Georgetown Established Water Utility Board

The City Council intends to establish electric and water boards at the City Council meeting tonight, May 5, 2020. Steve Fought will be the council member designated to serve on the water board.

It is good to see professional engineers on the board, but, what about someone with government financial experience?

Apparently there has been little if any public involvement in the process of identifying potential board members. Is this transparency?

Why Do Cities Hire Lobbyists?

Why Do Cities Hire Lobbyists? To Protect their POWER!

In past legislative sessions, lobbyists successfully defeated bills that would prohibit public funds being used for lobbying.

Lobbyist and the City of Georgetown were against the annexation bill passed last session that gave those property owners in areas to be annexed the right to vote for/against annexation.

Lobbyist and the City of Georgetown are against full transparency in the finances and contracts of municipal owned utilities! Isn't it time the Georgetown energy contracts are shared with the utility customers?

The list goes on and on, but, it is clear the City does not want any new limits placed on their power. The city staff and council members like to cry about "local control", when the real issue is about personal liberty and control over what our tax dollars and utility fees are spent on.

Georgetown Council Out of Touch with Citizens

According to two different surveys, Texans DO NOT want taxpayer funds to be spent on lobbying the Texas legislature. 

“At the 2018 State Convention, Republicans supported ending taxpayer-funded lobbying by an overwhelming 94 percent,” said RPT Chairman James Dickey. “They voted for this because they know it is vital that we prohibit taxing entities from using tax dollars to lobby against the interests of the taxpayers. This deplorable activity must come to an end.”

A poll taken last December by WPA Intelligence and reported by The Texas Public Policy Foundation, showed that 91 percent of Texans opposed using tax dollars to pay for lobbying, including 80 percent who strongly opposed it.

Isn't the Council supposed to be representing the best interests of their constituents? 

This is Item N on the City Council Agenda for Tuesday evening at Council Chambers.

"ITEM SUMMARY:

In order for the City of Georgetown to have greater impact/influence in State and Regulatory affairs impacting the community; the need to engage highly competent governmental affairs services is important. The services provided assist the City in coordinating and communicating at the Legislative and Regulatory levels of State Government, regarding issues that will affect the City and impact Local Control. The next legislative session is poised to focus on many issues critical to local governments and municipal utility operations.

This service will seek to expand and increase the City's influence with State government and Local State level elected officials, by dedicating time and resources to ensure the City’s interests are protected. With assistance from Focused Advocacy, the City will be better able to shape and enhance our working relationships and work with State officials toward common goals.

The City Council is asked to consider approval of a Professional Services Contract with Focused Advocacy, LLC, of Austin, Texas for continued support associated with utility and governmental affairs.


FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funding for these services will be paid equally from Electric, Water, and General Funds."

Ins't it great that the Electric, Water and General Funds have excess money for this travesty against our liberty and freedom? 

Here are the first two pages of the proposed contracts.

click images to enlarge

The City is proposing to spend $100,000 per year on this contract plus $350 per month ($4200 annually) on meals, etc. plus travel costs.

It has been repeatedly documented that publically funded lobbyists work for the government entity that hires them, not for the citizens that pay their fees.

Perhaps the City could use those funds to directly benefit citizens instead of paying Austin lobbyists.

Who is behind this anti-taxpayer effort? Is it the city manager? The Mayor? or The Council? Inquiring minds would like to know so that this kind of anti-taxpayer activity can be stopped.

Another Mayoral Candidate

Larry Brundidge, an Old Town resident, plans to run for mayor to ensure growth is organized and intelligent.

He is drafting two proposals for the November 2020 ballot that would constrain growth. 

One, would call for a moratorium on all new industrial, residential and commercial building for 16 months. This is to allow the infrastructure of roads, water and waste water to catch up.

The second ballot proposal would deny the city council the authority to change the Georgetown Municipal Airport into a regional airport.

Mr. Brundidge said he will not seek or accept campaign contributions in order to assure the voters that his vote is not for sale to any donors.

However, as the owner of a restored residence in Old Town,it can reasonably be expected that he would favor projects, restrictions and services that favorably benefit Old Town. 

