6/26/2025 CC Meeting | Water and Wastewater Master Plan Technical Review Referral

[Paul Roberts]

Dear Colleagues,

I’ve submitted an item for the June 26 agenda to formally refer a set of technical concerns raised by former Public Works Director David Stewart to our engineering consultants and staff.

These concerns challenge several assumptions and project justifications in the City’s 2024 Wastewater Master Plan and 2025 Water Master Plan. Examples include infrastructure ownership, omitted or mischaracterized force mains, duplicative rehabilitation projects, routing errors, and feasibility issues due to FAA restrictions.

Given the potential implications for the City’s planning, budgeting, and infrastructure decisions, I believe these claims warrant technical review and verification. The referral would ask staff to evaluate the concerns, determine which are valid, and advise whether any corrective action or amendments are appropriate.

I’m attaching a copy of excerpts from Mr. Stewart’s email and the formal agenda item coversheet for those interested in reviewing the details.

 

[Norma Owen]

Thank you, Council Member Roberts, for bringing forward this item.

I support the referral for technical review. As we prepare next year’s budget and evaluate which capital projects to prioritize, we face serious challenges in making sound financial decisions—particularly regarding bonding and long-term cash flow—without a clear, verified understanding of our actual infrastructure needs.

This review is an essential step toward establishing a “current reality” of our systems, especially the projects likely to impact the FY25-26 budget. I would also encourage us to take this opportunity to build a foundation for a more strategic 20-year outlook. To do so effectively, we should incorporate the historical insight of former staff with deep institutional knowledge. Their firsthand experience is invaluable in verifying assumptions and ensuring we do not waste taxpayer dollars repeating work or planning unnecessary upgrades.

Ultimately, this process is about putting better tools in place for the future—tools that integrate accurate data with strategic foresight and financial discipline while ensuring concerns about our current plans are addressed.

 

[Paul Roberts]

Adding/attaching exhibits received from Mr. Stewart this morning.

 

[Shane Saum]

Thank you Councilman Roberts from putting this on the agenda. I was happy to second it. The expansion of these plants is the most important undertaking for the City in the coming years and I look forward to getting further into the details on our master plans. I will be interested to hear staff feedback and I recall during the presentations the consultant stated they do provide higher estimates so as not to underestimate. I hope this technical review brings the estimated total down.

 

[Norma Owen]

Attached is an updated document for Item 9F on the August 21, 2025 Council meeting agenda. I am placing it here because it directly relates to our ongoing discussions about Lago Vista’s water and wastewater planning.

I share this as background from my own learning process, and I greatly appreciate the continued engagement with Staff as we work together to understand the implications and responsibilities we face in maintaining and strengthening our utility systems.

 

[Paul Roberts]

Great Addition to this thread, Adam!

I'm adding this his from our 8/21/2025 packet:

 

[Norma Owen]

WWTP Expansion – In Simple Terms (For Item 11.7 on October 2nd agenda)​

Introduction​

Below is a formulated analysis that incorporates current information received this morning regarding water and wastewater capacity and recommendations stated by Dave Stewart on Facebook. I am leaning in favor of tabling a final decision on the WWTP expansion amendment tonight, with the condition that it be brought back for Council consideration no later than early November. This allows time to weigh additional options and ensure cost-effective sequencing. If staff determines that delaying until November would create significant detrimental impacts — whether regulatory, operational, or financial — I ask that the rationale to be presented clearly so Council can weigh that urgency against the benefits of competitive bidding and phasing.

---

Where We Stand​

• The WWTP is permitted for 1.0 MGD.
• Over the past 12 months, we’ve averaged about 0.65 MGD (65%), which is below the state’s 75% trigger that requires planning for expansion.
• However, in June–August 2025, heavy rains pushed flows up to 0.82–1.05 MGD, meaning we touched or exceeded our permit at times. This shows our margin is shrinking even if averages are lower.

---

The Costs

• The proposed expansion amendment is estimated at $47 million.
• That equals ~$95 per gallon of added capacity, compared to $33–$43 per gallon that peer cities have paid.
• Committing to this cost now would use a large portion of our bond capacity, leaving less room for streets, drainage, library, City Hall, and parks.

---

Other Options in Play​

• Golf Course irrigation project: being designed to nearly double its disposal capacity (from 430,000 to 800,000 gallons/day). Construction expected to start in early 2026.
• Cedar Breaks expansion: adds ~90 acres and potentially a new pond for effluent disposal.
• These projects provide real relief but won’t be ready until 2026.

---

Risks of Expanding Too Early​

• If we expand to 1.5 MGD now while flows are averaging 0.65 MGD, the plant could be underloaded, forcing operators to add chemicals to stabilize the biology.
• This raises ongoing operating costs.

---

The Choice​

• Tabling tonight allows Council to seek clarity, ensure competitive bidding on irrigation improvements, and confirm the true urgency of basin rehab.
• Proceeding immediately locks in costs now but reduces the risk of permit issues if high flows continue.
• A balanced approach may be to move forward on TLAP irrigation improvements separately under competitive bid, while deferring basin rehab until updated assessments or regulatory triggers make it unavoidable.

---

In simple terms: We have some breathing room, but not unlimited time. Waiting until early November gives us a chance to check options, control costs, and make sure we only commit to what’s truly needed right now.

