Aggieland
Sponsored by

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

9,417 Views | 46 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by Bob Yancy
Hornbeck
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:46a, 9/20/24
AG
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…

[Temporary lock until we can clean up the derails. -Staff]

[This thread had several posts and derails that we had to clean up to get this thread back on topic. If any poster had a post removed that was related to the CSU issue it may have been removed because it included a reply or quote to a post that was removed because it was part of a discussion about another subject. If that happened we apologize and you can make your post again as it relates to CSU but any other derails will be removed from the thread. Thank you. -Staff]
Reply Quote
13
Edited by Staff
maroon barchetta
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 Hornbeck • 7:38a, 9/20/24
I'm sure some certain person will be here soon to wave it away like at the end of Wizard of Oz. "Pay no attention to the $26M bill behind the curtain."
Reply Quote
8
Grmpy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:39a, 9/20/24
Not one to defend government; I would prefer Utilities be provided in an open market as I feel Government owned has a tendency to be low performance...

However, I read that we were not overcharged as citizens. I personally don't have any way to validate the truth of this. What I found most laughable in the article was that they say this won't cause our rates to go up, however it will prevent any rate drop anytime soon... and having lived here for a while; I think we all know this local government was never going to drop rates and appears unconcerned about local taxes going down in any measurable way.
Reply Quote
16
hopeandrealchange
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:09a, 9/20/24
Will anyone lose their job over this?
Will anyone be held accountable?
How is it possible to have one after another stories of multi million dollar problems in our city?
How do we the people fix this. Voting does not seem to make a change. The support for the same old same old is entrenched and has a tight hold.
Reply Quote
11
FamousAgg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:16a, 9/20/24
This is my shocked face
Reply Quote
7
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 Hornbeck • 8:52a, 9/20/24
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.
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Reply Quote
8
maroon barchetta
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 • 9:04a, 9/20/24
Rates are higher than BTU and Texas A&M. Congrats on being lower than the national average and state average.

How about the county average?

The transfers to the general fund is a shell game and you know it and have defended purchases using said money. Use utility funds for utility expenses and find some other way to fund the pet projects the city would like to do, like $300,000 to design a new sign entering College Station from the west, as if seeing 100,000 seat Kyle Field in the distance wasn't enough of a clue that a driver is approaching the city.
Reply Quote
8
KidDoc
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 • 9:14a, 9/20/24
AG
Saying the transfer from utilities to other funds eases the "tax burden" is false. Who is paying that extra cash that is then transferred to the other projects? It is still a tax it is just a sneaky hidden tax that is not labelled as a tax. No matter if the extra money is on your property tax bill or utility bill it is still being paid by residents. In fact the utility bill is even harder to mitigate as it does not freeze when you age and it is less predictable as so much is weather based.

Our rates are higher than local rates.

College Station Utilities: Rates and Coverage Area (findenergy.com)
14 cents average vs 11.4 in Katy TX.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
12
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 KidDoc • 9:26a, 9/20/24
KidDoc said:
Saying the transfer from utilities to other funds eases the "tax burden" is false. Who is paying that extra cash that is then transferred to the other projects? It is still a tax it is just a sneaky hidden tax that is not labelled as a tax. No matter if the extra money is on your property tax bill or utility bill it is still being paid by residents. In fact the utility bill is even harder to mitigate as it does not freeze when you age and it is less predictable as so much is weather based.

Our rates are higher than local rates.

College Station Utilities: Rates and Coverage Area (findenergy.com)
14 cents average vs 11.4 in Katy TX.



CSU customers pay about 13.5 cents all in per kilowatt hour. See below for an accurate comparison, updated daily…
Reply Quote
1
hopeandrealchange
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 10:01a, 9/20/24
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



So are you saying we will be receiving funds into the city coffers from a counter suit?
Reply Quote
2
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 Bob Yancy • 10:01a, 9/20/24
Bob Yancy said:
KidDoc said:
Saying the transfer from utilities to other funds eases the "tax burden" is false. Who is paying that extra cash that is then transferred to the other projects? It is still a tax it is just a sneaky hidden tax that is not labelled as a tax. No matter if the extra money is on your property tax bill or utility bill it is still being paid by residents. In fact the utility bill is even harder to mitigate as it does not freeze when you age and it is less predictable as so much is weather based.

Our rates are higher than local rates.

College Station Utilities: Rates and Coverage Area (findenergy.com)
14 cents average vs 11.4 in Katy TX.



