School's Back; Form, Function and Finance

Spring break is over, time to get back to school. By the way, Monday 3/19, the school board agenda kicks off with a presentation of the ethical and legal limits on just how the board can spend our money to “educate” us silly voters into approving the bonds on the table.

The decision to split the bond into two ballot measures was made for one reason only: The board fears the issue in its entirety would fail. I am less than enthusiastic about the extent to which the Long Range Facilities Plan, which includes this bond and the next two, depends on new construction. Still, the elementary construction in May's bond is more justifiable, not to mention affordable, than the megabuck Central loosely envisioned.

The board is counting on the work, and it was a long effort, by the Facilities Advisory Task Force to convince voters the community has been consulted in the planning. I can't help but be reminded of Mark Twain's observation that “a camel was a horse designed by a committee”. I have my doubts whether all options were fully considered.

In recent editorial comments to the Standard-Times, two writers, both prominent members of the community, have referred to the current Central as “ready for the scrap yard” and the other, “pretty” and “park-like”. Hard to believe both are discussing the same physical plant. I am waiting for SAISD to have at least a couple weekends of “open house” at the schools named in the Long Range Plan and let the voters get a first hand look.

An earlier post referenced a brochure [here] we found that bragged on Central as “America's First Ageless, Campus Style High School”. It makes clear the original design was intended for adaptability and with proper maintenance, a long life. It just happens I was watching a story on Philadelphia's misuse of eminent domain this AM. People there were scrapping to the last dime and final legal appeal to stay in buildings so old that my Dad was a gleam in Grandad's eye when they were built. I am familiar with some of the buildings slated for demolition. My opinion, we have an upkeep crisis more than we need new buildings to serve a declining enrollment. Coincidentally, Midland is pushing a bond issue this year [here] at a price tag of $37 million, athletic improvements separated from classrooms. Superintendent Perez says “you are looking at something for the next 50 years”. Midland plans to add to and renovate schools, not tear them down, and Midland has growth and oil money we do not.

One point I made at the Saturday board meeting was that if the high school ballot fails, the board should listen to the voters, fall back, trim down and come up with an issue that might pass in November. A “NO” vote in May will not condemn students to an eternity of poor education. One message we might get across is that the board desperately needs a built-in capital improvement plan, something the city is finally getting going, so that we do not lurch along between bonds, spending too little maintaining what we have until suddenly we the taxpayers are presented with a “crisis”. The May ballot is a fine opportunity for us to pass this message to the board and see how it reacts.

I contest a couple of selling points. One is the grade realignment plan. One of the first times I stood to address a public meeting, Wake County, NC where I was in ninth grade, was considering shifting 9th grade to middle school, which I didn't like then. I have kept an interest in the subject since, and honestly, I don't find a scrap of evidence that tinkering with grade alignment a year's worth about the edges has any demonstrable effect one way or the other. It is a matter of fashion, not academic science. As to spending money for bricks and mortar to implement one alignment over another, put the effort into curriculum and teachers, no building ever taught anyone anything. Well, maybe taught taxpayers that new buildings ain't cheap. It is reported that Socrates made do with a shadetree, though I am not quite old enough to personally vouch for that.

I see no evidence that alternative high school ideas were seriously entertained. The idea of making Central and Lakeview roughly equal sized schools, or the notion of a third southwest high school with three roughly equal sized, smaller student bodies, these possibilities never seem to have been on the radar screen. The phrasing of the SAISD “Bond Awareness Survey” questions makes clear that keeping a single 5A high school was a major priority.

As Frank Lloyd Wright put it, form should follow function, not fashion, and at this level of finance, I fully agree.

Charter Review

The charter review committee had their first meeting on Wednesday, Mar 14th. We're off to a good start

Most of the meeting was devoted to setting meeting ground rules, and looking through the 3" binder of information supplied by Mindy Ward and her legal staff. Lots of good information including charters from other cities, model charters, and information from the Texas Municipal League.

We decided that the meetings will be open, but that comment will not be taken from from the public except when specifically scheduled. We will also be meeting the first and third Wednesday of the month at 8:30 am.

