Georgetown Piling on the Debt

The city council is poised to approve the issuance of $15,270,000 in new debt that costs $6,287,697 in interest for a total of $21,557,697. The issuance of this debt does not require voter approval. Here is the debt service schedule.

The city will initially be paying over $1M per year for the privilege of borrowing this money.

The next chart shows the intended use of the borrowed money.

click on chart to make larger

The particularly disturbing thing is that bond debt is being used to fund items as small as $140,000. Should not the city be funding this type of item from current revenue? Secondly, bond debt is being used to purchase items like radios and police vehicles with 5 year and 7 year life expectancies respectively. Again, shouldn't these item be purchased out of current revenue?

Note also that the city is issuing $6,105,526 in debt to "maintain" the airport. This seems to be a clear indicator that the city is increasing the capacity of the airport, not just maintaining it in the current capability.

Wind Energy Getting Some Pushback

North Carolina politicans are pushing back against the installation of more wind turbines in the state. WSJ

"North Carolina’s contentious $400 million wind farm, run by a unit of Spanish energy giant Iberdrola SA, was built to provide power to an Amazon.com Inc. data center. State lawmakers have renewed a push against the project, citing risks to nearby military operations. The company says it wants to build more wind farms in North Carolina, but has put its plans on hold because of the political uncertainty. Another planned project is currently stalled: Apex Clean Energy of Charlottesville, Va., is scaling back its 105-turbine project after county commissioners denied a necessary zoning permit.

Other developers say they are staying away as the state legislature weighs tighter permitting guidelines.

“Until we get to a stable policy climate, we’re going to continue to see a lot of unknowns, and that is never good for multimillion-dollar investments,” said Katharine Kollins, president of the Southeastern Wind Coalition, a trade group."

Federal tax credits for wind and solar power were extended by Congress in December 2015, but energy companies say they don't expect much in the way of new renewable-energy incentives from the Trump administration. Without subsidies, renewable energy is not competitive with traditional fossil fuel energy plants.

Fired SunEdison Executives File Lawsuit

Way back on July 9, 2015, this blog author filed a request for a copy of the SunEdison contract with the city of Georgetown. It was clear then that SunEdison was in financial trouble and potentially posed a risk to Georgetown through the contract. The city denied the request for a copy of the contract with the concurrence of the Texas Attorney General. The city hid and continues to hide behind a state law that allows untility companies, both public and private, to withhold financial information from the citizens and concumers.

SunEdison delared bankruptcy last year to the surprise of the city of Georgetown.

"Two former executives at SunEdison Inc., the solar-power company that filed for bankruptcy protection last year, filed whistleblower lawsuits claiming they were fired after sounding the alarm about the company’s precarious finances.WSJ

Carlos Domenech and Pancho Perez, who held senior positions at two SunEdison subsidiaries, this week sued their former employers and top officials including former SunEdison Chief Executive Ahmad Chatila. They are seeking back pay and damages for what they say were retaliatory firings after they voiced concerns to senior management and the board.

The lawsuits, filed in Maryland federal court, echo much of what was in a Wall Street Journal article last year that chronicled SunEdison’s dizzying collapse and reported that company executives, including Mr. Chatila, had misrepresented its finances to investors before the bankruptcy.

A representative for SunEdison declined to comment. Mr. Chatila and other defendants, including SunEdison’s former chief financial officer, Brian Wuebbels, couldn’t be reached. They have declined in the past to comment.

Messrs. Domenech and Perez were senior executives at two subsidiaries, TerraForm Power Inc. and TerraForm Global Inc. The entities were publicly traded but controlled by SunEdison, and were key to providing financing that allowed the solar-project developer to grow quickly.

Mr. Chatila’s ambition to create a renewable-energy conglomerate the size of Google Inc. was brought down by a combination high debt, financial engineering and years of aggressive deal making. A planned takeover of a rooftop-solar company in 2015 was the tipping point, and the easy money that had been supplied by investors and Wall Street quickly dried up.

