TMRS Heading in Wrong Direction?

The Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS), seems to continue to invest in higher risk investments that are not transparent. Even though the TMRS total return this year is meeting or surpassing expectations, it is not surprising given the dramatic increase in stock market values.

TMRS is the pension management organization that invests Georgetown employee's retirement funds.

A new research paper has just been published about the valuations and volatility of Private Equity funds. Naked Capitalism Here are the conclusions:

If this article’s conclusions are correct, future investors may have second thoughts about purchasing buyout funds instead of listed securities. Moreover, past buyout-fund investors may have been unfairly induced to place monies into these investment vehicles, in part through (1) faulty mark-to-market residual values, (2) improper year-to-year return estimates, or (3) inaccurate volatility calculations. Furthermore, many buyout fund return studies rely, by necessity, on residual value estimates of the fund GPs. If these estimates are inaccurate, the validity of these studies’ conclusions may be called into question.

TMRS has been steadily increasing their investment in Private Equity(PE). Their goal is 5%, or approximately $1.25B. They have $173.6M  invested in PE as of 6/30/2017with a goal of adding $600M this year. Even in this robust market environment, they are missing their PE investment performance goal by 1.25%.

Thus we see that even though respected industry analysts are finding shortcomings with the accounting by Private Equity funds, TMRS continues to increase their investments in said funds.

Where are the "adult overseers" for TMRS? The shortcomings in PE investments may be hidden by the robust stock market, but when the next market down turn occurs, the valuations of the PE funds will decline much more than the overall market, thus exposing the issues identified in the article above.

Watchdog on Vacation

The Georgetown Watchdog is on vacation, so blogging will be sparse.

Last night City Council approved a resolution 5-2 allowing Pedcor to apply for Texas administered tax credits to help finance 192 low-income apartments on the Outer-Loop near Forbes school. Councilmen Fought and Gipson voted against.

A much more in-depth analysis of the financing of low-income housing using tax credits is warranted and will be provided at a later date. Needless to say, five of the council members had no problem with the transfer of wealth from all the taxpayers in the United States to the financial elite investors of this country.

The Mayor likes to call this activity "free market", but it is not! In a free market the government would not be involved at all with the picking of winners and losers through financial instruments.

It is time to Drain the Swamp and reduce the role of government in the citizen's lives and livelihoods.

Wind Power Subsidies

An excellent letter appeared in the Wall Street Journal today identifying the subsidies provided to wind generators.

Nov. 21, 2017 2:03 p.m. ET

Your editorial “Big Wind and Tax Reform” (Nov. 11) says the production tax-credit subsidy takes billions out of the pockets of working Americans and transfers the money to rich investors. That’s not half of it.

In addition to the $24/megawatt hour in production tax credits (PTC) in the first 10 years of a project’s life, wind payments under power-purchase agreements (PPAs) with utilities and nonutilities (like Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc.) can average $70/Mwh and more over contract lengths that are typically 20 years and longer.

Thus, wind energy is guaranteed compensation from extra-market sources that is two to four times the $20 to $30/Mwh typically received by true market participants. Wind operators typically offer power to the market at negative prices to make sure that they won’t be bumped offline so that they can continue to produce and earn both the PTC and PPA payments.

Most of the new power transmission in the U.S. in recent years is being built to bring wind energy to large population centers. The cost of the billions invested in new transmission projects is passed through to electric customers at rates of return exceeding those allowed by state public utility commissions. According to a recent report on wind energy technology by the Berkeley Lab, about $20 billion in new transmission will be built annually between 2014 and 2019. For context, annual transmission expenditures are about equal to the value of all coal sold to the electric sector by U.S. producers in 2016.

Congress (and some states) made the market for renewable energy, and rich investors continue to force large chunks of unneeded energy into the nation’s power markets. The negative prices for wind power force local utilities out of wholesale power markets because utility-owned generation can’t compete with subsidized, mandated power, especially with demand growth very low or flat.

Retail electric rates should be declining because, according the wind lobby, renewables are so inexpensive. This is clearly not the case. Wholesale power prices are down but retail rates are not.

Susan Fleetwood

Rogersville, Mo.

Lets examine this in terms that are relatable to Georgetown.

The Production Tax Credit, PTC, of  $24/megawatt hour equates to 2.4cents.kilowatt hour. The wind energy provider receives 2.4 cents for every kw hour they generate electricity.

The Power Purchase Agreement, PPA, of $70/megawatt hour equates to 7cents/kilowatt hour. The energy provider receives an average of 7cents for every kw hour they generate electricity.

Because of the secrecy surrounding Georgetown electric, we do not know the actual cost of the electricity to Georgetown, but, let us assume the 7cents/kilowatt hour is close. Thus the provider receives about 9.4cents/kilowatt hour when they are generating electricity. Remember the residential charge is about 9.6cents/kilowatt hour.

When there is excess electricity being produced and loaded onto the ERCOT transmission system, the wind generators reduce the cost of the electricity being dumped onto the transmission system, sometimes at negative prices, because they do not get paid the PTC and PPA of 9.4cents/kilowatt hour unless they are generating electricity. Even though the wind turbine blades can be feathered so as to not generate electricity, the wind companies do not do that as they will not be paid their 9.4cents/kilowatt hour.

