Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Article Image Alt Text

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Former mayors concerned about sewer direction

Dear Fellow Wimberley Citizens, We are former Wimberley mayors, and we’re writing because of our concern about the direction our town is headed in regard to the Wimberley wastewater project. We have a combined 33 years of public service experience on the city council, and we haven’t always been on the same side of the political fence. However, we are united in our concern that the present course on which the city is headed will result in harm to our pristine waterways and have catastrophic fiscal results. It is not our purpose to become engaged in finger-pointing or entangled in unproductive name-calling. We just want you to have the facts and to show you the direction the city is headed. On the attached fact sheet, we attempt to present verified and verifiable facts. After all of the “facts” about the wastewater project that have been tossed about, why should you believe ours? First, these are facts. Secondly, every one of them is backed by information developed by professionals in the various fields involved. We have annotated the sources, many of which are already publicly available, and we are willing to share that data with anyone interested. Study the facts and come to your own conclusions. We are confident that these facts demonstrate that Wimberley is on the wrong track. Failure to change directions could be disastrous. Sincerely your concerned former mayors,

Bob Flocke Mac McCullough Steve Klepfer Steve Thurber

Wimberley Wastewater Project Fact Sheet Environmental Concerns

The current, approved plant project produces enhanced Type 1 (safe for human contact) effluent to be used to irrigate Blue Hole Park. Aqua Texas (AT) irrigates a golf course with Type 2 (not safe for human contact). AT has promised to upgrade its plant to Type 1 but hasn’t done so. With control of Wimberley’s treatment plant AT will have no incentive to change. A change to AT will require lines carrying raw sewage across Cypress Creek, either suspended from the RR12 bridge or boring under the creek. Both are significant environmental risks which may not be approved.

Budget—Construction Costs

Costs of the currently approved city-owned and operated project are known, funded and the money is there. Contracts are in place for both the collection system and the plant. Contractors for both parts of the project have told the city council (Workshop, May 22, 2018) that they do not anticipate any substantial change orders that would increase the cost of the project, and construction of both is well underway and well within budget.

Budget—Revenues

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), US Economic Development Administration (EDA), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the city’s bond counsel (Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado Acosta LLP), the city’s professional financial advisor (Specialized Public Finance, Inc.) and multiple city councils all have reviewed the current revenue rates and found them sufficient to service the debt, maintain and operate the system and provide for future capital expenditures. Rate study by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (11-28-2016) provides analysis of calculation of rates.

Budget—Available Funds

TWDB 30 yr. loan @ 2 percent interest $5,255,000 Debt forgiveness (free money) $243,005 Way Foundation grant (free money) $1,000,000 EDA grant (free money) $1,000,000 Total available funds $7,498,005

Budget—Projected Cost

Capital Excavation (collection system) $3,616,230 Black Castle General Contractor (plant) $3,222,300 Bond reserve $237,902 Fees (Loan docs, escrow fees) $96,652 Total projected costs $7,173,084 EXCESS available funds (contingency) $324,921

Way Family Foundation Grant

The Way Family Foundation grant is a legally binding agreement for both city and the Way Family Foundation. Disinformation is being broadcast that the grant is not binding. It is binding, and that is how the Way family wants it. The grant will be funded so long as the project is built substantially in accordance with the currently approved plan but not for an AT-controlled system. (See Way Charitable Grant dated 8/24/2017 on the city website.) The funds have been certified available by the Way Family Foundation’s bank. This is no different than having the funds in an “escrow” fund. Don’t be fooled by disinformation, the money is there and ready to be funded. The Way family is committed to a clean, clear Cypress Creek and Blanco River.

Ad Valorem Tax

The threat of an ad valorem tax is a scare tactic. The bonds for the city system are revenue bonds, secured 100 percent by the revenues generated from the wastewater system. That means the system users are the ones paying for it. By the terms of the loan agreement, the bonds CANNOT be repaid with an ad valorem (property) tax. Again, only the revenues from the wastewater system may be used to repay the bond debt.

Aqua Texas Option

By using any AT option, the city loses local control of rates. All rates are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. While the city can appeal a rate increase by AT, few cities that have tried have succeeded, and the cost can be prohibitive.AT is a large outside corporation exploiting the natural resources of a small community for the profit of its stockholders. This is no different from EP’s (Electro Purification’s) current attempt to pump millions of gallons a day from out aquifer. Since 2006 the option of using AT to process the city’s waste has been studied by engineers, stakeholder groups and the city’s water wastewater board. Every time the recommended solution was a city-owned and operated plant. The AT option would not provide any water for irrigation of Blue Hole Regional Park and would require transporting raw sewage across Cypress Creek to the existing AT plant putting both Blue Hole and the creek at unnecessary environmental risk. Going with AT would require the cancellation of the plant contract and a major modification (increased costs to hook up to AT) or cancellation of the collection system contract. The city has no right to cancel either contract, and to do so would result in the city’s being liable for substantial damages. In addition to damages, the substantial funds already spend on the plant design and construction would be lost.