CSU customers pay about 13.5 cents all in per kilowatt hour. See below for an accurate comparison, updated daily…
With respect Bob, let us compare prices in our local area, not north texas or lubbock.
Reply Quote
11
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 hopeandrealchange • 10:29a, 9/20/24
hopeandrealchange said:
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



So are you saying we will be receiving funds into the city coffers from a counter suit?


If we prevail and I believe we will, yes. With interest.

Respectfully,

Y
Reply Quote
1
MsDoubleD81
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:30a, 9/20/24
AG
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.
Reply Quote
5
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 MsDoubleD81 • 10:39a, 9/20/24
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
Reply Quote
3
maroon barchetta
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 • 10:45a, 9/20/24
You just compared rates to those in a major metroplex?

How about Bryan?
Reply Quote
6
MsDoubleD81
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 • 10:49a, 9/20/24
AG
Nope. Probably should have clarified i lived in the burbs in Denton County where taxes were lower.
Reply Quote
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 • 10:50a, 9/20/24
maroon barchetta said:
You just compared rates to those in a major metroplex?

How about Bryan?


Well in Bryan you pay less for electricity because BTU generates its own power. It's a best in class asset for the citizens and does a great job. In College Station you pay 20% less in property taxes.

All told, both cities provide a quality of life far superior to most, in my opinion.

Respectfully,

Yancy
Reply Quote
2
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 MsDoubleD81 • 10:57a, 9/20/24
MsDoubleD81 said:
Nope. Probably should have clarified i lived in the burbs in Denton County where taxes were lower.


If you lived in the City of Denton you'd pay 6% higher property tax than CS. But yes, if you don't live in a city you don't pay city property taxes.

Interestingly, to me anyway, you would pay 50 cents more in property taxes to Denton ISD than CSISD. That's essentially a city property tax payment unto itself.

Respectfully,

Yancy

Edit: Denton is one of a market basket of university towns roughly equivalent to CS I use as a yardstick for comparative purposes to generally see how we're doing. Some others being Corpus, Waco, Bryan, et al
Reply Quote
1 edit
MsDoubleD81
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 • 10:59a, 9/20/24
AG
I did not live in Denton.
Reply Quote
Hornbeck
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 • 11:23a, 9/20/24
AG
As I have said so many times that I'm blue in the face, the *rate* is only one side of that balloon. If the valuation is 75% more, I am still paying more taxes than a person in Bryan.

Example
Bryan Property : $100k x 1% tax = $1000
CS Property : $175k x 0.8% tax = $1400

I'm not paying less. I'm paying 40% more, along with higher electricity, etc. It's disingenuous that you and the county folks keep trumpeting the rate, when my bill has continued to climb yearly.

But back to the article, you're saying CSU doesn't have a surplus which gets moved back into the General fund bucket? Connect fees alone with 50,000+ students moving in yearly has to generate quite a bit.
Reply Quote
8
Hornbeck
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 • 11:24a, 9/20/24
AG
Wages in Denton >>>> Wages in BCS

A better yardstick would be Temple. Large numbers of people employed by government, depressing the local wage base. So, while folks are getting paid less, we're paying more in taxes and electricity.
Reply Quote
5
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 Hornbeck • 11:35a, 9/20/24
Hornbeck said:
As I have said so many times that I'm blue in the face, the *rate* is only one side of that balloon. If the valuation is 75% more, I am still paying more taxes than a person in Bryan.

Example
Bryan Property : $100k x 1% tax = $1000
CS Property : $175k x 0.8% tax = $1400

I'm not paying less. I'm paying 40% more, along with higher electricity, etc. It's disingenuous that you and the county folks keep trumpeting the rate, when my bill has continued to climb yearly.

But back to the article, you're saying CSU doesn't have a surplus which gets moved back into the General fund bucket? Connect fees alone with 50,000+ students moving in yearly has to generate quite a bit.


Yes there's a surplus, or operating margin in nonprofit parlance, which is what would be 'profits' in a for profit. Those funds go to the electrical fund balance to pay for future projects and prepare for contingencies like winter storm Uri and other unexpected gotchas. And, some is transferred to the general fund in what are called GFTs, or general fund transfers.

Respectfully



Reply Quote
1
Rexter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 12:58p, 9/20/24
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.


A tax by any other name is still a tax, right?
Reply Quote
7
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 Rexter • 1:07p, 9/20/24
Rexter 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.


A tax by any other name is still a tax, right?


I think so. Yes. You have to take all exactions from the taxpayers into account. I try to, but that's for y'all to decide.