Because of the subsidies, wind generators can sell electricity below the costs of the fossil fuel generators and the fossil fuel generators will ultimately be driven out of business, unless they are also subsidized. Then consumer prices will have to be increased to pay for that subsidy.

Citizens need transparency into Georgetown Electric.

Affordable Housing Rears Its Ugly Head Again

Pedcor Corporation is proposing a multi-family development on the east side of I-35 near Forbes Middle School. The development is proposed as a 192-unit apartment community, 100% of which would be income and rent restricted for individuals and families with incomes at or below 60% of the Area Median Income. The developer will use tax exempt bonds and federal tax credits to finance the project.

The proposal is scheduled to come to City Council at the 28 November meeting. The developer is asking for a vote of "No Objection". A vote of "No Objection" is the same as a vote supporting the project as far as the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs is concerned. The results of the Council vote will be forwarded to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs for a decision on the tax credits. 

The CATO Institute has just released an analysis of the low-income housing tax credit. CATO

Here is their executive summary:

The federal government subsidizes housing through numerous tax and spending programs. One of the more inefficient programs is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The program provides $9 billion a year in tax credits to support housing construction. The federal government distributes the credits to the states, which in turn award them to developers to cover part of the costs of constructing apartment buildings and other projects. In return, developers must cap rents for the units they set aside for low-income tenants.

The benefits of the LIHTC are supposed to flow through to tenants in the form of lower rents, but studies suggest that investors, developers, and financial companies gain most of the benefits. The program has complex administration, is prone to abuse, and produces costly low-income housing.

The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are considering major tax reforms aimed at reducing tax rates and ending unjustified tax breaks. They should consider repealing the LIHTC. It complicates the tax code and is a poorly targeted solution to housing affordability problems.

Instead of federal subsidies, a better way to reduce housing costs would be through state and local policy reforms. The states should reduce the burden of building and zoning regulations to increase the supply of housing, including multifamily housing for low-income tenants.

Thus there are least major two reasons why the City Council should not support affordable housing in Georgetown.

1. It is not the proper role of government to favor one business or business segment over any other.

2. It does not make economic sense to support low income housing through the tax code.

There are many other reasons for the City to not support affordable housing projects and those may be detailed in a later post. 

City Ignores Citizen Concerns About Airport Expansion

Here is a synopsis of the latest public information on the development of the Georgetown Airport Master Plan.

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN – LAST PUBLIC WORKSHOP

"Those who attended the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and Public Information Workshop on Thursday afternoon, Nov. 16, 2017 for the new 20 year Airport Master Plan Update, 16MPGRGTN, by Coffman Associates and were able to glance through the final chapters of the plan in the blistering short time provided since they were posted at “georgetown.airportstudy.com” on Thursday, Nov. 9, 2017 obtained some important points including:

1. Attendees were again briefed that our citizens may own the airport, but FAA and TxDOT will provide state and federal funding to do with it as they will for a Central Texas Reliever Airport.  AND- by this new 20 year airport plan supposedly done by FAA standards, safety of those who fly expanded numbers of based aircraft and aviation operations holds far more concern by FAA than the health, safety and human environment of those on the ground who pay the costs.

2. The two “Public” members of the PAC never mentioned a word to the consultants of health, safety and human environment concerns and objections of the general public to continued expansion of airport aviation operations, need for mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce adverse impacts, and need for study of a superior, safer, alternate airport site.

3. The new plan continues the cumulative expansion of based aircraft and take offs and landings (operations) from the 1980 numbers of 48 and 31,550 annual to 400 and 133,400 annual with 764 peak day operations.  There is no concern or plan to move low level dangerous flight turning movements from over local “safety and noise sensitive areas” to safer undeveloped areas.

4. The North/South Runway 18-36 will be reconstructed and proposed for extension by 1000 LF and strengthened to accommodate heavier more dangerous aircraft already operating on the runway than it is designed to service.  Attendees were advised that FAA rules forbid any aircraft weight limitations.  Therefore, the new runway could service any weight of single or dual wheeled aircraft that any pilot determines can take off or land on the runway.  FAA simply does not care!  (Those on the ground – fend for yourselves!)

5. The 49 homes within the crash and explosion runway protection zones of the two runways on neighborhood streets of Bosque Trail, Del Prado Ln., Sabinas Ct., Cielo Dr., Pilot Pl., Vortac Ln., Cavu Rd, and Toledo Tr., the two sections of major roadways Lakeway Dr. and the section of Northwest Blvd remain in peril even if FAA approves a change in “visibility minimums” from 7/8 to 1 mile that would theoretically shrink the RPZ's and reduce the number of homes therein.  The city is under absolutely no obligation to purchase these homes and clear the RPZs.  (Buyers beware now and the future!)

6. The noise study done by the consultants using FAA required computer software limits adverse impacts of debilitating noise to that generated within the airport.  No study was performed tracking low level, wall shaking debilitating noise by dangerous pilots performing take off and landing turning movements over homes, schools, churches and nursing homes in the designated “safety and noise sensitive areas” of the airport. 

