In the discussion about spending $18,000 of taxpayers’ money to paint trees on a water tank, it seems City Council members and City staff have failed to address two important issues.

First, should taxpayers’ money be spent on public art that will be seen by only a few neighbors? Public art should be placed where many members of the public can view it. This is a terrible precedent in Lakeland Hills. Is it now City Council policy to spend taxpayers’ money on public art specifically designed to benefit a few homeowners because they say they want it to improve their view?

Second, is this even allowable under the law? Since the $18,000 is part of funding for rehabilitation work on the water tank, I assume the money comes from the City’s public water utility revenues.

I believe state law still says public utilities may only charge rates as needed to operate and maintain the utility. This law is to prevent cities and counties from using water or sewer rates to create “back door tax hikes” by boosting utility fees to raise money for uses other than maintaining the utility. I fail to see how painting pretty trees on a water tank is required to maintain the city’s water system.

If the City has $18,000 or more in surplus utility fee revenues not needed for system maintenance, then perhaps the City is charging us too much and council members might consider adhering to the spirit and intent of the law and reduce our water rates.

If the Lakeland Hills neighbors want to enhance their views and maintain their property values, I’m sure the City would welcome their personal donations to pay for decorating the water tank.

– Bruce Rommel