What is the advantage of taxing through electric instead of just putting it in the regular rate? It seems dishonest to claim a 40-cent rate that ultimately isn't true. Also as pointed out above, the CSU area does not completely align with the city limits, meaning we miss tax revenue on those in the city but not serviced by CSU.
College Station Proposed City Budget Update
4,990 Views |
57 Replies |
Last: 21 days ago by Stucco
I see both sides of the transfer from utilities. It seems duplicitous but what it helps to do is shift some of the revenue burden from people and businesses who pay continually-increasing property taxes to people who have their property tax frozen or entities that control large swaths of non-taxable real estate.
It happens in all cities except that in most cases, the utilities are not city-owned, so it's considered a "franchise tax" when a utility pays it to a city. When the utilities are city-owned like ours, it's simply an inter-fund transfer.
It happens in all cities except that in most cases, the utilities are not city-owned, so it's considered a "franchise tax" when a utility pays it to a city. When the utilities are city-owned like ours, it's simply an inter-fund transfer.
Rexter said:Bob Yancy said:woodiewood1 said:Bob Yancy said:Rexter said:Bob Yancy said:
This afternoon the proposed city budget was presented to council. As a member of the Budget & Finance Committee, I believe this is a good proposed budget, with some cautionary aspects to it. Here's a primer:
Total Proposed Budget = $474m
Your current tax rate: 51.3+ cents
Proposed tax rate: 48.743 cents
Estimated no new revenue rate: 46.7434
Estimated voter approval rate: 48.8940
12 new fire fighters for new Station #7
6 new police officers with the flexibility for 6 more
Total of 23 new FTEs (excluding overhire flexibility)
Operating budget increase of 6.26%
Capital budget decrease of 51.74%
Total net budget decrease of 12.42%
Of note:
Out of our $14 billion in property valuation, the amount frozen for seniors has increased 105% from $1 billion to over $2 billion in the past five years.
Despite this our net taxable value shot up 15%, 3% of which was new properties.
Single-family residential went up 4.5% the vast majority of which was increased valuation on existing property.
The average taxable value on an existing single-family residential home went up from $397k to $422k.
Multifamily shot up 31% primarily as a result of the student towers and is set to raise next year perhaps even higher as more towers get built.
Commercial valuations rose 20%
Our general fund fund balance is at $92 million and we have an approximate 20 million available new debt issuance capacity annually to maintain our Aa2 Moody's bond rating.
Approximately $22m in outstanding debt is retired annually as bonds mature (get paid off).
There is no proposed increase in electric or water rates.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Still supplementing the general fund with utility money?
Yes. Approximately $15m per annum.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
To me, since we are a captive participant in CS Utilities, it should be illegal for a city.to transfer excessive utility receipts to a general fund to be used as council sees fit. Any excesses in receipts should be either given back to the users or escrowed into a fund to be only used for repairs and maintenance of existing utility infrastructure or escrowed for future expansion,
I understand that argument and it is a fair one. The flip side argument is CSU is your asset- the taxpayers. Therefore, it should benefit the taxpayers to the greatest extent possible by holding down on your property tax burden. The data tell me it does.
Like stock dividends or semi-annual equity contributions to preferred shareholders, the inter fund transfers go directly to the top line of your city. It is a subsidiary holding that helps the larger organization. But for CSU, it would be absolutely fiscally impossible to pass a tax rate in the high 40 cent range. I like the reliability, the quality of the asset and its services but moreover the flexibility it offers.
All that said, it is my goal, now stated publicly here, that rebates to citizen customers be a part of the utility's future. It has to be done very, very carefully though. Unforeseen events like the winter storm and arbitrary PUC regulatory edicts can blast a hole in the budget large enough to drive an 18 wheeler through. It has happened to the tune of $72m in the last 6 years.
But it would be very nice to issue a modest rebate around the holidays from time to time.
Respectfully yours
Yancy '95
Wait... what? We should pay more in utilities to keep our tax rate low? Maybe the city should be transparent and cut the utility rates. Raise the tax rate if needed. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's rain.
Of course, if the tax rate were voted on, it probably would get cut. What's the old saying about OPM? It eventually runs out?