7.  Those opposed to this new 20 year Airport Master Plan must, at a minimum, do two things: (1) enter opposition comment statements on the designated location provided at “georgetown.airportstudy.com”, and (2) vigorously demand the FAA prepare a fully scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 52 project, near $60 Million PROGRAM of capital improvements that provides facilities to accommodate new and dangerous expansions of based aircraft and operations proposed by this plan." 

Other concerns about uninspected, unenforced hazardous materials storage, handling, use, containment and disposal with respect to the Edwards Recharge Zone and Edwards Aquifer public water supplies and other important and vital public safety, health and human environment issues were also ignored by the city and the consultants.

Where is the Transparency in Georgetown Electric?

Where-o-where is the transparency in the financials in the Georgetown owned electric utility?

Buried in a budget amendment document presented at a city council workshop on Tuesday, where citizens are not allowed to comment or ask questions, is the fact that the electric company exceeded its budget in FY2017 by more than $9.6M.

There are cryptic notes that say "increase expenditure authority for Purchased Power by $9.6 million due to a second year of sales in a depressed energy market".

Here is the slide that was used in the presentation.

Notice that "cooler, wetter weather" is blamed for the loss for a second year in a row.

We do know that the loss has been covered by the Rate Stabilization Reserve, $4.5M, transfers from the Water Fund of $1.5M and some unknown amount from the Purchased Power Adjustment(PCA) that was imposed as a temporary measure in February, 2017.

The total amount lost is unknown since something called a "congestion revenue credit", which is internal to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas(ERCOT) accounting system, was applied to Georgetown's losses before being reported to the city council. Georgetown purchases its electricity through ERCOT.

Remember the discussion in the GeorgetownWatchDog post of  March 22, 2017?

"Now we know why the electric fund lost more than $6M last year. On page 78 of the city's 2015-2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, available on the city website, we find the following statement with highlighted words.

"In an effort to mitigate the financial and market risk associated with the purchase of natural gas, energy, and congestion price volatility, the City has established a Risk Management Policy. This policy was authorized by the City Council to enter into forward contracts for natural gas, swaps, and congestion rights for the purpose of reducing exposure to natural gas, energy, and congestion price risk. Use of these types of instruments for the purpose of reducing exposure to price risk is performed as a hedging activity.


At September 30, 2016, the City had multiple outstanding contracts, with wholesale customers to provide power supply and/or qualified scheduling entity services. For the power supply customers, the City charges an energy charge which is based on the quantity of power supplied multiplied by a fixed price, or multiplied by a fixed heat rate and a fuel index price. In order to hedge the City’s risk, the City has entered into corresponding power supply agreements with counterparties to hedge against energy price or heat rate fluctuation in the market.


These contracts meet the definition of a derivative instrument as defined by GASB Statement No. 53, Accounting and Reporting for Derivative Instruments (GASB 53). However, these contracts meet the normal purchases and sales exemption of GASB 53 as the City intends to use the physical commodity in its normal utility operations to supply energy to its customers. Accordingly, these contracts are not within the scope of GASB 53 and are not recorded on the City’s Statement of Net Position."

The appropriate questions to be asked are: Were any lessons learned from this experience? Have policies and procedures been instituted that will preclude such large losses in the future? What is the review and approval process for entering into these derivative contracts?"

It appears that the city did not learn any lessons since it is presumed that the losses during the summer of 2017 were caused by the same behavior that was exhibited in 2016 where almost $7M was lost due to hedging.

Since the summer was "cooler and wetter", and the city contracted for "near peak" power during that time and found themselves with excess power capacity which could not be sold at a profit on the market, a loss was the result. 

The question to be asked and answered is: Why is the city hedging in the electricity market?  

According to a Wilco Sun interview on March 22, 2015, Jim Briggs said the wind energy contract supplies energy for up to 34,000 homes. The wind turbines came online in early 2016 and provide 144 megawatts of electricity. The same article says that Georgetown had 20,964 utility customers as of March 22, 2015. So there is sufficient "green energy" online to meet Georgetown's current demand.

Georgetown needs to be much more transparent with what is going on in the electric company. As citizens, we should demand transparency with our money!

Free Speech Under Attack

Free speech is under attack in the United States, most notably in our universities. The University of California, Berkeley, once known as the bastion of free speech, has become one of the greatest offenders and oppressors of conservative speech.

After expending much effort and treasure, the Young America Foundation(YAF) succeeded in securing the right of Ben Shapiro, a best selling author, to address students on the Berkeley campus on September 14, 2017.

Here is the YAFs account of the dirty tricks and roadblocks that the university used to try and stop Shapiro from speaking.

The complete description of YAFs effort is described in their Fall 2017 magazine, LIBERTAS.

Consider the plight of "regular" students who do not have a "deep pocketed" foundation to assist them in securing their right to speak freely. Their speech is shut down and they are bullied and intimidated by other students, student organizations and the college administrations as well as the classroom professors.

