Georgetown City Council Non-Engagement Policy

It appears that others are noticing and commenting on the City Council policy of non-engagement of citizens at the so-called public hearings. A Georgetown citizen has penned a letter to the editor in the Sunday Sun concerning the councils lack of response at a public hearing at the council meeting this past Tuesday, January 26, 2016.

In fact the letter writer observed disrespect for the citizens who attended the council meeting and testified. "I listened to the speakers and I watched the council members. As expected, the council was generally expressionless. A few council members were visibly disengaged and too frequently, I witnessed disdain for the speakers: sideways glances, rolled eyes."

The entire letter is worth reading, either in the print edition or the on-line edition.  WilcoSun

The writer eloquently requests "that city council members engage, listen, respond and bring meaning back to public hearings and trust back to city government."

Remind your council members that they work for you, the citizens of Georgetown, and if they ignore or shun you, the city election is coming up May 7, 2016 for districts 3, 4 and 7. 

City Council Continues to Alienate Georgetown Citizens

The City Council held a workshop Tuesday to discuss an airport education program to dispel "rumors" about expansion of the airport. As usual, the workshop was a presentation by city staff with no discussion or input by citizens.  One of the attendees was so incensed that she has written on open letter to the city council. It is self explanatory.

Open Letter to (City Council/People of Georgetown/…)                              January 27, 2016

After attending the Georgetown City Council meeting last night (1-26-16), I am compelled to write this letter in response to Mr. Russ Volk’s “discussion regarding Airport Educational Materials.” As you may know, this was not a discussion but a presentation of a plan to answer frequently asked questions about the airport, something that should have happened long ago and in a much more open manner. 

Based on the one example given by Mr. Volk and the questions asked by council members, I am concerned that time and money will be spent on answering questions that have not been asked while our true concerns are, once again, deflected, misrepresented, and labeled “crazy rumors”.   Here again, are some genuine questions for which the people of Georgetown deserve an answer.

1.  Mr. Volk explained that the below ground, leaking fuel tanks had to be dug up and replaced with above ground tanks to keep them from polluting the Edwards Aquifer.  There is no question that it must be done. In fact, more than one speaker at the October session (the only time we have been allowed to express our concerns) made the same point, even adding that the pollution was already damaging their Golden Oaks neighborhood.

The real question is:  Why will the new tanks have such a greatly increased capacity for light plane and jet fuel?  The logical answer is that more planes will need the fuel for more takeoffs and landings.  If true, that is an expansion of the airport through increased operations, something officials have consistently denied.

2. No one disagrees that runways must be maintained.  The real question is: Why must they be appreciably thickened?  Pilots tell us that the most likely reason, in fact, the only one they can think of, is to accommodate heavier aircraft.  If the airport expects to serve heavier jets, that is an expansion of the airport through increased operations.  Again, denied.
3. Officials say that environmental studies have been done and there are no significant impacts.  The real questions are:  Where are these studies?  Are they for each segment of the overall airport plan separately, or do they include all segments?  Where is the results of the government required EIS that would show the overall impact on the airport area and Georgetown as a whole?

         4.   If, as all officials say, there are no plans to expand the footprint or operations of the airport,     why are there plans to do so at : http://records.georgetown.org/weblink8/Browse.aspx?startid=428151&row=1&dbid=0

4.6.4 Runway and Taxiway Object Free Area (OFA) Encroachments

As discussed in Section Three, Future Facility Requirements, encroachments to runway and taxiway OFAs include trees, utility poles, fences, residential houses, as well as parking aircraft. Exhibit 3.1 and ALP drawings in Appendix "C" graphically depict these encroachments. The development plans proposed in this study create more apron areas for aircraft parking, thus eliminate parking aircraft encroachment

s to the OFAs. The development plans also recommend, within the existing airport property line, removing these trees and the abandoned Lakeway Drive pavement that fall within the OFAs. The utility poles located south to Runway 36 end are to be relocated outside of the OFA and to be clear of the FAR

Part 77 Primary and Approach Surfaces and the Threshold Siting Surface (TSS). The other alternative for the utility pole encroachments is to bury the conductor underground. The 8-foot game fencing encroaches on the OFAs at two locations. One is located south of Runway 11-29, running parallel and west to Runway 18-36. The other is located northeast of Runway 18, running parallel to Runway 18-36. These two parts of the fencing must be relocated outside the OFAs. As illustrated in Exhibit 3.1 and the ALP drawings , the existing airport property line does not include the entire OFAs. The OFAs fall outside the existing airport property line at the northwest side of Runway 18 end, both sides of Runway 36 end, and southwest side of Runway 29 end. A number of trees, the airport fencing, and houses are within these OFAs. It is recommended that the City acquire the entire OFAs as the ultimate airport property,

City of Georgetown Airport Master Plan Update 4.14 removing trees, demolishing houses, relocating the fencing, and clearing any other encroachments. The City has no current plans or intentions to follow this recommendation.

