DeSoto council reviews residential stream‑bank erosion cost‑share plan; staff asked to return with detailed examples

DeSoto city staff on Feb. 3 presented a proposed cost‑share program to help homeowners pay for residential stream‑bank erosion mitigation, explaining how the city would manage procurement, design and construction while sharing project costs with property owners.

Director of Development Services Ahmed Akasey told the council the proposal includes a $500,000 annual allocation from the drainage fund and a proposed city contribution cap of $100,000 per project. Staff outlined participation options: percentage splits such as 50/50 or 75/25, or a flat resident contribution (examples shown of $10,000 or $20,000). Akasey also said staff is weighing whether to develop the program in‑house (lower estimated recurring costs) or hire a consultant (higher one‑time and annual fees).

“Projects will be selected based on the technical scoring,” Akasey said, describing outreach done in 2025, a January public meeting and plans for application, field inspections and a selection process. He said staff would “secure the agreement within six months” of project selection and would not require payment up front.

City Manager (introduced in the meeting) framed the program as a way for the city to partner with private property owners to avert larger infrastructure costs later: the city has about 44 miles of creeks and tributaries and some private properties’ erosion can threaten public assets. He recommended bringing specific DeSoto project examples and peer‑city comparisons back to the council so members could see typical costs and how different fee structures performed in practice.

Council members pressed staff for detail. Council Member Perrette Parker asked whether the six‑month agreement period would create undue burden and how the advertised three‑year cost projections were calculated; Akasey explained the reported consultant and in‑house projections reflect program development plus ongoing management and that the consultant route increases total cost. Parker also raised the prospect of grouping adjacent properties to reduce per‑home costs; staff said scoring would prioritize multi‑property projects when appropriate but that actual construction costs depend on the engineering solution.

Mayor Pro Tem Crystal Chisholm and others stressed resident affordability and transparency around scoring and selection. Chisholm said she favored options that minimize homeowner share and asked staff to show selection criteria in a way residents can verify. Several council members suggested allowing payment plans or using liens as an option for owners who cannot pay up front, and asked staff to model a sliding scale tied to project size and owner ability to pay.

No formal action was taken. The council asked staff to return with: representative DeSoto project cost examples, peer‑city program models, clearer estimates for average residential projects, proposed payment/financing options, and recommended scoring/selection rules. The city manager proposed a detailed follow‑up within two weeks to a month and suggested a possible workshop or special meeting to finalize the fee structure before program launch.