Williams Drive Transportation Study

City staff presented their approach to engaging residents in the development of Williams Drive to the City Council. From the presentation we have the following:

Purpose:

Develop a plan of action that will incorporate safety, efficient transportation operations, safe accommodations of all modes, and integration of smart transportation and land use, community needs, and the future economic growth of Williams Drive.

The goals for Williams Drive include:

Enhance multimodal movements and transportation operations

Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development.

Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life.

Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services that are accessible to neighborhoods.

Objectives include:

An effective outreach program that engages stakeholders as participants in the design.

A transformative physical design based on market practicality, technical requirements, and available financial resources required for its implementation.

An engaging design process that inspires participation across the life-cycle of the study from design through implementation.

Warning! Warning!
The phrases highlighted in red are code words used by the advocates of the UN Agenda 21/30 program. Link This UN program is be implemented at the local government level by restructuring Human nature through Law and Regulation. The agency created by the UN to bring Agenda21 down to the local city and county level of the United States and the rest of the world is the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).

Georgetown was a member of ICLEI earlier, but, withdrew its membership when citizens protested.

It appears that vestiges of Agenda 21/30 still exist within the city staff. 

Limits of Wind & Solar Generated Electricity

There seems to be actual limits to the practicable application of wind and solar energy. In addition to the South Australia blackout discussed in a previous post, Hawaii has stopped net metering (giving homeowners credit for the retail cost of electricity, when electricity is sold to the grid) and phased out subsidies for renewable energy. California is on the edge of an electricity crisis because they have and are closing fossil fuel and nuclear plants and now find themselves unable to import sufficient stable power from other states. California Grid Crisis

An excellent analysis on the limits of renewable energy is presented by Gail Tverberg on her blog.  Several of her key conclusions follow:

Issue 1. Grid issues become a problem at low levels of intermittent electricity penetration.

Issue 2. The apparent “lid” on intermittent electricity at 10% to 15% of total electricity consumption is caused by limits on operating reserves.

Issue 3. When there is no other workaround for excess intermittent electricity, it must be curtailed–that is, dumped rather than added to the grid.

Issue 4. When all costs are included, including grid costs and indirect costs, such as the need for additional storage, the cost of intermittent renewables tends to be very high.

Issue 5. The amount that electrical utilities are willing to pay for intermittent electricity is very low. 

Issue 6. When intermittent electricity is sold in competitive electricity markets (as it is in California, Texas, and Europe), it frequently leads to negative wholesale electricity prices. It also shaves the peaks off high prices at times of high demand.

Issue 7. Other parts of the world are also having problems with intermittent electricity.

Issue 8. The amount of subsidies provided to intermittent electricity is very high.

Few people have stopped to realize that intermittent electricity isn’t worth very much. It may even have negative value, when the cost of all of the adjustments needed to make it useful are considered.

Energy products are very different in “quality.” Intermittent electricity is of exceptionally low quality. The costs that intermittent electricity impose on the system need to be paid by someone else. This is a huge problem, especially as penetration levels start exceeding the 10% to 15% level that can be handled by operating reserves, and much more costly adjustments must be made to accommodate this energy. Even if wind turbines and solar panels could be produced for $0, it seems likely that the costs of working around the problems caused by intermittent electricity would be greater than the compensation that can be obtained to fix those problems.

Texas is at the level of 10-15% renewable energy generation.

The WSJ recently had an article touting Texas as the leader in wind and solar electricity generation, but, did not recognize two large problems; Instability in the grid caused by intermittent renewable electricity, and shutting of fossil fuel plants because they are uneconomical competing against subsidized renewables which will ultimately cause electricity prices to rise.

Tverberg notes that due to solar and wind subsidies that electrical costs in California are 45 percent higher than the national average, over 1/3 of California’s electric grid power for non-intermittent (also called “dispatchable”) electrical back-up must now be imported from other states, up from only 25 percent in 2010.

