Editorials

2008 TPA Better Newspaper Contest

First Place D7

Westlake Picayune

WLH's $3 million contingent liability clarified

Readers are likely confused by conflicting letters to the editor during the past two weeks about whether or not $3 million was, in fact, properly approved as a West Lake Hills' budget item for possible use as "contingent liability" in the commercial phase of the city's sewer system. At the root of the conflict is the fact that both letters from council members Jim Pledger and Cindy Probst contain only part of the absolute truth, so we feel it is important to set the record straight.

Pledger's letter in the April 12 issue points out that the $3 million budget item that calls for using part of the city's $6 million reserve fund for the sewer system was not discussed in the only public hearing on the budget.

Probst’s letter to the editor in the April 19 issue states that the proposed $3 million expenditure was agreed to by all council members at a Sept. 5 council workshop.

Both are undeniable truths. The reason for the confusion is actually simple — the $3 million contingent liability should have been verbally mentioned during the only official public hearing on the budget and was not. Therefore, Pledger made a motion that resulted in the budget not reflecting the $3 million contingent liability at a later council meeting. Council members Pledger, Earl Brousard and Jane Noble voted for the measure, while Probst and mayor pro tem Catherine Loayza voted against it based on the fact that the motion implied that the $3 million was not actually part of the approved budget.

Mayor Mark Urdahl used a power-point presentation for the first time ever to discuss the budget during the public hearing, so perhaps that had something to do with the failure by anyone to mention it. But, whatever the reason, the public had a right to hear about it at that time.

An added reason it was essential that the $3 million expenditure be discussed at the only public hearing is that every taxpayer in the city has contributed to the hefty reserve fund, yet only approximately one third of city residents are even eligible for sewer service. Even if it were fully paid back over time by ratepayers, residents deserve an opportunity to hear of it and voice their opinion at the appropriate time — the public hearing. That is why it is so named.

Ed Allen