Lago Vista rejects grant-backed $216,975 wastewater study, 3 to 4

No money was spent, and the mayor said his own no vote was "not a nay to the project."⁵

When we wrote this story, the city had not posted minutes for this meeting. This story is based on the meeting video and the city's agenda packet.⁶

What the plan is, and why it came up now

The city's sewer plant cleans wastewater, and the treated water is called effluent. The city relies on Cedar Breaks, a land-application area where effluent is sprayed on land, and other reclaimed-water sites to get rid of it.² Staff said the golf course and Cedar Breaks together can take only 750,000 gallons a day. Staff said the plant can treat 1 million gallons a day.⁷

Staff said the city "would need a full 100 acres of irrigated land at Cedar Breaks" to match the plant.⁷

The study would come from DCS Engineering, LLC, an engineering firm, and it would plan how to grow that system.² It would look at Cedar Breaks, the pipes, pumps, and storage, and selling reclaimed water for uses such as irrigation.^2,8 It would also start early engineering on the first new project.² The City Council decides whether to approve the order.⁹

The money comes from a $750,000 grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), awarded Sept. 22, 2026. The grant requires the city to add $187,500 of its own. The grant pays only for planning, permitting, design, and bid-phase services, and the grant period ends Feb. 1, 2028. EPA gave the city until Nov. 12, 2026, to send a revised plan for how it will use the money and a progress report.¹⁰

Our Nov. 2 story on the Garver sewer plant contract first reported this item and its price. Our story on the golf course pipe explains how the city sprays effluent on land.² The three other water items read in with it are in our stories on the Garver contract, the state sewer loan, and the EPA grant split.¹¹

Before the meeting

Victor Manzano, the city's capital improvement plan manager, submitted the item.² City Secretary Robin Smith certified that the agenda was posted at City Hall by 6 p.m. on Oct. 29, 2026.⁹

The order is a project order under the city's master agreement with DCS for continuing professional services, dated March 5, 2026. It is a lump-sum deal with five tasks. Data collection is $35,720, and the study of the system is $84,585. Cost estimates for future projects are $18,280, early engineering for the first project is $40,000, and the final report is $38,390.⁸

The schedule runs nine months, from Nov. 6, 2026, to Aug. 6, 2027.⁸

The final design of that first project is not part of this order. The grant plan sets aside $109,526 for it, which would need separate council approval.² The EPA's share of that set-aside is $87,620.80.¹⁰

The meeting

The council met in its chambers at 5803 Thunderbird for a regular meeting set for 3 p.m.⁹ Mayor Shane Saum read in four water items together because "they're all water related."^9,11

Public Works Director Ernesto Rios presented them. He said staff proposed to split the EPA money between sewer plant work and the effluent study.¹²

Saum asked why the plans were moving away from the wastewater master plan the city did in 2024. He said "we're going in a totally different direction."¹³

Rios later said the study would look at the whole effluent system, "not simply at acreage at Cedar Breaks."¹⁴

Saum then asked whether the city needed an outside firm. He said the city already knows places it can spray effluent, such as the golf course and Sunset Park. "I'm not interested in spending 200,000 dollars if I already know these things," he said. He also asked whether the city's other wastewater projects should come first.¹⁵

Council Member Jess Hall said he was worried about projects that "need immediate attention." He named Pond 17, Pond 14, and Cedar Breaks pond repairs. He said a city engineer on staff could look at what could be done in-house.¹⁶

Staff said the grant covers only design work, so the city could lose the 80-20 match on work outside the plan.¹⁶ When Mayor Pro Tem Norma Owen asked what happens if the council does not act, Rios said the city "can't move forward" with the EPA grant.¹⁷

The debate

Saum said he was comfortable with the Garver item. "I'm still not fully confident in the DCS one," he said.¹⁸

Council Member Adam Benefield said he was not comfortable with either one that night. He said the city has spent money on design and engineering and then never used it. "I don't feel the urgency, and I've seen too much waste on these designs," he said. He said his mind could change after he met with staff.¹⁹

Saum asked staff about deadlines. A staff member said there were "not necessarily deadlines," but the first report to EPA was due, and staff hoped to send it with the updated work plan.²⁰ The packet calls it the first semi-annual progress report, due Nov. 12.¹⁰ The staff member said waiting would delay the funding.²⁰

