San Antonio.

Everything you've heard today, the science, the legal concerns, the unenforceable concessions, the risks to public health, and this final appeal all point to the same truth.

This is our moment to stand firm, protect the aquifer, and choose the future that San Antonio deserves.

In the name of everything that is sacred, remember the aquifer.

Draw a line in the sand.

Say no to a mud.

Thank you.

Shelby Laffrey, followed by Ruby Jimenez.

Shelby Laffrey.

Ruby Jimenez.

Erica Quiros.

Noelle Sigapelli.

Alan Montemayor.

Followed by Isabel Hadetta.

Good morning, I'm Alan Montamayor, chair of the Alamo Group of the Sierra Club.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

I represent about 3,000 people in the San Antonio area who are very concerned about the environment.

I want to start with a quote from Joni Mitchell.

Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got till it's gone.

Okay.

Um, this site that we're talking about today was designated in the San Antonio's official North Sector Plan as country suitable for proper properties, 10 acres or larger.

Obviously, Lenar wants to far exceed this and put many, many homes per acre.

That's inappropriate for this land use that we have determined, the City of San Antonio has determined a long, long time ago in 2010.

Um the um Southwest Research Institute, and I mayor, I would ask you not to discount their plan.

Um absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case.

Southwest Research said additional wastewater systems from residential development in the Hilotus Creek watershed, regardless of type, would significantly degrade the watershed and quality of water recharging the Edwards Aquifer.

You're going to hear a lot of testimony about this potentially, but the precautionary principle dictates that you stay accountable to the citizens of San Antonio and protect the quality of our drinking water.

Oh, the uh again, I'm just gonna uh keep my comments very short.

I don't want to uh get in the way of the other people who are going to speak here.

I know you have other matters to get to, but don't it always seem to go that you don't know what we got till it's gone?

Well, I can assure you that the citizens of San Antonio and everyone who's here today does know what we have, and you know what we have, and we cannot let it escape just for the greed of one developer who not only is not based in San Antonio, but who so obviously will disregard and do anything they can to maintain their profit model.

Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today.

Isabel Hadetta.

Followed by Patricia Seidenberger.

Good morning.

I am asking you to reject MUD.

A permit to dump one million gallons of treated sewage per day into the aquifer should not be permitted.

Edwards Aquifer, specifically the J17 well, is 40 feet lower than normal.

We are in a drought.

The community is raising these concerns regarding this development, and we are being ignored.

Lenard Development has quietly made plans to add a gas station, a shopping space, and fast food restaurants.

And on top of that, has said that the ranch division is coming with or without the consent of the city of San Antonio.

This says a lot.

Don't ignore it.

The aquifer is a primary source for about 2.5 million people across multiple counties.

Right now, San Antonians are struggling in the mid in the midst of aid being cut, ice in our streets, living paycheck to paycheck, needing rent and utility help.

San Antonio is living in poverty.

We are ranked the third poorest metro in the U.S.

We have enough vacant homes, and individuals are struggling.

About 11,000 vacant homes and about 4,000 individuals experiencing homelessness.

We don't need this development.

And on top of that, with the rise of AI, data centers are being made in Texas.

We got a development on the west side of our town and four projects around San Marcos.

Data centers are already gaining access to our water.

Its cooling systems are pulling from the aquifer.

And according to the state line, data centers are not required to make their water consumption records available to the public in Texas, making it easy for large corporations to avoid scrutiny for their wasteful usage of natural resources.

Do not ignore our voices.

Individuals are dealing with contaminated water and water shutoffs already.

So moving forward with another money grabbing development, our health is at risk and shouldn't be negotiable.

Vote against mud.

Patricia Seidenberger, followed by Paul Garrow, good morning.

Fourteen legislatures have gone on record to oppose this project, as well as Bear County Commissioners, Mayor Ron Nuremberg, State Senator Donna Campbell, and Roland Gutierrez, and just recently the Planning Commission on January the 16th.

There is only one exit from the Guajalote Ranch development of 2,900 homes to Scenic Loop Road.

Landowners adjacent to the Guajalote Ranch on the south and west refuse to access refuse access to Lanier homes.

Guajalote Ranch development density and inconsistent current land uses in San Antonio's north sector plan pose a real threat to San Antonio's water supplies and the well-being of neighbors.

In addition, St.

Gloop Road, where Guajalote is located, is a two-lane road with no right of way for the option of adding lanes for the proposed 2900 residences.

The proposed Lanaria home commercial development across from the development could generate 4,732 daily vehicle trips.

The Guajalote Ranch itself residential could generate 25,488 daily trips for a total of new traffic of 30,220 trips a day.

Texas Department of Transportation stated the two-lane roads have a designated capacity of only 5,500 cars per day.

The language of the concessions in the secret Lanier San Antonio Metropolitan Health District Agreement is vague and lacking in enforcement definitions or operational requirements.

Thus, Lanier has no clear obligations to fulfill the intent of the negotiated settlement agreement.

In 2020, this was demonstrated with the Greater Edwards Okf Alliance, finding Lanier homes for a settlement of 175,000 for violating a negotiated settlement agreement regarding the 4S Ranch here in San Antonio, which resulted in a neighbor's property being totally flooded.

The Edwards Aquifer is an irreplaceable state treasurer, requiring immediate and long-term protection, and elected officials at every level, along with non-elected regulatory bodies should advocate for it.

By voting vote no for the Guajalote Ranch, you can stop a catastrophic project from fully destroying San Antonio's drinking water from the Edwards Aquifer, affecting 1.7 million people here in San Antonio.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Paul Garrow, you're the final speaker.

Thank you.

Mayor, Council members, and city staff, thank you for your service and thank you for this special session.

My name is Paul Garrow.

I'm mayor of Grey Forest, Texas, and a daily consumer of the San Antonio water.

In May 1946, the director of San Antonio's Department of Health ordered the spraying of DDT along our streets in our entire neighborhoods, believing it would protect the public from diseases like polio.

Children ran behind spray trucks.

