21st Amendment Explained (Repeal of Prohibition)

May 28, 2012

21st Amendment Explained (Repeal of Prohibition)

Here’s my second essay for Constituting America’s 27 Amendments in 90 Days project.  This one explains the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment and Prohibition. 


Col. Austin Bay Explains How the Ghaddafi Regime Fell

September 8, 2011

Bay on Libya

What Libya will look like, or who will run the country after the dust settles remains unknown. The downfall of a murderous dictator is no doubt beneficial; let’s just hope that the end result is better for Libya and the world than the enemy we knew and understood.


Cool Andy Roddick Foundation Event – Vegas on the River

June 10, 2011

Join me and other ARF advisory board members john Arthur Martinez, and Fred & Diane Akers on the Vanishing Texas River Cruise on Lake Buchanan for Vegas on the River to benefit the Andy Roddick International Tennis Center in Granite Shoals on Friday, June 24, 5:30 p.m. to 8 pm.  See the  Roddick Casino Night Flyer for more details.  Contact me for tickets, frank@frankreilly.com


Mayor’s Update: State of the City 2011

February 27, 2011

State of the City 2011

After over five years of professional city management, and a clear vision from its city council, the City of Granite Shoals is perfectly poised for excellence. Some have said the city is a diamond in the rough, pointing to its ideal location on Lake LBJ, and located in central Texas, less than an hour’s drive from the booming state capital.

Immediately after the 2005 election, with the charter in hand and an almost 3 to 1 mandate for positive change, the city council got to work. They removed the shackles of old battles and the vestiges of its sometimes colorful past. As a result, the city council and city management no longer have to struggle with the nagging Sherwood Shores Trust issues and the seemingly never ending legal tugs-of-war with the island residents. The city has developed workable solutions to other long-time issues such as encroachments upon city park property, and providing a remedy for lakefront owners who desire to sell their property but cannot do so because a title company or lender insists that they obtain clear title to narrow fill areas. We implemented new accounting procedures and programs and brought in a new auditor, and made a number of changes at city hall to better serve the public.

With the exception of some issues that are indicative of growing pains of a dynamic community, our city council meetings are now relatively boring, as the old clashes between the mayor and city council regarding city management and vision evaporated with the passage of the home rule charter. Now, the council hires a city manager, who implements the council’s vision and policy, rather than having a mayor who sometimes had different visions or policy choices than the council. Just over five years ago that the city often measured a mayor’s term in months, rather than years.

At the same time the city council was working through and resolving the issues that had been districting over the years, the council also went about methodically preparing the city for its bright future. A new comprehensive plan is in place, a new subdivision ordinance has been enacted, an impact fee ordinance that will require developers to pay their own way is in the works, a new town center and recreational complex is taking shape next to the new city hall, and a new drinking water treatment plant has been completed that can serve the city for generations.

These actions were just a start. The key component of the city’s potential for success is for the city to build the sewer system that it should have built 40 years ago when the federal government would have subsidized it. I can only imagine how different this community would be today had our leaders then had the vision and strength of today’s city council. Today, the city, starting with a grant funded study, and culminating with a phased-in plan to serve the entirety of the existing city population of Granite Shoals, has received a commitment for low-interest subsidized financing from the state’s Clean Water Fund that is 1.5 percent below market for the city’s first phase. Voters in Granite Shoals will determine on May 14 whether to authorize the city council to incur the debt and begin the design, permitting, and construction of the first phase that will serve RM 1431 for commercial development and the first 500 housing connections.

The city’s future is now in the hands of the same voters who, five and a half years ago, passed the home rule charter by a 3 to 1 margin. Those voters expressed a desire for a new era in Granite Shoals in which petty political battles would give way to a professionally managed city government that would begin to address the city’s many troublesome issues. I have full confidence that these voters, now with proof positive that their vote in 2005 has generated all they hoped it would, will take the next step that will ensure Granite Shoals’ future as a viable, attractive, sustainable, and very livable city.

Passage of the bonds will pave the way toward true, positive economic growth that will sustain the city, create jobs, and allow Granite Shoals to continue its progress in upgrading its streets and other infrastructure. The new economic development will provide the city with a more diversified property tax base – relieving the waterfront owners from carrying the lion’s share of property tax revenues as the city builds out its interior residential lots, and commercial property begins to develop along 1431. The sewer system will be the engine that drives the new development, and it will not only spread out property taxes amongst more and new property owners, it will allow the city to generate a sales tax base, and hotel-motel taxes.

The vision does not call for large box retailers or industrial development, but instead commercial ventures that will serve a growing Granite Shoals population that can buy its necessary items closer to home, receive their health care services without driving to another community, and provide service, food and lodging establishments for the influx of tourist dollars that the Andy Roddick International Tennis Center and our parks complex will bring to the city. Rather than rely on an industrial or manufacturing economy, this city can build on its base as a tourist destination, and an incredible community to call home.

