El Campo council adopts broad fee-schedule changes, delays decision on food‑truck fee

The El Campo City Council approved Ordinance 2025‑11 on Sept. 8, adopting broad updates to the city’s fee schedule that affect services ranging from EMS ambulance charges to park rentals and utility fees. The council voted to approve the ordinance as presented after a discussion that left one proposed food‑truck fee change to be returned at a later date.

City staff presented the ordinance and read the affected articles aloud, saying the package updates ambulance fees (Article A3), construction and building permit fees (A4), retail food permit fees (A5), business‑related fees (Article 8), parks and community facility fees (Article 9), utility and water/sewer rates (Article 10), transportation user fees, and solid‑waste charges. Staff asked department heads to be available to answer line‑item questions.

Councilmembers pressed staff on specific increases. On the proposed 4‑inch sanitary service (sewer) tap fee, Councilmember (Speaker 4) said the fee appeared to rise from $780 to $2,000 and asked whether the charge covered only short connections; City staff (Speaker 7) said the increase reflects higher material and labor costs, noted a 60‑foot allowance typically tied to right‑of‑way width and said some past installations required far longer runs that were not previously addressed. Staff also confirmed that separate street‑cutting fees would apply where relevant.

On EMS billing, Councilmember (Speaker 3) asked whether Medicare beneficiaries would face higher bills; EMS Representative (Speaker 8) said Medicare payment rates are set by Medicare and that if the city bills a higher commercial rate, Medicare will pay its scheduled portion and the city would write off the remainder rather than billing the patient for the commercial rate.

Councilmember (Speaker 3) also questioned increases to park setup and marking fees (from $250 to $500). City staff (Speaker 7) explained those changes reflect increased paint and maintenance costs and additional staff time, and said the city had not adjusted those fees in years.

A contentious point involved retail food permits and parity with food trucks. Councilmember (Speaker 3) argued food trucks compete with brick‑and‑mortar restaurants and do not pay property taxes; staff (Speaker 6) responded that current food‑truck permits were already $150 for operations with one to five employees, that the new schedule puts a comparable baseline in place for brick‑and‑mortar establishments, and that higher brackets apply for larger staff sizes. Because some councilmembers wanted to address the food‑truck issue separately, the council agreed to approve the full ordinance as presented and to return the single food‑truck fee item on a future agenda or workshop.

After the discussion, a motion to adopt the ordinance as presented passed unanimously.

The council directed staff to return with a tailored proposal on the food‑truck fee in a future meeting so members could consider parity and property‑tax concerns before voting on that single change.