4.6.5 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Encroachments As illustrated in Exhibit 3.1 and ALP drawings in Appendix "C", a number of residences and public roads are within the runway RPZs. The discussion in Section 3.1.5, Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), recommends that the City acquire avigation easements for all four RPZs which are not within the existing and ultimate airport property lines. It further suggests a

larger RPZ be protected for each end of Runway 11-29, and the associated land to be acquired as avigation easements. As a part of ultimate development plan, these residences must be removed and the public road s realigned outside the RPZs. The City has no current plans or intentions to follow this recommendation.

What is the definition of the word, “current”?  This week?  This year?  When does a recommendation become a requirement?  The citizens of Georgetown deserve to know.

5.       And, if the airport is not expanding operations, why was Mr. Volk, a man who is known for helping airports do exactly that, hired for this work?

 http://ironcountytoday.com/bookmark/18545531-Regional-jet-service-returning-to-Cedar-City-airport

Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, these questions and others must be considered, not just for the negative impacts on neighborhoods, schools, and churches, surrounding the airport, but for the future of Georgetown.  More air traffic sends more fuel and noise pollution into already stressed neighborhoods all the way through Berry Creek and Sun City, into the Williams Drive corridor (“The Gateway to our grand city”), the Rivery developments, San Gabriel Park and River, and even into the downtown square.  What a shame if strolling, shopping, and talking with friends on “The Most Beautiful Square in Texas” were constantly interrupted by noisy jets, helicopters, and noxious fumes.  Georgetown families, visitors, and businesses deserve better than that. 

There are always opportunities to guide Georgetown into a more desirable future.  I urge you to consider the contrast between the area around Love Field, Dallas and the Mueller airport property, Austin.  Mueller almost followed Love Field example, with lowered property values and widespread degraded neighborhoods until leaders had the courage to take a chance on the future. Now, the old airport property has become an upscale draw with shopping, a children’s museum, park area and more. 

Although viable options for moving our airport have been suggested, perhaps the city should at least consider a compromise assuring that the promise of “no expansion” would be honored.   An agreement/covenant between the airport and city, holding expansions of operations and footprint for a specific, extended time (25-30 years) would allow for alternate and/or auxiliary use options to emerge while, at the same time, preserve the things that make Georgetown the “Grand City” we all love and will keep it that way for all those who come in the future.    

Additional Turmoil in SunEdison Management

Jan. 29, 2016  16:01 EST

Exclusive
 

SunEdison’s wind & solar chief departs

The head of the North American utility-scale solar and global wind business has left troubled renewable energy company SunEdison.

More information will be provided as it becomes available!

6:15pm

SunEdison’s Head of North American Markets Paul Gaynor Leaves

Watch the Broader U.S. Economy

Central Texas is living in an economic bubble where jobs are plentiful and business is booming, and it is expected by economists and political figures to continue into the fore-see able future. NOT!

The Texas general business activity index, out Monday from the Dallas Federal Reserve for January, was -34.6, a six-year low and much worse than economists had expected. An index reading below zero indicates contraction. The major drag on the Texas economy is the collapse of the price of oil and its impact on the oil industry and supporting companies.

The production index, which gauges manufacturing in the state, fell about 23 points, to -10.2 from 12.7.

The employment index also fell into negative territory, as a greater share of firms said they laid off more people than they hired.

The Dallas Fed has revised their employment growth estimates for a gain of 1.1%, or 132,000 new jobs.

In a previous study, Dallas Fed researchers have found that most new jobs are created in the lowest pay category, with far fewer in the next two higher pay categories. Thus, the bulk of the jobs created are not high paying. 

The Dallas News has reported that the Texas economy is protected by the I-35 firewall. The three major cities along I-35 are Dallas, Austin and San Antonio and they are not very dependent on the oil industry and it's jobs for economic health.

The idea that the service sector jobs, which are the primary jobs along the I-35 firewall, are immune to the downturn in manufacturing seems unconnected from reality. It is the goods producing elements of the economy that produce growth. If the GDP does not grow, then the service industry will inevitably decline. 

When signs abound that the Texas economy is slowing, Georgetown's city government should be reducing its spending, instead of increasing it 23% year over year.

Georgetown Airport Expansion

The Mayor is trying to obfuscate the airport expansion that is being proposed by "exclusively" focusing on an expansion of land area. The following is the statement from the Wilco Sun 1/24/2016 where the focus was on the up-coming workshop on January 26, 2016. 

