Nonpartisan public records for Texas special districts Resident sign in
Texas Open Books

‹ Harris County Water Control and Improvement District No. 159 · All districts' issues

concern Developer reimbursement 1 conflict question money moved

Did the Board approve the final UDA after TPHTL's comments, or was it signed under the February conditional approval?

Good practice: bring a negotiated agreement back for approval when the condition of an earlier approval is not met

The board action behind it

2026-02-16: Approved a Utility Development Agreement (Drainage and Detention Facilities; Recreational Facilities) with TPHTL House Hahl, LLC for execution, if TPHTL had no comments

What else happened at that meetingThe Board approved new electronic tax payment agreements with First Mobile Trust, LLC and Global Payments as part of the move to Assessments of the Southwest, Inc. as tax assessor-collector. It approved a 60-month electricity pricing agreement with TXU Energy at $0.06871 per kWh and accepted Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.'s insurance renewal proposal. The Board approved three Berkeley proposals totaling $83,460.00 for hardwood mulch around the lake buffer zones, designated the District a Developing District for the 2026 tax year, and approved a Maintenance Agreement with Harris County for the TPHTL Detention and Mass Grading project. It approved a Utility Development Agreement with TPHTL House Hahl, LLC if TPHTL had no comments, and authorized the President to sign a petition to the City of Houston for annexation of 267.49 acres. The Board met in executive session from 1:58 to 2:06 p.m., with no resulting action.

Source: the meeting record › The approved minutes, p. 5 ›

The law and guidance in force on 2026-02-16

A developer who builds before TCEQ approval needs a reimbursement agreement with the district first; ineligible costs are disallowed
30 TAC §293.46
§293.46: Same text in force then and now
Question The UDA covers drainage, detention and recreational facilities for the TPHTL land (p.5). Its reimbursement terms are not in the minutes.
Land for detention sites bought from a developer is priced at cost plus carrying costs (lower of that and appraisal in the floodplain); developer interest limited §293.51: Same text in force then and now§293.50: Same text in force then and now Question The District had been condemning three House Hahl Road tracts 'for District detention facilities' (p.4). TPHTL then bought them and the District dropped condemnation (May 18 p.5; June 15 p.3), saying easements can be obtained from TPHTL under the UDA.

Who's involved

TPHTL House Hahl, LLC (landowner/developer of the House Hahl land annexed Dec. 15, 2025)
Schwartz, Page & Harding, L.L.P. (SPH) (District general and bond counsel; also counsel to WCID 157, WCID 158, MUDs 418-493 and the Bridgeland Water Agency)
BGE, Inc. (District engineer; also engineer to WCID 157, WCID 158 and the Bridgeland MUDs)

Possible conflicts

Schwartz, Page & Harding, L.L.P. (SPH): Drafted the UDA for the District while also serving every other Bridgeland district; TPHTL is a separate developer, so the main point is the board's own review of the final text. (minutes p.5; consultant schedules in the audits of MUD 418 (2025_Financial_Report.pdf, PDF p.42), MUD 419 (2025_05_31_Audit_Report.pdf, PDF p.70), MUD 489 (HC_489_Final_Audit_Report_FY_Ended_May_31_2024.pdf, PDF p.60), MUD 490 (HC_MUD_No_490_2025_FS_Final.pdf, PDF p.49), MUD 493 (HC_493_Final_Audit_Report_FY_Ended_May_31_2024.pdf, PDF p.31), WCID 157 (HCWCID-157-Audit-Report-FYE-May-31-2025.pdf, PDF p.60), WCID 158 (Financial_Report_2025_05_31.pdf, PDF p.44) and WCID 159 (HC_WCID_No_159_2025_FS_Final.pdf, PDF p.52))

Money or costs moved

HCWCID 159 (future bonds) → TPHTL House Hahl, LLC Future reimbursement for drainage, detention and recreational facilities on the annexed land; amount not stated.

Why the board approved it

Recorded: “Approved 'if there are no comments from TPHTL' (p.5). On Mar. 16 negotiations were ongoing (p.5); on Apr. 20 the UDA was reported 'fully executed' (p.5).”

The Board approved a draft on condition that the other party made no comments. TPHTL did comment and negotiations continued, but the minutes show no later board vote on the final text.