City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our regularly scheduled meeting for Tuesday, July the 7th. Ms. West, will you please call roll?

Councilman De La Garza.

I am present.

Councilman Kidder.

Here.

Councilwoman Butler. Present. Councilwoman Scott. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Young.

Here.

Councilman Lofgren.

Here.

Mayor Crocker.

Here. If you would please rise. Join me for the pledges followed by a moment of silence.

Thank you. Please be seated.

All right, again, welcome everyone. Good to see that you took a break from World Cup binge watching to join us this evening. So we have quite a few things to get through, so we'll jump into announcements and reminders. Mr. Garza, good evening.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I just have a few announcements and reminders for you tonight. On behalf of CVB, we want to remind the public that applications for the City of Victoria's Hotel Occupancy Tax Funds for events and programs that bring overnight visitors to Victoria, including arts, historical and sporting events, will close on Friday, July 31st at midnight. Information sessions covering the Hot Funds application and evaluation processes will be held on Monday, July 13th at 6 p.m. and on Monday, July 20th at noon. at 700 Main, Room 205, which is located on the second floor of the building. Attendance at an application session will be taken into consideration during the application scoring, and so it's important that interested parties attend. Applications can be found at victoriatx.gov forward slash hot funds. For more information, contact Discover Victoria, Texas office at 361-485-3116. On behalf of the Communications Department, the latest episode of City's Town Talk podcast featuring the Parks and Recreation team, who's here tonight, where's the woo? No, no woo? Okay, there you go, is available now on YouTube and Spotify. In this episode, residents can learn about the many different things that Parks and Rec does, from hosting events to spraying for mosquitoes. Plus, you can learn more about upcoming projects like the Gary Moses Community Center renovation and expansion. More importantly, is the Rural Life Parks and Recreation anything like the TV show? Guess you have to tune in and find out. Great job, writers. On behalf of the police department, they will be hosting a Lunch and Learn program on Wednesday, July 15th from 11.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. at the Gary Moses Community Center Annex. The topic will be South Texas Blood and Tissue Center, excuse me, the topic and host will be the South Texas Blood and Tissue Center And they will discuss the critical need for blood donation in the Victoria area. Lunch will be sponsored by Walmart. And to register for this free public event, please visit victoratx.gov forward slash lunch and learn. And that's all I have for you for this evening.

All right, thank you. We'll jump into public and employee recognitions. Before we get to the formal one, I would like to say I've received a number of comments from folks about the July 4th festivities over the weekend. Very positive, and so Parks and Rec, CVB, great job on the fireworks and the parade and everything that went with it. In fact, it was so good that we're going to do a formal proclamation now for Parks and Rec, so... If you would start it.

Whereas parks and recreation is an integral part of communities throughout the country, including Victoria, Texas. Whereas parks and recreation promotes time spent in nature which positively impacts mental health by increasing cognitive performance and well-being as alleviating illnesses such as depression, attention, deficit disorders, and Alzheimer's. And whereas parks and recreation encourages physical activities by providing space for popular sports, hiking trails, and many other activities designed to promote active lifestyles, and whereas parks and recreation increases a community's economic prosperity through expansion of local tax base, increased tourism, the attraction and retention of businesses, and crime reduction, and whereas parks and natural areas preserve the ecological beauty of our community and provide opportunities for children and adults to connect with nature, enjoy outdoor activities, and enhance their quality of life, whereas the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month, whereas Victoria, Texas recognizes the benefits derived from Parks and Recreation resources. Now, therefore, I, DeWayne Crocker, Mayor of the City of Victoria, Texas, do hereby proclaim July 2026 as Parks and Recreation Month in Victoria, Texas.

city management, commissioners, and residents. On behalf of the Parks and Recreation team, we would like to sincerely thank you for recognizing Parks and Recreation Month. This recognition means a great deal to our staff who work every day to maintain our parks, facilities, golf course, trails, athletic fields, and community spaces while providing programs and services that enhance the quality of life for everyone in our community. We are grateful for your continued support and investment in parks and recreation. Your partnership allows us to create places where families gather, children play, neighbors connect, and our community thrives. Thank you for recognizing the dedication of our team and for our commitment to making our parks and recreation system a source of pride for our city.

Thank you, Mr. Hubei. And again, great job to you and your team for the July 4th festivities. Really well done. Mr. Garza, any other public and employee recognitions? No, sir. Okay. Do we have any items from council this evening? Seeing none. Okay. We'll move right along then and we'll jump into citizens communication. I have three cards this evening. And just as a reminder, if you would please limit your comments to three minutes and we'll begin with James Weirden. Good evening. Welcome back.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening. Hats off to the Parks Department. They did a great job. You're right. It's a good parade. This is just a follow-up to the town talk meeting that was held on May 28th. I know the city manager is going to give a report at the end of this meeting, but I still have some questions that I'm going to just pose. I know you all can't answer them, but I'd like you all to think about it. Why is the City of Victoria and VISD exempt from the stormwater fees when they are and will be engaged in major building projects that will include lots of impervious cover? What incentives will they have to reduce runoff? Why are the churches and other nonprofits being asked to divert resources from their mission and programs that help the most vulnerable in Victoria stay afloat? Why are economically challenged owners of trailers and houses built prior to World War II with raised foundations and permeable soil underneath their homes being asked to pay the same fee as those in newer homes and mansions with concrete slabs, pools, and extensive impervious patios? Where is the fairness and equity in that? Why are commercial property owners being asked to pay a fee on top of property taxes that are already being accessed against their impervious cover, including surface parking lots that were built to satisfy city development ordinances? Why is this council wanting to impose an additional burden on business owners who are struggling to maintain occupancies and keep their spaces from being empty? Why is the city willing to risk 20 million per year in property taxes and another 20 million per year in sales taxes on an ordinance that at the meeting was called a Band-Aid on $130 million problem? Why is this city paying a consultant to tell citizens about stormwater fees without appearing to have a grasp of basic stormwater mitigation practices? When is the city going to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to provide for sustainability and new development that reflects the Texas General Land Office's guidance for sustainable stormwater drainage on the Texas coast? When is the city going to attempt to educate our citizens on how to help reduce stormwater runoff? And finally, When is the city going to realize that the city of Victoria citizens are struggling with ever rising food, fuel, and housing costs that limit their ability to fund a stormwater runoff program that doesn't solve the problem, but it just takes more money from their already pinched pockets. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Weirden. Next card I have is from Rick Colley.

Welcome back, sir. Thank you. I have somewhat opposing view on that. By the way, I want to thank everybody for the Parks and Recreation, the Lone Tree Hike and Bike Trail. I've benefited from that for many years, and I want to thank you for that. That was something new for Victoria, especially on our side of town, and really, we still appreciate it. It's great. My opinion is on, again, the stormwater use fee. I feel that every entity, organization, person, business, whatever, should pay their fair share for city services that we use. Electricity. water, sewage, garbage pickup, every church, every nonprofit, every, all these good organizations from Midcoast to VCAM. How many, there's hundreds of them. Hope South Texas, just to mention the ones I can think off the top of my head. They are great benefits to the community, but they have facilities that use the storm water, they use, They use the garbage pickup. They use electricity. Every church uses them. If you exempt certain organizations, then you wind up people who don't directly support these beliefs or political beliefs. positions or even some non-profits. Not everyone supports every mission of every non-profit, but if you exempt them from these fees, they're indirectly supporting something that they may not want directly to support. I think every facility should pay their share of water fee, Usage and stormwater runoff should not be in exemptions. I understand the the math and the accounting of the school district the city Not being it's your double dipping. You're taxing yourself. That seems kind of odd to me I don't think I think they should be exempt personally the school and the city facilities But religious organizations, I think no they use them. They have supporters believe me they have money and to support their facilities, and they should support their facilities. I just think that's the right thing to do. That's my opinion on that. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Conlon. And then the final card I have is Michael Vonderhaar.