There will also be discussion of airport educational materials, Mayor Ross said.

“There is just so much misinformation being distributed” the mayor said.

“People are getting wrong ideas. We want to educate the public about what is really going on and especially reject the crazy notion that we are expanding the airport.”

The mayor said it is likely the airport information will eventually be printed and handed out to citizens to “set the record straight.”   

There are other means of expanding an airport. First, the runway load carrying capability can be increased to accommodate heavier aircraft.  In fact, this is exactly what the city is proposing in their grant application to TxDot/FAA for 90% funding. Secondly, the fuel farm capacity can be increased to service more aircraft and larger aircraft.  The city is proposing this also.  Other methods to increase the frequency of aircraft operations would be to improve the navigational aids, expanded hanger space and parking ramps, all of which are likely under the city council mandate to the airport manager to "make the airport profitable."

The city, at all levels from staff to city council, has refused to engage in meaningful dialog with those citizens who live around the airport and who will be negatively impacted by any airport expansion!

Georgetown/CAMPO Transportation Planning

The City has on it's council agenda for January 26, a very important activity entitled;

Consideration and possible action to approve a Scope of Work and Interlocal Agreement with Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) for the Williams Drive Study.

This plan will result in recommendations to the city council guiding the development along and around Williams drive for the next 25 years. The plan will have two elements, the Corridor Plan and the Centers Plan.

1. Corridor Plan – Development of a context-sensitive corridor plan for several miles on Williams Drive, which addresses access management strategies, multi-modal transportation elements, safety and operational improvements, and recommendations for a private realm built-form that supports different modes of transportation and a sense of place. 

The following chart shows the scope of the Corridor Plan.

2. Centers Plan – Development of a plan for a vibrant mixed-use center and gateway along Williams Drive from an area south of Austin Avenue to Lakeway Drive, consistent with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and special taxing district and land use overlays. This includes development concepts for a mixeduse catalytic project on the Georgetown ISD site.

This chart shows the scope of the Centers Plan.

A massive public outreach is to be developed as part of this plan. It will be vitally important to the citizens of Georgetown to participate in the outreach when it is implemented if they want to have a voice in how this very important part of Georgetown is developed.

More information and detail can be found at the city's website.Link

City Satisfaction Survey

On the City Council agenda for Tuesday, January 26, is an item to approve a citizen survey. The stated justifications for such a survey is given as follows;

Across service areas: Where are we doing well? How can we improve? 

Across years: Are we doing better compared to the past? What are our trends? 

Across geographic areas: How are we doing compared to others?

The real reason for conducting such surveys is to provide justification for increasing the budget and scope of government!

Here are sample questions;

It is clear that each one of these questions that are answered positively will require a larger budget.

There are no questions addressing the transparency of the city government. No questions addressing budget growth.  No questions addressing debt growth. No questions addressing the intrusiveness of government into our personal lives. And finally, no questions addressing interactions with the city council.

So remember, these surveys are smoke screens for increasing the scope and budget of the city.

SunEdison Buys "High" and Sells "Low"

In January 2015, SunEdison Inc. bought 2.1 gigawatts of wind and solar assets for $1.9B, part of the company’s multibillion-dollar, six-continent push to become the world’s biggest clean-power developer. A year later, SunEdison is planning to hand four of those solar projects right back to the previous owners in a deal that will let it wipe out $336 million in debt.Link

Clearly this is another act of desperation to try and keep the company in business.  However, buying assets for near  $1.9B and selling for $336 million is a recipe for disaster!  The amount and complexity of financial engineering going on at this company is truly mind-boggling.

Read the entire analysis at the link above.

More Turmoil at SunEdison

SunEdison Inc. Chief Operating Officer Francisco Perez Gundin left the company effective immediately on Jan. 14, the company said in a regulatory filing Thursday.

Gundin was also a member of TerraForm Power Inc.’s board until a November shakeup that removed its chief executive and caused two board members to resign, raising questions from investors about its independence from SunEdison.

SunEdison formed TerraForm Power and TerraForm Global Inc. to own and operate its renewable energy power plants. Gundin also served on TerraForm Global’s board and had been with Maryland Heights, Missouri-based SunEdison since 2009.

SunEdison Death Watch?

SunEdison stock closed at $2.34 today after reaching a record low of $2.02 per share. Look at the price history of this company's stock over the last year and ask the question: can this company survive?

Remember folks, with negative operating cash flow SunEdison has only been able to "fund" their operations and capital projects by issuing more and more debt.

What happens when you can't do that at a commercially-reasonable rate any more?