When that happened, SunEdison executives presented a rosier outlook to investors than they discussed internally and pressured business heads to change their projections to be more optimistic—even as the company was hemorrhaging cash, delaying payments and seeking emergency sources of funding, the Journal reported.

A presentation to investors in November of 2015 said SunEdison had $1.4 billion in cash. The same day, a report circulated to top executives showed about $90 million in available cash, according to a Journal report at the time and allegations in the recent lawsuits.

At an October 2015 meeting of senior management, Mr. Chatila and Mr. Wuebbels projected the company would burn through $1.3 billion of cash over the next six months or so, according to the lawsuits. When the two men presented to SunEdison’s board a week later, that figure was $650 million, the lawsuits allege.

Messrs. Domenech and Perez were among a group of senior executives who took their concerns to the board, according to the lawsuits. They allege in court filings this week that they were brushed aside and that company executives pressured them to go along with the revised projections showing the company on firmer footing.

Mr. Domenech was fired in late November 2015, at a board meeting in which several TerraForm executives and board members were replaced by SunEdison appointees, according to regulatory filings. Mr. Perez says he was forced to resign in January 2016.

SunEdison filed for bankruptcy protection last April. The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission opened investigations into whether management misled investors in the months before the filing.

The TerraForm entities didn’t file but remain in limbo, with large chunks of their stock tied up in the SunEdison estate. Brookfield Asset Management held talks about acquiring them late last year, according to regulatory filings. It is unclear where those talks stand."

Thoughts on Renewable Energy

 Added solar and wind power arising from anti-carbon regulations heightens energy pricing volatility as has been seen in Germany and Australia. This occurs because when more solar and wind power is generated than can be used during peak times, then subsidized solar and wind generated electricity depresses prices on the wholesale market. Alternately, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, the price of electricity on the wholesale market skyrockets as the base load generators take up the load and try and recover their unsubsidized costs.

"Germany’s excess power spills over the border into Polish and Czech territory and threatens their electrical grids with collapse, companies and governments there say.

A battle is raging in Central Europe over the balance of power—the electrical kind.

Poland and the Czech Republic see Germany as an aggressor, overproducing electricity and dumping it across the border. Germany sees itself as a green-energy pioneer under unfair attacks from less innovative neighbors.

That creates problems on windy and sunny days when Germany produces far more electricity than it needs. Excess power spills over the border into Polish and Czech territory, threatening their electrical grids with collapse, companies and governments there say." As Reported by the WSJ

It will be interesting to see if the new administration reduces or eliminates federal subsidies for renewable energy and the impact on electricity prices here in Georgetown.

Downtown West Update & Questions

The city staff provided an update to the Downtown West project on February 27. Remember this is the project to create a new city hall and adminstrative offices using the old library and water works buildings.

After the initial budget came in grossly over early estimates, the Council established a $13Million cap.

Here is the funding chart shown at the update.

Of particular concern is the $6.249M cash funding from the sale of the existing City Hall. Is that a realistic number? Who knows what the final sale number will be as it is clearly sometime in the future. There seems to be no backup plan if the proceeds falls short of the estimate!

Also note the Certificate of Obligation, that is a bond issued by the City with no voter involvement or approval, yet, Georgetown citizens will be responsible for paying the bond off.

Senator Schwertner and Cohorts Against Rail Boondoggles

State Senator, Charles Schwertner of Georgetown, and several of his fellow senators have filed bills in the 85th legislature to assure that Texas taxpayers are insulated from any costs associated with proposed bullet train between Dallas and Houston. The bills also provide protection for property owners whose land is taken under eminent domain procedures. 

Local government officials could learn from Senator Schwertner and put into place measures to protect local taxpayers and land owners from expensive, non-economic local rail projects.

Here is the article published on Senator Schwertner's facebook page.

