Property Taxes Outpace Income

City property taxes are growing faster than household incomes in Texas according to data from the Texas Comptroller's Office.

Senator Bettencourt has introduced Senate Bill 2 to provide relief to property owners. Currently, if cities and counties raise taxes by 8 percent or more, residents can petition to hold an election on the tax rate. Under the proposal, the “roll back rate” is lowered to 4 percent, and the referendum is automatic.

“Property tax bills go up much faster than people’s paychecks,” Bettencourt said. “The taxpayers’ ability to pay has to be looked at.”

The critics are already attacking the plan and likely Georgetown will lobby against the proposal as have other cities like Austin, San Antonio and San Marcos.

Let your Senator, Charles Schwertner, and Representative, Terry Wilson know that you support property tax relief.

Dogs in Restaurants in Georgetown

Councilman Steve Fought provided an excellent summary of the issue that was before the Council at the last meeting. Here is the summary he provided in his newsletter.

"This has been one of the most misconstrued issues I've seen during my time on City Council.  Articles in the media, my e-mails and even face-to-face conversations, reflected the impression that the City Council made a decision at the 12 July 2016 Council Meeting to disallow dogs in restaurants in Georgetown. These impressions were widespread and understandable but they were incorrect for the following reasons:

First, the City does not determine whether or not dogs are allowed in restaurants, that is the prerogative of the Williamson County and Cities Health Department (WCCHD). 

Second, the item on the Council agenda for the 12 July meeting was whether or not the City Council would support restaurant owner's requests for a variance from State and WCCHD regulations which prohibit most dogs* from being in restaurants.

The proposal to support a restaurant owner's request for a variance was rejected at the 12 July Council meeting (4-2, Council Member Gipson absent).

Council Members Eby, Brainard, and Jonrowe then brought the item back to Council at the 22 November meeting meeting for reconsideration. (Please click here to read the agenda item summary sheet and here, then go to Item "AB" to watch the video.) 

There were approximately 12 speakers on the issue. Many of the speakers expressed their support for allowing dogs in restaurants, stressing that "their money" was going to other towns which allowed dogs in their restaurants rather than staying in Georgetown. Many also expressed their enthusiasm for Council supporting a restaurant owner's request to the WCCHD for a variance to the current prohibition against allowing dogs in restaurants, emphasizing that the decision to allow dogs in a restaurant should rest with the restaurant owner, and not the "government". One restaurant owner spoke in favor (and I had received one supportive e-mail from another owner as well.) 

Between the original decision on 12 July, and the reconsideration on 22 November, I kept asking myself why the City was involved in this decision at all. I had done some research on the matter and more or less reached a conclusion that this was none of our business -- yet it was on our agenda for the second time!

Mayor Ross apparently had the same concern and therefore asked the WCCHD representatives that question. The WCCHD made it clear they are the decision making body on variances of this sort, but, given the controversial nature of allowing dogs in restaurants, they make a practice of asking the City for their opinion on the matter before they consider it. So, whatever the City would decide on the matter, the final decision would rest with the WCCHD.  

When it came time for Council Members to speak, I offered the following comments: 

"I agree with Keith and others who have spoken here tonight -- this is a matter for the individual businesses to decide.  Actually, it's solely a matter between the business owners, their customers, and the county health department. In my opinion the City Council should not have any role in this process -- we should neither support, nor oppose, the business owner's request. 

"That is not just my personal opinion, it is consistent with the City Code of Ordinances. Section 8.12.020 (definitions) of the City Code establishes the Williamson County and Cities Health District (WCCHD) as the regulatory authority for food establishments in Georgetown. 

"I see no reason for the City Council to get involved in this. The WCCHD has the necessary authority to deal with it.  I therefore make a motion that Section 2 of the proposed ordinance by amended from 'The City Council hereby supports the Health District granting a variance..' to read: 'The City Council does not oppose the health district granting a variance...' (remainder reads as written).

"I hope this clarification will be palatable to my fellow Council Members and allow us to come to closure on this item."

Council Member Jonrowe seconded the motion.  Discussion and comments followed from the City Attorney and representatives of WCCHD, each of whom confirmed that a simple "no-objection" from the City would suffice and allow the variance request to be processed.

The proposed amendment and the amended Resolution passed 7-0.

