San Antonio City Council Special Session on Guajolote Ranch MUD Request - January 22, 2026

This was a special session of the San Antonio City Council held on January 22, 2026, at 9:06 AM to discuss a proposed Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the Guajolote Ranch development. The meeting was informational and included a staff presentation, extensive public testimony, and council deliberation. No formal vote was taken; a decision is scheduled for the February 5, 2026, regular council session.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Over 20 speakers addressed the council, the vast majority expressing opposition to the MUD request. Speakers included residents of adjacent communities (e.g., Great Forest, Canyon Sin Loop, Cedar Creek Alliance), representatives of the Cine Loop Alliance, a geologist, the mayor of a neighboring city, and others. Key concerns raised included:
  • Risk of contamination to the Edwards Aquifer and Trinity Aquifer, which supply drinking water to over 2.5 million people in the region.
  • Inadequate emergency access: only one two-lane road (Cine Loop Road) planned for 3,000 homes, with no contact from the developer to the fire chief or neighboring subdivisions for secondary access.
  • Traffic impacts: an estimated 30,000 additional vehicle trips per day on rural roads prone to flooding; existing flooding issues on Cine Loop Road and Sam Ranch Road.
  • Financial burdens on future homeowners: MUDs impose additional property taxes and fees, with examples cited of residents paying $3,000/year in MUD taxes plus $40,000 in back taxes, and monthly payments of $1,500 for 39 years.
  • Developer's track record: Lenar Homes was cited for violations of a TCEQ settlement agreement in 2019 and for causing flooding at a prior development (Forest Ranch).
  • Lack of community engagement: the developer did not reach out to neighbors or follow the city's North Sector Plan.
• Several speakers submitted petitions and documentation, including a 2025 petition with 500+ signatures opposing the development.
• One speaker, a geologist, provided detailed testimony about the porous limestone geology (karst) and the high risk of untreated wastewater entering the aquifer through fractures and conduits.
• A few speakers noted that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the MUD by a 5-4 vote on January 17, 2026.

Discussion Items

• Staff presentation by Eric (Development Services) described the project: 1,159 acres near the intersection of Cine Loop and Babcock Road, proposed by Lenar Homes and others for 3,000 residential lots. The request is for city consent to create Bear County MUD #2 to finance water, wastewater, stormwater, and park infrastructure at an estimated cost of $150 million, with anticipated profit of $106.5 million.
• The timeline: petition submitted November 10, 2025; council must act within 90 days (by February 8, 2026). Currently at day 73. The item is scheduled for the February 5, 2026, council meeting.
• If the council denies the MUD or takes no action, the developer can file a new petition, triggering a 120-day negotiation period with San Antonio Water System (SOS). If no agreement is reached, the developer can seek approval from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
• Council members discussed the legal implications and the possibility of losing leverage if the MUD is denied. City Attorney clarified that if the council denies consent on February 5, the developer can still pursue a petition and negotiate with SOS; the city would not be party to those negotiations.
• Several council members expressed strong opposition to the MUD request, citing risks to the Edwards Aquifer, fiscal irresponsibility of MUDs, and the developer's lack of cooperation. Councilmembers Maki Rodríguez, Mesa González, Castillo, Spears, White, Galván, Munguía, and others indicated they would vote no on February 5.
• Councilmember Spears raised questions about the MUD's governance: the developer controls the board initially, and residents may not gain full control for up to 12 years. The MUD can issue bonds and increase taxes without council approval. The MUD would also remove the property from city tax rolls, costing the city potential revenue.
• Councilmember Villagrán emphasized the need for transparency and community engagement, noting that the developer had not been a good neighbor.
• Councilmember Munguía stated that the city has a responsibility to protect the aquifer and that the risks of contamination are irreversible.
• Councilmember Mesa González confirmed that she would not support the MUD on February 5, and urged colleagues to do the same.
• The council received confirmation from SOS representative Keith Martin that the developer does not have a right to provide water service in the area and that SOS will participate in the 120-day negotiation if the MUD is denied.
• Staff noted that some protections are already in place regardless of the MUD decision: 50% open space, 30% impervious cover limits, and other conditions from the 2022 SOS agreement and the 2023 development master plan. These would remain even if the MUD is denied.

Key Outcomes

• No formal vote was taken at this special session. The council will consider the MUD request at its regular meeting on February 5, 2026.
• The council requested additional information on which specific protections (from the 15 proposed conditions) would survive if the MUD is denied, to be provided before the February 5 meeting.
• Multiple council members stated their intention to vote against the MUD, signaling likely denial. However, the official decision is deferred.
• The next steps: If the council denies consent on February 5, the developer can file a petition with SOS, initiating a 120-day negotiation period. If no agreement is reached, the developer can apply to TCEQ for a MUD creation. If the council approves, the MUD would proceed to TCEQ for final creation.