Welcome back, Mr. Ronald. I'm Michael Vondro. I live at 2107 North Bend, Jordan. I just want to complain about the personal injury lawyer in Houston on the way he's running the trailer park at Victoria Oaks. There's this really big branch that's broken, and it's about this big. And he's not taking care of it. He's turned a blind eye. And the trailer park manager, trailer number six, the Hernandez family is right underneath it. Is he trying to kill the manager? You know, what the heck's going on? And there was a really big water leak. And lucky Rick Madrid was there to see it. And I don't want people's water bill going to $850 a month because of it. And he's also got a big water meter that's like up right here. It's a tripping hazard. And he still hasn't taken care of his branches that's going across the sidewalk and into the roads. And he still has a mailbox that's not fixed. And I understand, you know, when you have $120 worth $120 million worth of investments, it's more cost-effective just to pay a $500 fine from code enforcement and just not take care of it. I understand that, but if he don't, like... take care of it you know based upon what code enforcement uh... does you know the only recourse is to sue him and the city of victoria has had to take him to court twice because he wouldn't listen uh... to code enforcement they had to get the legal team on him and on one court case he didn't even show up for court you know you would think uh... a distinguished personal injury lawyer with twenty years of experience You know, would find a way to come to court, you know, and I realize, you know, he does pray that zoom stuff and all that, but they wanted him to come to court in person and he owns 17 trailer parks, you know. And I hope he don't keep track of the other 16 like he does at Victoria Oaks. And if you say something, you might get evicted. And on one person, a big branch damaged his truck, and he still wouldn't, like, give him no money or anything. anything like that, but he's doing a very poor job, and I would like him to take care of that branch. It's about to fall, you know, on the trailer park manager's home. It's trailer number six, and he still has done nothing. He's done a very poor job. Thanks, and have a good evening.

Thank you, Mr. Bondura. All right, that is all the cards I had for this evening, so we'll close out citizens' communication. We'll move on to items with public hearings. We have two separate items this evening, and we'll start with item C1.

C1, an ordinance amending chapter 24, section 22 of City of Victoria Code of Ordinances to remove the mobile food unit fee administered by the Public Health Department on first reading.

Good evening, Ms. Lacey.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I don't have a presentation this evening. This is really a housekeeping matter. As of July 1st of this year, the County Health Department is no longer allowed to charge the $200 permit fee that it previously did for mobile food units, food trucks. That was a fee that was in our code that was passed through the city to the Health Department And so I brought David Gonzalez here with me this evening If you have any questions about what the process will be moving forward when it comes to permitting and inspecting mobile food units But this is just simply removing that that $200 from our code section. And if you have any questions for mr. Gonzalez, let me know Anybody have any questions?

And they're just trying to comply with state law.

Absolutely. And just so that you know, this is not a revenue loss for the city. That entire $200 did go to the, to the county health department. And so it's no loss to us.

Okay. How much money was that a year for you?

Total revenue for us probably was somewhere just below $100,000 a year.

We're still gonna get revenue through the state contract. So we're basically gonna be subcontractors to the state performing those inspections.

Thank you. Got it. Thank you for being here. We appreciate it. Any other questions? No? Okay, well then I will open up the public hearing on item C1. If there's anyone who wishes to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing on item C1 and entertain any motions with respect to the proposed ordinance.

Motion to approve to item C1.

Second. I've got a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And C1 passes on first reading. Thank you again for being here.

Appreciate it.

All right, we'll move on then to item C2.

C2, an ordinance approaching an amendment with the FY 2025-26 budget in the amount of $2,144,921.73 for the purchase of two automated side load trucks, the mowing of city-owned properties and professional service agreement for collective bargaining negotiations on first reading.

Good evening, welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm not Wesley. I'm Laura.

You were pressed into service this evening.

Yes. I get to come visit with you all today.

Well, great to see you.

Likewise. The proposed budget amendment that we're bringing forward this evening addresses three operational needs of the current fiscal year. First, $181,734.01 is needed to fund the remainder of the city's drainage mowing contract. Second, 69,750 is needed for specialized services to support the city's collective bargaining process. The fiscal year 26 budget does include 30,000 right now in the general fund. However, the total contract cost was 99,750. Lastly is $946,718.86 is requested to fund the purchase of two side load trucks. Council previously approved the purchase of these two trucks. And due to expected delivery delays, they were included in the preliminary budget that we brought last month. Y'all may recall at that meeting as well, Christy mentioned that the trucks were received early, so this is just moving the funds into this current fiscal year so we can pay the vendor and get those trucks into service. The same amount will be removed to the proposed budget that we bring back to y'all next month, so you'll see that variance. I do want to call into attention, though, although the total appropriation is approximately $2.1 million, the actual net new budget authority is $1.2 million, and this is due to an internal transfer that the city practices always. In this case, we're transferring the $946,000 from the environmental fund into the vehicle and equipment services is where we actually play the vendor out of.

Pretty good. Thank you.

Y'all have any questions?

Any other questions or any questions? I do have a question. Sure. On number two, the negotiation services for collective bargaining that's over about $70,000, that's an ongoing process. So I assume that more funds will be needed as that process goes on. Is that a fair point? That's to be determined? Yeah. OK. This may be it, or there may be some additional funds that are required.

Correct, yeah, we don't know that at this time.

OK. Any other questions? OK. Thank you so much. All right, thank you. With that, then, I will open up the public hearing on item C2. If there's anyone wishing to speak to council on this matter, please come forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing on item C2 and entertain any motions with respect to say.

Move to approve item C2.

Second. All right. I've got a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? I'm glad to get these vehicles in service. It's a good problem to have that they get here early. That's kind of a pleasant surprise. So I'm glad we could adjust for it.

All right.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And C2 passes on first read. All right. We'll jump into section D, which is our consent agenda. Ms. West.

D1, adoption of minutes of the regular meeting held on June 16th, 2026, and the special work session held on June 26th, 2026. D2, a resolution appointing a member to the Food Establishment Appeals Board. D3, a resolution approving a group critical interlocal agreement with Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool. D4, a resolution approving the payment to Texas Department of Transportation for median improvements on North Navarro in accordance with the Advanced Funding Agreement, CSJ037005-052, in the amount of $168,830, 27 cents. D5, a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a real estate listing agreement with Griffin Realty Advisors LLC for 601 West Church Street. D6, a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a real estate listing agreement with Griffin Realty Advisors LLC for 1506 Southwest Ben Jordan Street.

Thank you, Ms. West. Do I have a motion on the consent agenda? Motion to approve consent agenda as read by Senator West. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the consent agenda passes. So we'll jump to our action items for council. We have three this evening. We'll begin with item E1.

E1, approve a corporation agreement with the Victoria Housing Authority for payment in lieu of taxes, pilot project.

All right, good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm not Gilbert Reyna. either. Yeah, exactly.

Nobody wants to be in the finance department.

Yeah. Something must be going on. But in any case, I'm going to ask Tammy to kind of delve into the details of this item. But you may recall that she presented a repositioning plan to you earlier this year. And so this is just the follow up to that conversation. And so if you wouldn't mind providing an update on where you are in that process in addition to speaking to what this is. Good evening. Welcome back.

