Letters to the Editor

Observations from the mayor’s town hall

Let’s talk about the mayor’s town hall meeting on June 6, 2018.

First, on her slide presentation, the mayor briefly noted substantial budget deficits, in future years and made the statement the wastewater project “wasn’t the whole reason” for the deficits. I feel comfortable the math was accurate, but without the underlying assumptions and which line items are the major contributors to these deficits, it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the merits of the projections. Below are a few observations:

• Every mayor, and there have been 7 before our current mayor, has faced budget challenges and each one has managed, with the input of city council and citizens, to successfully solve them.

• The city has a history of fiscal responsibility. By utilizing prudent budget/fiscal policies and practices, prior mayors and councils have accumulated a $1.4 million fund balance (rainy day fund). The city’s CPA and financial advisor say a city our size should have 3-6 months operating expenses in the fund balance. We have twice that.

• The 2019 budget process has only just started. The numbers the mayor presented are preliminary. She and the council will work through them and citizens will have an opportunity to weigh in before they become final.

• If it is determined we in fact do have deficits on the horizon, the mayor should publicly identify them and their causes, begin dialog with city council and the public and come up with the solution.

Second, the mayor made her case for reversing course and going with the Aqua Texas option. Again, a few observations:

• The citizens have said they want the current city owned and operated wastewater system by a 60/40 margin (2017 election).

• The current plan has been vetted, over and over again, and shown to be affordable, environmentally sound, and the preferred option.

• About 90% of the speakers at the recent town hall spoke out against the AT option.

• The mayor and the newly elected councilmembers were less than truthful with the public during their campaigns on their stance on AT.

Third, the mayor told us the current project is $3.2 million over budget. That is not true. The total anticipated cost is $7,024,087 with available funds of $7,498,005 resulting in $473,218 available for contingencies. These numbers were included in the mayor’s presentation. It should be noted that at the recent city council workshop with the contractors, both contractors stated they did not anticipate any significant change orders causing additional costs.

I say let’s move forward with this project as planned. We then can focus our efforts to solve some of the other major issues facing our city such as roads and the budget deficits the mayor says are coming. We, the citizens, have proven time and again that when presented with a challenge, we go to work and solve it.

Steve Thurber

Aqua Texas is No Steward

In the 14 years that I have lived in our beautiful Wimberley Valley, finding a viable avenue toward solving environmental and waterway pollution has been the top regional initiative. Throughout these years, one fact has been painfully clear: Aqua Texas has little no regard whatsoever to the wellbeing of the environment in which we live. For as many years as they have been here, they have processed raw sewage from the area that they serve to level two. They then dilute that product, half and half, with water that they draw directly from our aquifer. Then this aromatic potion is sprayed onto grassy, thin layers of soil directly above the aquifer – over and over, day by day. If they were responsible stewards, they would have upgraded treatment to level one of their own accord rather than only as a bargaining tool. Clearly, for profit Aqua Texas is no good steward of our resources.

I have a business on the square and was part of the movement to create a PID so that this area would pay for the project ourselves. The city chose to take the project on itself. I completely support the current plan to keep the plant on city owned property, to retain the level one affluent to sustain Blue Hole for use by the entire community. I prefer to have our sewer rates determined by our own elected officials, and to keep our “hard earned” money local. I am encouraged that Black Castle has been doing a great job keeping to schedule, and am hopeful that their entire contract will be honored. Cost for changes to the existing engineering design to accommodate Aqua Texas, plus the upgrade to level two treatment at their plant, plus purple pipes for “sending the affluent wherever the city wants” would certainly add many hundreds of thousands to the bottom line. Add to that the $800-$1,500,00 that the city would lose to Black Castle for breach of contract makes using Aqua TX cost prohibitive. I hope that this City Council will accept the stewardship of its own park and water resources, and disqualify Aqua Texas’s proposal for good and last.

Mary Temple Wynne