I expect good things from this committee (not just because I am on it.) We plan on being open about the process and what we are doing. We will be seeking public input, but not until we are better prepared to handle it. This will not be a total charter rewrite, but a needed look at what changes should be made. The charter is the fundamental law of the city, its constitution if you will, so changes should not be taken lightly. We want the voters to be confident in the amendments they will vote on. The only agenda is a better San Angelo.

There will be a special E-mail address set up for comments and feedback to the committee, and you can also leave me comments here which I will forward to the rest of the committee.

Ageless?

It's amazing what you discover when you are researching an issue. Here is a handout we found on Central from shortly after it was built. This is their description for "Americas first ageless, campus style high school." How do you think it compares to todays proposal?

THE EVOLUTION OF AN IDEA INTO REALITY

The changing face of American Education is symbolized in the brilliantly new Central High School of San Angelo, Texas. It is a living testimonial to the inspired and progressive thinking of this city's school administrators, Board of Education, and the architects, with the full support of an enthusiastic citizenship.

From the inception of the basic idea to its ultimate development, a completely fresh approach has resulted in the nation's first ageless, campus type high school. Its many educational innovations and distinctive features are summarized here, depicting the evolution of an idea into reality.

In 1954 a soundly planned survey was made, analyzing San Angelo's school building requirements for the immediate future. The results were startling. Because of the growth of the city, and the rapidly increasing birth rate, the survey showed that the secondary school enrollment would almost double in eight to ten years.

Thus, the Board was faced with the problem of providing new high school facilities for an ever increasing enrollment. This meant the erection of a high school adequate for current needs, but with a high degree of flexibility for a continuing increase in the number of pupils. The Board recognized its responsibility to solve this problem at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers, and yet to provide the city with a modem high school that was conducive to the highest possible scholastic standards.

Before reaching any conclusions, the Board and school administrators set out to learn the most advanced thinking in the planning, design and construction of similar schools over the nation. Much research was conducted, and inspection visits to new high schools in other cities were made.

The next step was the selection of a firm of architects with proven imagination and creative ability, and with broad experience in school construction.

Gradually the various phases of the problem began to crystallize, and soon there emerged a preliminary picture of the school you see today.

The school would he centrally located in a park-like area on the hanks of North Concho River; it would be larger than normal; its design would be completely functional, with the elimination of all expensive monumental architectural features; and the plant would be flexible for later expansion as enrollment increased.

In order to combine the known advantages of both small schools and large schools, and to house the students by age groups, permitting a closer relationship between teachers and pupils, a bold decision was reached. The Board decided to build individual schools within the total school plant, resulting in the revolutionary new campus type institution with eleven buildings, each designed for a specific purpose and use. This provides the very definite educational advantage of permitting small units of age-group students to spend about half a day under the supervision of familiar teachers, and the remainder of the day in other buildings designed for elective courses to meet a wide variety of special needs.

The multi-building decision brought many other advantages, of which a notable example is the use of any building at times outside the normal school day without operational expense to the other buildings. Thus, the facilities of the library, science labs, commercial shops, or gymnasium may be used at night without adding operating costs to the other buildings.

Moreover, should the time come when the traditional school day must be expanded into a longer day, or the school used more months a year, or when educational methods require changes, the school plant will be adaptable to all of these and other progressive innovations.

Total air conditioning of the buildings came as a result of a thorough and cautious analysis of all cost factors, and from the experience gained from the operation of another local air-conditioned school. Two basic facts were the significant factors in the decision. Buildings designed for air' 'conditioning are less costly to construct because of the elimination of ventilation windows and other structural details, resulting here in a building cost with air conditioning equipment that was competitive with the cost of traditional buildings. And, through the elimination of dust and dirt by air conditioning, the maintenance costs were decreased by forty to fifty percent, which more than offset the increased cost of the utilities. Moreover, year-'round air conditioning makes the buildings efficiently useful all months of the year, without regard to outside weather or temperature.