Thank you. Thank you for having me. Good evening, Mayor and members of Council. This was last minute. I found out yesterday afternoon that Gilbert was not going to be here, so I kind of threw something together quick. So as previously mentioned by City Manager Jesus, we're in the process of repositioning. We are getting ready to just get our financials together so that we can close those at the end of the year. We're starting to submit applications to HUD for disposition of our properties and also for the low income housing tax credits and bonds. So that's where we're at in the process. So we're moving along with that nicely. In research of this, we had to, develop a public facilities corporation to be able to issue our own bonds, right? And one of the things is the pilot. So I reached out to Mr. Reyna and said, hey, Gilbert, do you have the most recent pilot? And he's like, nope, 1973. So we have a pilot from 1973 that was approved in March, for the housing authority to pay taxes, payment in lieu of taxes of $2,551. Because our properties, let me see if I can see here, were exempt from taxes, right? So in order, HUD requires us to make an agreement with the city to pay a payment in lieu of taxes so that you're not losing out on the property taxes because the housing authorities are exempt, right? So in 1973, 53 years ago, it was... established at $2,551 a year for 92 units. Those were the units that we built in 1953 and 1956. That's Crestwood, Anna Blackley, and the Griffith Terrace Apartments. I know for the last 10 years, we've been paying much more than that. HUD's formula is 10% of shelter rent, and shelter rent is rent collected minus utilities, and then we pay 10% of that. Last year it was, for 2025, it was $30,552, I think, is what we pay in payment of Louisville taxes. So in order for us to do our public facilities corporation, and also in order for us to apply for low-income housing tax credits, we have to have a pilot in place, and we need to update it because it's very outdated. We have 321 units that we're paying payments on and not the 92. So that's really what we're trying to do is establish that, get a good working relationship. Now we'll have it as a formula-based pilot instead of a structured, like a set amount. That way we don't have to update it every year as things change.

Gotcha. And just to clarify, so this is not something that the city has imposed. This is something that HUD imposes on you guys to reach this agreement. It's part of your requirements to qualify for funds.

Right. It's HUD's requirement to protect the cities from losing property rental tax or property tax from places that are tax exempt. You know, we want to be able to help pay for fire and safety and things of that nature as an organization. And just because we're tax exempt doesn't mean that we shouldn't shouldn't participate. So that's HUD's, HUD's way of making that happen.

Gotcha. All right. Thank you. Other questions? No. Okay. Thank you very much for being here last minute.

Thank you.

Gilbert owes you lunch or something. All right. Well with that then I will entertain any motions on respect to item you want.

Motion to approve item E1.

Second. Got a motion a second on E1. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And E1 passes, all right. Ms. West, we'll move on to item E2.

E2, authorization of application to the Texas Water Development Board's Water Supply and Infrastructure Grant, WSIG program for the project to interconnect the city's off-channel reservoir ponds to improve access to city's water supply, an estimated amount of $12,640,100.

Ms. Connelly, welcome.

Yes, sir. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm here to talk to you tonight about our application. We're preparing to submit to the Texas Water Development Board to their water supply and infrastructure grants. The water supply and infrastructure grant is new, and it just came up in the 89th legislative session. Actually, I think it's a little over a billion dollars that's going to be included. This is one-time grant funding. As you probably know, the Texas Water Development Board usually provides financial support in the form of loans. They don't usually grant funds. And the other thing that's special about this funding is that it's at 100%. It's not a new program they're establishing. This is a one-time thing. And the applications are due, which means, of course, that it's gonna be incredibly competitive. The applications are due by the end of the month, and we're working, we're in progress on it now, which is why we're bringing this to you now so that we get your authorization to apply. The city falls within the surface area population tier, which has a cap of 21 million and a total statewide allocation of 142 million. It sounds like a lot, but it's probably gonna go fast. So the project we've selected to get funded is the one that's at the top of the list on the water feasibility study And I know you guys have heard a lot about it over the years We have a lot of water Held in these ponds these 11 ponds. It's not very accessible is part of the problem There's a certain amount of water we can take but we lose some it not being able to access it quickly When there's a lot of rainfall in the river so the project will interconnect these ponds, several of these ponds, and I'll go into that in a second, so that we don't have to send out a temporary portable pumping equipment, and I picked this photo because this is what we mean by portable. You can see it's not terribly, which is why we want to put in a permanent interconnection so that we have the ability to pump this water out when it's available immediately. And so, We're going to, it's in two phases, which the application is for both of these construction phases, which is connecting pond four to five, six, and seven, and then pond two, three, four, and eight. What this will do is it'll allow us to pump water into all the reservoirs simultaneously. We can balance the water, we can pump it out, we can store it, we can do what we need to do with it when it's available. From the river, whether it's rainfall here or upriver in the waters, there's just more water in the river. And the reason why we need this is because right now our raw water storage there is about 770 acre feet, and we're going to increase that by 2,000 acre feet. That's a huge amount of water. And without doing that, this water ends up getting lost downstream. So we'll be able to fully utilize our existing permitted water storage. It's not creating new water, it's just making it available for our access. So we're gonna request $12 million for phase one and two construction activities. There's no cost share required. Usually you have to commit to that. We're not committing to cost share, but we are going to pay for all of the engineering that's budgeted in fiscal year 27. That does a couple of things. Number one, we're starting on that already. And number two, it makes it a little bit more competitive for us because we're obviously interested in investing in this. In fact, we're so interested if this isn't funded, it will end up being incorporated into future budgets. CCM Advisors is helping develop the application. According to their Texas Water Development Board's timeline, awards will be announced starting in the fall of 2026. And I want to ask if you have any questions.

Any questions?

I just want to briefly, I'm sorry.

I was going to say, is it possible that we could ask for the $12 million and they could award some portion of that? Or is it an all or nothing proposition?

I didn't see anything that specifically spoke to that. And because this is new, there's no precedent. It's always possible. I really couldn't tell you if this had been established and that had happened before, I would say, oh, absolutely. A lot of times in grant applications, they will ask you if this whole amount isn't funded, can you still do the project? And I have not seen that question asked. So that may imply something. It may not. I don't want to make any guarantees. But like I said, because this is brand new funding and it's not meant to continue, I can't really say for sure.

Fair enough. Thank you.

I was just going to add, and I'm sorry if you said this and I missed it, but our fiscal year 27 budget does have an allotment for the design for this project. And so to Katie's point, if we do not receive the grant, we would be looking at incorporating the phases in outer years, but we are not pausing our progress on this project simply because we're applying for this grant. So I just wanna make that point clear that awaiting a response for this grant's not holding up proceeding with this project. And that's because we were budgeting separately the design in the budget.

No, good point.

That's really important. And the other thing that I want to say about it is this is state-sourced funding. This isn't coming from the federal government. So a lot of what we're used to in terms of federal requirement aren't going to be part of this. That doesn't mean there won't be any requirements, but they'll be different.

There's always hoops. These are just state hoops, not federal hoops, right? Of course. I get it.

Well, I mean, obviously permitting TCEQs involved, there's a lot of regulatory, but it's coming from the state, not the federal government.

Got it. Any other questions? With that then, do I have a motion with respect to item E2, approving the grant application? I move we adopt E2. Second. I've got a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? I think this is a project that we've been talking about for several years. It's part of our feasibility study, one that we intend to undertake. And so if we can get some help with that, all the better. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Any opposed? And E2 is approved.

All right. We will jump then to item E3. Ms. West.

E3, consider a variance for the applicant at 3407 North Vine Street for the proposed on-site sewage facility.

Mr. Rodriguez, good evening. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Excuse me. Just want to go ahead and present a variance request for the onsite sewage facility at 3407 North Vine Street. The requested variance is the applicant has requested approval to install an onsite sewage facility, often referred to as a septic tank, at the location at 3407 North Vine Street. And the reason for review is because the property is within the city limits and within the mandatory sewer connection area. The request requires review against city requirements for sanitary sewer connection. Of course, on the map right there to your right, you'll see in green where the sewer line is located and the address, 3407, of course, is going to be in gray on the top.

On the top left.