There are always unanticipated consequences that cost more money. Texas ratepayers can expect their rates to increase or suffer the consequences.

State of South Australia Suffers Electrical Blackout

The State of South Australia, which is a state in South-Central Australia suffered a complete total loss of electricity this past week. There are about 850,000 homes and businesses in South Australia.

While apologists rush to blame “climate change enhanced severe weather” for failure of the grid in South Australia, Larry Hamlin finds that this problem with wind turbine farms maintaining frequency and causing a blackout was foreseen and published. South Australia's Wind Energy Crisis

This analysis exposes the extraordinary energy market distortion that the politically mandated use of renewable energy has created.

Renewable energy cannot be reliably used without placing demands on electric system stability that can only be provided by dispatchable fossil power plants.

Yet renewable energy is given preference in use over fossil plants based on political policy mandates even though the costs associated with electric system stability must be provided by fossil plants which experience lower operating hours thus increasing fossil plant production costs.

Additionally these electric system stability costs climb as more and more renewables are placed in use. Renewables energy projects however are never held accountable for these increased electric system stability costs that occur and in fact these increased system costs are concealed from view by renewable energy advocates.

Electricity costs in South Australia have increased 70% in recent years as fossil fuel power plants were removed from the grid for economic reasons. In other words, the fossil fuel plants were driven off-line by the subsidized renewable power plants. Once they were off-line, the renewable power plants raised their prices as there was no competition from the fossil fuel plants.

The removal of the fossil fuel plants were a significant cause of the blackout because the wind and solar plants could not provide stable 50-60Hz frequency electricity for the grid. This very action is taking place in the United States with the removal of the nuclear power plants from the grid network, and if the environmentalists have their way, all fossil fuel plants will be shut down.

Texas and Georgetown should be aware of these kinds of unintended consequences and assure sufficient fossil fuel plants remain in operation to provide competition for renewables and stable frequencies for the electric grid and all the users.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Statement on Illegal Alien Arrest

September 28, 2016 

 

Cost of Failing to Secure the Border

 AUSTIN – Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick issued the following statement today in response to the news of the arrest of Silvestre Franco-Luviano in Georgetown:

“This chilling news report is a vivid example of the consequences of failing to secure our border. While we do not know the facts regarding the allegations that Franco-Luviano murdered two people and kidnapped another, we have confirmed one damning piece of information — Franco-Luviano had been deported three times and he managed to make it back across the border every time.

“This is an indictment against the federal government’s failure to police the border and another reason that Texas must continue to focus on border security.”

Georgetown Police Apprehend Murder Suspect

The man accused of kidnapping and then releasing a Georgetown man Monday morning was also wanted in connection with two murders in the Dallas area was captured last evening about 7:30pm.

Police received information the suspect was in an apartment complex near Georgetown High School, which was then locked down, while the police started searching the apartments.

The suspect, who has many aliases, started a fire to try and divert attention while he escaped, but, he was captured by the police with no loss of life or injuries to anyone, including the suspect.

Kudos to the Georgetown police for a job well done.

Rotten eggs to our Federal Government for allowing this illegal alien into the U.S. four times after he was deported three times and U.S. Marshals Marshals say he has currently "no status" to be in the United States.

WOW! Build a Wall Around Austin

The murder rate in Austin is up 115% so far this year over last year according to the Austin Chief of Police. Click on chart to make it larger.

Georgetown needs a strategy to keep this kind of violence out of our peaceful community. Ask Chief Nero what his plans are for keeping violence out of Georgetown.

Your Property Rights Are Being Taken Away by Government

Citizens need to be aware that the Federal government is taking away private property rights piece by piece. Typical are the Bureau of Land Management denying grazing rights to ranchers, asserting Federal ownership of 90,000+ acres of private land along the Red River, Fish and Wildlife Service using endangered species habitat to prevent land development, and the list goes on and on.

The following is typical of the latest industry guidance to property owners that they can face liability if they do not rent property to people who have limited or no english skills. There is a need for affordable housing, which usually means rental property, but who wants to develop or own rental property if the government can tell you whom and under what conditions you must rent your property. 

