The possibility that Samsung could be expanding the scope of its presence more than five-fold in the next two decades, along with concerns by some Taylor-area landowners, has Taylor city officials ordering up another look at the longrange comprehensive plan for the area.
At issue are areas of Taylor and the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) that have been put off limits for dense housing, industrial, commercial or retail development because of the high cost of extending wastewater services to those areas.
During the initial planning process most Taylor ratepayers urged fiscal restraint in extending infrastructure to allow for future development. But some landowners now believe they are losing out on selling their land at top dollar because they are in an area with a “restricted growth” or “minimalchange land use” designation.
“With the Samsung announcement taking the (Taylor development) from $17 billion to $200 billion, I don’t think from your 18 months of developing the comprehensive plan, you could have envisioned changes like that,” said Councilman Dwayne Ariola, addressing the author of the original Envision Taylor plan. “I think it’s a good idea to throw it back across the fence, and letting the citizens come up with the recommendations is the right answer.”
Revisiting comprehensive plan At the direction of city council, planning and urban design consultants Lionheart Places will take another look at the comprehensive plan called Envision Taylor. The Austin-based firm conducted the original study, which included getting community input, and did a revision presented this spring taking the initial $17 billion phase of Samsung’s 6 million-square-foot semiconductor plant into account.
Since then, the South Korea-based company has announced it is looking at adding another fabrication plant on its Austin campus and possibly several more on its Taylor site in the next two decades.
“When we went to the (original planning) process, the consensus was very strong” for fiscal constraint, Rebecca Leonard, founder of Lionheart Places, told city council members last week.
The next step is to reconvene the Comprehensive Plan Committee, said Tom Yantis, assistant city manager and director of Development Services for the city of Taylor.
Lionheart will have a memo outlining the process they will use to gather feedback and analyze the areas of the map currently marked for restricted or minimal change by mid-September. Yantis anticipates receiving suggested changes to the maps, if any, by late October or early November. Those will be studied by city staff and lead to recommendations to the city council.
“Obviously, this plan is going to be every changing,” District 4 Councilman Robert Garcia said before last week’s vote to reengage Lionheart. “I think one of the things causing people heartburn is the word ‘restricted’ as opposed to calling it something a little bit softer.”
Landowners unhappy with restricted designation In recent months, some landowners discovered they were in those restricted areas because there were no imminent plans to extend city sewer services near them. Bill Albert told the Taylor Press last month that he had lost out on a prospective offer of $10 million for his 49 acres on Highway 79. He said he has been told by others in the area that they too had interest in their land vanish as the “restricted” designation was applied. Yantis, in an interview with the Taylor Press, said the process for a landowner to ask for an amendment to an ordinance is the same as any other requests for variances. That ranges from requesting zoning changes to permission to install a fence higher than the existing standard.
In the application “they have to show how consistent it is with comprehensive plan,” Yantis said. City staff then reviews the application to see if the amendment can be made. If considered in-keeping with the plan, then it is recommended to Taylor’s Planning and Zoning Commission and then to city council.
Two amendments approved To date, the city has received only two applications for an amendment to allow for land development,” Yantis said. Both of those, including a tract sold by Mayor Brandt Rydell’s mother and aunt, were both approved by the council in August. The mayor was not present to vote on that amendment.
The circumstances that led to the amendment occurred when HDR, an engineering firm contracted with the city, took another look at the capacity of the wastewater lift station at the end of the airport runway through computer models and determined that it could handle more capacity with some improvements.
Areas around it were initially put in restricted growth zones because the lift station was inundated with the storm water during major rain events. The proposed budget for the next fiscal year contains funding to fix the drainage problem near the lift station and replace one of more of the pumps. Developers will spend about $420,000 to tie into that wastewater line, according to documents on file with the city.
Yantis said that while there have been no additional applications for amendments, there have been informal talks among city staff, Taylor Economic Development Corp. officials and developers inquiring about certain areas for future development.
He said the city works with the EDC to steer developers to properties that already have wastewater services available or close by. “It’s always a concern” of losing commercial or housing developments to nearby communities, but “we work with the EDC to highlight that there are quite a large number of locations in Taylor,” Yantis said.
The “missing infrastructure” is a sewer project to extend along the Highway 79 corridor, but a previous study by engineers for the city estimated the project would take about $12 million, Yantis said.
Joey Quebe, who sold family land on Main Street near the Taylor Regional Park & Sports Complex last December, said it was annexed by the city in 1997 when his grandfather owned and lived on the property. Since then, he said, the property never had wastewater services extended to it or offered.
The property was valued at a market value of about $192,000 in 2021 by the Williamson County Appraisal District. WCAD records show Quebe’s former 2.5 acres, now owned by Avula Holdings, has a market value of about $519,000.
“Darn right it was” an influence on the final sales price to not have wastewater,” Quebe said. “We sold it for good money, but the buyers told us we could have gotten twice as much for it if we had full city services.”
He said he was unaware of the amendment application process and that he thinks “many people are in the same boat. Most people run out of time and money before there’s any kind of resolution.”
Yantis said areas annexed by the city, which allows for the collection of property taxes, entitles them to city services paid for by property tax revenue, including fire, police, code enforcement and animal control.
Most of the properties, which were either agricultural or contained a homestead, already had septic systems and either water from a well on the property or from Jonah Water Special Utility District. The cost of building water and wastewater infrastructure and its maintenance is covered by ratepayers for those services and not property taxes, Yantis said. To date, developments to create rate revenue to justify the high cost of extending the services haven’t come along, including on the Highway 79 corridor. “Nobody has come forward who is capable of making that investment,” Yantis said. “The comprehensive plan focuses on fiscal sustainability for the city.”