Protection of pupils' eyesight through the reduction of eye strain, comes from scientifically designed lighting which provides continuously uniform and glare-proof illumination at all hours of the day or night.

Another facility, one for physical education, which was added without any material increase in cost, is the gymnasium with swimming pool. Water sports are of growing importance, particularly in San Angelo with its rivers and lakes. Instead of the usual two gymnasiums for specialized purposes, a single large one was constructed at a cost which permitted the inclusion of the swimming pool, with its many obvious advantages.

In the type of structures, the architects met the challenge with a completely new approach to the design of school buildings; which resulted in the elimination of expensive ornamental frills; the utilization of many new materials such as glare-proof glass, porcelain and plastics; and other architectural innovations readily apparent to the observer.

The results of these many months of research, planning and building have produced America's first ageless, campus type high school. Its countless educational features can best be summarized by the single statement that it is designed to inspire students with a DESIRE TO LEARN.

In comparison with schools of similar size elsewhere, the cost figures are exceptionally favorable. The building construction cost was $2,604,277 amounting to $12.41 a square foot and $1,042 per pupil. Including furniture, equipment and other related expenditures, the total cost exclusive of the site was $3,042,277, amounting to $14.50 a square foot and $1,217 per pupil.

This, then, is the dramatic achievement of the San Angelo Board of Education and school administrators. The citizens of this city are justifiably proud of the nation's finest school plant - the San Angelo Central High School.

Bonds By Huckabee

A couple of points come to mind on the now two items that will make up our school bond this May. First would be bogus issues as opposed to real ones. SAISD has made mention of the “security” problem with the current Central site, being all spread out in separate buildings. If site security were a real concern, one thing that could be done even at the existing site would be to restrict students coming and going during the school day, at least give such security personnel as we have a perimeter to defend. If that were being done at all, one would not see the lemming-like flood of Central students crossing 8 lanes of traffic at noon to get to the McDonalds across Bryant.

One of the construction sites I work is between the school and the golden arches, and I can tell you without exaggeration, that McDonalds sees hundreds of Central students (not to mention a second wave of younger Edison kids) every noon. Talk about your ultimate pass/fail course, it still strikes me as incredible that an 8x6 lane intersection with regular vehicular accidents is crossed daily by that many students who appear to be simultaneously text messaging, chatting with friends, and indulging in the age-old practice of scoping out members of the opposite sex without being bowled over like unto so many tenpins.

I brought this up a few years ago, and was told Central's cafeteria couldn't accommodate all its students at once. I replied that neither could any school I ever attended, which was why we ate in four shifts over a two hour mid-day period. At that time, Late Dark Ages to be sure, the only students allowed to leave campus for lunch were seniors with both parental approval and a GPA of at least 2.5.

Comments from SAISD backers of the new Central talk about building a more easily securable single building of 520,000 square feet. Well, not quite a single building, we already have an outdoor fieldhouse and a gymnastics building in the proposal that “Athletes Support”. Still, let's assume SAISD is more interested in the 50% of its students who require remedial courses to enter college than in keeping a single 5A football team at whatever expense. Do they really propose to put over 10 acres of floor space in one monolith building?

Here we come to a new question. What exactly do they mean to build? Will it resemble the late and unlamented faith-based prison, a rectangle with open space for the athletic fields surrounded by the building, picture a four sided Pentagon? Memo here: be sure and budget for baseball-proof window glass on the interior walls. Will it be a megolith big box? Maybe we dig out, a la Ethicon, and accomplish security and storm cellar combined in a single stroke. Hard to speculate here, we don't have so much as a back-of-the-envelope sketch of what the board has in mind. Surely they have something in mind, no rational entity, school or corporate would just dump $96 million on an architect and say, “Uh, build us something”.

