No Surprises: City snafu over WTP 4 continues

Last week, the Chronicle obtained an auditor's report on the controversial site-selection history behind Water Treatment Plant 4. The report, on "Allegations of Integrity Violations Involving WTP 4 Site Selection Process," was prepared by the City Auditor's Integrity Unit, and arose from a whistle-blower complaint made by a city employee in October. The unnamed complainant told the CAIU that Environmental Board member Karin Ascot was misled by city staff when she asked if there's another viable site to build WTP 4 in the Cortaña tract. (Cortaña is a tract of land in Northwest Austin, surrounded by the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. A 45-acre parcel at its northern tip remains the city's first choice for a new water treatment plant, despite opponents' concerns about the site's delicate environmental and ecological balance. Due to disagreement with Travis Co. over the location's merit, however, the city is proceeding with preparation work at a still more environmentally fragile site near Bull Creek.) The complainant also alleged City Council was similarly misled about the existence of an alternate site – and moreover, that the employee was instructed to destroy the alternate site analysis.

City Auditor Steve Morgan set out to answer four questions:

• "Does a second site within the Cortaña tract meet the preliminary screening level criteria established for the alternative site selection process?"

• "Did city staff misinform a member of the city's environmental board about the existence of such a site?"

• "Did a city consultant misinform City Council about the existence of such a site?"

• "Did city staff direct an employee to dispose of government records?"

The answers were yes, yes, no, and unknown.

"The information we gathered through our investigation indicates a second site within the Cortaña tract does appear to meet the preliminary screening criteria for initial consideration as a potential alternative site for WTP 4," reads the report. Site selection contractors Alan Plummer and Associates developed a two-step selection process, under which a site must initially meet five criteria. If a site met those standards, it was then graded on 11 more points. Using these guidelines, the city auditor's office identified the Lower Cortaña tract as a potential candidate, while APA had not; the report said this was because "analysis capabilities of the city's [Geographic Information Systems] exceeded that of the consultant's GIS." Nevertheless, the contractors rejected the site "for reasons other than the preliminary criteria." This was not done according to the "methodical process" used to gauge other sites, but rather after an informal "windshield survey" (that is, a literal drive-by) of the site, whereby the surveyors concluded that the site was under the 50-acre criteria – though the auditors' independent analysis found that the site contains about 52 acres. However, the report goes on to note that other considerations – proximity to neighborhoods, and distance from water intake – "likely would have disqualified the site for consideration" had it been in the running.

The auditor's report also found that Environmental Board member Ascot "may have been misinformed" about the site, though stronger words may be appropriate: "Though the alternate Cortaña site had been identified … the WTP 4 team responded in a written memo to the board member that no such site existed. … [T]his statement appears to be false." The CAIU did conclude that the City Council wasn't similarly misinformed of the site's existence. While it wasn't presented as a viable alternative, the tract's shortcomings came up in a presentation to council. Lastly, the CAIU couldn't produce any findings over the most explosive charge – that the whistle-blower was instructed to destroy records of the site analysis – as the parties interviewed delivered "conflicting testimony."

The day after the report was posted on the Chronicle Web site (and received a passing discussion at that day's City Council meeting), Austin Energy manager Juan Garza, who had been acting assistant city manager during the period in question, issued a response downplaying the auditor's report. "Fundamentally, the audit does not dispute that all viable treatment plant sites were publicly presented and discussed," the response reads. "Specifically, the audit does not disagree that the specific site in question scored poorly on the engineering, environmental, and cost analysis that followed the preliminary buildable size assessment." Garza's memorandum also defends the "windshield survey" which sealed the site's fate as "not substantively different than the analysis performed for all original sites."

On the finding that Ascot was misled, Garza noted, "In retrospect, a more complete response … would have included the results of the engineering, environmental and cost evaluation which ruled out this site." Garza goes on to say, however, that the misleading memo from city staff was sent after the board had already taken action, by implication painting the information as moot. The memorandum then speaks to the allegations of a cover-up. "Given this … scrutiny by the city team and external consultants, as well as the public's discussion of the southern Cortaña site, it makes any discussion of disposing of records evidencing the existence of this alternative site illogical."

Of Garza's comment that it's "important to note" the Ascot memo came "after both the board and council action," Ascot told us, "it's disingenuous to say 'if the environmental board voted, it's too late to say anything different.' [We were working to] a time line set by city staff. … All the way through we were given the runaround. We were behind on info."

At City Hall, reaction was more muted, especially in regard to the effect the auditor's report might have on current plans to build at Bull Creek. "No, I don't think it will change anything at all," Council Member Lee Leffingwell said. Lower Cortaña "does not appear to be accessible." However, he warned "the window to move away from Bull Creek to [North] Cortaña is closing. It's going away at the end of the year. [There] won't be time to start over. By March, you can't do anything [because of the black-capped vireo nesting season]."

Council Member Mike Martinez was more blunt. "It's sad we paid an outside consultant to do work whose technology was inferior to ours," he said of the GIS discrepancy. "That's what this report told me." Also dismaying Martinez was a council decision that morning allocating $250,000 in legal defense funds to two law firms for "Endangered Species Act related matters" and potential litigation related to WTP 4, money from the bond dollars paying for the plant. "It's a clear indication we're moving forward with Bull Creek. … If environmental groups come forward [and successfully get the Jollyville Salamander listed as an endangered species], we'll have to respond to that."

"At this point, with Water Treatment Plant 4," said Martinez, "you can't be surprised."