Why is the project good for the 157,000 residents/taxpayers of Hays County, when it appears to affect so few (10-12,000, according to Commissioner Ray Whisenant during our discussion on March 22nd)?
Com. Whisenant
Note: Just a few weeks ago, Pct. 4 Commissioner Ray Whisenant, R-Dripping Springs, was assigned the job of doing a "due diligence" review of the financially failing LCRA regional water systems that LCRA has had up for sale for the past three years. LCRA formally announced its intent to sell the systems in February. Pct. 3 Commissioner Will Conley, in e-mail responses to citizens curious about the county's interest in the systems, has said Whisenant is the commissioners court's go-to guy, so talk to him. This prospect is moving quickly. Somehow, the county has become very interested in LCRA's broke and deeply in debt water and wastewater holdings in southwest Travis and north Hays County (West Travis County Regional Water System). Watch for sound bites from our county officials reported in the local media like these: "We are doing what is best for the citizens" and "Hays County must have control of its water supply future." This one has a lot of interconnecting dots. On its face, all or part of a $140 million debt investment on a revenue-losing utility system, looks like a raw deal for the taxpayers of Hays County.Tuesday's April 12 commissioners court agenda states, Item 12 (Whisenant/Conley): "Discussion and possible action in regard to the participation of Hays County Water and Wastewater Authority in the current customer coalition effort to prepare an indicative bid for purchase of LCRA water & wastewater holdings . . . Additional information or supporting material will be available at the Court."
Send your comments, questions and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. Brannon at sam_brannon@hotmail.com, to Commissioner Whisenant at ray.whisenant@co.hays.tx.us or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
The letter is from Sam Brannon, organizer of the Hays Citizens' Budget Project.
Judge Cobb and Commissioners Conley, Whisenant, Ingalsbe and Jones: I'm not sure how concerned the People of Hays County should be about Tuesday's Agenda Item #12, "possible action . . . preparing a bid for the purchase of LCRA water and wastewater holdings." At this point I suspect we should classify this under "Very Concerned."
Given the complete lack of public scrutiny that this project has received so far, I certainly hope that this session is only informative and will result in no action.
When this purchase was first mentioned several weeks ago there was an unsettling sense of urgency about it, in spite of the fact that LCRA first announced the intent to sell these assets 3 years ago. To this point the only dollar amount that has been mentioned is $140 million, which is an extraordinary amount, particularly given the fact that in less than one year Hays County is expected to be carrying $357 million in debt.
Before any action is taken on this project at any price, there are many questions that deserve public discussion, including:
- Justification of need. Why is the project good for the 157,000 residents/taxpayers of Hays County, when it appears to affect so few (10-12,000, according to Commissioner Ray Whisenant during our discussion on March 22nd)?
- Complete Back Story. Is this project in any way associated with the planned Caliterra development? If so, we expect full disclosure to prevent the perception of this being another developer subsidy. Few, if any, taxpayers are of the mind in 2011 to subsidize private interests.
- Thorough Evaluation of Alternatives. We'll want the court to demonstrate that every option other than "taxpayer-funded" has been thoroughly evaluated. If not, you are not fulfilling your fiduciary duty to the People of Hays County.
- Meaningful Public Input / Public Vote. What are you plans to gather input/approval from Hays County taxpayers? If Hays County taxpayers are going to be on the hook for this project, then you should be prepared to take it to the voters under full-disclosure.
Perhaps if there was any backup provided we would be a bit more at ease about this discussion. It's in the best interest of everybody involved to maintain a deliberate pace in the discussion of this and other coming spending items, and to make sure you've got widespread public support for any spending actions the court decides to take.
Commissioners Conley and Whisenant: Please forward any back up documentation prior to Tuesday's court meeting so that we can begin our review, and please clarify what actions may be voted upon in court.
23 comments:
Hm-m-m. $140 million to help 10,000-12,000 people in northern Hays County.
Instead help maybe 4,000-5,000
people already here in the City of
Woodcreek, Woodcreek North, and
Wimberley Springs for a tiny fraction of that amount. Buy Aqua
Texas' CCN and equipment from them, and then spend the $5 million
Aqua Texas says it will cost them to replace old and leaking lines
over THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. Such a
project by Hays County wouldn't cost even close to 1/2 of the $140
million, yet WOULD help 1/2 as
many people as buying the LCRA
properties for new Dripping Springs
developments.
Hey, could we get the Wimberley
square fixed? Especially put in a
wastewater system so all the
businesses there would stop polluting Cypress Creek.
See The Burnet Bulletin, Feb. 15,
2011 for a letter written by Tim
Timmerman, LCRA Board Chair, to
Burnet County Judge Donna Klaeger
(www.burnetbulletin.com).