Lawmakers Take Action to Derail Bullet Train between Dallas and Houston

DR. CHARLES SCHWERTNER·TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2017

AUSTIN, TX - Today, a group of key state lawmakers filed a slate of legislation to push back against Texas Central Railway's controversial proposal to construct a high-speed rail line between Dallas and Houston. Senators Birdwell (R-Granbury), Creighton (R-Conroe), Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), Perry (R-Lubbock), and Schwertner (R-Georgetown) joined with Representatives Ashby (R-Lufkin), Bell (R-Magnolia), Cook (R-Corsicana), Schubert (R-Caldwell), and Wray (R-Waxahachie) to file a total of 18 bills addressing a number of concerns ranging from protecting landowners threatened by eminent domain abuse to ensuring the state isn't later forced to bail out the private project with taxpayer dollars.

"This group of foreign investors is threating to seize family farms, physically divide the state of Texas, and have a gravely detrimental impact on the citizens I represent," said State Representative Leighton Schubert. "At a minimum, the people of Texas deserve reasonable reassurances that their private property rights will be respected and that they will not be left holding the bag if this ill-conceived project fails."

In addition to the brewing controversies over eminent domain and the general regulation of high-speed rail, a number of questions remain unanswered regarding the specific details of Texas Central's proposal. While TCR has claimed that the project will cost just $12 billion to complete, an independent analysis from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) puts that estimate at closer to $18 billion.

Critics have also raised grave concerns about the overall financial viability of the project, noting that without some form of government subsidy, Texas Central will find it virtually impossible to meet their stated ridership estimates at prices competitive with existing modes of transportation.

"This legislation will ensure that the property rights of our constituents are respected and state taxpayers aren't asked to bail out this project when costs inevitably exceed stated projections and ridership fails to meet expectations." said Senator Charles Schwertner, expressing his serious doubts about the long-term financial viability of the project. Schwertner went on to cite a recent independent study by the Reason Foundation which indicates a proposed high-speed rail between Dallas and Houston will lose over $537 million a year and could cost taxpayers up to $21.5 billion.

"I won't stand by while good people are forced to give up their private property rights for a rail project that will bring little to no economic benefit to our region," Representative Ashby stated. "The opposition to this project has been loud and clear in my district, and I'm proud to stand by the people I represent in fighting for more transparency and thoughtfulness when it comes to projects that affect Texas."

The current conflict between foreign developers and rural landowners is reminiscent of a similar debate over the so-called Trans-Texas Corridor, a highly-controversial and similarly ambitious statewide transportation project that dominated Texas politics for much of the last decade. Following intense opposition from conservative interest groups, state lawmakers, and rural landowners the project was ultimately abandoned.

"Since the proposed high-speed rail project stretches across Texas, we need to make sure all of the necessary data and research has been completed to ensure private property rights are being protected." said Senator Charles Perry, a key member of the Senate Transportation Committee.

"Transportation is a critical issue for our state, which requires thoughtful and pragmatic solutions for today and the future," added Representative Wray. "Texas Central has failed to demonstrate a viable or comprehensive plan addressing the real mobility needs of our state, and the legislation filed today seeks to address the legitimate issues posed by this project."

State Senator Brian Birdwell, himself a survivor of the September 11, 2001, terror attack on the Pentagon, expressed substantial concerns regarding what security measures will be taken to screen passengers and protect the rail-line from a potential terrorist attack. "For two years I have been an outspoken opponent of this project and the negative impact it would have on the citizens I represent," said Birdwell. "I'm pleased to be filing security-focused legislation to ensure the safety of all Texans should any future high-speed rail project be undertaken in our state."

In July, the Surface Transportation Board dealt a substantial blow to Texas Central's high-speed rail proposal, determining the federal government lacked the authority to grant eminent domain powers to TCR or otherwise regulate the proposed high-speed train. Since then, it's become increasingly unclear whether TCR has the actual legal authority to take land from private property owners along the train's proposed path or regulatory framework necessary to operate a high-speed train in Texas.

"It is not a railroad, and therefore, it does not have eminent domain authority," added Representative Byron Cook, Chairman of the House State Affairs Committee which oversees most eminent domain legislation. "If any train were ultimately to be built, the idea of using a proprietary Japanese technology that is incompatible with other rail technologies used in our state is very problematic. If this initiative is eventually approved, Texas must require a fully vetted, statewide master plan that involves the Texas Department of Transportation."

