‹ Harris County Water Control and Improvement District No. 157 · All districts' issues
question
Developer reimbursement
$556,000
money moved
Record why the floating intakes are bid as a Developer contract and what the District will repay, including developer interest and bond costs.
Good practice; 30 TAC §293.46 and §293.50.
The board action behind it
2026-02-12: Concurred with BGE's recommendation to bid the floating intakes at Irrigation Pump Station Nos. 1 and 4 (total cost noted as $556,000.00) as a Developer contract
What else happened at that meeting
With the President absent, the Vice President presided. The Board adopted a resolution confirming that the District is not a "Developed District" for the 2026 tax year and accepted an insurance renewal proposal from Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. It approved the engineer's report, including a $9,600.00 proposal to expose the columns of the Bridgeland Creek Parkway pedestrian bridge/underpass, and agreed with BGE's recommendation to bid floating intakes at Irrigation Pump Station Nos. 1 and 4 (total cost noted as $556,000.00) as a Developer contract. The Board approved the operations report, including replacement of two booster pumps at Irrigation Pump Station No. 2 by Northside Electric Motors for $74,710.00. It scheduled a March 6, 2026 special meeting on the next bond issue and moved the March regular meeting to March 20, 2026.The law and guidance in force on 2026-02-12
| Reimbursement agreement before a developer-financed facility is built 30 TAC §293.46
§293.46: Same text in force then and now |
Not shown in the record | BGE recommended bidding the floating intakes 'as a Developer contract' (p.3); no agreement is mentioned. |
Who's involved
BGE, Inc. (district engineer)
Bridgeland Development, LP (represented by Howard Hughes Holdings, Inc.) (developer)
Cost to the district
$556,000 Total cost noted by BGE; to be repaid by the District later through developer reimbursement if eligible.Money or costs moved
Bridgeland Development, LP → Floating intakes at IPS Nos. 1 and 4: $556,000 Developer contract (p.3).
HCWCID 157 (future bonds) → Bridgeland Development, LP Implied reimbursement, as for the IPS Nos. 1 and 4 project (Nov 13, 2025 p.4).
Why the board approved it
Recorded: “Mr. Gutowsky noted the total cost of $556,000.00 and recommended bidding the project as a Developer contract; the Board concurred (p.3).”
No reason is recorded for using a Developer contract, and no comparison with a District-bid contract paid from reserves. Floating intake devices for the filtration hoses were suggested by Netafim on Nov 13, 2025 (p.4).