Flush

Here’s something to think about (or not) the next time you’re in the shower. You are paying approximately eight-tenths of one cent for every gallon of water that comes out of that shower head which is a fantastic deal when you consider the average price of bottled water in the United States is $1.22 a gallon. That’s right, bottled water is slightly more than 154 times more expensive than tap water. But also think about this while you’re in the shower: that water you’re paying for is only with you for a fleeting second. It comes out of the shower head, where most of it hits your body, bounces off and immediately flows right down the drain. Not only that, you’re paying another four tenths of a cent for each gallon of water that goes down the drain. In fact, your water bill is based on the assumption that the water that comes out of your kitchen or bathroom faucets, into your dish or clothes washer, or is used to flush your toilet is only there momentarily. Check it out: the number of gallons you are charged with using each month on your water bill identically matches the number of gallons listed for your sewer use.

Hey, somebody has to think about these things.

Somebody also has to think about what happens when that water that flowed through your life with all the speed of a lightning strike leaves your domicile. It flows through
a portion of the City’s 199 miles of sewer pipes, eventually winding up at the wastewater treatment plant located at the end of New Ridge Drive in East Kyle. According to the City’s website, the plant treats about 3 million gallons of wastewater per day and part of that treatment includes separating the solids found in that wastewater from the liquid. Under normal conditions, 3 million gallons of wastewater will produce around 33,000 gallons of solids. I’m not saying that’s the amount of solids produced daily at Kyle’s plant. That’s a general industry average.

Normally those solids are then sent to a biosolids management facility where bacteria is introduced to the solids that kill most of the disease organisms found in those solids. That process usually takes up to 60 days. This further reduces the volume of the solids and then those solids are pressed again to remove whatever water is left. The product you are left with at the completion of all that is known as sludge.

Which brings me to Item No. 12 on tonight’s City Council agenda which is an item to "approve a contract with SHERIDAN ENVIRONMENTAL DBA SHERIDAN CLEARWATER, LLC, and the City of Kyle for wet handling and disposal of biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant at a cost of $76 per wet ton, estimated annual cost of $350,000."

I had a bunch of questions about this item and received answers to some of them from the city’s staff. I was hoping to get the answers to the rest of them at tonight’s City Council meeting.

One of the questions is the typical Butch Cassidy one: Who are these guys? I Googled Sheridan Clearwater LLC and that search produced a comparatively small company (1 truck, two drivers) located on FM 973 in East Austin between the toll road and the Colorado River just south of Long Park. One of the questions I had was if this was the same Sheridan Clearwater LLC referenced in the agenda item. City spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck confirmed it was but also wrote me that "Our Division Manager (for) Water Operations, Jason Biemer, does not know the size of the organization or number of vehicles it operates," a revelation I found somewhat dismaying.

I also wondered whether the City’s biosolids management facility was located at the wastewater treatment facility or someplace else. I didn’t get an answer to that question or exactly what stage in the sludge evolutionary process the city’s biosolids are in when they are hauled away from the wastewater treatment plant.

I also know that this sludge, when combined with composting, can produce soil that can be sold at a nice profit. I wondered whether Sheridan Clearwater LLC had the ability to do this and whether that profit could be applied to the price we are paying for the hauling company’s services. I got a possible partial answer to that question (see full quote in the next paragraph) when Hilsenbeck referred to Sheridan Clearwater’s facility as a "composting site." I received the rest of the answer following the Council meeting when Council Member Shane Arabie told me the $76 per wet ton rate was arrived at after computing the Kyle’s contribution into what Sheridan Clearwater sells.

Then there was a story on the front page of Monday’s Austin-American Statesman, the lead (or first paragraph) of which said "Austin’s sewage sludge might soon be headed to ranchland 70 miles southeast of the city, near the Colorado River, in eastern Fayette County." I have also queried the City of Austin to obtain an official reaction to its desire to take its sludge way out of town while Kyle is planning to dump its sludge inside the Austin City limits less than 1,500 feet from the Colorado River. However, somewhat on that very subject Hilsenbeck wrote me "We believe the composting site is also located at the above mentioned office location, which is where the sludge would go. The sludge is going to their permitted and approved facility. The Texas Commission for Environmental Quality is responsible for permitting those disposal facilities as well overseeing the operators of such a facility with regular inspections of the site and its records, therefore the location and the controls at that facility was approved by the state before it could go into business."