The city reviewed the submitted site evaluation, permit application, and variance request in accordance with applicable municipal requirements. The location, the property is located within city limits and falls within the mandatory sewer connection area. The sewer availability, municipal sanitary sewer is available to serve the property. And the code requirement, the city code prohibits private sewage disposal systems when public sanitary sewer facilities are available and adjacent to the property. Now, one thing to point out is that staff found no qualifying hardship because sewer is available to the property. The basis for our recommendation, our municipal code section 10 115 specifically prohibits the construction or maintenance of a private sewage disposal system when public sanitary sewer facilities are available and adjacent to the property. as this case is. Access, city records indicate the property line is approximately 42 feet from the existing public sewer main and a private sewer service connection could be installed at a maximum length, I'm sorry, at minimum length, approximately 64 feet when accounting for the required front setback and main location. Just to point out too, we've also went ahead and turned down and denied similar requests from neighboring properties in this area. And the public health, this is also deemed as a mandatory connection to where this isn't the best idea for us because we're trying to always maintain and keep in mind of the public's health because a septic system in this case does need maintenance, requires maintenance. We want to go ahead and prevent any type of discharge. We want to make sure that it's chlorinated, everything else to make sure that we're not causing an issue with our water quality. In conclusion, any additional private service in Lyme is a self-imposed hardship and not a basis for variance approval. So with that, because municipal sanitary service is available and adjacent to the property, staff recommends denial of the request to install an on-site sewage facility at 3407 North Vine Street.

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Any questions?

I have a question. Are there other properties that have both the septic system and access to water, specifically on the north side of town?

I don't believe so. When it comes to this ordinance, the only time it usually is granted is when they have those hardships to where they don't have access to a water well or a septic tank.

So in the North Crest area, there's no homes that have both a septic and access to water?

I believe not.

Just to clarify, Councilman Butler, are you asking are there any homes on the north side that have applied for and been given a variance for a septic or ones that have existing septic from years past? Have applied for and been given a variance.

And not to my recollection, but I can go ahead and make sure and get back with you.

There's only been two variances granted for septic tanks since 2020 that we could find. One of which was out, I believe it was 59, and there was no access to any other sort of sewer at that property location.

It was like going towards Telfner.

Yeah. And then there was one other one, and maybe Greg can remember where it was, but it also did not have any access to city sewer and water at that property either.

And there probably are, and there, I'm sorry. I was gonna say, historically speaking, there would obviously be some properties that historically were on septic and then our utilities came in after the fact. I'm sorry.

What is the distance from the sewer line connection to the actual septic tank? How many feet?

From the residence to the sanitary sewer?

from where the sewer, the septic tank wants to be installed to the sewer line or the house, I guess the house.

Yeah, before you answer that question, let me clarify. So the way that our code is written is based off of access, which is defined via property line is my understanding. So if the sewer line is within a certain distance of the property line, not exactly where it might be located on the property. that's a trigger aspect of it. And so I just wanna make sure that that's clear, that the way that our code is written is based off of accessibility, which is measured based off of the property line, not so much based off of exactly where it might be placed. Because those could be two different things, but anyway.

42 feet is going to be from the property line to the sewer service main. But in this case, from the house to the property line, I mean to the sewer service main would be 763 feet.

Any other questions for Greg? Sir, are you the property owner? Oh, great. Welcome. I would... like for you to give some comments who would like to hear from you. I had one more question. Oh, I'm sorry, Gary. I apologize. Go ahead.

Is there an elevation different from the sewer line to the property?

No, sir.

There's no elevation at all?

No, no, sir.

When I went to look at it, it looked like there was. It looked like the house was a lot lower.

we didn't see a gradual big increase. Everything else should be, because in this case, we also did make recommendations to go ahead and look at other means that would be more cost effective to still tie onto the sanitary sewer service. And in this case, there was nothing that was gonna be major on our side. Am I correct on that, Julie?

Yes. This the sewer main in the right-of-way, of course is a public sewer main so they would have to connect a private Sewer service which of course has to meet the plumbing code That sewer main of course is buried very deeply in Vine Street And so it could be gravity-fed and even if there's a little bit of a elevation just by the eye there is enough fall because that sewer main is built so deeply and And then again, this is a proposed house that's currently under construction that was permitted with the plan with by with the plumber pulling the permit to Have a plan of installing an actual sewer service line to connect to the main Sir go welcome

And is it Mr. Elliott?

Yes.

OK, very good.

Yeah, let me just read the prepared statement. And if you guys have any questions, feel free to stop me during or wait till after. So good afternoon. I appreciate the time here. My name is Jason Elliott. I've been a resident of Victoria for most of my life, born and raised here, mostly in Victoria. My wife and I have raised three children here and our family's been in the area for multiple generations. This land has been in my family for multiple generations. The land was annexed into the city in the late 80s and has been utilized since then for agricultural purposes. The total land amount is just over 58 continuous acres. So it's not, that 58 is not split up anywhere. The reason I'm here today is to ask for the council to grant a variance that will allow me to install a small aerobic septic system. The city denied my request. You saw the reasons there, so I'm not gonna read those. So prior to selecting this home site, I had several conversations with city engineers regarding the use of a septic system. I was told by a city engineer that a septic system could be utilized and all I needed to do was file a variance request. He also laid out the option for the lift station to pump it back to the city's main and told me that at the end of the day, it is more of a cost exercise to understand which option would be cheaper. This conversation led me to believe that granting the variance would be an easy endeavor on my part. So we selected the home site that was more private and farther away from Vine Street. I now understand that the variance process is anything but what he described. Had I understood the process would not be as easily approved as I was led to believe, I would have started the process even sooner than the home started to be built. Now that the home's about 75% complete, I have no choice but to see this through. So I understand that the city code stipulates that if sanitary sewer connections are available and adjacent to the property, they must be used. But the codes are written for residential homes that have a much, much smaller footprint from a land perspective. I also understand that my hardship in this matter was created by the selection of the home site. Again, I probably would have made a different decision had I understood this process would be denied by the city staff. So I'm asking you to look outside of the black and white box that the ordinance is written within and look at the case as something that does not fit the normal home build. There are several hardships that tying into the city's main will create for me in the future. This limits the agricultural use of my land, it increases the chances of major maintenance expenses, and it increases the cost of the home build significantly. I'll get to that later. So in the near future, I was planning to plant a small two to four acre vineyard in the area that the septic line would need to travel back to the city main. So if the line becomes clogged or leaks, it needs to be dug up to make repairs, a portion of that vineyard would also need to be removed at that time. So if I'm forced to install 800 feet of septic pipe to tie back into the city, I would need to install cleanouts every 50 to 100 feet. Protecting those cleanouts from cattle and heavy equipment is also an additional cost and can be very difficult if any of you know how cattle are. So there is a potential for higher maintenance costs over the course of time. The lift station will need to be equipped with a chopper pump and have the ability to pump slightly uphill for the first 150 feet, as you saw. Then flow to the city main. That means I would need to have a backflow prevention method to keep material from flowing back into the lift station tank. That also means that 150 feet of sewer line would remain full all the time and solids would begin to collect and solidify in that section of line. I have the same concern about solids traveling the remaining 650 feet to the city main as well. Lastly, there's a significant increase in cost of my home if I'm unable to install a septic system. Septic system I've quoted I've had quoted will cost about $12,000 I Received quotes that reflect four times as much for what the city has has proposed So a study that is completed every five years by the National Association of Home Builders, sites that regulations imposed on new home builds account for $131,734 out of a roughly $500,000 home build. The study doesn't cite that all regulations are bad and that's not what I'm getting at either. But I'm saying that not all builds fit into the box that ordinances were designed for. So before I close, I hope you had a chance to review the packet that I sent you on 6-10-26 that contained my request for this variance. Inside of that was a letter from a licensed plumber outlining his concerns. There were other plumbers who shared the same recommendations but did not want to attach their names to the letter due to the fear of being retaliated against. I was supposed to have one of those plumbers here with me today, but like all plumbing emergency, or like all plumbing issues, everything is an emergency and so that's where he is today. So in closing, I wanna ask you again that you consider this request as a unique case and something that does not fit into the normal ordinance code. My home is being built on 58 acres that I have no intention of doing anything other than continuing to raise my cattle, grow some wine grapes, and hopefully retire in a few years. So thank you for your time today and consideration in this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Elliott. Any questions?