---

 

[Shane Saum]

WWTP Expansion – In Simple Terms (For Item 11.7 on October 2nd agenda)​

Introduction​

Below is a formulated analysis that incorporates current information received this morning regarding water and wastewater capacity and recommendations stated by Dave Stewart on Facebook. I am leaning in favor of tabling a final decision on the WWTP expansion amendment tonight, with the condition that it be brought back for Council consideration no later than early November. This allows time to weigh additional options and ensure cost-effective sequencing. If staff determines that delaying until November would create significant detrimental impacts — whether regulatory, operational, or financial — I ask that the rationale to be presented clearly so Council can weigh that urgency against the benefits of competitive bidding and phasing.

---

Where We Stand​

• The WWTP is permitted for 1.0 MGD.
• Over the past 12 months, we’ve averaged about 0.65 MGD (65%), which is below the state’s 75% trigger that requires planning for expansion.
• However, in June–August 2025, heavy rains pushed flows up to 0.82–1.05 MGD, meaning we touched or exceeded our permit at times. This shows our margin is shrinking even if averages are lower.

---

The Costs

• The proposed expansion amendment is estimated at $47 million.
• That equals ~$95 per gallon of added capacity, compared to $33–$43 per gallon that peer cities have paid.
• Committing to this cost now would use a large portion of our bond capacity, leaving less room for streets, drainage, library, City Hall, and parks.

---

Other Options in Play​

• Golf Course irrigation project: being designed to nearly double its disposal capacity (from 430,000 to 800,000 gallons/day). Construction expected to start in early 2026.
• Cedar Breaks expansion: adds ~90 acres and potentially a new pond for effluent disposal.
• These projects provide real relief but won’t be ready until 2026.

---

Risks of Expanding Too Early​

• If we expand to 1.5 MGD now while flows are averaging 0.65 MGD, the plant could be underloaded, forcing operators to add chemicals to stabilize the biology.
• This raises ongoing operating costs.

---

The Choice​

• Tabling tonight allows Council to seek clarity, ensure competitive bidding on irrigation improvements, and confirm the true urgency of basin rehab.
• Proceeding immediately locks in costs now but reduces the risk of permit issues if high flows continue.
• A balanced approach may be to move forward on TLAP irrigation improvements separately under competitive bid, while deferring basin rehab until updated assessments or regulatory triggers make it unavoidable.

---

In simple terms: We have some breathing room, but not unlimited time. Waiting until early November gives us a chance to check options, control costs, and make sure we only commit to what’s truly needed right now.

---

Thank you, Councilor Owen, for laying out this analysis. I agree with your assessment that moving forward tonight on a $47 million expansion amendment would be premature. Tabling until November makes sense and gives us the chance to confirm what is truly necessary, ensure cost-effective sequencing, and evaluate alternatives.


Here are the specific considerations I believe we should weigh during this period:

• Independent Structural Review (Low-Cost Options) – The original PER called for reusing existing basins, while the amendment now shifts to full demolition and rebuild. Before committing to that level of scope, Council should request a low-cost peer review. This does not need to be expensive — partners such as UT Austin, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, or Texas State University, or the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), can provide technical validation at a fraction of the project cost. Spending even $25–50K on outside confirmation could save citizens tens of millions if rehabilitation is viable.
• Clarifying Regulatory Triggers – The amendment assumes a new 40 ac-ft pond and 90 acres of irrigation at Cedar Breaks, but TCEQ has not yet finalized pond sizing or confirmed additional storage is required at 1.5 MGD. We should request written clarification from TCEQ before we design and pay for new storage and acreage.
• Type I Reuse Strategy (Chapter 210) – Instead of defaulting to new ponds and land application acreage, we should pursue reclaimed water reuse under TCEQ Chapter 210. This pathway allows us to deliver treated effluent (after a “polishing” step such as filtration + UV/chlorination) as Type I reuse water for irrigating POA parks, Sunset Park, LVISD fields, the golf course, medians, etc. Other Texas cities do this already. Each signed reuse agreement directly reduces required TLAP acreage and storage, potentially eliminating the need for the new pond. Importantly, this does not mean rebuilding the whole plant — it can often be achieved with a relatively low-cost polishing step or even satellite reuse units located near large irrigation customers.
• Phased Expansion with Flow Triggers – We should sequence the project so that only the essential rehabilitation needed to safely reach 1.5 MGD is advanced now. Larger scope items (new basins, dewatering building, additional irrigation acreage) could be phased later, triggered by measured flows or regulatory requirements. This keeps us compliant without overbuilding.
• Competitive Bidding and Bid Alternates – Irrigation improvements and any new storage should be competitively bid as separate packages, not bundled into the current amendment. Key items (pond, irrigation acres, basin demo/rebuild) should be structured as bid alternates, giving us the flexibility to award only what is proven necessary.
• Cost Controls on Administration/Inspection – The amendment adds nearly three-quarters of a million dollars for construction inspection and administration. I would like to see this scoped as a not-to-exceed amount with a clear staffing plan, and with the option of using a leaner owner’s representative approach where appropriate.

In short: I support tabling this amendment until November, but with direction that staff and Garver bring back a revised set of options:

1. Independent structural rehab vs. rebuild review by a university partner or TWDB,
2. Written clarification from TCEQ on pond/storage triggers,
3. A reuse plan under Chapter 210 showing how Type I irrigation agreements can offset TLAP obligations, and
4. A phased and competitively bid approach with key items carried as alternates.

This way, we are not just pressing pause — we are actively working to protect taxpayer dollars while ensuring long-term capacity. It demonstrates to our citizens that we are exploring every regulatory and engineering tool available to meet our needs responsibly.