People with limited English proficiency (LEP) are protected under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) under new guidance announced by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Housing providers can face liability for taking adverse actions against an individual because of their limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English.

The guidance reasons that LEP persons are protected because of their close nexus with the protected class of national origin. Approximately 9 percent of the U.S. population is LEP.

The new guidance instructs that housing providers violate the FHA if they intentionally discriminate against a person because of their LEP. For example, it would violate the FHA to selectively refuse to rent to, or to refuse to renew a lease for, persons who speak a certain language, but rent to those who speak another language. The guidance suggests that defenses used in the employment context against LEP discrimination lawsuits, such as the legitimate importance for employers to be able to communicate with their employees, will be inapplicable in the housing context.

Even if unintentional, housing providers may still face liability for LEP discrimination under the "discriminatory effects" or "disparate impact" theory. The U.S. Supreme Court recently recognized disparate impact theory as cognizable under the FHA. The guidance explains that discriminatory effect liability arises when facially neutral policies have an unintentional but nevertheless discriminatory effect on a protected class where the housing provider has no substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest for advancing the policy. For example, a seemingly facially neutral policy of not allowing documents to be translated could violate the FHA under the new guidance.

Informal agency guidance like this does not carry the force of law akin to formal agency rulemaking. Instead, courts are empowered to provide agency guidance and the proportionate amount of deference that the court deems a situation merits, based on a variety of factors. Nevertheless, housing providers should take this new guidance seriously, as it may influence suits brought by plaintiffs or decided by courts. Blanket advertising requirements that all tenants must speak English or restrictions on the languages that residents may speak amongst themselves are heavily susceptible to FHA liability and should be avoided. Under the guidance, justifications for language-related restrictions should strictly relate to essential housing-related matters.

Lenders should also pay close attention to the guidance and any ensuing lawsuits. It states that targeting certain LEP groups who share national origin for housing-related services on unfair terms, such as home loan modifications, likewise constitutes illegal discrimination. Other examples of LEP discrimination under the FHA in the lender context include refusing to allow mortgage documents to be translated, restricting a borrower’s use of an interpreter, or requiring an English speaker to co-sign a mortgage.

This prohibition on LEP discrimination in the housing context is an expansion of HUD's 2007 formal regulations concerning the obligation of programs that receive federal financial assistance to refrain from discriminating against LEP persons. Under those regulations, recipients of federal financial assistance have an obligation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to assist LEP persons with access to federally funded programs. The new HUD guidance, in contrast, interprets LEP discrimination under the FHA, which applies much more broadly to most rental and home sales whether or not federal assistance is involved, as well as lending activity.

City Reviews Process for Affordable Housing

The City Council has given city staff direction to propose a new review/approval process for affordable housing. The first draft of the new process was presented at the last council workshop.

After the approval of the last three projects, Kaia Pointe,Live Oak Apartments, and Merritt Heritage Apartments by both the city and the state for tax credits, it became apparent that many city residents were unhappy with the non-public process. 

The main feature of the revised process is the establishment of deadlines for public meetings describing the proposed projects. At least two public meetings will be held a minimum of three weeks prior to submission to the City Council. Also, property owners within 1/2 mile of the proposed site must be notified.

The process is not yet final and will be presented to the City Council for approval sometime in the future.

Keep in mind that the citizens of Georgetown must also make sure that the City Council stands against Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) to maintain our local sovereignty. Local governments are waking up to the threat that the Federal Government and HUD in particular pose to our local sovereignty. 

Georgetown residents must be vigilant and focused on keeping the City out of AFFH grants. Do not be distracted by emotional pleas for "affordable housing" and do not allow yourself to be sidetracked by less important issues.

Sunday Special from Hillsdale College Imprimis

Imprimis September 2016 • Volume 45, Number 9

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that “the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.” Today the story of American politics is the story of class struggles. It wasn’t supposed to be that way. We didn’t think we were divided into different classes. Neither did Marx.