We are now in the position in which I believe we ought to be.  Restaurant owners can submit a request for variance, the WCCHD can rule on the request, and customers can make their own choices on where to dine -- all without any further inputs/action from the City."

City Passed the Lobbying Resolution 7-0

The resolution authorizing the city to engage in lobbying the Texas Legislature on the city's behalf passed 7-0 with very little discussion. In fact, if not for your fearless blogger who attended the council meeting and demanded the opportunity to publicly speak against the resolution, it would have been passed with zero public input. Isn't transparency wonderful?

After making arguments against the resolution similar to those in prior posts, councilman Fought opined that the legislature may do something against the interest of the city and therefore the city needed to be there to protect against that action. Nothing was said that such effort by the city may be detrimental to many of the city citizens.

Mayor Ross chimed in with the observation that the city utilities and airport are businesses and are run as such. Therefore they need to keep contracts secret. If that is true, why is the city running businesses? Shouldn't they be spun-off to private enterprise? He further stated the city was in compliance with state law. He did not address why state law should not be changed to provide more transparency.

Its time to support Senator Konni Burton's bill, SB 241, to stop local governments from spending taxpayer dollars on lobbying.

City Finally Acknowleges SunEdison Solar Plant Has Sold

The city posted on their website last week that the Buckthorn solar plant, a subsidiary of bankrupt SunEdison, has been sold to NRG Energy. They report that the current deal with NRG Energy is a better deal than the previous contract, but, who knows. The city will NOT share the contract with the citizens.

Construction of the plant near Fort Stockton will resume next year. Remember how they told us that construction had been stoppped due to the bankruptcy. Neither do I! By-the-way, the electricity is not expected to be available until July 2018, one year later than the last projection.

The city has entered into a 20 year contract with NRG Energy and again, it is unknown whether not there are no-cost exit ramps from the contract in the event conditions change over time. So much for transparency!

Pension Woes in Texas

The shortage of pension funds in Dallas has come to the attention of the New York Times. 

"The city’s pension fund for its police officers and firefighters is near collapse and seeking an immense bailout. Over six recent weeks, panicked Dallas retirees have pulled $220 million out of the fund. What set off the run was a recommendation in July that the retirees no longer be allowed to take out big blocks of money. Even before that, though, there were reports that the fund’s investments — some placed in highly risky and speculative ventures — were worth less than previously stated. Now the fund has asked the city for a one-time infusion of $1.1 billion, an amount roughly equal to Dallas's entire general fund budget but not even close to what the pension fund needs to be fully funded. Nothing would be left for fighting endemic poverty south of the Trinity River, for public libraries, or for giving current police officers and firefighters a raise."

If Georgetown's leaders think pension problems in Dallas and Houston won't affect Georgetown, they are in for a rude awaking. Money that the State of Texas takes to solve other city's pension shortfalls, just wait its coming, will impact the state money available to the citizens of Georgetown and all Texans. Who knows what the state might do? They could keep part or all of the sales tax revenue, impose a tax on utilities, and any other source of revenue needed to bail out unfunded Texas pension funds. The possibilities are endless and creative legislators, under political pressure, will be very innovative.

Georgetown needs to get its pension unfunded liability to zero as soon as practicable in order to reduce its risk.

Continue reading the main stor

Advertisement

Continue reading the main storyOver six recent weeks, panicked Dallas retirees have pulled $220 million out of the fund. What set off the run was a recommendation in July that the retirees no longer be allowed to take out big blocks of money. Even before that, though, there were reports that the fund’s investments — some placed in highly risky and speculative ventures — were worth less than previously stated.

The Texas Legislature Created Local Government

Since the Texas Legislature created all local governments, it has the obligation to review those local governments and their policies that take away freedom and impose financial and procedural burdens on citizens.

The Legislature should impose restraints on cities' and counties' authority when they abuse that authority with respect to their citizens. Why should cities have unconstrained authority to annex property without those being annexed having any mechanism to resist if annexation is not in their best interest. That is a taking of property rights without just compensation, in fact, those being annexed have to then pay additional taxes to the city. What a deal, they take your rights and make you pay for it!