Residents lined the streets to get immersed in the DDT fog.

Officials were confident the science, they said was firm.

In April 2014, the city of Flint, Michigan switched its drinking water source from Lake Uron to the Flint River.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality played a central role in improving the water treatment plans, and the decision to switch was primarily made by the city under the authority of a state appointed emergency manager primarily for cost savings.

In January 2018, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality renewed a permit authorizing biosolids from wastewater treatment to be used as fertilizer on farmland near Grandview, Texas, in Johnson County, south of Fort Worth, Texas.

We now know DDT causes long-term harm to human health and the environment.

Lower birth weight, developmental delays, effects on the nervous system and associations with breast cancer, liver cancer, and persistent environmental damage.

We now know that corroded old pipes in the Flint River caused lead to leach into the drinking water.

Thousands of residents, especially children, were exposed to elevated lead levels, which resulted in brain damage, developmental delays, and other serious health issues.

We now know that in February 2025, a state of disaster was declared in Johnson County, Texas, after officials reported fish and cattle deaths and water wells near the application sites at PFAS, PFOS, and other forever chemicals at levels hundreds of times above EPA safe limits due the bio saw due to the biosolid fertilizer on the farmland.

If this mud is approved and subsequent wastewater plant built, PFOS, PFOS, forever chemicals will be in our water system, and they are persistent, bioaccumulative, and increasingly linked to cancer, immune dysfunction, developmental harm, and reproductive issues.

The tragedy wasn't that leaders acted, it's that they acted without heeding early warnings and dismiss concerns as fear or inconvenience.

Public health failures are rarely caused by lack of information.

They're caused by delay, denial, dilution, and the belief that today's problem could be managed tomorrow.

City Council's responsibility is not to wait until harm is undeniable and irreversible.

I urge you to treat this MUD decision as a historic test of leadership and legacy decision with generational impact.

Learn from the mistakes of the past, vote no on the MUD.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was our uh final community member that signed up to speak.

Before we move on to comments from the dais, we'll take a five-minute recess.

The time is now 102 1045, um, and we have come back from recess.

One, two, three.

Okay.

Let me um thank those uh from the community that came in to to speak today.

Uh, we understand obviously one, not only has this been a long-standing issue, long-time discussion, um, and uh continuing, frankly, differing analysis on on what this means threat-wise.

Before we get started, though, I alluded to it earlier.

We, of course, take very seriously not only your concerns, but those that have also been elevated by other elected officials that are in opposition to this product uh uh project, excuse me.

So we did do our due diligence, and as I shared, we did reach out to SWERI, uh Southwest Research Institute based on the analysis that you all referenced to see if they had a maybe a more up-to-date analysis in light of um uh SAW's analysis that offers a different conclusion.

So let me ask Eric to summarize um his response, the response that he received from Sweary.

Yep, thank you, Mayor.

Uh so yes, I spoke to um uh Mr.

Hamilton from Southwest Research and asked um if they were going to provide any additional information given the SAWS information that had been shared with the public and uh and the council.

Uh Mr.

Hamilton said that they had not been engaged and would not engage further in in this issue.

He did point out that uh the original uh SWERI um data and report was about the area in in general and that um he did not anticipate that organization doing any additional work uh and had not been engaged to do the any work.

Um will that with that uh turn to my colleagues for their for their comments.

Um councilman McKee Rodriguez has stepped away.

However, Councilman Corps is gonna read a statement on his behalf.

Councilmember McKee Rodriguez shares the concerns of the speakers and will not be supporting the MUD request.

The developer has stated that 3,000 homes will go forward with or without this MUD.

If true, that's unfortunate, but the city should not be an accomplice.

Councilwoman Alderte Gavito.

Thank you.

Um I I wanted to first off thank all the speakers who are here today.

I think uh this is an important um initiative, and and that y'all took the time to let us know what y'all are thinking about it and feeling about it is important.

So I really appreciate your engagement.

I definitely want to call out Philip Manna, he's a district seven neighborhood president and and Randy, Judy, thank you for all y'all's help, Paul and all the other speakers um who are here.

I I I want you to know that we hear you, I hear you, I hear your concerns.

Um Councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez and I have partnered to learn more.

That's why we uh co-authored that CCR about this initiative.

Um that's why I wrote the memo to uh SAWS and the Edwards Aquifer Authority to push because right when when we first um started engaging with this project, you know, we do hear a lot of uh competing information, you know, uh misinformation um one way or the other.

And so we we uh councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez and I are were really focused on figuring out the truth, making sure that y'all y'all's concerns uh were heard, and so I do want to thank you uh for y'all's help in in understanding that.

Um really what uh I I do want to focus on today is I want to clarify the process so that my council colleagues and I, as well as you all are clear on the next steps.

So I I have a question for the city attorney.

Um at the end of the hundred and twenty-day period that we're in now, is failure to enter an agreement considered consent to the MUD process.

So to the MUD process starting on slide uh six.

Yes.

If on uh February um is it February 4th or 5th, if we deny or no action, then we are basically saying let's start this process.

I I want to make sure I understand your quiet.

You're you're asking councilwoman if the council denies the MUD and then the they try to enter into agreement with SAWS.

If that agreement isn't entered, then there's no there's no MUD, but then they could proceed to TCQ.

So um what I what I really want to get clarification on is right now we're at the 120 day period.

Right now we're in the 90-day period.

Okay, so the 90-day period.

Yes.

So right now we are in the 90-day period.

So that 90-day period started November 10th of last year.

So when I'm sorry, yes, you're right.

So by February 8th, council needs to make one of three decisions.

Either you consent, you deny, or you take no action.

Once a decision is made and the developer submits a petition, that petition will then kick off the 120 days.

Yes.

Sorry, uh, and and thank you for that.

But when on February 5th, if council votes to take either no action or deny it, then that kick starts slide number six.

No, the put the put a petition has to be submitted.

Okay, sorry.

The that petition would be submitted to to kick start slide number six.

Right.