The stock price may go to zero if they wind up unable to fund their little game with ever-increasing debt issuance, given that their operating cash flow was a negative $207 million in the last reported quarter.

Does Georgetown have a contingency plan in place to provide citizens with electricity in the event that SunEdison goes bankrupt? Inquiring minds would like to know. Remember, Georgetown has contracted with SunEdison to provide 50% of Georgetown's electricity starting in 2017.

Georgetown Vs Williamson County Debt

Williamson County population has been growing about 25% faster than Georgetown's population. The following chart shows the dramatic difference this makes over time.

To put this in perspective, look at the annual growth over the last ten years.

Now examine the debt growth for both Georgetown and Williamson County.

The debt for the City of Georgetown is growing at a 15% higher rate than the County, even though the County's population is growing 25% faster than Georgetown's population. Again it is clear that Georgetown's debt growth needs to be reigned in!

Georgetown's Debt is Out of Whack!

Georgetown's debt for 2016 is $229,460,000 and has been growing at an annual rate of 10.09% for the last ten years.  Over that same period, the population has grown from 41,395 to 59,391. That is an annual growth rate of 3.68%

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) recommends that a municipal budget grow not more than population growth plus inflation. It seems reasonable that the debt should also not grow more than population plus inflation.

Inflation has been increasing at an annual rate of 2.3% over the last ten years, therefore, the budget or debt growth should be less than 5.98% for Georgetown if managed in a fiscally conservative manner.

Let us examine a similar city that has been growing at about the same rate as Georgetown. Carlsbad, CA is a coastal community in North San Diego County. Carlsbad is slightly less than twice the size of Georgetown, however, as the population chart below shows, the two cities have been growing at about the same rate.

That is where the similarity ends.  Carlsbad has $37,578,039 in long term debt while Georgetown's long term debt is $229,460,000.  That is six times more debt for a city less than twice the size.  The debt per capita for Carlsbad is $339 while the debt per capita for Georgetown is $2275 in FY-15.

Recall that Prop 13 limits property taxes in California, so Carlsbad is providing city services and building the necessary capital projects to support their growth out of their current revenues with property tax increases limited to 2% per year.

The Georgetown City Council and City staff maintain that it not practical to pay for the city's growth out of current revenue, more debt is the solution.  The city of Carlsbad shows that a growing city can be supported using current revenues with limitations on property tax revenue growth.

Georgetown needs a change in mindset to start developing a plan to pay off the existing debt and start paying for all city services and capital needs from current revenue.

SunEdison Takes on More Debt

From the Form 8-K that SunEdison filed with the SEC we see more debt. "On January 11, 2016, in connection with the Exchange Transactions (as defined below), SunEdison, Inc. (the "Company," "we" or "our") issued $225,000,000 aggregate principal amount of new 5% senior secured convertible notes due 2018 (the "New Notes") under an indenture, dated as of January 11, 2016 (the "Indenture"), among the Company, the Guarantors (as defined below) and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee")."

Some financial analysts question the ongoing viability of the company. "If SunEdison's financing costs continue to rise in 2016, it will likely spell doom for the company."Link The stock closed at $2.81/share today!

What action will Georgetown take to assure a reliable, low cost supply for the citizens if SunEdison cannot perform to its contract requirements?

Don't Take HUD Money: The Feds Will Swallow You Whole

The new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation is the vehicle for the effective federalization of of all things local. This regulation has the ability to transform the Nation in the same way that Obamacare is doing, the EPA is doing with the Clean Power Plan, and the Education Department is doing with common core. These regulations will impact decisions on housing type and density, zoning, transportation, roads or transit, schools and many other here-to-fore local decisions.

Taking HUD money ensnares the City in the trap. Until, the enabling legislation is overturned, the only solution is to reject HUD money in the form of grants.  Grants always have "strings" attached! This technique will only delay the takeover of local government. We will have to elect representatives that will repeal or otherwise nullify the enabling legislation. Get educated so that you can engage your Council-people, and State and Federal legislators.

Here is a source for more analysis and information:

Ethics and Public Policy Center

WILCO Politics Getting Dirty

Accusations and innuendos that Bill Kelberlau is not qualified to run for the Office of Sheriff, nor is he qualified to serve as Sheriff if elected, are being circulated around Williamson County by supporters of opposition candidates. In fact, candidate Chody has publicly challenged Kelberlau as to his qualifications. It is alleged that Kelberlau is not qualified to be Sheriff because he does not hold a peace officers license. He does not currently hold said license, but, it is not required to run for office or to hold office up to two years after being elected.