Good questions. I don't know if there are a few or just general questions.

Can you speak into the microphone please? Is this microphone on? I can barely hear. Okay.

Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yeah. When the gentleman went to build his house, did he have to get permits? Yes.

Yes.

And was it discussed, the sewer, when he was given the permit?

I would have to turn it to Julie to address this.

Yes. When his contractor came and applied for the permit, he was told at that time that a septic system would not be allowed. The contractor was very vocal with our permit techs. And in fact, Rick was in the office and interrupted and said, no septics aren't allowed and actually helped kind of discuss the different options on how, because you know the building code, the ICC codes are kind of a choose your own adventure sort of book. There's many different ways to achieve compliance. So this set of having to connect to the sanitary sewers also in the IRC and then of course we prohibit the septic tanks through the utility code. And so all of that was discussed at that time, and the permit was not issued that day until subsequently later a plumber came in, submitted the full application of how the plumbing would work to connect that sewer service, and then that's when the permit was issued.

Let me ask the gentleman. Did the person that was gonna build your house convey this to you?

He did but like I like I stated kind of at the beginning when I talked to the city engineers before picking a home spot Because there there are places to build that are closer there and and I also had an option to build out of town as well but we did want to be in town, but when I I when I came to the understanding or the false understanding that the variance process was gonna be easy and this would get approved, he didn't so much say that it was gonna get approved, but what he led me to believe was that it was as simple as filing some paperwork and paying for variance. So I took the wrong chance.

When was that conversation?

It was over a year ago.

Any other questions?

In case you're wondering, we were unable to confirm on our side which engineer in our office would have conveyed that message. We obviously asked around. We also asked our retired city engineer and we couldn't confirm that that conversation had taken place from one of our staff members.

Was the conversation with the engineer before or after the permit was pulled?

WAY BEFORE. IT WAS BEFORE I EVER SELECTED THAT AS THE HOME SITE.

OKAY. AND THEN THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND YOU WERE TOLD AT THAT TIME THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED?

YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES.

I NEED TO CLARIFY HOW WE VOTE ON THIS BECAUSE If we vote for it, we're voting for the variance. And if we vote against it, we're denying the variance. Am I correct?

I believe that's correct. Ms. Lacey.

Can you speak a little bit louder? Mr. Lofgren, we can't hear you back here.

Well, the question was, he wants to clarify the vote.

They gave me a broken microphone. I'm sorry.

The agenda item is consider a variance. So a vote yes would be in favor of the variance and a vote no would be against the variance.

Well, I think that depends on what the motion is. If the motion is to grant the variance or the motion is to deny the variance. Those are your two options.

Got it. Any other questions? All right. Can I get a motion on the floor on this item? I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance. OK. I've got a motion for approval. Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

I've got a motion and a second. OK. Discussion? Anybody have anything? So go ahead, Jane.

I just have a lot of problem with approving this. We don't have Situations in town where this has been approved And it is a large tract that in this short term is going to be used in this particular way But it's a large tract that would then have a septic system and we'd be faced with More more of the same from this property as well as setting precedent. I I have a lot of problem with granting this I

I do not. I know that there are reasons and hardships in regards to reasons for variances to pass. I feel that most of these are self-imposed and I have a difficult time seeing the necessity in this regard.

I think there's a couple of things here that stand out to me, you know, and primarily, well, a couple of things. One is you spoke of precedent. I mean, These similar variances have been applied for in the same neighborhood previously and had been denied. Obviously, that's one precedent, and I understand that every factual circumstance is different and every situation can be different. I understand this gentleman had a certain misconception based upon a conversation. However, I feel like that misconception was cleared up by city staff after that from the standpoint that the contractor, who was this gentleman's agent there seeking the permit, was clearly told, you have to tie into city sewer. Apparently, there was some sort of dispute discussion about that and that doesn't make any difference. I mean, but that was relayed. Mr. Elliott said that he, that that information was relayed to him by the contractor. And then when the permit was actually issued, it showed that the house would be tied to the sewer. And so at that point, you know, it seems to me that whatever misconception that there may have been previously was resolved as part of the permitting process by later discussions by not only the contractor, but also the plumber. Because the plumber's the one that put in the plat or design or whatever it was that tied it into the sewer. All of that would have happened before the home site was picked, in my mind. You can't start building until you have that permit done. I feel like that there was opportunity, based on what I know, there was opportunity for the homeowner to make a different decision in the midst of this process. And for whatever reason, and reasons known to him, he chose not to. But I don't know that that choice is supportive or enough to grant a variance in the face of similar requested variances that have been denied in the past based on clearly what our rules say. So that's my position on it.

I agree with you, Dr. Young, that some are self-imposed.

How many variances, that's a really good point. Can you speak into the mic?

How many variances come across for this particular type of situation?

Well, as Allison mentioned, we can only track down two in the last six years that we know of.

Two requests? Just going off institutional knowledge, not any factual data in front of me, since my tenure here in 2014, we've probably approved a total of five. And as far as requests, maybe 10. Because we tell applicants all the time in the very beginning, absolutely no it you know the code is that you must tie in and generally a lot of the and historically a lot of their requests have come really more at Ken our engineer being like okay this this actually is a hardship it doesn't make sense and and more of a proactive on the staff side than an actual Cold hard application coming in saying I'd like for a variance is typically how that system works But the numbers are very very very low and always happen.

Thank you for explaining that that's helpful.

Thanks, Julie Other discussion or questions No, sir Any other discussions or questions at this point, all right So we have a motion to approve the variance that's been seconded. So I'll call for the vote. All in favor of approval of this variance, please say aye. Aye. Can we do a roll call vote? We can. Aye. Mr. Kitter? No.

Aye.

Ms. Scott? No. No.

No.

And I'll vote no. So do we also need a motion to deny the variance, or is a non-approval enough?

Do you would need a separate motion to since that's that motion failed we'll need a separate motion in the opposite direction That's what I assumed, but I wanted to double-check.

Do I have a motion to deny the variance?

I move that we deny the variance a second.