I also wondered how many sludge trips emanate on a monthly basis from Kyle’s wastewater treatment plant. Hilsenbeck replied: "The number of trips can vary considerably from month to month and week to week. It all depends on the amount of solids in the water stream coming into the plant during that time. In May, there were 22 trips out from the plant." Using that industry average I mentioned above, that would come to 45,000 gallons per trip. There’s a formula for converting these gallons to tons, but in order to execute that formula I need to learn the total solids content of the sludge being hauled. I was also hoping to get that answer, perhaps even tonight.

The reason why the total solids content is important is this: Would it be worth it for the City in the long run to invest in more sophisticated equipment that would further reduce the amount of water in that sludge and thus reduce the number of trips, reducing the costs to the taxpayer for this type of contract. I think these are questions worth asking.

So, I marched off to tonight’s City Council meeting hoping to get some clarification on all of this. And here are some of the things I learned.

1. What Sheridan Clearwater is being hired to haul away is not sludge; it is, as the agenda item aptly describes, untreated "biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant." The City doesn’t have its own biosolids management facility. So all that introduction of the bacteria as well as the final pressing takes place at the Sheridan facility in Austin. The question thus becomes when does it become economically feasible for Kyle to construct its own biosolids management facility and no one seemed to have the answer to that question but both City Manager Scott Sellers and Council Member Arabie told me the City is awaiting the results of a water/wastewater management study that should address that issue. Watch this space.

2. Technically, the Sheridan Clearwater facility, although it has an Austin address, is not located within the City of Austin. It is located in Austin’s ETJ on land under the jurisdiction of Travis County. And Austin’s locator places it in a completely different place than Google maps. Austin’s locator map has it south of Highway 71 near the northeast corner of the Austin Bergstrom Airport. It also worth noting that the location identified by Google is also in Austin’s ETJ, although a lot closer to the Colorado River.

3. The City did not Choose Sheridan Clearwater as its partner in this endeavor as much as it inherited it, a realization that made me even more concerned about Hilsenbeck’s statement that "Our Division Manager (for) Water Operations, Jason Biemer, does not know the size of the organization or number of vehicles it operates." The City purchased the water treatment plant from a company called Aqua Texas last year and it was Aqua Texas that first established this relationship with Sheridan Clearwater. This is merely a continuation of that same relationship.

4. Public Works Director Harper Wilder said the company hauls away about 14 tons per load, but that of course is untreated biosolids, not sludge. At $76 per ton, that comes to $1,064 cost to taxpayers per trip. Although Wilder confirmed the number of trips in May was 22, he said usually the city averages a trip each day. Averaging 22 trips per month would mean the total yearly cost of the contract would be in the neighborhood of $281,000, significantly less than the $350,000 annual cost specified in the budget item. However, a trip a day comes to $388,000, a tad above the specified amount.

5. The aforementioned Jason Biemer told the Council all this talk about tonnage was not entirely accurate anyway because only sludge can be measured in tons. Because what is being dealt with here is primarily liquids, using gallons is more appropriate and he said the City sends off between 50,000 and 60,000 gallons of this liquid daily to Sheridan’s biosolids management facility. There’s an industry accepted formula that’s used to convert those gallons into tons but it’s impossible to apply that formula without knowing the solids content of the material. Biemer claimed that what is shipped out is 15 percent solids which I find impossible to believe because, according to a recent study from Iowa State University, "Typical solids concentrations in raw primary sludge from settling municipal wastewater are 6%-8%." So there’s that.

