The Board decided to make the 2nd regular business meeting each month start at 6PM. This should make it easier for those who have an issue related to their water bill, sewer service, garbage pickup, or security to come and make their concerns known during the Public Comments section of the agenda. It is almost always the first thing on the agenda, so please be sure to arrive by 6PM. The meetings are still held at the office of Strawn & Richardson, P.C.
6750 West Loop South, Suite 250
Bellaire, TX 77401-4111 which is on the corner of Bellaire and the 610 Loop in the Frost Bank Building. The first evening meeting will be held on 12/18/12, and the Board will consider adding quarterly "TOWN HALL" type meetings for 2013. What's the difference between these quarterly meetings and the regular business meetings?
While the Board is eager to hear of residents' concerns during the regular business meeting, the point of the meeting is to conduct the business of the District. The point of having TOWN HALL meetings will be to allow residents to come and discuss any issues of concern openly with the Board members in a give-and-take format. To understand why that can't be done during our regular business meetings, please see my earlier post The Peanut Gallery Revisited.
Here's some information from Waste Management about what to do with your Christmas tree when the holidays are over.
CURBSIDE HOLIDAY TREE COLLECTION
January 2 – January 19 Waste Management will collect holiday trees at the curb. Please make sure your tree is placed at the curb no later than 7:00 a.m. on any Friday during that time period.
RECYCLING HOLIDAY TREE DROP-OFF
(Flock trees unacceptable) If you prefer to drop off your tree for recycling between December 26 – January 14, you can take it to any of the following:
21000 East Hwy 6
Alvin, TX 77511
10550 Tanner Road
Houston, TX 77041
3623 Wilson Road
Humble, TX 77396
Friday, December 14, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
New Board Members Take Oath of Office
On November 20, CG Johnson, Sharyn Smalls, and Mike Smith took the oath of office delivered by the District's attorney, Chris Richardson.
After the swearing in ceremony, the first order of business was to elect officers for the Board. I was elected President; AK Babers Vice President, and Sharyn Smalls Secretary. Each of the newly elected Board members proudly showed off their certificates of office.
Transparency and accountability will be the guiding principles for the WCID#89 Board of Directors as long as I am President. We are eager to serve the community.
Transparency and accountability will be the guiding principles for the WCID#89 Board of Directors as long as I am President. We are eager to serve the community.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
The People of WCID#89 Have Spoken!
Harris County W.C.I.D. No. 89 Directors
Karri Garza 381 13.34%
Sharyn Smalls 496 17.37%
Michael Clancy Smith 425 14.88%
Victoria D. Lastee 319 11.17%
Byron Keith Watson, Sr. 422 14.78%
Charles "C.G." Johnson 459 16.07%
Arthur Washington 354 12.39%
Registered Voters 2,726
Ballots 2,214 Percent 81.22%
CONGRATULATIONS TO SHARYN SMALLS, CG JOHNSON, AND MICHAEL SMITH!
Karri Garza 381 13.34%
Sharyn Smalls 496 17.37%
Michael Clancy Smith 425 14.88%
Victoria D. Lastee 319 11.17%
Byron Keith Watson, Sr. 422 14.78%
Charles "C.G." Johnson 459 16.07%
Arthur Washington 354 12.39%
Registered Voters 2,726
Ballots 2,214 Percent 81.22%
CONGRATULATIONS TO SHARYN SMALLS, CG JOHNSON, AND MICHAEL SMITH!
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Early Voting Results Posted
There are 2726 registered voters in WCID#89 and 1754 of them voted absentee or in the early polling places. This is 64.34% of all registered voters in the District. Results of these early votes are:
Karri Garza 302 votes
Sharyn Smalls 376 votes
Michael Smith 320 votes
Victoria Lastee 264 votes
Byron Watson 313 votes
CG Johnson 383 votes
Arthur Washington 302 votes
Votes at the polls today have not been reported yet, but the early results show CG Johnson, Sharyn Smalls, and Michael Smith as winners. I'll post again once the full results are in.
Karri Garza 302 votes
Sharyn Smalls 376 votes
Michael Smith 320 votes
Victoria Lastee 264 votes
Byron Watson 313 votes
CG Johnson 383 votes
Arthur Washington 302 votes
Votes at the polls today have not been reported yet, but the early results show CG Johnson, Sharyn Smalls, and Michael Smith as winners. I'll post again once the full results are in.
PLEASE GO VOTE - IT'S ELECTION DAY!!!!!!!!!!!
I was at Crista Adair park early this morning handing out flyers for three candidates running for the WCID#89 District race:
Mike Smith was there as well,
and states:
Mike Smith was there as well,
and states:
"I WANT TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE ENTIRE MUD 89 -
BRUNSWICK LAKES, BRUNSWICK PLACE, BRUNSWICK MEADOWS, ALTA APARTMENTS,
MORNINGSIDE 1 AND MORNINGSIDE 2"
So was Sharyn Smalls asking for voters to re-elect her.
I'll be at the meeting today and then back at the polling place. Will report on who won as soon as the results are known. This is truly exciting, isn't it????
So was Sharyn Smalls asking for voters to re-elect her.
And finally Byron Watson was greeting voters as they came to cast their ballots as well, requesting he also be re-elected.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Candidate Speeches on 10/27/12
They were handing out their postcards to all in attendance (you can see Mike proudly holding his in the photo). Each was invited to address the crowd and I took videos of each candidate's speech. Unfortunately, I can't seem to get these videos to upload to the blog.
If someone knows how to upload to youtube or some other such site, let me know and I'll send you the videos via e-mail. Once they're available, I'll put the link up. Sorry about that...
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Charles 'CG' Johnson - Candidate for Board of WCID#89
In the great city of Houston Texas and county of Harris, a servant was born and named Charles G. Johnson. He attended Texas Southern University and also was employed by Southern Pacific Railroad. He made a decision to attend the Harris County Sheriff Academy and from that day forward Law Enforcement played a major role in his life for 32 years. He spent 25 years at Harris County Constable Pct. 7 in the civil and G.R.E.A.T divisions. He was also the Chief of Police in Kendleton, Texas for 3 years. After retiring from a distinguished career in law enforcement, he started a new job and held the position as Security Trainer at Wackenhut Security Company.
Charles G. Johnson accepted Christ at an early age. In 1986 he acknowledged his calling to the ministry. He preached his first sermon July, 1986 and became a licensed minster. He began volunteering with several community groups, such as Ministers against Crime, Angel Tree, Brotherhood, Brother to Brother Conference, Houston Independent School District, and Elite Ladies of Expressions Inc. God’s spirit is continually moving in his life. His focus is to service the Lord with Hope, Joy and Peace.
Charles G Johnson would like to bring the same “C3” philosophy (Committed, Concerned, & Community), that he has lived his life by, to Water Control and Improvement District #89.
To read more about CG Johnson and his concerns for our District, please click here.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Let's Talk Taxes - Shall We?
The District has entered into development financing agreements with Developers. The agreements call for the Developers to fund costs associated with water and sewer facilities, and utilities construction until such time as the District can sell bonds to reimburse them. Friendswood Development (aka Lennar...aka Brunswick Meadows) has been requesting reimbursement for the past year to cover the infrastructure that they have built since the last bonds were issued in 2008. The District owes over $9 million to them, and interest is building on the debt (about $410,000/year).
AK and I have tried to get the Board to move on issuing bonds since last year to pay them what we owe. The fact is that we must pay our debts. The other fact is that the way we pay our debts is by setting our tax rate at a level to cover the bonds issued.