And then once a petition is submitted, the to the city, the developer will then negotiate an agreement with SAUS.

Depending upon the outcome of that discussion, either they will move towards um TCQ if no agreement is is reached, or if an agreement was reached where they can provide services, then development could occur.

Okay, and I want to emphasize councilman attempt to negotiate with there's no obligation for either party to reach an agreement.

So let me recap all of that.

February 5th comes, council either votes yes, which is one thing, or council votes no or no action, and and then in that case, the developer then does submits a petition, which kicks off slide number six for that MUD process.

The 120.

The 120 days.

That's right.

Yes, the one twenty starts when another petition is submitted.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

With that, um, also, I I do want us to be clear on slide nine and ten where y'all are talking about wastewater service development controls, these are all great things that were um negotiated.

Uh I I guess the previous SAWS board or whatever had negotiated these.

If on February 5th, City Council votes no to the MUD.

Items number one through 15 are drawn out the window.

Well, these would be part of the development agreement.

So one, the settlement agreement, so that's actually part of I guess a lawsuit that was already settled, so there's that.

But these would they these would go away as part of that development agreement.

So a development agreement would not be uh and that would be off the table.

Okay, so yes.

So just to be clear, if we vote no, or they're we're not taking any action, item the what wastewater service development controls number one through 15 go away.

But they've the it's a bit nuanced.

Let me uh uh uh uh let me try it, councilwoman.

There's protections that are in the agreement with SAS, the USA with SAWs that will stay in place.

There's protections in the settlement that was reached with the developers uh related to the TCEQ permit that will stay in place.

Okay, do we know what those are?

Yes, we we can there are many of the ones listed here, right?

Yes.

So the answer they're not all gonna go away.

So not all of them, but can we um see which ones would stay and which ones would go away?

I think that would be helpful.

Yes, so as part of the development, the settlement agreement itself lists out a number of the terms of the agreement, so they're about 12 to 13 actual development controls that were part of that particular um settlement with municipal operations and the city.

There are then nine specific uh development controls that were agreed to when SAWs um agreed to their water um USA for sewer.

And then as part of the development agreement, we included some additional ones.

Okay, like inspections and testing and I think it would be important for my colleagues and I to see and know that you know, again, if we if we were to vote no to the mud on February 5th, um maybe uh items one through 15 would go away, but what are the 12 or 13 that would stay?

I I think that's important for us to note um so we could see what that path forward would look like.

And it should be noted too that the development agreement, if council were to uh consent with a development agreement, it would be filed with the county, so it would run with the land.

So no matter which property owner um uh owns that particular property, it would be part of that deed.

Yeah, yeah.

So um when when can we Andy?

When can we get that?

What which ones of these 15 would be we should be able to get that by the end of this week by tomorrow.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, that that's gonna be um important because you know, again, I think there was a lot of work with these wastewater service development controls, and and I'd hate to see that um all um all gone away.

Um yeah, so you know, I I think that council's gonna have an important vote on on February 5th, and and again, I just want you all uh the speakers uh that that signed up or that are watching um to know that we hear you and we do hear your concerns.

This comes up, you know.

I was having a Donaldson Terrace Neighborhood Association meeting last night in Donaldson Terrace is not too far from here.

I mean, this issue is coming up at every single one of my neighborhood associations, so this is very real.

Um we we do um obviously, you know, as as a society, we are getting much smarter about our water and forever chemicals and all that kind of stuff.

So I just want you to know that your concerns are taken seriously.

Thank you.

Councilman Castillo.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Bridget, for the presentation, as well as to members of the public for giving your comment.

Uh in one of Mayor Ron Inberg's closing speeches, he highlighted that one of the greatest roles that this governing body has is to protect our water source and protect the Edwards Aquifer.

And I share those concerns that the public have established in terms of public health contamination and lack of governance with the MUD.

And on top of that, uh I think it's important to highlight um MUDs, right?

And the ways in which uh nearly half of the state special districts, nearly 50 percent are MUDs.

Uh, and as cited by the Texas comp Troller, MUDs have absorbed and siphoned in 2023 nearly 12.7 billion dollars away from the state.

And those are dollars that otherwise could be going into infrastructure, education, public safety, public health, and so much more.

And as cited by James Sam's in her public comment and the Houston Chronicle, what they found is that folks outside of city limits were sometimes paying paying nearly triple the amount of property taxes than folks within the inner city.

And as folks also highlighted in their public comment, there's no oversight with these governing bodies.

And it's just important for the fiscal responsible thing to do, the the just the overall responsible thing to do in terms of our environment to ensure that we're asking the right questions and of course protecting uh our water source.

And and again, just highlighting uh as mentioned the public comment with KD, Texas in particular, folks just their taxes going higher and higher, and it's something that the governor is even highlighted as a potential loophole that we need to address at the state because too many of folks establishing these muds are taking advantage of the folks that live within them.

But as Michael Schick also stated, part of his public comment, right?

This is also conversation about public trust.

Uh and my position is that the options uh as laid out, um neither option appears favorable because denial means, right, that the developer can still potentially develop on the property, and that means potential contamination on the on the uh recharge zone, um, but also you know, uh approval is still development on the recharge zone.

So those those are the concerns uh that I have.

Um but we know, as folks already again emphasize comment after comment, that the development on the recharge zone is long-lasting and often irreversible.

And folks touched on what goes into our water source, and we know that water doesn't know city limits, doesn't know counting lines, uh, and that's a shared responsibility that this body has to ensure that we're making the right decision to take care of our water source and to be good neighbors with folks know not just the the impacts of the water but within their communities.

I think the examples that many of you all laid out in terms of access to this proposed community and the congestion that it may provide.

It's not just about more cars on the road, which uh I I think is a larger conversation that we are having, right?

But the risk that are of putting folks in danger, whether it's a flood, a fire, um, that's such high density without the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate folks going in and out of that cold de sac or that potential development.