Huckabee and Assoc. is charged with “selling” this idea what we don't have a clue what it will look like. SAISD has contracted to pay Huckabee $12,500 to “present the facts” to the voters. I use the quotes because Sec. 255.003 Election Code, forbids use of public funds for political advertising, and anything on a ballot is by definition political. Paragraph (b) gives the flexible escape clause of “does not apply to [an ad] that factually describes the purposes of a measure if the [ad] does not advocate passage or defeat of the measure”. The city pushed the envelope on the half-cent sales tax by publishing two inserts in the paper ($30,000) informing voters of the land of milk and honey that tax would lead to, but carefully avoiding the mention of “vote for/vote against”.

Huckabee has been there, done that, I am sure their attorneys know election code and OAG opinions as well as I do. Hint to Huckabee, and yes we know you read us at least twice a day, be careful of the volunteers. Some enthusiastic teacher sends home photocopied “Vote yes or your kids are dummies” letters, you guys are designated by contract as presentation coordinators, could be on the hook. We'll make a deal, we'll publish the address of your website, once you set it up, every time we address this topic, if you will provide a www.conchoinfo.org link on your single issue site and ads referring voters to your site.

Growing Jobs

Jobs. We talk about them a lot. We keep asking questions like "Where are the good paying jobs?", "Why aren't there more jobs?", "What about benefits?" and of course the always popular "What are they going to do about it?"

These questions happen everywhere. I hear them in bars, restaurants, parties, and at this weeks joint City Council / COSADC meeting. Everyone wants more and better jobs.

The joint meeting grew out of the recent denial of a monetary incentive to ACT on a very close vote. There were some questions about communications, and some feelings seemed to have been hurt. The recent meeting was to improve communications and to clarify some guidelines such as how wage thresholds are determined. There are unlikely to be any major changes in how business is done as a result of this meeting. Still, I think we remember a quote from former Mayor Izzard from the Jan 9, 2002 Standard Times: "If our votes were unanimous, it would show a lack of oversight." This quote was after the council approved the Taylor Publishing move to the industrial park by a 5-2 vote. There are frequently differences in philosophy, perspective, and ideas on something as complex as economic growth. Still, it is useful to examine some fundamental ideas.

To expand on an idea from a previous post, lets do a simple thought experiment. If our property tax rate was lowered to that of Odessa, our closest benchmark city, how many $25k jobs would that pay for? With no benefits, it would pay for slightly over 180 jobs, with benefits about 150. Considering how slow our job market is growing, that would be quite a boost. Probably not realistic in the short term (that would take over $4.6 million from the city budget) but as a long term goal, I really like the idea.

There are other ideas and approaches besides incentives and tax cuts that need to be looked at to grow the economy and create jobs. One popular idea is to grow local businesses. Long term, it's probably better to grow businesses with deep local roots. To be fair, we have projects such as the ASU SBDC and the CVCED. These are useful, and there have been some successes. Still, we can probably do better by looking at other successful approaches. One such approach is Economic Gardening. This approach was pioneered by Littleton, Colorado in the late 80's after their largest employer up and left town, taking several thousand jobs with it.

Economic gardening focuses on building a nurturing environment for local growth companies. It recognizes that most jobs are created by fast growing small businesses commonly called gazelles. These innovative, entrepreneurial gazelles are what are grown in a successful economic garden. Articles and information can be found here, here, here, and here that will explain the ideas better than I can. Hopefully we can get someone like Chris Gibbons to come and give us more details.

The idea of Economic Gardening is growing. Loveland is using it. The Center for Rural Entrepreneurship promotes it. It is even being used successfully in Australia. It is something we need to look at here. Let's see if we can't cross a gazelle with an armadillo.

Report from the Frontlines

With a Saturday meeting, I was able to attend the school board's bond meeting. I confess, first board meeting I have attended. Long, eye-opening, but seldom dull.

The time consuming battle was over the site of the new Crockett Elementary. In the course of this J B Hall provided the closest to real pyrotechnics. After having been granted one waiver of public comment rules, Hall insisted on addressing the board a third time. Chairman Layman was pushed to the point of threatening to insist on Hall's leaving if Hall did not desist. The chair had the good sense to call a recess, which by that time I am sure several bladders appreciated anyway, and defused that potential head-butting contest in personal conversation with Mr. Hall by the time a relieved audience and board reconvened.