AK and I have continuously advocated raising the tax rate and you can read why here. Although the majority was willing to raise your water rates twice in the past 3 years, they have been reluctant to ever raise the tax rate. In 2003, when Brunswick Lakes and Brunswick Meadows started selling houses, the tax rate was $1.50 per $100 of property valuation. This means if your house was valued at $100,000 you paid $1500 in taxes to WCID #89. Since 2003, the tax rate steadily fell as the Brunswick neighborhoods kept expanding the tax base. That was, until the economy went belly up.
The value of our homesteads decreased by 11% between 2008 and 2009. This depreciation wiped out an entire year of growth in the tax base. In 2010, the District's financial adviser stated we should raise the tax rate to $1.44 and you can read about that here. The Board chose to ignore that advice and set the rate at $1.39, and the majority from Morningside has dug in their heels about raising it again.
The tax rate is made up of two parts: the debt service tax rate and the O&M (Operations & Maintenance) tax rate. The O&M taxes are used to provide services that are not covered by the revenue generated through the water bills. The debt service taxes are to pay off all the bonds that have been issued for Developers and the new construction projects (like the new sewage treatment plant, the new water plant in Brunswick Meadows, and yes, that ridiculously expensive Adminstration Building). Here's the facts for the tax rate for 2012.
We need to set a debt service rate of $1.26 (last year's rate was $1) and reduce the O&M tax rate to 24 cents (last year's was 39 cents) for a total of $1.50 tax rate - the same rate that was active when Brunswick neighborhoods first started selling houses. The $1.50 tax rate will not raise the amount of dollars that the average taxpayer pays the District, compared to last year, despite the increase of the overall tax rate by 11 cents. How is that possible you ask?
The values of our homes have decreased dramatically over the past 5 years. The average homestead was valued at $107,167 in 2006 and in 2012 it is only $85,070. Therefore, in 2006, when the tax rate was $1.43, the average dollar amount paid in property taxes by homeowners was $1,532 but in 2012 the dollar amount paid will be just $1,276 -- even though the tax rate will be $1.50!
At the $1.50 tax rate, we will be able to afford to issue approximately $4.5 million in bonds to pay the Developer. That is about half of what we owe, but shows good faith on our part. This is why I am in favor of raising the tax rate.
AK and I have tried to get the Board to move on issuing bonds since last year to pay them what we owe. The fact is that we must pay our debts. The other fact is that the way we pay our debts is by setting our tax rate at a level to cover the bonds issued.
AK and I have continuously advocated raising the tax rate and you can read why here. Although the majority was willing to raise your water rates twice in the past 3 years, they have been reluctant to ever raise the tax rate. In 2003, when Brunswick Lakes and Brunswick Meadows started selling houses, the tax rate was $1.50 per $100 of property valuation. This means if your house was valued at $100,000 you paid $1500 in taxes to WCID #89. Since 2003, the tax rate steadily fell as the Brunswick neighborhoods kept expanding the tax base. That was, until the economy went belly up.
The value of our homesteads decreased by 11% between 2008 and 2009. This depreciation wiped out an entire year of growth in the tax base. In 2010, the District's financial adviser stated we should raise the tax rate to $1.44 and you can read about that here. The Board chose to ignore that advice and set the rate at $1.39, and the majority from Morningside has dug in their heels about raising it again.
The tax rate is made up of two parts: the debt service tax rate and the O&M (Operations & Maintenance) tax rate. The O&M taxes are used to provide services that are not covered by the revenue generated through the water bills. The debt service taxes are to pay off all the bonds that have been issued for Developers and the new construction projects (like the new sewage treatment plant, the new water plant in Brunswick Meadows, and yes, that ridiculously expensive Adminstration Building). Here's the facts for the tax rate for 2012.
We need to set a debt service rate of $1.26 (last year's rate was $1) and reduce the O&M tax rate to 24 cents (last year's was 39 cents) for a total of $1.50 tax rate - the same rate that was active when Brunswick neighborhoods first started selling houses. The $1.50 tax rate will not raise the amount of dollars that the average taxpayer pays the District, compared to last year, despite the increase of the overall tax rate by 11 cents. How is that possible you ask?
The values of our homes have decreased dramatically over the past 5 years. The average homestead was valued at $107,167 in 2006 and in 2012 it is only $85,070. Therefore, in 2006, when the tax rate was $1.43, the average dollar amount paid in property taxes by homeowners was $1,532 but in 2012 the dollar amount paid will be just $1,276 -- even though the tax rate will be $1.50!
At the $1.50 tax rate, we will be able to afford to issue approximately $4.5 million in bonds to pay the Developer. That is about half of what we owe, but shows good faith on our part. This is why I am in favor of raising the tax rate.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Water Rate Hike - Here's Why I Voted Against It
The Board decided to raise your water bill to a minimum rate of $55 in a 4-1 vote. I was the one that voted 'NO'. The rate order will be executed at the next meeting on October 16, and the 2012 tax rate will be discussed as well. If you care at all about how the finances are handled, this would be the meeting for you to attend and have your voice heard!
Our current water rates are based on a 3 tier system. You get 5000 gallons of water each month for $19.10 and sewer services for $32.45 making the minimum monthly bill $51.55 - if you use more than 5000 gallons of water in the month you pay more. (For 10,000 gallons your minimum bill is $60.80 and for 20,000 gallons it is $87.89) Our current budget is balanced at this $51.55 minimum rate. So why did the Board vote to raise it?
A man, contracted by our governing authority at the state level (TCEQ) did a rate analysis of our district and stated that “every water utility must receive sufficient revenue to ensure proper operation & maintenance (O&M), capital improvements, and preservation of the utility’s financial integrity.”
His recommendation was to increase our water rate to a minimum of $63 to cover both capital improvements and equipment depreciation. The Board opted to include capital improvements, but leave the equipment depreciation out of the equation, thus arriving at the $55 figure. Sharyn Smalls argued that it was necessary to increase the rates in order to create a reserve of funds for repairs and upkeep of the District's older infrastructure. Well, the District has a brand spanking new sewage treatment plant, paid for out of bonds. It also has a 2nd water plant which will become operational soon in Brunswick Meadows - also paid for out of bonds. The only facility that might need any expensive repairs is the original water plant in Morningside and the pipes servicing that neighborhood.
Isn't it interesting that she is willing to raise everyone's water bill when it benefits Morningside, but states emphatically that taxes shall NOT be raised, which is necessary to pay off our debt for the two capital improvements I mention above AND repaying the developers for the Brunswick Meadows and Brunswick Lakes neighborhoods? Bonds were also used to fund the Administration Building. You know how well that was handled!
Speaking of the Administration Building, another check was issued to Moseley Architect for $15,944.50 in order to redesign the building since all the bids came in way over budget. That makes the total spent on the building $222,990 with $75,039 of that amount paid to Mr. Moseley. Sorry, but I have a very hard time trusting anyone who has squandered that much money to make a 'reserve' fund for the future.
Our current water rates are based on a 3 tier system. You get 5000 gallons of water each month for $19.10 and sewer services for $32.45 making the minimum monthly bill $51.55 - if you use more than 5000 gallons of water in the month you pay more. (For 10,000 gallons your minimum bill is $60.80 and for 20,000 gallons it is $87.89) Our current budget is balanced at this $51.55 minimum rate. So why did the Board vote to raise it?
A man, contracted by our governing authority at the state level (TCEQ) did a rate analysis of our district and stated that “every water utility must receive sufficient revenue to ensure proper operation & maintenance (O&M), capital improvements, and preservation of the utility’s financial integrity.”