Um so uh again uh I I want to thank my council colleagues, uh Councilwoman of Mesa Gonzalez for initiating this conversation with their council consideration request, but as well as my council member uh colleague uh councilman Mungia for his leadership within the planning commission uh because this is one of our greatest responsibilities uh as highlighted by the former mayor.

Uh and this is something that I'm hopeful that my colleagues and I will be on the same page in terms of ensuring that we continue to protect uh the recharge zone.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Donovan, uh I see you here from SAWs in case it informs any of my colleagues additional comments.

Um, if you'd like to speak to um in this forum, right, the uh the risks associated as as you see them and and why uh you saw us believes those to be mitigated.

Uh yes, Mayor and City Council members, uh I'm Donovan Burton here on behalf of San Antonio Water System.

Uh we're here just as a resource witness, we take no position on the mud mud district, or these are complicated uh discussions far beyond just the the water issue.

Uh we have done an analysis, we have looked at some of the uh the water issues, and we believe we've uh through through all the conditions that you you pointed out and some of the geologic uh some of the geology there.

We believe a lot of the uh significant um concerns have been mitigated, the significant water quality concerns have been mitigated as it relates to the saw's water source in terms of the Edwards aquifer.

Obviously, this is again the the subsurface is extremely uh complicated.

These aquifers are fractured and uh have barriers and that sort of thing in them, so it's uh a very complicated analysis.

Um we think the water does go into some of the the the upper Trinity Aquifer.

Uh we have wells in the lower Trinity, probably eight while eight miles away.

Actually, they're not our water our wells, we purchase it from somebody else.

Um then as it goes in through what we call what the what's called the Habe Fault, we believe a lot of that water is um it moves within the Trinity Aquifer and then it goes through a dense or has a hard time getting through a dense layer of the Edwards Afer to get into the area of the Edwards Wall Aquifer that's pulled for drinking water.

So we believe a lot of those risks have been mitigated through these um uh conditions that we've put into the agreement.

Again, you have to look at it as what is the source of the water going in and have have those conditions been been mitigated, what is the geology and then where is it it coming out of?

What is the geology and then where is it it coming out of?

So we we we do believe that a lot of the the water quality risks have been mitigated for the SAWS water system.

And while I while you're there, um some of the concern as you heard is regarding um the ability to monitor, right?

Um if there is uh um some noncompliance uh with either of the restrictions or if there is um if somebody's geological assessment is in fact uh different which is different than than your own uh and turns out to be to be correct.

So can you uh help the body understand the measures that you are anticipate putting in place?

Are any of those um being tried for the first time?

Have we seen those work effectively in other places uh to the concerns raised earlier about um you know these similar projects not too far from here that are non-compliant, right?

So speak to please how the measures that you anticip uh that SAWS recommends putting in place um are have been tried previously are working effectively, or if in fact some of these may be done for the first time and in which there might not be uh a reference point for us.

Sure.

Um so uh a lot of issues there, but a lot of them again within the nine uh um conditions that saw's put into the agreement, it's about the development of the property, so impervious cover limits, uh making sure that the storm water flow is not into the into the the sensitive recharge features that are either on site or or close by.

Um so that's the first layer is making sure that it doesn't get into the the aquifer.

Um we have monitoring all over um Bear County.

We we use utilize the USGS as well in in several areas of the streams.

Um and so we have a lot of those generally in the area.

We may uh if this ultimately comes to fruition, we may change some of the locations to ensure that there's some a little additional enhanced monitoring in this particular area.

Um but at SAWs we we take thousands and thousands of samples of our system uh every month, uh every year, certainly, um, where we analyze the water quality and are constantly looking at the water quality that comes out, ultimately delivered to our customers.

Um there are lots of regulator uh regulations in place from the federal and state level to ensure that whatever we provide, regardless of the source water, whatever we provide to our customers meets all um uh uh all regulatory expectations.

It does, thank you.

Um to clarify one piece of it though, none of the measures that you put in place you're putting in for the first time, right?

These are things that um processes that you've previous that you use currently or previously that you have found to be effective.

Yeah, yeah.

The other thing I would I would say that it's being put in for the first time is really the level of treatment that the that the um developer has agreed to that we've we've worked with them to enhance the nutrient removal, phosphorus, nitrate, those sorts of things to enhance the nutrient removal within the wastewater process.

That's a that's a a process that's pretty stringent um and it's not being implemented in a lot of other areas with these packaged treatment plants that are in lots of different areas throughout the state.

So I think that in and of itself is a is a a huge improvement for uh as compared to other uh developments of this nature.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Mesil Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to everybody uh that's been here today.

Um I appreciate your comments and uh the conversations we've had before this.

So um I do think it's important to note that uh state legislation that stripped municipalities of meaningful local control, including the authority to annex land in our own backyard, uh meaningful local control could have either prevented this project altogether or at a minimum provided us better options to protect our community.

Uh but here we are now, um, and I appreciate the development controls that uh the city mentioned in sides nine and ten, uh, but I will not be supportive of this item on February 5th, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Um I have a couple of questions just to clarify.

Uh if the developer did submit a PUD request, a PID request, excuse me.

The developers submitted a PIT application to the county.

Okay.

And that can I guess the county can review that within those hundred and twenty days, I'm assuming PIDs and Bunts have different um statutes that apply.

Okay.

So they did submit a PID application to the county March 28th of 2023.

The the county took no action on that pit application.

So typically with PIB PID applications that the city will look at.

When we get to City Council, you'll notice that we'll typically have um a Bear County um resolution with the consent to an intent to create.

Because the county took no action on that particular PID application, it's just out there.

So the county has taken no action on the PID application they received for this particular project.

And they still have the op so it's been sitting at the county for two years.

That would be a question.

But they saw the opportunity to bring it up?

That would be a question for the county.

We're in the process of a MUD application.

Andy.

The answer to your question is yes, they still can bring it up.

We still have the opportunity.

Okay.

And I guess if they do choose to approve a PID, what benefit does that give the city?

Does that give the city any sort of benefit?