"I still have doubts about whether a high-speed rail project makes sense for Texas. Taxpayers should not be expected to pay the bill if the project fails," said Senator Brandon Creighton.

Representative Cecil Bell, Jr. echoed that sentiment, adding: "Without taxpayer dollars, the project in Texas is on track to fail. My bill would require that at the beginning of such a project, the company take steps to ensure the restoration of this beautiful part of rural Texas if the project ceases to operate."

"Texans have always had a deep respect for the land and for the law," added Senator Lois Kolkhorst. "That's why the Legislature must tread lightly when property rights are at risk."

The elected officials mentioned above have worked throughout the interim with Texans Against High-Speed Rail (TAHSR). This group represents thousands of affected landowners who are saying 'no' to the project. Kyle Workman, spokesman for TAHSR, remains confident in the work put forth by the aforementioned elected officials.

"All of these offices, and many more of their colleagues, have been engaged with our team to make sure that the voices of their constituents are heard loud and clear," said Workman. "We're happy to have these Senators and State Representatives on our team as we make progress against the high-speed rail train."

The following bills were filed this morning:

SB 973 by Creighton/HB 2168 by Bell (Railroad Determination Before Surveys) - prohibits a private high-speed rail entity from entering private property to conduct a survey unless the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) first determines that the surveying entity is, in fact, a railroad.

SB 974 by Creighton/HB 2181 by Cook (Option Contract Protection) - voids any high-speed rail option contracts held by a high-speed rail entity upon a bankruptcy initiated by or against the entity.

SB 975 by Birdwell/HB 2169 by Schubert (Security Requirements) - provides a framework of minimum security requirements to be followed during the construction and operation of a private high-speed rail line. Requires the high-speed rail authority to coordinate security efforts with state and local law enforcement, as well as disaster response agencies.

SB 977 by Schwertner/HB 2172 by Ashby (No Taxpayer Bailout) - prohibits the legislature from appropriating new funds, or allowing state agencies to utilize existing funds, to pay any costs related to the construction, maintenance, or operation of a private high-speed rail in Texas.

SB 978 by Schwertner/HB 2104 Bell (Property Restoration Bond) - requires a private high-speed rail entity to file a bond with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) sufficient to restore property used for the rail service to the property's original conditions if the service ceases operation.

SB 979 by Schwertner/HB 2179 by Cook (Right of Repurchase for Non-HSR Use) - prohibits an entity that operates or plans to operate a high-speed rail from using property acquired for purposes other than high-speed rail. If the high-speed rail authority doesn't use the property for that specific purpose, the original landowner must be given the opportunity to repurchase the land.

SB 980 by Schwertner/HB 2167 by Schubert (Put Texas First) - prohibits any state money from being used for any purpose related to a privately owned high-speed rail, unless the state acquires and maintains a lien in order to secure the repayment of state funds. Requires that the state's lien be superior to all other liens, effectively making Texas a priority creditor.

SB 981 by Kolkhorst/HB 2162 by Wray (Interoperability) - requires an entity constructing a high-speed rail line in Texas to demonstrate compatibility with more than one type of train technology.

SB 982 by Perry/HB 2173 by Ashby (High-Speed Rail Feasibility Study) - upon request of a legislator, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) must generate a feasibility study of a proposed high-speed rail project. The study must indicate whether the project is for a public use, whether it will be financially viable, and what impact of the project will have on local communities.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dr-charles-schwertner/lawmakers-take-action-to-derail-bullet-train-between-dallas-and-houston/10155019208559929

Will Texans Fall for the Rail Snakeoil?

One again we see that rail transport, high speed or commuter, is not economically feasible in Texas. Bullet Train Report

"A new report estimates the Texas bullet train could cost taxpayers $21.5 billion and concludes that privately funded high speed rail is not a feasible mode of transit outside of the Northeastern United States.

The report from the Reason Foundation estimates that the proposed Texas Central Partners project between Dallas and Houston will run at a $537 million annual operating deficit over the its first 40 years of operations."