His recommendation was to increase our water rate to a minimum of $63 to cover both capital improvements and equipment depreciation. The Board opted to include capital improvements, but leave the equipment depreciation out of the equation, thus arriving at the $55 figure. Sharyn Smalls argued that it was necessary to increase the rates in order to create a reserve of funds for repairs and upkeep of the District's older infrastructure. Well, the District has a brand spanking new sewage treatment plant, paid for out of bonds. It also has a 2nd water plant which will become operational soon in Brunswick Meadows - also paid for out of bonds. The only facility that might need any expensive repairs is the original water plant in Morningside and the pipes servicing that neighborhood.
Isn't it interesting that she is willing to raise everyone's water bill when it benefits Morningside, but states emphatically that taxes shall NOT be raised, which is necessary to pay off our debt for the two capital improvements I mention above AND repaying the developers for the Brunswick Meadows and Brunswick Lakes neighborhoods? Bonds were also used to fund the Administration Building. You know how well that was handled!
Speaking of the Administration Building, another check was issued to Moseley Architect for $15,944.50 in order to redesign the building since all the bids came in way over budget. That makes the total spent on the building $222,990 with $75,039 of that amount paid to Mr. Moseley. Sorry, but I have a very hard time trusting anyone who has squandered that much money to make a 'reserve' fund for the future.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Election Information - NOTE: NEW POLLING PLACE
Only voters who are registered to vote within WCID#89 (Brunswick Meadows, Brunwick Lakes, Brunswick Place, or Morningside Place neighborhoods) will be allowed to vote in the District's Board election. If your voter registration card has any other address, even if it is in within Harris County, please IMMEDIATELY e-mail tax_voters@hctx.net or call the Voter Registration Department at 713-368-VOTE (8683) to request an application by mail.
If you wait to vote until 11/6/12, you will need to go to Christa Adair Park on Cullen, south of the Beltway. You may choose to take advantage of the early voting opportunity, which starts October 22, 2012. Here are a few places nearby where you can vote early.
Palm Center: JP/Constable Entry 5300 Griggs Road, 77021
Astrodome Area: Fiesta Mart, Inc. 8130 Kirby Drive, 77054
Hiram Clarke Multi-Service Center 3810 W. Fuqua, 77045
Early voting hours are:
October 22 to October 26 from 8AM-4:30PM
October 27 from 7AM-7PM
October 28 from 1PM-6PM
October 29 to November 2 from 7AM-7PM
WCID #89 is governed by 5 Board members who serve
4 year terms of office. Three Board members, Sharyn Smalls, Arthur G.
Washington, and Byron Watson, all live in Morningside Place and their terms of office expire on 11/6/12 - the day of the presidential election. AK
Babers and Jeraine Root from Brunswick Meadows also serve on the Board, but
their terms of office do not expire until November 2014.
Elections for the WCID#89 Board are only held when an incumbent has a
challenger petition to be on the ballot. Four challengers have emerged for the
three seats: Victoria Lastee (resident of Morningside Place and former member
of the Board who was defeated in the 2010 election by AK and Jeraine) and three
residents of the Brunswick neighborhoods. They are Karri Garza and Charles "CG" Johnson from Brunswick
Meadows, and Mike Smith from Brunswick Lakes. The candidates who receive
the most votes will win the positions - there is no runoff.
The WCID#89 place on the ballot is the VERY LAST
PAGE, past all the propositions. You will be allowed to vote for up to three
candidates, but not more than three. Here’s what it will look like, in this
exact order:
Harris County W.C.I.D. No. 89
Directors
Vote for None, 1, 2 or 3
□
Karri
Garza
□
Sharyn
Smalls
□
Michael
Clancy Smith
□
Victoria
D. Lastee
□
Byron
Keith Watson, Sr.
□
Charles
"C.G." Johnson
□
Arthur
Washington
As you can see, there is no indication of who the incumbents are, or in which neighborhood each candidate resides. If you choose to vote a 'straight party' ticket (all Democrats or all Republicans) the machine will immediately move you to the propositions portion of the ballot. After voting on these, you will need to click "NEXT" to move you to the WCID#89 ballot. When you review your ballot, please be sure to see that you have voted in the WCID#89 election before hitting "SUBMIT".
Friday, September 14, 2012
Come Meet WCID#89 Candidates
Brunswick Lakes is hosting a residential HOA meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 18 at New Beginning Church (4251 Schurmier Rd.) Although National Night Out will be the leading topic at this meeting, they are inviting all candidates running for election or re-election for MUD 89 Board seats to speak.
Don't miss this opportunity to meet the candidates!
Don't miss this opportunity to meet the candidates!
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
LPAA - An Example of Mismanagement
On December 10, 2010 just 7 months after AK and I were elected to the Board, Arthur Washington joined us in voting for a Limited Purpose Annexation Agreement (LPAA) with the City of Houston. It was the only real victory for me and AK in the 2+ years we've served on the Board. Why did we want an LPAA?
It is a way to increase revenue streams into the District's funds. We would get 50% of the 1% sales tax revenue that Houston charges businesses that are within our District. The down side, depending on your viewpoint, would be having to abide by Houston ordinances (for example, no fireworks) and that full annexation would not be allowed for a period of 30 years. But honestly, Houston is not likely to want to annex us while we are carrying so much debt.
Well, time passed, and last year we had the first opportunity to get an LPAA. The lawyer and engineer did the prep work for the application. Then the lawyer found out that an open meeting was required within the district boundaries. Instead of bringing this to the attention of the Board, he contacted Sharyn Smalls and she told him that there was no facility to hold such a meeting. So the attempt was abandoned. Now, Sharyn and Byron Watson were in the minority on this particular vote. Yet Sharyn, using her power as President, simply did away with the LPAA on a technicality, instead of trying to find a public venue within the district.
Note: We have held open meetings at the Water Treatment Plant in the past. We also could easily have requested the clubhouse at the Alta Cullen apartments for this meeting. None of that was even considered, apparently.
When it was announced at a subsequent meeting that the LPAA didn't go forward because of Sharyn's decision, I was upset. But knowing that we'd have another opportunity to apply in a year, I decided to just hold my tongue. The opportunity arose again four months ago. This time Arthur voted with Sharyn and Byron and the LPAA opportunity was defeated.
At the San Antonio conference, I attended a seminar on district funds and learned that LPAA's are welcome additions to funding streams. Free money! I also had an opportunity to talk with our tax attorney, who was also at the conference, about the Board's decision to not pursue this funding stream. She was shocked and asked why we'd decided not to go for the free money. I said that the only reason given was Sharyn thinking that it would cost more to track than it was worth to collect. I had even volunteered to track the money at no cost to the District, which was dismissed immediately by those in the majority. I asked her if she could let us know how much money we might get from the LPAA and she said that she'd be happy to run the numbers.
On August 21st, I requested that we put an agenda item regarding that information on a future agenda. Sharyn and Byron protested that I had gone way beyond my authority to instruct a contracted vendor to do research without the Board's approval. So, the information that she had already gathered was never to be presented to the Board. I think that's wrong.
I continued to ask the tax collector for the information and she sent me this reply:
The businesses she mentions on Cullen & Beltway 8 are the now empty strip center called Y Shops. The ones now in business include the Jack in the Box, Sonic, Valero, Exxon, and Fireworks. Let's assume that the addition of the Y Shops would double the potential sales tax. $4000/month would nearly cover the cost of an additional Constable Deputy to patrol our district!
What can you do to rectify this situation? GO VOTE ON 11/6! Be sure to start by going to the bottom of the ballot and locating WCID#89 candidates. The 3 who are challenging the incumbents from Brunswick neighborhoods include Karri Garza, CG Johnson, and Mike Smith. You will be allowed to vote for all three.