It is our obligation as citizens to assure that all people have the right to speak by supporting the enforcement of our constitutional rights.

Commissioners Court Votes Against Plaque on Slavery

The County Commissioners voted yesterday not to submit an application to the State Historical Commission for permission to install a plaque next to the Confederate statue.Statesman

Some of the commissioners, however, said they would consider other proposals, including a statue honoring the Civil Rights era.

Stay tuned.

More Non-City Functions?

The city has partnered with Georgetown ISD to fund a feasibility study to construct and operate an aquatic center. Here is the description of the task.

The City of Georgetown and the Georgetown ISD agreed to partner on an Aquatic Feasibility Study at the February 28, 2017, City Council Workshop. This feasibility study was intended to look at the future aquatic needs of both the City and the ISD. During the workshop, the City agreed to fund up to $20,000 for the study with the ISD contributing the same amount. A RFP for services was issued on May 14th. There were six firms that responded to the request. Representatives from both the ISD and the City were on the review team.

Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture was the firm selected to conduct the study. Other firms involved in the project included Water Technology, Inc and Ballard King & Associates.

The study results were presented to the City Council on November, 14, 2017. Study Results Presentation

Here are the objectives:

The Georgetown Aquatics Center will…

• Provide higher quality of life services for all ages

• Be economically sustainable

• Elevate the Georgetown brand as a destination for better living

• Be a catalyst for economic development and tourism  

Notice that none of the objectives address the core functions of the city or the school district.

The study projects that construction of the center will cost between $22M and $ 28M and will require an annual subsidy of $300,000 to $400,000 depending on the configuration selected. This annual subsidy is required even though there are fees required to use the facility. It is likely that it will not be open to the public anytime the school is using the facility.

Given that the proponents of this facility describe it as wanted and needed by the City and GISD, the absence of a private option to develop and operate such a facility is notable by its absence. It's almost like the outcome has been predetermined! Private enterprise undoubtedly could produce and operate a superior facility at a lower cost that would allow the school district to focus on education and the city to focus on its core government responsibilities.

Keep in mind the city would likely hire more staff to operate and maintain the facility, and, that imposes long-term pension and healthcare obligations for current and future taxpayers.

Let your city council and school board know that taxpayers do not want more debt and long-term obligations imposed on them. The city and schools should focus instead on their core missions.

If there is demand for an aquatic center, let private enterprise provide, just as it does for exercise facilities and bowling alleys. Why saddle all Georgetown taxpayers with the financial burden of developing and operating an aquatic center in order to provide a recreational/training facility for a few?

Last Stop on the Light-Rail Gravy Trail

"It’s the Last Stop on the Light-Rail Gravy Train" is the title on a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

"Data released this week by the Federal Transit Administration shows that ridership is falling in nearly every major urban area (with Seattle as a notable exception). 

Some regions have seen catastrophic drops in ridership since 2010: 30% or more in Detroit, Sacramento and Memphis; 20% to 30% in Austin, Cleveland, Louisville, St. Louis and Virginia Beach-Norfolk ; and 15% to 20% in Atlanta, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Miami, San Antonio and Washington.

The main reason for this drop-off is that low gas prices and ride-sharing services have given people better options. Census data show that 96% of American workers live in households with at least one car, and anyone with a smartphone can summon an Uber or Lyft.

Yet the subsides go on, seemingly forever. Since 1970, taxpayers have plowed more than $1.1 trillion (adjusted for inflation) into transit systems. Critics may reply that roads are also subsidized. But measured per passenger-mile, the subsidies for transit are more than 40 times as great as for driving.

The transit industry has compounded its problems by going heavily into debt, allowing unfunded pensions and health-care obligations to snowball, and failing to maintain the rail lines they already have.

Instead of spending billions on new rail lines, cities like Nashville, San Antonio and Tampa ought to use buses to move people faster, more safely, and for far less money. Rail is simply a bad investment.

That’s especially true given the bets being made by companies like Ford, Google and Uber on driverless cars. Some analysts predict that by the middle of the next decade, calling a driverless car will be as easy as hailing an Uber today. Why walk in the heat or cold for a bus or streetcar when you can hail a driverless car to your door for less money than the transit fare?"

Given the trends in public transportation, the Georgetown city council needs to be very cautious in investing in government owned and operated public transportation systems as rapidly changing technology is making existing public transport obsolete.

Let the free market provide the solutions to public transport. 

Texas Senator Bob Hall

Texas Senator Bob Hall, District 2, recently shared his thoughts on the "Liberty Tree" with his constituents and supporters. He clearly and distinctly describes that federal and local government authority derives from the state. There are Texas cities, including Georgetown, that are clearly unhappy with the requirement, passed this past legislative session, that residents in areas to be annexed have the right to vote whether or not they want to annexed by a city.

Here is Senator Hall in his own words:

The move to swiftly force-annex large swaths of land before the new law on annexation takes effect December 1, 2017, is raising the ire of our constituents.

I do commend the Mesquite Mayor and City Council members for the high level of respect and professionalism with which they have conducted these meetings and treated citizens. However, with malice towards none, and respect for all in local government, I respectfully oppose this accelerated process to forcefully annex property.

