Denise Rangel voted twice against building the new sewer plant, then did her homework, and then changed her vote to building it at the proposed site. This is after the mayor kept bringing the sewer plant up for vote for three city council meetings until he got his fourth vote - Ms. Rangel.
If Ms. Rangel is so concern about the Willow Street sewer plant residents - close that plant now. I spoke to the citizens who live on Willow Street, last week, and they are tired of waiting another three years before they city will close it.
Close the Willow Street plant now and move the sewer from that plant to the regional plant.
Then the city can explain why it wastes money on buying property three times what its worth; and wasting money on hiring expensive Austin lawyers when they already have a city attorney that makes big bucks to represent the city of Victoria.
Please go to the Victoria Advocate editorial board interview between Denise and I, where I addressed this issue. I also addressed this issue at the League of Women Voters forum on Monday.
Please note that I joined this board in 2009, became treasurer in 2010, after the charter school had experienced all these fianacial problems.
My recommendations and advice to resolve these financial problems: Settle with TEA and do not go court were not supported by the board or school administration.
Please call me if anyone would like to discuss this matter further or would like to see the settlement offer or court decision, I have copies. My number is 571-0561.
Click below to see the debate between Denise and I at the Victoria Advocate:
That's why having a contested case hearing will be necessary. So that all the truth and facts can finally come out.
Like the mayor says: It's all opinion. I might add: His included.
When GBRA who are experts at operating sewer plants ran these facilities, until the city took over, they never mentioned a need for a new plant.
The city takes over the regional and Willow Street plants and immediately they want a new plant.
Also, it was CDM that did the study to determine if Victoria needed a new plant, recommended a new plant and site, and then applied for the TCEQ permit. They will probably design and build the new plant too.
It's like letting a vampire become a phlebotomist.
CDM is not new to controversy if you follow the ups and downs of Austin's $500 million water treatment plant project.
Now the city wants to mediate or use that as an excuse. The appropriate time to mediate was to ask the Administrative Law Judge, at the preliminary contested case hearing on April 4, for mediation.
The city never asked the judge for mediation. The city's request came after the case was ordered by the TCEQ commissioners to a contested case hearing, when the city failed to get approval for their permit, and before the preliminary hearing.
The advantage of having a contested case hearing now will be that the truth and sunshine will be in order.
You are correct about the 75/90 capacity rule. Then why didn't the city put that on their permit application for justification to build a new plant?
Please look at the comments from Mr. Short in city minutes from December 1, 2009.
The issue today is on spending money for this site. Had the city gone elsewhere, the plant would already be under construction even if we don't need it. The TCEQ executive director even said as much: that the city was building a new plant because they wanted to and not because of the capacity rule.
Mr. Short has said since late 2004 and early 2005, when the regional plant exceeded 75 percent, the plant has never been over 75 percent since that time.
Today its about the money for legal expenses. Eventually we will get back to the need for the plant.
And some one other than the city can attest that the technology does not cause a nuisance order or noise. Or will the city put a $20 million assurance bond to ensure the plant will never smell?
Victoria citizens should ask the city why such concerns over legal costs now over the proposed sewer plant?
Why paying 3 times ($375,000.00) more for the land was not a concern or hiring CDM, the engineering firm from Austin ($??), to submit a flawed new wastewater plant permit application, that triggered the contested case hearing, was not a concern?
Why is not a concern that at every step in this process going back to the public hearing July 21, 2011, at the Victoria Community Center, the TCEQ Commissioners' meeting in Austin, on January 25, 2012, and the SOAH preliminary contested case hearing on April 4, 2012, the city has been spending money but are no closer to obtaining their permit since December 29, 2009, when the city council voted 4 to 2 and 1 abstention to buy the land?
Why did the city spend $12,601.00 for an archeological survey, after they bought the land for the new sewer plant?
Why were all these expenditures not city concerns of spending money at taxpayers' expense?
Why did the TCEQ executive director, the TCEQ Office of Public Interests Counsel, the TCEQ Commissioners support a contested case hearing; and why did the SOAH administrative law judge rule to have the case heard in Victoria against the city's desire to have the hearing in Austin?
Common sense is to revisit the site options and relocate the plant site where it keeps the peace or risk not getting a permit and spending even more money and not have nothing to show for it at the conclusion of this fight.
It's time to cut city spending and lower the tax rate, if city council dares. The city tax rate should be lowered to give Victoria taxpayers relief. Fees, rates, new fees, at the city, continue to go up, and all other costs across the city are going up: gasoline, food, utilities, fines, taxes, rent, retail, eating-out, and beer, etc.
Almost all taxing entities are raising taxes, giving raises, spending on items that are wants and not needs. The city should help its citizens by lowering the tax rate to its effective tax rate (63.5 cents per $100 valuation).
I hear Victoria is poised to explode with growth. I am not convinced. Projections, crystal balls, and clowns indicate a carnival is coming. But seriously, where is all this growth coming from? Why, when, and what economic analysis is this economic explosion and impact to city growth being generated from?
Last time the oil field impacted this community, in the 80s, Victoria went into a economic nose dive.
Jeff Williams, Matt Oeker, Russell Pruitt, edithann, Tea Party loyalist, Victoria conservatives, et al, where are you guys? Wake-up. It's time to take a stand before its too late. Your tax and spend city council thinks your not paying attention, or have you given up the fight to the ringmaster at the dais?
Newsletter
Newsletter
This link should take you to the video debate.
victoriaadvocate.com/news/2012/apr/27/live-video-city-council-candidates-debate-2pm/?news
Flag this comment
I am the candidate.
Click below to see the debate between Denise and I at the Victoria Advocate:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/...