Now that I have set the scene for the future, here is the state of the city. Even factoring the legal settlement to the island residents, the city now maintains a minimum three month operational reserve fund, which is something it has not always done in the past. We have a new city manager with the knowledge, experience, skills and wisdom to keep the city operating smoothly, efficiently, and progressively. The city has the second largest tax base and the third largest population in Burnet County.

The city has an incredible opportunity with the Andy Roddick Foundation International Tennis Center to bring in millions of outside dollars. The center, along with the proposed walking, hiking and biking trails that Granite Shoals native and Olympic running star Leo Manzano is designing and to which he is lending his name, and the other proposed recreational projects will also offer residents of all ages a great place to relax and have fun. The state of the city is sound, its current foundation is solid, and its future is very bright. If our voters have the same wisdom in May as they had in 2005, there will be no stopping Granite Shoals from becoming the most desirable city in which to live in Central Texas.


We Must Act Now for Granite Shoals Sewer System

November 5, 2010

Last week, the Granite Shoals city council voted 7-0 to move forward with borrowing funds to build the first phase of the city’s sewer system. As you know from my prior newsletters, the city has carefully and methodically studied its options for over five years and we have found that phasing the system in with three separate phases is not only the best, but is the only feasible way for the city to build a complete system.

The sewer system must be built to protect Lake LBJ and our groundwater. We have over 2,000 septic systems in Granite Shoals, any many are old and failing. The lack of a sewer system has driven commerce to Marble Falls and Kingsland, where the cost of building restaurants, grocery stores, and the like is far less expensive because they don’t have to build costly large septic systems.

Granite Shoals residents and visitors provide a significant portion of Marble Falls’ $7 million in sales taxes which, if those funds stayed here in the community, could offset our growing property taxes (Granite Shoals’ sales taxes are about $65 thousand a year in comparison). Increased commerce will not only provide additional sales taxes, but will build up property taxes along 1431 and other commercial areas. With the property value growth from a new sewer system, the city can reduce its reliance upon waterfront property owners to fund the majority of the city’s operations.

You may soon hear from some opponents to the sewer system. The opponents say that the wrong people are being served in the first phase and that the city should build the system all at once. Unfortunately, in phasing, some of us will have to wait for future phases to reach us, and the city’s engineers have carefully laid out the phases to keep costs at a minimum.

The first phase will be built closest to the plant, and future phases will expand from there. To show that the city is serious about fully serving the entire city, I will propose a resolution at next week’s city council meeting that formally outlines the city’s phased plan, and which will state that part of the plan includes stubbing out some untapped lines into Phase 2, and closer to Phase 3. Phase 1 and its untapped lines will cover almost all of the city’s eastern shoreline of Lake LBJ, an important step toward providing future service and protecting water quality.

While I too would far prefer the city to build the entire system at once, the cost of putting the entire project in place at one time would require the city to more than triple its tax rates to levels above those charged by the school district. Our residents cannot afford to pay for the entire system at one time, which is why we must phase in the system, and allow growth in the tax base to help pay for later phases. (In my last newsletter, I incorrectly stated that the estimated the cost of all phases was about $40 million; that number is actually about $60 million).

As to cost, the opponents use scare tactics and false assumptions to also say that Granite Shoals cannot afford the system at all (which conflicts with their argument that the city should install the entire system at one time). For the average homeowner, your taxes might have to go up by as much as $0.038 cents per $100 (or $38 per year on a $100,000 home) starting in 2012. People 65 or older will not pay ANY tax increase on their homestead. No one will pay a monthly service fee, estimated to be $35 a month for sewer service, until their home is tied into the system. The city will be paying for that tie in. If we delay this project, these numbers will do nothing but increase.

The opponents are circulating a petition that would require the citizens to vote in May on whether to build a sewer system, which would delay the system by at least a year, even if the voters passed the proposal. If there weren’t significant costs to the city associated with a delay, I would not be speaking out about the petition at all. But before you consider signing a petition to put this project to a vote of the citizens, I encourage you to consider the costs of delaying the project.

A delay will cost the city tremendously in several ways. First, the historic low 3.3 percent interest available to the city on the bonds will almost certainly be higher in a year. Second, construction costs will likely increase in a year’s time as the economy improves. Third, hundreds of thousands of dollars of land and easement rights donated to the city conditioned upon the city diligently moving forward with a sewer plant could be lost. Fourth, we cannot ensure that in a year from now the city will qualify for the state program that currently is providing the city with the opportunity for low interest bonds. And finally, the city now has a chance to control its destiny in timing and the provision of sewer service, and delay will cost us that control.

