Newsroom

Land-use controls sought along Texas 130

Thursday, March 08, 2007
by Kate Miller Morton
Austin American-Statesman

Central Texas counties and cities along the Texas 130 toll road would have more power to control and influence development in the fast-growing corridor under legislation to be filed today by Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin.The most ambitious of the three bills would allow Austin to create a special district or districts around the toll road where it could impose its development rules and collect sales and property taxes to pay for roads, streets and utility improvements in the district without being required to provide city services for up to 15 years."It's a combination of two very significant tools," Assistant City Manager Laura Huffman said. "One, it gives the city the ability to do land-use (planning), and the other is, it gives the city a revenue stream in order to invest in infrastructure. One without the other wouldn't work."The two additional bills propose that counties along Texas 130 be granted limited zoning authority and the ability to levy impact fees and that small cities near the toll road be allowed limited-purpose annexations.Watson said the proposed legislation is a direct result of the regional planning effort he led last year in which officials from cities and counties of all sizes along the Texas 130 corridor expressed a desire for more tools to control growth in the area.The Legislature is notoriously stingy in granting new land-use or taxing powers to cities and counties, and the chances of all three bills passing is far from certain.Watson acknowledged that it will not be easy but said he believes the bills can pass."As Texas moves forward and as regions move forward, we're going to have to recognize that we're not the way we were in Central Texas in 1950, 1960 or even 1980," Watson said. "The truth of the matter is, we're different, and what that means is, we may need to give these local governments different tools to deal with different issues."No city is more challenged by Texas 130 than Austin.A 25-mile segment of Texas 130 runs through Austin's designated future growth area, surrounded by about 174 square miles of the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction (land outside the city's boundaries but subject to some city rules), an area nearly 60 percent of the city's current size.City officials and environmentalists view the area as highly desirable for the type of mixed-use, high-density development needed to accommodate the area's rapidly growing population. But the mostly rural area lacks the water, wastewater, and road and utility infrastructure to support that type of development.The city fears the area will be built out with sprawling, resource-draining suburban subdivisions if the city is not granted land-use controls and funding mechanisms currently unavailable for land not fully annexed into its jurisdiction.The city estimates that it would cost $2.4 billion in capital improvements to fully annex the 174-square-mile area.Even a less ambitious annexation of the 42 square miles that the city thinks will be developed first would cost an estimated $570 million for water, wastewater, drainage and roads. That estimate assumes Travis County would invest in the major roadways and does not include the cost of providing services such as fire and police protection, libraries and parkland.Huffman said the cost is driven largely by the distance Austin's services will have to be extended, leapfrogging undeveloped areas closer to the city.The special district would only include the 42 square miles likely to develop first.Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Williamson County, supports the creation of the special district and plans to sponsor a similar bill in the Texas House of Representatives."Usually, it takes the state decades to build a road of that magnitude that has that sort of impact, and so local governments have time to keep up with construction and to keep up with infrastructure," Krusee said. "But when we put over 50 miles of road on the ground in less than five years, the city simply can't keep up with (the growth) under current annexation laws."Krusee said he knows of no other transportation service districts in the state but also knows of no other case in which so much road has been built in so little time. The response of the development community is likely to be mixed.Developers are generally opposed to increased regulation, but the special district would give the city a greater ability to reimburse private interests for roads and water and wastewater facilities that would eventually be turned over to the city.Austin has a limited fiscal ability to do so now, and unlike many Central Texas cities, it does not allow the creation of municipal utility districts to help developers pay for the cost.Developer Pete Dwyer, who owns approximately 7,000 acres in Austin's growth zone, said he has some concerns but is optimistic that the district could make dense, mixed-use developments more affordable for developers."Obviously, it won't be a whole lot of fun to get (hit) with a tax and then not get my utilities and services delivered to me for 15 years," Dwyer said.But Dwyer said the business community could get behind the districts if they were reimbursed for infrastructure improvements as they are in other areas where municipal utility districts are allowed.Austin's special district isn't the only one of the three proposals facing an uphill battle in the Legislature.Numerous proposals to grant counties zoning powers have failed in the past, in part because many rural counties do not want the responsibility or the cost.Krusee said he is open to the idea of allowing other cities to set up their own special districts similar to the one proposed for Austin, but he is reluctant to expand zoning powers to counties that are unprepared for it."Right now, I don't see granting zoning powers to counties," Krusee said. "I don't think my county would be interested in taking on that cost burden of hiring staff and gearing up on zoning expertise."But Krusee said he could change his mind if there enough support from the counties.Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin, is a long-time supporter of granting counties some zoning powers and strongly supports the bill.Rodriguez is also in favor of the proposal to grant small cities the ability to do limited-purpose annexation, which would allow them to extend their land-use regulations without having to provide full services for three years.Rodriguez said limited-purpose annexation would be especially helpful for the cities of Mustang Ridge and Creedmoor, which are in his district."They are expecting a large degree of growth in that area, and frankly they support any notion of trying to give them some way of guiding it," he said. "Right now they really wouldn't have that much say. This is definitely something those communities would like to see."Watson said his bills won't address every need and desire of the cities and counties along Texas 130, but he believes they will address some of the most important challenges they are facing as development accelerates in the corridor."I think that this comes up with a unique set of tools that would allow cities (and counties) who face this kind of situation to really do some good for the public," Watson said. "Just because it's new and just because it's different and just because it may be ambitious isn't a reason not to do what is in the best interest of Central Texas."