Rios said the city's ponds are in bad shape, and wet weather is coming. He said the city keeps the ponds low because they leak into creeks when they are higher. "We actually had to rent pumps to repump the water back into the ponds," he said.²¹

He said, "It is not an urgency right now," but staff did not want to wait until it was. He said moving to Type I reclaimed water could bring in money.²¹ Type I is the grade the packet says the city would need to water the public sports fields at Sunset Park.⁸

A council member asked for "a Gantt chart," a chart that shows each step and what depends on it. The member wanted it "in a one-page sheet."²²

DCS's project principal said the firm would look at the city's land, ponds, and pipes as assets. "Why can't we sell that water?" he asked. He said, "we're not yes men."²³

Saum said, "as a public official I hate to spend money." He asked whether the firm would cut parts of the scope, such as cost estimates and some meetings. He said he was not sure whether the city had asked for proposals on a set scope of work.²⁴

A DCS Engineering representative said the firm could delete the cost estimates but would not recommend it.²⁵ Saum asked DCS to meet with staff about savings if the item was delayed.³

A staff member said the order would be paid "80% covered by the EPA and 20% covered by wastewater impact fees." The staff member said that if the proposal does not go through, "we do lose out, I think it's around 80,000 in the grant funding."³

Council Member Amanda Chavarria said she had been "on the fence." She said, "I don't want to lose this money now," and pointed to a population count she was told is closer to 16,000. "Beggars can't be choosers at this point," she said. She said she was comfortable moving forward.²⁶

The motion and the vote

Owen moved to approve the DCS order for up to $216,975. She first named the Garver item by mistake.²⁷ When a member asked which item it was, she said, "The correction needs to be 8.1." Chavarria seconded.²⁸

On the agenda, item VIII.1, which members called 8.1, was the DCS study, and VIII.2 was the Garver contract.⁹

Council Member Paul Prince said, "I'm in favor of both of these." He said the DCS item "is more about planning," while the Garver item was critical.²⁹

Saum called a roll call vote because "I think it's divided." Hall said he wanted to put a hold on it for more discussion. When Saum asked whether that was a nay, Hall said, "Not moving forward on that."⁵ Saum counted it as a no.^1,5

Benefield voted no. Chavarria and Owen voted yes. Council Member Karen Van Ness voted no and said, "I just need more discussion on this."⁵

Prince thanked the council "for not making me the tiebreaker." He voted yes. Saum voted no. He said "that's not a nay to the project, just that we're gonna have to bring it back."⁵

After the vote

Chavarria said "we're consistently tying our staff's hands on moving forward on some of these projects." She said she hoped it could come back at the next meeting. Saum said "the first meeting of every month will be a work session," so members hear an item before they vote on it. A council member asked staff to explain why bonds, and not impact fees, would pay for some of the work.³⁰

Saum then announced that the motion "failed 3 to 4." Owen asked whether the item should be tabled to the next meeting. Saum said he would wait "until I felt like I've heard from council members that they're ready to bring it back."¹

What it could mean for taxpayers

The vote spent no money.¹ The EPA would have paid 80% of the $216,975 order. The city's 20%, or $43,395, would have come from wastewater impact fees, staff said.^2,3 State law lets impact fees pay engineering fees for "capital improvements or facility expansions" that new development needs.^4,31

The grant's project period ends Feb. 1, 2028.¹⁰ The revised plan is due to EPA on Nov. 12, the day before the council's next listed meeting on Nov. 13.^6,10 Staff estimated the city could lose about $80,000 in grant money if the plan does not go through.³

What we could not find

• Minutes of the Nov. 5 meeting, which the city had not posted when we wrote this story.⁶
• A written record that wastewater impact fees will pay the city's $43,395 share. The packet names the amount but not the fund.²
• How staff reached the "around 80,000" figure.³
• When the item will come back.¹

What you can do

• Watch the meeting video and read the agenda packet.²
• Ask the city for the revised EPA work plan it sends by Nov. 12 through the city's records request page.^10,32
• The council's next listed meetings are Nov. 13, Nov. 16, and Nov. 17, 2026.⁶
• If you have records on this, you can share them with us.