Mr. Timmerman explained to the judge that LCRA still wanted to
sell all 32 properties to one
buyer, so that LCRA could stop the
money drain the properties caused as soon as possible. He stated that "...the Board spent millions of dollars subsidizing the water utility system in an effort to keep rates as low as possible. Yet we could not reach a point where the system paid for itself."
When the Board Chair of LCRA is
openly admitting that holding the
32 properties in unprofitable, why
should Hays County want to buy
them?
Secondly, LCRA has pledged that it
will sell the properties to a buyer
who is committed to continuing the
same level of service to the 32
properties as did LCRA. So not only
would Hays County be purchasing 32
bad properties, but we would be
pledging to throw good money after
bad to keep them up.
Hays County Commissioners Court will hold its weekly meeting on
Tuesday, April 12 in Room 301 of
the County Courthouse in San Marcos. The session begins at 9 a.m. Item 12 on the agenda is the one dealing with the possible Hays County purchase of 32 LCRA systems. Item 12 reads "Discussion and possible action in regard to the participation of the Hays County Water & Wastewater Authority in the current customer
colition effort to prepare an
indicative bid for purchase of LCRA Water & Wastewater holdings.
WHISENANT/CONLEY"
Mentioning "the participation of the Hays County Water & Wastewater
Authority" sort of makes it sound as if that group is pushing this plan, but, make no mistake, it will be the judge and 4 commissioners who determine whether we taxpayers will be paying for a grab-bag of
undesirable water systems.
What is the "current customer
coalition effort?"
What is "an indicative bid?"
Regarding the Agenda for tomorrow's
(Tuesday, April 12) Commissioners
Court meeting:
Besides Item 12 (possible purchase
by Hays County of 32 LCRA water
systems), you might be interested
in these Items:
"Item 17 Discussion and possible
action to authorize Commissioner
Will Conley to represent Hays County in discussions with the
officials from the Department of
Interior and others in Washington
D.C...COBB"
What will Will be discussing
with them?
Item 19 allows the Court to go into
Executive Session to discuss
renovation to parts of County Road
266 near Commissioner Debbie
Ingalbe's home. INGALSBE
"Item 25 Discussion of material
relating to the Hays Water and
Wastewater Authority and/or the LCRA divestiture. WHISENANT"
This is the last item on the Agenda. I'm sure they hope we all
will have gone home by then.
I'm sure that earlier there was an item regarding the Ramos affair on
the Agenda, but it's now gone.
If you cannot attend the Tuesday,
April 12 session of Hays County
Commissioners Court, you can watch
it live on your computer. Go to
www.co.hays.tx.us/commcourtlive.
The link is active only while the
Court is in session.
The session begins at 9 a.m.
Facts from an Aug. 30, 2008 article
("Water's a rising") in the San
Marcos Record (www.sanmarcosrecord.com):
"According to TCEQ rules, when wastewater treatment plants reach
75 percent of their capacity, a new
plant should be in the design stages. When 90 percent capacity is
reached, 'you have to be constructing. If you're not, you're
in violation.' "
So should we ask TCEQ to start
fines on Aqua Texas? I imagine they
are over 100% capacity right now.
Stay tuned! There's so much more to be said on the Aqua Texas issues. Especially about who is going to be paying for the $5 million in repair and replacement of old and leaking lines!! Exactly what lines? Exactly where are those lines?
And to whose benefit? Areas that Wimberley Springs Partners might own?
LCRA wants to sell its 32 water and
wastewater facilities in one package, to one buyer. The 32 sites
are in 11 or more counties, stretching from San Saba County to
the Gulf of Mexico (See www.lcra.org). Part of northern
Hays County is in the West Travis Region, including facilities at
Dripping Springs and Bee Cave.
If Hays County bought these 32
sites, it would be adding an enormous area to service. It is
beyond our county's ability in
every way -- financial and manpower-wise -- to fulfill that
task.
Anon April 12, 7:15 AM brings up
some good questions.
As I understand it, Aqua Texas will
be allowed to pass on the $5 million repair costs to customers.
Meaning yet higher Aqua Texas
water/wastewater bills.
The repair/renovation will be done
over 5 years, Aqua says. Who is to
say that Aqua won't first work on
lines that serve lots owned by
their buddy, Wimberley Springs
Partners?
@ Anon April 12, 2011 9:55 AM
Isn’t that cute; you referring to your own comments. As the resident WSP hater, you have again found time from your rather tenuous job to comment here.
ATI has said that the lines will be replaced in a sequence designed for the least amount of disruptions within the subdivisions. Most if not all of the lines have already been rebuilt/replaced in the Wimberley Springs area by the WSP at their own expense. That of course does not include the Woodcreek North Sections that were previously under the control of the WPOA, which did noting for the residents there.