I've got a motion in a second any discussion on this motion All right all in favor of denial roll call vote Mr. Del Garza, so we're voting on how again I We're voting to deny the requested variance. The motion is to deny. OK. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. And I vote aye. So the motion's to deny passes. All right. And I believe that then concludes our action items for the evening. And we will move on to city manager reports. Mr. Garza.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I wanted to take a minute to follow up on the development of, excuse me, the proposed stormwater drainage project and initiative and associated fee. As was mentioned earlier, we did hold a town hall a few weeks ago and so we wanted to follow up with some options for you to consider in light of the feedback that we received at that town hall and have received through phone calls and other meetings that we have had an opportunity to present the topic in. This is just a quick refresher on the total ERUs that we have as part of the project and that we have in our community, that it's under what we're proposing, we're basically suggesting bringing in about $2.6 million. This does account for exemptions to the school district, the city of Victoria, and the county, as well as higher educational programs. institutions in the state. Recall that the state law associated with this is very specific with exemptions that have to be applied, and so those would apply to, for example, the state-owned facilities, higher educational facilities, and then there's some discretionary ones which are more applicable to city, county, and school district. The state law also allows an opportunity for exemption of religious institutions, which I'll get into that in a minute, but I want to bring that up as a reminder because the state law does not allow an opportunity for local jurisdictions to just create their own category of exemptions. And so I want to make that very clear. This slide also points out what we have estimated to be our expenses for the next five years. And so you could see that that starts off at about $2.4 million and eventually goes up to 2.7. We obviously want to build up a little bit of a fund so that we have some money for emergencies or other things that come up. The purpose of today's presentation isn't to rehash the specifics of that, but it's more so to get into the feedback that we've gotten and presenting some options for you. And so what were some of the key takeaways? Why move existing costs to the new program? As we have described and explained in previous presentations, we currently have about half a million dollars that gets spent on stormwater drainage-related initiatives. And so the goal is to transfer those expenditures to the new stormwater utility so that it could, in theory, free up some funds and the general fund mainly. I think it's important to note too that when we adopted the fiscal year 26 pay program, one of the factors that was contemplated into that was freeing up that half a million dollars so that we could afford that recurring historic pay program that went into effect October 1st, 2025. One of the other assumptions that was also made and shared with you was also maxing out our property tax revenue for fiscal year 26, that didn't happen as well. And so I think it's important to bring that context into the fold because it's very relevant to the conversation moving forward in that making this transfer of these funds over to the stormwater utility was to assist with the ongoing recurring expense of the pay program, which predominantly benefited our first responders. Another question or issue that came up was, will the city consider exempting religious institutions? I mentioned to the individuals in attendance that that wasn't a robust conversation that had ever taken place, and so I committed to bringing that up for discussion, which I will here in a few slides, because I do think that's an important topic to gain some clarity on. There was of course some concern about the affordability and the fairness of the five dollar fee and you heard From a constituent earlier on on this topic as well And there was also some feedback around starting the program on January 1st many of the commercial businesses that would be that would be Impacted budgetarily by this new program run on calendar year budgets. I don't know why I don't understand why not everybody runs on an October 1st fiscal year because it just makes total sense for me to do it that way. This New Year's Day is not in October. I understand that some think January 1st makes more sense. We wanted to follow up on these topics with you this evening. And so I want to start off by just sharing some options for you and at the end of the day Regardless of the direction that that you provide will adjust our expenditures accordingly or adjust our revenues accordingly. And so I would just convey to you to let me be the one to figure that out. Let staff be the ones to figure that out. I think what's most important is just to gain some sense of direction from you and then give us as staff the opportunity to figure out how we might be able to make that work. That way we avoid getting into some of the weeds of the projects that we're proposing or into the weeds of some of the projects or initiatives that we're looking to transfer to this fund. And so just keep that in mind as I run through these options. And so currently, as I mentioned earlier, the current program is estimated to bring in about $2.6 million. And that of course is inclusive of the $5 flat residential fee across the board, as well as of course that $5 fee being applicable to non-residential. One of the things that we learned through the town hall was needing to be more consistent with the non-residential terminology, as it was brought to our attention that utilizing a blanket overarching term of commercial was not an adequate description that described all of the entities that would fall under this category. Moving forward, we want to be more intentional with using the terms residential, non-residential. Non-residential includes commercial, it includes churches in this instance, non-profit organizations, and any other type of ownership group that is non-residential. And so basically it's what it is now. The preliminary budget that was presented last week is inclusive of this. And so I just want to also make that point clear. But again, we can adjust and give us the opportunity to do that. Could I? I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. So what would a fourplex or an eightplex be considered?

So the way that we designed is that if you have the four units or less, you're considered residential, so that's the flat five. So any multifamily complex above those four units would be considered the non-residential rate. Okay. The non-single residential rate. Non-single, okay. I guess I have to change it again. Yeah.

Because that's going to lead to some problems.

I understand.

Yeah.

OK. So as it relates to exemptions, that's the first topic that I want to bring up for conversation is the exempting of the religious institutions. Very briefly, back when Matthew had first presented the concept, he suggested that some communities also consider doing 50% exemptions as opposed to full. And so what I want to present to you is what it would look like if we did a 50% exemption to religious institutions and also doing a 100% exemptions to religious institutions. Now, what is a religious institution? And so the way that we've chosen to interpret what is a religious institution is by leaning into what the appraisal district has as religious institution. That administratively would make it way easier on us to very easily determine what property would be exempted under our program. So I want to make that clear. We're not coming up with our own definition of what is a religious institution or our own criteria or anything else. We would be solely dependent or rely on the appraisal district. And so the way that we calculated this decrease in revenue was looking at all of the religious exempted properties that CAD had. And our GIS team did an excellent job in pulling that data. And so you could see how doing a full exemption would decrease our revenues by $105,000 or doing a 50% exemption would decrease our revenues by $52,000.

Another question.

Yes, ma'am.

I don't know how CAD identifies them. Would this be the... Worship area or would this be anything at all? That's owned by religious great question.

So the the way that we've figured just based off of reviewing the data with cat and having conversations with cat is that it applies to three main components the actual sanctuary or church a school and a parish center slash activity center Okay, so if they

had other properties that they owned, a parish, for example. Well, a parish would fall under the... Like a parsonage, I'm sorry. A place where the pastor lives. I'm just coming up.

Yeah, I mean, I would defer to how they have it set up with CAT.

Well, I think you've just kind of given me the information I was looking for with the three things that it considers...

Right. That's what we were told by CAD. That's how they globally summarize the uses that qualify for that exemption. We have also discussed internally that there might be a situation, assuming we follow through with an exemption, where maybe somebody, a religious institution or entity, you know, comes to us, they have a religious nonprofit status, right? They own a piece of property, have some kind of structure on it, and they're seeking an exemption to the stormwater utility, but don't have that exemption with the CAD, our position would be go get it. And if they qualify for that religious exemption with the CAD then we will exempt them on our part as well we do not want to get into the Administrative process of being the ones to determine what defines what qualifies what doesn't so it's much just much easier administratively to put the onus on the appraisal district and put the onus on that particular religious nonprofit to figure it out with cat

Thank you, I appreciate that thought also.

Yeah, absolutely. Appreciate the questions and the opportunities to clarify and expand on that.

I have a quick question on this slide. On the bottom you have the letter A, it looks like a footnote, says current exemption agencies, VISD, COV, county, higher education, state. So is that an exemption to tax or exemption to a fee, an imposed fee by the city?

The exemptions that we're referring to that are labeled there in blue have to do with the exemptions that we have already applied towards the program. And so... There isn't a line item for this, but the way that it works is that we take all of the ERUs and we remove the ERUs that are associated with city-owned properties, county-owned facilities or properties, school district, state, higher ed. We're referring to being exempted from paying the stormwater fee. You heard some opinions earlier about whether that's a good idea or not.

That's in relation to a fee, not a tax.

Correct, but they're tax exempt.

Anyway, it's a separate concept though. Correct. Okay. Yeah, it's a separate concept.

Right. And so in this description, you'll notice that the terminology that we're using is current exempt agencies, not current tax exempt agencies, because we're referring to simply agencies that we're exempting from the fee.

And that's by state law.

There are mandatory exemptions which the state-owned properties and higher education properties fall under required exemptions that we have no control over. Then there are discretionary exemptions where the city, county, school district would fall under discretionary exemption as well as religious institutions.

That one's up for discussion.