Respectfully, your second sentence above is not what I said. Those are your words, not mine. I never said you should pay more for utilities.
Most organizations, public and private, have multiple revenue sources. Every fee the city receives for things ranging from ball field rentals to building permits, helps the city run and to that extent do help ease your tax burden.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
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
One Louder said:
I see both sides of the transfer from utilities. It seems duplicitous but what it helps to do is shift some of the revenue burden from people and businesses who pay continually-increasing property taxes to people who have their property tax frozen or entities that control large swaths of non-taxable real estate.
It happens in all cities except that in most cases, the utilities are not city-owned, so it's considered a "franchise tax" when a utility pays it to a city. When the utilities are city-owned like ours, it's simply an inter-fund transfer.
That's right. And I suppose it's technically correct that most utilities are private, but there are a lot of municipally owned utilities. A lot:
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
In terms of numbers, yes, there are several city-owned utilities but I ran an AI query that showed those utilities combined provide 15% of all utility services in Texas (assuming I phrased my query correctly.)
Stucco said:
What is the advantage of taxing through electric instead of just putting it in the regular rate? It seems dishonest to claim a 40-cent rate that ultimately isn't true. Also as pointed out above, the CSU area does not completely align with the city limits, meaning we miss tax revenue on those in the city but not serviced by CSU.
Respectfully, you could say "taxing through parks rental fees" or "taxing through impact fees" or any other fee the city collects. Cities are highly complex organizations providing services ranging from a fun day at the park to saving your life in the event of a fire. Any battalion strength organization providing such a broad array of safety, services and quality of life investments will have far far more fees than just property and sales tax. That's any city. Every city.
Your point is a good one regarding our service area. I am a BTU customer. That's just how the CCN cookie crumbles. Interlocal agreements (ILA's) can be struck to trade service areas but utilities are loathe to give up their territory and with good reason.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
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
One Louder said:
In terms of numbers, yes, there are several city-owned utilities but I ran an AI query that showed those utilities combined provide 15% of all utility services in Texas.
Feels low to me based on prior research but objectively I can't dispute that without doing real research.
Respectfully yours
Yancy '95
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
Yeah, me too, considering Austin and San Antonio are included on that list but when you think about their strict boundaries and all the suburbs that have different providers, it's possible.
https://www.kbtx.com/2025/07/19/local-officials-push-brazos-county-public-health-district-funding/
I believe in the mission of Public Health and as we move from a rural to a more urban county the needs only grow. I'm appreciative of my fellow councilmembers' support and encourage the CoB and county to please follow suit.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
I believe in the mission of Public Health and as we move from a rural to a more urban county the needs only grow. I'm appreciative of my fellow councilmembers' support and encourage the CoB and county to please follow suit.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
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
Bob Yancy said:
https://www.kbtx.com/2025/07/19/local-officials-push-brazos-county-public-health-district-funding/
I believe in the mission of Public Health and as we move from a rural to a more urban county the needs only grow. I'm appreciative of my fellow councilmembers' support and encourage the CoB and county to please follow suit.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Probably not a good sign that the mayor doesn't even know what the money will be used for, according to the article.
TXAG 05 said:Bob Yancy said:
https://www.kbtx.com/2025/07/19/local-officials-push-brazos-county-public-health-district-funding/
I believe in the mission of Public Health and as we move from a rural to a more urban county the needs only grow. I'm appreciative of my fellow councilmembers' support and encourage the CoB and county to please follow suit.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Probably not a good sign that the mayor doesn't even know what the money will be used for, according to the article.
I can answer that question.
Your Public Health Department is award winning (Public Health Dept of the Year, 23' and 25') and systemically underfunded.
It relies on grants heavily to operate. When grants don't renew, the service(s) for which the grant was awarded, go away. We just had to lay off a very good epidemiologist for that reason.
Right now, today, the projection is that several key personnel will have to be laid off by '27 due to grants we already know will expire beginning next year.
What do these people do? Well, Public Health has two "buckets" of services. One bucket is for everyone for the health of the community overall, and the other is for poor folks, basically.