One of Lt. Governor Patrick's top ten legislative priorities is property tax reform. That may require the state to impose limitations on all property tax authorities, including cities, because they play the game of holding tax rates down while appraisals skyrocket. This results in more money leaving the taxpayers pocket year after year. City, county and school budgets increase annually at a rate exceeding population growth plus inflation. Why is that? Because there are no constraints on how much local governments can tax people's property.

Finally, why should cities that own utility systems be allowed to keep secret the contracts they sign with private companies? The weak arguments used by cities, the companies and their lobbyists are that competitive information has to be protected. That is just a smoke screen! If the companies knew up front that the contracts were open to the public, they would not include competitive information. If they think the "price" is competitively sensitive information, then the public's right to know trumps that argument.

Remember, secrecy is the breeding ground for cronyism and fraud.

Spend No Taxpayer Money on Lobbying the Texas Legislature

There are others who believe it is inappropriate and illegitimate for local governments to spend taxpayer money to lobby the Texas legislature against the best interests of citizens. Senator Konni Burton has filed SB 241, which will prohibit individual local governments from lobbying and also prohibit associations, such as the Texas Municipal League, from using Taxpayer money to lobby the legislature. Contact Senator Schwertner and Representative Terry Wilson and ask them to support this bill.

Senator Schwertner has filled a bill, SB 176, that provides for state regulation of Transportation Network Companies, think Uber and Lyft, and prohibits cities from imposing their own unique regulations. Senator Huffines bill, SB 113, would be superior because it allegedly deregulates all ride-for-hire companies. If Senator Huffines bill fails to pass, then Senator Schwertner's bill would be a good second choice.

Senator Huffines Files Bill to Deregulate All Ride-For-Hire Companies

As a follow up to the post against cities lobbying Texas legislators, we find another area where cities are trying to impose burdensome regulations on emerging transportation companies. Early this year the city of Austin ran Uber and Lyft out of the city, and thus the entire metro area by imposing regulations the companies did not feel were fair or met their objective of improved safety for the consumer. Experience has shown freer markets mean more competition, and more competition means a better deal for the consumer. So this is one more example of cities over-reaching with regulations to favor one provider over another, instead of letting the free market work.

The following press release is from Senator Huffines office.

AUSTIN—On the first day of pre-filing for the 85th Texas Legislature, State Senator Don Huffines has filed a bill that would introduce sweeping changes to the relationship between municipalities and the entire ride-for-hire industry. Senate Bill 113 will preempt any municipality from imposing burdensome regulations on taxicabs, limousines, and transportation network companies (TNCs) alike, creating a free market and level playing field for all market participants. "Since TNCs arrived in Texas, the policy discussions concerning them have focused on the degree to which the Legislature will allow cities to regulate them like taxicabs." said Senator Huffines. "To date, however, we have been asking the wrong question. Instead of asking how or how much we should regulate TNCs, we should be contemplating whether or not the ride-for-hire industry, as a whole, should be regulated in the first place." In recent years, too many cities across the state have taken a stifling, heavy-handed regulatory approach to innovative TNCs like Uber and Lyft, effectively pushing these businesses out of the market. Consequentially, people have lost their jobs and consumers have lost a supply to what has proven to be an enormous demand. The City of Austin is the most notable offender, but it is not alone in trampling economic liberty and consumer choice. Senator Huffines continued, "The ride-for-hire industry keeps asking for the same thing - a fair and equal market - and I agree. But a level playing field need not mean building up regulations on innovative and popular services. Let's tear down regulations to create a truly free market for every ride-for-hire business - whether it's Uber, Lyft, or a more traditional taxi cab. In my experience as a business man, freer markets mean more competition and more competition means a better deal for the consumer." Senator Huffines concluded his comments by remarking, "Unfortunately, this bill might ruffle some feathers in city councils across the state. However, the Legislature has an obligation to act in defense of economic and personal liberty, and that’s exactly what we will do with SB 113."

The Danger of Long-Term Utility Contracts

The Austin-Statesman is reporting that the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) is about to pay $60M to get out of an 18 year contract with a wind energy producer. In 2009, LCRA entered into a contract with a wind energy producer to purchase electricity for $64.75 per megawatt-hour ($0.06475 per kilowatt-hour). The problem for LCRA today is that they can buy electricity for about $25 per megawatt-hour on the open market. That is almost 40% less than the contract cost!