At any rate, the Council unanimously approved the item just as it unanimously approved every single action item on tonight’s agenda during what turned out to be the second straight historically short Council meeting, this one clocking in at one hour and 28 minutes and that included a phenomenally short 17-minute executive session (which, in reality, is the length these sessions should be). The other items approved included:

• The appointment of Brandon Vasquez to the Library Board.
• The second reading of an ordinance to install four stop signs in the Amberwood subdivision.
• A service agreement to hire what I found to be a rather nondescript rock band called the Midnight River Choir to be the "headline" attraction at the Kyle Hogwash Festival Oct. 21-22. In my estimation, an old-time fiddler’s competition would have been more appropriate, but who am I to judge these things. You can have a listen to the Midnight River Choir yourself right here.
• In what had to be the easiest slam dunk of the night, the Council authorized the City’s Finance Director Perwez Moheet to save taxpayers $1.1 million in interest costs by refunding three series of outstanding Certificates of Obligations. I would have personally demanded impeachment proceedings against any council member who voted against this item.
• After debating who should own and maintain a public restroom (the Council decided it should be the Homeowners Association), it approved a development agreement for the development of a 126-acre subdivision on FM 150 that will be known as Cool Springs.

 

City estimates 117,000 gallons of sewage dumped into Bunton Branch

(Updated Saturday at 4:46 p.m.) The City released estimates today indicating as much as 117,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled into the Bunton Branch and it flowed at least a half-mile downstream. That would suggest the City’s worst fears were realized in that the spill extended beyond Goforth Road. That means the remediation costs could be closer to the $50,000 amount approved by council yesterday instead of the $20,000 to $30,000 originally estimated.

The City Council met in special session late Friday afternoon and authorized the city manager to spend up to $50,000 to remediate a sewage spill that resulted in a "large" fish kill in Bunton Branch, a creek near Lehman High School. It was originally believed the spill might have been confined to one person’s private property, but that no longer seems to be the case.

The city stressed that absolutely no drinking water was affected by the incident. I have inquired as to whether the City is aware of any private water wells in that area and am waiting a reply.

(Resuming original post) The spill was apparently caused when Thursday morning’s storms knocked out the power to a lift station near Bunton Branch, causing the sewage to back up and overflow out of the pump.

City ordinances require any expenditure by the city in excess of $15,000 must be approved by the Council. Today’s council vote was unanimous.

The $50,000 does not include funds needed to pay the automatic fine TCEQ will levy some months down the road. City Manager Scott Sellers did remind the Council systems are being installed to prevent similar spills in the future.

Sellers told the council he only learned of the overflow at the Southlake lift station earlier this afternoon. He said normally crews check the lift station daily but did not do so Thursday because "we were involved in another project." However, the overflow was spotted during Friday’s inspection.

"It’s still too early for us to know exactly how the failure occurred," Sellers told the Council. "Our initial assumption is that the storm that occurred Thursday morning that was very violent had knocked out the power to the pumps in that lift station. There is a generator there, but that generator also did not have power. When power was restored to the lift station it did begin working so there is a question about how much sewage actually overflowed the lift station and into the Bunton Branch."

The lift station is located about 500 feet beyond the cul-de-sac at the end of Spillway Drive in East Kyle. Bunton Branch flows from the reservoir northwest of the lift station into Plum Creek. Sellers estimated the sewage traveled 20 yards from the lift station to Bunton Branch.

"It is unknown the quantity of sewage that entered the Bunton Branch," Sellers said. "We do know there was a fish kill in the creek. The number of fish is unknown at this time. TCEQ was immediately notified and arrived on the scene probably an hour and a half ago." (Approximately 3:30 p.m.)

"Texas Parks and Wildlife was also notified," Sellers continued. "They’ve asked whether we could preserve a couple of fish so they could do an analysis of those fish next week.

"We don’t know how extensive the spill is at this point," Sellers cautioned. "We hope it’s localized to just that area of the Bunton Branch."

Sellers added "plenty of live fish" were spotted in Bunton Branch along with the dead ones so TCEQ advised the city not to drain the area "but to seek more of a dilution remedy."

"So once we remove the fish kill we will begin to add fresh water to the stream," Sellers said. "We will also remove the dirty water. The way to do this is to connect high-powered pumps and we have two six-inch pumps that can pull trash through them. We have hard surface lines back up to the lift station itself and we will drain back into that lift station. It has to be a controlled drain because too much too fast would create a surge down the line that could possibly upset the (wastewater) plant. So we are estimating it will take us somewhere between 10 and 14 days to halfway drain that creek to TCEQ’s satisfaction. At which point we will introduce more fresh water to ensure we have cleaned it up well."

