Councilman Herrera urged the Stafford City Council to explore special‑purpose districts as a way to raise new revenue without increasing residents’ property tax burdens, and the council voted to direct the city attorney to obtain cost estimates and a feasibility report.

Herrera framed the discussion as an effort to “leave no piece unturned” while the city addresses a multi‑year budget shortfall, saying the council should consider options that shift some costs to commercial areas or partner entities. He described special‑purpose districts as “local government entity[ies] that provide specific services to a defined geographic area” and said they are often funded by property tax, sales tax or user fees and can issue debt.

The motion sent to staff asks the city attorney to solicit quotes from outside firms and to return with recommendations on whether and how particular district types could be used in Stafford. The council did not create or authorize any district tonight; the action was narrowly limited to requesting pricing and feasibility information.

Why it matters: public safety consumed about half of the city’s operating budget in council discussion and members repeatedly said the city cannot rely on cuts alone. Several council members said they prefer revenue tools that limit burden on residential taxpayers, such as districts that could be funded by sales tax or assessments on commercial property.

What was discussed: councilmembers and staff outlined several district types and legal constraints. Legal counsel observed the city’s existing sales‑tax allocations limit how much sales tax could be reallocated: “So we’re capped,” the attorney said, noting the city currently retains “one and a half cents” of sales tax with a half‑cent allocated to the economic development corporation. Participants gave local examples of typical rates cited (e.g., emergency service districts and management districts cited in Houston‑area jurisdictions) and warned that funding mechanisms, voter referendums, contiguity rules and board appointment rules differ by district type.

Fire and EMS considerations were central to the debate. A speaker who identified the operational risks of an emergency services district told council that creating an ESD can shift governance and oversight and that, in some cases, municipalities effectively cede long‑term control of fire services to the district board — a tradeoff council members said must be weighed.

Next steps: the council approved a motion to charge the city attorney with obtaining written quotes and a feasibility analysis from legal and technical consultants familiar with creation of special‑purpose districts in Texas. The staff report and outside quotes are to be returned to council for further direction. No boundaries, tax rates or district proposals were approved.

Quotes attributed in meeting:
“[W]e have to look at every particular rock and not leave 1 piece…unturned,” Councilman Herrera said while introducing the item.
“So we’re capped,” legal counsel said in describing the city’s current sales‑tax allocation constraints.

Speakers (attributed):
Councilman Herrera — Councilman (moved the referral)
Legal counsel — City legal adviser (provided statutory/tax constraint commentary)
Chief (fire) — Fire chief or fire leadership (described operational governance tradeoffs)
Councilmember Bostic — Councilmember (commented in favor of pursuing crime control district)

Authorities cited (as discussed at the meeting):
Texas special purpose district statutes (various chapters referenced in meeting and comptroller guidance) — referenced_by: ["907.285","2061.18"]
City sales tax allocation (city/EDC split) — referenced_by: ["1831.445"]

Clarifying details (from discussion):
- Example tax rates cited in meeting: Comal County emergency services example: 1¢ per $100 valuation; other local management districts cited at 0.1–2.5¢ per $100 (examples discussed in council comments). These figures were given as examples by council and staff, not as city proposals.
- Council direction: obtain written quotes from counsel/consultants and return feasibility findings to council; no action to form any district tonight.

Ending: Council members said they expect a multi‑stage process: preliminary legal and fiscal feasibility followed by public outreach (including a planned revenue workshop) before any boundary, ballot or tax decisions. No new taxing authority was established at the meeting.