It is a way to increase revenue streams into the District's funds. We would get 50% of the 1% sales tax revenue that Houston charges businesses that are within our District. The down side, depending on your viewpoint, would be having to abide by Houston ordinances (for example, no fireworks) and that full annexation would not be allowed for a period of 30 years. But honestly, Houston is not likely to want to annex us while we are carrying so much debt.
Well, time passed, and last year we had the first opportunity to get an LPAA. The lawyer and engineer did the prep work for the application. Then the lawyer found out that an open meeting was required within the district boundaries. Instead of bringing this to the attention of the Board, he contacted Sharyn Smalls and she told him that there was no facility to hold such a meeting. So the attempt was abandoned. Now, Sharyn and Byron Watson were in the minority on this particular vote. Yet Sharyn, using her power as President, simply did away with the LPAA on a technicality, instead of trying to find a public venue within the district.
Note: We have held open meetings at the Water Treatment Plant in the past. We also could easily have requested the clubhouse at the Alta Cullen apartments for this meeting. None of that was even considered, apparently.
When it was announced at a subsequent meeting that the LPAA didn't go forward because of Sharyn's decision, I was upset. But knowing that we'd have another opportunity to apply in a year, I decided to just hold my tongue. The opportunity arose again four months ago. This time Arthur voted with Sharyn and Byron and the LPAA opportunity was defeated.
At the San Antonio conference, I attended a seminar on district funds and learned that LPAA's are welcome additions to funding streams. Free money! I also had an opportunity to talk with our tax attorney, who was also at the conference, about the Board's decision to not pursue this funding stream. She was shocked and asked why we'd decided not to go for the free money. I said that the only reason given was Sharyn thinking that it would cost more to track than it was worth to collect. I had even volunteered to track the money at no cost to the District, which was dismissed immediately by those in the majority. I asked her if she could let us know how much money we might get from the LPAA and she said that she'd be happy to run the numbers.
On August 21st, I requested that we put an agenda item regarding that information on a future agenda. Sharyn and Byron protested that I had gone way beyond my authority to instruct a contracted vendor to do research without the Board's approval. So, the information that she had already gathered was never to be presented to the Board. I think that's wrong.
I continued to ask the tax collector for the information and she sent me this reply:
I
have found that HC WCID 89 does have 5 businesses that would charge sales tax. I
also believe there are more businesses going in at Cullen & Beltway 8. A
District must have 4 to enter into an LPAA with the City of Houston. I
was told that based on these 5 businesses, the district could receive approx
$2,000 per month in sales tax. This is STRICTLY an estimate since we have not
been given permission by the Board to really put some time into this to
charge for the research.
If this whole matter were to move forward, after
approval , the District’s attorney and engineer would get the agreement drafted
to send to the city and after about 6 months the district would see revenue. At
this time the Board would decide to hire SRI, Inc to track this revenue and to
make sure the businesses were paying and that the State Comptroller has them on
file and transferring all funds to the district ‘s bookkeeper. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
The businesses she mentions on Cullen & Beltway 8 are the now empty strip center called Y Shops. The ones now in business include the Jack in the Box, Sonic, Valero, Exxon, and Fireworks. Let's assume that the addition of the Y Shops would double the potential sales tax. $4000/month would nearly cover the cost of an additional Constable Deputy to patrol our district!
What can you do to rectify this situation? GO VOTE ON 11/6! Be sure to start by going to the bottom of the ballot and locating WCID#89 candidates. The 3 who are challenging the incumbents from Brunswick neighborhoods include Karri Garza, CG Johnson, and Mike Smith. You will be allowed to vote for all three.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Fees of Office and Expense Reimbursements
At the last meeting we were presented with the annual audit of the District's finances. Thought I would share one page with you, that reflects the amount of money the Board members were given for both Fees of Office and expense reimbursements. Fees of Office are the amounts actually paid to a Director during the District's fiscal year (April 1, 2011-March 31, 2012) for attending to District business. Example: Attending a regular Board meeting = $150.
According to the Texas Water Code, section 49.060, the limit on Fees of Office that a Director may receive during a fiscal year is $7200. The Board could choose to cap it at less than that amount by resolution, but the maximum allowed by law is $7200. On July 19, 2005 the WCID#89 Board passed a resolution to allow the maximum permitted by law.
So, what was the amount given to each Director for the past fiscal year? The first figure is for Fees of Office, the second for expense reimbursements, and the final number is the total amount.
Sharyn Smalls $6450 $3439 $9889
Arthur Washington $5550 $3018 $8568
Byron Watson $5100 $2623 $7723
AK Babers $4650 $2554 $7204
Jeraine Root $3000 $ 209 $3209
WCID#89 holds two regular Board meetings each month, so 24 times $150 = $3600. Directors also receive Fees of Office for the days that they spend attending conferences or other educational seminars, and for tending to the business of the District.
As you recall from a previous post, I had major surgery in the summer of 2011 and had to miss a few regular Board meetings. My expense reimbursement was much less than the others because I did not attend the 2011 AWBD Summer Conference in Ft. Worth nor the Mid-Winter Conference in Dallas. We do receive mileage reimbursements for travel to/from regular meetings.
According to the Texas Water Code, section 49.060, the limit on Fees of Office that a Director may receive during a fiscal year is $7200. The Board could choose to cap it at less than that amount by resolution, but the maximum allowed by law is $7200. On July 19, 2005 the WCID#89 Board passed a resolution to allow the maximum permitted by law.
So, what was the amount given to each Director for the past fiscal year? The first figure is for Fees of Office, the second for expense reimbursements, and the final number is the total amount.
Sharyn Smalls $6450 $3439 $9889
Arthur Washington $5550 $3018 $8568
Byron Watson $5100 $2623 $7723
AK Babers $4650 $2554 $7204
Jeraine Root $3000 $ 209 $3209
WCID#89 holds two regular Board meetings each month, so 24 times $150 = $3600. Directors also receive Fees of Office for the days that they spend attending conferences or other educational seminars, and for tending to the business of the District.
As you recall from a previous post, I had major surgery in the summer of 2011 and had to miss a few regular Board meetings. My expense reimbursement was much less than the others because I did not attend the 2011 AWBD Summer Conference in Ft. Worth nor the Mid-Winter Conference in Dallas. We do receive mileage reimbursements for travel to/from regular meetings.
Monday, August 6, 2012
District Building Update
Only the District residents can make sure that integrity,
accountability, and transparency be reflected in all the Board’s dealings. This can be accomplished by going to the
polls on November 6, 2012 and voting for candidates who put the community’s
interests above their own. Will you go vote?
As you may recall, the special meeting that was held on the bids for the District Building brought many things to light for the first
time. Secrets of the Administration Building Revealed. At the end of that
meeting, I joined the Building Committee and promised to keep an eye on how the money was being spent and make everything about
the District Building Project more transparent. A few days after that meeting,
I called the engineer to find out what the $145,476 had been spent on and
asked why they had used an unlicensed architect.
He told me that most of the money had been for the
permitting, plans, necessary soil studies to get the permits (which were used in the bids put out by our current architect, Mr. Moseley)
basically everything that was needed to bid out the job, and they were ready to
roll in 2009. His story about the unlicensed architect was quite a bit
different than the one that Sharyn Smalls relayed at that meeting. Since I wasn’t
on the Board when all this happened, I figured it was a “he said/she said”
situation and decided to just let it be water under the bridge. I then asked
him for Mr. Moseley’s contact information. All he had was the phone number,
which I called and left a voice mail informing Mr. Moseley that I was on the
Committee. He never returned my call.
