The Ridgerunner

To The Honorable Sherri Tibbe, District Attorney of Hays County:

Obviously the “Plan B” cited by Commissioners Will Conley and/or Jeff Barton after the defeat of Road Bond Proposition 1 in the May 12th elections is to ignore and push aside the majority of residents’ votes, the will of the people. It’s also obvious that these two men want road bonds, a.k.a. — increased property taxes to pay for the road bond package they are again seeking.

While perhaps not an outright illegal move on their part, it is a questionable action that requires oversight by your office — pushing for a road bond package after residents acknowledged their disapproval of any such proposition in the election via their votes, which determined that they don’t want it.

Consequently, I hereby notify the Hays County District Attorney, the Honorable Sherri Tibbe that as a concerned resident and registered voter, I herewith file a formal written complaint against Commissioner Will Conley and Commissioner Jeff Barton and their actions displaying their disregard for the will of the voters and taxpayers of Hays County.

I respectfully request that you acknowledge this complaint and investigate the true goals and objectives of these two gentlemen and to review the contributions provided them by those developers and road companies, etc., a.k.a., special interest profiteers, who will benefit from the approval of said road bond package. Consequential and in addition, taxpayers believe there is a major “conflict of interest” for the two commissioners, their aggressive pursuit of a road bond package and those who would benefit directly from and/or reap large revenues from said package, providing the road work, including TxDOT, a.k.a., Bob Daigh and Don Nyland.

In addition, residents of Hays County want to know how many times they must vote and/or vocalize AGAINST any such road bond packages.

We believe it is up to the Hays County District Attorney to represent and defend the people’s voice and votes, that they have, as a majority, voted AGAINST said Proposition 1 and that they do NOT agree to the commissioners circumventing their votes and voices to join forces to approve a similar road bond package despite the community’s obvious decision NOT to approve one.

Please review this matter in the best interests of the community at-large. The latest proposed road bond package must be terminated with prejudice.

Hays County Taxpayers and Voters look forward to your response.

Respectfully yours,

Dr. Peter Stern

According to the law that set up rural electrification companies in the 1930s, members of these companies are supposed to be owners in a cooperative enterprise; the companies are supposed to be non-profit, and after all operation, maintenance and debt service needs are met and emergency funds are set aside, the remaining money (profit) was to be returned to members as is required by the law.

A suit filed against PEC in Travis County alleges that $164 million in funds that should have been returned to members are, according to the Cooperative’s own reckoning, still in the hands of the PEC, and asks why there has been no report to members regarding the use of these funds, or any explanation as to why profits have not been routinely returned to the membership.

The suit also seeks information regarding compensation paid to PEC’s general manager and its board members, how money has been invested, and why a lawsuit has been necessary in order to get this information.

The allegations in this suit raise questions serious enough that, as members of PEC, Wimberley citizens should consider attending the Co-op’s annual meeting at 2 p.m. June 16 in the PEC Training Center in Johnson City.

According to Wall Street jargon, Aqua America, Inc. is described as a U.S.-based publicly-traded water and wastewater utility, serving more than 2.8 million residents in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois, Texas, New Jersey, New York, Indiana, Florida, Virginia, Maine, Missouri, and South Carolina. Aqua America is listed on both the New York and Philadelphia Stock Exchanges under the ticker symbol WTR. Its aggressive growth-through-acquisition strategy has resulted in nearly 200 acquisitions and growth ventures in the last ten years, including contracts in vulnerable un-incorporated areas in the various states it serves. It is these “growth ventures” that have allowed Aqua America to achieve its shareholder goals and has had a favorable impact on its financial performance and profit statements. Unfortunately it is the unincorporated areas such as Woodcreek 2 that makes Aqua America’s business model come into question.

First, since Aqua America is a publicly traded company, its focus is on benefiting Company
shareholders, not the customers the Company services. The only regulations that a company
like Aqua America are beholden to are those imposed by State or County government entities.
Unfortunately, given the political climate of the past few years, most “regulatory” bodies have
come to be controlled by the industry giants they are supposed to monitor. Additionally, the
quality of the water, the treatment of their customers, and the service of the water infrastruc-
ture is entirely dependent on Aqua America’s profit objectives and cost cutting measures.

Second, Aqua America’s CEO has publicly stated in a CNBC interview that one of WTR’s
primary target markets are the unincorporated areas such as Woodcreek North where water
services are needed but also have little or no regulatory ability or leverage to maintain the
maintain the soundness of the District’s water infrastructure). Predatory in nature, such
comments probably reflect the true business nature of the Company and are something
the residents of Woodcreek 2 should heed in the future.

Finally, we can be hopeful that the privatization of water services and the control of water
as if it were simply another commodity to profit from may have seen its best days. We
are witnessing more and more municipalities (most recently, Atlanta, GA) and counties
not renew their private sector water service contracts. Water utility abuses such as
unacceptable rates and rate hikes, poor water quality, and decaying infrastructure
have made many governmental bodies realize that some things are still better off in
public, non-profit hands.

Unfortunately, Aqua America, based on its past behavior, seems to be one water
company that is vulnerable to a local form of “nationalization”. It may be time for
WPOA to look at other water utility options, especially with regard to a company with
the apparent “sociopathic” business values of Aqua America.

Rocky Boschert, WPOA member