Finally, please see the attached letter from the Lower Colorado River Authority regarding the water quality benefits of a sanitary sewer system. While the LCRA is clearly not threatening the city in any way, I know that if the city delays or fails to build the project, some state or federal entity – or even a group of environmental activists – could try to force Granite Shoals to build a sewer system to protect the water quality of Lake LBJ, and at that time, the city will no longer control the timing or the terms like we do today.

Timing is critical for Granite Shoals.

We now have a remarkable opportunity while interest rates are at an historic low, construction costs are down, the city has land and easements that have been donated to it conditioned upon the city building a sewer plant now without delay, and we have the chance to do this under our own terms, favorable to
Granite Shoals, and on our own schedule. If we delay this opportunity, we stand to lose all of these things.

Please join me in supporting a sewer system for Granite Shoals, and thanks for your consideration.


One less taxing entity in Austin, RIP NW Austin MUD #1

February 4, 2010

Today, the Austin City Council approved an ordinance to abolish the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 (the “District”).  I have served as the District’s general counsel since 2002.

The District has had a rather fascinating ride since its creation in 1987.  The Texas Water Commission, a predecessor agency to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, created the District by an order after the original developers negotiated with the City of Austin (the “City”).  The District is located within the Austin city limits.  This District, like other MUDs, is a financing mechanism that developers use to fund utility infrastructure and require home owners to pay back that cost with their taxes that pay off the long-term tax free bonds that the MUD issues.

When the City and the developers entered into an agreement authorizing the District’s creation, state law required them to allocate the respective taxes charged to District residents by the two taxing entities.  So the District and the City charged the District’s residents full tax rates.  Usually MUDs that are created inside a city limits pay a lower city tax rate as the MUD performs certain services and of course, has to have a high enough rate to repay the bonds.  In the District’s case, those services included operating the 13.7 acre Trailhead Park and managing 400 or so acres of conservation lands set aside for endangered species mitigation for the Canyon Creek development.

In addition to the full taxation, the city negotiated to receive all of the District’s water and sewer lines, and ultimately, Trailhead Park.  This full taxation continued unchallenged until some principled and determined residents sought and won positions on the District’s board of directors.

The Districts directors who served during that time period included Bill Ferguson, Don Zimmerman, Karen Temborius, Allen Weiss, Ed Swarthout, George Frederickson, Rob Ratcliff, Russell Hill and Chris Bowers.

The board of directors began putting pressure on city officials, who ultimately acceded to provide a water rate reduction equivalent to one-half of the District’s debt service to District residents in exchange for about 200 acres of the 400 acre District conservation lands.   This transaction occurred after the District and some residents filed suit against the City claiming that the 1987 creation agreement illegally failed to allocate the City’s and District’s taxes.  While the District was careful to make it clear that this transaction was separate from the lawsuit, clearly it was the lawsuit that brought the City to the table (along with strong and persistent activism from the board and some key residents).

The District lost the first round at the Travis County District Court, but won on appeal at the Austin Court of Appeals after several years of waiting for the opinion.  The Texas Supreme Court declined to consider the City’s appeal, and after the City exhausted all rehearing options, the City informed the District in December, 2009 that the City intended to dissolve the District.  Cities may dissolve MUDs that are wholly located within their city limits, provided that they assume all liabilities and assets of the MUD.

Had the City just taken that opportunity at the beginning of the litigation, the City could have avoided millions in legal fees.  Instead, as a result of the litigation, and follow up litigation filed by District residents against the City to stop the illegal tax collection, the City agreed to pay the legal fees to the District’s lawyers (Greg Coleman of Yetter, Warden & Coleman took the case on a contingency basis, and the District’s residents were never in danger of having to pay those fees), plus an undisclosed amount of fees and expenses incurred by the City in the litigation.

Although they paid decades of unfair taxes, the end result for District residents is favorable.  The settlement agreement that Greg Coleman and his team (including Chris Ward and Marc Tabolsky)  negotiated requires the City to refund all of the District’s taxes paid by District landowners for 2009.  Anticipating the dissolution, the District’s board drew from its operating fund reserves and made significant improvements to Trailhead Park (new sod on the fields, irrigation upgrades, a new play scape, a repaved parking lot, and upgrades to the pavilion) and the trails behind the park.  The District also sold its remaining conservation lands to the Canyon Creek Homeowners Association (it was required to sell any assets at fair market value) so that they would remain in local control and not under the thumb of the City.  Finally, the board ordered refunds of remaining operating account funds to 2008 taxpayers (as noted above, the City is refunding 2009 taxes).

The District created history in 2009 when it won its case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Northwest Austin MUD No. 1 v. Holder.  The case successfully challenged the U.S. Justice Department’s refusal to allow the District to bail out from the requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  The District became the first non-county political subdivision in the nation to win independence from the preclearance stigma of Section 5, which requires certain jurisdictions to prove that any proposed change in rules or procedures affecting voting is not discriminatory.  Gregory S. Coleman of Yetter, Warden & Coleman of Austin argued the case and also took this case at no cost to the District and its taxpayers.  I was honored to be seated with Mr. Coleman and his partner Christian Ward at the counsel’s table during the arguments before the Supreme Court.