My objection is principled, not personal. I understand that had SB 715 not been filibustered in the Regular 85th Legislative Session, we would not be having this discussion today.

Unfortunately, the bill that did pass, SB 6, in the special session did not affect all Texas cities equally. While I did vote for SB 6, I was in support of the version that treated all citizens and cities equally. I will be fighting for that change in the next session.

I am not a tree hugger, but I am a lover of the Liberty Tree. Two of the sweetest fruits of the Liberty tree are “individual rights” and “property rights." They are two of the inalienable, God-given rights that our Founding Fathers cherished dearly. Forced annexation violates both of these fruits of the tree. Thus, the Governor and State Legislature listened to the protests of the people and took action with legislation to begin ending forced annexation. They did so because when the fruits of the Tree of Liberty are threatened, it not just the responsibility, but the duty, of the state government to protect those fruits.

State government is the original, of-the-people, by-the-people, governing body charged to protect individual rights and liberties.

Remember, government has "authority” but only people have “rights." Government bodies have no rights, and the authority that they do have is given to them by state government. The people first formed the state government. Then state governments formed the federal government and gave it limited authority. That authority is well defined and limited by the U.S. Constitution. The state government also created the governing bodies within the state. All municipalities within Texas derive their authority (again, "authorities" not "rights") from the state through charters and state law.

When the people see than an authority is being misused, abused, or no longer serving its intended purpose, it is the right of the people to withdraw the authority given to that governing body. That is exactly what has happened with forced annexation - an authority which the people are now saying violates their basic God-given rights.

The people have spoken very loudly and clearly through their original governing authority, the state legislature, that the authority given to local government, which allows forced annexation, clearly violates both individual rights and property rights and therefore must be ended.

The misuse of the standard 90-day window which delayed the implementation of SB 6 to allow for any adjustment in regulations, and for public awareness, undermines public trust in all levels of government. The people elect officials trusting that in serving they will first protect individual rights.

The legislative process is imperfect. Compromises are made, population bracketing is included, effective dates are adjusted – not for perfect legislation, but so that it will pass. Clearly, the intent of the majority of the legislature was to give citizens in the largest counties the right to vote on annexation plans. An accelerated process to circumvent the will and best interests of the people is inconsistent with the principles on which our great nation was founded.

People should have a right to vote on whether or not they want to live within your city limits. They obviously have chosen to live outside the limits for a reason, and the city should not arbitrarily decide it is time to move the boundaries.

As elected officials, I urge you to remember the constituents you serve. You are forcing citizens to become your constituents who may not want to be. That may seem prudent in the short term, but consider the long-term ramifications you are setting into place.

Unlike Eastern bloc governments which are based on “collective” rights granted by their governments, the American Constitutional Republic form of government is based on the protection of inalienable individual rights; rights granted to man by God, not governments.

There is no question that forced annexation violates principles of liberty, individual rights, and property rights. A vote against this forced annexation is a vote for the people. It is a vote to preserve the sweet fruits of the Liberty Tree.

Public Transit Issues

Councilman Steve Fought indicated that ridership levels for the Georgetown bus system are a key metric in his November 6, 2017 newsletter. Anecdotal evidence suggests ridership is falling below projections. 

Question-2. How is the bus system working out?

ANS-2. Preliminary reporting indicates that ridership and revenues are lower than anticipated, in some cases by as much as 50%. The Council will be given a comprehensive update at the 12 December workshop. Recall that we established system-wide and route-specific performance criteria, and stated that if system performance on any one criteria was 50% short of the goal, or if 50% of all the performance criteria were not being fully met, the program would be brought back to Council for reconsideration. The 12 December report is the first window to see how things are working. I expect the Council to be mindful of the performance criteria, but in the context that the system is in its early phases. I will relay the performance report in this newsletter.

It turns out that this is not just a local issue. Randal O"Toole of the CATO institute has just released his latest policy paper on public transit. Here is the executive summary:

With annual subsidies of $50 billion covering 76 percent of its costs, public transit may be the most heavily subsidized consumer-based industry in the country. Since 1970, the industry has received well over $1 trillion (adjusted for inflation) in subsidies, yet the number of transit trips taken by the average urban resident has declined from about 50 per year in 1970 to 39 per year today.

Total transit ridership, not just per capita, is declining today, having seen a 4.4 percent drop nationwide from 2014 to 2016 and a 3.0 percent drop in the first seven months of 2017 versus the same months of 2016. Many major transit systems have suffered catastrophic declines in the past few years: since 2009, for example, transit ridership has declined by 27 to 37 percent in the Bakersfield, Detroit, Fresno, Memphis, Richmond, Toledo, and Wichita urban areas.

Four trends that are likely to become even more pronounced in the future place the entire industry in jeopardy: low energy prices; growing maintenance backlogs, especially for rail transit systems; unfunded pension and health care obligations; and ride-hailing services.

The last is the most serious threat, as some predict that within five years those ride-hailing services will begin using driverless cars, which will reduce their fares to rates competitive with transit, but with far more convenient service. This makes it likely that outside of a few very dense areas, such as New York City, transit will be extinct by the year 2030, leaving behind a huge burden of debt and unfunded obligations to former transit employees.

