College Station fights $26M+ refund order to major utility providers

9,465 Views | 46 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by Bob Yancy
whoop1995
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to maroon barchetta • 9:56a, 9/21/24
AG
I already asked that with no response thus far………..

Can you tell us how much money was transferred to the general fund from the utility in each of the past five years? So we can get a better bearing on how much it is and see the possible swings?
I collect ticket stubs! looking for a 1944 orange bowl and 1981 independence bowl ticket stub as well as Aggie vs tu stubs - 1926 and below, 1935-1937, 1939-1944, 1946-1948, 1950-1951, 1953, 1956-1957, 1959, 1960, 1963-1966, 1969-1970, 1972-1974, 1980, 1984, 1990, 2004, 2008, 2010
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to maroon barchetta • 10:04a, 9/21/24
maroon barchetta said:
Bob Yancy said:
maroon barchetta said:
That you and your cohorts have rehearsed this spiel enough that you can trot it out there as a core belief is part of the problem. Actually, it's the whole problem.

"If I say it enough, it will be true."

It's not true. And it is a shell game. Bryan doesn't have to operate like that.

I'll await you doing an apples-to-apples comparison to *checks notes* Amarillo? Norman, OK? Beaumont?

The entire council is Michael Scott of The Office, telling David Wallace he is going to use his per diem to buy a sweater on his Canada trip. That is the transfer from CSU to the general fund. Buying a sweater. Or an Instagram prop. Or a failed department store. Or the design fee for another vanity project sign.

You shouldn't need to have a surplus in case the PUC sues you. Run your utility properly and bill your citizens accordingly and you won't get sued by the PUC.

It's really that simple.


2) The City of Bryan's General Fund received a Transfer, from BTU, in the amount of $15,059,059 last year. Like I said before, virtually all MOUs transfer funds from the Utility to the Municipality- because it is a Municipal OWNED Utility. Please stop saying Bryan and other utilities don't, because it is untrue.

Help me out here, man.


Wow. So you admit that CoB is transparent with how much they transfer to their general fund, all while providing lower rates?

Tell us how much CSU transferred to the general fund and we can continue.


BTU has GFT'd about $47 million over 3 years
CSU has GFT'd about $29 million over 3 years

Both cities are transparent via budget disclosure.

Respectfully,

Yancy
Reply Quote
3
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whoop1995 • 10:08a, 9/21/24
whoop1995 said:
I already asked that with no response thus far………..

Can you tell us how much money was transferred to the general fund from the utility in each of the past five years? So we can get a better bearing on how much it is and see the possible swings?


No but I can answer over 3 years:

BTU has GFT'd about $47 million over 3 years
CSU has GFT'd about $29 million over 3 years

BTU GFT's about $15.5 million annually
CSU GFT's about $9.5 million annually

Over the last 3 years neither city has varied more than 6 figures from one year to the next. Stays pretty static.

Respectfully

Yancy
Reply Quote
2
whoop1995
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 10:27a, 9/21/24
AG
Bob Yancy said:
whoop1995 said:
I already asked that with no response thus far………..

Can you tell us how much money was transferred to the general fund from the utility in each of the past five years? So we can get a better bearing on how much it is and see the possible swings?


No but I can answer over 3 years:

BTU has GFT'd about $47 million over 3 years
CSU has GFT'd about $29 million over 3 years

BTU GFT's about $15.5 million annually
CSU GFT's about $9.5 million annually

Over the last 3 years neither city has varied more than 6 figures from one year to the next. Stays pretty static.

Respectfully

Yancy
Bob
9.5 million a year is not chump change by any means. If population of college station is 125k that's 76$ person or based on 40k homes (number might be off) that's $237 per year per home.

From a home owners perspective if I can write off taxes on my income tax I would rather have the home taxes increased to have the $237 written off on my personal taxes than have it go to a back door tax that I do not get a say in. At least then it would be more transparent in the eyes of the people.

