Alamo Drafthouse Slaughter Lane
True Costs of Water Treatment Plant
RECEIVED Tue., Feb. 27, 2007
Dear Editor,
I read Wells Dunbar's article "To the Lighthouse" [News, Feb. 23] about Water Treatment Plant No. 4. It was balanced and relatively thorough. But it left out two important points.
First, the decision to build the Water Treatment Plant is not the City Council's decision to make. It is the public's decision through a referendum election.
Article 7, Section 11 of the City Charter states, "All revenue bonds issued by the city shall first be authorized by a majority of qualified electors voting at an election held for this purpose." Revenue bonds fund our water utility.
The city government has been defying this charter provision for well more than a decade. Voters did not give council permission to change the charter. It was just done. And it will be interesting to see how council responds now that it needs the money.
Second, the original election that authorized funding the water treatment plant in 1984 was for about $144 million. But the city has already spent about $57 million of this. So it will require about $246 million more in funding. Taking on such a debt will in all likelihood raise water bills.
How much will this new plant raise water rates? With the cost of Austin housing already the highest in Texas because of unbridled growth, how much more success can we stand?
It will be many years before population saturation lowers the incremental cost of this plant substantially. While some of the plant cost may be paid for with hookup fees for new buildings, much of the cost will probably be born by the residents here when the plant is constructed. The current public will finance future growth.
Please cover these issues in your future stories on this matter.
I read Wells Dunbar's article "To the Lighthouse" [News, Feb. 23] about Water Treatment Plant No. 4. It was balanced and relatively thorough. But it left out two important points.
First, the decision to build the Water Treatment Plant is not the City Council's decision to make. It is the public's decision through a referendum election.
Article 7, Section 11 of the City Charter states, "All revenue bonds issued by the city shall first be authorized by a majority of qualified electors voting at an election held for this purpose." Revenue bonds fund our water utility.
The city government has been defying this charter provision for well more than a decade. Voters did not give council permission to change the charter. It was just done. And it will be interesting to see how council responds now that it needs the money.
Second, the original election that authorized funding the water treatment plant in 1984 was for about $144 million. But the city has already spent about $57 million of this. So it will require about $246 million more in funding. Taking on such a debt will in all likelihood raise water bills.
How much will this new plant raise water rates? With the cost of Austin housing already the highest in Texas because of unbridled growth, how much more success can we stand?
It will be many years before population saturation lowers the incremental cost of this plant substantially. While some of the plant cost may be paid for with hookup fees for new buildings, much of the cost will probably be born by the residents here when the plant is constructed. The current public will finance future growth.
Please cover these issues in your future stories on this matter.
Sincerely,
Paul Robbins
Paul Robbins
