If you voted today, this wouldn’t have helped you anyways. For the rest of us, it is sometimes useful to compare the various endorsements around Harris County. So, here you go.

PDF Version, revision 6

It’s harder than you think to do this. If you see an error, let me know, if you think a group should be added, let me know.

One thing is clear and I’ll try to expound on that is that there is far less money being raised and spent by the traditional groups on the R side in Harris County.

Obviously I’ve focused on the party in the past, so I suppose it’s worth a comment on the HCRP Chair race. I don’t see a lot of activity compared to past elections, thus I must conclude that current Chair Paul Simpson will hold on. Although I still don’t know why he wants to. Go figure.

The HCRP Executive Committee seems less focused on winning in November than slapping Paul upside the head for his choice of consultants. Weird but hey, it is what it is. As for the resolution that the EC passed forcing Paul to put a disclaimer on their website that the HCRP was not affiliated with that particular consultant, the disclaimer has not been put on the website. I asked the HCRP Comms Director about that and the response was “We are working on a statement from the Chairman to the precinct chairs addressing the resolution. Once it is finalized I can get that to you”.

Not a good look for a resolution that was passed two weeks ago. Just sayin’.

In the immortal words of Holly Hansen, a writer at The Texan:

Entering phase 1 of “silly season” 2020, (Primary Elections,) I’d like to encourage folks to stop and consider what you’re about to say. Are you making a persuasive argument? Or just lashing out?

I’d suggest name calling (or saying things like “you’re just too stupid to understand,”) or using photo-shopped images or mean caricatures, are just not very persuasive.

More later. Out.

Each election I’m fascinated by the amount of bond debt created across Harris County and Texas by land developers using municipal utility districts and that a single voter can approve the debt. According to a 2015 study by Rice’s Kinder Institute, the total amount of Houston MUD debt was $5.8 billion. And yes, sometimes they do go bankrupt.

I decided to look at several Harris County MUD elections from Tuesday. Here is a link to view all the MUD’s in Texas – Water Districts Viewer. Election results here, ballot language here.

Harris County MUD 25

• Number of registered voters – 1
• Number of ballots cast – 1
• Prop A The issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of $15,700,000
• Prop B The levy of an ad valorem tax for maintenance purposes

Harris County  MUD 518

• Number of registered voters – 1
• Number of ballots cast – 2
• Prop B The issuance of $185,000,000 bonds for water, sanitary sewer, and drainage and storm sewer systems and the levy of taxes, without limit as to rate or amount, in payment of the bonds
• Prop C The issuance of $46,200,000 bonds for recreational facilities and the levy of taxes, without limit as to rate or amount, in payment of the bonds
• Prop D An operation and maintenance tax for facilities authorized by article xvi, section 59, of the Texas constitution, not to exceed one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per one hundred dollars ($100) valuation of taxable property
• TCEQ shows as INACTIVE.

Harris County MUD 540

• Number of registered voters – 0
• Number of ballots cast – 2
• Prop B The issuance of $215,000,000 bonds for water, sanitary sewer, and drainage and storm sewer systems and the levy of taxes, without limit as to rate or amount, in payment of the bonds
• Prop C The issuance of $30,000,000 bonds for recreational facilities and the levy of taxes, without limit as to rate or amount, in payment of the bonds
• Prop D The issuance of $35,000,000 bonds for roads and the levy of taxes, without limit as to rate or amount, in payment of the bonds
• Prop E An operation and maintenance tax for facilities authorized by article xvi, section 59, of the Texas constitution, not to exceed one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per one hundred dollars ($100) valuation of taxable property
• Prop F An operation and maintenance tax for road facilities authorized by article iii, section 52, of the Texas constitution, not to exceed twenty-five cents ($0.25) per one hundred dollars ($100) valuation of taxable property

Harris County MUD 565

• Number of registered voters – 2
• Number of ballots cast – 2
• Prop B The issuance of $255,810,000 in bonds and the issuance of $102,325,000 in refunding bonds and the levy of ad valorem taxes in payment of the bonds (water, sanitary sewer, drainage and storm sewer, organization and administration)
• Prop C The issuance of $40,000,000 in bonds and the issuance of $16,000,000 in refunding bonds and the levy of ad valorem taxes in payment of the bonds (macadamized, graveled, or paved roads and turnpikes, or improvements)
• Prop D The issuance of $20,410,000 in bonds and the issuance of $8,165,000 in refunding bonds and the levy of ad valorem taxes in payment of the bonds (park and recreational facilities
• Prop E The levy of a maintenance tax not to exceed one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation (water, sanitary sewer, drainage and storm sewer, organization and administration)
• Prop F The levy of a maintenance tax not to exceed one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation (macadamized, graveled, or paved roads and turnpikes, or improvements)
• Prop G The levy of a maintenance tax not to exceed ten cents ($0.10) per one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation (park and recreational facilities)
• Created last legislative session by bill HB 1379 by Oliverson and Bettencourt.