Despite these trends, the transit industry’s main response is to seek greater subsidies to build, maintain, and operate transit, often relying on rail transit and similar modes that were obsolete many years ago and won’t be able to compete against driverless ride-hailing services. Instead, transit agencies should begin to prepare for an orderly phase-out of publicly funded transit services as affordable, shared driverless cars become available in the next decade. This means the industry should stop building new rail lines; replace most existing rail lines with buses as they wear out; pay down debts and unfunded obligations; and target any further subsidies to low-income people rather than continue a futile crusade to attract higher-income people out of their cars.

Given the likely changes occurring in the near future as outlined above, Georgetown should not be committing to traditional long-term public transit and its associated legacy costs. Georgetown has the opportunity to avoid a long-term financial problem by shutting down the trial bus system before long-term commitments are made.

For Texans Concerned About the Alamo

Many Texans may not know that there are big plans to change/restore the Alamo.

Here is an article that talks about the money and management. As plans ramp up for a controversial “Reimagined“ Alamo, the fund-raising machinery is controlled by 10 boardroom insiders who are expected to bring cash to the table.
Texas Monitor

What began as a focused effort to repair crumbling sections of the Alamo has morphed into a much larger venture, with much greater financial needs. Outside consultants hired by the boards envision a makeover that deemphasizes the 1836 siege by Mexican troops to, instead, promote “unity, not division.”

Get involved if you care about the history of Texas.

FAA & TxDOT Ignore Citizens Concerns About Georgetown Airport

In classic government fashion, the FAA and the aviation arm of TxDOT are ignoring Georgetown residents concerns about the growing operations at the airport.

Mr. McMath has personal responsibility for environmental reviews for the SW Region of FAA and for the Georgetown airport.

Mr. McMath sent Wendy Dew, a Georgetown resident, an email designed to dismiss her and her challenges. Following is her response which shows the lies, half-truths and obfuscation being used. Fortunately, Ms Dew is not a dummy and through her research has exposed the FAA for its non-compliance with federal rules and for not protecting citizens living around airports in Texas.

From: Wendy Dew

Subject: Response to Dean McMath e-mail

Date: November 7, 2017 at 10:34:19 AM CST

To: dean.mcmath@faa.gov

Cc: Kelvin.Solco@faa.gov, Elaine.Chao@dot.gov, Winsome.Lenfert@faa.gov, Ben.Guttery@faa.gov, "Edward Boling- Assoc. Dir NEPA CEQ" <Edward_A_Boling@ceq.eop.gov>, Rhonda.solomon@faa.gov, debra.richmond@txdot.gov

Dear Mr. McMath,

I apologize for the delay in responding to you, I have had computer issues.

I have responded to some of your comments below.  Please read your comment and then my reply.

Your Statement:

Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) is a public general aviation airport owned and operated by the City of Georgetown, Texas. In the State of Texas, Federal funds for general aviation airports like GTU are administered by the Texas Department of Transportation's Aviation Division (AVN) under the State Block Grant Program (SBGP).  AVN is responsible for ensuring projects funded under the SBGP are consistent with federal requirements, including the environmental review of those projects.

As part of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) oversight role of the SBGP, we have discussed AVN's processes for environmentally reviewing projects at general aviation airports. We have specifically discussed projects at GTU and have not identified any violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or any other Federal resource laws. As per their contractual agreement with the FAA, AVN will continue to be responsible for environmentally reviewing any projects that airport owners may propose at such time as they are ripe for such review.

————

Mr. Mc Math,

If what you say above is true, why has there NEVER been an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any expansion of any airport in this state. I have done extensive research and can find “nowhere” where an EIS has been executed for any airport for any reason regardless of extent of expansion.  Without any EIS's for any Texas airport grants how can FAA be fully aware of NEPA related issues and and their resolution for any Texas airport grant?  

In addition, in your capacity as Regional Environmental Manager for the FAA SW Region you would be totally familiar with the three past state and federal funded GTU master and update plans and their respective three multiple million dollars, multi-project “improvement” PROGRAMS over the past 37 years for development and expansion of based aircraft fleets and aviation operations of the GTU as the principal Reliever airport for Central Texas region.  You would be aware of the continuous public opposition to these planned programs in the heart of our city and atop the Edwards Recharge Zone.  You would also be aware that, except for construction of the GTU air traffic control tower in the presence of strong public opposition and completed with no environmental clearance, every GTU design, construction and land acquisition grant was illicitly segmented from a parent PROGRAM by FAA and AVN in violation of presidential Executive Orders, DOT regulations, and FAA NEPA compliance regulations.  Each of these illicit segmented units was pretended to be a stand alone grant action with no affiliation or connection with its parent planned program, determined to be categorically excluded from the NEPA and any EIS preparation process by totally ignoring applicable extraordinary circumstances by unelected, unaccountable administration officials, totally removed and remote from the GTU and its adversely impacted citizens, in secret, with no awareness of the general public by the press, the city or AVN, and no formal, official review and approval by the elected body of the Sponsor. The proposed grant actions may have been “ripe” for review, but the NEPA environmental review practices used by ANV were and remain rotten to the core.  With this type unseemly record of NEPA evasion including false testimony by local and state officials to the Texas Transportation Commission to secure final grant approvals, it seems clear that such environmental clearance practices deemed acceptable, supported and approved by FAA could allow construction of a military munitions plant, a plutonium reactor and a hazardous waste collection and distribution center all on the GTU location site.  