In reviewing Texas state law, we find the following:

"85.0011. QUALIFICATIONS. A person is not eligible to serve as sheriff unless the person:(1) has a high school diploma or a high school equivalency certificate; and(2) is eligible to be licensed under Sections 1701.309 and 1701.312, Occupations Code.Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 985, Sec. 3. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 14.819, eff. Sept. 1, 2001."

Thus we see that there are just two qualifications;

     1. Must have a high school diploma

     2. Must be eligible for a "peace officers" license

Subsequent to being elected, the Sheriff has two years from taking office to obtain the license as described in Texas Occupation Code:

"Sec. 1701.302. CERTAIN ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; LICENSE REQUIRED. (a) An officer, including a sheriff, elected under the Texas Constitution or a statute or appointed to fill a vacancy in an elective office must obtain a license from the commission not later than the second anniversary of the date the officer takes office."

Thus it appears a disinformation campaign is being waged to discredit a qualified individual for the Office of Sheriff.

Texas Supreme Court Refuses Georgetown's Appeal of Hoskins-Brown Firing

"A former Georgetown police officer who was fired twice after being accused of drinking hallucinogenic cactus juice and taking someone else’s prescription drugs is on her way to getting her job back again, her lawyer said.

The Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday that turned down an appeal by the city of Georgetown in the Stephanie Hoskins-Brown case. The city had argued against a ruling made by the 3rd Court of Appeals in September that the former police officer had the right to appeal her second firing.

One of her lawyers, Randy Doubrava, said Friday that since Hoskins-Brown has the right to another hearing before the Civil Service Commission, it will have to reinstate her because a hearings examiner for the commission had previously restored her to her job in November 2013." Link

What will the city do now?  Reinstate this police officer or continue to try and keep her from being reinstated and paid back pay.  The citizens need to know how much it has costs the taxpayers of Georgetown in legal costs as well as staff and council time to fight this questionable action?

Ask your councilperson for the cost of this action!

Dale Ross, Mayor
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: mayor@georgetown.org


Anna Eby, District 1
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district1@georgetown.org


Keith Brainard, District 2
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district2@georgetown.org


John Hesser, District 3
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district3@georgetown.org


Steve Fought, District 4
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district4@georgetown.org


Ty Gipson, District 5
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district5@georgetown.org


Rachael Jonrowe, District 6
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district6@georgetown.org


Tommy Gonzalez
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district7@georgetown.org

Debt Growing Much Faster Than Population

The City Council and City Staff use the argument that the reason the city budget and debt is growing so rapidly is the city population is growing rapidly.  It is often cited that Georgetown is the 2nd fastest growing city over 50,000 population in the United States.

Lets look at the actual numbers over the last 10 years;

We observe that the compound average growth over the last 10 years is 3.68% per year. This means the population will double in 20 years.

Lets now look at the growth in debt;

The debt is growing at a 10% compound average growth rate over the past 10 years. This means the debt will double in 7.2 years at this rate. Or, the debt will increase approximately 6 times over the same 20 years that it takes the population to double.

Thus it is observed that the debt is increasing at a much faster rate than the population, and this divergence between debt and population is unsustainable!

Property Appraisals Capped by Texas Law

It is not generally well known that property appraisals are capped by Texas law and the cap does not come into play unless your appraisal increases by more that 10% in a year.

Prices have increased substantially in recent years. In order to prevent sharp increases in home property taxes from year to year, Texas voters in 1997 approved a constitutional amendment, which became effective January 1, 1998, to limit increases in the taxable value of a qualified residence homestead. To qualify, property must be your residence homestead, and you must have received a homestead exemption in your name in both the current and previous years.

Under this law, the value for tax purposes (appraised value) of a qualified residence homestead will be the LESSER of:
the market value (what the property would sell for on the open market);

or the preceding year's appraised value
+ 10%
+ the value of any improvements added since the last re-appraisal.

Note: The calculated value is often referred to as a "capped" value.

EXAMPLE: Mr. Jones' home appraised value for 2014 was $100,000. Mr. Jones has made no changes to his home. In 2015, the appraisal district determines the market value of Mr. Jones' home to be $140,000. Mr. Jones' value for property tax purposes will be the lesser of: 

$140,000 (the market value of the home); or
The 2014 appraised value of $100,000 Plus 10%

Mr. Jones' appraised value for 2015 will be $110,000 = ($100,000 x 10%) + $100,000.

This has clearly not been very effective within the City of Georgetown because of the high hurdle of a 10% annual increase in appraised value. Other measures need to be considered to reduce or eliminate the property tax burden on Texans.

Is the City Watching Its Pension Fund?

The most recent report from the Texas Municipal Retirement System indicates the fund paid out $631,354,701 more than they earned and took in from participants for the year through September 30, 2015.