America was an exception to Marx’s theory of social progress. By that theory, societies were supposed to move from feudalism to capitalism to communism. But the America of the 1850s, the most capitalist society around, was not turning communist. Marx had an explanation for that. “True enough, the classes already exist,” he wrote of the United States, but they “are in constant flux and reflux, constantly changing their elements and yielding them up to one another.” In other words, when you have economic and social mobility, you don’t go communist.

That is the country in which some imagine we still live, Horatio Alger’s America—a country defined by the promise that whoever you are, you have the same chance as anyone else to rise, with pluck, industry, and talent. But they imagine wrong. The U.S. today lags behind many of its First World rivals in terms of mobility. A class society has inserted itself within the folds of what was once a classless country, and a dominant New Class—as social critic Christopher Lasch called it—has pulled up the ladder of social advancement behind it.

One can measure these things empirically by comparing the correlation between the earnings of fathers and sons. Pew’s Economic Mobility Project ranks Britain at 0.5, which means that if a father earns £100,000 more than the median, his son will earn £50,000 more than the average member of his cohort. That’s pretty aristocratic. On the other end of the scale, the most economically mobile society is Denmark, with a correlation of 0.15. The U.S. is at 0.47, almost as immobile as Britain.

A complacent Republican establishment denies this change has occurred. If they don’t get it, however, American voters do. For the first time, Americans don’t believe their children will be as well off as they have been. They see an economy that’s stalled, one in which jobs are moving offshore. In the first decade of this century, U.S. multinationals shed 2.9 million U.S. jobs while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. General Electric provides a striking example. Jeffrey Immelt became the company’s CEO in 2001, with a mission to advance stock price. He did this in part by reducing GE’s U.S. workforce by 34,000 jobs. During the same period, the company added 25,000 jobs overseas. Ironically, President Obama chose Immelt to head his Jobs Council.

According to establishment Republicans, none of this can be helped. We are losing middle-class jobs because of the move to a high-tech world that creates jobs for a cognitive elite and destroys them for everyone else. But that doesn’t describe what’s happening. We are losing middle-class jobs, but lower-class jobs are expanding. Automation is changing the way we make cars, but the rich still need their maids and gardeners. Middle-class jobs are also lost as a result of regulatory and environmental barriers, especially in the energy sector. And the skills-based technological change argument is entirely implausible: countries that beat us hands down on mobility are just as technologically advanced. Folks in Denmark aren’t exactly living in the Stone Age.

This is why voters across the spectrum began to demand radical change. What did the Republican elite offer in response? At a time of maximal crisis they have been content with minimal goals, like Mitt Romney’s 59-point plan in 2012. How many Americans remember even one of those points? What we remember instead is Romney’s remark about 47 percent of Americans being takers. That was Romney’s way of recognizing the class divide—and in the election, Americans took notice and paid him back with interest.

Since 2012, establishment Republicans have continued to be less than concerned for the plight of ordinary Americans. Sure, they want economic growth, but it doesn’t seem to matter into whose pockets the money flows. There are even the “conservative” pundits who offer the pious hope that drug-addicted Trump supporters will hurry up and die. That’s one way to ameliorate the class struggle, but it doesn’t exactly endear anyone to the establishment.

The southern writer Flannery O’Connor once attended a dinner party in New York given for her and liberal intellectual Mary McCarthy. At one point the issue of Catholicism came up, and McCarthy offered the opinion that the Eucharist is “just a symbol,” albeit “a pretty one.” O’Connor, a pious Catholic, bristled: “Well, if it’s just a symbol, to Hell with it.” Likewise, the principles held up as sacrosanct by establishment Republicans might be logically unassailable, derived like theorems from a set of axioms based on a pure theory of natural rights. But if I don’t see them making people better off, I say to Hell with them. And so do the voters this year. What the establishment Republicans should ask themselves is Anton Chigurh’s question in No Country for Old Men: If you followed your principles, and your principles brought you to this, what good are your principles?