"The report finds that Texas Central Partners has exaggerated its ridership projections while underestimating costs, which will lead to revenue shortfalls, financial difficulties and ultimately, taxpayer subsidies."

It is time to disabuse our elected officials of the idea that rail makes economic sense as a method of reducing traffic congestion in Texas. Georgetown's mayor has indicated he is open to a rail solution to reduce I 35 congestion along the old MoKan railroad right-of-way. Many studies and practical experience across the U.S. has shown that rail is not cost effective or effective at reducing highway congestion, with the exception of the densely populated North-East part of the U.S.

Let our elected officials know we want them to focus on real solutions that work and are cost effective.

Debt is the Monster in the Closet

Debt for the average consumer is fueled by broad and steady increases in credit card debt, auto and student loans, and a fourth-quarter surge in mortgage originations. Wall Street Journal

"Total household debt climbed by $226 billion in the final three months of 2016, according to a report Thursday from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Total household debts are now just $99 billion shy of the all-time peak of $12.7 trillion set in the third quarter of 2008 just as the banking system began crashing down. The New York Fed estimates that debt is highly likely to set a new record in 2017." 

This accounting of debt does not include the debt imposed on citizens by their government. According to the Texas Bond Review Board report for FY-16, the city of Georgetown owes $317,868,554; Williamson County owes $1,320,901,660; and Georgetown ISD owes $524,374,833. That is a grand total of $2,163,145,047. That is $2.16 Billion dollars that we collectively owe, and that does not include the many smaller taxing districts like ESDs, MUDs, PIDs, etc. This is only the local debt. Debt owed by the state and federal governments add massively to these totals.

It will be instructive to see if the voters of Roundrock ISD pass the massive school bond($572 Million) proposed by the Roundrock ISD school board that is in addition to existing debt of $1,143,910,722.

Wind Power a Fraud in Australia

Yesterday morning at 6:30am, wind power was only providing about 1.2% of the power needs of Australia Herald Sun. This in contrast to the government mandates that require 23% of the power produced be from renewable sources.

"Via Alan Moran, more proof that wind power is a fraud. We pay about $5 billion a year in subsidising green power, yet wind at 6.30am today provided less than 2 per cent of Australia.s electricity, and less than 3 per cent of even South Australia's. Solar power provided less still. 

How can you run a modern economy on this stuff?"

It is clear that fossil fueled generators will be around a long time to insure a steady, predictable supply of electricity when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

Drowning in Debt

Texas and Georgetown residents are being saddled with massive debt by the city, county and school district. According to the Bond Review Board’s latest annual report, Texas’ local debt per capita ($8,350) ranks as the 2^nd highest amount owed among the top ten most populous states.

Only considering city, county and school debt, our local debt per capita is $15,098. That is almost double the Texas average local debt of $8,350.

According to the Texas Bond Review Board report for FY-16, the city of Georgetown owes $317,868,554; Williamson County owes $1,320,901,660; and Georgetown ISD owes $524,374,833. That is a grand total of $2,163,145,047. That is $2.16 Billion dollars that we collectively owe, and that does not include the many smaller taxing districts like ESDs, MUDs, PIDs, etc.

The State of Texas also has debt which adds another $1,470 per capita.

This debt per capita continues to increase at all levels of government and ultimately will negatively impact the economic health and well-being of Texas residents.

Vote Irregularities Pursued in Travis County

Travis County is suing the state attorney general’s office to block the release of records sought by former Austin City Council candidate Laura Pressley, who is involved in long-running litigation over her 2014 loss to District 4 Council Member Greg Casar.Statesman

The records request is part of Pressley’s effort to question the validity of elections in Travis County. However, she disputes the assertion from the county’s attorneys that the records request is linked to her defeat in the 2014 campaign.

HOW WE GOT HERE: Key events in the District 4 election challenge

The lawsuit, filed late Friday by county attorney David Escamilla, challenges the state’s ruling that the county must turn over documents Pressley requested on Oct. 14, 2016. (Pressley disputes the date, saying she filed the request in August.) She had asked for emails involving elections contractors and county and state officials.