For all of us: when you get your Restaurant Report Card from the local media, when you hear the latest on West Nile Virus cases, when legal immigrants that have gone through the process and need a physical to ensure their health before they take the oath, when a new septic system needs to go through the permit process, when a public pool needs to be inspected, pandemic response, emergency preparedness and tons more- that's your Public Health Department.
For the socioeconomically challenged: when a young school aged athlete wants to play ball but his parent(s) can't afford a physical, when kindergartners need their vaccinations to attend school, when folks need a flu shot or other vaccine, breast and cervical cancer screening and tons more- that's your Public Health Department.
In College Station, we give more funding to the arts than we do Public Health. I think those priorities are wrong, and a majority of my colleagues agreed that an additional $100,000 per year (still less than the arts) was warranted.
And the organization did ask. The chairman of the board made the request.
The request is to shift from grant dependent funding to stable funding by just $100,000 per year.
I hope this is responsive to your comment/question.
Respectfully,
Yancy '95
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
Bob Yancy said:Rexter said:Bob Yancy said:woodiewood1 said:Bob Yancy said:Rexter said:Bob Yancy said:
This afternoon the proposed city budget was presented to council. As a member of the Budget & Finance Committee, I believe this is a good proposed budget, with some cautionary aspects to it. Here's a primer:
Total Proposed Budget = $474m
Your current tax rate: 51.3+ cents
Proposed tax rate: 48.743 cents
Estimated no new revenue rate: 46.7434
Estimated voter approval rate: 48.8940
12 new fire fighters for new Station #7
6 new police officers with the flexibility for 6 more
Total of 23 new FTEs (excluding overhire flexibility)
Operating budget increase of 6.26%
Capital budget decrease of 51.74%
Total net budget decrease of 12.42%
Of note:
Out of our $14 billion in property valuation, the amount frozen for seniors has increased 105% from $1 billion to over $2 billion in the past five years.
Despite this our net taxable value shot up 15%, 3% of which was new properties.
Single-family residential went up 4.5% the vast majority of which was increased valuation on existing property.
The average taxable value on an existing single-family residential home went up from $397k to $422k.
Multifamily shot up 31% primarily as a result of the student towers and is set to raise next year perhaps even higher as more towers get built.
Commercial valuations rose 20%
Our general fund fund balance is at $92 million and we have an approximate 20 million available new debt issuance capacity annually to maintain our Aa2 Moody's bond rating.
Approximately $22m in outstanding debt is retired annually as bonds mature (get paid off).
There is no proposed increase in electric or water rates.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Still supplementing the general fund with utility money?
Yes. Approximately $15m per annum.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
To me, since we are a captive participant in CS Utilities, it should be illegal for a city.to transfer excessive utility receipts to a general fund to be used as council sees fit. Any excesses in receipts should be either given back to the users or escrowed into a fund to be only used for repairs and maintenance of existing utility infrastructure or escrowed for future expansion,
I understand that argument and it is a fair one. The flip side argument is CSU is your asset- the taxpayers. Therefore, it should benefit the taxpayers to the greatest extent possible by holding down on your property tax burden. The data tell me it does.
Like stock dividends or semi-annual equity contributions to preferred shareholders, the inter fund transfers go directly to the top line of your city. It is a subsidiary holding that helps the larger organization. But for CSU, it would be absolutely fiscally impossible to pass a tax rate in the high 40 cent range. I like the reliability, the quality of the asset and its services but moreover the flexibility it offers.
All that said, it is my goal, now stated publicly here, that rebates to citizen customers be a part of the utility's future. It has to be done very, very carefully though. Unforeseen events like the winter storm and arbitrary PUC regulatory edicts can blast a hole in the budget large enough to drive an 18 wheeler through. It has happened to the tune of $72m in the last 6 years.
But it would be very nice to issue a modest rebate around the holidays from time to time.
Respectfully yours
Yancy '95
Wait... what? We should pay more in utilities to keep our tax rate low? Maybe the city should be transparent and cut the utility rates. Raise the tax rate if needed. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's rain.
Of course, if the tax rate were voted on, it probably would get cut. What's the old saying about OPM? It eventually runs out?
Respectfully, your second sentence above is not what I said. Those are your words, not mine. I never said you should pay more for utilities.