 ***

Had Marx been asked what would happen to America if it ever became economically immobile, we know what his answer would be: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. And also Donald Trump. The anger expressed by the voters in 2016—their support for candidates from far outside the traditional political class—has little parallel in American history. We are accustomed to protest movements on the Left, but the wholesale repudiation of the establishment on the Right is something new. All that was solid has melted into air, and what has taken its place is a kind of rightwing Marxism, scornful of Washington power brokers and sneering pundits and repelled by America’s immobile, class-ridden society.

Establishment Republicans came up with the “right-wing Marxist” label when House Speaker John Boehner was deposed, and labels stick when they have the ring of truth. So it is with the right-wing Marxist. He is rightwing because he seeks to return to an America of economic mobility. He has seen how broken education and immigration systems, the decline of the rule of law, and the rise of a supercharged regulatory state serve as barriers to economic improvement. And he is a Marxist to the extent that he sees our current politics as the politics of class struggle, with an insurgent middle class that seeks to surmount the barriers to mobility erected by an aristocratic New Class. In his passion, he is also a revolutionary. He has little time for a Republican elite that smirks at his heroes—heroes who communicate through their brashness and rudeness the fact that our country is in a crisis. To his more polite critics, the right-wing Marxist says: We are not so nice as you!

The right-wing Marxist notes that establishment Republicans who decry crony capitalism are often surrounded by lobbyists and funded by the Chamber of Commerce. He is unpersuaded when they argue that government subsidies are needed for their friends. He does not believe that the federal bailouts of the 2008-2012 TARP program and the Federal Reserve’s zero-interest and quantitative easing policies were justified. He sees that they doubled the size of public debt over an eight-year period, and that our experiment in consumer protection for billionaires took the oxygen out of the economy and produced a jobless Wall Street recovery.

The right-wing Marxist’s vision of the good society is not so very different from that of the JFK-era liberal; it is a vision of a society where all have the opportunity to rise, where people are judged by the content of their character, and where class distinctions are a thing of the past. But for the right-wing Marxist, the best way to reach the goal of a good society is through free markets, open competition, and the removal of wasteful government barriers.

***

Readers of Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose will have encountered the word palimpsest, used to describe a manuscript in which one text has been written over another, and in which traces of the original remain. So it is with Canada, a country that beats the U.S. hands down on economic mobility. Canada has the reputation of being more liberal than the U.S., but in reality it is more conservative because its liberal policies are written over a page of deep conservatism.

Whereas the U.S. comes in at a highly immobile 0.47 on the Pew mobility scale, Canada is at 0.19, very close to Denmark’s 0.15. What is further remarkable about Canada is that the difference is mostly at the top and bottom of the distribution. Between the tenth and 90th deciles there isn’t much difference between the two countries. The difference is in the bottom and top ten percent, where the poorest parents raise the poorest kids and the richest parents raise the richest kids.

For parents in the top U.S. decile, 46 percent of their kids will end up in the top two deciles and only 2 percent in the bottom decile. The members of the top decile comprise a New Class of lawyers, academics, trust-fund babies, and media types—a group that wields undue influence in both political parties and dominates our culture. These are the people who said yes, there is an immigration crisis—but it’s caused by our failure to give illegals a pathway to citizenship!

There’s a top ten percent in Canada, of course, but its children are far more likely to descend into the middle or lower classes. There’s also a bottom ten percent, but its children are far more likely to rise to the top. The country of opportunity, the country we’ve imagined ourselves to be, isn’t dead—it moved to Canada, a country that ranks higher than the U.S. on measures of economic freedom. Yes, Canada has its much-vaunted Medicare system, but cross-border differences in health care don’t explain the mobility levels. And when you add it all up, America has a more generous welfare system than Canada or just about anywhere else. To explain Canada’s higher mobility levels, one has to turn to differences in education systems, immigration laws, regulatory burdens, the rule of law, and corruption—on all of which counts, Canada is a more conservative country.