Chris, our attorney, then provided me with the original
contract between the District and Moseley's firm, along with the plans from the 2009
project. Not much has changed from those original plans. Chris gave me Mr.
Moseley’s e-mail, so I sent him the same message I’d left on his voice mail with a cc: to Sharyn Smalls. I
informed him that I was now on the Committee, and asked that any information regarding the District Building be
shared with me. No reply.
The next week we had our regular monthly meeting and the
engineer asked if anyone had questions about what went on at the special
meeting. I didn’t ask any, and neither did anyone else on the Board. At the
very end of this meeting, Sharyn Smalls announced that I was no longer on the
Building Committee because Arthur Washington had changed his mind about
stepping down. This caught me totally off guard, and I protested that I did not
want to be kicked off the Committee. Argument ensued, but I prevailed. Sharyn made
it clear that as Chair of the Committee, she would be the sole contact with Mr.
Moseley. I asked her if that was why he had not responded to my voice mail and
e-mail. She said that there was no reason for him to contact me.
I sent another e-mail a week later asking Moseley to send me
an update on his progress since the special meeting. No reply. The following week there was an agenda item about the District Building
I appealed to Chris, as our attorney, to intercede and tell
Mr. Moseley that he would have to answer questions from ANY Board member. After
all, the contract was between the District and the Moseley Architectural firm,
NOT just between Mr. Moseley and Sharyn Smalls. Chris suggested that we move
into Executive Session to discuss this problem.
By moving into Executive Session, which is just the Board
Members and the attorney, nothing we say is subject to the Open Records Act. In
other words, all discussions in Executive Session are off the record. It’s like
going to Vegas. What happens there, stays there. So, I can’t tell you what
happened. Suffice it to say, I was so upset that I walked out of the Executive Session
and left the building.
I was told that when the Board Members returned to the
meeting, a motion was made by Byron Watson to allow all Members access to all
District contracted vendors, and that it passed. But why, I ask you, would such
a motion even be necessary???????????????????????????????????????
Sharyn Smalls has often stated that I am “too new” on the
Board to really understand the business of the District. That she has been
there for many years and knows how to deal with the issues. My response? Sharyn
Smalls has been in power too long. Please read the first paragraph of this
posting again.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Karri Garza - Candidate for Board of Directors
Feel free to post comments/ask questions for this candidate. When the other candidates return their forms I will post them as well.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
3 Directors Take $900 Each of District Funds
At today's meeting, Directors Byron Watson and Arthur Washington were issued $900 checks as advances for reimbursable expenses to attend the 2012 Public Drinking Water Conference which will be held in Austin on August 7-8. President Sharyn Smalls requested a $900 check also be issued to her for the same conference. I was issued a $500 check as an advance. Why the $400 difference between my advance and the ones given to these Directors? (FYI - AK Babers has opted not to attend this Conference.)
First, let me refer to an earlier post on this blog dated December 7, 2010 which explains what I consider to be unreasonable reimbursements for conference-related expenses that members of the Board have made in the past, and my attempt to get a more responsible Travel Expenditure Policy adopted for the District. That attempt was rejected by the Board and in its place this policy was adopted.
Shortly after this policy was adopted, all the Directors attended the Association of Water Board Directors' Mid Winter Conference in Galveston the weekend of February 4, 2011. I was unable to get a room at the Moody Gardens hotel at the conference rate. I arranged to get other accommodations at about the same conference rate, which was approved for reimbursement by the Board. You can request a copy of the reimbursement records for this conference on each Director by asking for an "Open Records Request" from the District's Attorney, Chris Richardson, via e-mail Chris@srlegal.com
None of us was able to get a room at the Double Tree Hotel, where the upcoming Public Drinking Water Conference is being held, at the conference rate of $85/night. Once again, I arranged to get a hotel room nearby, which if one night's deposit was made in advance, could be had for a rate of $89/night. I sent this information to the other Board members via e-mail on 6/26/12.
Director Washington opted to reserve a room at the Double Tree for nearly twice the conference rate at $161/night and stated that figured into his request for the $900 advance. Director Watson reserved a room at the Marriott Courtyard for what he claimed was "about $100/night". When I questioned why he required a $900 advance since his room rate was much lower, he stated "Because I want it." President Sharyn Smalls gave no reason as to why she wanted $900 as an advance.
My request for $500 was based on the hotel cost for a 2-night stay (I have already paid $102.35 as the deposit as you can see from my online bank account record below:
$200 for a rental car (if you read the post I referenced above you'll know why I'm renting a car rather than taking my own) and about $100 for food since the Conference was not providing anything but refreshments. Note: We will also be paid $150/day as "fees of office" for attending the Conference. No one mentioned their request for $900 including these additional fees.
I encourage you to write a letter addressed to each of these members of the Board demanding an accounting for their appropriation of District funds in the amount of $900 as an advance for this Conference. You can mail these letters to:
Board of Directors c/o Strawn & Richardson, P.C.
6750 West Loop South, Suite 250
Bellaire, TX 77401-4111
OR e-mail your demand that these Board Members be accountable for their $900 advances to directors@wcid89.org.
If YOU don't hold them accountable, no one will!
First, let me refer to an earlier post on this blog dated December 7, 2010 which explains what I consider to be unreasonable reimbursements for conference-related expenses that members of the Board have made in the past, and my attempt to get a more responsible Travel Expenditure Policy adopted for the District. That attempt was rejected by the Board and in its place this policy was adopted.
Shortly after this policy was adopted, all the Directors attended the Association of Water Board Directors' Mid Winter Conference in Galveston the weekend of February 4, 2011. I was unable to get a room at the Moody Gardens hotel at the conference rate. I arranged to get other accommodations at about the same conference rate, which was approved for reimbursement by the Board. You can request a copy of the reimbursement records for this conference on each Director by asking for an "Open Records Request" from the District's Attorney, Chris Richardson, via e-mail Chris@srlegal.com
None of us was able to get a room at the Double Tree Hotel, where the upcoming Public Drinking Water Conference is being held, at the conference rate of $85/night. Once again, I arranged to get a hotel room nearby, which if one night's deposit was made in advance, could be had for a rate of $89/night. I sent this information to the other Board members via e-mail on 6/26/12.
Director Washington opted to reserve a room at the Double Tree for nearly twice the conference rate at $161/night and stated that figured into his request for the $900 advance. Director Watson reserved a room at the Marriott Courtyard for what he claimed was "about $100/night". When I questioned why he required a $900 advance since his room rate was much lower, he stated "Because I want it." President Sharyn Smalls gave no reason as to why she wanted $900 as an advance.
My request for $500 was based on the hotel cost for a 2-night stay (I have already paid $102.35 as the deposit as you can see from my online bank account record below:
| 6/27/12 | CHECK CRD PURCHASE 06/25 HABITAT SUITES HOTEL AUSTIN TX | $102.35) |
|---|
I encourage you to write a letter addressed to each of these members of the Board demanding an accounting for their appropriation of District funds in the amount of $900 as an advance for this Conference. You can mail these letters to:
Board of Directors c/o Strawn & Richardson, P.C.
6750 West Loop South, Suite 250
Bellaire, TX 77401-4111
OR e-mail your demand that these Board Members be accountable for their $900 advances to directors@wcid89.org.
If YOU don't hold them accountable, no one will!
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Secrets of the Administration Building Revealed!
Mr. Moseley, the architect, revealed that 4 construction companies had placed bids in response to his advertisement for the WCID #89 Administration Building. All four bids were over the amount budgeted, so the decision was made to revise the specifications for the building and request new bids. If you want to know what all was requested in the original posting, please click here. It also includes documents referring to the soil and groundwater conditions of the building site, which was also discussed at the special meeting on 6/26/12 -- apparently there are some additional costs anticipated due to these conditions.