They are fortunate in that there is an exit clause in their contract that allows them to get out of the contract for $60M, although they have had to spend the last 18 months in court to be able to extract themselves. Of course, the consumers of the electricity that LCRA provides will have to pay for the $60M plus legal fees and court costs through higher rates.

The ratepayers in Georgetown should remember that several years ago Georgetown was locked into a long term contract with LCRA that took time, money, and the courts to extract themselves from. Apparently the City did not learn a lesson through that experience as they have turned around and signed 25 and 30 contracts with wind and solar power producers. 

Since the city is against transparency with respect to utility contracts (see previous post), we have no idea whether or not there are built-in escape clauses that would allow Georgetown to exit in the event that open market electricity costs are much lower that the contract costs.

Secret contracts also provide an environment for crony capitalism and fraud. Only with exposure to public view will the citizens of Georgetown ever know if the contracts are free from fraud and cronyism. 

Georgetown Coming Between You and Your State Legislators!!

The City of Georgetown is planning on lobbying your state legislators, using your tax money, on issues that may be against your best interest. They have an item in the consent agenda for next council meeting for a resolution authorizing city officials to lobby.

First of all, lobbying state legislators is not a valid city function. The city and its elected officials exist to provide roads, public safety, sewers, water services, electrical services, parks and libraries - not lobbying state legislators against our interests. This is clearly an expansion of government authority and intrusion into the personal prerogatives of citizens. The citizens have the right to lobby their legislators in their own best interest.

They have couched their resolution in very benign and non-threatening verbiage. For example, who could be against protecting "local control"? Well cities have clearly over-reached here in Texas. Think sanctuary cities, plastic bag bans and fracking bans!

How about the State changing annexation rules so that people who live within a proposed annexation area have a right to vote on the annexation? Is the current annexation rules fair to those people? It doesn't seem so, but, Georgetown officials are AGAINST the legislature giving those people a voice in annexation.

The city wants no limits placed on their ability to provide money, services, tax breaks, etc. to specific companies to entice them to locate in Georgetown. Some, like this writer, call that picking winners and losers. Let the market decide, not government! Others call this corporate welfare and are eliminating or curtailing this function.

The city wants to oppose any restrictions on them to take money from you, the taxpaying resident. No appraisal caps, no caps on their ability to levy property taxes! How is that in the best interest of the citizen/taxpayer?

They do not want the legislature to pass laws that entitle citizens to know the details about utility contracts. Think SunEdison, the now bankrupt solar farm developer that the city refused citizens to see the details of the contract. How is that working out? Why should the city have secrets from the citizens, except in personnel matters. The citizens want and deserve transparency in their government, yet, Georgetown wants to oppose any legislation that will make local government more transparent.

Finally, the city wants to implement this lobbying effort with no public input or discussion. This was discussed November 8 at a workshop, where the public is prevented from speaking, and now it is on the council consent calendar for November 23 where again there is no opportunity for public comment!

Call your councilperson and demand this proposed resolution be delayed until the public is notified and given the opportunity to comment.

City Still Ignoring Airport Neighbor Concerns

Several Georgetown citizens made presentations to the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) this past Tuesday expressing their concerns about development of the Georgetown airport. Following is one presentation that seems to caputure the essential elements of the airport neighbors concerns.

"AGENA ITEM D

AIRPORT PROJECT AND TIMELINE

11-15-16

WENDY DEW

30109 SPYGLASS CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN TX 78628

I SPOKE AT THE TTC MEETING WITH OTHER ACC MEMBERS WHEN JIM BRIGGS AND DIRECTOR FULTON FROM TxDOT SPOKE TO GET THE 10 MILLION GRANT.

JIM BRIGGS WAS ASKED IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THIS ISSUE AND HE MISS REPRESENTED HIMSELF TO THE TTC AND SAID:

"YES THE CITY HAS NOT ONLY MET BUT EXCEEDED THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND THAT THREE DIFFERENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS WERE HELD.

AND THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS DESIGNED FOR TRAFFIC CURRENTLY USING THE AIRPORT.

THERE HAD ONLY BEEN ONE MEETING AND THAT WAS ONLY ON THE FUEL FARM, NOT THE WHOLE 25 COMPONENT PLAN.

QUESTION IS WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO EXPAND THE THE FUEL TANKS BY 60% IF IT "WAS" FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC?