Most organizations, public and private, have multiple revenue sources. Every fee the city receives for things ranging from ball field rentals to building permits, helps the city run and to that extent do help ease your tax burden.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Semantics. If you are suggesting that a CSU captive customer should pay X for utilities, and then CoCS takes a portion of that money for the general fund to keep property taxes low, then yes, your are saying a higher utility rate keeps taxes low. Without that transfer of funds, the utility rate would be lower, no? I can answer that...of course not.
Why can't CSU line item the transfer on the bill so CSU customers know where that money is going? Better yet, how hard would it be to give a breakdown of everything the bill covers? Would there be too much gnashing of teeth?
Rexter said:Bob Yancy said:Rexter said:Bob Yancy said:woodiewood1 said:Bob Yancy said:Rexter said:Bob Yancy said:
This afternoon the proposed city budget was presented to council. As a member of the Budget & Finance Committee, I believe this is a good proposed budget, with some cautionary aspects to it. Here's a primer:
Total Proposed Budget = $474m
Your current tax rate: 51.3+ cents
Proposed tax rate: 48.743 cents
Estimated no new revenue rate: 46.7434
Estimated voter approval rate: 48.8940
12 new fire fighters for new Station #7
6 new police officers with the flexibility for 6 more
Total of 23 new FTEs (excluding overhire flexibility)
Operating budget increase of 6.26%
Capital budget decrease of 51.74%
Total net budget decrease of 12.42%
Of note:
Out of our $14 billion in property valuation, the amount frozen for seniors has increased 105% from $1 billion to over $2 billion in the past five years.
Despite this our net taxable value shot up 15%, 3% of which was new properties.
Single-family residential went up 4.5% the vast majority of which was increased valuation on existing property.
The average taxable value on an existing single-family residential home went up from $397k to $422k.
Multifamily shot up 31% primarily as a result of the student towers and is set to raise next year perhaps even higher as more towers get built.
Commercial valuations rose 20%
Our general fund fund balance is at $92 million and we have an approximate 20 million available new debt issuance capacity annually to maintain our Aa2 Moody's bond rating.
Approximately $22m in outstanding debt is retired annually as bonds mature (get paid off).
There is no proposed increase in electric or water rates.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Still supplementing the general fund with utility money?
Yes. Approximately $15m per annum.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
To me, since we are a captive participant in CS Utilities, it should be illegal for a city.to transfer excessive utility receipts to a general fund to be used as council sees fit. Any excesses in receipts should be either given back to the users or escrowed into a fund to be only used for repairs and maintenance of existing utility infrastructure or escrowed for future expansion,
I understand that argument and it is a fair one. The flip side argument is CSU is your asset- the taxpayers. Therefore, it should benefit the taxpayers to the greatest extent possible by holding down on your property tax burden. The data tell me it does.
Like stock dividends or semi-annual equity contributions to preferred shareholders, the inter fund transfers go directly to the top line of your city. It is a subsidiary holding that helps the larger organization. But for CSU, it would be absolutely fiscally impossible to pass a tax rate in the high 40 cent range. I like the reliability, the quality of the asset and its services but moreover the flexibility it offers.
All that said, it is my goal, now stated publicly here, that rebates to citizen customers be a part of the utility's future. It has to be done very, very carefully though. Unforeseen events like the winter storm and arbitrary PUC regulatory edicts can blast a hole in the budget large enough to drive an 18 wheeler through. It has happened to the tune of $72m in the last 6 years.
But it would be very nice to issue a modest rebate around the holidays from time to time.
Respectfully yours
Yancy '95
Wait... what? We should pay more in utilities to keep our tax rate low? Maybe the city should be transparent and cut the utility rates. Raise the tax rate if needed. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's rain.
Of course, if the tax rate were voted on, it probably would get cut. What's the old saying about OPM? It eventually runs out?
Respectfully, your second sentence above is not what I said. Those are your words, not mine. I never said you should pay more for utilities.
Most organizations, public and private, have multiple revenue sources. Every fee the city receives for things ranging from ball field rentals to building permits, helps the city run and to that extent do help ease your tax burden.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Semantics. If you are suggesting that a CSU captive customer should pay X for utilities, and then CoCS takes a portion of that money for the general fund to keep property taxes low, then yes, your are saying a higher utility rate keeps taxes low. Without that transfer of funds, the utility rate would be lower, no? I can answer that...of course not.