Nice try at indirectly demonizing the WSP for your own personal revenge.
Anon April 10, 2011 7:31 PM said...
“Hey, could we get the Wimberley square fixed? Especially put in a wastewater system so all the businesses there would stop polluting Cypress Creek.”
Just so you know, that problem is for the City of Wimberley to solve and they’d better get on it. I think the EPA is all over it already. The only way the County might get involved is if the City votes to un-incorporate. That might happen if they try to invoke an ad valorem tax. If the City were to no longer exist then it would fall to the responsibility of the County. This has the makings of a real cluster here in old Hays County.
961 customers have "firm" contracts
with LCRA for raw water supplies
(www.lcra.org). Five are in Hays
County. Here are names of the five, with number of acre/feet of
water each can receive each year:
Dripping Springs WSC 560
City of Dripping Springs 506
Hays County WCID#1(Belterra)656.50
Hays County WCID#2(Belterra)628.75
Hays Reunion Ranch 240.
These are the only Hays County
citizens who would benefit (in the
whole of Hays County) if Hays
County spent over $142 million to
buy the LCRA properties now for
sale. Population-wise, that's not
many.
Where in the heck does Dripping
Springs expect to get the water to supply these subdivisions that are either already open or are in the works?
Arrowhead Ranch - 200 lots
Belterra - 2,000 homes
Caliterra - 450 homes
Counts Ranch - 104 lots
Creek Road Ranch - 23 lots
Dos Lagos - 35 homes
Downstream - 6 lots
Garnett Subdivision - 89 lots
Hall Subdivision - 87 lots
Headwaters at Barton Creek - 1,000
Hidden Springs Ranch - 102 homes
Highpointe - 1,000 homes
Howard Ranch - 125 homes
Legacy Trail - 100 homes
Old Fitzhugh Townhomes - 8 units
Preserve, The - 69 homes
Rancho Bella (Bello?) - 9 lots
Reunion Ranch - 476 lots
Rim Rock - 675 homes
Salt Lick - 150 homes ($800,000 up)
& condos being considered
Scenic Greens - 900 homes
Three Oaks Ranch - 7 lots
Vineyard Estates - 38 lots
Vineyard Ridge - 5 lots
Vistas at Sawyer Ranch - 177 lots
Walking W Ranch - 60 homes
XV Ranch-15 lots of 100 acres each.
Take the Salt Lick development off the list, they are a MUD; will be providing their own water.
to Anon April 12, 3:51 PM:
Oh, really? You say the Salt Lick
is providing their own water? Do you think they might share with the rest of us how they do that?
What is the magic formula?
Whether it's a single-family home,
a house in a MUD or a Development
District (like Salt Lick), or a home in a PUA, EVERYONE takes water
from either surface water or
groundwater. Just so many straws
will be able to suck up the water,
don'tcha know?
How was Wimberley allowed to
incorporate as a city when it did
not have one of the most basic of
services for a city -- a wastewater
treatment plant?
And how will a WTP be provided?
The City of Wimberley has relatively little revenue. It
probably doesn't have enough revenue to pay the interest for a
WTP bond issue -- let alone pay down the principal. That's why
GBRA wouldn't approve issuing bonds
for a WTP for the Wimberley Square--they think (probably rightly) that
we can't make the payments.
As someone said, maybe Wimberley should un-incorporate. If we were
an unincorporated area, perhaps the
County would be forced to clean up
the mess that is the Square because
of all the crap that is going into
Cypress Creek.
Is there any way Wimberley Water
Supply Corporation could become a
wastewater treatment business, too?
(I imagine there is, but they,like
GBRA, probably wouldn't want to take on the vast expense of doing
that.)
To correct the waste system on the
square will take gazillions of
dollars, and few businesses there
could afford their share of the
cost. It's going to be one of those
situations where people not living
or owning a business on the place
in question (Wimberley square) are
going to have to chip in to clean
up the mess. The more people who
chip in, the lower the cost will be
to each individual. It would be
cheaper for each individual if the
whole county were involved (a bond
issue with goodies in it for some
other area, too -- like the package
which brought us the glorious RR12
Conley Parkway, but gave some perks
to Buda, Kyle, too). 157,000
people in all of Hays County can
much more easily pay to fix the
square than can 2,600 in Wimberley.
Talk about fear mongering! Harken
unto Will Conley, trying to scare
us into buying some or all of the 32 properties LCRA wants to sell:
"Right now Chinese investors could buy that system, and under the state laws and regulations, expand that system in an aggressive fashion to the best of their ability, with little checks and
balances...."