As was pointed out, the eventual Crockett choice went against the recommendations of the Citizen's Task Force, Admin Staff, and the majority of public comment. At least it did come out that the $1.5 million “bridge” to this site mentioned in earlier news reports had been a pedestrian bridge similar to the spectacularly unused one over S. Bryant, and is no longer considered necessary. My comment on this inclined toward the existing property, but realistically, this is probably revenue neutral. Once we abandon the current Crockett site it becomes highly valuable real estate for sale. One board member questioned its value in that it lies between two churches, maybe ASU wouldn't be too hot for it. Another member replied that if so, we have the Baptists on one side, the Church of Christ on the other, perhaps the Methodists would like to be in the line-up.

Humor aside, the property will be very valuable, if for nothing else the parking lots behind it belonging to SAISD. That value may well be higher than the street frontage. The loss here would be in terms of factional support more than dollars.

The vote on the new Central location was predictable. Assuming we do decide the total rebuild of Central is the way San Angelo wants to go, the location is not irrational, and affordable.

Credit to Sid Clemmer for the suggestion that eventually carried the day (well, night, but...). It appeared to catch the board like a deer in the headlights, led to another recess. After comment at some length, the board unanimously approved the bond be severed, with the Central/Lakeview-additions as one item, $106 million total, and the two elementary schools at $24 million the other.

In my opinion, this is the best result available given the political realities at work. I have agreed from the start that A bond is justifiable, but that the Long Range Plan and this specific phase of it is beyond what is necessary in a town where a relatively non-negotiable plumber's bill is about to drive everybody's rent up. The plumbing is hardly SAISD's responsibility, but recognizing and adapting to that economic reality is their job. The question was raised, “but what if the high school package fails?” Well, in that case, we listen to the voters, retrench, rethink, negotiate and come back in November with a slim, trim package that might actually pass.

Prop II, the elementary schools, is almost sure to pass. My opinion, the high school package will be sent back to the drawing board for a strict diet. One Task Force member, Tod Herring, tried to insist that the three year effort of the Task Force be put as a single measure, anything less would disrupt the integrity of the Long Range Facilities Plan. By that standard, the voters should be presented with all three phases of that Plan, complete with a half billion dollar price tag. As a gambling man, I'll take donuts-to-dollars wagers against that. The board's action last night was nothing more or less than accepting electoral reality.

Taxing Credibility

We have had a lot of discussion about our tax rates recently. Most of us have either seen or heard about this sign. We know we have a high tax rate, but how much impact does that really have?

When the San Angelo city government wants to get a feel for where it fits in, it normally uses a set of benchmark cities. They do this when comparing wages, recreation facilities, housing, unemployment, etc. so it is only fair we use these benchmark cities to compare city taxes. These cities are usually Abilene, Midland, Odessa, and Wichita Falls. You can find their tax rates (and utility rates) on the Texas Municipal League site. If you look at the numbers you will see we are significantly higher than any of our benchmark cities. (A comparison from high to low for cities over 50k is here.)

The closest benchmark city to us tax wise is Odessa at $.679 per $100.00 which is $.176 (20%) lower than our rate of $.855. Midland is $.213 lower. Abilene is $.2195 lower. Wichita Falls is $.2654 lower, a difference of just over 30%. There are differences such as the amount of taxable valuation of each city, but that doesn't explain all of the differences. It doesn't explain how Odessa, with a slightly larger population and slightly less taxable property can have a tax rate that is 20% less than San Angelo.

Tax rates do affect the decisions of businesses that want to locate here. If a company wants to build a $10 million facility, you can be sure that taxes will be factored in as an operational cost. Everything else being equal (which it never is) a company can save $17,600.00 per year by building in Odessa instead of here. They could save $26,254.00 by building in Wichita falls. They save even more ($56,788.00) by locating in Amarillo or at the extreme, they could save $61,662.50 by locating in Tyler, the lowest property taxed city in Texas. Those savings are the equivalent of 1 to 2 jobs.