THEN MR FULTON GOT UP AND SPOKE AND THE TTC MEMBER STATED THAT: "IT STATES HERE THAT THIS IS A PASS THROUGH GRANT, IT HAS FOR PAVEMENT ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS AND TO PREPARE AN UPDATE TO THE MASTER PLAN. IS THIS FOR EXPANSION??

DIRECTOR FULTON MISS REPRESENTED HIMSELF AND SAYS: NOT IN ANY WAY

NOWHERE IN WHAT WAS GIVEN THE TTC BOARD

WAS THERE ANY MENTION OF THE FUEL FARM DO

YOU KNOW WHY?? BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU

ILLEGALLY GET AROUND ENVIRONMENTAL

STUDIES.

THEY DO WHAT IS CALLED SEGMENTING WHERE

THEY TAKE ONE ASPECT OF THE PLAN AND PUT IT

BY ITS SELF AND AS A SINGLE ISSUE IT DOESN'T

SEEM TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM

ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY PRETEND THAT THEY ARE

DOING THIS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,

THE INTERESTING TRUTH ABOUT THIS WHOLE

MESS IS THAT G.R.W WILLIS THE ENGINEER THAT

DESIGNED THIS MASTER PLAN CLEARLY STATES IN

HIS PLAN THAT THE THE EXISTING CAPACITY OF

THE FUEL FARM IS ADEQUATE FOR THE PLANNING

PERIOD.

NOT ONLY DOES THE CITY AVOID TALKING ABOUT

THE FACT THAT THEY ARE EXPANDING THE TANKS,

THEY PUT OUT THIS LITTLE SING SONG ABOUT WHY

THEY ARE EXPANDING THE TANKS IS TO SAVE ON

DELIVERY.

I CALLED AVEFUEL AND ASKED THEM HOW MUCH

GTU WOULD SAVE ON DELIVERY BY EXPANDING

THE TANKS AND SHE SAID NOTHING, IT WOULD

INCREASE DELIVERY COSTS BECAUSE THE

TRUCKS THEY HAVE NOW DO NOT FILL EXISTING

TANKS.

SO THAT IS A COMPLETE FALSEHOOD FROM OUR

ELECTED OFFICIALS! I

ALSO THEY HAVE THIS BIG RUSH TO DO THIS BECAUSE MR. POLASIC SAID THE TANKS ARE LEAKING, I EMAILED MR VOLK AND ASKED HIM FOR THE INSPECTION REPORT THAT INDICATES LEAKAGE, AND HE SAID THERE HAS BEEN NO INSPECTION AND TO HIS. KNOWLEDGE THEY DONT LEAK.

SO WHY ARE WE DOING THIS!!!!

OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE ALLOWING THIS COMMUNITY TO BE IRREVERSIBLY COMPROMISED BY:

ACQUIRING THIS GRANT BASED ON INTENTIONAL FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE CITYS INTENTIONS AT THE AIRPORT.

NOT GETTING PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

NOT USING PROFESSIONAL FEASIBILITY STUDIES

INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD ABOUT NEEDING TO

REPLACE FUEL FARM

INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD ABOUT BEING ABLE TO

SAVE ON DELIVERY COSTS.

INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD ABOUT NOT ACQUIRING

ADDITIONAL LAND

INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD ABOUT THE 60 %

EXPANSION OF FUEL TANKS

INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD ABOUT CONDITION OF

THE RUNWAYS

AND NOT GETTING ADEQUATE PUBLIC INPUT
BEFORE THEY DO WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

NOT ONLY ARE THERE 25 SIGNIFICANT PROJECT ELEMENTS PERTAINING TO AIRPORT EXPANSION THAT NO ONE EVER HEARS ABOUT, THERE ARE 101 CONTRACTS PENDING 101, ALSO THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF TREES REMOVED RECENTLY ALONG LAKEWAY DRIVE. AND LOTS OF PROPERTY WAS JUST ACQUIRED UNDER THREAT OF CONDEMNATION, AND YOU THINK THIS IS ABOUT THE FUEL FARM.

I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS COMMUNITY AND SO SHOULD YOU BE."