Respectfully,

Yancy
Reply Quote
texAZtea
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:31p, 9/20/24
AG
Hornbeck, I found it and I'm all caught up.

I live in Bryan so I have no dog in the fight. If it is as the councilman says and the PUC is moving the goalposts, they should have to pay the money back and cover the loss to the city for the legal battle. Maybe counter sue for a little extra to throw at some of the mismanagement of previous councils.

If the city messed up, that's on them and the people responsible should bear the financial burden of fixing the problem, not average joes like us.

It does seem less than honest to take a margin from a public utility where the city has a monopoly and apply it to a fund that has been mismanaged in the past.
Reply Quote
7
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 • 5:22p, 9/20/24
AG
Bob Yancy said:
Hornbeck said:
As I have said so many times that I'm blue in the face, the *rate* is only one side of that balloon. If the valuation is 75% more, I am still paying more taxes than a person in Bryan.

Example
Bryan Property : $100k x 1% tax = $1000
CS Property : $175k x 0.8% tax = $1400

I'm not paying less. I'm paying 40% more, along with higher electricity, etc. It's disingenuous that you and the county folks keep trumpeting the rate, when my bill has continued to climb yearly.

But back to the article, you're saying CSU doesn't have a surplus which gets moved back into the General fund bucket? Connect fees alone with 50,000+ students moving in yearly has to generate quite a bit.


Yes there's a surplus, or operating margin in nonprofit parlance, which is what would be 'profits' in a for profit. Those funds go to the electrical fund balance to pay for future projects and prepare for contingencies like winter storm Uri and other unexpected gotchas. And, some is transferred to the general fund in what are called GFTs, or general fund transfers.

Respectfully



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
2
2 edits
Rexter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 9:42p, 9/20/24
Bob Yancy said:
Hornbeck said:
As I have said so many times that I'm blue in the face, the *rate* is only one side of that balloon. If the valuation is 75% more, I am still paying more taxes than a person in Bryan.

Example
Bryan Property : $100k x 1% tax = $1000
CS Property : $175k x 0.8% tax = $1400

I'm not paying less. I'm paying 40% more, along with higher electricity, etc. It's disingenuous that you and the county folks keep trumpeting the rate, when my bill has continued to climb yearly.

But back to the article, you're saying CSU doesn't have a surplus which gets moved back into the General fund bucket? Connect fees alone with 50,000+ students moving in yearly has to generate quite a bit.


Yes there's a surplus, or operating margin in nonprofit parlance, which is what would be 'profits' in a for profit. Those funds go to the electrical fund balance to pay for future projects and prepare for contingencies like winter storm Uri and other unexpected gotchas. And, some is transferred to the general fund in what are called GFTs, or general fund transfers.

Respectfully





Why is the "operating margin" so much higher than necessary? Before you say it isn't too high, think long and hard about where that money goes...such as the general fund. Whomever decided this is the way to do business needs to be run out of town. CSU money needs to stay within CSU. If you need funding for other things, make a line item for each. I guarantee you that any legitimate budget is not set up for general transfers.

The point is to stop moving money out of CSU. If there is enough to do that, then rebate that amount to the residents, or better yet, lower the rate. If you need more for pet projects, or whatever, then put it in the budget and raise the tax rate. Let the residents know where the money is coming from and going to, without the shell games.

Reply Quote
12
threecatcorner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:58p, 9/20/24
The most messed up part I see is the State Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judges said it should be $900,000 yet the PUC said $26.3 million. I know that's why the city is suing (or maybe about needing to pay anything at all), but that is insane.
Reply Quote
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 threecatcorner • 10:01p, 9/20/24
threecatcorner said:
The most messed up part I see is the State Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judges said it should be $900,000 yet the PUC said $26.3 million. I know that's why the city is suing (or maybe about needing to pay anything at all), but that is insane.


Thank you for doing the research. You probably noticed the judge said $900,000 "…or substantially less given the circumstances…" or something to that effect.

The decision by the PUC is wrong.

Respectfully

Yancy
Reply Quote
2
Hornbeck
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 threecatcorner • 10:01p, 9/20/24
AG
What's insane is that 25 years after deregulation, we still have monopolies like CSU balancing their budget overcharging us for energy.
Reply Quote
12
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 Rexter • 10:16p, 9/20/24
Rexter said:
Bob Yancy said:
Hornbeck said:
As I have said so many times that I'm blue in the face, the *rate* is only one side of that balloon. If the valuation is 75% more, I am still paying more taxes than a person in Bryan.