Georgetown Electric & Water Boards

The City Council is revising their ability to oversee the electric and water operations.

First, they have proposed to split the electric and water operations apart and create separate oversight boards.

Second, they propose to  expand the responsibility and authority of the boards to include all things financial.

Third, they propose including risk assessment for the electric operations.

The old Georgetown Utility Systems Board discussed the following issues with respect to changing the oversight of the utilities.

Here is the proposed charter for the Water Utility Board.

It is curious that there was no charter presented for the Electric Board. Why not?

Here are the proposed organizational charts for the two boards.

It is clear that two major stakeholders in the utilities have no representation on the boards.

Retail customers, ie homeowner, and commercial/industrial customers are NOT represented on these boards. WHY NOT?

This seems to be a serious flaw in the makeup of these boards. Was it an oversight or was it intentional that there are no members of the using community? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Contact your council person to provide your input before these changes are voted upon in the springtime.

MUD Facts

Municipal Utility Districts, MUDs, are a little known taxing entity authorized by state law. In addition to property taxes, MUD residents also pay Emergency Services District (ESD) taxes, school district taxes, county taxes and sometimes other property based taxes.

MUDs are usually established by a developer to establish a taxing authority that allows bonds to be issued for the construction of water, storm drainage and sewer lines including processing facilities. This transfers the initial construction costs from the developer to the home buyer or business operator.

For instance, MUD #25, cited in the previous post, has authority to tax property at $0.92 per $100 valuation. This is more than twice Georgetown's tax rate of $0.42 per $100 valuation.

The law governing MUDs also provides for the election of a board of directors to govern the MUD. Often these boards issue huge amounts of debt for recreational and community facilities, such as are found in the Brushy Creek MUD between Round Rock and Cedar Park.

Brushy Creek MUD incurred large bond debts to preclude them from being annexed by Austin or any other adjoining city, since the annexing city would have to assume the MUD debt.

One consequence of MUDs is that it allows cities to extract money from the MUD residents to support its own utility developments in excess of what a city can charge city residents because of the higher property tax rates that MUDs are allowed to impose. This occurs when MUDs sign agreements with cities for essential services such as waste water and potable water treatment.

Growth Continues

The City Council has approved a development agreement with the owners of Parkside on the River, a development within the City's ETJ West of I35, South of SH29 and North of Leander Road. Here is a location map:

Click image to enlarge

Since the development lies outside the city limits, the City has limited ability to control development. So as a means of exerting some control, the City has signed a development agreement to provide city services in return for adherence to City requirements.

1. Quality Development. The development meets or exceeds the intent of the development, infrastructure, and design standards of City codes;

2. Extraordinary Benefits. The development provides extraordinary public benefits that advance the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, such as, but not limited to, extension, financial contribution, and/or enhancement of master planned infrastructure, diversity of housing, and enhanced parks, trails, open space, and recreational amenities that are available to the public;

3. Enhance Public Service and Safety. The development enhances public services and optimizes service delivery through its design, dedication of sites, connectivity, and other features.

4. City Exclusive Provider. The development further promotes the City as the exclusive provider of water, sewer, solid waste, and electric utilities;

5. Fiscally Responsible. The development is financially feasible, doesn’t impair the City’s ability to provide municipal services, and would not impose a financial burden on the citizens of Georgetown in the event of annexation;

6. Finance Plan. The developer(s) contributes financially to cover a portion of infrastructure expenses without reimbursement by the MUD or the City and as reflected in conditions placed on the issuance of bonds by the district;

7. Annexation. The development will not impair the City’s future annexation of the MUD or adjacent property or impose costs not mutually agreed upon.

The Water Oak development on SH29 connects with the Parkside development as shown in the next two illustrations.

Click on image to enlarge

Both Water Oak and Parkside are in MUD #25 and the City will provide water and electric services through contracts with the MUD.

Finally, the following chart shows the kinds of development envisioned for the site.

Click image to enlarge

2500  new single family homes with multi-family dwellings and commercial development along Leander Road.