As previously reported, TMRS is also planning on investing in Private Equity investments as a means for "juicing" returns. Of course this increases the risk of losing money!

It is now reported(Link) that Private Equity has heavily invested in energy companies, Opps! They have also invested in shipping, based on the assumption that the World economy is recovering, especially China. Another Opps!

Conditions are so lousy that major players, including public companies, are selling ships at distressed prices to raise cash. Monarch Alternative Capital and Oak Tree Capital have large stakes in two of the public companies that are under duress. And given that these deals were levered, you can expect the related debt, which probably at least in part wound up in private equity credit funds, will also show losses.

Mind you, these tanker losses are chump change in term of the total capital deployed by the private equity industry. But the fact that the funds invested on a continued basis, as opposed to a brief fling at bottom-fishing, strongly points to underestimation of the risks (as in a naive belief that they could rise a rising market and get out in time) or sheer cynicism (private equity makes money whether the deals work out or not). And more broadly, as the peak multiples paid in 2015 attest, it also shows too much money chasing too few deals can lead to a remarkable ability to rationalize questionable investments.

This is clearly not the time for TMRS to be investing Georgetown employees pension funds in risky Private Equity ventures.

Is the city watching their employee investments and communicating with TMRS to not invest with risky Private Equity? Inquiring minds would like to know!

Transparency in City Government?

An open records request for the contract between the city and SunEdison for solar generated electricity was submitted this past summer to the city.  It was denied by the city and the Texas Attorney Generals office confirmed they are not required by law to provide the information to the citizens.

However, there is no legal requirement that the city withhold such information, only, that they may. So the question is: why doesn't the city release that information? There should be no secrets between the city and any other commercial or non-profit entity. Information concerning personnel issues are correctly withheld from the public where allowable by law and should be the only exception to public disclosure.

The Mayor, City Council and city staff are asking that we as citizen/taxpayers trust them to assure the energy contracts are economically favorable to the citizen/taxpayers with out undue risk. If the city values transparency, then they will release the energy contracts so that citizen/taxpayers can make their own assessment.

Ask your councilperson who they represent, the energy companies or the citizens? Openness and transparency always trumps secrecy!

Again, just because state law allows bad behavior, there is no justification for the city exercising bad behavior by keeping secrets from the citizen/taxpayer.

Contact your councilperson and demand the city release the contracts to the citizens!



Dale Ross, Mayor
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: mayor@georgetown.org


Anna Eby, District 1
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district1@georgetown.org


Keith Brainard, District 2
Phone: 512-930-3651

Email: district2@georgetown.org


John Hesser, District 3
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district3@georgetown.org


Steve Fought, District 4
Phone: 512-930-3651

Email: district4@georgetown.org

Ty Gipson, District 5
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district5@georgetown.org


Rachael Jonrowe, District 6
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district6@georgetown.org


Tommy Gonzalez
Phone: 512-930-3651
Email: district7@georgetown.org

Year in Review, Part 2

In the middle of the year, the budget discussions heated up for FY 2016, which began Oct 1, 2015. The city budget increased 23.3%, yet there was minimal discussion on the drivers for such a large increase.

A metric for assessing budget growth is that the annual budget should not grow more than population growth + inflation.  That number is 7% for Georgetown! It is thus clear that the budget growth is out of control at 23%. City officials repeatedly reported on the population growth in Georgetown as justification for the budget growth, but, its clear that population growth is NOT the primary driver for the budget growth of 23%. The assessed valuation of property in Georgetown was approximately 10% greater than for the previous year. This means that the revenue from property taxes to the city increases more than 8% due to the increased valuation (frozen property values for the elderly, etc. do not go up). Yet, the city had to increase the budget by 23%.

The Georgetown population in 2010 was 47,995. It was 59,102 in 2014. That is an increase of 11,107 people in four years which is a 23 percent increase. These are the latest U.S. Census Bureau numbers.

The budget in 2012 was $178.3M. It is proposed to be $284.7M in 2016. This is a $106.4M increase--a 60 percent increase--in just four years.

So this growth clearly is NOT a one-year bump in the budget. A significant unsustainable trend has been established.

This budget growth is being driven by increased debt created by the council and by the voters, even though there are substantial bonds funds still unspent from previous bond elections. Examining the growth of the debt from 2005 to 2015, the latest figures available, the debt has grown from $72.7M to $185.9M. That equates to almost a 10 percent annual growth rate in the debt over the past 10 years. Clearly, this is not a short term problem!

Georgetown solidified its control over the EMS by executing an agreement with Williamson County to provide EMS to the county jail inmates 24/7. Just another mechanism to push Williamson county EMS completely out of the city.