The point is that we really must figure out why our taxes are so high, and how to lower them. When a major company locates here, our taxes cost them the equivalent of at least 1 job. Incentives can help for the short term, but if the company is here for the long haul our taxes will hurt their ability to add jobs.

Eye on the Snakepit

Now that the Legislature has removed the budgetary logjam, things in the Austin Snakepit are getting lively. I spent much of Saturday strolling through the Texas Legislature Online site, thought I would report on items of local interest I found. The site, www.capitol.state.tx.us , is well worth one's time, very user friendly and it even lets one put any given bill on e-mail alert every time that bill moves. For background, HB is a House Bill, SB a Senate bill, HJR or SJR, the JR is Joint Resolution, required for Constitutional Amendments. ED is Eminent Domain and Viagra has no effect on it.

The local city charter review is in progress, and I am confident limiting eminent domain will make it on the charter ballot. After the Kelo decision, eminent domain limits are popping up in Austin like flowers after an early spring rain. My favorite is HJR 11, by Frank Corte, a Constitutional Amendment which would limit ED to public use, no transfer to another private owner, AND require the entity exercising ED to present “clear and convincing evidence” of the necessity of a particular seizure. As it should be. Our Senator Robert Duncan has SJR 3, a good Constitutional Amendment. It would require any future grant of ED from the Legislature to a local entity be passed by a 4/5ths, recorded vote majority, and invalidate any such grant previously given, meaning existing ED power is NOT grandfathered, but must be re-applied for under the 4/5ths rule. HJR 30 is another Constitutional Amendment requiring the state to grant the original owner of seized property first chance at buying back any land seized, but not used, by the state after twenty years, at no more than original compensation given.

Just a few of the more notable, and passable offerings follow. HB 1495 would require the Attorney General to formulate a “Landowner's Bill of Rights, “in plain English and posted to the OAG website”.


HB 1387 would limit ED by School Boards, they would have to provide impact studies and evidence that all viable options to purchase land in a voluntary transaction have been exhausted before filing for condemnation.

HB 252 is one of my favorites, and bearing the name of the Land & Resources Management Committee Chair Anna Mowery, would seem to have good prospects. This bill says that local zoning changes may not decrease the value of the affected property by more than 10% unless the zoning entity is willing to move to ED condemnation and compensation. It includes in consideration collateral damage to contiguous, but unrezoned property belong to the same owner and provides compensation for legal costs of a prevailing appealant. These are pretty much the cream of a 56 bill crop, but by no means the only worthwhile ones out there. One thing that did surprise me on ED bills, none I have found directly require the taxable evaluation of a property be used as baseline floor for the compensation offered. One of the nastier results of the Kelo decision, one of the affected property owners was only given $150,000 for property New London had cheerfully taxed at an evaluation of $240,000 for 10 years. Seems a simple proposition to me, if the property is worth x when the city's hand is out to take, it should still be worth at least x when that hand extends to give.

HB 1678 is a modified version of a bill Gov. Perry vetoed last session, providing for more use of probation in place of prison time for non-violent felons. Yes, this largely means drug offenders, but no, I don't regard it as “soft on crime” so much as way softer on our wallet. Prison time is horrendously expensive. When one considers that in inmates per 100,000 Texas has an incarceration rate 10 times that of Communist China, the possibility we need to rethink the system comes to mind.

SB 3 will be worth watching, it and its House companion bills move many elements of the Regional Water Planning we have been developing for over a decade from recommendation to statute. There will no doubt be amendments along the way, but needless to say, this package is critical to West Texas and bears watching. Something based on this will almost assuredly pass, this has the big dogs behind it. High on my “alert” list.

Our new Representative Drew Darby has done well, landing a plum appointment to the critical Appropriations Committee. In that he voted for a recorded vote in the Speaker's election, I hope he will support HJR 77, a Constitutional Amendment requiring recorded votes on all bills and resolutions. As befits a freshman Representative, his docket of proposals is modest. One to enhance the legal penalty for defrauding people on charitable donations reflects a local case and closes a loophole that needs closing. He also authored HB 1617, which would amend the Economic Development Corp. act to allow a person not a city resident to be appointed as a director of COSADC. It amends the current 20,000 population limit on this to 100,000. The existing exemption allows smaller towns to use county residents to fill unpaid positions, quite reasonable. I wasn't aware San Angelo had any difficulty seating seven COSADC members.

