Letters to the Editor
My concerns with the current Mayor and City Council’s handling of the WWTP have consistently been that “changing the project scope late in a project’s execution phase results in unanticipated consequences.” Several consequences are now apparent. A major one is that the reclaimed water (the source for paying back the TWDB loan) is no longer part of the scope.
Now that the City Council has voted to make the project scope change by cancelling the Black Castle contract, it is our responsibility, as Wimberley Citizens, to monitor, track, and ask the questions of the Mayor and City Council on the impacts this scope change has to project cost, schedule, status of financing –TWDB loan, CCN, engineering design, etc. The responsibility of the Mayor and City Council is to respond to our questions. Several questions that I have concerns with are listed at the end of my letter.
As part of their campaign platforms and during subsequent meetings and the Mayor’s Corner, one or more of the Mayor and members of the City Council committed to fiscal responsibility, maintaining project schedule, accountability to the Citizens, listening to varying opinions, transparency, no AT, honor settlement agreement with BRCCWA, keep CCN, no Ad Valorem tax, and zero discharge. As these campaign commitments relate to the WWTP, let’s evaluate how they are doing.
Fiscal Responsibility – The mayor has spent thousands of dollars preparing project cost justification estimates comparing the City-Owned and City/AT options. Unfortunately, the most recent Mayor estimate eliminated the reclaimed water line to Blue Hole Park, and again left out entirely (or significantly under-estimated) the costs for cancellation of the Black Castle Contract, site remediation, cost to tunnel a sewage pipe under Blue Hole, design and construction surprises, and legal costs for contract negotiations and future lawsuits. These costs total more than $1,500,000. Instead of the City/At option being less expensive, at a minimum this option is more than $1,000,000 more expensive. Depending on the level of funding (if any) agreed to by TWDB, the City/AT option will be $1,000,000 to $4,000,000 more expensive.
Project Schedule – The City/AT scope change will require funding approval from TWDB or some other source, additional engineering design, permits, potential lawsuits, etc. Schedule delay will be 6 months at best, more likely more than a year. Quotes taken from a May 6, 2018, (the day after the election) email to a former Council member, with copies to the Mayor and 3 of 5 City Council members, “Stop sewer project immediately. When you get sued that (lawsuits) will be the delay, not the actions you are taking…. Everyone will see and understand this.”
Accountability to Citizens, Listen to Varying Opinions, Transparency – In the July 19th Mayor’s Corner of the Wimberley View and again at the August 16th City Council meeting, the Mayor stated that there would be No Vote prior to having an Open Town Hall meeting in the Community Center to review all issues and answer questions from the Citizens of Wimberley. At the Council meeting, Council member Fore stated that there would be No Vote to cancel the Black Castle contract, (a major scope change) prior to the City having EDA grant confirmation and TWDB consent. As you are aware, there never was an Open Town Hall meeting prior to the Vote and the EDA grant is not available for use on the City/AT option. There have been several City Council meetings where no comments or severely limited comment periods were allowed. At the August 28th, Special Council Meeting, 16 individuals signed up to comment on the Black Castle contract cancellation were denied the right to speak. One of the Mayor’s most vocal supporters wrote a very negative email to the Mayor referencing her actions at the meeting.
No Aqua Texas - From Councilman Barchfeld’s April 23rd campaign facebook statement, quote “All the contracts are signed and we are moving ahead with the Wimberley Wastewater Plan.”
Honor Settlement Agreement with BRCCWA – A copy of the settlement agreement can be found on the Wimberley City Council website under Wastewater Project (about halfway down the list). The agreement signees included BRCCWA (Gail Pigg), Paradise Valley Property Owners Association (Steven Jaggers), KKP3237, LLC (Gina Fulkerson), and Rocky River Ranch, Inc. (Rue Hatfield). The City/ AT option meets zero of the items listed in the agreement.
Keep CCN – Still to be determined.
No Ad Valorem Tax – If the TWDB loan is cancelled, funding will have to be obtained from other sources at an interest rate of most likely 5% or higher. An Ad Valorem tax may be the only way to secure the funding and to then pay off the loan. Even with the TWDB loan, without the revenue from reclaimed effluent to the soccer fields, some source for paying the TWDB loan will have to be authorized by TWDB.
Zero Discharge – There is no such thing as “zero discharge.” The question is the quality of the treated effluent and where it will be discharged. Aqua Texas currently discharges a Level 2 effluent onto the Quicksand Golf Course. This effluent either soaks into the ground and into our aquifer or during rains runs off into the wet and dry water creeks which meander through the golf course. The Level 2 effluent then runs into Cypress Creek near the low water crossing in Woodcreek. For you golfers, check out the creek that runs near the 9th and 10th tees and over to Cypress Creek a couple of hundred feet away. The City/AT option will continue to dump effluent onto the golf course and then into Cypress Creek. The question is will it be Level 1 or Level 2 effluent. The City-Owned option was Level 1 effluent (with extra treatment to reduce phosphates and nitrates and Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection treatment) for use on the soccer fields and other locations within Blue Hole Park. Which effluent do you prefer to have for watering your grass? And why would you run raw sewage under Cypress Creek when other options are available?
As you can see, the todate performance of the Mayor and City Council has been less than exemplary. For that reason, it is mandatory that we, as Wimberley citizens, ask and get answers from our city representatives. Below are some questions that I have. I am sure that you as Wimberley residents have others. There is no reason that these questions can’t be addressed at future City Council meetings or in the Mayor’s Corner.
1. Are the mayor and city council, with no exceptions, committed to their campaign promise, and subsequent meetings/presentations, that the CCN will not be part of any Aqua Texas sewage treatment proposals/agreements?
2. Will any City/AT proposals be reviewed with Wimberley Citizens prior to signing an agreement?
3. Is there a backup project funding plan in place if TWDB funds are not available for use on the City/AT option?
4. If the backup funding plan includes Aqua Texas, will the plan be reviewed with Wimberley citizens, in an Open Forum discussion, prior to signing any contracts with AT?
5. Why is Wimberley paying Aqua Texas $300,000 to convert to Level 1 effluent? A good corporate neighbor would have made the conversion several years ago.
6. What is the current status of the Black Castle Contract?
7. What is the current status of the TWDB Loan?
8. Has a new “cost to city users” been done to reflect the higher project cost estimate for both cases - with the TWDB funds and without the TWDB funds available?
9. Are there plans for the remediation of the Treatment Plant site in Blue Hole Park?
William Bowman