Target Design and Management had the lowest bid which they have posted on their website, and you can view Teal Construction's bid info online here. The other two construction companies offering bids were Bass Construction and Comex Construction. Teal Construction's online documents include information about the left turn lane, which is being required by Harris County to get construction permits. Apparently the County doesn't want to impede traffic on Fellows Road to their Tom Bass Park, so they are requiring a left turn lane be created to enter the Administration Building. Mr. Moseley indicated the cost of that would be approximately $75,000 in addition to the cost of the building itself.
I asked if there would be a need for the left turn lane if the site of the building were inside a neighborhood rather than on Fellows Road. He did not know. I also asked what types of accommodations would have to be made for the soil conditions. He said that it would require some additional expense, but he wasn't sure exactly how much or how it would be addressed.
Before this meeting I had requested the bookkeeper give a full accounting of expenses related to the Administration Building. Bottom line, $207,054 has been spent from February 2008 to the present date. $59,094 has been paid to Mr. Moseley.
Sharyn Smalls suggested that I list all the tasks/duties that go into designing, planning, and conducting the bid process when I posted this information. I attempted to do so, but I can't really say based on Google searches. I was, however, able to find the links that I have put into this posting on the bid information, Target Design, Teal Construction, and Bass Construction from my research attempts.
I invite Sharyn to comment on this posting to detail what we have received for the $59,094 spent. There was also a $2484 payment made to Frank Clements for professional design services. I'm not sure who he is, but I have in my notes that his work was primarily for the kitchen design.
In addition to the architects, A&S Engineers (which is the District's engineering firm and recipient of most of the money) Rekha Engineering, and Centertex Constructors have been paid $145,476. When I requested what those payments were for, no one had an explanation.
I have asked repeatedly for information about the Administration Building ever since I was elected to the Board in May 2010. Most of my requests have been answered with vague comments about it still being "in progress". In November 2010, Mr. Moseley did come to one of our Board meetings and showed us the building plans. Sharyn then took those plans to a Brunswick Lakes HOA meeting and answered questions.
As I continued to question why so much money had been spent on the Administration Building, with only a sign that says "Future Site of WCID #89 Administration Building" to show for it, Sharyn revealed the history of how Joe Fogarty, original developer of Brunswick Meadows, requested that the land on which Brunswick Meadows now stands be annexed to the District. As part of the original annexation agreement, he was responsible for constructing the Administration Building, which would be funded by a $500 per lot fee. To date, that $500 per lot fee has accounted for $664,480 - so roughly 31% of the money that Brunswick Meadows has contributed to the Administration Building has been spent.
When the Administration Building plans were presented to the Board in 2009, they noted that the seal was different than the architect that had been hired. Questions were asked, and Sharyn stated that it appeared an unlicensed architect had been hired to design the building. She indicated that the Board decided at that time to take over the responsibility for the construction of the Administration Building.
So it would appear that since February 2008, a whole lot of money was spent on something that was not being carefully supervised by the Board of Directors. Since May 2010, when AK Babers and I were elected to the Board, no details on any expenses have been brought to the Board. Sharyn has been a committee of one overseeing the Administration Building, and she stated that Arthur Washington was appointed to it just two weeks ago. I requested that I be put on the committee overseeing the Administration Building, and Arthur agreed to step down to allow me to serve in his place.
I will do my utmost to keep an eye on how the money is being spent, and make the whole Administration Building construction project more transparent to the residents of WCID #89.
Target Design and Management had the lowest bid which they have posted on their website, and you can view Teal Construction's bid info online here. The other two construction companies offering bids were Bass Construction and Comex Construction. Teal Construction's online documents include information about the left turn lane, which is being required by Harris County to get construction permits. Apparently the County doesn't want to impede traffic on Fellows Road to their Tom Bass Park, so they are requiring a left turn lane be created to enter the Administration Building. Mr. Moseley indicated the cost of that would be approximately $75,000 in addition to the cost of the building itself.
I asked if there would be a need for the left turn lane if the site of the building were inside a neighborhood rather than on Fellows Road. He did not know. I also asked what types of accommodations would have to be made for the soil conditions. He said that it would require some additional expense, but he wasn't sure exactly how much or how it would be addressed.
Before this meeting I had requested the bookkeeper give a full accounting of expenses related to the Administration Building. Bottom line, $207,054 has been spent from February 2008 to the present date. $59,094 has been paid to Mr. Moseley.
Sharyn Smalls suggested that I list all the tasks/duties that go into designing, planning, and conducting the bid process when I posted this information. I attempted to do so, but I can't really say based on Google searches. I was, however, able to find the links that I have put into this posting on the bid information, Target Design, Teal Construction, and Bass Construction from my research attempts.
I invite Sharyn to comment on this posting to detail what we have received for the $59,094 spent. There was also a $2484 payment made to Frank Clements for professional design services. I'm not sure who he is, but I have in my notes that his work was primarily for the kitchen design.
In addition to the architects, A&S Engineers (which is the District's engineering firm and recipient of most of the money) Rekha Engineering, and Centertex Constructors have been paid $145,476. When I requested what those payments were for, no one had an explanation.
I have asked repeatedly for information about the Administration Building ever since I was elected to the Board in May 2010. Most of my requests have been answered with vague comments about it still being "in progress". In November 2010, Mr. Moseley did come to one of our Board meetings and showed us the building plans. Sharyn then took those plans to a Brunswick Lakes HOA meeting and answered questions.
As I continued to question why so much money had been spent on the Administration Building, with only a sign that says "Future Site of WCID #89 Administration Building" to show for it, Sharyn revealed the history of how Joe Fogarty, original developer of Brunswick Meadows, requested that the land on which Brunswick Meadows now stands be annexed to the District. As part of the original annexation agreement, he was responsible for constructing the Administration Building, which would be funded by a $500 per lot fee. To date, that $500 per lot fee has accounted for $664,480 - so roughly 31% of the money that Brunswick Meadows has contributed to the Administration Building has been spent.
When the Administration Building plans were presented to the Board in 2009, they noted that the seal was different than the architect that had been hired. Questions were asked, and Sharyn stated that it appeared an unlicensed architect had been hired to design the building. She indicated that the Board decided at that time to take over the responsibility for the construction of the Administration Building.
So it would appear that since February 2008, a whole lot of money was spent on something that was not being carefully supervised by the Board of Directors. Since May 2010, when AK Babers and I were elected to the Board, no details on any expenses have been brought to the Board. Sharyn has been a committee of one overseeing the Administration Building, and she stated that Arthur Washington was appointed to it just two weeks ago. I requested that I be put on the committee overseeing the Administration Building, and Arthur agreed to step down to allow me to serve in his place.
I will do my utmost to keep an eye on how the money is being spent, and make the whole Administration Building construction project more transparent to the residents of WCID #89.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Special Meeting about the Administration Building on 6/26/12
The Board is holding a special meeting at 11:30AM on Tuesday 6/26/12 to discuss the construction bids for the Administration Building. This is the time to come and hear what this building is all about. Again, the meeting place is the office of Strawn & Richardson in the Frost Bank Building at the corner of Bellaire and the 610 Loop. The physical address is
6750 West Loop South, Suite 250
Bellaire TX 77401
6750 West Loop South, Suite 250
Bellaire TX 77401
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Become Part of the Neighborhood Watch Team
CG Johnson is looking for block captains and other
residents to help patrol the neighborhoods of WCID#89.
