Some of Cleburne’s previous water projects were hot topics when they were proposed, and new plans for water in the city have opened the floodgates on debate again.

“The 1963 bond election to build [Lake Pat Cleburne] carried by three votes and was very controversial at the time,” Councilman Bob Force said.

A 1971 council decision to secure water from the Brazos River Authority met opposition too, Force said.

“It was an issue where the council was widely criticized,” Force said. “But without those moves we would have been rationing water the last four or five years.”

Cleburne relies on wells, Lake Pat Cleburne and Lake Aquilla for water.

“Because of what those previous councils did, Cleburne has never had water restrictions,” said Russell Schreiber, Cleburne public works director. “We were the only Metroplex city in 2006 not to have to ration water. Because of those choices Cleburne is not like other Johnson County cities who are not in control of their future water destinies to the extent we are.”

Cleburne again faces tough choices to ensure a necessary water supply over the next 50 years. Projects need to be undertaken soon, officials said, and the cost will not be cheap.

“Under current trends, we would have trouble meeting water demands by 2010 if nothing is done,” Schreiber said. “Right now, if a developer wanted to build a 600 to 700 lot subdivision within the next six months to a year we would have a difficult time supplying water and would likely have to put restrictions in place.”

Expected population and accompanying business and industrial growth, coupled with the arrival of Texas 121 through Cleburne in a few years, necessitate taking steps now to secure ample water supplies for Cleburne in the coming years, Schreiber said.

Bill Pannell, Cleburne’s water utility supervisor, said the city has no choice but to take action.

“Some people might say they’re fine with keeping things the way they are, that it’s nice and we don’t need to get any bigger,” Pannell said. “But cities don’t do that. You either grow or you shrink. Growth brings industry, jobs and tax base. If you shrink or stay stagnant that stuff starts to go away.”

Schreiber rolled out an ambitious set of plans at a recent city council workshop to enhance and expand Cleburne’s water capacity and infrastructure. The plans derive from a study of city water needs conducted earlier this year by the engineering firm of Freese and Nichols.

Council members made no decisions regarding the projects at the Oct. 30 workshop but did agree something needed to be done soon.



The cost

The plans call for $79.6 million in repairs, expansions and new infrastructure over the next several years. Plans call for bond issuances of $11.3 million in 2008 followed by issuances of $24.6 million and $43.7 million each year after that to pay for the projects. The bonds would necessitate a 45 percent increase in water and wastewater fees over the next six years to pay for the bonds.

The council could issue the bonds without voter approval, said Greg Wilmore, the city’s finance director.

Besides issuing bonds, several council members suggested offsetting the cost with money from Fund 21, the fund holding revenues from gas well royalties and leases on city-owned land, and by imposing impact fees.



The projects

The city wants to connect water lines in two areas so they no longer dead end.

“That would eliminate pressure drops and fluctuations and [the] need to flush out stagnant water in the ends,” Schreiber said.

Another proposal is to replace water meters with automated meters, which should take about three to four years. Automated meters do not require meter readers. Replacing the meters would also cut down on lost, stolen or otherwise unaccounted-for water, Schreiber said.

Projects to meet future demand include expansion of the city’s water treatment plant. Another project calls for the $37.9 million construction of phase one of a second water treatment plant on Lake Whitney. The plant will be built to accommodate expansions as Cleburne water demands grow, Pannell and Schreiber said.



When and how much?

Although council members all agreed action needs to be taken, they differed on when to begin and how to pay for the projects.

Reynolds said he wants to begin the projects soon.

“It’s pretty easy,” Mayor Ted Reynolds said. “Water is absolutely the life blood of our community, and we have to have it. That’s one of the first things business and industry interested in coming into an area look at. So, if we’re going to continue to prosper and grow, we have to be very diligent in our pursuit of water not just for now but way down the line.”

Reynolds said he expects the council to address the matter early in the next year, but he did not suggest a method for paying for the projects.

“The water’s available, but it sure isn’t going to be free,” Reynolds said. “Obviously this is a lot of money, and we need to consider the different options to decide the best route of funding. However it’s done, it’s got to be done.”

Planning for the projects should begin soon, Force said.

“We can’t wait much longer to provide some of these services,” he said.

Bonds should fund the projects, he said.

“I’m not for using Fund 21,” Force said. “That should be used for one-time capital projects.”

Councilman John Warren said planning should begin early next year, and he prefers using bonds to fund the projects.

“Impact fees are fine to offset some of that cost,” Warren said. “But I wouldn’t want to rely too much on Fund 21 for this. I think we should use that for other items because if it’s not there in the future and we tie it to this, where does that leave us?”

Councilman Kyle Boles did not say when work should begin and said he wants to examine all funding options.

Councilman Sonny Russell said he wants to begin work soon. He is open to all the funding options but thinks bonds will probably cover most of the costs, he said.

“I remember [Schreiber] saying we were going to start getting into deep trouble by 2010 if we don’t do anything, so we’ve got to move pretty quick because it isn’t going to go away,” Russell said.

Russell agreed with Boles that further study of the challenges and options is needed before the council takes action. Russell said he anticipates the council will begin the work in the next year or two.

“I think impact fees are a feasible way to offset some of that cost, but I’m not sure how much,” Russell said. “I don’t have a problem using Fund 21 money. The only thing is we’ve been collecting about $5 million a year in those funds, and we’re talking big, expensive projects here. So any Fund 21 money we did use would only be a small token amount.”