Why can't CSU line item the transfer on the bill so CSU customers know where that money is going? Better yet, how hard would it be to give a breakdown of everything the bill covers? Would there be too much gnashing of teeth?
I'm reviewing the bill now for a commercial property and there's more information than you can shake a stick at. Frankly it's too much. Probably required by law via the PUC.
The bottom line is this: what would be shareholder profit for a private utility company is taxpayer benefit for you and used to hold your taxes down by paying for things your property taxes would otherwise have to. I don't know how else to put it.
I suppose the city could, after fund balance for emergency reserve, zero out the operating margin on the utility and raise your property taxes from $0.48 cents to $0.60 cents or so? That's not including the water utility and solid waste pickup and parks fees, and a lot more- some of which is charged at a higher rate to non-residents so by the time we zeroed out all of that? I don't know totally shotgunning but maybe $0.75 or $0.80 cents per hundred dollar valuation?
You might prefer that but respectfully I'm guessing the majority wouldn't and I know I don't.
You and your city and your fellow citizens benefit mightily by owning a utility company.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
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
CSU fund transfers are a shadow tax. Full stop.
Years ago, CS wanted to make more money off of the students (the ones who pay utilities), and so they raised utility rates. They couldn't get at the students that way, so higher connect fees and transfers made more $$$.
Years ago, CS wanted to make more money off of the students (the ones who pay utilities), and so they raised utility rates. They couldn't get at the students that way, so higher connect fees and transfers made more $$$.
I don't know any other way to explain it to you. You are talking in circles. You just posted that utility fees keep the tax rate low, but those fees are not a tax. If they go into a bucket (as you call it) that is tax money, then those fees are a tax. You can call a loaf of bread an elephant, but that doesn't change anything. Maybe you shouldn't be going to the store if you don't know the difference.
Maybe CSU should lower the rate and cover operations and reserves. Then council can raise the tax rate to cover things like Macys, Wolf Pen Creek, baseball fields that don't get built, etc. Then the residents would have transparency, and council would probably be sent packing. Hwy 6 runs both ways.
Maybe CSU should lower the rate and cover operations and reserves. Then council can raise the tax rate to cover things like Macys, Wolf Pen Creek, baseball fields that don't get built, etc. Then the residents would have transparency, and council would probably be sent packing. Hwy 6 runs both ways.
It appears that using utility transfer is good for people who own rental properties (landlords) and not good for the tenants who pay the utilities bill. If funding this went to the property taxes then the landlord would have to pay it and raise rent rates. Separately, By only doing it to CSU customers I feel like those that have BTU and Wellborn Water aren't paying the same "taxes" as other College Station residents. We know that this is a "tax" and College Station representatives like to brag that we have a lower tax rate than Bryan, but the taxes and fees aren't equal.
Best way to lower everyone's tax burden is to spend less. Governmental staff is a self feeding monster that NEEDS to spend and grow to justify it's own necessity. Until the people clamor loudly and often for lower taxes, and then back that up at the polls nothing will change. City, county and state staff will create ways to spend tax dollars and then use "shortages" and "crisis" to justify raising taxes.
Not since Reagan have we had a champion for less taxes and smaller government.
Spend less. That's the answer.
Not since Reagan have we had a champion for less taxes and smaller government.
Spend less. That's the answer.
www.elitellp.net/
EliteElectric said:
Best way to lower everyone's tax burden is to spend less. Governmental staff is a self feeding monster that NEEDS to spend and grow to justify it's own necessity. Until the people clamor loudly and often for lower taxes, and then back that up at the polls nothing will change. City, county and state staff will create ways to spend tax dollars and then use "shortages" and "crisis" to justify raising taxes.
Not since Reagan have we had a champion for less taxes and smaller government.
Spend less. That's the answer.