They are in the process of taking over EMS responsibility within the Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), which further pushes the county away from Georgetown.

Recall that recently, the city enacted an ordinance requiring licensing of all ambulances operating within the city. Of course the city has a list of requirements the operators must meet as well as fees to be paid.

The city's solar contractor, SunEdison imploded financially with its stock price falling from $34/share to $2+/share. This drop in share price has raised the question as to whether the company can continue as a viable operation. SunEdison has $11B in debt and its market cap is approximately $1.6B and there has been turmoil in the management ranks.

Georgetown participates in the Texas Municipal Retirement System(TMRS) to provide for the retirement of city employees when they become eligible. As previously discussed, TMRS assumes a 7% growth rate in investment returns when calculating the unfunded liability that the taxpayers are liable for. New pension accounting rules that have gone into effect require a more realistic growth rate for investments and as a result, the unfunded liability will increase.

The latest investment return reported by TMRS for the period ending September 30, 2015 is -1.71%. Of course the stock market has continued to decline since then, so the investment return for 2015 is likely nonexistent.

Another method used to assess the health of a pension fund is to calculate the cash flow. Cash Flow is employee contributions plus city contributions minus benefits paid minus investment expenses. That number should be positive for a healthy pension fund. TMRS reports Cash Flow of $-631,354,701 for the period ending September 30, 2015. In order to generate the cash to cover the shortfall, funds generally have to sell assets--this is not a good thing in a down market!

The Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) continued their battle against the city of Georgetown and the Texas Department of Transportation to stop the capacity expansion of the airport. The airport has applied for a grant from TxDOT for a new refueling and storage capability that increases the fuel storage by 60%. The cost of such improvements are usually split with TxDOT, which gets the funds from the FAA, with TxDOT paying 90% and the city paying 10%. An email showing the funding sources the city has used for past airport projects was made available.

The Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and Governing Body held a Public Hearing for a new fuel farm at the airport on Friday, October 9. Approximately sixty citizens were in attendance. There were twenty nine speakers of which twenty eight were adamantly opposed to increasing the airport capacity and they viewed the movement and sixty percent capacity increase in the fuel farm as the "camel's nose under the tent" for additional increases in take-off and landings and ground engine tests. One speaker was neutral on the fuel farm. He was concerned about the wait line for aviation gasoline and the starting and stopping of the aircraft engines as the line moved forward to the filling station. He viewed this as a hazardous operation which the proposed plan does not address. 93 percent of the speakers lived in neighborhoods around the airport.

The Board chairman told the audience at the beginning that the Board would not ask any questions, comment on any testimony, or engage the citizens in any manner. Par for the course!

It appears that the City is not listening to its constituents.

It has been reported that the City needs two more ambulances for the city within the next 18 months. Also, two new firehouses are required to be constructed over the next 18 months. Most likely one will be built in conjunction with ESD 8 on Williams Drive near Four T Ranch Road and the other one will likely be built in the Southeast quadrant of Georgetown. Details about specific locations will be provided as they become available.

So it appears the City Council is again ready to borrow more money to expand city services. This is in addition to the 23% increase in the city budget for FY 2016. Since the city never funds capital projects out of current revenue, expect more bonds to be issued increasing the long term debt burden.

Why is the City Fighting Reinstatement of Officer Hoskins-Brown? The Williamson County Sun and the Austin American-Statesman newspapers (29 Oct. 2015) have covered this saga and reported that the evidence supporting the firing (twice) was not credible. A hearing examiner found that Officer Hoskins-Brown had indeed taken her boyfriend's prescription drug, for which she also had a valid prescription, but that the charges of ingesting mescaline and lying were not provable under the law. The police chief had placed Officer Hoskins-Brown on indefinite suspension, effectively fired, on June 13, 2013. The hearing examiner ordered Officer Hoskins-Brown reinstated after serving a 15 day suspension on November 1, 2013 with back pay and benefits.

The following day, the chief fired Hoskins-Brown for a second time on the grounds that she could no longer perform her duties because the county and district attorneys found her to be untruthful and refused to accept any cases she filed. Since the second firing was not for disciplinary reasons, the city said her firing was not subject to appeal. A trial court agreed with the city, but the Court of Appeals has ruled that the trial court does have jurisdiction and referred the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Appeals Court ordered the city to pay the legal fees for the appeal.

Since the Appeals Court ruling, both the District and County Attorneys have publicly recanted their prior statements about Officer Hoskins-Browns credibility as a witness.

The city has now appealed the Court of Appeals ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. Why is the city doing this?

Are they trying to "save face" over a really bad decision?