In the first place, the Chinese are
too savvy to buy a pig in a poke. They would examine the LCRA books and see that the LCRA water/wastewater plants are vastly
unprofitable. Not only that, expansions and repairs are needed
for many of them. Customers cannot or would not pay the rates that the
Chinese would have to charge just
to break even.
No, the Chinese would take a pass on this "opportunity" -- as would
any other sane company or country.
I'm told that Commissioner
Whisenant fears that Aqua Texas
might try to buy the LCRA package,
but that is very unlikely. 1)TCEQ
probably wouldn't let Aqua have
free rein to mistreat more of the
citizens of Hays County. 2) Aqua
will have its hands full just repairing the water/wastewater lines in the Woodcreeks and
Wimberley Springs. They say that
project will take them 5 years.
Anonymous April 13, 2011 12:46 AM said...
“How was Wimberley allowed to incorporate as a city when it did not have one of the most basic of services for a city -- a wastewater treatment plant?”
Besides the fact that the “little bit of heaven” was fraudulently incorporated by lying about the population to illegally expand its ETJ, certain politicians were either bought off or just looked the other way. They also promised the voters on a stack of Bibles that they would never never never have a property tax. Now the chickens have come home to roost and it ain’t pretty. They are polluting Cypress Creek and if they try for an ad valorem tax election to build a WTP the public will have their heads.
Wimberley recently and absurdly decided to see if they can add more public restrooms on the square to service the tourist trade! Talk about being in denial and out of touch. They continue to spend money on frills such as hiking trails, landscaping, sidewalks and Blue Hole while draining their S#!t into Cypress Creek.
We all need to file complaints with the State Health Department and the EPA about the “Toxic Square”. That is what their city manager, Don Furguson called it when testifying before the TWDB while begging for a loan to build a WTP; they turned him down and sent him home. The TWDB told him essentially, that they did not have a sufficient credit rating and that they have a bunch of rich people over there, that can pay for it.
Un-incorporation may be claimed top be the only answer unless the County gets into the banking business and loans them the money for a WTP. Nothing would surprise me about our county trying to act like the Feds and spend us into bankruptcy. The County should sue to prevent them from dissolving the City and their responsibility until they rectify the problem. If they try to spread the cost among the rest of the population of Hays County they will start a storm that will be their undoing. The City of Wimberley made the “mess” make them clean it up and NOW!
If Aqua America (who has the cash) were to purchase the 32 systems, and they might just do that, they would raise the rates to the roof by passing all of their costs on to their customers plus 10% as provided for by he TCEQ. This is exactly what they did when they purchased the AquaSource systems for nearly $200 million in 2003. Some of those systems became our beloved Aqua Texas. That is exactly how Aqua America makes their money.
Those systems closely parallel what the old AquaSource situation was, where they didn’t have to funds or courage to charge enough to make it profitable. I wonder what would happen if the LCRA was unable to sell these 32 turkeys? I believe the TCEQ could prevent a sale such as this, though I’m not sure.
Like it or not we are all going to pay more and more for water in the very near future. Rainwater harvesting is starting to look good but where is the rain? Surface water piped in will be a fact but very expensive. Utilizing the saline aquifers by building desalination plants and pipelines will be in the mix somewhere as well.
@anonymous April 12, 2011/10:57 AM:
How clever your thoughts that two earlier posts of same are by same author and how very wrong. That aside, perhaps you should do some more investigation regarding AT lines and work paid for by Wimberley Springs Partners. WSP did pay for
lines near the 2325 entrance but as one goes further along Valley Springs, lines there have been a constant source of breaks and patches. And once back beyond Laurel Lake, there have been breaks causing geyser-like eruptions creating huge spills of water. Thousands of gallons! Yes, that area had been under auspices of the WPOA but now belong to WSP along with MANY undeveloped lots. Those lots in order to be developed will need to have existing lines repaired/replaced or new lines brought in. How do you suppose that fits into AT's plan of sequential development?
System Facilities Bond Election and a Refunding Bond Election.
On the Hays County Sample Ballot, there was a Proposition 1 for $30m and Proposistion 2 for $45M.
Both were to be directed to a Reunion Ranch Water Control and Improvement System.
I just voted early and had no option to vote against these Proposistions and the taxes they will levy. Can anyone out there explain?
The County really needs to control growth in a responsible manner and quit thinking about how to get more and more money out of the existing property owners. This whole property tax increase agenda, the appraisal valuations increasing at a ridiculous pace(with no regard to actual MLS values), and the sheer density of development on land that simply cannot sustain it. Something has to be done.
I know - 'Property Rights" - well, at what cost? The only people it benefits are the developers and the County (thru increased tax base). Not the residents. If I wanted to live in Sunset Valley, I'd move there.
Only those living in the affected area can vote. It's a MUD election.
Post a Comment