In terms of or a seat at the table, does that offer us any sort of so uh if the uh to answer your question, councilwoman, even if the county approves the PID, let's again conceptually if they approve, they would still have to come back to the city.

Same process.

Okay, same process.

Okay.

Um have we ever approved a MUD at the city?

No.

This is okay.

And well, I we have we don't approve MUDs.

We are we have the re we get a request to consent to the creation of a mud.

Have we ever that that request has not come before us?

Okay.

And I and on the where was it?

The um the agreement that the developer would have to have with SAWS if we deny this MUD.

Does them not being in the CCN affect any of that, or how does that I'm sorry, does that change or that may be a sauce question?

Good morning, Mayor, City Council members.

My name is Keith Martin.

I'm senior corporate counsel with the San Antonio Water System.

In their attempt to negotiate an agreement for sewer services with SAWS, those services will not be in SAW sewer CCN.

Right.

Um SAS is not required to provide sewer services in the area, and the developer doesn't and saws uh conversely, SAS does not have the right to provide those services in the area.

But they will have the second step of this process, the 120 days when they're the negotiation process, SAS will participate in that process with the developer and the city if necessary to attempt to see if there are other thoughts or ideas that could be pursued that haven't already been considered as part of the original USA request.

Would that require them having to be in the CCN then?

No.

So SAWs as a municipal utility owned by a home rural city, the city of San Antonio, we have the authority to serve outside of our CCN and anywhere there's there's not a CCN.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

That's why my questions I also think this is an opportunity to reevaluate our Edwards Aquifer Protection Program and better understand the current metrics in place for identifying and conserving property.

Um I'm I understand the value and conserving property west of Bear County, but I do believe we are able to achieve more priorities for the public by conserving properties within Bear County that are more likely to be developed within the very near future.

So I know that um we are going to have that conversation in the community health committee, and I look forward to um exploring uh that with my colleagues.

Uh thank you so much.

That's all my questions.

Councilwoman Spears.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you all very much for coming today.

Um I know this has been um going on for a long time.

I actually was around when the when the PID was first filed in 2023 over at the county.

So I'm pretty familiar with this project.

I've been out to Guajalo Ranch area, did the long tour with the with the with the neighbors and seen the headwaters, and I care very much about the water because I also have represent a district that's over the recharge zone, and many cars features exist in my district, and so I'm fully aware um of how important water is for our state, our our city, our our whole region.

It's the true gold of the of the state.

So we really need to be paying attention to the water.

But I do have some questions about the creation of the MUD specifically.

And a lot of them are for clarity, and some of them will I'll just ask them.

I just want to clarify that a MUD is a separate taxing authority that levies its own ad valoran property tax on top of city, county, and school district taxes, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Is there any statutory requirement that a MUD automatically dissolve once its initial infrastructure is paid for?

No.

No, Councilwoman, there's no.

So is it true that even after the original bonds are retired, that a MUD can continue to exist and levy taxes?

That is correct.

All right.

Is it correct that a MUD can issue additional bonds in the future beyond the initial bond authorization?

That is correct as well.

They can.

And so who decides whether new bonds are issued?

Is it the city council or a MUD board?

The MUD board, Councilwoman.

So in the early years of a MUD, who controls the board?

Is it a residents or a developer?

It would be the developer because the MUD would just be created, would have just been created.

Do you do we have any idea how long it would take for residents to have full control of the MUD board?

Or we have any reference points there?

Just based on the petition that was submitted for this particular application, they're looking to have the ad valorum taxes and that all paid off within 30 years, and all the the 3,000 homes developed within like 12 years.

So potentially as long as 12 years.

Yes, it's almost 12 years.

Okay.

That's it.

I think that's important to note that the people that live in the MUD wouldn't have control of the board until potentially 12 years from its creation.

And I believe according to state law, it's five board members.

And five board members.

So it is in there?

It's in the drafted development agreement.

And that would be in all our development agreements?

This one is a little unique, so we do have information there based upon that would include debt and financial obligations.

What do you mean?

So the difference between a PID and a MUD is that with a PID, if City Council chooses to annex a pit at a future date, we don't take on the debt of the pit.

With a MUD, if City Council chooses to annex the MUD, we could take on the debt of the pit.

However, you'll notice that in the presentation, I mentioned that some of the proposed terms include a cap on the district's bond issuance.

So in the development agreement, we do note that if the developer wishes to increase that 150 million dollars, that would have to come back to council.

But then also we have information on when the last bonds can be issued.

But if city council were to annex at a future date, there's basic we have the ability per state law to then charge the residents in the district a post-annexation charge.

And that's according to the Texas Water Code.

The residents that don't live anywhere right now, but that would potentially live there.

Yes.

We could assess that per the Texas Water Code.

Has the developer asked for any other infrastructure or or talked about other infrastructure plans and needs in the MUD at this point?

No, we're just basing off of the petition that was submitted and what they proposed to develop.

Okay, thank you.

I do also want to point out that Bear County did pass the resolution supporting the motion for rehearing for the TCEQ on December 16th of this past year.

It creates a separate government within our its with its own permanent tax rate.

And that tax layer sits on top of city, county, and school district taxes and lasts indefinitely.

A MUD can also issue new bonds and extends that tax burden for decades.

Future homeowners deserve certainty.

They deserve to know what they're paying for and how long they'll pay and when it ends.

Under a MUD, decisions are shifted from elected officials to a separate board, often developer controlled in the early years.

If this area is annexed in the future, a MUD would require the city to assume its outstanding debt.

Thank you.

Councilman Viegeron.

Thank you.

Um thank you all for coming.

I I I was very impressed with the presentation of the speakers.

Y'all did a really good job.

Uh I didn't feel like y'all were saying the same facts over and over again.

So I really appreciate it.

And I appreciate the members that did reach out to my team and spoke with them.

I think what we have here is local control versus private property rights, how we move forward.

And ultimately, I think the theme is how are we good neighbors?

And how do we manage all this?

And it is difficult because this would be easier if you were on your own municipality like Wincrest or Live Oak or things like that.