America’s K-12 public schools perform poorly, relative to the rest of the First World. Its universities are great fun for the kids, but many students emerge on graduation no better educated than when they arrived. What should be an elevator to the upper class is stalled on the ground floor. One study has concluded that if American public school students were magically raised to Canadian levels, the economic gain would amount to a 20 percent annual pay increase for the average American worker.

The U.S. has a two-tiered educational system: a superb set of schools and colleges for the upper classes and a mediocre set for everyone else. The best of our colleges are the best anywhere, but the average Canadian school is better than the average American one. At both the K-12 and college levels, Canadian schools have adhered more closely to a traditional, conservative set of offerings. For K-12, a principal reason for the difference is the greater competition offered in Canada, with its publicly-supported church-affiliated schools. With barriers like America’s Blaine Amendments—state laws preventing public funding of religious schools—lower-class students in the U.S. must enjoy the dubious blessing of a public school education.

What about immigration? Canada doesn’t have a problem with illegal aliens—it deports them. As for the legal intake, Canadian policies have a strong bias towards admitting immigrants who will confer a benefit on Canadian citizens. Even in absolute numbers, Canada admits more immigrants under economic categories than the U.S., where most legal immigrants qualify instead under family preference categories. As a result, on average, immigrants to the U.S. are less educated than U.S. natives, and unlike in Canada, second- and third-generation U.S. immigrants earn less than their native-born counterparts. In short, the U.S. immigration system imports inequality and immobility. If immigration isn’t an issue in Canada, that’s because it’s a system Trump voters would love.

For those at the bottom of the social and economic ladder who seek to rise, nothing is more important than the rule of law, property rights, and the sanctity of contract provided by a mature and efficient legal system. The alternative—in place today in America—is a network of elites whose personal bonds supply the trust that is needed before deals can be done and promises relied on. With its more traditional legal system, Canada better respects the sanctity of contract and is less likely to weaken property rights with an American-style civil justice system which at times resembles a slot machine of judicially-sanctioned theft. Americans are great at talking about the rule of law, but in reality we don’t have much standing to do so.

Then there’s corruption. As ranked by Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, America is considerably more corrupt than most of the rest of the First World. With our K Street lobbyists and our donor class, we’ve spawned the greatest concentration of money and influence ever. And corruption costs. In a regression model, the average family’s earnings would increase from $55,000 to $60,000 were we to ascend to Canada’s level of non-corruption, and to $68,000 if we moved to Denmark’s level.

In a corrupt country, trust is a rare commodity. That’s America today. Only 19 percent of Americans say they trust the government most of the time, down from 73 percent in 1958 according to the Pew Research Center. Sadly, that is a rational response to the way things are. America is a different country today, and a much nastier one. For politically engaged Republicans, the figure is six percent. That in a nutshell explains the Trump phenomenon and the disintegration of the Republican establishment. If the people don’t trust the government, tinkering with entitlement reform is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

American legal institutions are consistently more liberal than those in Canada, and they are biased towards a privileged class of insiders who are better educated and wealthier than the average American. That’s why America has become an aristocracy.

By contrast, Canadian legal institutions aren’t slanted to an aristocracy. The paradox is that Canadians employ conservative, free market means to achieve the liberal end of economic mobility. And that points to America’s way back: acknowledge that the promise of America has diminished, then emulate Canada.

Frank Buckley

Author, The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America

TMRS Investment Returns Update

The Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) just released their latest investment returns.

It can be observed that over the last year the return has been 1.8% and over the last 5 years the return is 5.6%.  Returns over both time periods are a far cry from the assumed return of 6.75%.

The element that has been providing the greatest return is real estate. It is problematical as to how long that will last. 

Beating the Pension Horse Again

Pension funds cannot meet their future obligations without significant changes in their operating philosophies. The latest example of investment shortfalls is Harvard University as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

"Harvard University’s endowment delivered its worst investment performance since 2009, and its interim chief warned in an annual report that “returns could be muted for some time to come.”