That last one was created this year. If you click the link above, you can see how these things get created.

That’s a boatload of debt, here’s to hoping that they are successful. I’d think carefully before moving into a MUD.

If you don’t want to read that Kinder Report, here is a quick overview of MUDs.

Now, about those votes. Hmm. How does an entity with zero registered voters accept 2 ballots? Or an entity with 1 registered voter accept 2 ballots? Makes you wonder what is really going on at the County Clerk’s office. After all, if it takes them 12 hours to count the votes, are they just as incompetent in making certain only registered voters vote?

Those internships under Sylvester Turner sure have some nice perks.

From 740 KTRH:

Mayor Sylvester Turner’s chief rival in the upcoming election releases new information about that controversial intern.

Tony Buzbee tells KTRH that Marvin Agumagu was traveling all over the world on taxpayer money.

“This man was hired in November of 2018, and in less than a year, he’s already spent 35 days traveling to Berlin, Manila, Los Angels, and other places around the country, on our nickel,” Buzbee said.

Buzbee says he would institute a hiring freeze if he becomes mayor, with the exception of public safety professionals.

“That’s with the exception of police and fire. We will end all perks. We are going to ask for every department head to resign and re-apply. We are also going to make it impossible to hire someone secretly like this intern,” Buzbee explained.

A spokesman for the Mayor’s campaign, according to a report, has called Buzbee’s information today a “distraction.”

The Houston Chronicle also has an article about it. In it, reporters Jasper Scherer and Mike Morris breakdown some of the expenditures.

Tony Buzbee maintained his fire on Mayor Sylvester Turner and a $95,000-a-year intern hired at the city’s airport system on Wednesday, announcing at a news conference that the intern, Marvin Agumagu, has spent more than $35,000 in city funds to travel to conferences and for other trips.

Records obtained this week by the Chronicle show Agumagu took nine trips covering 34 days between late November 2018 and mid-September. The cost of those trips totaled $39,400, paid out of Houston Airport System funds. Nearly 60 percent of that cost came from just two international business-class flights, one to Germany last November and one to the Philippines last March.

(click here to read the article on HoustonChronicle.com)

I was curious about those two international trips, so I got a copy of the records from the Tony Buzbee campaign. You can view them here (warning – 160 pages).

The first one, to Berlin, was for an aviation conference. You can click here to see the page detailing it. The purpose listed in the travel document is:

Purpose of travel: To understand and promote air routes for Houston; develop and strengthen International relations and explore areas of mutual interest to promote passenger air cargo transport through Houston Airport System.

Fairly boring stuff but wow, what a cost. Here is the breakdown:

They did pretty good on the budget. I still have no idea why they would send an intern at that cost to a conference but at least it looks fairly legit.

But that other one? The one to the Philippines? Wow. Here is the stated purpose of the trip:

Purpose of travel: To understand and promote air routes between Houston and Southeast Asia via Philippine Airlines in Manila, Philippines; to strengthen international relations and explore mutual areas of interest to promote passenger and air cargo transport through HAS.

Why you would want an intern doing this baffles me but they did, so that’s that. The more interesting thing on this one is the schedule on the budget overrun. From the original travel request:

POTENTIAL MEETiNG DATE(S)

• HDQ Meeting: March 14 or 15,2019

• Excursion outside of Manila w/ CEO: March 15,16,17

Doesn’t look like they planned to do much work to begin with, does it? But look at the actual travel times and work days and cost overruns.

They never made that excursion as hotel records have the intern all three nights in Manila. And look at that cost overrun! Now, look at the schedule again and see that you have one workday in there. One day of work for $13,495.98. And of course a day for the intern to explore Manila.

Nice job if you can get it. Right Slyvester?