But you know, you you come to San Antonio and and you ask us to look at things and and we're trying to uh manage as best we can.

So I do have I do want you to expand on the take no action um piece.

If we take no action, does that indicate, and I don't know who can talk on it, Andy, or if we take no action, does that indicate uh support for or against on on this issue?

If we take no action, council, then it's somewhat like a denial because it's not uh proving the consent.

So um and the reason uh the as we look at water and we look at water issues, I think the group that has come and spoke made a compelling argument.

Thank you.

That's uh it's made a compelling argument that this neighbor in particular, in terms of talking about being a good neighbor, that this neighbor in particular has not done what you've requested and has not been as transparent as possible in this process.

So that is the one thing is taking them at face value and what they say regarding the the wastewater and what they're going to do is is problematic because they haven't basically gone out to the community like we would like them to go out to the community to so but I don't want to shut the door in terms of MUDs in the future, is that if somebody comes to me and maybe not over I I'm leaning against anywhere uh where the Edwards Aquifer is, but if they come to a different part in the ETJ and they say we will bring you a state-of-the-art waste water facility, I am I'm kind of like I want to see that because I do believe, and I know they're doing it in other parts of the state and the world where it goes from toilet to tap.

So I don't want to close that door, but I don't think this project in particular has been as forthcoming as possible.

And then some of the quotes that y'all provided about what their executives said at meetings, that was problematic.

I'm I'm familiar with Lenar and the development in my area.

So it's just one of those things that I I kind of want to hear more kind of information regarding that um take no action because I don't want to shut the door completely to the city of San Antonio and the ETJ, because we have it uh around the entire city in terms of if we do in the future need to input on a MUD that our expectations are a wastewater facility that is state of the art.

So I know SAWS is here, and that's what I'd like to see because you know saying you're state of the art and the city having and saws having expectations of what that looks like uh in terms of wastewater facility is very different.

So I want to thank y'all for coming in for uh giving us that information for for your willingness to be a good neighbor to the city of San Antonio, and uh I look forward to all the work that planning did, their recommendations, and that of uh Councilman Mesa Gonzalez.

Thank you.

Andy, to clarify a point, um, if we decide to take no action on this, that has no bearing on our future review of MUD applications, correct?

No, Mayor, they're each individual consumers.

Correct.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Councilman White.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um I want to begin by thanking my colleagues, um, Messer Gonzalez, Aldrate Govito, uh, Councilwoman Spears, too, who's who's been at the forefront of this, um, and and Edward, the councilman as well.

Um, you know, there was a lot of work done, I think, leading up to today's meeting.

Um, I think most of us got a chance to to go out and and visit the site, but but then even after that.

So y'all y'all's work was really important in getting us here today.

Um I'll just I'm gonna be brief because all of uh my colleagues have really uh nailed this one.

Um I'm a private property rights guy too.

I mean we we live in Texas.

Land is land is king, and for the most part, you should get to be able to do uh with your own property um what you want.

And I think in this particular case, uh the research um really is is is sort of mixed here, and then there is a a lot of uh research and science that says that um our Edwards Aquifer, you know, we we may contaminate our water source if this project was to move forward.

This is a water source that uh you know serves more than 2.5 million people in our region, including of course here in San Antonio.

It's a uh unique recharge uh system where we're rainwater filters directly into the aquifer, and so contamination um in one area can certainly affect uh the entire water supply.

Um this is this has uh been an issue that that I know is is sensitive to to a lot of folks.

It's not just the landowners in the area, but again, it's everybody that's that's serviced by um our water system.

So um I stand with my colleagues on this.

Uh I will not be um supporting the mud.

Thanks, Mayor.

Councilman Galvan.

Thank you, Mayor.

And thank you to all the speakers that came in today um to voice their concerns and their thoughts on this particular project.

And also want to say thank you to everybody involved who helped make the tour possible for Councilman Mungia and I.

We went out there last year uh to kind of look at what things are going on on the ground level.

That kind of those kind of tours and kind of on the ground work really helps us make sure that we're aware of what's going on in the community, especially in places that are a little bit more distant than from where we're at.

Um Great Four is not too far from District Six.

Technically, government candidates within District Six, so we're not too far away.

So this has been a very important topic in a lot of my neighborhoods, uh whether it's in Northwest Crossing or in the Great Northwest or many other places uh that kind of get closer and closer to that part of town.

Given that, I'm really grateful that also Ken Pfeiffer from uh Northwest Crossing neighborhood in District Six was able to join us during that conversation, as he's been a really vocal advocate as well, um not only within District Six, but also within our joint areas, district seven with the Northwest Neighborhood Alliance.

And so I just want to put those pieces out there just because I think it's really helpful to keep our folks engaged and to note that they've been engaged on this topic for quite a while.

I won't be too long.

Uh I think Councilberry Castillo, Council Respiracy focused in on the mud uh kind of components really well.

Of course, we've all been talking a lot about the water concerns as well.

Um I'll just leave this final point about you know our city's been trying to move away from suburban sprawl and enabling that uh at all corners of our city uh for quite a while, ultimately to avoid higher construction or infrastructure costs, reduce environmental impacts, and to strengthen our neighborhood that are already here in our city limits.

So this development would not only contradict those efforts, it would also significantly impact the growth patterns and natural landscape near and around my district specifically, uh, but in general to the work that we're doing here.

So the state wants to do local planning for us.

I think they can add to the people.

I don't think it's required of the city to try to engage in that.

Um we do our best to know and to work with the folks that are here on the ground, and the state doesn't know how to do that.

That's up to them to figure it out.

Thank you.

Councilman Mungia.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Again, thank you to everybody who was out here today.

I got to hear many of you last week at the Planning Commission, and I know y'all uh you know have to leave your homes very early to come here downtown, and and it takes a lot of effort to be as organized as you all.

And my kudos to y'all.

I mean, this is such a well-organized group of folks advocating um, so you deserve a lot of credit for that.