Chisholm Trail Special Utility District Disolved

For Your Information

The Chisholm Trail Special Utility District has dissolved as a governmental entity. At a public hearing on Sept. 30, the district board members voted unanimously to dissolve and adopted an order of dissolution. The district was officially and formally dissolved this week.

Facing challenges with water availability and financing, the district approached the City of Georgetown in 2011 about the possibility of merging the two water systems. After two years of feasibility studies, public meetings, and hearings, the board voted unanimously in 2013 to consolidate the two water systems.

The merger was approved by the Public Utility Commission of Texas in 2014 and the assets and liabilities of the district were transferred to the City of Georgetown water utility. At that time, Chisholm Trail SUD water customers became City of Georgetown water customers, and Chisholm Trail employees became Georgetown employees.

The merger and transfer of service area was approved unanimously by the PUC in 2015 and subsequently affirmed in a series of legal challenges. Senate Bill 248, passed by the Texas Legislature in 2017, allowed Chisholm Trail SUD to dissolve after Aug. 31, 2019, whether or not third-party legal actions were resolved.

Due to the deadline to cancel an election, which was in August, candidates for the Chisholm Trail SUD board will be on the Nov. 5 ballot for residents who live in the former service area of the district. Votes will be tabulated and reported in the election. However, candidates in the election will not be seated or serve on the Chisholm Trail SUD board since the district no longer exists as a legal entity.

Water, Water, Does Georgetown Have Water?

City Councilman Steve Fought has an excellent and informative analysis in his current newsletter to his constituents.

The current drought, or near-drought, conditions prompted various concerns about whether Georgetown has fallen behind on our infrastructure for Water and Wastewater.  These are legitimate concerns, and not ones which can be answered "once and for all" -- the whole "water" supply and production process really demands revisiting from time to time, and now is a good time.  

Potable Water  

Let's begin by distinguishing between our supply of raw (untreated) water and our ability to produce treated (potable) water for customer consumption.  A prior City Council directed the City Staff to use a 50-year time horizon to plan for potable water and to have enough raw water supply, and treatment capacity over time, to accommodate growth in that time-horizon.  The reason for the 50-year horizon is that it takes much longer to develop and secure water than it does for other resources which are needed to accommodate growth (such as electricity or roads).  

The City Staff prepared the following chart showing our supply of raw water versus projected demand (based on the forecast rate of growth).

 The Yellow Line depicts the demand for raw water based on current usage and forecast growth. The lower Green Line shows that same relationship, but with conservation.  In either case the data indicates the City has more than enough raw water to meet the demands of growth until around 2050 (and beyond, depending on the assumptions about conservation).  But after that the City will need additional raw water -- and that will be a priority task over the next few years.*  

In the meantime, the next question is: Does the City have enough treatment capacity to convert the raw water into potable water to meet demands?  

The simple answer is yes, for the time being -- but not over the long haul.  In order to meet the demands for potable water, the City needs to increase its treatment capacity.  The strategy to manage the gap between the demands for treated water, and the ability to treat the available raw water is: 

1.  Have enough water treatment capability to meet the average daily demand for potable water.2.  Use storage tanks to manage the daily variation in demand by producing potable water during periods of low demand, then releasing the water into the system as the demand increases throughout the day.3.  When the immediate demand for treated water exceeds the supply, restrict irrigation to reduce the demand.**4.  Before the average daily demand for potable water exceeds the current capacity, expand the current capability and/or build a new water treatment facility.  

To support this strategy, the City has developed a capital improvement plan which:  

1.  Expands the water storage capacity by adding above ground and ground level tanks (e.g., the new Sun City Elevated Water Storage Tank, and a similar one on DB Wood). 

2.  Expands the current Lake Treatment Facility (behind HEB on Williams Drive). 

3.  Sets in motion a process to build an entirely new Water Treatment Facility (The South Lake Plant), beginning in 2021, at a total cost of approximately $100 Million.  (The new facility will be located, as the name implies, on the South Side of Lake Georgetown.)  

This, in simple terms, is "just in time" potable water -- which conforms with the objective of staying ahead of "growth" but not so far ahead that we build unneeded infrastructure and incur an unwarranted tax burden.