Why does the Department of Transportation and FAA condone such NEPA avoidance practices?  Who’s job is this to clean up this mess and why are they and you NOT doing their job??

————-

Your Comment:

The airport is not undergoing an expansion at this time.  Ongoing projects, like rehabilitating the runway pavement, are intended to meet current operational and maintenance demands.  We are aware that the City of Georgetown has expressed interest to AVN for other future actions, such as strengthening the runway, but AVN reports they have not been presented with adequate justification by the city to consider such actions at this time.  At such time as adequate justification has been presented, AVN will consider the city's proposal.  This consideration will include the preparation of appropriate environmental analyses and documentation to assist AVN in making an environmentally informed decision regarding the proposal.

——————-

Mr. McMath,

You are knowingly wrong stating no airport expansion is underway at this time.  You are aware that grant action, 1514GRGTN, is under construction despite public opposition and demands for EIS preparation process for the action as it is an illicitly segmented unit from its parent 2005 GTU master planned update PROGRAM for expanding based aircraft from 256 to 405 and operations from 127,700 to 202,025.  

There is no justification for strengthening the runway.  Without any engineering needs, justification and NEPA level environmental review for increasing the strength of RW 18-36 from 30,000 to 60,000 lb single wheel load design as requested by the Georgetown city manager letter dated June 30, 2015, both the city and AVN have included the project on their current CIP schedules for FY 2018 and FY2019. This is directly contrary to all grant eligible requirements.  Surface rehabilitation of RW 18-36 to correct “cracking” and retain its current 30,000 lb single wheel load design can be accomplished for about 10% of the current strengthening budget. Although currently included in both the city and AVN's Annual CIP budgets, this project is totally excluded from consideration of impacts on aviation operations in the new GTU 20 year master plan update, 16MPGRGTN. 

On the Georgetown City website there is an FAA inspection, indicating that there was some cracking, that FAA inspection states that everything at the airport passed inspection and the runway condition was “good.” That inspection at the airport was done three months before the letter was sent to AVN asking for funds to redo the runways because of cracking. And on the FAA website it states that cracking is common on runways and doesn’t compromise the integrity of the runways.  So why do both the city and AVN have this project currently budgeted for receipt of state and/or federal grants for construction of unjustified doubling of pavement strength in lieu of rehab of surface treatment for 10% of the cost? 

———————

Your Comment:

GTU prepared a voluntary noise study in 2004-2005. They have not chosen to update their noise study to date and are under no regulatory obligation to do so, largely because aircraft operation numbers have gone down at the airport since the noise study was prepared. 

Mr McMath,

This new GTU master plan, projects new based aircraft and take off and landings operations substantially in excess of those studied in the 2001 Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study.  A new noise study is essential. AND – such a study must be made using a system that tracks actual movements of aircraft on the ground and in the air - not a stationary sound emitter at the intersection of the two runways. Those planes buzzing and shaking the walls and foundations of our homes, schools and churches are not located at the intersection of the two runways.

The GTU noise study was prepared by an appointed board of random citizens, I have read all their minutes from all their meetings and it was very obvious that they had no idea what they were doing. All they wanted is to push this thing through so they could go home.

The prior noise study was funded in 2001 and completed by Coffman Associates in November 2004 all under the direct oversight of the old AAB composed of unelected, appointed citizens with no federal structured public hearings for review and comments.

WHY do I hear more planes every day and see big enough planes to blow leaves off my roof if what you say is true.

Also if aircraft traffic is down???? Why in the world would AVN and the FAA put 10 million plus dollars into a declining airport??

———————

Your Comment:

GTU is finishing a Master Plan update which offered opportunities for public input.  I cannot say why you were unaware of these opportunities. 

Mr. McMath,

I was well aware of these public meeting where they had numerous posters of what they are going to do whether we like it or not.  If we had a comment they responded with what they want us to think and from there NOTHING.  There was in no opportunities for actual dialog with any member of the Planning Advisory Committee including the two designated for representing the “public” or from the city or Coffman and Associates where issues such as social, economical, and human environmental impacts, mitigation for elimination or reduction of adverse impacts and full examination of ALL practicable alternatives to the PROGRAM of “improvements” being developed by this new plan. 

We are allowed to present severely time limited statements to the GTAB, or the City Council but at no time are we allowed to actually have productive dialogue with city officials in any public venue. 

There have been no city PIO or press articles describing the purpose of the new 20 year plan, the environmental background of the airport, its setting in the city's master plan nor impacts on the community both good and adverse by implementation of the plan's proposed capital improvements program.  The city has ignored all requests for open public workshop meetings on this new 20 year plan.  The appointed members of the Planning Advisory Committee designated as “public” representatives have refused to receive public comment concerns and coordinate with or represent the general public in any meetings with the plan's consultants. The general public has been gagged from effective input and participation regarding the new plan. 