That last one. Yeah, I mean, I can run through the rest. I mean, up to... No, go on. Okay, okay. Yeah, it might help to kind of just see the bigger picture too. But anyway, one of the main feedbacks that we've... Feedback that we've gotten, of course, is on the value of the fee as a whole. And so we wanted to run some numbers on what it would look like if we just decreased the fee from $5 to $4. And so you could see how if we... left it as the way the program is designed now, and simply lowered it to $4, we would see a decrease of $531,000. If we end up exempting religious institutions in addition to dropping the fee, you could see how that impact eventually grows to $614,000. Now one of the things that we have been saying from the beginning is that the average impervious cover is about 3,200 square feet and that's what we have used for the formula that calculates a non-residential fee. We take all of the impervious cover from that particular non-residential property and we multiply it or divide it by that 3,200 to get a sense for what that fee is. And so because of that, We wanted to also show what it would look like if we reconsidered a tiered residential structure. You may recall that Council Member De La Garza had brought forward a concept to establish residential tiers. That was also something that came up. And so what we're basically suggesting here is that under this approach, your base tier would still be $5, meaning your non-residential properties would still be calculated utilizing the $5. But if your particular property or house or impervious cover is less than the 3,200 square feet, you would fall under a discounted tier which would drop it to $4 and would sort of help address the concern that some have about treating all properties, residential properties the same. When we presented this concept at the request of Council Member De La Garza, we actually used 4,000 square feet as that dividing point, but we felt it was more appropriate to use 3,200 in this instance since it's a figure that we've used on multiple occasions and is the figure that we're using to calculate the non-residential properties. It just made more sense to be consistent with that. Now, you'll see that by taking this approach, you can see the impact. If we did not exempt religious institutions, we would see a más o menos decrease of $188,000. And if we did exempt religious institutions, at 100%, you would get to más o menos $293,000. And I'm using más o menos very intentionally because... these figures are taking certain assumptions into account. When we hired the consultant to develop this study, the scope of that project was to develop a program that had a flat rate for residential. So there would have to be a level of work put into the program to go and evaluate which properties would fall under $3,200 versus not specifically. Because again, originally it was just intended to be a flat, so there was no need to have staff or a consultant go into the details of every single property to determine is it under $3,200 or above or whatever the case may be. And so there would be a sense of a certain, it'd be a labor intensive process to undertake the tiered mechanism, not only to jumpstart it, but also to administer it, because then it would put our staff in a position to have to potentially consider a lot of different variances or different things. You start to kind of get into a position of, you know, if somebody's submitting a plan for a new residential house, you know, you start to kind of, just get into the weeds of that. Doable, and some cities do it, but it adds an administrative element to it that I think you need to be aware of. We're happy to do it, happy to put the energy and time into it, but just know that it would be there. Now, because of that, or regardless of that, we are proposing waiting until January 1st to implement the new fee for the reasons I stated earlier. And so if you did decide to go down the path of this tier rate, it would give our consultant and staff the time to run through all of the parcels to determine which would qualify for the discounted tier. Yes, ma'am.

If we were to do that, how would you manage or how would staff manage if going through permitting there was an additional add-on to a residential building that changed the parameters of the square footage to tip them over? How would we monitor that?

Well, that's where the administrative element of that comes into place, right? I mean, we'd have to come up with a way to disclose that information for transparency's sake, right? We would have to just come up with a way to disclose it and be transparent with the information.

So it would be an ongoing...

Correct. It would be an ongoing element. Administrative task. Correct. The reverse might be accurate as well. For example, somebody might, let's say they have a covered patio in their backyard, they decide to remove it for whatever reason, and then now they have to work with staff to reduce that impervious cover. So we would have to have dedicated staff, not full-time, but it would have to be some staff's responsibility to keep up.

Unless there's a slab still there. Well, I may be missing something.

Yeah, correct. Correct. Yes, ma'am.

If the property's residential, then that whole evaluation wouldn't be necessary.

Well, it would be if we did a tiered system.

I thought the tiered was talking about square footage of the lot.

No. No. No, and this was part of what I think was confusing as well when Council Member De La Garza brought this up, because impervious cover has nothing to do with the size of the lot. Impervious cover has to do with impervious cover, which is the square footage of the house, the driveway, and any other type of impervious cover. And so this has never had to do anything with lot size. This has always been solely about impervious cover.

For commercial purposes. For both? So a residential lot that's 10,000 square feet is what? Is that the base rate?

Residential lot, regardless of the size of the lot, is flat fee of $5. OK.

I personally don't want to add any more administration of fees and stuff to the city, I can't see that. And I will say when you do exemptions and you do discounts, it's easy to add them on, but then somebody else is paying for those discounts and those exemptions, and it's hard to take them away from anybody. Just a thought.

I agree with you.

Let's get through the presentation. Well, that's basically the bulk of it, quite frankly, yes.

This was simply just intended to show a slide on, you know, once I receive that direction, we can go in there and update this particular slide and bring it back to you at the next council meeting. Or if that direction is clear enough, we can just look to incorporate it into the proposed budget that will come before you at the first meeting in August. It all kind of just depends on the direction that you provide this evening. And then the only other thing that I had was a sense of timeline. So I mentioned earlier implementing it in January of 2027, but in order to get to that, what we would propose is basically starting whatever we decide to do, we, by law, have to put it in the newspaper and advertise for it. And so we have the timeline of that requirement. And then ultimately we have it being approved in September. It's very, very important that we consider and you consider and potentially approve, because I recognize that at the end of the day, you could just say, forget, slam the brakes on the whole thing. I mean, that's your prerogative. But assuming that the program proceeds, regardless of how it's designed, it makes sense to have that final approval in September so that it coincides with the budget, so that we don't run into the same issue that we ran into this fiscal year, where we proposed and approved the budget, assuming it would go into effect this fiscal year, but because it didn't, we had to come before you to do a budget amendment, which ironically was on the agenda earlier. Laura didn't mention this, but the reason why we needed to bring that budget amendment for those city mowing contracts was because when we put together the fiscal year 26 budget, it contemplated that the stormwater utility was already gonna go into effect this fiscal year. So I don't wanna run into that issue again, And so I think it just makes sense, even though it would go into effect in January, I think it would behoove us to approve that in September and not delay the approval until let's say November or December, because then that's too risky, right? Anyway, that's my thought on that. And so really at the end of the day, what I'm seeking is just any feedback on the idea of exempting religious institutions And to what extent, if so, and then also any feedback that you might have on maintaining the $5 flat fee or rate, decreasing it to $4 and or the tiered approach. Obviously, we've already gotten some feedback that you would like to be mindful of the administrative element of it. So I appreciate that. But I'm all ears. Yes, sir.

I could be swayed for the $5 or $4 flat rate or the tiered system, but I'm going to hold steadfast on 100% exemption for the religious institutions. Meaning you want to do that? Is that what you mean by that? 100% discount. But the other flat rate, $5, $4, or the tiered system, I could be swayed on either one of those three.

So along with churches from a religious institution, pardon me, VCAM, Christian Ministries, Salvation Army, if they have a religious... These are things that I don't know, so that's why I'm asking.

If they have a religious exemption through CAD, it would qualify them for that. If all they are is a religious nonprofit... that doesn't have a exemption from CAD then this exemption would not apply to them because again state law only allows the discretionary exemption on religious institutions not nonprofits globally speaking you happen to know what the requirements are from CAD no But I would like to think that I would like to think that they are obviously very well Thought out researched and established right which is why we're leaning towards Depending on that classification and again if there's a classification there that doesn't exist that needs to exist or is incorrect I think it makes sense for the onus of correcting that to be on that particular

It's one of those things that determining whether or not a particular building or organization is a religious entity and qualifies would be a whole brave new world for us would be new, but for the CAD they do it all the time. You know, this is something that they have criteria in place, they have protocols in place in order to do that. So from my standpoint, you know, it makes sense to lean on CAD from the standpoint of their experience in doing that and their processes in doing that. You know, I'll say this on the on the on the five dollar fee. My recollection was that that's below the state average state average, I believe, was six. I don't know if anybody remembers when we had the presentation. It was around six, six fifty, something like that. So, you know, we intentionally pick something that was six. below because we knew that this was a new program and that we knew that folks were going to have some heartburn over this, which I totally understand. We also went with the flat rate for residential. My recollection from the presentation, and some cities do tiered rates, some of them more than others. I recall that there was some caution against getting too much into a tiered rate, if at all, just simply because of what's already been voiced here, and that's the administrative burden. Now we're taking time away from our administrative staff, many of which are already stretched. And we're saying, hey, now you have to go do this. Somebody knocks out a porch, you have to go take a tape measure. I can see this snowballing into really more of an administrative burden. Um, that if we just went with the flat rate, I think it would alleviate all of that. At the end of the day, I think some of the administrative costs and some of the issues, time and that sort of thing would kind of eat into what the whole purpose would be to not do the flat rate. Um, And in terms of the religious exemption, I concur with Mr. De La Garza from the standpoint that these were the other entities, if you will, under state law that qualify for these permitted exemptions, if you would. And I think we have such a strong religious community here in Victoria. They do support the city, and obviously we support them as well. And I think we have these other entities that we've said, OK, we're going to exempt them, exempt that, that fall within the same category of these are allowable exemptions. The dollar amounts, let's face it, in the grand scheme of things, are nominal on this. But obviously, we've heard from a number of religious institutions and religious leaders that this is a real thing for them. So end of the day, summing all that up, I'm for a flat fee, $5. to eliminate the administrative burden and the cost, and I'm 100% for the religious exemption at 100%.