The city government seems to be ignoring these concerns by refusing to enter into any meaningful dialog with these citizens. The city just stonewalls and refuses to answer the obvious questions posed in the above presentation.

Isn't it time for the city to engage these citizens and address their concerns?

Hedge Funds Don't Belong in Pension Funds

More and more pension funds are recognizing that hedge funds are high risk and high cost and the return does not justify either. Many large public pension funds are divesting themselves of hedge funds. Hedge Funds performance subpar

The Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) is currently invested 10.1% in hedge funds and increasing allocations in Private Equity and Real Return asset classes, which are also higher risk. Here are the returns for the last year for the asset classes.

It is clear that Absolute Return, another name for Hedge Funds, is a drag on overall investment performance. Remember, the overall return for TMRS must be 6.75% annually in order to meet their pension payment obligations.

Williams Drive Transportation Corridor Study

The Williams Drive corridor study is underway and the city is asking for citizen input. Consult the city website Williams Drive Study for more information.

Get involved to let the city know your views on how Williams Drive should be improved to meet your needs.

The pedestrian and bicycle constituents are making their desires known thus forcing study time, design and construction effort to accommodate their wishes. Automobiles will be the transportation mode for 99% of the people in the foreseeable future and therefore 99% of the design effort and construction $ should be directed at making the automobile travel fast, safe and efficient.

Be aware that some in our city government would like to use the force of the city to dictate to property and business owners along Williams Drive how they can use their property. It has been suggested that zoning laws should be used to restrict land use along Williams Drive to any commercial use except anything automobile. That would mean no gas stations, repair shops, car washes, dealers, auto parts stores, etc. would be allowed on Williams Drive. Eliminating automotive related businesses by government completely ignores the will of the people who may want close, quick and easy access for all things automotive. Let the people choose, with their consumer dollar, the businesses and locations they will support.

This idea needs to be stopped dead in its tracks. This is government picking winners and losers. That is not the role of government. Let free enterprise decide what the people want and where they want it.

It should be noted that the City is planning to install two traffic roundabouts on Rivery Drive, North of Williams Drive, that connects to Northwestern Blvd which will cross I 35 and connect with Austin Ave. Let your city planners and council members know whether or not you think roundabouts are a "good" idea here in Georgetown.

Solar Panels on New Westside Service Center

Observers of the enviroment around them notice that the roof of the new Westside Service Center has been populated with several hundred solar panels that are presumeabley tied into the Georgetown electric grid.

Has anyone seen the payback analysis for this installation? In other words, how many years will it take to save enough money by not purchasing commercial electrical power to offset the cost of the panels, associated equipment, and installation? Since Georgetown is purchasing electricity for on the order of 5 cents/KWhr, it is likely to take a very long time if based on the electricity used by the Service Center alone. If there is excess electricity generated and dumped into the Georgetown grid, how much will the City save annually by fore going the purchase of electricity from commercial providers?

This kind of analysis ought to be routinely available to Georgetown citizens and in fact should be done prior to any committment of capital resources to aid in decision making by the City Council.

Sales Tax Revenues at Record High

The Texas State Comptroller reported the lastest distribution of sales taxes to Georgetown. $2.065 Million was distributed to Georgetown in November.

The City operates on a fiscal year basis that runs from October 1 to September 30. On that basis, the City collected $21,846,638.55 in FY2016. The City budgeted for sales tax revenue in FY2016 of $21,530,000.

The revenue collected exceeded the budget amount by $316,000. Inquiring minds want to know how this windfall has been spent. Will the City publically share with its citizens where the excess money has gone? Ask your city representative to have the share that information with its citizens!

Should Georgetown Lobby the Texas Legislature?

If you have thoughts/opinions on the propriety of Georgetown lobbying the state legislature during the next session, attend the workshop next Tuesday, November 8 at 3pm in the council chambers.

Here is the agenda item:

Discussion and direction regarding a review and future adoption of a legislative agenda for the City of Georgetown during the 85th Legislative Session -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and David Morgan, City Manager

People who believe in limited government would argue that lobbying is not a proper function of city government. It is the people's right and responsibility to lobby their state legislators to reflect their interests. Not the responsibility of city government!

LoneStar Rail/Transportation Issues at November 8, Council Workshop

Staff will present to the council at the 3pm workshop, recommendations with respect to the use of the funds budgeted in FY 17 for LoneStar Rail. Here are the specific recomendations.