At issue are nine pages Travis County says it does not want to turn over, alleging they pose a significant security risk to the county and its election process. Additionally, the county says some of the information sought by Pressley contains secured computer information that is considered confidential by law.

“What is Travis County hiding that they’re in disagreement with the attorney general?” Pressley said Tuesday, adding that she’s filed similar records requests with major counties around the state.

Pressley’s inquiry into Travis County’s electronic voting equipment began with her lawsuit contesting the 2014 council runoff, which Casar won with nearly 65 percent of the vote. Pressley alleged that the Travis County Clerk’s Office, which runs the elections, broke the law by not securing “ballot images” from its electronic voting machines. Pressley’s attorneys have argued that made it impossible to determine the actual outcome of the race.

Casar’s attorneys argued that the “cast vote record” maintained by Travis County — a record showing each voter’s chosen slate of candidates — is widely recognized as being the same as a “ballot image.”

A state district court judge threw out Pressley’s case in 2015 and later ordered Pressley and her first attorney, David Rodgers, to pay $100,000 in sanctions for failing to back up key arguments. At the time, Judge Dan Mills warned the fines, which help cover Casar’s legal expenses, would escalate if Pressley appealed and lost.

In December, an appeals court upheld that district court ruling. Pressley spent $215,000 in legal fees to contest the defeat.

In January, Casar’s attorney Chuck Herring estimated Pressley’s side might end up shouldering $190,000 of the council member’s legal bill.

Protesters in Sun City

The ultra left wing protests have arrived in Sun City.  Lt. Governor Dan Patrick spoke at the Republican Club dinner Thursday evening and he was met by a group of protesters. Apparently, local Democrats are following the same playbook that has been published for protesters against the Trump administration. First rule is to protest and disrupt public meetings of current elected officials. They try and stop elected officials from talking with their constituents. Fortunately, the protesters at Sun City did not engage in disruptive behavior. 

As can been seen by looking at the signs, this crowd is pro-abortion, support sharing women's bathrooms/showers with self-identified transgenders and for voting by anyone without knowing if they are a citizen or not.

Wind Power Fails South Australia Again

South Australia, with 40% renewable energy generators is suffering rolling electrical blackouts for the second time this season, and more are expected tomorrow. Joanne Nova

Joanne Nova notes that electricity prices spiked to $13.44 per KWhr while the wind turbines were only producing 7% of rated capacity.

Are planned blackouts in Texas's future as more and more renewable electric generation is brought online?

To guard against rolling blackouts, ERCOT must require fossil fuel plants be available to come online as renewables decrease their output. Having these plants on standby will of course increase the cost of electricity to the consumer even as the cost of natural gas continues to decline.

Are there any honest and competent available to show the true costs of government subsidized renewable energy versus fossil fuel generated electricity?

Inquiring minds would love to see a comprehensive and unbiased analysis for renewables vs fossil fuel generated electricity in Texas.

How Much of the Electricity That Georgetown Uses is Green?

Georgetown city officials have stated that the electricity that is used in the city is generated by green sources. In fact it was stated that in 2016, that all the electricity used by the city came from wind generators. "While Spinning Spur 3 was projected to meet 90 percent of Georgetown’s energy needs, over the last 12 months, the electricity output from the wind plant has exceeded Georgetown’s consumption, making Georgetown 100 percent renewable for that period. The excess energy has been cleared into the ERCOT market." Advocate

Let us examine that claim. In 2015 a total of 449,826 thousand megawatthours of electricity was generated within the state of Texas. Of that amount, 44,833 thousand megawatthours were generated by wind turbines. Thus we see that 10% of the electricity generated in Texas and dumped onto the Texas grid was generated by the wind. Thus anyone extracting electricity from the grid received just 10% of the electricity generated by the wind.EIA Electric Power Annual Report

Since the 2016 data will not be available for some time, assume the ratio of wind generated electricity to total generated electricity remains approximatly the same at 10%. Thus in 2016 the electricity that Georgetown extracted from the Texas grid contained no more that 10% generated by wind turbines.