If you'd like to parcipate in making our homes and lives more secure, please come to the meeting.
Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 7pm
Harris County Constable Pct.7
5290 Griggs Rd.at the corner of MLK Blvd
Houston Texas 77021
Conference Room
Contact Rev C G Johnson at cgjohnson4@sbcglobal.net for more information.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Homestead Exemption Changes in the Law
Did you know that you are entitled to a break on your tax bill if you claim a homestead exemption? The general residence homestead exemption is granted by both Harris County and by WCID#89, making your overall tax liability much less. To claim a general residence homestead exemption, you must live in the house on the property being taxed. You can also claim homestead exemptions from taxes if you are over 65 years old and if you have certain types of disabilities. If you are a surviving spouse of someone who was receiving or qualified for the over-65 exemption at death, you may be entitled to receive the exemption if you were 55 years of age or older on the date of your spouse's death.
For a disability exemption: 1) You must have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment; 2) The impairment must prevent you from engaging in any substantial gainful activity; and 3) The impairment must be expected to last for at least 12 continuous months or to result in death. Alternatively, you will qualify if you are 55 or older and blind and cannot engage in your previous work because of your blindness.
Certain disabled veterans are eligible for 100% exemptions for their residence homesteads from Harris County. Current documentation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) must be submitted to prove that the veteran receives full VA compensation and is either rated at 100% disabled or has a determination of unemployability from the VA.
Click here to download an application (maybe you moved, or turned 65, or became disabled) you also need to submit:
(1) A copy of your valid Texas driver’s license (or official Texas ID card if you don’t drive)
(2) A copy of your vehicle registration receipt (or a sworn, notarized affidavit that can be found at HCAD.org if you don’t own a car; if you do this, you also have to provide a copy of your current utility bill). To obtain a vehicle registration receipt, take $2 to an office of the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector and have your license plate or VIN number handy. If you last registered your car at a different address than your current address, just ask the tax clerk to print the receipt showing your current address.
*Note: The addresses on all of this paperwork must match the address on which you’re trying to claim the homestead exemption. This is the step intended to prevent fraud. In the past, some crafty hucksters were able to avoid detection by toying with how they listed their addresses and names. John Doe might also show up as John H. Doe, J.H. Doe, J. Henry Doe or Henry Doe to skip his full tax bill on multiple properties.
People can get their driver’s license updated by visiting the Department of Public Safety online here and paying an $11 fee for a new card.
For a disability exemption: 1) You must have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment; 2) The impairment must prevent you from engaging in any substantial gainful activity; and 3) The impairment must be expected to last for at least 12 continuous months or to result in death. Alternatively, you will qualify if you are 55 or older and blind and cannot engage in your previous work because of your blindness.
Certain disabled veterans are eligible for 100% exemptions for their residence homesteads from Harris County. Current documentation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) must be submitted to prove that the veteran receives full VA compensation and is either rated at 100% disabled or has a determination of unemployability from the VA.
Click here to download an application (maybe you moved, or turned 65, or became disabled) you also need to submit:
(1) A copy of your valid Texas driver’s license (or official Texas ID card if you don’t drive)
(2) A copy of your vehicle registration receipt (or a sworn, notarized affidavit that can be found at HCAD.org if you don’t own a car; if you do this, you also have to provide a copy of your current utility bill). To obtain a vehicle registration receipt, take $2 to an office of the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector and have your license plate or VIN number handy. If you last registered your car at a different address than your current address, just ask the tax clerk to print the receipt showing your current address.
*Note: The addresses on all of this paperwork must match the address on which you’re trying to claim the homestead exemption. This is the step intended to prevent fraud. In the past, some crafty hucksters were able to avoid detection by toying with how they listed their addresses and names. John Doe might also show up as John H. Doe, J.H. Doe, J. Henry Doe or Henry Doe to skip his full tax bill on multiple properties.
People can get their driver’s license updated by visiting the Department of Public Safety online here and paying an $11 fee for a new card.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Security Reports from Constable & the Safety Meeting
Brunswick Lakes hosted a security meeting at the New Beginnings Church on May 1st that was well attended and very informative. Sgt. Basralian from the Constable's office answered questions and gave out details on suspicious vehicles in the neighborhood. You can look at all the security reports that are given to the Board by clicking here.
There was also a presentation by Ron Daniels on the Ultimate Lock for your doors. He can be reached at:
713-266-1400
713-875-8370
The lock costs $175 at Lowes (Lowes.com has the lock for $173 and HomeDepot.com for $199) and Ron Daniels will install it for $70 for the first lock and $60 for the second. Plus he will key them to the same key for free (usually a $27.50 fee per lock). Just let him know what community you are in (Brunswick Lakes, Brunswick Meadows, Brunswick Place, or Morningside) when you call.
C. G. Johnson and Mike Smith also announced their candidacy for the Board. The election will be a part of the general election on November 6, 2012 and future postings on this blog will feature candidate profiles.
There was also a presentation by Ron Daniels on the Ultimate Lock for your doors. He can be reached at:
713-266-1400
713-875-8370
The lock costs $175 at Lowes (Lowes.com has the lock for $173 and HomeDepot.com for $199) and Ron Daniels will install it for $70 for the first lock and $60 for the second. Plus he will key them to the same key for free (usually a $27.50 fee per lock). Just let him know what community you are in (Brunswick Lakes, Brunswick Meadows, Brunswick Place, or Morningside) when you call.
C. G. Johnson and Mike Smith also announced their candidacy for the Board. The election will be a part of the general election on November 6, 2012 and future postings on this blog will feature candidate profiles.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Response to E-mail (Part 2)
As for your post on September 22, 2011 on the tax rates remaining the same, you mention that nearly everyone's house value has gone down. HCAD tells us our house went up in 2009 but has remained the same in 2010 and 2011. Has other's in the Brunswick area gone down (without contesting)? With a larger base and I would expect a smaller per-household district expense, I would have expected the rate to decrease. Your explanation of how it really works is great - it's never as simple as it looks! Did the other three board members mention why they voted against it?
I posted about this before being elected to the Board, in part. Click here.
But since joining the Board I have more insight as to why the other three Board members are so opposed to ever raising taxes. Originally, the District served only Morningside Place and the debt they incurred was resulting in crushing tax rates for their small neighborhood. They were facing tax rates of nearly 2% of their home values.
Developers came to them offering to build Morningside Place 2 and the Brunswick neighborhoods to reduce their tax burden. They jumped at the chance. And their tax rates did fall. But apparently promises made by the developers were overstated and there were many conflicts between the Board members and the developers. Then the economic downturn made the house values fall, which reduced the amount of taxes being collected. But the debt had already been incurred for the new developments and to building the new waste water treatment plant on Fellowes Road as well as the new water well being drilled on Furman. That debt must be paid off and the majority of our taxes goes toward that debt relief.
In my humble opinion, the 3 members of the Board from Morningside feel that they were lied to about the tax relief promised and are reluctant to raise tax rates as a result.
Do the bonds end up costing home owners at least as much as raising the tax rate? Does it make sense that after the whole area has been bonded and built out (streets, lights, sidewalks, etc) then we would not need additional bonds and therefore with an even larger base to tax the rate would drop significantly? Or is it typical for a MUD to need to raise additional funds or have a huge debt and therefore need to raise rates further at this point?
The bonds are the way the District borrows money to build the infrastructure (new waste water treatment plant and new well) and repay the developers for the infrastructure that they build (streets, sidewalks, detention ponds, lights, etc.) The taxes pay off the debt and the tax rate fluctuates depending on the need for money to repay the debt. When the need for additional bonds ends, the need to pay off the debt remains. So it is possible that the tax rate may increase or decrease in the future. Much has to do with the appraisals of the values of homes in the District, which is of course dependent on the state of the economy.