Flag this comment
Denise Rangel voted twice against building the new sewer plant, then did her homework, and then changed her vote to building it at the proposed site. This is after the mayor kept bringing the sewer plant up for vote for three city council meetings until he got his fourth vote - Ms. Rangel.
If Ms. Rangel is so concern about the Willow Street sewer plant residents - close that plant now. I spoke to the citizens who live on Willow Street, last week, and they are tired of waiting another three years before they city will close it.
Close the Willow Street plant now and move the sewer from that plant to the regional plant.
Then the city can explain why it wastes money on buying property three times what its worth; and wasting money on hiring expensive Austin lawyers when they already have a city attorney that makes big bucks to represent the city of Victoria.
Flag this comment
Sorry wrong phone number. It's 571-9561.
Flag this comment
Please go to the Victoria Advocate editorial board interview between Denise and I, where I addressed this issue. I also addressed this issue at the League of Women Voters forum on Monday.
Please note that I joined this board in 2009, became treasurer in 2010, after the charter school had experienced all these fianacial problems.
My recommendations and advice to resolve these financial problems: Settle with TEA and do not go court were not supported by the board or school administration.
Please call me if anyone would like to discuss this matter further or would like to see the settlement offer or court decision, I have copies. My number is 571-0561.
Click below to see the debate between Denise and I at the Victoria Advocate:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/...
Flag this comment
That's why having a contested case hearing will be necessary. So that all the truth and facts can finally come out.
Like the mayor says: It's all opinion. I might add: His included.
When GBRA who are experts at operating sewer plants ran these facilities, until the city took over, they never mentioned a need for a new plant.
The city takes over the regional and Willow Street plants and immediately they want a new plant.
Also, it was CDM that did the study to determine if Victoria needed a new plant, recommended a new plant and site, and then applied for the TCEQ permit. They will probably design and build the new plant too.
It's like letting a vampire become a phlebotomist.
CDM is not new to controversy if you follow the ups and downs of Austin's $500 million water treatment plant project.
Flag this comment
Now the city wants to mediate or use that as an excuse. The appropriate time to mediate was to ask the Administrative Law Judge, at the preliminary contested case hearing on April 4, for mediation.
The city never asked the judge for mediation. The city's request came after the case was ordered by the TCEQ commissioners to a contested case hearing, when the city failed to get approval for their permit, and before the preliminary hearing.
The advantage of having a contested case hearing now will be that the truth and sunshine will be in order.
Flag this comment
Dude
You are correct about the 75/90 capacity rule. Then why didn't the city put that on their permit application for justification to build a new plant?
Please look at the comments from Mr. Short in city minutes from December 1, 2009.
The issue today is on spending money for this site. Had the city gone elsewhere, the plant would already be under construction even if we don't need it. The TCEQ executive director even said as much: that the city was building a new plant because they wanted to and not because of the capacity rule.
Mr. Short has said since late 2004 and early 2005, when the regional plant exceeded 75 percent, the plant has never been over 75 percent since that time.
Today its about the money for legal expenses. Eventually we will get back to the need for the plant.
And some one other than the city can attest that the technology does not cause a nuisance order or noise. Or will the city put a $20 million assurance bond to ensure the plant will never smell?
Flag this comment
Victoria citizens should ask the city why such concerns over legal costs now over the proposed sewer plant?
Why paying 3 times ($375,000.00) more for the land was not a concern or hiring CDM, the engineering firm from Austin ($??), to submit a flawed new wastewater plant permit application, that triggered the contested case hearing, was not a concern?
Why is not a concern that at every step in this process going back to the public hearing July 21, 2011, at the Victoria Community Center, the TCEQ Commissioners' meeting in Austin, on January 25, 2012, and the SOAH preliminary contested case hearing on April 4, 2012, the city has been spending money but are no closer to obtaining their permit since December 29, 2009, when the city council voted 4 to 2 and 1 abstention to buy the land?
Why did the city spend $12,601.00 for an archeological survey, after they bought the land for the new sewer plant?
Why were all these expenditures not city concerns of spending money at taxpayers' expense?
Why did the TCEQ executive director, the TCEQ Office of Public Interests Counsel, the TCEQ Commissioners support a contested case hearing; and why did the SOAH administrative law judge rule to have the case heard in Victoria against the city's desire to have the hearing in Austin?
Common sense is to revisit the site options and relocate the plant site where it keeps the peace or risk not getting a permit and spending even more money and not have nothing to show for it at the conclusion of this fight.
Flag this comment
It's time to cut city spending and lower the tax rate, if city council dares. The city tax rate should be lowered to give Victoria taxpayers relief. Fees, rates, new fees, at the city, continue to go up, and all other costs across the city are going up: gasoline, food, utilities, fines, taxes, rent, retail, eating-out, and beer, etc.
Almost all taxing entities are raising taxes, giving raises, spending on items that are wants and not needs. The city should help its citizens by lowering the tax rate to its effective tax rate (63.5 cents per $100 valuation).
I hear Victoria is poised to explode with growth. I am not convinced. Projections, crystal balls, and clowns indicate a carnival is coming. But seriously, where is all this growth coming from? Why, when, and what economic analysis is this economic explosion and impact to city growth being generated from?
Last time the oil field impacted this community, in the 80s, Victoria went into a economic nose dive.
Jeff Williams, Matt Oeker, Russell Pruitt, edithann, Tea Party loyalist, Victoria conservatives, et al, where are you guys? Wake-up. It's time to take a stand before its too late. Your tax and spend city council thinks your not paying attention, or have you given up the fight to the ringmaster at the dais?
Flag this comment