Sellers said he did not know exactly how much the cleanup would cost, but he estimated it would be between $20,000 and $30,000. The council agreed to cap the expenditures, for now, at $50,000 in case of unforseen problems that could occur in the process between now and the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting April 5, 12 days from today. One of those problems could arise if it is discovered the spill extends beyond Goforth Road, which would result in the need to employ highly expensive pump trucks to vacuum that section of Bunton Branch.

Sellers reminded the council that this year’s budget included costs for a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system for remote monitoring and control that operates with coded signals over communication channels. SCADA systems are commonly used by municipalities to exert industrial computerized control over wastewater systems as well as other similar infrastructure.

"It is a way we can monitor via phone the status of those lift stations," Sellers said. "We can monitor the flow. We can monitor whether the power is going to those lift stations."

If power is cut off, Sellers said, that triggers a phone call to city officials notifying them of that loss of power. He said the current budget may not contain all the necessary funds to cover SCADA for all the lift stations, but that he will know more once the city has received the bids it has requested for installing the system.

Sellers said the TCEQ’s fine is usually higher when a fish kill is involved and it also depends on the amount of sewage that overflowed. "We do know there was significant sewage and a large fish kill, so there most likely will be a fine." (Mayor Scott Webster said after the meeting he was at the site this afternoon and the odor coming from the Bunton Branch was not caused by the sewage, per se, but by the dead fish.)

However, Sellers said the city is in the middle of a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Initiative with the TCEQ. "We began that process after the last big storm event when we knew we had some issues with our collection system. (The SSOI) allows us to enter into a partnership with the TCEQ to begin the process to overhaul our system, remediate where lines are undersized. It helps that we were going through our wastewater model and we’re using that model with our partnership with TCEQ. So they are already aware that we are trying to take steps and have identified a flaw in our system and that we’re trying to take steps to correct that. Part of that is the addition of SCADA. When the city receives a fine from TCEQ there are things that we can do in lieu of cash if the TCEQ will allow that. It may not cover all the fine amount but we may be able to do things such as re-stock fish, put in education programs. We could even do a recycling program. Because we are part of that SSOI program, I am encouraged that they will be a little more lenient and be open to working with us."
 

Council authorizes $50,000 to remediate sewer overflow

The City Council met in special session late this afternoon and authorized the city manager to spend up to $50,000 to remediate a sewage spill that resulted in a "large" fish kill in Bunton Branch, a creek near Lehman High School. It is believed the spill may be confined to one person’s private property and the city stressed that absolutely no drinking water was affected by the incident.

The spill was apparently caused when Thursday morning’s storms knocked out the power to a lift station near Bunton Branch, causing the sewage to back up and overflow out of the pump.

City ordinances require any expenditure by the city in excess of $15,000 must be approved by the Council. Today’s council vote was unanimous.

The $50,000 does not include funds needed to pay the automatic fine TCEQ will levy some months down the road. City Manager Scott Sellers did remind the Council systems are being installed to prevent similar spills in the future.

Sellers told the council he only learned of the overflow at the Southlake lift station earlier this afternoon. He said normally crews check the lift station daily but did not do so Thursday because "we were involved in another project." However, the overflow was spotted during Friday’s inspection.

"It’s still too early for us to know exactly how the failure occurred," Sellers told the Council. "Our initial assumption is that the storm that occurred Thursday morning that was very violent had knocked out the power to the pumps in that lift station. There is a generator there, but that generator also did not have power. When power was restored to the lift station it did begin working so there is a question about how much sewage actually overflowed the lift station and into the Bunton Branch."

The lift station is located about 500 feet beyond the cul-de-sac at the end of Spillway Drive in East Kyle. Bunton Branch flows from the reservoir northwest of the lift station into Plum Creek. Sellers estimated the sewage traveled 20 yards from the lift station to Bunton Branch.

"It is unknown the quantity of sewage that entered the Bunton Branch," Sellers said. "We do know there was a fish kill in the creek. The number of fish is unknown at this time. TCEQ was immediately notified and arrived on the scene probably an hour and a half ago." (Approximately 3:30 p.m.)

"Texas Parks and Wildlife was also notified," Sellers continued. "They’ve asked whether we could preserve a couple of fish so they could do an analysis of those fish next week.

"We don’t know how extensive the spill is at this point," Sellers cautioned. "We hope it’s localized to just that area of the Bunton Branch."

