Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cibolo council agrees to study drainage-fee changes after storage-owner complaint
Summary
A Cibolo business owner told council his storage facility now pays $764.40 monthly under the city's drainage fee method; council asked staff to explore options including tiering or caps and return with proposals.
Gary Woods, owner of Wood Storage in Cibolo, told the City Council during the July 15 budget workshop that the city's method for calculating commercial drainage fees treats his small, land‑intensive self‑storage business like a large retailer and has become financially burdensome. Woods said his monthly drainage bill rose from about $400 to $764.40 and asked council to consider a different fee methodology or a new tier to protect small, land‑heavy businesses. "Walmart makes more money in 4 days than I do all year," Woods said, arguing his property generates little sales tax yet large impervious acreage and should be treated differently.
Council and staff discussed how the drainage fee is calculated currently (equivalent residential units, or ERUs, charged at $7.50 per ERU) and that Woods' property was counted as 102 ERUs. Staff said the city has recently updated impervious cover data in GIS for commercial parcels and that comparable sites with lower impervious coverage pay less. Council members noted the drainage fund is operating at a deficit this year largely because of one‑time capital draws and that any change would have budget implications.
Council gave direction to staff to research possible modifications to the drainage fee structure and bring options back to council. Suggestions mentioned during the discussion included a tiered approach by land use, a temporary cap or waiver program, revenue‑based or land‑use categories, and honoring historical agreements where grading kept runoff on private property. Staff said it would examine other cities' approaches, review Woods' past discount arrangement, and present possible options at a future meeting.
The discussion included balancing small‑business relief against fund sustainability: one councilmember emphasized the drainage fund's current shortfall and the unlikelihood of reducing rates without identifying offsetting revenue or cuts. Another councilmember and multiple speakers urged that the city consider targeted relief to retain longstanding small businesses.
Council consensus was to ask staff to "look at some possible modifications to the drainage fees and bring back some options," including whether discounts or different tiers could apply to properties where runoff is retained on site. Staff committed to return with proposals and cost impacts for council consideration.
