Viewpoints » Editorials

Subscribe

Council should make decision, move on

  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 5 Comments
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •
  • By the Advocate Editorial Board
  • Originally published November 19, 2009 at 4:48 p.m., updated November 19, 2009 at 11:20 p.m.

  • VICTORIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING

    What: Discussion of council decision's ramifications

    When: Noon, Saturday in council chambers, 105 W. Juan Linn St.

    Action: The council will not take a vote at this meeting; the council will not be ...

  • SHOW ALL »

    • VICTORIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING

    What: Discussion of council decision's ramifications

    When: Noon, Saturday in council chambers, 105 W. Juan Linn St.

    Action: The council will not take a vote at this meeting; the council will not be taking public comment.

City councils everywhere have tough decisions to make, especially when it comes to services for its residents. But when they do, they are challenged to vote for the need of a city's majority, not for a few. That is their job, and, many times, making that choice can be difficult.

We are sympathetic with the council's decision Tuesday not to go forward with purchasing property for a sewage treatment plant because a few people complained about the possible odor it would cause. But we wholeheartedly disagree with the council's decision, too.

The council must act on acquiring property for the sewage plant to meet deadlines to have an operational sewage system in 2015. The system is estimated to cost just under $20 million, but could cost more. If the council does not act responsibly for the city, that inaction will be very costly to all the city's taxpayers.

Currently, Mayor Will Armstrong said the city would be spending about $4,500 an acre for the more than 75 acres it turned down on Tuesday.

According to Lynn Short, the city's Public Works director, the council must first acquire property for the plant, then enter into the long process of permitting (could take up to two years) and approving engineering design, and, finally, build it. All of this is expected to take up to 2015.

The deadline is tied to the growth of Victoria, now a city of about 64,000. By federal and state regulations, the city will have to have the new plant to meet the capacity needs of the population, which is estimated to be more than 2 million gallons a day more by 2015.

Clearly, the choice of property on which to build that plant is the best one of three options.

Mayor Will Armstrong has outlined why: best site as recommended by the engineering consultant; property is not in the flood plain; located close to existing sewer main; close to existing plant, allowing it to use same effluent outlet to river and reducing cost, and convenient to city crews, who will be operating both plants; close to city properties on two sides - the old landfill site and solid waste yard; few residential neighbors; large enough land to add future public works yard, which would allow the city to sell the Navarro Del Norte site, which the city bought from the state for $400,000; state requirement to have new plant in operation by 2015; site not as costly as other options and available for sale without condemnation; will allow the decommissioning of the Willow Street Plant; engineering solutions are available to address odor issues; and ideal for prevailing winds.

We must add that the two property options to the first choice are nearby, which would likely mean that the same people who decried the location would be against the options as well.

And one of those options would mean an additional $2 million to raise it five feet out of the flood plain. One other option would have to be condemned because the owners don't want to sell.

We strongly urge the council to reconsider its initial vote and vote to purchase the best choice of property for the future sewage plant.

This editorial reflects the views of the Victoria Advocate's editorial board.


Sign Up
CLOSE

  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 5 Comments
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •

Comments

  • victoriataxpayer victoriataxpayer Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink

    With all due respect to the editorial staff, I think they would do well to remember that we live in a democracy. The issue is not the location of the plant but the lack of public input. One of the major complaints against our city government is that it does not listen to or communicate with the citizens of Victoria. The editors should be championing public discourse, not opposing it.

    November 23, 2009 at 7:49 p.m.
  • stingaree stingaree Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink

    The large sewer line that runs under Ben Jordan and the stink that arises from it is too much for the city crews to handle. The new sewage plant will increase the volume of stinkiepoo we currently tolerate on our properties. These concerns have been addressed.

    November 20, 2009 at 1:01 p.m.
  • bigdogdaddy bigdogdaddy Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink

    Wonder if the city could compensate those adjacent property owners with a property tax abatement to remove their objections? Would they raise a stink then? (pardon the intentional pun here)

    November 20, 2009 at 7:51 a.m.