Sellers added "plenty of live fish" were spotted in Bunton Branch along with the dead ones so TCEQ advised the city not to drain the area "but to seek more of a dilution remedy."

"So once we remove the fish kill we will begin to add fresh water to the stream," Sellers said. "We will also remove the dirty water. The way to do this is to connect high-powered pumps and we have two six-inch pumps that can pull trash through them. We have hard surface lines back up to the lift station itself and we will drain back into that lift station. It has to be a controlled drain because too much too fast would create a surge down the line that could possibly upset the (wastewater) plant. So we are estimating it will take us somewhere between 10 and 14 days to halfway drain that creek to TCEQ’s satisfaction. At which point we will introduce more fresh water to ensure we have cleaned it up well."

Sellers said he did not know exactly how much the cleanup would cost, but he estimated it would be between $20,000 and $30,000. The council agreed to cap the expenditures, for now, at $50,000 in case of unforseen problems that could occur in the process between now and the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting April 5, 12 days from today. One of those problems could arise if it is discovered the spill extends beyond Goforth Road, which would result in the need to employ highly expensive pump trucks to vacuum that section of Bunton Branch.

Sellers reminded the council that this year’s budget included costs for a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system for remote monitoring and control that operates with coded signals over communication channels. SCADA systems are commonly used by municipalities to exert industrial computerized control over wastewater systems as well as other similar infrastructure.

"It is a way we can monitor via phone the status of those lift stations," Sellers said. "We can monitor the flow. We can monitor whether the power is going to those lift stations."

If power is cut off, Sellers said, that triggers a phone call to city officials notifying them of that loss of power. He said the current budget may not contain all the necessary funds to cover SCADA for all the lift stations, but that he will know more once the city has received the bids it has requested for installing the system.

Sellers said the TCEQ’s fine is usually higher when a fish kill is involved and it also depends on the amount of sewage that overflowed. "We do know there was significant sewage and a large fish kill, so there most likely will be a fine." (Mayor Scott Webster said after the meeting he was at the site this afternoon and the odor coming from the Bunton Branch was not caused by the sewage, per se, but by the dead fish.)

However, Sellers said the city is in the middle of a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Initiative with the TCEQ. "We began that process after the last big storm event when we knew we had some issues with our collection system. (The SSOI) allows us to enter into a partnership with the TCEQ to begin the process to overhaul our system, remediate where lines are undersized. It helps that we were going through our wastewater model and we’re using that model with our partnership with TCEQ. So they are already aware that we are trying to take steps and have identified a flaw in our system and that we’re trying to take steps to correct that. Part of that is the addition of SCADA. When the city receives a fine from TCEQ there are things that we can do in lieu of cash if the TCEQ will allow that. It may not cover all the fine amount but we may be able to do things such as re-stock fish, put in education programs. We could even do a recycling program. Because we are part of that SSOI program, I am encouraged that they will be a little more lenient and be open to working with us."

Completely irresponsible

I know Mayor Todd Webster is an attorney and a lobbyist. Because they were just involved in an election campaign I am also aware that Damon Fogley is an EMS paramedic and that Daphne Tenorio is a homemaker. Other than that, I must admit I do not know the professions of the other Kyle City Council members. One thing I do know, however: I hope they aren’t managing anyone’s retirement funds because when it comes to managing someone else’s money, these folks don’t have a clue.

The bad news here is they are in charge of managing someone else’s money, the money entrusted in their care by the people who pay taxes in Kyle.

Last night, the Kyle City Council approved a contract to purchase from Aqua Operations, Inc., a Wastewater Treatment plant for $3 million even though City Manager Scott Sellers stood before them and admitted he had absolutely no idea where the money would be coming from to pay for the purchase.

Sad to say, I’m not making this up. Sellers stood before the council last night and said the agreement’s closing date of Oct. 1 "allows the city council through this budget season to plan for the acquisition and budget for coming out of that FY 2016 budget. So as of Oct. 1, when we roll the budget into the next fiscal year, we will go to closing at that point with a financing mechanism in place, whether that’s straight out of the utility fund, as part of a cash flow, whether that’s through some sort of a cash advance through development, or whether that’s through some sort of certificate of occupancy (EDITOR’S NOTE: I really think he meant "certificate of obligation" because a "certificate of occupancy" is something a tenant must obtain from a city’s building department in order to take over the occupancy of an existing building or any part of that building) or other kind of bond mechanism, that is to be determined through this bond process."