Reagan was a great president. Not even Ronaldo Maximus cut the tax rate 2 times in 3 years though and voted against a potential increase a 3rd time. (Oh boy I'm gonna get it now!) :-)
Respectfully and jocularly but factually yours,
Yancy '95
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
"Jocular but factual"
Anyone running for office: this is your slogan, if you want my vote
Anyone running for office: this is your slogan, if you want my vote
spike427 said:
"Jocular but factual"
Anyone running for office: this is your slogan, if you want my vote
lol
Thanks for levity. Nice to know it can happen on here!
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Bob Yancy said:EliteElectric said:
Best way to lower everyone's tax burden is to spend less. Governmental staff is a self feeding monster that NEEDS to spend and grow to justify it's own necessity. Until the people clamor loudly and often for lower taxes, and then back that up at the polls nothing will change. City, county and state staff will create ways to spend tax dollars and then use "shortages" and "crisis" to justify raising taxes.
Not since Reagan have we had a champion for less taxes and smaller government.
Spend less. That's the answer.
Reagan was a great president. Not even Ronaldo Maximus cut the tax rate 2 times in 3 years though and voted against a potential increase a 3rd time. (Oh boy I'm gonna get it now!) :-)
Respectfully and jocularly but factually yours,
Yancy '95
Watch how you talk about Ronnie there bub! (winky face)
He was busy doing things WAY more important than that
**eta** I have edited this thing 3 times and it flat will not let me insert the wink emoji so just imagine it's there
www.elitellp.net/
EliteElectric said:Bob Yancy said:EliteElectric said:
Best way to lower everyone's tax burden is to spend less. Governmental staff is a self feeding monster that NEEDS to spend and grow to justify it's own necessity. Until the people clamor loudly and often for lower taxes, and then back that up at the polls nothing will change. City, county and state staff will create ways to spend tax dollars and then use "shortages" and "crisis" to justify raising taxes.
Not since Reagan have we had a champion for less taxes and smaller government.
Spend less. That's the answer.
Reagan was a great president. Not even Ronaldo Maximus cut the tax rate 2 times in 3 years though and voted against a potential increase a 3rd time. (Oh boy I'm gonna get it now!) :-)
Respectfully and jocularly but factually yours,
Yancy '95
Watch how you talk about Ronnie there bub! (winky face)
He was busy doing things WAY more important than that
**eta** I have edited this thing 3 times and it flat will not let me insert the wink emoji so just imagine it's there
100% kidding that's why I said I'm about to get it now lol
Bob Yancy said:
The bottom line is this: what would be shareholder profit for a private utility company is taxpayer benefit for you and used to hold your taxes down by paying for things your property taxes would otherwise have to. I don't know how else to put it.
Let me start out by saying that I have no issues with CSU, and I really like everyone that I have ever dealt with at CSU. They are very responsive, and I am extremely pleased with the level of service. I love the idea of not paying dividends to a private utility company. We need CSU for this.
But the current pattern doesn't actually mean lower taxes for those locked into CSU. It just changes the mechanism of collection from one that is deductible, regulated and publicly voted upon to one that is opaque and unequally applied. Maybe it would work if CSU covered the area around the city, where the city was drawing funds from neighbors to cover shared infrastructure, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. CSU boundaries are smaller than College Station and wholly contained within College Station. As a result, those with CSU are subsidizing those in College Station without CSU. And those with CSU can't deduct a portion of an electric bill from federal taxes. Further, this structure positions the city to circumvent tax rate controls by simply increasing the utility rate, and there is no recourse for CSU customers.
The only tax I see labeled on my electric bill is 1.5% for about $3. Yes, that 1.5% tax is applied to the inflated utility rate. My rate is 13.67 cents/kWh. BTU (Bryan) rate is 9.31 cents for half the year and 10.58 cents for the other half.
CSU also charges a road maintenance fee and drainage utility fee totaling $17.25 every month that is once again subsidizing city residents that don't have CSU coverage.
I see four problems with using CSU for CoCS taxation.
- It is opaque (this could be addressed).
- It is not equally applied to all city residents, as many residents don't have CSU.
- It circumvents tax controls and tax benefits.
- It invalidates almost all comparisons of tax rates with peer cities.
My conclusion is that the city should lower the CSU rates to match the cost of services, including removing the fixed road and drainage fees, and adjust the general rate to whatever is required to offset the change and generate no new revenue. With this in place, living in a CSU serviced area would become a lot more attractive.