Thanks
I collect ticket stubs! looking for a 1944 orange bowl and 1981 independence bowl ticket stub as well as Aggie vs tu stubs - 1926 and below, 1935-1937, 1939-1944, 1946-1948, 1950-1951, 1953, 1956-1957, 1959, 1960, 1963-1966, 1969-1970, 1972-1974, 1980, 1984, 1990, 2004, 2008, 2010
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 10:33a, 9/21/24
AG
Bob Yancy said:
ElephantRider said:
Bob Yancy said:
Hornbeck said:
Story here: https://www.kbtx.com/2024/09/19/college-station-fights-26m-refund-order-major-utility-providers-including-oncor-centerpoint/

So, not only did they overcharge citizens and moved money to the general fund from utilities, they also overcharged other providers, and now, they have to pay them back?

I wish the PUC actually cared about *customers* not *companies* and fight to give the customers a refund… I would laugh, if I weren't on the hook to pay that $26M…


Respectfully that is incorrect. Your electric rates are lower than the state average and far below the national average.

Additionally, you equate general fund transfers with "overcharging." To the contrary, General fund transfers benefit our citizens.

Those transfers are used to reinvest in the utility and to fund other city activities, thusly lowering the pressure on the tax rate. At least in small part the reason we have a tax rate at 51.3 cents is because of that utility providing funding to help hold it down.

If we had an investor owned utility here, those profits would leave town and go to investors. I would like to see us issue cash rebates to ratepayers in advance of the holiday season from time to time, and I will be advocating for that since we ARE the investors and deserve those dividends, but right now we're still licking our wounds from winter storm Uri and asinine decisions like this one from the PUC.

Which brings me to this case, and it WILL be a legal case soon…

The PUC has gotten too big for its britches. It is making up rules as it goes along. Your city did EXACTLY what the PUC told it to do and I have seen the emails between them and city hall to prove it. A judge saw those emails too, and sided with your city. The PUC ignored her.

Every citizen that cares about College Station, or Bryan for that matter, should be pissed off. I know I am. The PUC will be coming for other municipally owned utilities (MOUs). College Station was just the first.

We can debate larger issues regarding MOUs and we should, but the PUC is wrong on this, and are punishing us because outside of the courtroom, they can. As one member of council, I can't wait to take them to the woodshed in court.

And to the Aggie on the PUC that started all this, right before terming off? Gee thanks.
Sorry, but I don't really trust the city with the "extra money" when they continually spend it on bull**** things like Macy's.


No organization is perfect and that includes the city. Far from it. Macy's will be rectified. This is not Macy's. This is your city getting done wrong by the PUC.

Respectfully,

-Yancy


I agree with the city being done wrong by PUC. You were supposedly doing what PUC told you until they changes their mind and applied the change retroactively.

But it is also true the utilities were done wrong by the city. CSU charged the utilities at a rate to support the general fund transfers, for which the utilities get no benefit.

On the other hand, if you didn't play this shell game with utility money, transferring it to the general fund and then allegedly using general fund revenue to "reinvest in CSU", the reinvestment in the CSU could have been appropriately accounted for in the costs passed along to the utilities.

Going forward, I would suggest CSU and CoCS reevaluate the transfer to general fund and then reinvest in CSU nonsense to ensure the utilities are charged properly for their share of the expenses actually born by CSU.
Reply Quote
1
doubledog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:57p, 9/21/24
I have followed this thread carefully. I still cannot figure out how this happened. Was it planned, accidental or did someone make a huge mistake?
Reply Quote
1
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to doubledog • 6:03p, 9/21/24
AG
doubledog said:
I have followed this thread carefully. I still cannot figure out how this happened. Was it planned, accidental or did someone make a huge mistake?


CSU was told by PUC to include general fund transfer to calculate cost for utilities using CSU lines. PUC changed their mind that general fund transfers should not be included and then applied that retroactively to make CSU pay back the utilities for all the years PUC told them to include the charges.
Reply Quote
1
doubledog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BiochemAg97 • 6:45p, 9/21/24
BiochemAg97 said:
doubledog said:
I have followed this thread carefully. I still cannot figure out how this happened. Was it planned, accidental or did someone make a huge mistake?


CSU was told by PUC to include general fund transfer to calculate cost for utilities using CSU lines. PUC changed their mind that general fund transfers should not be included and then applied that retroactively to make CSU pay back the utilities for all the years PUC told them to include the charges.
So the PUC made a huge mistake... If so why would we have to pay for it?
Reply Quote
5
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to doubledog • 6:48p, 9/21/24
AG
doubledog said:
BiochemAg97 said:
doubledog said:
I have followed this thread carefully. I still cannot figure out how this happened. Was it planned, accidental or did someone make a huge mistake?