But wait. That’s not all.

"This is our first attempt at operating our own wastewater treatment plant," Sellers told the council. "Fortunately we have some great models to follow after as we craft the budget which also includes our personnel. There are a lot of unknowns at this point (emphasis mine) but we’re figuring them out. But in the next few days you will see some activity for hiring personnel and trying to get some things in place in anticipation of the city becoming the full operator Oct. 1."

But wait. I know it’s hard to believe but there are even more unanswered questions.

"In speaking to our third party engineer who will be inspecting the facility we feel like if we have full access to the facility between now and closing we will have a much better idea of how to budget for operations and maintenance of the plant moving forward as well as we will have a better understanding of the capacity of the plant and operations as we look toward expansion," Sellers said.

The key word in that sentence is "if." Think about that. The city will be able to budget for the first year’s O&M costs and how to run the dang thing only if they gain full access to the facility sometime between now and Oct 1., the day the budget in which those O&M costs must be included goes into effect.

But wait yet again. There’s even more unknowns.

"Our permits right now allow us to operate up to 4.5 million gallons per day and so through our sewer model, which we are currently undergoing, and through forecasting population growth, development in the area, we just don’t know right now (again emphasis mine) what to anticipate as this point," Sellers said. "We really don’t have a good idea of the existing assets within the facility."

And finally, this. Sellers asked the council to alter the part of the agreement calling for two separate inspections period and instead "have from this point forward until closing an inspection period. I spoke with legal counsel. We feel that’s a concession Aqua should be fine making."

But no one knows for sure if that’s a concession Aqua should be fine making.

Look, I have no problems with the city purchasing the Wastewater Treatment Plant. It certainly makes far more sense than paying Aqua $200,000 a month to operate it.

But I find it totally irresponsible that the council could vote – unanimously — to approve this contract when there are so many outstanding questions, concerns, doubts. I find it even more irresponsible that not one single council member – not one – asked Sellers when he might be able to come back with answers to some of these unknowns. Not all of them, mind you, although that might be nice, but at least one or two of them.

But then, what the hell do they care? They probably feel it’s not their money at risk here.

City plans to spend $3 million to buy wastewater plant

A couple of things caught my eye on tonight’s City Council agenda.

The first was the city’s intentions to shell out $3 million to purchase the wastewater treatment facility (WWTP) located in the city from Aqua Operations, effective Oct. 15. The agenda item does not mention the purchase price (you have to plow through the accompanying materials to find it). The agenda item says only "Consider and possible action regarding approval of a contract between the City of Kyle, Texas, and Aqua Operations, Inc., relating to the purchase of an existing wastewater treatment plant and related permit, equipment and other rights."

For the sake of absolute transparency, council agendas should not only contain the price of such purchases but also the funding source for said purchases. I assume the source of funds for this purchase is Water Utility Funds and I wonder if there will be any discussion this evening about whether a water rate hike will be required to pay for this.

From what I gather, the deal does not settle the lawsuits between the parties involving moneys owed or overcharges (depending on which side of the suit you're on).

According to the deal "Kyle may want to initiate planning and design of an expansion of the WWTP prior to the Closing Date." This could be especially true if Kyle assumes control of the proposed Anthem development on the western border of Mountain City. If that doesn’t happen, Anthem would have to build its own wastewater treatment plant and Mayor Todd Webster has stated quite clearly he would prefer expanding the city’s current facility rather than having a new WWTP "located upstream from us."

The other thing that caught my eye was the fact that Julieta Montes has withdrawn her request to have her property located at 503 Burleson rezoned from single family residential to neighborhood commercial. I wrote about this after the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to deny her rezoning request. Actually the item on tonight’s agenda reads "(First Reading) An ordinance amending Chapter 53 (Zoning) of the City of Kyle, Texas, for the purpose of rezoning approximately 0.534 acres of land from Single Family Residential 1 'R-1' to Neighborhood Commercial 'NC', on property located 503 N. Burleson Street (Lots 15, 16 and 17), in Hays County, Texas. (Julieta Montes, Z-15-003)." However, Ms. Montes has withdrawn her application for this rezoning so the council should take no action on the agenda item.

