As we know our city council imposed a “franchise fee” on our water utility as part of the budget process last year. This fee was in addition to the amounts that the city already charges the utility.
Council’s instructions to the utility board were to pass the fee on to the utility’s “nonresidential” customers. The board did as it was told. We have heard that the board feels that the franchise fee is inappropriate and that they would have liked to stay out of the issue.
The citizens know that the franchise fee is nothing other than a tax increase and that city council did not have the honesty to handle it as such.
Last week we saw the water utility board vote to change their policy and to charge the fee to both residential and nonresidential customers. A claim had been made by a local church and the board reacted to it. We have heard informally that the way they had assessed the fee was illegal although no one, including the Times, has explained why.
The board held a meeting to discuss the church’s claim and went into executive session. When they came out they voted to change their billing policy. The Times tells us that the vote was illegal because the item was not properly posted on the board’s agenda.
We received an email Friday of last week that contained this:
I’ve been told that water bills to residents received today already have the new franchise fee on the bill. Sounds like they made the decision before they too[k] action Wednesday night. Shady does not go far enough.
Did management of the water utility take action to change the billing policy even before the board voted?
If the vote was a violation of the Texas open meetings act someone could file suit and a judge could order the vote and consequent actions to be void.
There are two candidates for the west side council seat that could have an interest in this. One is a former member of the utility board. The other is a practicing attorney. Might we see one or both of them step up to the plate and file the lawsuit?
The city attorney should have told council that passing the fee on to only the nonresidential customers would be illegal.
This mess was caused by city council. They should straighten it out.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
You are correct. City Council instituted this backdoor tax and put PSB in the hot seat.
EPWU PSB does an excellent job of managing water resources. PSB must NOT a revinue source when Council members cannot do their job of funding street repairs.
LikeLike
If the utility board simply followed city council’s instructions, did the utility board violate its fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers, who are also its customers? If the utility board simply does as its told and is unwilling to show some independence, we don’t need a utility board..
LikeLike
Without the PSB every square inch of land owned by it would be sold to developers already.
Anyone see the giant “Courtney” billboard on I-10? She’s a major player in the game to sell off the land…and who are her sponsors??
LikeLike
Agreed. If we have a PSB with backbone, great. But if they are simply going to listen to the Queen’s Court, then it defeats the purpose. They didn’t have the cajones to call City Council out on the franchise fee and say that it was an indirect tax on utility customers, who are also taxpayers.
LikeLike
If council would spend its time cleaning up the messes it has already created, they wouldn’t have time to start any new messes.
LikeLike
The next PSB meeting is 8 April. Showup.
LikeLike
I will wait and see what happens at the PSB on the 8th. Can you please scan and send me a copy of your bill. I haven’t gotten mine yet.
Thanks
LikeLike
Brutus I hear your call to action. I will see what action is taken on the 8th, then proceed.
Can you scan and email me a copy of your bill? I haven’t received mine yet!
Thanks Rick Bonart
LikeLike
Readers I’m out of town. Can someone help Mr Bonart?
LikeLike