Thus we can see that Georgetown purchases wind generated electricity in excess of current demand, but once it is loaded onto the Texas grid out in Amarillo, eveyone extracting electricity from the grid gets 10% generated by the wind. The only way Georgetown can claim their electricity is 100% green generated is to contruct their own transmission lines between the city and the generators.

Local Control

Who is not for local control? I guess it all depends on your definition. My definition of local control is individual control. I don't need or want a local government telling me what I can and cannot do as long as I am not endangering the physical or economic health of those around me. 

The Publisher/Executive Editor of the WilcoSun apparently wants to curb the State's ability to limit the power of local government over its citizens. I guess she has forgotten that local government was created by the State and the State has the obligation and power to set the terms and conditions under which they operate for the benefit of the citizens.

She praises Austin for banning the use of plastic bags within the city limits by retail businesses. She obsesses about the State of Texas denying cities the right to ban fracking within their city limits as Denton tried to do. She clearly is not concerned about the rights of the local businessman or the property rights of the local property owner. I welcome the State protecting my rights from being abridged by local government.

Then she attacks the State of Texas for trying to impose financial penalties on sanctuary cities and criminal penalties on local officials that fail to enforce federal immigration laws. All sorts of arguments are presented against federal laws being enforced within local governments ranging from the history of Mexican land ownership in Texas pre-statehood to the alleged benefits of immigrants to all who live in Texas. 

Again, I welcome the Federal governments and the State government's efforts to make sure all governments, including local governments, obey all the laws. We have seen over the last eight years the effect of selective law enforcement by the U.S. Justice Department. We do not need local governments deciding which laws they will enforce and which laws they will ignore.

The Real Reason Behind Global Warming Agenda

"The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this. Investors Business Dailey

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said."

Senator Schwertner and Others Proposing Legislation Governing Annexation

It has been apparent for some time that cities abuse the annexation power that has been granted by the legislature by annexing property for increased tax revenue and not providing city services. Current law also allows cities to annex property without the consent or approval of a majority of the property owners. This proposed legislation rectifies those deficiencies.

Senator Schwertner is coauthor of SB 715 which is summarized below.

AUSTIN – State Senator Donna Campbell filed Senate Bill 715 on Thursday, also known as the Texas Annexation Reform Act. The bill protects property owners from involuntary annexation and proposes needed reforms to the municipal annexation process in Texas. SB 715 is joint authored by Senators Birdwell, Bettencourt, Creighton, Schwertner, and Buckingham.

"It is simply wrong to force citizens who live outside the jurisdiction of a city to be absorbed as an exercise in government expansion designed to increase a city's tax base," Senator Campbell stated. "The Texas Annexation Reform Act protects property owners from forced annexation and gives residents a greater say in what should be a more collaborative process."

The Texas Annexation Reform Act makes the municipal annexation process more democratic by requiring the consent of the majority of registered voters in a proposed area for annexation and promoting greater communication between cities and residents to emphasize full stakeholder involvement. It also streamlines the process for land owners requesting to be annexed, cutting costs and eliminating bureaucratic red tape.

Key provisions of SB 715 include:

-   Ends involuntary annexation so that residents living in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of a city have a greater say in the annexation process.
-   Requires consent of the majority of property owners -  by petition if the population is under 200 or by an election if the population is over 200 - in order for a city or municipality to have the authority to annex the area.
-   Streamlines the voluntary annexation process to a matter of weeks when owners and municipalities can agree in writing on the provision of services.
-  Repeals limited purpose annexation, whereby regulations are imposed on residents of the ETJ without representation and without receiving any city services.

"Under current law, some cities are annexing areas simply to boost their tax base while ignoring poorer areas in desperate need of services. Other areas are annexed for limited purposes, meaning residents must adhere to ordinances and regulations despite living outside the city and having no elected representation. This bill prevents such abuses of power," said Sen. Campbell.

Understanding Texas SB-2 on Property Taxes

There are many untruths being propagated by local taxing authorities and their hired lobbyists to try and stop needed property tax reform. State Senator Bob Hall has issued the following clarification.