I reached out to both Ms. Montes and the city to find out why she had withdrawn her request. I specifically wondered whether some kind of deal had been struck that would have allowed her to operate her daycare facility without going through a zoning change. I never heard back from Ms. Montes, but the city’s Director of Community Development Howard J. Koontz told me:

"No arrangement has been made between Ms. Montes and the city, but her withdrawal is related to an expected future development agreement.

"Basically, she is not a developer and not well-versed in the development process," Koontz said "For that reason she has been a little overwhelmed by the process, and specifically the objections to her proposal as presented thus far. In light of the fact that her Public Hearing is on Tuesday night, she didn't have enough time to revise and amend her application as much as she and staff felt was necessary.

"So before her right to re-apply is suspended for 12 months, she has chosen to rescind her current application," the director continued. "Once the time constraint of the approval process has been suspended, she'll meet with us here in City Hall to discuss the potential for a development agreement to better tailor her request to the property in question. I expect she'll re-apply with a more comprehensive application sometime in later July or August would be my guess, but I have no actual knowledge of her schedule going forward."

A public "thank-you" to Koontz for his prompt and candid response.

City decides to purchase wastewater facility

Kyle's wastewater facility

The relationship between the City of Kyle and Aqua Operations, the company that maintains and operates its one wastewater treatment plant, is about as sweet as the sewage flowing into the plant on a daily basis. It has resulted in a lawsuit that was filed April 25, 2013, by Aqua in the 428^th District Court of Hays County that is scheduled for a jury trial beginning Aug. 24. Between the original filing date and now, the two sides have been going back and forth over such matters as evidence, summary judgments and all the other matters attorneys haggle over in cases such as this. My personal favorite came last Oct. 30 when Kyle filed its "reply to Aqua's response to Kyle's objections and motion to strike Aqua's summary judgment evidence." The attorneys for both sides are earning their keep with this one.

Speaking of the attorneys, the Kyle City Council decided it wanted to huddle with their attorney Tuesday night and thus went into executive session to discuss the status of the suit. When they emerged Mayor Pro Tem Diane Hervol announced no action was taken while they were in executive session but now that they were back in public view "I’d like to move to purchase the wastewater treatment plant based on the terms discussed in executive session and bring back the final agreement to council to be approved and executed by July 1, 2015." Council member David Wilson seconded the motion, and the council approved it 6-0 (outgoing council member Samantha Bellows excused herself about an hour earlier to handle some lane closings in I-35).

Whether this brings an end to the acrimonious relationship between the city and Aqua remains to be seen. I guess we’ll know the answer to that by July 1, which falls on a Wednesday, not your typical council meeting day. In fact, the last regularly scheduled council meeting before July 1 would fall on June 16, more than two weeks before the deadline date.

The city first asked Aqua to build and operate a wastewater treatment plant near the end of the last century. Things appeared to be OK for about a dozen years but then in November 2012 more than 100,000 gallons of partially treated sewage spilled into Plum Creek. That spill occurred the day after former Kyle City Manager Lanny Lambert sent Aqua Operations a letter claiming the company had breached their contract. He offered three examples, the first being that more than half of the water quality tests over the past four years showed E. coli levels "seriously above the acceptable levels," proving that Aqua wasn’t maintaining the minimum amount of chlorine in the water required by law." Lambert further alleged in the letter that solids that should be removed during the wastewater treatment process were not, and that if not for filters created by the Plum Creek Golf Course, the solids would be illegally discharged.

Aqua’s lawsuit countered that E. coli levels in a stream have many causes, such as feces from livestock and wildlife, and that the tests don’t accurately represent how much chlorine is in the water that’s discharged from the plant.

And it’s gone round and round from there.

From the limited amount of research I’ve been able to do, the California-based Aqua Operations appears to have a fairly reputable reputation. And since its clients include the City of Los Angeles, IBM, and the U.S. Army, I’m thinking they’re not going to lose much sleep over having to shed themselves of their responsibilities here, especially if this deal means an end to all the litigation. I’m also hoping the city isn’t biting off more than it can chew by trying to purchase and operate the plant itself. We’ll find out soon enough.