How much money is this costing the city? Do they really have a Dallas based high-dollar law firm pursuing this effort? How much does the law firm charge? $500+ per hour?

It seems the City Council needs a remedial course on being prudent with the taxpayers money.

The city has completed the takeover of the Chisholm Trail water district, which is touted as a "good thing", but only time will tell whether it makes economic sense.  It is clear that this is another example of an expanding city government with control over more Williamson County residents.

FY 2016 Budget Now Available

For those so inclined, the city has posted the FY 2016 budget.(Link)  This provides much needed insight into the operation of the city.

Year in Review, Part 1

It has been a year of many challenges for the taxpayers of Georgetown. Many battles to curb the growth of Georgetown's government have been fought, some won, more lost and still many on-going.

The battle to keep the MRAP(Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle from being used to intimidate the citizens was initially won, but, was last in the end. Our police department now has a military vehicle.

The battle with Lone Star Rail is still lurking under the radar. Capital costs of approximately $2 Billion for the passenger rail line and $1.16 Billion for relocation of the Union Pacific rail line will be funded primarily by: (1) yet-to-be-acquired grants from the Federal Government, (2) appropriations or grants from the Texas state government, and (3)the issuance of bonds by Lone Star Rail. It is well understood the taxpayer will shoulder all of these unknown costs.

Approximately $50 Million dollars worth of parking and street and road improvements have been identified by the City of Georgetown around the proposed station. They plan on issuing bonds to pay for these improvements. At current bond rates and a typical 20 year duration bond, property taxes on the average $210,000 Georgetown home would increase by about $187 per year. Remember that the current property tax bill levied by the City on the average home is about $911 annually. Also, this estimate assumes that the entire bond costs would be paid by property owners whose property taxes are not frozen due to being over 65 years in age.

Heavy rail is one of the biggest wealth transfer schemes ever imposed on the American people. Few use the service(<1%) and the remainder pay for it.

Debt is the stealth destroyer of a community. It is difficult to find consistent debt numbers for the city, however, the total debt identified in the 2015 Debt Overview document to be presented in next week's council workshop is $191,970,008. The city separates the debt into three categories, (1) Tax Supported - $103,056,309, (2) Self-Supported - $16,760,348, and (3) Revenue Bonds - $72,153,351 for the total of $191,970,008. It is observed that is a substantial increase over 2014.

Debt has been increasing at a greater than 10% rate through 2015 while population + inflation increased less than 6% annually.

The city has been on a tear enacting more ordinances for citizens to comply with or face fines. Banning deer feeding, establishing fees for Uber-like services and embracing International Building Codes. The City enacted a requirement for any person or business to engage in the non-emergency ambulance transfer service within the City ofGeorgetown or its ETJ. this is a mechanism for controlling private enterprise, aggregating additional power to the City, and another method of acquiring funds for the City. A franchise or license granted by the City is a barrier to entry for persons or businesses to engage in a legitimate business.

Of course our City Council gave themselves a nice pay raise in April. In regular session the council voted to increase their own compensation to $800/month for council members and to $1100/month for the mayor.

The BIG decision made by the Council in 2015 was to takeover operation of the Emergency Medical Services(EMS) within the City and ETJ. This was a pure and simple power grab as the citizens were being provided award winning services by Williamson County. The city had to purchase ambulances at $250,000 apiece and hire staff to man them. The council bought the story that this would be revenue neutral as all the costs would be recovered from insurance company payments. This city has "promised" to provide an accounting of the costs of this takeover. An incomplete list of new costs follows:

1. Medical Director on city staff
2. Training and certification of most fire fighters to be paramedics
3. Pay differential for paramedics over fire fighters
4. 4 new fully equipped ambulances and maintenance thereof
5. Equipping fire engines to be advanced life support vehicles
6. Additional life cycle costs of pension and health care for the new and higher paid paramedics and management required for EMS
7. Replacement costs of ambulances every "X" years
8. Additional staff/systems to operate medical transport billing system
9. Additional staff also requires additional space and personnel and payroll services
10. Additional fire fighter/paramedic staff due to EMS

11. Diesel mechanic for ambulances

Another big event was the announcement by the city that they had contracted with a solar company and a wind energy company to provide Georgetown 100% renewable energy in 2016. We do not know if this was good for the citizens of Georgetown or not, as the city will not release the terms of the contracts to the public!

Citizens learned that the City planned on doubling the landing weight capacity and increasing fueling capacity by 60%. This of course means more air traffic into and out of the airport. A group of citizens that live around the airport has formed a group call the Airport Concerned Citizens(ACC) to curb the expansion. So far the City has ignored these citizen's concerns. The ACC has not given up the fight and continues through a variety of means to stop the growth of the airport.