Staff and consultant present stormwater master‑plan update and outline a possible stormwater utility fee

City staff and a consultant presented a storm drainage update and a proposed funding strategy that would create a dedicated stormwater utility and finance maintenance, outfall repairs and larger capital projects through a fee based on impervious area.

Ken (city staff) summarized the drainage-update findings: the city has roughly 93 miles of major outfalls and about 195 miles of storm sewer pipe, with prioritization needed for eroded earthen channels, failing concrete lining and roadside ditches. The update estimated significant repair and cleaning needs across those systems and identified an approximate $128 million planning‑level total for items scoped in the update (Ken characterized this as an order‑of‑magnitude planning number for the portion of work evaluated). Ken also emphasized maintenance activities such as mowing, street sweeping and inlet cleaning as low‑cost ways to improve performance and reduce system failure.

Matthew Garrett of NewGen Strategies described a funding mechanism used in other Texas municipalities: a user fee administered by a newly established stormwater utility. He explained the typical billing metric, an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU), which represents the average impervious area for a single‑family residence (the consultant reported a calculated ERU of roughly 3,200 square feet for Victoria from parcel imagery). Commercial and other nonresidential properties would be billed proportionally to the number of ERUs on their parcel, while the consultant recommended a single flat ERU charge for single‑family residential accounts to simplify administration.

The consultant showed a range of hypothetical fee scenarios and their approximate revenue: NewGen estimated that a $1‑per‑month fee on the modeled billable units would generate about $561,000 annually under their current billing-unit assumptions. The presentation included examples of impervious‑area mapping for specific commercial parcels (shopping center and H‑E‑B supermarket) and explained an appeals process and public outreach steps the city could use before implementing a fee.

Legal and administrative constraints were discussed. The consultant identified state statute authority for stormwater utilities (the presentation cited Section 552, Subchapter C of the Texas Local Government Code) and noted certain exemptions allowed by statute (for example, unimproved lots and some public agencies). Councilmembers asked about litigation risk and community pushback; the consultant acknowledged there have been legal challenges in some places and anticipated opposition from parties who would see large increases in a bill, but said successful implementation is common with thorough public engagement.

Staff and consultant proposed next steps and a tentative timeline: finalize impervious mapping and billing inputs, refine cost‑of‑service modeling and present fee alternatives in budget workshops, adopt a fee ordinance and conduct required public hearings, and (if council approves) implement the utility in spring 2026 to allow proper billing cycles and public education. The consultant suggested a multi‑step public outreach and appeals process for commercial accounts and recommended using the new dedicated revenue to move some existing general‑fund stormwater expenses into the utility and to expand maintenance and capital programs.

No council vote occurred at the work session; staff requested council direction and will continue individual meetings and follow-up work on the financial model and implementation options.