It is mysterious to me as to why we need MUDs in the first place. I understand Texas may be the only state with MUDs so as an out-of-stater I have a lot of learning to do!
A brief history of MUDs in Texas:
1925-1971 - The legislature authorized the creation of a group of regulatory agencies and the creation of a variety of types of water districts. A triad, consisting of the Texas Water Rights Commission (TWRC), Texas Water Quality Board (TWQB), and The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), slowly evolved into The Texas Water Commission. The general laws now provide for 13 different types of water districts.
1971 - The legislature passed the Municipal Utility District Act that added Chapter 54 to the Texas water Code. The Act was modernized and streamlined piece of legislation governing a specific type of district - municipal utility district - which, under supervision of the Texas Water Commission, is designed to be used in conjunction with urban lands.
1993 - A group of regulatory agencies, consisting of the Texas Water Commission, The Texas Air Control Board and The Texas Health Department, were combined and reorganized to form The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) with supervisory jurisdiction over all types of utility districts, including MUDs.
1995 - Chapter 49 was added to the Texas Water Code to provide a common set of laws and procedures governing all types of special water districts. Most, but not all, of Chapter 54 of the Texas Water Code was repealed, but selected portions of Chapter 54 relating specifically to municipal utility districts are still in effect. The result is that both Chapters 49 and 54 of the Texas water Code govern municipal utility districts.
WCID#89 started in the 1960s and after the 1971 law, changed to a MUD, but kept the Water Control & Improvement District (WCID) name.
Are MUDs inherently more efficient than what every other state does? If our MUD taxes are used to pay for infrastructure, why are our water bills five times more expensive than the city of Houston's? When I lived in the Heights in 2009, 2,000 gallons was less than $10. It's almost $50 here. That's a difference of about $500/year. That's on top of a property tax rate of 0.75% more (about $600/year per $100,000 house value after homestead exemption). Tell me again what the long-term benefit is of living in an expensive MUD?
Having been a Texan all my life I can't really speak to the efficiency aspect compared to other states. MUDs are more prevalent in Harris County than anywhere else in the state. They were designed to allow developers more power and control over the neighborhoods that they built outside city limits. And any time the Texas Legislature can reduce governmental control and increase power of private enterprise, they'll do it.
One of the selling points by the developers is avoiding city taxes and laws. That's why we can shoot off fireworks when those who live north of Almeda Genoa can't because they are in the city of Houston. Developers also claim that they can build better infrastructure because they are willing to put the money up front and be repaid rather than wait on the city to raise the money.
On the other hand, we don't get city services like trash pick up and police protection, which is why we have to rely on Harris County Sheriff, unless we contract for our own services, and why we pay Waste Management to pick up the garbage. Those services are paid out of the operation budget and come from the maintenance taxes - not the debt portion of the taxes.
By law we have to buy 80% of our water from the city of Houston, so whenever they raise their rates, we pass that extra cost on to the residents. The water bills don't have anything to do with the taxes to pay for the infrastructure. You must remember that the property tax rates are based on the appraisals of the home values and the size of the jurisdiction. Houston can afford lower tax rates and lower water bills because they have millions of homes and taxpayers to share the responsibility. We have only about 2000 sharing the tax burden.
Long term benefit to being in a MUD? None I'm aware of. Only three ways out of the situation.
- Move out of the MUD.
- Have MUD expand when the debt burden gets too crushing.
- Get annexed by a local city.
Response to E-mail (Part 1)
I recently received the following e-mail and would like to address each section.
I appreciate you being on the board and keeping us all informed about interesting topics. There appears to be a constant "us vs them" or "new vs old" disagreement going on. It's also curious why your questions are not always returned with straightforward answers. I hope it doesn't discourage you - it might discourage me!
Truth be told, I do get discouraged serving on this Board because of the 'us v them' disagreements and the lack of simple civility in the meetings. The 'us' is me and AK Babers; the 'them' is the three members who are all up for re-election this year in November - Sharyn Smalls, Byron Watson, and Arthur Washington.
The Board fails to act in a professional manner, with nearly every meeting falling into some sort of petty dispute. And lately, those arguments have not even been related to policy matters. They have been personal attacks on AK.
I had not posted on these matters because, quite frankly, it's embarrassing enough to have to endure them at the meetings. Rehashing them here seemed pointless. However, there was a concerted effort on the part of 'them' to sanitize the minutes of the 11/15/11 meeting regarding the discussion surrounding the vote on the Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) Board. I think it was a grave injustice to AK and he and I both voted against adopting the minutes in their sanitized form. I will speak out on what really happened here.
AK expressed an interest in serving on the HCAD Board and we nominated him for the position. At the 11/15/11 meeting we were presented the ballot of candidates for the HCAD Board. Arthur asked if AK would be able to make the HCAD meetings, considering he was already serving on our Board and had a full-time job. AK said he would.
Sharyn then stated that AK should know more about HCAD and hadn't done any research to show he was a serious candidate. AK objected to her accusation and the fight was on. Sharyn made several unfounded accusations about AK's intentions and his performance on our Board, including inflating the number of absences that AK had at our Board meetings. She also overstated the number of absences that I had. Tempers flared and many harsh words were exchanged. Eventually the motion was made to vote for AK on the HCAD ballot, and it passed 4-1, with Sharyn the only dissenting vote. She then refused to sign the HCAD ballot, which was her duty as President of the Board, but eventually relented.
It was later discovered that her information on the attendance records started as an open records request from a former Board member. Because there is no official record of attendance except for what the minutes of the meeting reflect, Sharyn had instructed our attorney to provide the bookkeeper's payroll records to the former Board member and herself in reply to the request. There was no attempt made to inform me or AK that the request had even been made. She then used that information to blindside AK in the meeting. Needless to say AK had every right to feel that her attempted assault on his character was more than unwarranted, premeditated, and disrespectful.
At the next meeting on 12/5/11, AK asked that the Board's continuous lack of professionalism in the meetings be addressed. He also stated that any open records requests and any responses made should be shared with the entire Board, which the attorney agreed to do.
FYI - I have attended all but 8 of the meetings since elected to the Board. As I stated in previous blog postings, I was laid off in January and had major surgery on June 29th, which interfered with my ability to attend several meetings. The dates/reasons I missed meetings are below:
8/17/10 was on vacation planned way before I was elected to the Board
2/1/11 new job - was in training
2/15/11 new job - was in training
March - made both meetings and tried to get time of meeting changed due to conflict with Commissioners Court meetings, which my new job required me to attend. The Board voted 3-2 to not change the meeting time. AK & I both voted to change it; Arthur, Sharyn, and Byron voted to not change it.
4/5/11 in conflict with work duties - arranged for someone else to cover CC meetings so I could make Board meetings.
6/21/11 work related conference out of state
7/5/11 recovering from major surgery
7/19/11 recovering from major surgery
8/2/11 recovering from major surgery
By the way, I actually like the fact the elections have been moved to November - I like the cost savings and I think we will get a much better response. More people make an effort to go to the polls in November than in May.
I agree that moving the election of Board members to the general ballot in November is more efficient and hopefully will result in better turnout. My only concern is that we will be at the bottom of the ballot and might be skipped as a result.
Two people from Brunswick Meadows have petitioned to be put on the ballot - Karri Garza and CG Johnson. I plan to request information from every candidate, including the incumbents, to post on this blog closer to election time so that everyone can make an informed vote. Now on to the next part of the e-mail....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