So there is now one less taxing entity in Austin, and the property owners in that area are all the better for it.  They will, over the next two and a half decades, save over $16 million in property taxes.  They have a strong board of directors, dedicated to limited taxation, to thank for that savings.


YCT Founder Steve Munisteri to Seek RPT Chairmanship

January 22, 2010

Houston lawyer and businessman Steve Munisteri has announced his intention to seek the chairmanship of the Republican Party of Texas at its June, 2010 convention.

Munisteri has a 38-year long history of activism, leadership and financial support for conservative and Republican causes. He was the founding chairman of Young Conservatives of Texas when it broke ranks from Young Americans for Freedom 30 years ago.  He has served as a member of the State Republican Executive Committee, as a precinct chair, a delegate to multiple county, state and national GOP conventions, and as an organizer in Texas and other states for Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Fred Thompson and John McCain.

Munisteri stated, “I believe both the Republican Party of Texas as well as our country are at crossroads.  Our country, which after the election of Ronald Reagan moved in the direction of free enterprise, entrepreneurship, strong national defense, less government intrusion in our lives, and lower tax rates, has been dramatically moved to the left by President Obama with massive government programs and bailouts.  Republicans have a unique window of opportunity to reverse some of these disastrous Obama policies before it is too late, but must act quickly to seize momentum.”

Munisteri went on to explain his view of the Chairman’s role, “However, to do so, the Republican Party must be a more effective organization, and that is why I am seeking the role of Chairman.  Although I am a solid Conservative I believe the Republican Party must do a better job at reaching beyond just its base to independent and minority voters without sacrificing its core beliefs.  Most important to this effort, the Republican Party must do a much better job of reaching minority communities, especially the Hispanic community.”

Munisteri further stated that “in order for the Republican Party to remain a majority party in Texas, a new state Chairman must also be able to work all of the various activists and groups who are disenchanted with the liberal Democrats and Congress.  It is vital to ongoing Republican success to keep all of these groups within the party.”

In addition to uniting the party, Munisteri will seek to put the party back on sound financial footing.  He has the support of Bill McMinn and Mike Boylan, two key supporters and organizers of Associated Republicans of Texas, and former state party finance chair Rob Mosbacher.  This blogger also serves as his campaign treasurer.  In the short few weeks of campaigning in 2009, he raised $26,000 and had pledges of an additional $40,000.

Munisteri, who is retired from his law practice, will campaign full-time for the job, and if elected as chair, will be a full-time chairman.    The campaign has opened a headquarters located at 3637 W. Alabama #210, Houston, Texas 77027.


Supreme Court Strikes Down Corporate/Union Fund Ban in Federal Races

January 21, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in the Citizens United v.Federal Election Commission case. In that opinion, the Court overturned prior precedent in two cases, and held that the federal government’s absolute ban on corporations and labor unions using their funds in federal elections was an unconstitutional infringement on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In addition to the watershed holding allowing the use of corporate or union funds in independent campaign expenditures, the Court’s opinion raises a few interesting questions. One question is whether Congress could narrowly tailor a ban on contributions from entities that have a special relationship to the government, such as vendors or national banks. Another question is whether Chief Justice Roberts’ concurrence, in which he explains the court’s swerve away from precedent as follows, is a harbinger for possible future court actions:

[I]f adherence to a precedent actually impedes the stable and orderly adjudication of future cases, its stare decisis effect is also diminished. This can happen in a number of circumstances, such as when the precedent’s validity is so hotly contested that it cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases, when its rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence in related areas of law, and when the precedent’s underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new and different justifications to shore up the original mistake.” (slip op., pp. 7-8).

So in this case, the Court overturned, with a 5-4 split, a portion of a prior 5-4 split in a 2003 opinion in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.   The issues in both cases were “hotly contested.”  If the Court was willing, a mere seven years later, to overturn a 5-4 split on this issue, what does that portend for other 5-4 opinions, in matters such as abortion issues and quotas?  The Court is at an interesting crossroad, and its travels will be closely watched.

Note:  Texas Ethics Commission posted the following on its website on January 22, 2010 with regard to the opinion:

As we have stated in advisory opinions, we believe the Texas Legislature intended laws under our jurisdiction to prohibit political expenditures by corporations to the full extent allowed by the Constitution, as interpreted by theUnited States Supreme Court. In light of the recently issued United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, it is our position that corporations are allowed to make all types of direct campaign expenditures (referred to in Citizens United as independent expenditures) regulated by Title 15 of the Election Code. It is also our position that corporations are still prohibited from making political contributions unless specifically allowed by Title 15 of the Election Code.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 446 other followers