Raw Water 

I see where Georgetown is selling a lot of excess water to the "Blanchard" Company -- some 10,000 acre feet.  What's the deal here -- did we buy more water than we needed and now we have to sell it at a loss, just like the electric company?  

In 2006 we "exchanged" House Bill (HB) 1437 water in the LCRA basin for 10,000 acre-ft of water from the Brazos River Authority (BRA).  Round Rock contracted for the HB 1437 that we released.  At the time, Round Rock had determined that HB 1437 water made more sense (due to proximity) than water in the Stillhouse/Belton system.  We also determined that BRA water made available through the Williamson County Regional Raw Water Line (WCRRWL), via the Stillhouse pipeline made more sense than moving water from the south (at its higher cost due to the inter-basin transfer provisions of HB 1437).  

The acquisition of water is guided by prior Council direction to maintain a 50 year water supply.  The long time-horizon is because water resources take substantially more time to develop than energy sources.  Current surface water supplies in Central Texas are fully contracted with the exception of 3,472 acre-ft of HB 1437 water that BRA is holding for us in anticipation of contract execution sometime in the near future.  Ground water supply through the aquifers that we overlay is fully utilized.  Other Ground water supplies are being evaluated, but will be much more costly than our current sources.  

The Blanchard contract allows another entity (the Blanchard Corporation) to use a portion of our contracted water (the portion that we do not use now, and will not fully use until the water system doubles in size) until we need it sometime after the end of the deal in 2029.  

The BRA system rate has changed almost every year since 2006 when the rate was $49.65 per acre-ft.  The current BRA system rate is $79.00 per acre-ft.  Per the terms of the Blanchard deal, Blanchard will pay us 125% of our cost ($98.75 per acre-ft in 2020.)  The price to Blanchard will continue to be 125% of our cost (set annually by BRA).   

It's important to note that the terms of our agreements for all of our surface water supplies are that we pay for the water regardless of whether or not we use it.   At the current point in time, we pay for what we use annually at this point of growth (44,000 connections) AND 23 years of future water supply (enough for approximately 96,000 connections).  Put more simply, the current 44,000 customers are paying for water resources needed for 96,000 customers. This "long" position is required to allow for growth given the nature of water resource contracting.  The Blanchard revenue offsets the current cost being borne by current customers to allow additional infrastructure or resource investment without putting pressure on current rates.

The only additional relevant information with respect to the Brazos River Authority water is that it is in Belton Lake and there is currently no way to get that water to Georgetown. Thus it makes sense to sell the water to Blanchard who can access it through the Brazos River.

There is an ongoing effort to get a pipeline between Belton Lake and Stillhouse Hollow Lake which will give Georgetown access to the Belton Lake in the future.

Looky Here!!!

More insanity in City contracting. This item was on the agenda of the City Council last night.

City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regular Meeting August 27, 2019

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to execute an agreement between the City of Georgetown and Blanchard Refining Company for the temporary sale of 10,000 acre-ft of Brazos River Authority (BRA) System Water -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director

ITEM SUMMARY: The current utilization and the predicted use of BRA system water with current growth trends indicate that up to 10,000 acre-ft of raw water that is currently under contract until August 31, 2040 will not be needed for at least the next 10 years. The contract payment terms require the City to pay for the contracted water, whether or not it is used. Just like the electric contracts, the City has apparently contracted for a fixed amount of water from the Brazos River Authority through August 31, 2040. How long is that contract? The kicker is that the City has to pay for the water whether or not the City uses it!!!!! Does that sound like the electric contracts for which the ratepayers are dearly paying? What is wrong with the City entering into these long term contracts that require payment even if the commodity is not delivered or used? It looks like it is time for some completely new innovative thinking at the City in how it contracts for utilities!

City Continues to Lobby Against Citizens

The City staff is presenting to the Council the City Agenda for lobbying the 86th Texas Legislature tomorrow afternoon at the regularly scheduled workshop.