Evaluating and Clarifying SB 2

The Texas Property Reform and Relief Act of 2017, will, at long last, provide Texas citizens a meaningful voice in limiting out of control property tax growth by requiring an election to approve an annual increase over 4%. It is the ultimate in local control by citizens. For far too many years, citizens have been subjected to increases in property tax growth which are 200 to 300 percent greater than median household income. This growth has forced families to sell their family homes because, on fixed incomes, they could not afford the continuous annual rapid escalation in property tax.

In addition to giving citizens a greater voice in property tax increases, SB 2 will also bring much needed reform to the property appraisal process. SB 2 touches on almost all aspects of the Texas Property Tax System, with the goals of simplification, clarification and transparency of the property tax and appraisal system.

Unfortunately there appears to be rather widespread misunderstanding of the real benefits to citizens of the changes SB 2 will bring. The following are corrections to some of the myths:

Myth: “This (SB 2) is equivalent to taxation without representation.”

Truth: SB 2 is the ultimate in “local control” because SB 2 puts the final decision for controlling out-of-control property tax increases directly into the hands of the local citizens who have to pay the higher taxes. If the citizens agree that the needs of the community exceed the allowable four percent they have ability to approve any level of property tax increase by a simple majority vote in a roll-back election. This is the ultimate in taxation representation. SB 2 allows the people to have a direct say in how much “government” they want and how much their property taxes will be increased to provide those services.

Myth: “The only property tax revenue growth the city or county could expect would be from new construction.”

Truth: SB 2 will not limit the property tax revenue for any city or county. Local government can increase revenue by up to four percent without approval from the citizens. The citizens have complete authority to increase their tax burden to any level above the four percent.”

Myth: “…. we can’t add policemen, repair roads, keep water flowing into homes or businesses, and your waste flowing away from your home or business.”

Truth: If the increase in needed services exceeds four percent the citizens have the authority by a simple majority vote to increase the local property taxes to cover whatever level of needs or service they desire. The citizens will have the ability to determine their own tax growth rate above four percent.

Myth: “… to keep small town and cities growing, SB 2 would need to be turned down.”

Truth: Government does not grow a community by increasing taxes. In fact, excessive taxation inhibits growth. Businesses and families are drawn to communities with low taxes and few government regulations. Also, in SB 2, new growth taxation is not included in the four percent roll-back rate.

Highlights of the bill include:

• Lowering the rollback tax rate from the current 8% to 4%;
• Requiring automatic tax ratification elections if the taxing unit adopts a tax rate that exceeds the rollback rate, thus removing the onerous petition requirement in current statute;
• Standardizing tax ratification elections across the state by requiring them to be held on general election dates;
• Creating a Property Tax Administration Advisory Board in the Comptroller’s office to oversee the entire property tax process;
• Statutorily setting the deadlines for all property tax protests to be filed in Texas to May 15, thereby eliminating confusion by owners of multiple classification of property owners;
• Requiring all appraisal districts to use the appraisal manuals issued by the Texas Comptroller, which will result in more transparent, accountable and consistent appraisals statewide;
• Establishing specialized Appraisal Review Board (ARB) panels in counties with a population of 120,000 or more that can hear more complex taxpayer protests;
• Clarifying that a majority vote by an ARB is binding for decisions, thus eliminating the requirement of some ARB panels for a unanimous vote;
• Eliminating Sunday ARB hearings and evening hearings that begin after 7pm or before 5pm;
• Mandating that all members of each Appraisal District Board of Directors must be elected officials within their respective counties, thus directly answerable to the citizens;
• Increasing the value of properties that have the option of going to binding arbitration to $5 million, thereby providing taxpayers an alternative to costly litigation;
• Raising the exemption from filing income producing business personal property from $500 in value to $2500 to cut compliance cost for taxpayers and appraisal districts; and
• Prohibiting local governments from being able to challenge the value of an entire class of properties.

Passage of SB 2 will be a major step in returning the power of taxation to the people which is what our founding fathers intended when they wrote “… of the people, by the people and for the people.”