Example
Bryan Property : $100k x 1% tax = $1000
CS Property : $175k x 0.8% tax = $1400

I'm not paying less. I'm paying 40% more, along with higher electricity, etc. It's disingenuous that you and the county folks keep trumpeting the rate, when my bill has continued to climb yearly.

But back to the article, you're saying CSU doesn't have a surplus which gets moved back into the General fund bucket? Connect fees alone with 50,000+ students moving in yearly has to generate quite a bit.


Yes there's a surplus, or operating margin in nonprofit parlance, which is what would be 'profits' in a for profit. Those funds go to the electrical fund balance to pay for future projects and prepare for contingencies like winter storm Uri and other unexpected gotchas. And, some is transferred to the general fund in what are called GFTs, or general fund transfers.

Respectfully





Why is the "operating margin" so much higher than necessary? Before you say it isn't too high, think long and hard about where that money goes...such as the general fund. Whomever decided this is the way to do business needs to be run out of town. CSU money needs to stay within CSU. If you need funding for other things, make a line item for each. I guarantee you that any legitimate budget is not set up for general transfers.

The point is to stop moving money out of CSU. If there is enough to do that, then rebate that amount to the residents, or better yet, lower the rate. If you need more for pet projects, or whatever, then put it in the budget and raise the tax rate. Let the residents know where the money is coming from and going to, without the shell games.



Well it's just not a shell game. All is accounted for in the budget. I don't think there is a single MOU that doesn't make General Fund Transfers. The reasons for owning a utility are to control your city's destiny, ensure continuity of power, and generate revenue that circulates to the benefit of us, the citizens. No one is hiding anything.

And operating at a zero operating margin would be dangerous and irresponsible to any organization. A best practice for healthy strategic management is to build up a reserve fund in the event of disaster mitigation like Uri or even ferocious inflationary cycles like the one our nation is finally emerging from. Funds will always accumulate if it's run right.

Yes, rebates could be issued to the owners- the citizens- and I am advocating for us to do that occasionally. But right now we have to deal with this arbitrary and unfair judgement by the PUC. And if we were operating at a zero operating margin we wouldn't be able to pay this and live to fight it in court.

Respectfully,

Yancy

Reply Quote
3
maroon barchetta
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 • 10:28p, 9/20/24
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.
Reply Quote
6
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 • 11:06p, 9/20/24
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.


1) It wasn't just the design fee for the sign. It was design, construction and everything. Please stop repeating that as it is untrue.

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.

3) Most concerning, why do you immediately indict your own city while giving the PUC a total pass- when not possessing all the facts? I can't debate real issues with someone that does something like that, yet I want to be responsive to your concerns.

Help me out here, man.
Reply Quote
4
texAZtea
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 7:37a, 9/21/24
AG
Bob Yancy said:

Well it's just not a shell game. All is accounted for in the budget. I don't think there is a single MOU that doesn't make General Fund Transfers.

I want to preface this by saying I respect you as a person, especially your willingness to interact with your constituency without the mask of anonymity that they benefit from (to a degree, I know some of us here are well known in the community).

However, this is the part that I don't agree with and can't seem to wrap my head around why you do.

Things being accounted for in a budget doesn't make them right. Cartels have budgets that account for all of their activities, too.

General fund transfers in themselves, not a terrible idea. Organizations need flexible pools of money to occasionally fund things that don't exist within the framework, mine included. My general fund goes towards t shirts and pizza for my employees.

General fund transfers from a public good for which a citizen has no alternative and can't reasonably live without? That's a hidden tax. If Bryan does this too, I would consider voting for a candidate whose platform included trying to change that.

Now if the city makes a margin renting out facilities at one of the parks? Any excess above maintenance or improvements could (and maybe should) go into the general fund. In that case, I have options and if I disagree with how the city uses its general fund I can go somewhere else.

Slipping extra taxes into a line item of a utility bill feels very....suddenlink/optimum-like.
Reply Quote
6
ElephantRider
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 8:07a, 9/21/24
AG
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.


1) It wasn't just the design fee for the sign. It was design, construction and everything. Please stop repeating that as it is untrue.

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.

3) Most concerning, why do you immediately indict your own city while giving the PUC a total pass- when not possessing all the facts? I can't debate real issues with someone that does something like that, yet I want to be responsive to your concerns.

Help me out here, man.


Did Bryan overpay for a failed department store in a failing shopping mall? My whole deal is that I specifically don't trust CoCS with the extra money coming from CSU. The City has shown that their not to be trusted with our money, so I'm sorry if people aren't excited about them getting more of it through the general fund transfers
Reply Quote
6
Page 1 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.