Um I do credit, you know, Judy for inviting me to the tour.

Uh I was very happy to be out there.

I don't think I'd ever been to Great Forest before, to be honest with you.

Uh it was very beautiful.

You have a very beautiful community.

Um and so I got to meet you know a bunch of you there.

Uh, you know, Peter, Steve, of course, Judy Randi, Lynette's uh mayor was there also.

And I got to do the tour uh with Councilman Phillips actually, and that was really informative, and so I appreciate all that time and effort.

And I want to thank my colleagues who did the CCR because I learned that you know, until that CCR, a lot of the residents here didn't know if this was on the city's radar or how we felt about it, and so they were really appreciative of y'all's CCR.

Um, you know, letting them know that we are concerned about it here at the City of San Antonio.

And so, you know, safe drinking water is is just uh we take that for granted here in San Antonio, being able to put a glass under the tap and drink it.

Uh I went to um college in New Orleans and I had never heard of a water water boil advisory before.

Uh and it was just shocking to me that people had to boil water to consume it uh in New Orleans.

Uh and that is a frequent issue there.

Um and I just hope that that never ever happens to the citizens of Bear County, because we are so fortunate to have our aquifer.

Something I said last week was regarding the treatment facility, and I think some of what we have to do here a lot of times is not only think about the you know the start of the development or the first month, but 20, 30 years from now, what decisions that we make are gonna have effect down that line.

And I just simply don't um don't know that that facility would be up to par in that time frame.

Uh essentially it would be the HOA responsible for that wastewater treatment facility.

And I've worked with a lot of HOAs, there's great people, but they can barely keep alive the monument and the landscaping around their monuments, much less have to deal with a huge facility.

And um, you know, I'm glad uh Mr.

Lee brought up the other what wastewater facilities in the county that are have been ticketed and fined by TCEQ.

Uh and I said that last week where I don't believe TCEQ is capable of of you know having teeth to their fines.

Uh great example on the far south side, not that long ago we had a property full of tires of just water contamination with those tires, mosquitoes, it was a huge quality of life issue.

TCQ was involved, they were giving fines, but it took honestly years to get those tires out of there.

Um and what happens if this facility starts to fail.

Um and what happens if there's another winter freeze, right?

And something happens to that facility, uh, the ability to to get that quickly is gonna be a very difficult.

Uh and so, you know, I under the the argument that the it's okay to put water out there, that it's not gonna go to aquifere, it won't be contaminated, that there's plenty of filtration, natural devices out there with the soil.

Uh we know the landscape changes over time.

We are in severe droughts.

We've had a severe freeze, uh, and so we know those things will change over time.

So we have to be very cognizant of that.

And uh I just love all the questions that Councilwoman Spears brought up.

Those are very well-pointed questions about the actual process of the mud uh and people not realizing what they're gonna get into when they buy a home out there.

I mean, it could be on paper, but you know, there's time and time again we've heard of residents not knowing what they were getting into when they purchased their home.

So uh I really appreciate that.

I of course will be voting no on this.

We don't need to help this along, and I really hope that SAWs can work.

Uh should this be denied in an agreement um listening to all of you and your concerns on that.

So and I'm glad you bought the rock.

I happen to have my own piece of the aquifer rock here too.

Uh it's a lot smaller than yours, right?

But it reminds me, you know, of the lot of things that we have to do up here and what we have to fight for and and the quality of water that so many of us depend on.

So thank you all again for your time and we'll see you in a couple weeks.

Thank you.

Um, I have a question for you.

The last bullet on the summary slide is really um the you know the takeaway, right?

Which is approval of the consent to the creation of the mud with an executive development agreement are the only option that allows for city conditions.

Um can you speak to at this point um uh to the extent you're able to, right?

I understand they're ongoing negotiations, but um it'd be helpful for us uh to get a sense of um how the discussions are going around some of the proposed uh proposed terms.

Um and I and I say all that as as you've heard some of the the council members re uh reference the other LENAR projects in our community, right?

So um there are other opportunities that we will have to to partner, and so recognizing um any appetite for support for some of the conditions that we've asked for, you know, even absent our consent is something that we'd be very interested in in understanding.

Um whatever you'd like to share at this point, but then as well as we approach the the vote on the fifth.

Sure, Mayor.

I I think we've outlined what we have shared with the developer.

Um we have had some initial discussions about those items.

Um there has I was just gonna say if you'd bring up that slide, slide eight, please.

Sorry.

Yeah, thanks.

I think it's eight and nine.

Yeah, okay, yep.

And then that's correct.

So uh we've shared these with the developer, we've had some initial discussions.

There's been a productive conversations.

At this point, there's not a signed draft agreement for the council to consider.

That's our intent for the next time we come before you at a session.

Um but there has been no large pushback on these um at this point.

There's been good productive conversations what I would say.

Obviously, there's not a signed document, so we we can't say we have agreement to all of these at this point, but we're working towards it.

And um to the extent other communities have had experiences with muds of a varying levels of of positivity.

Um can you speak to, or maybe this is also for the legal team, um the the situation where we may find ourselves in, right?

Where we um do not consent to this, right?

Um and then it moves forward, and then what leverage has had other communities have in asking for some of those conditions.

Can you help us help us lay that out?

I understand each of these situations are different, but I think it's important to recognize when you know, once we have once it's moved past us, there's some you know, discussion or or decision made at TCQ, what then has been the success of municipalities or entities in securing some of those conditions that they originally asked for.

We'll take a look at that, but my initial reaction, Mary, is that uh once it gets out of the realm of the city and in the in TCEQ, then really in no municipality would have very much leverage at that point.

No, that's also my instinct.

Um I wanted to understand that if you had some other case studies uh that would help us again, given MUDs are much more prevalent in other parts of the state.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Um let me uh this is as you all well know, not a new topic.

Uh this is one that SAS has reviewed uh very the well, the previous mayor obviously um worked on this while he was on the SAWS board, review that analysis as well.

Um, and uh we find ourselves here many, many years later.