And I'd just like to add one more thing about the religious institutions. They give so much back to the community. They feed homeless. They help people with food, housing. I mean, almost every denomination in Victoria does that. They help people. And right now, we have a lot of people in Victoria that need help. And I don't want to take away from that money. Well said. Any other comments?

I would echo that, too. I believe in the 100% exemption for a religious institution. And I concur that VCAD does this all the time. And we should not ask our staff to do that. As far as the fee, I think it would be relevant to bring up, and you can do a better job of this than I can, certainly. How many times in the last five years have we raised fees for trash collection? Have we raised fees for any of the services that the city provides as a whole? Because that's been the complaint is that we're coming after them for this fee. But historically, and I certainly don't want to quote numbers, but historically, When presentations come before us, we hear that they have not changed fees at golfing in X number of years at the golf course. They have not changed fees for whatever that item is. So can you speak to that?

What's our- So I have a couple thoughts on that. So on the utility side, we know that rates haven't been adjusted since 2019. On the solid waste side, we know that garbage rates haven't been adjusted in... Since the 80s. Since the 80s. However, there are other services that are attached to solid waste that do increase because of the contracts that we have with those. I want to turn it to Daryl to expand on that because I don't want... people to be under the false impression that some rates or fees haven't gone up because some have, just not specifically for garbage. So the actual trash rate has not changed since the 80s.

Now, in 2008, we added some fees, which was the brush and bulky, the recycling, and the Yardways fee so but since then there's been just minuscule rate increases to the recycling fee only because of the cost of recycling We haven't done one of those in about six years Commercial, however, which is a contract we have with waste management is done by CPI That's usually done annually that also has any increases for the landfill included in it That's strictly for commercial customers. I

That's per our contract.

That is for our contract with Waste Management and Republic.

Basically, the services that we primarily provide, utilities, water, sewer, residential garbage collection, those haven't gone up in a while. The services that we offer where we have to hire a third party company to help us with, those have to get adjusted every so often because of contracts that adjust them due to CPI increases or to Darrell's point, just increases in the delivery of that service. But I just want to make that clear.

I make the point because I think that it's important for public perception and for people to understand that as a city, we are fiscally responsible. We take into account the fact that we're not raising rates. This isn't a yearly thing that comes before council for us to say, oh, yes. let's charge a little bit more for that to add to funds. That's not the way that we typically operate. And there's been a lot of thought that's been given to this stormwater drainage fee. And this is proof of it, because we're still continuing to deliberate on how it should be administered and assessed. So I just brought that up for that context.

No, thank you. No, I think that's good. And to put a little bit finer point on that, this is not money that, as you all know, is not just going to end up in the general fund. This is money that's gonna be specifically allocated and restricted and can only be used for our stormwater infrastructure, which we know from our study is in dire need of upgrading, repair, maintenance, improvements in a number of areas. And so this is a fee that's specifically targeted to address a specific problem. It's not just gonna be consumed within the overall budget.

We have $130 million worth of projects. I believe that was the number. I think that that was the number. Yes. And not doing something about it certainly kicks the can down the road. And that $130 million becomes a lot more expensive. I go against the idea that this is a Band-Aid for a problem. This is eating the elephant one bite at a time. that's how I think we need to approach it. And then, you know, $2.65 million over 10 years, and all of a sudden we've got $20 million to go towards that project. And so it's not certainly quick, but it's, I think, the steadfast approach to addressing the needs that we have.

Agreed. To be fair, I think it was our consultant that might have used the word Band-Aid.

So thanks for paying attention. Where did he go?

I appreciate him paying attention in detail. Probably a term that shouldn't have had been utilized, but I agree that it shouldn't just be looked at as just a Band-Aid. I think it's important to start investing in this infrastructure, even if it's a little bit out of time.

If you do nothing about it, it gets worse. And that's what's happened previously. Any other comments?

I do. Mr. Kerr, yes. I've been patiently waiting. You have, very much so. So there's been some public discourse about the fairness of all of this. So I think there's a couple of ways to address that. One of them is, I do believe, the tiered system. I understand the concern about you're going to take up staff time. But I believe you're already going kind of burst that bubble because they're going to be doing, some staff time is going to be involved, I assume, getting these bills out and deciding, doing the math on the non-commercial properties. So I like the tier.

Non-residential.

What did I say, non-commercial?

That's okay.

Non-residential is what I meant. So- I think that's a good way to start to address that fairness issue is under, I'm gonna look at my screen now for this one, 3,200 square feet, $4 above that $5. I think that's a good way to address it. And to the mayor's point, well, maybe that $5 should go up to six and then the discount will be four and make that discount a little bit more. But basically in a nutshell, I think we need to differentiate between the smaller properties. The second issue in fairness is, and I understand this is a state law, so there's not a lot that we can do about it. But to Dr. Young's point, what about these other nonprofits? So it seems to me that the way this is structured with the religious organizations getting either a discount or a pass, well, the other nonprofits don't. So that, to me, doesn't seem like that's a fair way to approach this. The other aspect of fairness, again, to the mayor's point, this stormwater project that's going to be completed is going to benefit everybody. It's going to benefit the churches. It's going to benefit the residents. It's going to benefit the commercial properties. And this is just a preliminary position of mine, subject to change. At this point, I would say that just because we're kind of picking this religious institutions that I don't even know that we can define that tonight. We're referring to someone else's definition of it. So at this point, I would say I would be against that and for the tier system. And again, my overarching philosophy there is just to be fair to everybody in the community.

Thank you for sharing.

Any other comments?

Do you have what you need? I think so. What I'm hearing is that there would be support for exempting religious institutions at 100%. I get that it may not be unanimous, but I get the sense that the majority of council would be supportive of that and that the majority of council would be supportive at keeping it at $5 flat. is my takeaway from the feedback.

Yes, for me.

Yes.

Yes.

OK. No, for me. Understood. That wasn't an official vote, Ms. Lacey. We were answering a question.

There wasn't a motion. $5, but not exempting anybody. I don't think it's fair to the business.

Can you repeat that? Can we get this man a microphone that works?

This is the second meeting I've been at that I don't have a microphone that works. Trying to tell you something.

Yeah, I know.

They don't want to listen to me. I'm for the $5 fee with no exemptions.

When you say no exemptions, you mean no exemptions to...

I'd like to charge the county if it was possible. But since it's not possible... I just want, well, it is possible.

I mean, I mean, it is, it is, uh, city, city, city, school district and county are discretionary exemptions. So we don't have to exempt the county. We don't have to exempt the school district.

Double taxation.

Yeah. Well, and that was why we had included them originally.

The two six five five is mine.

Okay. Well, I think my majority observation still stands.

Yes.

I believe you're correct. All right. I like how they took my feedback literally on the microphone. Thank you. All right. Thank you, team.

Anything else under city manager report?

No, sir. And executive session? Yes, sir. We will have a short executive session. Okay. So we will adjourn the public meeting at 644. We'll take a 10-minute break and meet the exec at 654.

City Council will recess into Executive Session, 7th day of July, 2026 at 6.44. Executive Session deliberates as follows, Texas Government Code 551087, 5510872, 551071. My computer died on me, I think.