The 2% loss for fiscal 2016 fell short of the university’s goals and contributed to a $1.9 billion drop in the value of the world’s wealthiest endowment. Harvard Management Company, as the endowment is formally known, now manages $35.7 billion. It provides more than one-third of the university’s operating budget."

Notice that the Harvard investment pool is only about 50% larger than the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) investment fund. And, "the smartest investment managers in the world" cannot meet their own investment goals.

Harvard’s losses for the year ending June 30 reinforce the challenges facing all college endowments as they wrestle with volatile global markets and a sustained period of low interest rates around the world. College and university endowments tracked by Cambridge Associates posted net returns of -2.7% for the year June 30. The S&P 500 gained 3.25% during the same period, according to FactSet.

“With a backdrop of slowing growth and rich valuations, endowment returns could be muted for some time to come,” Harvard Management interim chief executive Robert Ettlsaid in the endowment’s annual report released Thursday.

Harvard Management CEO expects returns "to be muted for some time to come."  That means that when calculating your pension obligations, an assumed return of 6.75% is not appropriate, which is what TMRS uses.

TMRS admitted in their 2015 CAFR that their investment returns also did not meet their goals. Here are the returns they reported for 2015.

"TMRS: 0.34% return for the year (6% in 2014)
3-yr annualized = 5.3%
5-yr annualized = 5.6% 

10-yr annualized = 5.4%"

Why are they still assuming a 6.75% annual return?

TMRS would not have had a positive return of 0.34% except for the fact that employers and employees contributed $1.1B in 2015.

It is time for Georgetown city council to get more involved with TMRS to assure future pension obligations can be honored.

Williams Drive and I-35 Transportation Projects

Georgetown and TxDot are embarking are embarking on studies and preliminary design efforts to improve traffic flow down Williams Drive and off and onto I-35 and Austin Avenue.

The first effort focusses on Williams Drive westward from I-35. The City of Georgetown and CAMPO are partnering on the Williams Drive Study. The study will develop a plan of action that will incorporate safety, efficient traffic movement, safe accommodations of all modes, and future economic growth of Williams Drive between Austin Avenue and Jim Hogg Road. 

The first open house public meeting is Oct 6 from 4:30 to 7 p.m. at the Georgetown Health Foundation Community Rooms, 2423 Williams Drive. 

The second effort was described at the last city council workshop and the complete presentation is available at Mobility 35 Williams Drive.

The principle feature is construction of a Diverging Diamond Interchange similar to the one at I-35 and 1431. Here is a engineering drawing:

The expected cost is $55M, but, the funding has not yet been finalized. Planning documents indicate construction bids will be solicited in 2018 or 2019 with construction completed in 2020 or 2021.

More detail can be found at my35.org

A second more bothersome element are the plans to improve traffic flow along 60 to 70 miles of I-35 by constructing toll lanes. This is a really bad idea and is antithetical to Texas values. The new lanes would be paid for by tax dollars, then people would be charged again to use the lanes they had already paid for.

There are other ways to improve traffic flow without charging tolls which just increases the TxDot bureaucracy to collect and manage the tolls.

For example, controlled access on-ramps during high traffic periods are successfully used around the country as are limiting one lane to carpools, busses, and motorcycles.

There are legislators in the Texas legislature that are proposing to eliminate toll roads in Texas, especially those that do not have any bond debt.

Contact your state senator and representative to let them know that we do not need more toll roads in Texas, especially on our interstate highways.

Interesting Housing Market Analysis

"In a note on Thursday, John Burns Real Estate Consulting broke down the five stages of the housing-market cycle, including where it sees some major cities in each phase." Business Insider

Notice that Austin is in the Exuberance stage which likely includes surrounding communities like Georgetown.

In fact, Georgetown has reported that the surge in sales tax receipts this year comes principally from building supplies sales.