Um obviously, as mentioned here, we're trying to balance um a couple of things, right?

Which is not only do we have um unfortunately competing, excuse me.

Oh, you didn't let me know.

Okay.

Well, um, all right.

I'll um let me let me finish here.

We're we're uh com balancing a couple of competing things here, right?

Um the need obviously to be a good neighbor with understanding when we are going to have leverage and where we may not.

Um we've had some discussions with um with uh developer in terms of how this um this project may be maybe different um than some of the others, but of course, we take with a grain of salt um many of the points that you all raised here, which is frankly the experience in other parts of of the state that um demonstrate um uh a challenging outcome, let's just say.

Um before I go further, let me let my council, my colleague, councilman core um provide some comments.

Thank you, Mayor.

I thank you all so much for coming, and those of you that spoke.

I actually learned a lot more about this area and this issue because of some of the comments that are made, i.e., Eric and I were talking a little bit earlier about even the small narrow parts of the street and the drainage issues that must also occur yesterday during B session, we were talking a lot about the drainage challenges that we have throughout the city as a whole and how we already don't have enough funding to address some of those layering issues that come, like Councilmember Galvan mentioned because of suburban sprawl, and so we want to make sure that we're being very judicious as we move forward on what we're incentivizing and what we're not incentivizing.

I understand we're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I think most of you all know that.

Um we wish that we could say, hey, if we next week or two weeks from now vote uh do not um approve or do not take action on this, that this would be dead and you the development would be dead.

Unfortunately, I think all of you all know that that's not the case.

We um there will probably still be a movement forward, and just for so that we're all on the same page, could you just help us explain after the SAS negotiation piece, assuming that SAWS says um they're not negotiating, what happens at the TCEQ spot on that chart that Councilman Albert de Ugavito was mentioning on slide sick on slide six, what would happen if so say that um uh assuming SAS does not get into agreement because if SAS were to get into an agreement, they would have to actually build the um utilities all the way out there, right?

So if SAS were to get um to reach an agreement with the developer, there are specific requirements that are also built into state law regarding the infrastructure and the time that SAS would need to provide that infrastructure.

So that's something that SAS would be discussing with the developer.

But solely based on actually building out their utility to service this area.

That's based in terms of that particular development.

So that's the agreement.

Right.

Um, if no agreement is reached within the 120 days, then the developer would go to TCQ for consideration of the mic.

And then TCEQ would could or could not approve the MUD.

Um they could consider creation of the MUDS.

They could create some create could consider creation.

So while I understand that we immediately this means if we don't take action on this in a couple weeks, we might lose a little bit of our authority for the seat at the table.

At the same time, there's a little slimmer of hope that maybe TCEQ decides that they don't want to be a party of this.

And I know the mayor's looking at me, she's like, that's probably not gonna happen.

But at the same time, there's that little hope.

And so uh if we don't truly believe in what this is doing to our community, the potential threat, and I read through, y'all know I'm like a reader, we read through all of the articles, read through the SAWs briefing, read through what the Edwards Aquifer said, and it's tricky.

And to what Councilmember Mungio was saying, right, is environment is changing over time.

In the 70s, we didn't really know global warming was going to be a thing, and there weren't actions that were being taken into place to make sure we're not in the situation that we are today.

So while it may not be affecting the water as demonstrated by what the faults and the SAW said currently, but we don't know what could happen in the future in 30 years.

And so that being said, I don't see the benefit in the situation of the few uh protections that we would be gaining to have a seat at this table, outweigh our decision to actually uh pass on this and let TCEQ make the final decision.

The last thing I just want to ask about those protections that councilman was asking about this too.

In the letter that we got from SAWs, there was a list of nine items that were already negotiated versus the ones that we are shown in the slides.

There's 15.

So do those nine items that include 50 percent of the project is open space, 30 percent impervious cover and a rating, those will still say no matter what, correct?

Um so the nine that saws approved, um, including the 50 percent and the 30 percent impervious cover, and then there are actually 10 that were the settlement.

Um basically I just did a compilation for those slides for that particular those slides for the development controls.

So there is some overlap, for example, the class A operator.

So the settlement will stay, and then the water connection, those will um also um stay as well.

But I did mention in terms of the development agreement that would run with the land.

So that would be a part of the D that's okay.

That wasn't a clear answer to me.

So the nine agreements and the SAWs, yes, those are going to stay no matter what, if we do the mud or not.

Okay, so that's what I was trying to clarify.

So the the nine agreements that SAS has already come up to already includes having an A operator, already includes impervious cover.

So those are guarantees no matter what, in terms of what other action that we take in a couple weeks or not.

Those two, yes, two of the nine.

Yeah, those are two of the ones.

I just named two examples.

So that being said, I feel like those are some of the most important ones, right?

We want to make sure there's a good operator, we want to make sure impervious cover is being limited, and so I understand we're giving up our um land use rights as if we don't participate in the mud, but um I do think that right now we should just hope that we can go, you all can go advocate and lobby TCEQ and make sure that the mayor really doesn't think this is gonna happen.

But I really believe that if you guys go make call every single state for person that you know and try to get them to see the potential for negative impact on our water, that maybe there'll be a chance.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um either for Andy or for Bridget.

Um, can you just for historical context?

Because again, on this uh um uh hope strategy, uh can you help us understand um if there are similar applications that TECQ has reviews similar to this one and how those fared um I'm not aware of um I don't have an answer you for you for that mayor.

Okay, it it'd be helpful to we can take a quick look and then provide council something, Mayor.

It'd be helpful for us to understand how much hope we should put in that approach.

Um and then as a result of that, what conditions we're actually uh able to put to put in place.

Okay.

Um thank you again.

There's a couple of do outs um both for the for the legal team and and for um uh for the staff that can help us provide some additional context uh so we understand fully um you know before we go into the vote on um on the 5th of February.

Thank you again to everybody that took the time uh to be here and appreciate the uh appreciate the participation.

Thank you.

The time is now 11 41.

This meeting is adjourned.