Elgin council annexes 38.57 acres for proposed wastewater plant after public objections

The Elgin City Council on Nov. 18 voted to annex a 38.57‑acre tract the city purchased to site a proposed wastewater treatment plant, a move that prompted public concern about environmental and historic impacts but which council members said is necessary to address system capacity and operational risk.

The annexation ordinance, which also included permanent industrial zoning for the parcel, passed on a roll‑call vote with one no. Council members voting in favor said the plant location is driven by drainage and gravity flow considerations and would reduce dependence on the Elm Creek lift station, a current operational risk.

Resident Gina Gonzales, who described herself as a descendant of a local freedom colony, testified during the public hearing that the annexation and plant would harm historic farmland, farms and ranching operations, heighten flooding and risk chemical contamination — including concerns about treated wastewater and PFAS on agricultural land — and that affected residents living outside city limits lacked voting power in the decision.

"This annexation for this wastewater treatment plant is putting all of us who have histories, trust, hundreds of years we go back...you’re putting us in a position where we have to deal with these types of things," Gonzales said during public comment.

Beau Perry, the staff presenter, told council the project has followed required state review steps. He said the city submitted environmental and historic assessments to the Texas Historical Commission and completed shovel testing; staff reported no above‑ground findings and the state requested and received a follow‑up shovel‑testing report. Perry said any design, discharge and outfall work will require separate state permits (including TCEQ and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviews where applicable) and must meet stringent local permit limits the city already observes.

Perry also said the parcel was purchased with buffer acreage to keep plant operations inside the site and away from neighboring properties, and that the plant is being designed to meet stringent effluent parameters given downstream considerations and LCRA requirements.

Council members pressed staff on notifications and outreach after public speakers questioned the sufficiency of mailed notices. Staff said annexation notices complied with statutory requirements (200‑foot property owner notification) and that project‑level notices tied to the state permitting process (TCEQ) ran concurrently. Several council members asked staff to follow up directly with nearby residents; council directed staff to improve direct communications in light of public concerns.

Council members and staff emphasized that annexation does not itself authorize construction. "Tonight is an annexation; it's not awarding a contract to move forward with building anything at this point in time," Perry said, noting that contractors, design approvals and permitting would be separate steps subject to further public review.

The council also approved an ordinance assigning the annexed property to Ward 2 and retained discretion to de‑annex if council later chose to do so. The council recorded direction to communicate with affected property owners and said it would revisit related approvals as the design and permit process advances.