• Does Mr. Alvarez have an optional site in mind that would not increase cost? Is there another site that is just as well suited?

    June 14, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
  • Thank you.

    June 13, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.
  • Hi EdithAnn,
    That’s a very good question. Based on my understanding any outside expenses would be much less if the issue was mediated. There would be much less legal billing for things such as going through the discovery process and all the back and forth between the opposing sides. I will defiantly ask that question at next Tuesday’s council meeting!

    Paul Polasek

    June 13, 2012 at 9:46 p.m.
  • Hi Roberttx,
    Your question about over paying for the property is a good one. I could see where someone might have the opinion the city paid too much for the property. We were in a somewhat unique situation. I would very much like to share more details about the purchase but I am prevented from discussing it due to the ongoing contested case hearing. When the hearing is behind us I will be glad to provide details as I understand them.

    I also understand you are not asking me directly but I felt I would respond. Of course others may have their own opinions.

    Paul Polasek

    June 13, 2012 at 9:39 p.m.
  • Mr. Polasek--are you wanting us to believe that if the citizens group had agreed to mediation that there would have been no legal expenses involved with that option? I have a hard time believing that mediation would have taken place without one or more outside attorneys involved, but it is a convenient place to put the blame for the expenditure.

    The reality is, it's probably a wash.

    June 13, 2012 at 9:31 p.m.
  • EdwardFrancis ,
    Yes, 86,000 thousand dollars is a lot of money. As I have mentioned city staff has requested mediation on more than one occasion and the citizens group has declined. I wish it could be $0 dollars but that option has been removed by the citizens group.

    Yes taxes have increased just as expenses for the city have increased. Only speaking for myself I have tried to take an incremental approach to lowering the tax rate, there are 6 other people involved in the decision to set the tax rate and I am doing the best I can. I am confident we will be able to approve next year’s budget built around the effective tax rate, due to such strong sales tax returns. As far as your building appraisals are concerned, just remember the appraisal district is required to attempt to appraise a property at its fair market value. Of course you have the option to protest your appraisal and I suggest you use it. The appraisal district is not perfect but I do believe they are doing the best they can.

    I do not know which judge you are referring to.

    Regarding your comment “rampant unchecked and unwarranted expenditures on everything by spend crazy council members.” Can you please provide examples?

    Paul Polasek

    June 13, 2012 at 9:24 p.m.
  • why did the city and council over pay for the current sewer site ?

    was there a line of people interested in that property ?

    June 13, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.
  • Maybe the council should have spent a little money to bus the few concerned citizens to the Sugar Land plant so they could have seen for themselves how the plant operates and what effects, if any, it has on its surroundings.

    It might have saved months and thousands of dollars.

    June 13, 2012 at 2:08 p.m.
  • The proposed site for the plant was chosen for a reason. I'm pretty confident that City Council did not get together and decide on the location to make citizens unhappy or to put them in any harm. The fact is that the City of Victoria NEEDS the new sewer plant. If the proposed site were on the north side of town and the City had to run additional sewer pipe, the Citizens of Victoria would be complaining about that cost too. I'll admit, by the sound of it, the Willow Street plant is horrible. That's why we need the new and improved plant. It's time to move on in this process. It's the "concerned citizens" that are making this process way more expensive than it should be.

    June 13, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
  • why is it when hagan votes / voices against issues it's applauded by many here, yet when alvarez votes / voices against an issues it's now 'holding up business' and wasting tax dollars ?

    very confusing

    June 13, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
  • I'm sure that Ms. Scott lives in the vacinity of where the proposed treatment plant is being considered - so, as she shares, "save us money, save us time, and get this thing going"...what she really means is, "get this thing going before the subject dies"...I believe that the whole issue would "go away" if this plant were being considered "right smack" in the Victoria mayor's backyard. That would be progress. He seems to be in a hurry too.

    June 13, 2012 at 12:35 p.m.
  • Edwardfrances,  I have been on the site 3 times in the last couple years.  The legal fees were not 175,000.  After further discussion the legal firm provided an estimate of approximately 86,000  All council members were provided an itemized account of the estimate.

    One thing we all agree on is we wish there no legal fees.  We have no control over this, we were forced into the "contested case hearing" by the concerned citizens group. They would not agree to mediation. 

    Paul Polasek

    June 13, 2012 at 12:17 p.m.
  • TXWader
    " many health related incidents have been attributed to any of the other treatment plants in the area? "

    How many times have you asked someone living near a sewer plant if there have been any health issues? Let’s say Willow , try that one it is the closest . I am willing to believe you wouldn’t have the courage to step foot around the area .

    June 13, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.
  • Alvarez -- you won by three votes. That isn't a clear mandate to try to kill the sewer plant decision. I voted against you based on your lack of vision and deficient personality. I want the sewer moved along as efficiently as possible and your actions are simply adding to the cost. The time for study on was before you took office. Act responsibly, and act to represent all of your constituents, not just the three people who put you into office.

    June 13, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.
  • It's called growth and expansion Mr. Alvarez; it is what growing cities do.

    Why do you feel that you have to be "against" any and all matters that come before council? Health concerns about the treatment plant? many health related incidents have been attributed to any of the other treatment plants in the area?

    Get a move on council and stop wasting tax payer dollars by being indecisive or just down right disagreeable.

    June 13, 2012 at 7:19 a.m.