I post this bearing in mind Mark Twain's caution that, “No man's property or liberty is secure so long as the Legislature is in session.” Humor aside, Texas really does have some very good people in Austin, but there are rascals and mere incompetents as well. Never hurts to keep an eye on them. Feel free to contact them. Listening to us is in the job description.

Rates & progress

If you have been paying attention lately, one thing is clear. Water and sewer rates are going to have to go up. We may be lucky and get state or federal assistance to fix our infrastructure. We must get creative and figure out how to use the 4b sales tax to pay for some repairs where appropriate and legal, but in the end the rates will have to go up. The only question left is how do you raise the rates.

A flat, $15.00 per meter increase is too simplistic. It's not equitable and it's very regressive. To use a very overworked term, it isn't fair.

There is a strong case for putting at least the majority of the increase into the meter charge or a separate capital fund charge on the water bill. It makes sense to have capital projects paid for by the fixed part of the bill, but make sure that the meter charge is raised proportionally. At the current rate and a $15.00 increase, a 5/8" meter users rate would rise from $10.08 to $25.08, an increase of 149%. An 8" meter users rate would go from $136.03 to $151.03, an increase of only 11%. A Rough estimate tells me that a 140% to 145% increase on all the meters would still raise the same money, with a more equal distribution of the capital repair costs, and a savings to the smaller user of $.30 to $.60. Not a lot but significant to those on a fixed income.

There are probably other questions that need to be asked about how to do this rate. I will grant that prior rate increases were too heavy on the per gallon charge for the politically popular goal of keeping meter rates low, but we need to be wary of going too far the other way. An 80% to the meter with 20% to the per gallon charge would leave a per meter increase of $12.00, and if the 20 split is based on a very conservative usage rate of 140 gpd (the Texas conservation goal) which is 13 gpd below current usage we should be safe. Sewer rates definitely need to be raised so that waste treatment is more self supporting.

In the end, there need to be rate increases. We still need to fine tune where and how much they will be.

Capital Idea (updated)

I felt sorry for the City Council yesterday. They have been hearing about infrastructure problems for the last few months. Yesterday they saw the final sticker price. They ended up with a bad case of sticker shock. They are searching for additional ways to pay the bill, but in the end local water users will suffer from sticker shock sometime this spring.

Our infrastructure problems are nothing new. They are a result of past policies of neglect, political pandering, and a policy of ignoring capital problems until they became serious. They ignored infrastructure problems because they could do it so easily. There was nothing that required them to look at capital problems.

It's interesting that this is happening at the same time they are forming a charter review committee. I am on this committee and have been doing some research. I looked at reports such as this one about what is happening in city charters in Texas. I noticed that there is something interesting included in many charters, especially the newer ones: a capital budget. (Our charter is here.)

We are not the only city that is having infrastructure problems. The upkeep on basic capital assets is not something that gets a lot of attention until something breaks. Flashy projects like arenas or tennis courts are much more appealing and have a higher visibility. Everyone likes to talk about the great stereo and seats in a new car. Nobody talks about what it takes to change the oil or check the brakes. Basic maintenance isn't sexy but it has to be done. There has to be some way to make sure that basic maintenance is done.

What I see happening is many cities are building a requirement for capital improvements into the city charter. They are spelling out that each annual city budget must include a capital budget. They are requiring a capital improvement plan, often as a section of an overall comprehensive plan, and they are requiring that capital projects be looked at as part of the overall budget process and that a separate periodic review be held, with every 2 years being common.

As part of our charter review, we need to add a capital improvement improvement plan along the lines I just described, and put it before the voters. We need to ensure that no future city government can ignore the city's basic capital and infrastructure needs.