MINERAL WELLS — Two incumbent council members defended moves they’ve taken to ensure future water reliability, with each facing challengers inspired to run by a 146 percent water rate hike.
They also say, for all the criticism, they have yet to hear alternative solutions or ideas.
Ward 1 Councilman Jerrel Tomlin and Ward 3 Councilwoman Beth Watson are seeking their fourth full terms in the May 4 election. (Tomlin also faces a recall of the term that winds down that very day, courtesy of a petition gathered by people inside and out of Mineral Wells).
Tomlin faces Bryan Sleeman, a five-year resident of the south-central city Ward 1 whose filing application lists his occupation as inspector.
Watson is challenged by Darrin Thomas, who will be listed on the ballot as D.B. Thomas. He has lived in the northwestern Ward 3 for more than 16 years and is a commercial escrow advisor, his filing shows.
Neither challenger responded to multiple calls across several days asking they participate in this story.
The incumbents, the rest of the council and Mayor Regan Johnson (who also drew an anti-rate hike challenger), are hip deep in a $277.5 million list of projects they say are reasonable steps to ensure water for future generations.
Those projects, led by the $200 million Turkey Peak Reservoir and a $40 million replacement the 60-year-old Hilltop Water Plant, are being undertaken by the district that owns Lake Palo Pinto and sells the city its water.
The Hilltop Water Treatment Plant has been under a Notice of Violation from the state environmental agency. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality cites the plant’s consistent lack of capacity to meet the water needs of customers in the city and of the seven wholesalers supplying taps in Palo Pinto and south and western Parker counties.
That pending violation is being held at bay by the steps Mineral Wells is taking to replace the plant, including engineering design now completed.
The Palo Pinto County Municipal Water District No. 1, owner of the lake, is the actual entity hoping to build the new lake and a water plant.
Sixty-eight percent of the Mineral Wells rate hike is a pass-through to pay for a two-year, $3 million increase the district is charging Mineral Wells.
The district-imposed cost increase will take the city’s annual water expense from about $2 million to $4.9 million.
The district says it must raise the price to the city to secure the bonds to build the lake, the new plant and other infrastructure including a reverse osmosis unit to remove salt from raw Brazos River water newly leased from Abilene and Manvel outside of Houston.
Those will feed a reverse osmosis unit being built by midsummer — yet more district expenses the city shares.
But in Mineral Wells, the coming election is all about the rates that showed up in December bills.
“Yes, it’s not about anything else,” Watson said. “The funds that have been generated by the higher water rates are being deployed for several new projects including our leasing new water for blending as well as engineering on the water treatment plant and other projects.
“It’s not like the funds are not being used already to keep the water flowing. It is my understanding that, under our agreement with the water district, we do have to pay their debt service (on the bonds) and the cost of water. and I believe they have the authority to turn the water off in 45 days if we don’t.”
It is clear to no one how the city would afford the lake water if a future city council were to force down rates to its roughly 7,000 in-city customers, which are the only rates it controls.
It’s also highly doubtful a city council, even a rebuilt one, has legal authority to lower rates, at least by a lot.
The Texas Water Code, Texas Local Government Code and Texas Administrative Code require retail public utilities, like cities, to set rates sufficient to cover operating/maintenance costs, establish a reserve, honor contracts (like the one with the lake district) and meet debt obligations.
The two most clear, and unsavory, options are to borrow the money or raise property taxes. (And the latter action is capped by recent state law).
As for the lake district actually cutting off its largest customer by far, General Manager Howard Huffman says that’s a bridge the board he works for will cross if it appears.
“The water district has a valid contract in place with the city of Mineral Wells, a contract under which both sides have performed for the past 40 years,” Huffman said recently. “And it is our expectation that the city will continue to perform its obligations under that contract.”
The incumbents seem to understand that.
“We do,” Tomlin said. “We made an agreement and they come calling every 30 days to get what we agreed to pay.”
“It sounds really good to reduce water rates,” Watson said. “But which water-collection activity do you want to stop? I haven’t heard an answer to that question.”
Watson, Tomlin and Place 1 Councilman Kyle Kelley are on a council subcommittee exploring ways to provide relief from the water rate.
The trio recently was successful in recommending lowering the monthly minimum for customers 60 years and older from $65.96 to $58.29.
“The reality is, every year we will look at the needs and look at the rates and see where they need to be,” Watson said.
Watson said she attended a recent We The People rally for the challengers in West Ctiy Park to meet Thomas, “so we could look each other in the eye.
“He told me the group just feels the water rates we passed are too high,” she said. “But also, you gather that neither he nor any of the opponents have their arms around any sort of alternate strategy.”
She and Tomlin also point out that Turkey Peak is a roughly 30-year-old proposal. Ten years ago, its estimated cost was $100,000 — half what it is today.
That’s an upward cost trajectory unlikely to change or reverse — along with city water rates to build it, they said.
“Even our biggest detractors, debunkers, will tell you this should have been done years ago,” Tomlin said. “Well, it wasn’t.”
Watson said the rate hike has added $60 to $100 to monthly residential water bills.
“But in 20 years they will are certainly going to wish we’d done it at this price instead of $200 or $300 a household,” she said.
Watson said speakers at the park rally called for lowering the water rates “ ...and figure out what we can afford. That is not a solution.”
“That would be tantamount to doing less than nothing,” Tomlin added. “And this is a heavy load, it is. But my kids and my grandkids live in this city, and what would it be like if we waited 10 years?”
Watson urged voters to consider acting now on reliable water by supporting the incumbents on May 4. (Early voting is April 22-30).
“I do not want to be on the news because we’re hauling in bottled water because the lake is dry,” she said. “You have a dramatic choice around pocketbook issues. But not just pocketbook issues — vision and home and transparency, and who is championing the city.
“And I think that will energize people. ... This is the most consequential election that we’ve ever had.”
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.