Discharge

AT discharges daily on a golf course adjacent to Cypress Creek upstream of Wimberley. That discharge could increase with the addition of Wimberley’s affluent. AT’s discharge is toxic Type 2 effluent which goes into the environment. To cut down on the odor, AT dilutes its toxic effluent discharge with clean aquifer water. The city plant would produce enhanced Type 1 effluent, safe for human contact. That effluent is needed to water Blue Hole Regional Park, a major economic engine of the community. The city is prohibited by its permit and other agreements from discharging into Deer Creek other than as a last resort, for example when the park is saturated and the 500,000 gallon storage tank is full. The chance of discharge into Deer Creek is remote. As an added protection, the tank is built to allow effluent to be pumped into trucks and hauled if necessary.

Urgency

The city has put a 90 day pause on the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. That pause ends on August 21st. At that point the city must make a decision to 1) cancel the contract, 2) continue the delay which has negative financial consequences to the city or 3) continue with the contract. Either of the first 2 options will be financially detrimental, if not catastrophic, for the city. The city needs the approval of each of the financing entities (TWDB, EDA, Way Family Foundation) to make a change to Aqua Texas. At this time, the city has none of these approvals.

Change to City Governance

Dear Mayor, City Council Members and City employees,

I object to the change in city governance I am witnessing taking place.

Currently, with Ordinance 2001-026 the city adopted a city administrator and laid out the roles of the mayor and council by doing so. The wording of this ordinance makes it clear that the city is operating under the council-manager form under the General Law type A form of government. One only needs to compare the wording of this ordinance and the job description of the City Administrator with the TML handbook describing the council-manager form, described under the General Law section, to see it plainly.

The mayor recently offered up a document that was passed by the council, that represented the mayor having more administrative duties. This is in direct conflict with the current ordinance in place. And is pulled from a chapter that is describing a “Strong Mayor” form of government. Under this very chapter (22) it explains that a city, with adopting an ordinance can further define, the city governance, as adopting a City Administrator, which is what the city did, with 2001-026.

There are many conflicts and possible lawsuits that result from this action taken by the mayor and council. But I wish to address another point.

By moving the form of city governance to one of a weak council, it lessens the checks and balances set in place when you have a City Administrator. It also lessens the powers of the city council. And places much of the powers into the hands of one person, the mayor. Think of it this way, once the powers have shifted to a mayor, would you support all future mayors having this new power? Think of a mayor you may in the future disagree with regarding the handling of how the city addresses it’s issues? Are you comfortable knowing that you were the one who gave them those powers to create contracts in the dark, out of the site of the public and council,and enter into agreements with out the full light of the council and the public? Have Veto power over what the council decides? And the list goes on from there.

Do not be complicit in this change to the very structure of how our city governs it’s self.

Currently, the City Administrator has been educated in the ways of municipal law and it’s applications, can you say that about a mayor, current or future?

The City Administrator is there to support the actions of the Mayor and City Council as they set, through ordinances, the direction of the city, and provide guidance as to what can and cannot be done according to the laws set by state and federal agencies, as well as, existing city ordinances. The City Administrator is there to protect the city from any infractions.

A Strong Mayor form of government, offers no transparency or checks and balances, in terms of what a mayor can do vs what a city council member can do. In this paid full time position form, the mayor would be in control of what is able to be brought to the table for review by the council. Again, think about the future, and consider giving this power over to a less scrupulous mayor.

It is very clear to me, that moving away from a council-manager from of government that we have now, and moving to a weak council form of government is moving from a more democratic governance towards a more authoritarian one. Is that truly what you would want for Wimberley?

It may be being presented as though it’s no big deal, but truly it is a big deal, when you dig into the weeds of it, with even a little bit of your time.

Please reconsider any movement towards giving this mayor and all future mayors these new powers ... thereby lessening the powers of the city council and the municipal oversight by the city administrator. This is not the governance intended and laid out in Wimberley’s original formation. Please stand up for democracy. And shame on you, if you don’t.

Chrys Grummert

Wimberley View

P.O. Box 49
Wimberley, TX 78676
Phone: 512-847-2202
Fax: 512-847-9054