CSU was told by PUC to include general fund transfer to calculate cost for utilities using CSU lines. PUC changed their mind that general fund transfers should not be included and then applied that retroactively to make CSU pay back the utilities for all the years PUC told them to include the charges.
So the PUC made a huge mistake... If so why would we have to pay for it?


Because the administrative law judges work for the PUC.

CoCS said they will pay to avoid the interest if they lose on appeal, but I think there is a decent chance (if the story is accurate) that the PUC gets overturned on appeal and CoCS will get most/all the money back. But it will likely be considered a 26 mil windfall by that city council and they will go do something like buy a Macy's.
Reply Quote
7
aviationag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 4:59a, 9/25/24
AG
My utilities in CS are over double what they are in Dallas, where I live full- time.

It's absurd.
Reply Quote
7
Hittag1492
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 12:32p, 9/27/24
AG
Bob Yancy said:
MsDoubleD81 said:
I was paying 8-9 cents per kwh in the Dallas area through Champion Energy. I moved here in 2020 and was disappointed there was no choice.


Now in Dallas it's 11 to 19 cents and the tax rate for the City of Dallas is 75 cents ad valorem.

So would you not agree your cost of living, from a power + property tax rate is better here than Dallas?

These are the objective reasons why I find myself on defense for our city so often on this platform.

Our city deserves to be called out when we mess up, but doesn't College Station deserve credit too? When we are objectively better off in so many respects?

I think so.

Respectfully,

Y

https://orders.comparepower.com/?zip_code=75001&tdsp_duns=1039940674000&usage=1000&cp_cfw=orders


How does our overall utility bill-all in-compare, not just the electric rate? Not sure, but that would be a much better question.

On shifting funds, it is absolutely wrong. Deceptive in practice-slimy really. The problem, aside from the fact the money is meant for utility expenses, is that when the money is able to be transferred it PROMOTES spending. You say it saves tax payers money, when in practice is simply subsidizes projects that are not truly needed as city leaders see it as an open treasure trove instead of a way to pay down debt.

From another post, someone said Bob is a fiscal conservative. Without arguing the good/bad of what Bob stands for on here as there is a good deal of both, Bob is absolutely not a fiscal conservative . Nobody in our current leadership even knows what that is.
Reply Quote
4
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whoop1995 • 10:07a, 9/28/24
whoop1995 said:
KidDoc said:
whoop1995 said:
Didn't college station just approve a $40 million debt bond or something like that? Why was that approved without the people input?

https://www.kbtx.com/2024/07/25/college-station-city-leaders-eye-43-million-certificates-obligations-key-projects-debt-refinancing/

What is considered a lot of debt in the eyes of the college station city council? According to the article above college station has over $200m of this type of debt.

I might not understand this completely but it seems like a lot.
The people had their input. It was voted down twice when lumped into larger ballots, then they put it on a tiny single issue ballot off cycle and got it passed with a few thousand total votes. Very much the school board figuring out how to get cash despite the voters' denial.
Those were different bonds voted on May 4th of this year totaling 53 million - school bonds
https://www.csisd.org/our-district/bond-information/past-bond-vatre-elections/2024-bond-information


Then these were voted on by city council only in July totaling $43 million and looks like college station already has over $200million of this type of debt. - certificates of obligation
https://www.kbtx.com/2024/07/25/college-station-city-leaders-eye-43-million-certificates-obligations-key-projects-debt-refinancing/

In 2022, the Texas Bond Review Board (BRB) ranked College Station 11th among the top 20 issuers of certificates of obligation debt, just behind Austin. The BRB oversees state and local government debt issuance in Texas, ensuring prudent debt financing for infrastructure needs.


If y'all want to get into the weeds on debt, bond refinancing, etc I will do so but someone might should start another thread. This one has run pretty far afield, thanks to my ramblings, too.

For now, be aware Moody's has us at an Aa2 bond rating. That's the measure of a city's credit worthiness based largely on our debt. If we were out of hand with debt we would not have the second highest rating possible.

Respectfully,

Yancy

Go Ags! BTHO Arkansas! Go K State! :-)

[We have done our best to clean up the derails including yours and from this post on we will keep this thread on topic. -Staff]
Reply Quote
4
Edited by Staff
Refresh
Page 2 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.