Here are a couple of key slides:

Notice that they cloak their lobbying under the guise of "local control". In reality local control is when the taxpayer controls the funding and how their taxes are spent individually. But as you can see from the slide they do not want any control of the Municipal Owned Utility to be taken from them. 

The 4th item shows they want to continue to transfer $9M+ from the overpriced utilities to the general fund.

The 5th item says they want to keep everything about the utilities "secret". No way for the citizens to evaluate the city's financial management of the utilities!

Perhaps it is time to sell the utilities to private industry to enable competition based on price and service!

As a minimum the citizens deserve full transparency into the utilities so that voters can use their vote to approve or disapprove the management of their taxpayer dollars!

It is unconscionable that the City uses taxpayer funds to lobby against the best interests of its citizens!!

City Entices Growth?

There is an interesting op-ed in the Wilco Sun that many Georgetown citizens are concerned about the rapid growth of the City and that the City Council is encouraging that growth by offering incentives to businesses to move to Georgetown.

Whatever the reason, our city government seems to be regularly over-welcoming businesses, offering economic incentives so they’ll come. The panicky sounding excuse is, “If we don’t accommodate them they’ll go somewhere else.”

Well, maybe it would be a good idea if they did. It seems that a lot of people are complaining about too much growth. With that in mind, why would the city council not only welcome more industry, but actually give them perks to come here? Someone must be benefiting, but it’s not the average Joe.

Even if the economic pitch doesn’t assuage anyone, there’s always the old growth-is-inevitable argument. “You can’t stop people from coming,” those in power say with helpless resignation. And I might agree. But we don’t have to offer them economic bonuses so they will. That really negates the gee-we-just-can’t-keep-them away argument.

What's the solution? The author suggests that citizens get out and vote at every opportunity. Vote for those candidates that are concerned about growth, water availability, local public safety, and local traffic.

Sounds like good advice!

High Utility Bills?

Did you know that Georgetown owns the utility systems here in town? Georgetown City Council requires that these utility companies and other entities make a profit over and above the cost to deliver the service to residents. Here is the chart presented in the budget workshop in August, 2018.

The City expects the utilities and others to generate $9.0M in profit in 2019 which will be shifted to the City's General Fund to be spent on whatever the Council desires.

This is a stealth tax! The average taxpayer/ratepayer does not realize they are paying more for the services than it costs to provide them. Excess money is taken from the ratepayer by the City, just like a direct tax, only it is hidden behind terms like "Return on Investment"(ROI). 

If you don't think the City should be a profit making organization, let your council members know! Tell them to cut your utility rates so that revenue equals cost and you get to decide where to spend more of your money.

Water Rates are Also Increasing in Georgetown

The typical Georgetown resident who uses 20,000 gallons of potable per month will see their combined water and sewage monthly bill increase from $95.15 to $126.10 in 5 years. That is a 5.8% annual growth rate.

According to City documents, the city population is growing at either 3.6% or 4.8% annually. So why are the water rates increasing at a higher rate? Is the City trying to make up funds that should have been funded by developers of the new homes? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Get involved! Attend your City Council Workshops and Meetings and ask questions!

PS: Do you remember the City telling you that the water services are also a "profit" center that takes in more money than it costs to operate. In 2018 the water services are scheduled to turn over $2.7M to the General Fund to be spent as the City sees fit.

Water Water, Do We Have Enough Water?

The city staff presented a 20 page analysis to the City County on Janyary 23, 2018 Water Resource Utilization. It focuses about 90% of the time on conservation with no discussion about recycling or increasing available supply to support the continued growth of Georgetown.

It appears that over 2016 to 2017 the city increased production/consumption of water while also decreasing consumption per person. The net increase was about 0.9B gallons for the year.

Currently the city has 55,670 acre feet of raw water available annually. This is equivalent to 18.1B gallons of water. With 2017 water consumption at 7.2B gallons, there would be about 12B gallons annually available for growth. If consumption continues to grow as the population increases at about 0.9B gallons per year, all the available water will be used in 13 to 15 years.

The issue is more complex than presented here, but, the city needs to do the analysis that includes drought years and treatment needs in addition to conservation to get a true picture of our water future.