————————-

Your Comments:

No projects at GTU to date have reached an environmental threshold individually or cumulatively to require an Environmental Impact Statement.  The majority of projects at GTU qualified for categorical exclusions under NEPA.  Only one recent project at GTU for a new fueling facility required an environmental assessment (EA) which was prepared in 2015. 

Mr. McMath,

Are you not fully aware that FAA assured us that the Fuel Farm EA would provide a full vetting, consideration and examination of our NEPA concerns?  Are you not aware that AVN intentionally and without our prior knowledge and input limited the scope of Fuel Farm EA in order to determine that our concerns and objections that involved at least eight of the 12 identified extraordinary circumstances in FAA Order 1050.1F were determined as “irrelevant” and outside the scope of the EA? Are you not aware that AVN has never justified its expansion of the Fuel Farm by 13,000 gallons or 60% for operations fueling to the year 2056 or so despite the GRW-Willis GTU 2005 master plan update clearly stating expansion was not necessary, and  never considered relocation of the GTU as a practicable alternative to adverse impacts on our community's health, safety and human environment? 

You say “The airport is not undergoing an expansion at this time”.  You sir are very uninformed!  You obviously have not read the current draft of the new 20 year master plan contracted by AVN with Coffman Associates.  Apparently, you did not read the past three plans either of 1980, 1998 and 2005. They all planned for operations expansion and this one does too. 

In addition, apparently you are not aware that grant 1514GRGTN originally included the extraction and relocation of the Fuel Farm without any prior planned and justified expansion consisted of 9 projects illicitly segmented from the PROGRAM of “improvements” determined by the GTU 2005 master plan update.  That 9 project action was illicitly categorically excluded by AVN from the NEPA by ignoring known citizen objections and concerns that included at least 8 out of the 12 Extraordinary Circumstances identified in FAA Order 1050.1E.  During the design phase of 1514GRGTN AVN unilaterally and without justification increased the number of the grant's projects to 25 including the Fuel Farm which was increased in capacity by 60 % without justification and increased the grant cost by about $3 Million with no official review and approval by the city Sponsor and the general public.  During the review and comment period of the Fuel Farm EA the grant was provided a  second illicit categorical exclusion again by ignoring applicable Extraordinary Circumstances.  It went from 9 projects that were Categorically Excluded to 25 projects that were again Categorically Excluded.  How you and the highest levels of FAA can condone and approve our human environment not being adversely impacted by the 25 project 1514GRGTN and the balance of the program from which it was illicitly segmented and the two prior planned GTU reliever airport development and expansion PROGRAMS is beyond me. 

Your detailed response to me would be sincerely appreciated. 

Kind Regards

Wendy Dew

Ms Dew is to be commended for her understanding of the issues, the relevant FAA and NEPA rules and for her willingness to "call out" government officials that are not doing their job. Her commitment to making Georgetown a better place to live deserves the highest recognition.

U.S. Subsizes Foreign Solar Panel Manufacturers

Solar energy advocates tout that solar energy costs are competitive with other energy production costs, but, it is only because of the many government subsidies provided to solar.

For instance, Congress passed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which, among other things, gave a generous tax credit to clean-energy companies.

These were supposed to be American companies using American-made components. While that’s mostly what happened, a few companies found a loophole. International Business Times reported on it last week.

To earn the tax credits, projects had to be based in the U.S., and a “Buy America” clause was included to boost domestic manufacturing. But the clause had a loophole: It would be waived if “the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities.” Because of the relatively small solar manufacturing capacity in the U.S., domestic solar installation companies receiving stimulus money would be allowed to purchase panels from overseas, undercutting U.S. manufacturers.

But that’s not all — while roughly 70 percent of the grant recipients were American companies, there were at least 17 foreign-based companies receiving 48C tax credits that had already arranged for solar or wind manufacturing operations in low-wage nations, according to a 2010 report from a project of the BlueGreen Alliance Foundation, an environmental nonprofit. Six U.S. companies that were awarded tax credits, including First Solar and Sun Power, already had manufacturing operations in low-wage, East Asian countries such as China, Malaysia and the Philippines.

So instead of boosting US solar manufacturing, the government essentially paid companies to import them from abroad. 

The Asian countries making solar panels for US customers are not particularly “green.” They burn a lot of coal to make the electricity that powers the solar-panel factories.

Solar panels are bulky and heavy, and those made in Asia come to the US on diesel-burning cargo ships. Portions of these panels even cross the Pacific twice.

Asian manufacturers import polysilicon, an important raw material, from mines in the United States. Then the same polysilicon comes back to the US in completed panels. 

It is estimated that it takes nearly nine years for a panel manufactured in Asia and installed on a U.S. roof to make up for the greenhouse gas emissions involved in its production and transportation.

The Federal, State and local governments all need to stop picking winners and losers by subsidizing select energy companies. Let the free market decide the winners and losers.