Thus it appears that staff wants to conduct more studies. CAMPO is the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. ARRO is an unknown study organization, but, it is likely connected with the San Antonio planning organization, Alamo Area Metropolitian Planning Organization (ALAMO).

TxDot Scheduled Open House for I-35 and Williams Drive

If you want to impact transportation development in Georgetown, here is your opportunity.

Williams Drive project open house
An open house for the I-35 at Williams Drive project will be held on Nov. 17, 2016 from 5:30 – 7 p.m. at Georgetown High School. Improvements being considered include replacing the Williams Drive bridge, reconstructing the Williams Drive intersection as a Diverging Diamond Intersection (DDI), improving and extending frontage roads, and improving bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.

           Williams Drive Project Open House
           Thursday, Nov. 17, 2016
           5:30 – 7 p.m.
           Georgetown High School
           2211 North Austin Ave.
           Georgetown, TX 78626

Come and go at your leisure and provide input on the potential safety and mobility improvements along I-35 in Williamson County. For those unable to attend, a virtual open house will be available online Nov. 17 to Dec. 1, 2016. 

County Imposed Pension Costs

Not only does the City of Georgetown impose pension costs on city taxpayers, but Williamson County does also. A recent research article from the Texas Public Policy Foundation identifies the flawed policies followed by the Texas County and District Retirement System (TCDRS) which invests and manages the retirement funds for county employees.

An extended period of poor investment performance by TCDRS would have to be offset by additional taxpayer funding in exactly the same way the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) will have to be bailed out by taxpayers if subpar investment performance continues.

TCDRS continues to operate under the fiction that going forward they will earn 8% investment returns, even though they have not approached that level in recent years.

TCDRS' diversifed investment portfolio decreased in total assets from $24.6 billion to $24.4 billion in 2015. The total return after fees was -0.7%. Over 10 years the fund returned 5.5% annually.

TCDRS claims a rediculious 88.7% funded ratio under its assumption of 8% annual investment returns. All of these numbers can be found in the 2015 CAFR for Texas County and District Retirement System (TCDRS).

It's time to let your county commissioner know that you are watching them and that they better solve the pension underfunding problem before it becomes unmanageable.

Georgetown Resource for Abused Children

The Williamson County Children's Advocacy Center is a great resource located in Georgetown to help and protect abused children. They have just produced a significant video that trains people on how to identify abuse and how to deal with it in real time. Recognizing Child Abuse for First Responders. 

This video needs to be seen by all of Georgetown's first responders as they are often in the best position to identify abuse.

Georgetown Taxpayers and Pension Beneficiaries Being Ripped-Off

Prior blog posts have described how private equity firms are not to be entrusted with hard-earned pension fund money. Now we find out that in addition to paying for private jets for private equity managers and their families, pension funds pay for top-flight entertainment at lavish annual conferences. Private Equity Rip-Off

"With all the big and small grifting that goes on in private equity, we haven’t bothered calling out a practice that is pervasive and well known in the private equity community and authorized by the agreements that the limited partners sign with the general partners. Yet it will likely stick in the craw of most public pension fund beneficiaries, the taxpayers who support the payments to those plans, as well as donor to foundations and endowments that also invest in private equity even more than the widespread use of private jets, which is authorized not just for firm employees but at some general partners, even their family members.

Another routine form of private equity rent extraction is how they get the fund investors, who are fiduciaries, to pay for lavish annual conferences which for the biggest funds includes big ticket entertainment like Elton John."

General partner conferences are either by accident or design busywork to keep limited partners like TMRS from digging into documents and data.

"Indeed, a former private equity fund executive pointed out that keeping private equity staff at pension funds and foundations busy with the nominally important work of running around to general partner meet and greets seriously eroded the time they could spend doing what ought to be their real work, of reading the financial information and other reports provided by the general partners as well as their SEC Form ADVs, which it appears virtually no one in the industry bothers scrutinizing."

Texas Municipal Retirement System, TMRS, continues to invest through private equity firms as they chase higher investment returns. Guess what, passive investing is equaling or beating the returns generated by private equity with substantially less investment risk.

Its time for Georgetown to take a hard look at TMRS to assure they are prudently managing and investing taxpayers and city employees money